I got pulled over twice. Both warnings. Just like that German dude. No ticket.

this is still not an excuse for you guys to drive like maniacs.

Did you at least get a mustache ride afterwards, Jon? And, I thought you actually had to operate a motor vehicle to be pulled over for speeding.

i voted three. had this been posted three months ago, i would have voted one. the fuuuuuuzz are on to me.

KE = 1/2 m v^2

before 1996 I used to terrorize NWFL country roads.

i have been pulled over on my bike 5 times in the last 3 months resulting in 0 tickets. in my car in college i was 4/4 for being pulled over and getting tickets. the moral of the story, buy a really fast motorcycle.

I agree with Hendrix's Venn diagram, and point back to my comment here regarding the arbitrary enforcement of speed limit. I'm starting to think this is a feature, not a bug, of the speed limit system.

sorry, forgot to cite my source

Isaac Motherfuckin Newton

Feel free to do the same.

I'll be keepin my eye on you, Newton.

I was out on the motorcycle this weekend and my kinetic energy meter was broken (I think it was a worn cable). I figured it was safe to do 60 in the Jeep, so I did the math and cranked it up to 143. It used a lot of gas, but man was it fast.

It was a little disconcerting coming up on the tractor trailers doing 13.3mph, though. That didn't seem safe.

Thanks sir Isaac! A comment! Will cite again!

well, in actuality, the damage you would cause to others is the about same, so you're right. Roughly, the externalities you posed on others were roughly the same (given a collision). I don't care about speeders safety. I care about the risk they present to others without compensation.

Pulled over twice (both times in high school) but no tickets. *knock on wood*

I totally agree with the "speeding creates negatively externalities" idea. But the KE equation bascially just says that "increasing speed is more dangerous than not increasing speed in all cases." Speed limits are supposed to be cut offs at which point drivers are not to be trusted to have adequate control of their vehicles, since speeders do not take into account the risk they pose to others. I'm arguing that they are generally set too low, and enforced at arbitrary thresholds above the limits. The KE equation says nothing about what appropriate speed limits are, and a KE limit is impractical. Although, I would probably like to see it replace the speed limit, since that would discourage people from driving trucks. I hate trucks.

i KNOW you arent talking about F150's.

I thought I read somewhere that highway speed limits were determined sometime back in the 50's by blindfolding participants in the back seat, and driving until the participants felt uncomfortable. They took an average score, and came up with around 55 mph. Depending on the highway, and taking vehicle safety measures into consideration, these speeds would then vary according to the conditions.

That being said, both highways and vehicles have come a long way. We need to start bumping the speed limit at least to 80 for some of these stretches of road. We also need to start enforcing/encoraging more laws that prevent slow people from driving in the left lane.

what? 55 happened in the 70's. It was mandated to help fuel savings.

i am a fan of erring on the side of caution when it comes to speed limits. i speed regularly, and believe i am being safe enough because i am attentive. whether that is true or not, i also feel like there are a ton of dickbags who suck at driving, need to keep it at 55, and keep themselves in the right lane (sriram! thumbs up on the move to manhattan!).

unless we figure out a way to determine individuals' safe speeds and implement it, i would rather take everyone's blanket suggestions for raising limits, and say no. 55 may be arbitrary, but it saves us from "well i think i'm safe doing this, and i want to do this, so everyone should be allowed to".

having said that. make montana the no speed limit state. ain't nothing but steers and queers out there.

My problem isn't so much that 55 is arbitrary (and I'm sure that 55 is appropriate in some places). It's more that when the speed limit says 55, the speed of traffic can regularly be 70 and police won't flinch until sales or income tax receipts are down, and then suddenly they stop drivers for going 60 or 65 because they are technically over the speed limit. We don't necessarily need 80mph speed limits everywhere, just limits that reflect the day to day speed of traffic in the left lane, and stop drivers that go above that. Just some sort of consistency.

As for trucks, I don't like that they limit my visibility and foresight on the highway, but mostly I just don't like the many drivers in Texas who own trucks (for no practical reasons) and pretend that they handle like Porsches, as they squeeze in and out of tight spaces at 90mph, probably while drunk.

I think the reason they don't pull people over right at the limit is they want to avoid people fighting tickets. If you go 65 in a 55 you probably won't get pulled over, but you're taking the risk and if you do you're pretty clearly in the wrong. If they pulled you over at 56 a lot of people would fight and that's just a big waste of resources.

there is always a reason to own a truck. being cooler than you is reason enough

limits that reflect the day to day speed of traffic in the left lane, and stop drivers that go above that.

day to day speed of traffic in the left lane is always going to be above the posted speed limit. which is why i would like to keep the speed limit lower, and take the risk of a ticket.

i guess in your magical fantasy land, we're doubling the size of police force, or creating a traffic fairy or some equally cornell "this wouldn't ever work in real life" solution so that all drivers who speed are made not to do so.

OK, Will is having a hard time picturing a world in which the police, and hence drivers, change behavior with regard to speed limits. It's not that tough though. If it were announced that speed limits would all be raised 5 to 15mph higher and that the police would start pulling over anyone caught going 1 mph over the limit (and fines for going 1mph over the limit would be similar to the current fines of 15mph over), behavior would change because expectations would change. And drivers would understand the change was real once the police started enforcing the new rules. No, they wouldn't have to double the force, pulling over everyone, just as they aren't everywhere today pulling everyone who goes 15mph over the limit. They could patrol just as much as they do today, and if they enforce the new rules, drivers will catch on. Furthermore, the new norm wouldn't be to drive at or above the speed limit, it would be to drive at or below the speed limit, which makes sense because it's a speed limit. And drivers would no longer be subject to arbitrary enforcement. Sure, some people would still speed. And sure, some people would still get away with with it. But today, almost everyone speeds in the technical sense that they are driving faster than the speed limit. But those who speed too much, at the arbitrary discretion of the police, get pulled over. I just want to take the discretion away.

When I was in middle school, my class took a field trip to a traffic court where one of my classmates' fathers was a judge. At the end of every conviction, he'd remind the driver to stay within 5 mph over the speed limit. But it's a limit. No judge would remind a thief to steal under 5 items per week when the limit is zero. When the rules are clear and consistently enforced, it's easier to follow them. I think Will is just to anchored to how the law is enforced today, but envisioning change doesn't require a trip to fantasyland.

I get Rob's point... but I think as long as the radar or laser guns that are used to catch speeders can be shown to the courts to be accurate within 1mph, it shouldn't really matter. Courts today seem to take policemen at their word (it seems like the one area of the law where the accused are presumed guilty, because the witness is always a police officer). And with new enforcement standards clearly laid out with less arbitrary discretion, perhaps the courts would react with even higher conviction rates and drivers would respond by fighting less (or nor more than before).

And I forgot to mention the other reason I hate trucks. At least here in Texas, drivers of all kinds of trucks seem to be unable to secure their cargo. A couple of months ago, I was driving home on the highway and suddenly traffic slowed down. Then I saw that there was a refrigerator laying on its side in the middle of a lane, and the first thought that crossed my mind was, "This is so Texas."

OK, Decker is having a hard time picturing a world in which all its inhabitants are not equipped with the mental faculties, understanding of human behavior, and ability to affect change that he assigns to himself (note i did not say "that he has"). You are suggesting leaving the level of patrolling the same. To me, that seems to just change from officers issuing a "71 in a 55" ticket to a "71 in a 70" ticket. If punishment is also the same, I fail to see what we've accomplished, other than increasing the legally sanctioned speed for everyone, including that group of poor drivers that previously did 55 to 65 and now get to do 70. So yeah, good work on that.

That's not true. I know what we've accomplished. You won't get a 65 in a 55 ticket anymore. I just don't think that outweighs the safety concern. And if we're so good at affecting change, then why not start from the other end? Start issuing 56 in a 55 tickets. Once we see that we can change behaviors and make driving safer, then tackle the optimum speed limit. And if we weren't able to change behaviors, well then, good thing we didn't raise the speed limit too.

Also, Decker, I am out of town this weekend, but even with this whole little circle jerk, you're welcome to crash at my place Sunday night. I should be back around 8 or 9ish in the evening. Please don't bring any weak tot action.