Another important cost of the existing system is the time and attention spent by our law enforcement officers on the traffic system — which is time NOT SPENT on the REAL CRIME that needs attention.

Interesting note: In Arizona many municipalities are jumping on the automated speed camera bandwagon. Not because they increase safety, but strictly because of the huge revenues they generate. But in Arizona, you have to be served notice by a an officer of the court or a peace officer so the mailed out summons to traffic court often get ignored. The cities also cite drivers unevenly, state, company and fleet registered vehicles, motorcycles, and out of state plates rarely get sent summons.

The US highway system is designed to be safe at 85 MPH speed limits. Are limits less than that on US highways reasonable?

Speed limits for identical situations and road conditions vary state by state on non-US highways and roads. Are all state speed limits by default reasonable? Based on earlier parts of this discussion, the answer seems to obviously be no.

So, do you advocate that violating unreasonable speed limits is OK, as you keep phrasing it as 'not violate reasonable speed limits'?

So who gets to decide if a speed limit is reasonable, and if not, that it is OK to speed, and to what extent? You? Me?

And, studies have found that changing the speed limits on highways, up or down, has little to no effect on either actual speeds driven, or accident rates, as this one shows – http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html.

I know, but many who object in the most ridiculous ways to the notion that people should stop at stop signs and not violate reasonable speed limits also are those who make the worst statements about cameras.

Cameras not at hazard sites but elsewhere or more sinister, 100% real-time tracking (with GPS and such) to grade one's performance is something I'd find unreasonable. (Note that “intelligent driving systems” which take control from incompetent drivers when it comes to things like tailgating and such presents the possibility of such tracking but does not assure this would happen and overreaction to it is unmerited.)

I realize it's subject to misuse or overuse just like traffic control devices, but traffic calming can be a good thing, too, for example.

Sadly, many won't care about their driving attitudes and will continue endangering others as well as themselves.

Click through those links!!! The ideas that they present are darned good ones!

If we HARNESS the critiques we ALREADY MAKE of others on the road, and if others knew that those critiques COUNTED AGAINST INSURANCE COSTS (say, for example, that instead of everyone under 25, or everyone over 65, or all males, only those with the most bad feedback ratings were charged the higher premiums) we might begin to be more careful about our driving attitudes.

Oh, and, the feedback system would permit positive feedback on drivers as well…

Attitude and behavior (including behind the wheel on roads shared by others) says a lot. No different in other contexts than on the road and being a feather-foot and a water molecule in a stream versus a self-centered hazard to others or worse, an aggressive person or borderling psychopath behind the wheel (or just one without emotional control, the kind of person who makes the news day after day).

I'm not engaging in a rant. That's what the childish, self-centered people do.

I'm perfectly aware that there are scams going on. Right now in parts of Portland, Oregon, the money is being sought like never before. Not only are cops parking down the street from where bars are located and stopping motorists who are seen leaving the bars (hoping for the drunk-driving jackpot — it may involve now a $10,000 fine), but I've gotten reliable reports that speed limits have deliberately been lowered and cops stationed there at the “fishing holes” just engaged in a train of money-making stops for speeding.

That said, there is a lot of poor driving out there that is indefensible. It varies from place to place — I've lived and traveled all over the US and Canada and I know what things are like everywhere — and part of it truly is cultural. It's a myth that people can police themselves when the culture somewhere involves people driving far too fast and aggressively for safety. In some places I've seen in addition terrible deliberate red-light running seconds after a change to red (complete with trains of runners who follow the runners in front of them with the expectation the cross traffic will be forced to wait for the train to pass by) as well as deliberate, contemptuous-of-law-and-society stop-sign running, often at full speed.

There is no question they drive far too fast — on city streets one has to allow for cross traffic, pedestrians, cyclists, etc., not only for other motor vehicles, which precludes high speeds. There is no question that they are wrong to run stop signs, no matter that if they were better drivers and people yield signs would be sufficient. There is no question that they are wrong to run red lights seconds after the light changes to red. There is no question they have no right to complain when those of us who know and are better drivers _and people_ object to being subjected to the hazards their behavior creates.

And many speed limits are also changed arbitrarily on stretches of roads, simply to again increase revenue.

Given the tone of your rant, I hope you have never, not once in your life, sped, rolling-stopped a stop sign, failed to signal before changing lanes, or are guilty of having committed ANY minor or major traffic offense, whether caught and ticketed or not.

Cause that would make you a hypocritical about also being a childish person and lowlife, and your self-centered, often hazardous, and sometimes scummy behavior!

But a lot of anti-stop-sign, anti-speed-limit, anti-camera nonsense is just a bunch of childish people and lowlifes being resentful that they and their self-centeered, often hazardous, and sometimes scummy behavior on the road are being told NO.

Got to raise revenue one way or another.