I think you have the capacity to understand what I'm saying but not the lack of bias...you're utterly and completely missing the point with your response.
The flaw if you will, in your logic is even if the limits were higher there would still be thse whi feel they are too ow due to their "excelent mad skillz". those people will still choose to run, (if they would run now).
Yes, they will - and some of them will die, and some will get caught - they are the outlying people who truly need to be ticketed.
You blame the police for enforcement, which is their JOB, they didn't set the limits they merely enforce.
No, I blame their bosses and the policy-makers...but that said, it's difficult to have respect for someone who's job is essentially a meter maid with a gun.
Now having said that I believe the 400 series highways should be 120, BUT I am not a traffic engineer, so I have basis other than I "think" that speed would be acceptable.
It doesn't matter what you think or what I think about the speed limit - when this issue is studied what is discovered is that the speed MOST people travel under ideal (sunny) conditions is the speed it is safe to go...this should be the limit. In California for example, you can argue that if a speed study hasn't been done in the last two years to prove that the limit is justified on this basis that they cannot ticket you (this doesn't work generally because they do the studies and set limits accordingly).
This idea that everyone would be reckless and drive dangerously if there was no speed limit is ridiculous...people would go a safe speed in general with some outlying people going too slow and some too fast...but they would be the minority.
As I drove in this morning they were talking of the push tonight at the two community councils to move residential speed limits from 40 to 30 to "save the children and pedestrians" from higher speed collisions. But then they gave startling stat. in the years 2008 - 2013 91% of pedestrians killed in a collision with a vehicle died on ARTERIAL roads. These roads have a set limit now of 60 KM so do we raise those limits, (remembering this is where the VAST majority of speeding violations are given, and by your logic the limits are too low), to say 80 km? If I were a pedestrian or cyclist I would prefer not to be hit at all BUT if I am I would think I would prefer it to be someone travelling at 65 Km, (for fear of a ticket), then by someone doing 85 km.
There is no evidence to suggest that lowering the speed limit on those 60km/h roads would increase safety...take a second and really absorb that will you? You seem to be missing it primarily...the take away NEEDS to be that speed limits don't make roads safe...people travelling in the same direction at the same speed does.
Lastly, you complain now about the level of enforcement, (with an average 15 km leeway). But then admit places with slightly higher limits, NM, AZ limits are strictly enforced. So would the level of enforcement not actually increase? Given that on a 60 km road your given to say 75 before you meet enforcement. As opposed to an 80 km zone where you would get stopped at 82?? I woud prefer the leeway in the event of "human error" on my part.
I don't want leeway...the job should be well-defined, not "we will give tickets when we feel like it, and maybe the leeway will disappear if my boss says I am under quota".
Human judgement and discretion has no place in enforcement of the law.
Those of you who say you won't be ticketed if you ride with the flow of traffic...maybe YOU haven't been, but I have been...and all my interactions with LEOs are polite and respectful out of self-interest if not out of human decency. I've had someone fully admit that they picked me for enforcement because I was on a sportbike. Does this mean all LEOs are like this? Of course not! But it is the perfect example of why there should be no discretionary powers given (like vehicle seizure for HTA 172 without trial, or speed limit "leeway").
Having said all this I would always, (when doing speed enforcement), stop a vehicle at 15 km over and discuss their driving with the operator. But would let more than 50% off with a warning once they hit 20 km over it was time for a financial hit to assist them in improving their driving habits. I will admit that the 15 km "cushion" is something that has been an unwritten rule and at one point was actually lower. WAYYYY back likely before you were born, coppers used to give you 5 MPH grace
Before I was born it wasn't safe to travel at 15km/h over the speed limit because cars, motorcycles, and tires weren't as good...they just weren't. I'm glad you were able to define a system of dealing with motorists that worked for you, but it shouldn't be up to the individual officer.
----
As a little follow up to some of the other comments...you know what? If the existing limits were strictly enforced to the point that motorists respected them I wouldn't agree with how low they are, but I would prefer that to the situation we have now where you must speed or be an obstacle.
And people saying "I ride the speed limit and I am still alive"...maybe you have survived with a lower standard of riding skill and personal safety than I have, but that doesn't make it the ideal situation.
You should NOT be in among cars...ride slightly faster (or very briefly slower) than traffic until you find an open spot and then stick in it and match their speed...city and highway survival 101.
