Yep. Nail them!

Now what about the drunks?

Revenue for infractions is already needed just to keep the system at its status quo. Remaining city budgets are either strained, drained, or in the red.

Now, we are led to believe that there are extra funds we can return to citizens that obey the limits. Yeah, right!

Where does the money come from when 99% of the drivers comply?

Just like zero-point energy, now we have zero-point cash just oozing out of the aether of politics.

Revenue for infractions is already needed just to keep the system at its status quo.

Where I grew up, the county put up a new jail......(thats the term it was being called, basically a new location of the police station) And the number of tickets particularly speeding went up. And they had a large road construction going on, (fines double in road construction, and rightly so) and it was bringing in quite a bit of revenue. 3 MPH over the speed limit, cherries and berries are behind you.

And the jail.....well it was under investigation due to the highest bidder that received the project,???? (explain that) used substandard materials. The interior walls started collapsing as it was getting built. the cost to replace it with the material that was required and stated in the scope and contract was over $1,000,000.00 minimum, so they put a band-aid on it.

I recall a story a couple years ago where some guy received a photo of his car speeding and a $100 fine in the mail. He sent them a photo of a $100 bill. The judge was not amused.

If I were the judge, I probably would have been amused. Their days can sometimes be rather boring. Many moons ago, by "practicing law without a license" (and in absentia, to boot), I got my "client" out of a parking ticket just by bringing novelty to a judge's day.

How about taking pictures and recording speeds, times, license #s and locations. The insurance companies get to pick the locations. Then send the data automatically over the internet to the car owner's insurance company. No laws or violations or fines involved. Just a useful statistical profile on every driver including the amount the vehicle is exposed to potential accident hazards.

So the car doesn't show up many times in the database. That's because maybe it isn't being driven much or always runs below the speed limit. So the liability exposure for the insurance company is way down. The car is clearly a lower risk. So rates get lowered. But suppose the insurance company decides to hold out. Simple. Portable records so they have to be shared with any other company you choose. Just like medical records. And the police, DMV's and governments don't need to get involved.

Maybe the insurance companies get together and help fund a business entity that installs, operates and maintains the cameras and the communication links.

Are we all fighting mad now over the suggestion to invade our privacy?

Not me, maybe I'll get a better break on my old pickup that almost never gets driven except when I need to transport a big load. ............Ed Weldon

Already happening.

The latest crop of cars have black boxes that record speed, acceleration, etc. as part of their program. GPS is also available in some cars.

Some insurance programs are offering a pilot test program where drivers regularly surrender their vehicle black box data to the insurance company for a discount.

I can see this becoming mandatory at some point as a means to not only control behavior, but increase revenue. Just about everyone speeds at some point in their driving, but most do not have accidents.

I drive over the limit routinely (+ 5 to 9 mph), but have not had an accident nor a ticket because I am prudent and always drive my car at a speed that I am in control for whatever the conditions may be.

34point5..........OH I see now!!

There you have it. One moment you preach about obeying the law, the next you are talking about how you often drive outside the law.

How is it you have it both ways? How do you justify applying the law to everyone else and yet, you are exempt?

Where I live 5 to 10 mph over the limit is routine and the police are fine with it as long as you are not driving recklessly. It is just the way things are here and it has nothing to do with ego.

I never said I obeyed the law. I said the law is there to be obeyed. If no one is obeying it, then it is not working and needs to be changed. I am too lazy to try to canvas my law makers to change certain laws I do not agree with and sometimes I break the law but take full responsibilitiy for my actions.

If I get zapped by a speed camera and get a hefty fine, I will not bitch and moan that the speed camera is a fund raising venture by the police department. Instead, I will say "yes I broke the law and I got caught fair and square".

34point5, what are you on about dude? I'm not multi lingual like you.

You wrote, "I never said I obeyed the law. I said the law is there to be obeyed."

That was my point, that you preach that the law is to be obeyed, but feel free to break it.

Not that I care that you speed, but the statement is a contradiction and explains 34point5's symbolism in that earlier post.

However, you do touch on an interesting subject. That is, when one is claiming to be law abiding, yet violating the law when speeding. What precedent does this set for young children?

For some people they take the stand that the law is the law and must be obeyed at all times. So going 36 mph in a 35 mph zone is absolutely wrong. I know some people so principled that they will not exceed the limit ever.

On the other hand, I rationalize it differently. I see the dilemma as one that poses a question; what is the intent of the law?

My opinion is, that the speed limit laws are intended to insure safe travel. That is, the real purpose of the law is not to provide a digital good/bad decision point in all cases, but to specifically reduce risk. Those limits are pretty much designed to accommodate the lowest common denominator in the driving pool.

It is very hard to make a case that 35 mph is safe, yet 36 mph is not safe. 25 mph may be deadly in a 35 mph speed zone if conditions are such. The speed one drives is a judgment that we make based on a set of prior experiences, the interpretations of the current conditions in the theater we are driving in, and the condition of ourselves and our machinery.

What police are generally looking for is people who do not execute prudent judgment based on the conditions, not so much a digital number on a display. In other words, enforcement works on a higher cognitive order than simply a go/no-go decision point and so should we as drivers.

When I say the law is there to be obeyed, I am not preaching a stance, I am stating my view/opinion on how I perceive the law. This should not mean that I agree or abide by it partially or wholly. I put some valid points forward to support my perception of the law (may sound like preaching) which contradicts my driving behaviour. All I am saying is that I can behave in a certain manner but can see the justification used on the other side of the coin. I generally try to appreciate the broad view of what is around me whether it agrees with my behaviour or not.

I do not try to justify breaking the law by saying that I am in full control of my vehicle or that everybody in my town does it and the police are aware of it or in any other way. When I speed, I am aware I have broken the law and am aware of the likely consequences and take full responsibility for my actions. And if any time I am preaching, this is the point I preach.

I agree with you on the intent of the law. Unfortunately for some people, a law designed to target the bad drivers (if I can put it that way) covers all drivers, even those in control. Technically, this should not mean that those who feel they are in control have a right to break the law....although we do. You and I included.

It is only human to want to go above or beyond set limits and barriers. I stand by a previous comment that if the speed limit was increased by another 10mph, that those currently driving +5 - 9 mphr over the speed limit would still be driving over the new limit by that amount. Although there are those of us who break the law by routinely driving +5 to 9mph over the speed limit the law has controlled/restricted our driving behaviour to some extent. That is, we have set our own limits using the law as a reference point.

Until recently, speed cameras in my state were set to zap drivers driving over 9km/hr over the speed limit. I suspect this is why drivers were keeping within the -9kph limit. They knew they were breaking the law but also knew that they could get away with it. In the last couple of years, the camera setting was reduced to 6kmph over the limit along with higher speeding fines. It's no surprise to note that the new personal over limit speeds of drivers now became -6kmph, because that was what they could get away with. A lot of people accused the state government and police department of revenue raising. I say regardless of what the intent is of such actions by the state, they technically have every right to enforce the law to the letter. If people do not wish to risk being fined for speeding, then they should stick to the speed limit.

In regards to "That is, when one is claiming to be law abiding, yet violating the law when speeding. What precedent does this set for young children?" I am not claiming to be law abiding and I don't know what precedent it sets for young children as I have not spoken to any young children about driving. When they do grow up and drive, I'm sure they will do what they think is right or can get away with based on their education and conditioning up to that point. Just like you and I.

Just to reiterate, I can voice a perception that may be contradictory to my actions, not because I'm a hypocrit but because I see both sides of the coin.

Okay, but the way you have been wording it is: that the law is to be obeyed.

How is that interpreted? Is that simply a statement or an opinion? I guess that when you claim you are not preaching, but stating an opinion, then it comes across as that you believe that the law should be obeyed, but you are candid to say that you do not obey it.

This was where the contradiction arose.

I feel that given the two options of statement versus opinion, the idea of it being a statement makes the statement seem too obvious - that is, we all know laws are supposed to be obeyed - so nothing new under the sun there. However, the context makes more sense if taken as your opinion, to me. ;-)

So, your position is that you can see why the law is there on the books, but feel that it is not necessarily a good law for you to follow. Again, I am not faulting you on that position, just clarifying how you are presenting it.

AH, I can see your point and I should have used a better choice of words to express myself. In regards to " So, your position is that you can see why the law is there on the books, but feel that it is not necessarily a good law for you to follow" Yes I can see why the law is there and respect the arguments that support it. To a large extent, the supporting arguments to me seem more valid than those against, and because of that, along with the fact that it is law (with valid intentions), I feel (contrary to your last statement) that this may be a good law for myself and others to follow. However, having said that (and hoping I don't sound contradictory), I choose not to follow it for various reasons and in various circumstances.

Our discussion is not just restricted to the speed limit but cover all areas of law. For example, the law may state that we cannot drive a vehicle while we have a blood alcohol reading of 0.01%, however, due to our metabolism or other factors, we may not be as affected as other driver's and we may feel that our faculties are under control........ and so on....

Thanks AH.

Right. In general, we act based on our best judgment of the situation and the intent of the law.

Yes AH, I think that sums it up nicely, although I would like to add that the way we act is not only based on what we believe to be the best judgement of the situation and the intent of the law, but also restricted ( I don't know if 'restricted' is the right word to use) by the law itself. Otherwise we could reasonably find ourselves 'still in control', but driving at +9 to 12mph or +10 - 15mph etc... above the set speed limit and not the +5 -9mph which a lot of people seem to uniformly do.

Speed Differential Kills - the ratio of the speeder's velocity as compared to average traffic velocity.

This is why ticket fines are based on a value-above-posted and not just a value. Traveling 65 mph in a 65 mph zone… no problem. Traveling 65 mph in a 35 mph zone… big problem.

So, does speed kill? Actually, rapid deceleration at the end does the wet work.

Does lack of control kill? Sure, loose control, hit something… see above.

But, more often than not, most all traffic accidents are a result of excessive speed differential. This is also why Law Enforcement has a target value they cite for. Based on conditions, a calculated low-risk deferential is identified.

School Zones, High Pedestrian Traffic - normal threshold for citing is 3 over because 6 over incurs a very high risk. So they cite at a value below the high-risk point in order to condition traffic.

Side streets, and roads with multiple entrance drives - normal threshold for citing is 5 over because 10 is a known point at which accidents increase.

Freeways - normal threshold is 10 over because a differential of 15 mph between vehicles is the point at which the risk increase exponentially increases. From 1 to 10 speed differential between vehicles in light congestion, the risk level is the same for everyone on the freeway. Once one vehicle begins to move faster the risk increases for not only that vehicle but the vehicles adjacent to it.

Anyway… to the OP's point. In my opinion, you do not reward for meeting the standard; you reward for exceeding the standard. But, in regards to laws and their enforcement… you can't exceed the standard, you either meet them or you don't.

Where you can exceed the standard, and be rewarded, is through the associated processes. By abiding all traffic rules and regulations the odds of you ever getting into an accident are significantly reduced… associated benefit… lower insurance cost. But that is up to those who maintain the associated process to develop the reward system. But in regards to local ordinances and laws… you can not reward them since they are the standard expectation of conduct.

You are receiving your reward right now for meeting the minimum standard… your @$$ is not in jail.

JavaHead

The statistics do not support that argument very well. This website includes data on all different states and vehicle crashes, but I will use my home state of Florida as an example. Here are the 2009 statistics for Florida:

Total Fatalities 2,558

Single Vehicle 1,546

Involving large truck 181

Involving speeding 535

Involving rollover 608

Roadway Departure 1,120

Intersections 758

Most fatal accidents are single vehicle (about 60%). Only 20% of all accidents are listed as speed related. Clearly, it is a contributing factor, but not the dominant factor in all fatal crashes and since about 60% are single vehicle incidents, speed differential can not be a direct factor either.

According to the data, roadway departure appears to be about 44% of all fatal accidents. That would include hydroplaning, falling asleep, vehicle or tire malfunction, or driver error as major causes, which I contend fall under the vehicle control category.

Intersection accidents are predominantly when one party fails to yield the right of way to another. This is simply driver error where someone fails to stop or someone enters the intersection when they do not have the right of way.

In the end, intersections (driver error) and accidents that involve a loss of control are the big killers; speed, not so much.

Completely agree, but there is a fine line between 'speeding' and 'speed differential' which I did not clarify enough in my previous thread.

The point I was trying to make is that, for example, in Ohio we have a large Amish community which utilize horse-drawn buggies to travel roads, many of which are state routes with 55 MPH speed limits. We have many fatalities a year where a non-speeding vehicle either strikes a buggy or a tree trying to avoid a buggy. The vehicle wasn't speeding so it wouldn't be classified under that category.

Same with intersections. Sure, the main cause of accidents at intersections is failure to yield right-of-way, or blowing through a stop sign or light. But, differential still plays a significant role. A vehicle proceeding from a stop into an intersection is traveling about 10 to 15 MPH where the vehicle that failed to yield is traveling, let's say at a posted speed limit of 35 MPH… two to three times the vehicle it is about to strike.

On a two-lane State Route with a speed limit of 45 MPH, two vehicles both doing the speed limit, traveling opposing directions so the differential is a sum of their individual velocities, in this case 90 MPH. One drifts left of center and the other swerves to miss it, exits the road, hits a ditch and rolls their vehicle three times. 'Excessive speed' was not a factor in this accident, but speed differential is. If the vehicle was swerving to miss an object lying in the road, the differential would be half, allowing twice the reaction time and thus providing for a more controlled response.

There use to be no minimum speed limit on the freeways and it was never an offense to drive 35 MPH on a freeway. Sure, you'd upset a lot of people, but there was no law. But there is now, in Ohio there is a posted minimum speed limit of 40 MPH on all freeways because the posted maximum is 65 and that 15 MPH differential I mentioned earlier is the point at which risk exponentially increases.

One final example… if all of a sudden, everyone wanted to drive half as fast so instead of driving 70 MPH on a freeway, everyone is doing 35, and instead of 35, 17 is now the common speed through town. A significant reduction in differential would occur and as a result a significant increase in reaction time would result, accident rates in all categories would drop substantially. Yep, someone would still fall asleep at the wheel, leave the road and hit a tree… but they are going to hit it at 25 MPH instead of 50 MPH and have a higher chance of survival.

So, again, I agree… 'excessive speed' makes up a low overall percentage of accidents, but differential plays a significant role in most all categories.

JavaHead

Well, you can make a case that significant speed difference is predominant in almost all accidents with fatalities. Obviously, you would not have much of an accident between two objects if the differential is 10 mph. Even hitting a tree there is a speed differential where the tree (most of the time) has a relative speed of zero.

Consequently, you can make an equally valid case that loss of control is predominant in almost all accidents. At least one party was unable to sufficiently control their vehicle.

My original point was that regardless of what speed you are going, be it 10 mph or mach 23, as long as you are in control you are okay. However, losing control, for whatever reason (your fault or someone else's) results in a penalty. Unlike the US justice system, there is no trial nor the option to appeal for violating the laws of physics - you proceed directly to the penalty phase.

Just going fast by itself is not the problem if you are in control, but it does increase the risk if something goes wrong.

My original post was responding to the chain of comments that started with "speed kills" which prompted a reply "speed doesn't kill, lack of control kills" which prompted post 26 which is the one I jumped in on.

We are on the same page, just different sides, case in point:

"Just going fast by itself is not the problem if you are in control, but it does increase the risk if something goes wrong."

True, if you're the only one on the road. You can go as fast as you want, and even if a problem occurs, so long as you maintain control you should be ok.

But all of my posts were in the context of other vehicles on the road. And, if you're going fast but no one else is, even if you are in control... it's a problem.

My initial response was simply to respond to 'the speed kills,' 'lack of control kills' chain by saying...

1. Speed doesn't kill, as you have agreed... speed in and of itself is not an issue.

2. Lack of control in and of itself doesn't kill either... you can loose control backing out of and icy driveway at 5 mph and hit the fire hydrant and only dent your bumper.

3. It is speed differential that kills

It is irrelevant of whether you are/aren't speeding or are/aren't in control... you are subject to the actions of the other people that share the road with you.

You're doing 65, and a vehicle cuts 20 feet in front of you and they are only doing 60... differential of 5 MPH or 7.3 FPS which gives you 2.7 seconds to react.

Same situation but the cutting vehicle is now only doing 40, a differential of 25 MPH or 36.6 FPS which gives you 0.54 seconds to react. You're in control, they're in control and neither of your are speeding but something bad is going to happen.

In closing, my default response to those who make the comment "speed kills" or "lack of control kills" will continue to be "nope... it's speed differential that kills."

Have to log for the day... it has been a pleasure, I always do enjoy our exchanges.

JavaHead

sounds like '1984'. I'll tell you alittle about gathering statistics. It costs money, and statistics isn't worth anything if it's not used.

phoenix -- I agree with you. But these insurance companies, about whom I have very mixed feelings, are eminently capable of making good use of statistical data and have the monetary incentive to do so.

I, for one, am a bit tired of having my driving experience strained by ignorant and egotistical scofflaws, many of whom have all the driving capability of the average teenager. If they are going to use the highways as a place to play or simply enjoy their own dreamworld I want to see them pay for that playtime.

I agree with Anonymous Hero ".....over the limit routinely (+ 5 to 9 mph), but have not had an accident nor a ticket because I am prudent and always drive my car at a speed that I am in control for whatever the conditions may be." up to a point.

In my case I have far fewer occasions where exceeding the speed limit is worth the risk of a citation, small though it be. In my retired life I no longer have the need to save seconds at the expense of increasing risk of discomfort. That notwithstanding there are times when I run well above the speed limit on purpose and with a degree of caution that comes from many years of driving experience. My own knowledge and experience with driving and automobile performance enables me to well know the limits of my vehicle's capabilities as well as my own for the conditions at hand. As to my own capabilities I have several "tickets" from driving on a certain piece of real estate in western Utah as well as a general highway driving record that will attest to that.

Sadly we have become far to tolerant of people who are unable to drive down the roadways of our nation without causing accidents. And by coddling them with ever more elaborate (and expensive) safety gadgets we facilitate the continuation of their characteristics in the human gene pool.

Ed Weldon ....... (Bad Ed! Intolerant Ed! Have you learned nothing from the wisdom of Bertrand Russell?)

all I can say to that ed is 'ditto'

I have no problem with he current monetary incentive of letting me KEEP my money by NOT getting tickets and paying fines!

It would be a great system if the objective were actually to ensure that the speed limit was observed.

But the next time you whiz by a speed limit sign, ask yourself what would happen to traffic patterns on that road if everybody obeyed it. In most cases, the answer is that the road's capacity would be reduced to the point that there would be traffic jams. I occasionally tested this hypothesis by actually driving the speed limit on country roads where I would not do too much damage. Result? Horns blowing, cars and even delivery trucks overtaking.

The actual purpose of most speed limits is to raise revenue by setting a limit that is too low for most people to observe, thus guaranteeing a certain number of offenses and a certain level of revenue.

So the last thing the limiters would want is compliance, and still less the use of their revenue stream to reward compliance!

Bottom line is, speed doesn't kill, lack of control kills.

Just as true at 30 mph as at 300 mph. ........EW

If you're on a shared highway, it's not just your ability to control that must be considered. You must also consider the marginal driver, and his abilities.

Too often, I've seen inconsiderate drivers doing things that they can do, but which put other drivers at risk.

And, I know you know that you can't get all marginal drivers off the road--as soon as you draw a line with respect to qualifying drivers, there are drivers that are left that now become the marginal ones.

Not too mention the hardship that losing driving privileges causes in our society.

I hear you, but control is everything.

That is also the way the states looks at it, too. If a driver in front of you stops for whatever reason, and you hit that driver, you are considered at fault for failing to control your vehicle.

The bottom line is the state expects you to be in control of your vehicle at all times regardless of your competency level as a driver.

Well, now maybe I'm just playing devil's advocate, but that isn't always the correct criteria--for example, criminals who pull in front of other drivers and slam on their brakes to cause an accident.

Very similar are drivers that weave in and out of traffic at highway speeds.

But otherwise, yes, I agree with you.

I'd go as far as suggesting that such driving behavior that shows clear intent be always classified as a misdemenor, at the minimum, and prosecuted that way if the DA thinks the case can be proven. Egregious cases of such behavior should be clearly codified in law as felony assaults and carry equivalent penalties. Acceptable evidence should include GPS, speed, time and accelerometer computer records of the vehicle and other nearby vehicles. We have the technology to do this.

This is one area where I am willing to forgo my privacy to discourage truly criminal behavior on or highways.

Ed Weldon

Or you could ask the other drivers.

Thin edge of the wedge - if downloading vehicle data records becomes the "solution" - tracking your every move becomes possible and 'open to examination'. Next generation is automatic remote down load, or your car reports your infringements - and probably the fine is auto deducted from your bank account.

Jus' extrapolating

34point5: The thin wedge has already hit the meat and it's too late to stop it. If you partake of connected electronic conveniences of life or even expose your "image" to them they have the data. It's a done deal.

Political OT statement: How it is used is up to us. We can cede control to others and languish in our pleasant stupor or we can take control of our own futures. The latter comes at a cost. Who is willing to pay?

One way to postpone connectivity for yourself is to construct your own vehicle around the carcass of some old historic car, truck or bike that still has a registerable credential. That works in most of the traditional English speaking countries and likely will continue for some years to come. Such a vehicle will be excluded from high speed limited access highway corridors; but it will take a long time for governments to gain the political support for closing local streets and rural roads to non electronically connected vehicles. This will be especially true for lightweight low speed alternative energy urban vehicles as well as utility vehicles in rural areas.

As a young man I was able to get around all of New Jersey with my old truck without having to spend scarce money on the local toll roads. It took more time, but time was cheap for a teenager in the 1950's. This was a genuine necessity since the primary connecting highway for the area was the Garden State Parkway that had a rule that excluded all "trucks". Their definition of truck (they were an independent political entity) superceded anyone else's definition including that of any states.

Of course they could force all vehicles on public roadways to carry an active transponder. And perhaps that will eventually come. I do think, though, neither you nor I will see that. My alternative, having to do with progressive licensing, is to require transponders only for those who want to take advantage of a licensed privilege to drive at a higher speed limit than the rest of the drivers. A highway patrol seeing or sensing a vehicle traveling above the speed limit would simply "ping" his transponder to see if he were legal.

Ed Weldon

You wrote, "... pull in front of other drivers and slam on their brakes to cause an accident."

That is not an accident by definition.

But it could be legally defined as an assault if combined with other factors.... EW

True.

I digressed.

My real complaint is about drivers that do things that they can manage to do (example: weave in and out of traffic at highway speeds), but causing disruption and increased risk for those around them.

AH -- I agree with you on this point. There will be no tears of sympathy in my eyes for the incompetent drivers who lose their driving priviledges due to their own mistakes. I should also include those unable to prove their competence via a more rigorous driver training and testing program which I have long advocated.

Such a program with increasing levels of priviledge (one of which would be higher personal speed limits) and penalties for abusing said priviledges would contain it's own incentives to drive within the range of one's skills. In organized motor racing such licensing procedures are commonplace in the more mature areas of the sport.

For those more tolerant than me I'd suggest they organize and fund a free taxi service for those who lose their driver's licenses. Just don't ask me to pay into it.

Ed Weldon

I have only read the premise. It is idiocy. All around it is idiocy. Speed limits are artificial. Weather matters. Put up limits between 45 and 95 and idiots will drive at 95.[] Let go of limits and idiots drive idiotically.

The incentive for being an all around idiot all the time is not getting a ticket.

Mexicans have been stopped for driving according the posted limits. Nobody else cares yah know.

We do not all love to speed.

Damn I wish I could walk faster! Send me a check!

a professor once said if you want safe drivers, have the automakers make a 12 inch spike mounted in the middle of the steering pointed right at the drivers chest standard equipment.

I thought about this as well. Also, if everyone does the speed limit, massive amounts of fuel will be cumulatively saved due to less aerodynamic drag. Every bit helps. I also thought about having just a yield sign to turn right onto a road where there is a merge lane (for left hand drive countries), vice versa in the UK, but still a full stop to go through or turn left. Once again, a lot less wear and tear and fuel consumed. Instead fo four way stops in areas that are not busy, four way yields with a max speed of 8 km/h. Just efficiency ideas. Also, we are dealing with people who are not always rational.

What you are describing are being built all over the place around where we live, They refer to them as "roundabouts" and they are everywhere. They are putting 2 of them in my small Town for reasons no one really knows. We do not have but maybe 3000 in the population.

I speed in the morning if weather is clear and traffic is clear which it is 95% of the time. Now that it is dark at 4PM, I drive slowly on the way home, we do have a heavy deer population everywhere and some bear.

But, I do not drive like I did when I was younger, I had a Mach1 for several years,

back when gas was under $.40/G, I could burn through $5.00 just jumping through town in 1/2 hour. After 245,000 miles, had to retire the Mach1 and gas was then at $1.45/G. Now drive truck, Chevy that is. 5.3L 18MPG AVG. Did have a Mitsubishi 1.8L 16VOHC 5 speed, almost 50MPG. 215,000 was all I could get out of the frame/body, engine/trans was still great shape, Sold it. It was fast and agile on dry road only.

Mach1 best confirmed speed 152 after popping off P/S belt, w, P/S, forget it. 80+, out of control. Now I do 10-20 over depending on everything around me. Never had accident, never had ticket. Insurance is less than $600.00/Y with 2 cars, 1 truck.

Back to the rounabouts, in the beginning there will be many accidents as people don't know what exactly to do to get over there, most speeds are 20mph, they eliminate stops, red lights and do really work well providing they were engineered correctly.

I don't believe a lottery would work. Although there are many people who break speed limits, there are many that do not, how many of these law abiding drivers would you award the money to, how much would they win and how often. As someone who has never won on any lottery, ever, I personally would find this an incentive.

Of course, you also have those people who break the speed limit then break like hell just before speed cameras, to way under the limit, almost resulting in a multi vehicle pile up behind them, because of this sudden action. To be honest, I'd rather not have more of that. For this reason, I have to ask, are speed cameras themselves a good idea? Also, if you are going to have speed cameras, they should not be blaringly obvious and you should recieve no warning that you are in an area with speed cameras in them.

I think the only logical solution is to make it so that breaking speed limits has serious consequences (for the idiot drivers, not the victims of their speed).