Artificially low speed limits — those set well below what engineering studies, road design, and actual driver behavior deem reasonable — create a dynamic that extends far beyond merely driving and corrodes our view of authority and our societal systems.
Wow, that’s a lot of responsibility to hang on a speed limit sign, but let’s examine things a bit.
When posted limits bear little relation to safe, practical speeds (often ignoring the “85th percentile” rule, which reflects where most drivers naturally travel), the vast majority of motorists routinely exceed them. This widespread noncompliance isn’t because people are reckless; it’s a rational assessment: the posted speed limit is clearly arbitrary, punitive, and not related to any real safety risks, so we ignore it.
A classic example is the U.S. national 55 mph speed limit, imposed in 1974 to conserve fuel. It was so far below prevailing traffic flows that drivers quickly realized it wasn’t about safety but about ideological or political goals.
Or worse yet, a speed trap money grab. Once people internalized that, respect for posted limits eroded permanently — even today, after the 65 mph limits have been restored, many continue to ignore them, still viewing them as meaningless.
Drive to L.A. any morning on the I-5, and if you try to drive 65, you’re putting yourself at risk of being rear-ended because the average speed runs closer to 80. And on local streets where limits have been dropped to 20-25 mph despite wide roads and good visibility, compliance is rare.
This everyday law-breaking normalizes rule violation in a low-stakes context. Drivers learn that laws can be largely ignored due to law enforcement’s limited resources, and “speeding” becomes the default social norm: “Everyone does it, so why shouldn’t I?
Now we get to the heart of the matter. The spillover to a broader lack of respect for authority. When a highly visible law (speed limits are everywhere) is treated as optional and carries no serious consequences, it chips away at the idea that rules deserve automatic deference. This breeds cynicism: if the government sets unenforceable or irrational rules here, why should we trust them elsewhere?
Minor traffic infractions can desensitize people to legal authority in general, making other regulations — tax laws, zoning rules, even public health mandates- more readily questioned or flaunted. Government rule inconsistency? I won’t even go down the COVID rabbit hole… We’ll stick to the local government traffic metaphor.
Selective enforcement exacerbates this: police can’t be everywhere, and neither prosecutors nor the judicial system seems uniform in their application of the law, fostering perceptions of unfairness and further eroding legitimacy.
Overly strict or low limits invite disrespect precisely because they undermine credibility. When signs command little respect, drivers dismiss them — and by extension, the system behind them. And this is bad for society as a whole because it contributes to a culture in which authority is seen as arbitrary or overreaching rather than protective.
Ultimately, artificially low speed limits don’t enhance safety; they often do the opposite by creating variable speeds (some obey, most don’t) and normalizing disobedience. To rebuild respect for the law, limits should align with evidence-based safe speeds, engineering realities, and the majority’s behavior. Only credible, rational rules foster genuine compliance—and preserve broader faith in authority.
When people see laws as sensible rather than arbitrary, they’re far more likely to follow them, on the road and in our society overall.
Jerome Stocks is a former mayor and city councilman of Encinitas.
