That speed limits are law does not make for a particularly good argument; automated enforcement gets shouted down because it is nearly always implemented as a revenue generation service instead of a method to improve traffic safety. We know very well how we can make our roads safer, and it has essentially zero to do with the printed legal speed limit.
You say it yourself, almost everyone is breaking the law. That is a big red flag to me suggesting there is an imbalance between what we codify into law and what actually works.
I used to believe the same thing and then I moved to an urban area.
Now it suggests something entirely different to me. In particular, I think the casual disregard for "the rules" in heavy traffic is an amplified reflection of the "putting yourself first" values of American society (though surely not unique to it). I think the amplification comes from the relative anonymity of individuals in vehicles, the actual lack of consequences for breaking "the rules", and the "fear of missing out" after seeing other road users benefit from breaking them.
In the past, I've seen extending the yellow light times trotted out as a way to improve intersection safety (as opposed to enforcing not entering on red). That analysis, in my estimation, hinges on the idea that drivers are accidentally running red lights. From what I can tell, that is not the case. I believe attentive drivers run red lights because it saves them a whole signal cycle. I don't even think extending interlock (all directions red) times would have a meaningful impact on safety as I suspect users would quickly adjust to it, as they do to adjustments to the speed limit.
I can imagine someone making the claim that intentionally running a recently red light is not actually dangerous. I've not searched for any data in this respect, but common sense suggests the benefit is far outweighed by the risk.
On the subject of speed limits. In at least some cases, speed limits are intentionally set to a speed lower than the road's design speed. Experience has shown that the posted speed limit provides an anchoring effect on most road users. Increasing the posted speed limit to the speed that the "majority" of traffic travels at often has the effect of increasing the speed of traffic on the roadway.
The underlying principles of the rules with respect to speed, right of way, and traffic control signals are in my opinion reasonable in dense urban areas. I think there is a strong disconnect between the perceived risk of operating a vehicle and the actual risk of operating a vehicle.
Having just now commuted to the office (not driving, I'm not native) in Hyderabad, India, I have a whole different viewpoint on the road rules we have in the states :). This is the very definition of casual disregard for the rules, by comparison in America we are puritanical.
In the end I support data-driven lawmaking. We know that speed limits are ignored by 90% of everyone, and we know very well how road design parameters such as lane width affect the way people drive. I think we should ditch speed limits altogether in the city and focus on these things which work.
The actual risk of driving a vehicle is astoundingly low given the physics involved. Wrecks are somewhat common but injuries relative rare and death is such a remote possibility that most people can disregard it compared to all the other ways the universe is out to get them :-).
> the actual risk of driving a vehicle is astoundingly low
And what about the risk to other road users, pedestrians and cyclists, who are not encased in steel crumple zones?
Regulating driving behaviour is not just about preservation of the driver, it's also about creating an environment conducive to a functioning community. At present the bias is strongly towards the car-user ( e.g. making pedestrians wait at crossings ) but at least the principle is maintained.
> death is such a remote possibility that most people can disregard it
Even with highway fatalities declining it remains one of the most likely ways to die for younger age groups.
There's a bit of a "paradox" in that likelihood of death per mile driven is extraordinarily low, likelihood of your dying this year from a motor vehicle accident is very low... But if you die this year, the likelihood you died in a car accident, rather than from something else entirely, ends up somewhat high.
I had a friend from Hyderabad who came here to the Bay Area, and his first major purchase was a motorcycle. I asked him if he had one back in India, and he replied that riding a motorcycle in his home region would be suicide.
I can imagine someone making the claim that intentionally running a recently red light is not actually dangerous
There is a definite portion of drivers, maybe 5%, who will not be the first car to miss a light under any circumstances. Period. Even if it means entering the intersection a full 5 seconds after the red. Even if it means completely gridlocking the intersection. Even if it means forcing a cyclist, pedestrian, or vehicle that has the right of way to take evasive action.
Every so often, several such drivers come in succession, and the resulting stream of red-light-runners looks like something out of a film shoot.
You say it yourself, almost everyone is breaking the law. That is a big red flag to me suggesting there is an imbalance between what we codify into law and what actually works.