Should speed limits be raised or eliminated in certain areas?

[drz-400]

I was pissed about the speed limit by my house, said it was too slow. I wrote to the county traffic engineer, told him he should raise it. He came out and did a scientific study on the traffic in the area and concluded I was correct and raised the speed limit.

 

[TNAR]

The 40- and 45-mph minimum speeds on 70-mph rural interstates are a joke. … enforce the passing lane as the PASSING lane…

Agreed, 40-45 mph is probably too slow for many conditions but what makes 60 any better? You suggest 60 in ideal conditions so what about non-ideal conditions? The speed limit signs will be as large as billboards if you want to implement a speed limit for each set of conditions. OR… you could just allow each driver to make an educated assessment based on current conditions.

First of all, driving is not a right. It is a privilege.

Is walking a right or a privilege? How about riding a bus? Taking an airplane? Supposing someone decides he wants to voluntarily give up his “privilege” of driving, is he no longer forced to pay taxes for the roads he is not using? If transportation is not a right then what about anything else we do? I think you’re going down a very scary road if you don’t think people have the right to drive.

Third, driver's license tests should be MUCH tougher

I think driver’s licenses are a sham and should be eliminated completely. Allow the insurance agencies to create their own assessment scheme for drivers and I’ll just about guarantee that you’d see an improvement on the roads. The idea that possessing a driver’s license somehow proves a person knows how to drive is lunacy. (Not that I'm suggesting you are implying this.)

 

[majora$$hole]

we could save this country billions every year if we didn't put anymore speed limit signs up, no one pays any attention to them anyway. at the same time we should take the speedometers out of the cars so no one could tell how fast they were going. i'll bet if we did that people would drive more sanely and to the conditions and not go 5 miles an hour above the speed limit even though they can't see 5 feet in front of their car.

 

[HonestJoe]

Without signs or lights, all drivers are responsible for their own safety and that of others and are, therefore, forced to check for traffic all all intersections. This is highly successful all over the world.

That's perfectly valid in many places though it would depend very much on the nature of the junction. I would also be concerned that, over time, the same kind of bad habits would return. Any kind of change at a familiar junction is going to make you more cautious but I question how long that would last.

What is the first thing people generally do when they see a cop on the side of the road? They look at their speedometer and many will also take this opportunity to brake regardless of their proximity to the legal limit.

I'm not sure that would change unless you scrapped all driving laws, got rid of all law enforcement or brainwashed everyone.

But that is not the point. I agree that probably nobody focuses on their speedometer but many people do check it very often.

Not in itself a problem. People (should!) check their mirrors regularly too. The point is that it should be perfectly possible to maintain a relatively consistent speed without being dangerously distracted by the speedo. The argument against speed limits suggesting this can't be done is an absolute lie that needs stamping out at every opportunity.

In fact, I have personally witnessed drivers who block traffic because they feel that other drivers are driving too quickly. This is certainly not safe. I have also seen drivers pass on the shoulder when other drivers are going too slowly.

That's nothing to do with the stated limit by definition though. If you remove the limits, that kind of thing can only increase.

So you're right, "speeding has nothing to do with inability and everything to do with arrogance." The arrogance of a person who believes he can declare the maximum speed limit for all vehicles in all conditions and all drivers is astounding.

That isn't what the speed limit is about though. They can't be based on all possible vehicles with all possible drivers because there is a huge variation, they have to find a balance. They also have to consider things like traffic flow, road layout and different times of day. There are a whole load of factors considered before a figure is reached. An individual driver, unaware of half of those factors, can't accurately determine that it is safe for him to exceed that speed.

It is a rare event for me to pay any attention whatsoever to a speed limit. I blow through stop signs, run red lights, turn left on red, and pretty much every other action that I'm not supposed to do.

You almost sound proud. Arrogance!

With the exception of a hit-and-run event I was involved in while my vehicle was stationary, I have never had an accident in my roughly 20-year legal driving experience.

My grandfather smokes forty-a-day for almost sixty years but never got cancer. That doesn't mean smoking isn't dangerous, it means he was lucky.

Laws do not create road safety. Attentive and responsible drivers create road safety.

It a balance. Neither alone are going to do the job. Actively fighting against and willfully ignoring the law certainly won't.

 

[bowerbird]

http://www.fee.org/pdf/the-freeman/holdorf0902.pdf

Strapped - Reason Magazine

http://www.ccoyne.com/Unintended_Consequences_-_Fraiser.pdf

Buckle Up Your Seatbelt and Behave | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine

Dear lord and Twonks on the Internet!!

I buleeve its becuz sum 1 on da interwebs thingy sez so!!

Your first three articles showed definite bias and what little referencing the articles had did not stand scrutiny but your last link - actually refuted your claim!

snopes.com: Seatbelt Risk

Oh1 And mate! I am old enough to remember ICU BEFORE seat belt laws - believe me you do NOT EVER want to have a steering wheel induced "flail chest". That is where the ribs are cracked both sides of the sternum and they float free going in and out with each breath. Either we end up trying to wire them or it is six weeks on a ventilator - minimum. And flail chests? Believe - they are more painful than terminal cancer - we could NOT get them pain free without ventilating

 

[Baralis]

I would like to see speed limits lowered rather then raised. By lowing speed limits back to 55mph we could save a great deal of fuel and lower emissions. But most people are selfish and would rather save that 5-10 minutes in a day and only care about pollution or our money going overseas to hostile or at least only partially friendly country's as long as it does not inconvenience them in any way.

 

[TNAR]

I would also be concerned that, over time, the same kind of bad habits would return. ... I question how long that would last.

As long as the requirement for safety was placed solely on each driver it would last indefinitely. Do we eventually forget that the stove gets hot when we turn it on? Do we forget that dropping a hairdryer in the bathtub causes electric shock because we get so used to using these things? I don't see the logic in this argument.

The point is that it should be perfectly possible to maintain a relatively consistent speed without being dangerously distracted by the speedo.

I agree, it should be. I never suggested that it was insanely dangerous either; simply that it is a completely unnecessary requirement which is only needed due to arbitrary limits placed by bureaucracies. Majora$$hole gave a perfect example. Without speedometers even installed in vehicles the onus would be placed on the driver to determine what speed is safe to drive. Suggesting that this is not possible or would only create more accidents is to claim that individuals are not able to take care of themselves without the help of the government.

If you remove the limits, that kind of thing can only increase.

How so? Without a limit it is each person's judgement as to what constitutes a safe speed rather than a posted limit. By having a quantified limit a person can point to his speedometer and say, "See, that jerk is going too fast!"

An individual driver, unaware of half of those factors, can't accurately determine that it is safe for him to exceed that speed.

And there it is, you think individuals are too stupid to figure out how safely they can drive.

 

[TNAR]

I would like to see speed limits lowered rather then raised.

That's an interesting position considering your Ron Paul banner in your signature line.

 

[Caine]

As long as the requirement for safety was placed solely on each driver it would last indefinitely. Do we eventually forget that the stove gets hot when we turn it on? Do we forget that dropping a hairdryer in the bathtub causes electric shock because we get so used to using these things? I don't see the logic in this argument.



I agree, it should be. I never suggested that it was insanely dangerous either; simply that it is a completely unnecessary requirement which is only needed due to arbitrary limits placed by bureaucracies. Majora$$hole gave a perfect example. Without speedometers even installed in vehicles the onus would be placed on the driver to determine what speed is safe to drive. Suggesting that this is not possible or would only create more accidents is to claim that individuals are not able to take care of themselves without the help of the government.



How so? Without a limit it is each person's judgement as to what constitutes a safe speed rather than a posted limit. By having a quantified limit a person can point to his speedometer and say, "See, that jerk is going too fast!"



And there it is, you think individuals are too stupid to figure out how safely they can drive.

You are assuming that everyone will drive higher than the CURRENT speed limits.

You are going to have a much LARGER speed differential between vehicles by eliminating a speed limit.

 

[Higgins86]

judging by the roads I have been driving on in New England for the past 2 years there is no way they shoulod ever get rid of the speed limit.

 

[TNAR]

You are assuming that everyone will drive higher than the CURRENT speed limits.

No, I am assuming that people will ignore the quantitative value of their speed and focus on the qualitative value. They would need to base this value on their ability as a driver, the vehicle they are in, the conditions of the road, and the presence of external factors such as pedestrians and other drivers. The actual speed a person drives at is a moot factor.

 

[HonestJoe]

As long as the requirement for safety was placed solely on each driver it would last indefinitely.

The requirement for safety is already placed on the driver. When I was taught to drive, it included things like checking junctions you cross (even on a green light or with right of way). We all get complacent though and, especially on roads we're familiar with, these checks tend to go by the wayside. Familiarity breeds contempt.

So yes, people do "forget" how dangerous some things are and do them anyway, effectively because it's what they always do and they've got away with it so far.

Without speedometers even installed in vehicles the onus would be placed on the driver to determine what speed is safe to drive. Suggesting that this is not possible or would only create more accidents is to claim that individuals are not able to take care of themselves without the help of the government.

It's less about taking care of yourself and more about taking care of others. It is already the case that different drivers have vastly different opinions of what a safe speed is in any given situation (and every vehicle is different anyway). Scrapping the limits (and speedos) would only serve to increase the variation which increases the speed differential between different vehicles which is the major danger.

How so? Without a limit it is each person's judgement as to what constitutes a safe speed rather than a posted limit. By having a quantified limit a person can point to his speedometer and say, "See, that jerk is going too fast!"

He can say that without the limit because the person driving slower has made the judgement that is the safe speed. He might be right, he might be wrong but that's not really the point. Without a limit, there is a good chance "the jerk" would be going even faster.

And there it is, you think individuals are too stupid to figure out how safely they can drive.

I know a significant number of individuals are. This is demonstratably true given the number of people who do immensely stupid things on the road every day. Some get caught and punished, quite a lot get away with it and a few don't live long enough to get a chance for either.

 

[Caine]

The actual speed a person drives at is a moot factor.

Except when they crash of course... :roll: Which happens EVERYWHERE that cars exist.

 

[TNAR]

The requirement for safety is already placed on the driver.

No it’s not; this is the foundation for my entire argument.

When I come to an intersection with a stop sign, I am required to stop. This creates a de facto right-of-way for the crossing traffic (assuming they do not have a stop sign as well). Therefore, it is implied that the crossing traffic does not need to yield to potential traffic because it is the responsibility of the other drivers to yield. This transfers the responsibility from one driver to another. Obviously it is wise to check all intersections regardless of signs and traffic lights but legally the responsibility is shifted.

Familiarity breeds contempt.

I recently drove across the country and stopped in many towns I had never been to before. This did not change the fact that each and every town had the same lights and signs which told me that I didn’t have to bother looking for other traffic because they were required to yield to me. Familiarity has nothing to do with it.

Scrapping the limits (and speedos) would only serve to increase the variation which increases the speed differential between different vehicles which is the major danger.

Without a posted speed limit a person must assume that there will be other people on the road going different speeds. With our current system drivers assume that everyone else is going the same speed (or roughly so) as they are which tends to create lackadaisical drivers.

This is demonstratably true given the number of people who do immensely stupid things on the road every day.

This is the shotgun approach to punishment. Since some people might do something unsafely all people should be prohibited from the action. I, for one, prefer freedom to a false sense of security.

 

[TNAR]

Except when they crash of course...

We are discussing the cause of a crash, not the effects of a crash.

 

[Caine]

We are discussing the cause of a crash, not the effects of a crash.

No Speed Limit: Two lane road: A vehicle traveling at 50mph... another vehicle comes up behind it traveling at 95mph has to try to slow down because the vehicle traveling at 50 is in his lane......Vehicle traveling at 95 fails to slow down to avoid rear ending vehicle traveling at 50mph...... It MAY be reasonable to assume that guy traveling at 95mph possessed the skill to safety travel on this road at that speed, barring any other vehicles.... however, we don't all get the road to ourselves....

 

[TNAR]

A vehicle traveling at 50mph... another vehicle comes up behind it traveling at 95mph ...

In this case any resulting accident would likely be the fault of the approaching vehicle and financial and civil/criminal responsibility would be placed on that driver. How is this any different than having a 55 mph speed limit and the same scenario occurring?

 

[Phys251]

Agreed, 40-45 mph is probably too slow for many conditions but what makes 60 any better? You suggest 60 in ideal conditions so what about non-ideal conditions? The speed limit signs will be as large as billboards if you want to implement a speed limit for each set of conditions. OR… you could just allow each driver to make an educated assessment based on current conditions.

I propose this:

1. Clearly define what "ideal conditions" are. I suggest daytime, and no fog, precipitation, slow traffic ahead, obstacles, etc.
2. When ideal conditions are not met, drivers are allowed to drive as slowly as they need to in order to deal with the potential danger. Err enforcement on the side of leniency here.

Is walking a right or a privilege? How about riding a bus? Taking an airplane? Supposing someone decides he wants to voluntarily give up his “privilege” of driving, is he no longer forced to pay taxes for the roads he is not using? If transportation is not a right then what about anything else we do? I think you’re going down a very scary road if you don’t think people have the right to drive.

Right, privilege, and privilege. Don't assume that there is one single level of "privilege" and that it is easy to take away. I believe that the majority of adult citizens deserve that privilege, but to my knowledge, the "right to drive" has never been enshrined in the constitution of any state.

And FWIW, I think the "slippery slope" argument is complete crap, if that's where you're going.

I think driver’s licenses are a sham and should be eliminated completely. Allow the insurance agencies to create their own assessment scheme for drivers and I’ll just about guarantee that you’d see an improvement on the roads. The idea that possessing a driver’s license somehow proves a person knows how to drive is lunacy. (Not that I'm suggesting you are implying this.)

No. Just, no. You wanna see insurance scams and shady business skyrocket, go ahead and do that. Besides, the advantage of a public system is that the process is open and transparent, and those who write the rules are accountable to people such as you and me.

No it’s not; this is the foundation for my entire argument.

And that is where I think you need to rethink this. EVERY driver is required to take full responsibility for his or her actions behind the wheel, period.

When I come to an intersection with a stop sign, I am required to stop. This creates a de facto right-of-way for the crossing traffic (assuming they do not have a stop sign as well). Therefore, it is implied that the crossing traffic does not need to yield to potential traffic because it is the responsibility of the other drivers to yield. This transfers the responsibility from one driver to another. Obviously it is wise to check all intersections regardless of signs and traffic lights but legally the responsibility is shifted.

Forcing the driver to give up the right of way at a stop sign is not implied; it's point-blank stated in the traffic codes. And again, every driver must assume responsibility for his or her actions.

I recently drove across the country and stopped in many towns I had never been to before. This did not change the fact that each and every town had the same lights and signs which told me that I didn’t have to bother looking for other traffic because they were required to yield to me. Familiarity has nothing to do with it.

Which is a good argument for not having fifty states do fifty different things.

 

[lpast]

No Speed Limit: Two lane road: A vehicle traveling at 50mph... another vehicle comes up behind it traveling at 95mph has to try to slow down because the vehicle traveling at 50 is in his lane......Vehicle traveling at 95 fails to slow down to avoid rear ending vehicle traveling at 50mph...... It MAY be reasonable to assume that guy traveling at 95mph possessed the skill to safety travel on this road at that speed, barring any other vehicles.... however, we don't all get the road to ourselves....

No speed limits are a horrible idea imho....when i lived in jersey the speed limit on all highways was a frustrating 55...they have since raised it to 65 with zero tolerance...meaning at 55 the police gave you a 10 mph pass...now theres no pass....I dont believe there has been any uptick in accidents or mortality rates...althought I am not certain of that...but the increased speed has been for quite some time now.

 

[Caine]

In this case any resulting accident would likely be the fault of the approaching vehicle and financial and civil/criminal responsibility would be placed on that driver. How is this any different than having a 55 mph speed limit and the same scenario occurring?

Without a speed limit, some individuals are encouraged to drive as quickly as they wish, because nobody ever thinks something is going to happen to them!

 

[Kal'Stang]

I would suggest doing away with all speed limits and place the responsibility of safe driving on the drivers rather than society. For the same reason that stop signs and traffic lights make people less safe,

Wait...what? How in the world do stop signs and traffic lights make people less safe? I know you supposedly answered this with the below quote but I'd like a further explanation please.

an artificial and arbitrary speed limit makes people less safe by causing drivers to pay more attention to the quantifier than the qualifier. In other words, a driver places too much attention on what speed he is traveling at rather than focusing on how fast he can safely traverse the roads.

Nonsense. If you can't watch the road and determine when it is safe enough to look at your speed then you shouldn't be driving at all.

Take a look at Montana's short experiment with a "Reasonable & Prudent" speed limit which unfortunately ended due to political pressure.

Not the reason. The reason was that cops were giving out tickets when none should have been giving and not giving tickets when they should have been given. Along with too many deaths due to not having a regulated speed limit. (which by the way blows your argument for not having a speed limit because "people have to pay attention to how safe they can drive and not the speed limit" right out of the water.)

BTW, any good driver will watch how fast they are going and the environment together. Not just one or the other.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I disagree. Every time I travel the interstate to work I utilize my cruise control but constantly have to battle with other drivers who continually vary their speeds. I bet just about everyone has a story about someone who either quickly comes up to their rear bumper and then tailgates or is driving just a bit slower in front of you until you attempt to pass. In my experience cruise control may be a universal feature but is certainly not universally utilized.

When I use the cruise control I don't care how fast or how close the person behind me is/is doing. I set it to the speed limit where applicable. If they hit me then that is due to thier negligance. I have full coverage on my vehicle so if they want to hit me from behind, by all means, go for it. Maybe I'll get a new and better vehicle. As for the people ahead of me, I ALWAYS keep at least two car lengths between me and them...at least 1 semi-truck length between me and a semi. If that means that I have to slow to below the speed limit so be it. And if my slowing down causes the guy behind me to hit me...again, so be it, they shouldn't have been so friggen close.

That's my point. Rather than tell the police that they were enforcing the law in an improper manner (they established a de facto speed limit of 80-90 mph) they struck down the entire law.

Just how are they suppose to tell a cop that what they did is improper without setting some sort of guidelines? The only guide line that is possible with having a stretch of road not having a speed limit is to tell the cop to stop and ticket anyone that is not driving according to road conditions. (which is what Montana did) Because this guideline is dependent on each individual cops point of view there is no wrong or "improper" manner. That cop knows how they drive giving each road condition but that cop does not know how well/bad someone else can drive in those same road conditions...even if that other person is another cop. The only way to get consistency is to set a speed limit. That way we don't have two different cops giving out or not giving out tickets for the same road condition and for two different peoples driving ability where one is better than the other...but the better one gets the ticket and the worse one doesn't get a ticket.

 

[Kal'Stang]

One more thing TNAR. The speed limit also helps reduce wear and tear on roads, which means less money spent on fixing them and refixing them.

 

[Caine]

Wait...what? How in the world do stop signs and traffic lights make people less safe? I know you supposedly answered this with the below quote but I'd like a further explanation please.



Nonsense. If you can't watch the road and determine when it is safe enough to look at your speed then you shouldn't be driving at all.



Not the reason. The reason was that cops were giving out tickets when none should have been giving and not giving tickets when they should have been given. Along with too many deaths due to not having a regulated speed limit. (which by the way blows your argument for not having a speed limit because "people have to pay attention to how safe they can drive and not the speed limit" right out of the water.)

BTW, any good driver will watch how fast they are going and the environment together. Not just one or the other.

Good post.

Being able to safely drive is an pre-adult's first test of being capable of multi-tasking.

 

[Sig]

I think we should significantly raise the fine for blocking the passing lane. These imbeciles who clog up the passing lane and jam everyone up are probably responsible for more highway fatalities than speeders and drunk drivers combined.

If anyone reading this fits the bill: PLEASE MOVE OVER!!! You are creating an extremely hazardous situation by jamming up traffic, especially on roads where the speed limit is 55 or higher.

Just because you think you're "driving fast enough" does not make it okay stay in the passing lane when the driver behind you wants to get by. Let the police enforce the speed limits. It is their job, not yours.