Should speed limits be raised or eliminated in certain areas?

[Rick17]

First off I'm going to say sorry if this is the wrong section. It seemed like the most logical section to me since it involves police, giving out tickets, etc.

Whats are some pros of raising or eliminating speeds limits on highways? Getting rid of them as a whole is just plain stupid because nobody should be flying through a town going 60. I find that they should stay the same for towns, cities, and really any urban areas. I think some reasons why they should be raised or somewhat eliminated on highways and freeways is because a crash at 60 is going to be the same as a crash going 100 in most ways. Another is cops already allow excess speed limits of 1-10 mph above the speed limit. That does depend on the officer however. My neighbor is a county policeman and he says as long as they are under 5-10 he is fine with it depending on the area. So there is no real reason to restrict people to a speed limit when a lot of cops will let them go anyways. Also its good to remember slow traffic to the right

What are some pros of raising speed limits if you on the pro side of course?

 

[jamesrage]

I think the speed limits are fine as they are. A lot of people already speed 5-10 miles above the speed limit.Some ass wipes speed more than 10 miles over the limit. Raising the speed limit means that these same **** suckers who think the words " speed limit" is somehow synonymous with the words "speed suggestion" would be speeding 5-10 miles over the limit and sometimes more than 10 miles over the speed limit, which puts everyone in more danger.

 

[ChuckBerry]

Only roads that are meticulously maintained could go without a speed limit. Sadly, the state of infrastructure here in the U.S. precludes an autobahn-style roadway...if some enterprising company wanted to invest a few billion dollars in keeping a few hundred miles of selected corridors between major cities scrupulously maintained and charge a toll for the privilege of hauling ass, it might work.

Segments between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, San Francisco and San Diego would be naturals for this sort of infrastructure.

 

[TNAR]

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, 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.

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

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Only roads that are meticulously maintained could go without a speed limit. Sadly, the state of infrastructure here in the U.S. precludes an autobahn-style roadway...if some enterprising company wanted to invest a few billion dollars in keeping a few hundred miles of selected corridors between major cities scrupulously maintained and charge a toll for the privilege of hauling ass, it might work.

Segments between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, San Francisco and San Diego would be naturals for this sort of infrastructure.

Yes - maintenance . . . but also the basics of road construction and design as well as gradient, degree of turn - etc. The Autobahn, for example, is designed to drive fast on - it has low gradients, gradual curves and is well built - thus eliminating many road hazards.

In my state - in some areas 70 is too damn high and the speed is down to 60 or lower.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

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.

The age of nearly-universal cruise control makes this assertion somewhat ridiculous.

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

No, it ended due to a state supreme court ruling that basically said the state could not cite drivers for speeding at any velocity because of the vagueness of the "reasonable and prudent" instruction. This left the state unable to enforce any speed limit and some moron could zip down the interstate at 200mph in his Bugatti Veyron and blow by a Yamaha touring cycle going a third that. Think that bike's going to stay vertical after that?

 

[TNAR]

The age of nearly-universal cruise control makes this assertion somewhat ridiculous.

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.

Regardless, the cruise control is set on an arbitrary speed set by a political group and engrained on a sign for all to obey. This has absolutely nothing to do with safety.

No, it ended due to a state supreme court ruling that basically said the state could not cite drivers for speeding at any velocity because of the vagueness of the "reasonable and prudent" instruction.

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.

 

[Caine]

Im on my phone.. so im not going to make a long post just yet....

However, I suggest you all interested in this debate go learn the statistics of SPEED and its relation to FATALITIES.

The poster that suggested no difference between a crash at 60 and one at 100 should take special note..

 

[radcen]

Location, road condition, and design speed criteria should be factors. Places like I-5 between the Grapevine and Tracy would be a perfect place to increase speeds to 80mph+/-. Same with I-20 in western Texas, places in Montana, and so on.

 

[TNAR]

Again, don't confuse a numerical speed with a qualitative speed.

A single stretch of highway might be safe to travel at 100 mph in certain vehicles at certain times of day in certain environmental conditions. The same stretch of road may be only safe at 35 mph in the same vehicles at different times of day or conditions. Et cetera.

The key with this discussion is what is safe for what vehicle and what driver in what conditions? It is impossible to determine this beforehand and post a single safe speed for all drivers in all conditions. Is this difficult to see? Am I wrong somehow?

 

[radcen]

No, it ended due to a state supreme court ruling that basically said the state could not cite drivers for speeding at any velocity because of the vagueness of the "reasonable and prudent" instruction. This left the state unable to enforce any speed limit and some moron could zip down the interstate at 200mph in his Bugatti Veyron and blow by a Yamaha touring cycle going a third that. Think that bike's going to stay vertical after that?

Devil's Advocate...

How is having no speed limit, and it's presumed vagueness, any different from allowing a police officer to use their individual judgment during adverse weather conditions?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Devil's Advocate...

How is having no speed limit, and it's presumed vagueness, any different from allowing a police officer to use their individual judgment during adverse weather conditions?

It's not.

(satisfying the ten character posting minimum...)

 

[jamesrage]

Location, road condition, and design speed criteria should be factors. Places like I-5 between the Grapevine and Tracy would be a perfect place to increase speeds to 80mph+/-. Same with I-20 in western Texas, places in Montana, and so on.

And you will have people doing 90MPH,95MPH,100MPH or more because it would only be 5-15 miles over the speed limit.

 

[radcen]

And you will have people doing 90MPH,95MPH,100MPH or more because it would only be 5-15 miles over the speed limit.

They already do.

 

[HonestJoe]

I think some reasons why they should be raised or somewhat eliminated on highways and freeways is because a crash at 60 is going to be the same as a crash going 100 in most ways.

That is a rediculous statement, especially when you consider the possibility of head-on collisions. Speed itself doesn't cause a lot of accidents but high closing speed will significantly affect the risks of more serious injury and death.

Another factor is the variation between different vehicles. Regardless of the limit (or lack of one), many vehicles are restricted (legally or practically) to comparatively lower speeds. While speed itself isn't a major cause of crashes, speed differential is (indeed, many highway crashes will boil down to a faster vehicle hitting a slower one from behind). Increasing the speed limit and thus the speed of the faster vehicles also increases the differential.

Another is cops already allow excess speed limits of 1-10 mph above the speed limit.

When speed limits became common place, measuring speed wasn't especially accurate. The first tradition of the leaway was to account for the inaccuracy of speedometers and the inability of police to acuratly determine a vehicles speed. These issues are much reduced these days.

Unfortunatly, the habit remains and speed limits are generally treated by most drivers as speed targets. My opinion is that the actual limit on many roads could be higher but if they were raised, I would also want them treated as a true limit - otherwise, everyone (who can) just drives a little faster. Drivers should be aiming to remain below the number on the signs rather than aiming to match it.

 

[WI Crippler]

I think we should raise or eliminate speed limits around failing public schools.

 

[TNAR]

Speed itself doesn't cause a lot of accidents but high closing speed will significantly affect the risks of more serious injury and death.

When seat belts became standard in every vehicle and mandatory for all passengers an interesting phenomenon occurred. While the number of fatal and serious injuries per accident decreased, the total number of accidents actually increased. The most plausible theory is that drivers feel safer due to the increased presence of mandatory safety devices and therefore drive beyond the limits of reasonable safety (or in other words they drive faster than they otherwise would have). In economics we call this an unintended consequence.

Drivers should be aiming to remain below the number on the signs rather than aiming to match it.

I disagree. Drivers should be focusing on the road and potential hazards; not their speedometer.

 

[American]

Im on my phone.. so im not going to make a long post just yet....

However, I suggest you all interested in this debate go learn the statistics of SPEED and its relation to FATALITIES.

The poster that suggested no difference between a crash at 60 and one at 100 should take special note..

In that case let's have 20 mph as our speed limit; it's safer than 60 mph. Frankly I thought they did raise the speed limits everywhere, when the national speed limit was removed.

 

[American]

When seat belts became standard in every vehicle and mandatory for all passengers an interesting phenomenon occurred. While the number of fatal and serious injuries per accident decreased, the total number of accidents actually increased. The most plausible theory is that drivers feel safer due to the increased presence of mandatory safety devices and therefore drive beyond the limits of reasonable safety (or in other words they drive faster than they otherwise would have). In economics we call this an unintended consequence.



I disagree. Drivers should be focusing on the road and potential hazards; not their speedometer.

Got any data?

 

[Ikari]

In that case let's have 20 mph as our speed limit; it's safer than 60 mph. Frankly I thought they did raise the speed limits everywhere, when the national speed limit was removed.

Much safer AND saves a ton of gas.

 

[TNAR]

Got any data?

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

 

[HonestJoe]

When seat belts became standard in every vehicle and mandatory for all passengers an interesting phenomenon occurred. While the number of fatal and serious injuries per accident decreased, the total number of accidents actually increased.

I had heard of that. I think it just goes to show how easily our judgement can be subconsciously affected so we shouldn't rely on it exclusively regarding issues of safety.

I disagree. Drivers should be focusing on the road and potential hazards; not their speedometer.

Oh please! That oft-repeated trash really bugs me. Absolutely nobody is talking about focusing on your speedometer. If you're incapable of maintaining a relatively consistent speed (whatever that is) on an open road, you should be at the wheel at all. The natural variation in speed (because it would be too stupid to even suggest just focusing on your speedo - oh wait...) is exactly why there should be a limit that drivers aim to remain under rather than a target they aim to stick to.

For the vast majority of offenders, speeding has nothing to do with inability and everything to do with arrogance. Laws that get in their way apparently don't really count.

 

[TNAR]

I had heard of that. I think it just goes to show how easily our judgement can be subconsciously affected so we shouldn't rely on it exclusively regarding issues of safety.

I don't put a whole lot of emphasis on these particular items because I don't think they really make much of a difference in our actions but the same logic holds true for other issues of safety. For instance, there are tons of studies on the negative effects of stop signs and traffic lights. While the purpose of a stop sign or traffic light is to restrict certain flows of traffic in order to make intersections more safe, the implication is that certain flows of traffic have the right-of-way. On the surface this doesn't seem like a bad idea but it removes the responsibility for safety from the involved drivers. The vast majority of drivers don't bother to take a second look if they see a green light at their intersection because it is implied that all other traffic is required to stop. Unfortunately, many drivers don't pay attention or are in a hurry or for any number of reasons run the red light or stop sign. This actually creates accidents which could have been avoided if none of the drivers were given the implicit right-of-way. 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.

Absolutely nobody is talking about focusing on your speedometer. If you're incapable of maintaining a relatively consistent speed ... The natural variation in speed ...

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. How does this action encourage safe driving? I have been through many traffic jams which were caused by this sort of scenario and I'm sure accidents have been caused by it.

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

Safety and speed limits have nothing in common. 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. 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. Laws do not create road safety. Attentive and responsible drivers create road safety.

 

[InTraining]

Speed limits are a concrete reason police can use to stop cars. Aggressive driving is subject to interpretation, and happen in short bursts, that the police has to be at the right place at the right time. Speed limits are a bad proxy for aggressive driving, but it may be as good as we got.

 

[Phys251]

I think there needs to be a serious review of speed limits nationwide. First of all, according to a study done a few years ago, raising or lowering speed limits has a surprisingly small effect on the average driver's speed. (I can personally attest to this, watching how little the average speed changes between 55-65 zones, or 45-35 zones, etc.) Second, an old study concluded that it is speed variance, not speed itself, that causes wrecks; this study has been disliked by some but has generally been upheld in recent years. Speed itself, however, is the major factor in fatalities per wreck.

IMO, we need to revisit minimum speeds, particularly on freeways. The 40- and 45-mph minimum speeds on 70-mph rural interstates are a joke. They should be more like 60, in ideal conditions--daytime, no rain or fog, no traffic jams, no hazards, etc. And on both rural and urban roads that are 4+ lanes, enforce the passing lane as the PASSING lane, by equating the minimum and maximum speed (giving a +/- 5 mph tolerance on either side of the target speed) during ideal conditions.

That's on the enforcement side. We, the drivers, need to make some changes as well.

First of all, driving is not a right. It is a privilege. It's been so ingrained in us as being somehow deserved that we think no matter what we do, as long as we don't get in a wreck, we deserve to drive. We should get over that. Just like when we're playing a sport, if we commit a foul, we can be penalized. That's how it works. People who get tickets legitimately--which I think describes the overwhelming majority of tickets--should suck it up and pay the fine. I am so sick of hearing these stories about fighting a ticket in court. YOU made the decision to speed or whatever else, YOU deserve what you got. Stop looking for sympathy already.

Second, I'm a big fan of insurance agencies giving discounts to those who periodically take renewal defensive driving courses. Just like periodic training for current employees of an organization, these courses can brush up on skills and knowledge that may have fallen by the wayside. And doing that is a good thing for everyone.

Third, driver's license tests should be MUCH tougher, and everyone who wants to renew their license should have to take one. And make the passing threshold like 95% or something. If I only know what 80% of the traffic signs mean, that's good enough to drive? Hell no it's not.