I like to drive fast. I don't think I'm breaking new rhetorical ground to suggest that anyone who likes to drive fast violates the speed limit from time to time. In fact, depending on your predilection for automotive velocity, "from time to time" easily becomes "all the time." There are plenty of ways to justify chronic speeding: posted speed limits are unrealistic (set low to reflect average vehicles' and drivers' capabilities), they're a guideline rather than an absolute indication of safe speed (which don't reflect variable conditions such as weather, road surface, traffic, etc.), they're relatively unimportant (compared to inattentive, reckless or drunk driving) and the vast majority of motorists exceed them anyway. Strangely, the last excuse is the most potent.
It's a bizarre concept for a democratic government: enact and enforce a law which the majority of people don't obey. It gets even stranger when you consider the fact that the majority of citizens support the law that they know they don't obey (hence its creation and continuation). Of course, the speed limit is not the first or best example of this hypocritical happenstance. From 1920 to 1933, America lived under the strictures of the Eighteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. Despite popular support for the "prohibition" against the sale and distribution of alcohol, Americans kept on drinking. In the same sense, American motorists kept driving above 55mph when Richard Nixon's administration used federal highway funds to force the states to adopt a “national” speed limit.
In both cases, arguments for the legislation were logical and coherent. There's no question that alcohol was/is America's most destructive drug, blighting the lives of millions, disrupting our economic efficiency and causing thousands of fatalities. There's also no question that driving 55mph was/is an excellent way to save billions of gallons of imported oil. (I might even spot you the national speed limit's positive effect on highway fatalities– if it were actually true.) But no matter how you slice it, neither law significantly curtailed the proscribed behavior. This made enforcement a horrendously expensive, Sisyphusian task.
One of the key differences between Prohibition and unobserved speed limits is that the latter is self-financing. One wonders if Prohibition might have lasted longer if the government agencies in charge of its enforcement had received the financial fruits of current RICO statutes, which provide for confiscation of criminal assets. In contrast, police who write speeding tickets can use the money to pay for police who write speeding tickets. This being America, it’s not quite that straight forward. Speeding tickets fall under local and state jurisdiction; the revenues generated are often subject to “land grabs” by money hungry local legislators.
In England, it is that simple. The national government has “ring fenced” the money generated by speeding tickets: mandating that local “safety camera partnerships” must spend the revenue from speed enforcement on speed enforcement. This supposedly virtuous circle has led to an explosion of speed cameras, a huge increase in speeding tickets and a very nasty unintended consequence. Just as Prohibition eroded the American public’s respect for law and law enforcement, the United Kingdom’s extremely effective anti-speeding jihad has undermined the public’s respect for the police.
At the risk of alienating road safety-minded readers, many of whom have suffered personal losses from traffic fatalities, the issue of the public’s faith in its police force is far more important than speed-related road safety. When a law criminalizes a behavior practiced by the majority of its citizens, it criminalizes its citizens. When the police rigorously enforce this law, hypocritically enough, the public comes to resent the police. Keep in mind that most people never encounter their police force; speeding tickets written “when I wasn’t really doing anything wrong” do nothing to engender a relationship of mutual respect.
Unlike Prohibition, there is no obvious answer to this state of affairs; you can’t simply “repeal” (i.e. abandon) speed limits. Or can you? If you ask the average Joe if they think police should write speeding tickets only in those situations where a motorist was driving “faster than was safe for the prevailing conditions” you’d have little to no disagreement. That kind of policy would require judicious human enforcement by officers prioritizing road safety, rather than revenue collection. It would be far more expensive that a passive device snapping off tickets to anyone and everyone violating an inflexible, predetermined speed limit.
In the US, the aggressiveness of speed enforcement varies widely. Certain states are now experimenting with speed cameras, blundering straight into the old axiom that those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Meanwhile, the situation in the UK seems to be reaching some sort of breaking point, with anti-speed camera campaigners gaining public sympathy and support. The country is learning that public policy based on moral posturing, rather than common sense and real world behavior, is doomed to failure.
[podcast is with Paul Smith, founder of the UK's Safe Speed ]
We are soon going to have cars with GPS or RFID capability that will only increase the number of tickets and enforcement. wait until they really start monitoring the cars and drivers that way.
Just as we had Al Capone, the Kennedy family, and speakeasies during Prohibition, a new underground cottage industry will arise on methods to circumvent these tactics. Jammers and reflective paint are just the beginning.
Human ingenuity is always smarter than the government. It is only our respect for the law that separates society from anarchy.
By ‘miranda right’ at 12:36 you meant ‘Fifth amendment.’ Miranda just lets you know that you are, in fact, under arrest and that what you say is admissable.
Not that the fifth would apply to these cases in the US anyways…
The problem with the idea of reasonable enforcement is in defining the speed which is “faster than was safe for the prevailing conditions”. Given how notably selective officers are in their enforcement, this is a recipe for a lawsuit alleging arbitrary or racially biased ticketing. In order to escape this liability, enforcement agencies will end up creating guidelines for ticketing that look an awful lot like speed limits.
The issue of highway speed limits needs to be addressed separately from municipal speed limits. The fact that the latter are widely ignored bothers me a lot more than the former. On limited access highways, ingress and egress are strictly controlled and an experienced driver can know the traffic patterns and how fast is safe. Whereas on my morning commute there is a short (not more than 1/4 mile) road through a light industrial / commercial zone where the speed limit is set at 25 MPH, and that is what I drive, despite being passed at least once a week. This road has at least 20 driveways across its stretch and curves such that you really can’t see who might be pulling out ahead of you.
The local village uses this road as a speed trap, and I wholeheartedly support this particular trap. The limit which is set for this particular road can’t just be for a perfectly attentive driver with excellent reaction time and immaculately maintained brakes in perfect weather. It also needs to be set for the late middle age driver with two kids fighting in the back seat in an early ’90s Corolla with dodgy brakes on a cloudy, drizzly day with a coat of leaves on the road.
And that’s not even taking into account the person around the other side of the curve who pulls out a little too fast and hasn’t yet remembered to turn his lights on at night so I can see him or her. No matter how much of a goddamned hurry the idiot behind me is in, I’m not going to speed on this road or any of the residential roads I drive through every day.
“The natural effort of every individual to better his own condition
is so powerful a principle, that it alone, and without any assistance, not only capable of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity, but of surmounting a hundred impertinent obstructions with which the folly of human laws too often incumbers its operations”
–Adam Smith
in “Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations”
“Jammers and reflective paint are just the beginning” FunkyD
I wish it were that easy. Red light cameras in my area use two inductive loops to measure speed (and location). Most highways in the area also use the same sensing system in correlation with traffic cameras to identify areas of congestion. Unfortunately, until cars have somewhere less then 400lbs of ferrous metal, these sensors will be impossible to defeat. It is also a simple matter of adding an additional camera to capture plates and driver pics to these existing loop sensors. Every red light camera could be come a speed-enforcement camera tomorrow with a software update.
Washington DC has implemented a very expansive speed-enforcement system including mobile speed enforcement cameras mounted on trailers or the front of police cars. This makes the “traps” particularly effective at increasing the tax base, I mean catching law-breakers.
I wish there were a way to defeat these systems, but I’m afraid in the end the most effective efforts will be those that focus on electing representatives that think these systems are unconstitutional.
It is a very nice analysis.
Some consider speeding tickets as random road tax. It comes with driving. And it scales nicely with monetary demands of whatever juridiction it falls under. Need more money? Write more tickets. There’s a neverending supply of speeding motorists (and convenient spots to setup speed trap)
All the justification for speed limits are better taken care through other means.
Improve safety? Enfore cell phone ban while driving, re-test everyone on driving ability every ten years, enfore safe driving distances, punish agressive driving, subject vehicles to safety inspections every year after 5 year old.
Improve fuel economy? Increase gas tax, increase gaz guzzler tax (and spread it to ALL vehicles) …
In your article, the best euphemism is this one: “.undermined the public’s respect for the police”. That is a very sweet interpretation of “police are money whores only on the road to rip you off and fill in their quota of tickets for their money humgry employers”. I have the same thought everytime I see them in their usual spot, ready to pounce on unlucky motorists on my freeway commute.
Recently I read a reprinted 1956 (Lincoln) Continental road-test from Chicago to New York on the then-new tollroads and earliest interstates.
Something very illuminating came up while reading it. They were instructed by their editor to NOT exceed the speed limit, which varied from 35 to 65, mostly the latter. The also took notes. Traffic was heavy because the interstate had just opened and it was far faster than two-lane roads.
Twelve vehicles passed them during the journey.
Now, today, it would probably be twelve cars every 15 seconds passing someone actually going the speed limit.
Thus, I have to conclude that it is NOT impossible for Americans to actually obey road rules, it’s just that, apparently, our culture has become so self-centered in the last 1/2 century, that we choose to not obey the rules en masse and look at the few who do as oddballs. And it isn’t just driving I’m writing about here, I might add.
Perhaps the problem could be solved by raising speed limits to more realistic numbers? But then, we’d simply go faster again, right? Right.
How about instructing people to drive properly, and having gradiated driver’s licenses with Learner drivers having 65 mph or 70 mph limits on the roads, and being required to stay out of the fast lane, and yet giving Experienced drivers the right to venture into the fast lane for passing only, and EXPERT drivers having the legal right to go a higher posted limit, and rights to the fast lane any time they wish?
Yeah, I know, dream on.
What will we get instead? Computerized cars which “can not” go over the posted limit and partially take over the driving. That’s my prediction.
I cannot agree more.
It’s funny that you mention RICO, because who is the real racquet here? The speeding tickets that pay for speeding ticket cops!
What’s even scarier is that the government is never asked to empirically justify the speed limits. I think enforcing lane discipline would go a long way.
Re: Red light cameras, the Minnesota Supreme Court declared this summer that they are unconstitutional and ordered all of Minneapolis’ cameras shut down. What a victory! The fact that you were tried, convicted, and fined all at once always bothered me.
Rulings like this always seems strange in a state where you can’t buy a 6 pack of beer after 8pm on a weeknight…
Re: speed, it’s not me that I’m concerned about, it’s the other people on the road. Although I am confident that I can drive my car at the correct speed for conditions at all times, I don’t feel that way about most of the other people on the roads.
I will not feel comfortable with higher speed limits until requirements for driver training, licensing, and car maintenance are made more stringent. I see WAY too many rickety, 10 year old Camcords on the roads piloted by non-English speaking recent immigrants yakking on cell phones. There’s no way you can tell me that is safe!
There needs to be a much higher bar for getting a license…something like a thorough, comprehensive knowledge test of the rules of the roads, a long driving test, and education on the motorist etiquette, defensive driving, and the penalties for breaking the laws. There also needs to be more stringent monitoring of car maintenance…something like the yearly safety inspections that Europeans have to go through to ensure that the vehicle is safe for the road.
I’m all for higher speeds as long as the drivers and their cars are up to snuff. The thought of Billy Joe Bob blasting past me at 100 mph in his rusty, 20 year old Monte Carlo with bald tires is really terrifying…
Robert… may I refer you to example A… Chemical Brothers Block Rockin Beats. Porsche + civil disobedience + speed camera… and some classic electro.
There is
1) Driving too fast, that is, dangerously, and
2) Driving at speeds in excess of posted limits
These are two separate phenomena, yet media and “lawmakers” (aren’t these the hated “politicians?”) use the same word, “Speeding”, to describe both.
I think the cop in the picture would have better luck catching speeders if his attention was focused on vehicles that where not Pinto wagons….
Personally, I am in favor of cameras at stoplights. Pervasive use of cameras does alter motorist behavior.
Speed traps, on the other hand, is like sticking the proverbial finger in the dyke. Motorist slow down for about a mile and then speed right back up to whatever speed they were travelling at to begin with.
In my area, DC, aggressive driving seems to be the bigger problem than speeding alone. The driver who tailgates at 60 mph or weaves in and out of traffic. I’d like to see every driver ticketed for aggressive driving to be forced to go to driving school. Aggressive drivers can cause accidents at any speed.
Thank you Brian E! Your post takes the words right out of my mouth.
In a nutshell, speed limits aren’t just meant to annoy speedy drivers. They’re meant to protect other drivers, such as cars pulling out of a driveway, parking lot, parallel parking spot, etc.
Also, I’m not convinced that having some people driving 65 mph while others are driving at 90 mph makes for a safe scenario. Speed differential between cars can cause hazards. Isn’t that why highways have those “minimum speed limit 45mph” warnings as well as max spped limits?
>>Thus, I have to conclude that it is NOT impossible for Americans to actually obey road rules, it’s just that, apparently, our culture has become so self-centered in the last 1/2 century, that we choose to not obey the rules en masse and look at the few who do as oddballs. And it isn’t just driving I’m writing about here, I might add.
In the last half century, car handling has greatly improved, and the nation’s highways are straighter, smoother, etc. (this year was the 50th anniversary of inauguration of the interstate system), so it is no wonder people drive faster than they did 50 years ago. On this issue at least, flouting the law has to do with speed limits that haven’t kept up with cars and roads.
>>In my area, DC, aggressive driving seems to be the bigger problem than speeding alone. The driver who tailgates at 60 mph or weaves in and out of traffic. I’d like to see every driver ticketed for aggressive driving to be forced to go to driving school. Aggressive drivers can cause accidents at any speed.
Don’t forget passive aggressive driving, which aggravates aggressive driving. Left lane hogs who gratuitously refuse to pull over to the right when someone wants to pass them should be ticketed. I used to live in DC, and more than 20 years ago, there was a flap which made the Washington Post over a Food and Drug Administration employee named Nestor who thought it was his god-given right to drive the speed limit in the left lane. The Wash Post coined the verb, to nestor, for those that hogged the left, but unfortunately, it didn’t stick. Now, of course, as an issue it probably doesn’t even make the Post, and it certainly doesn’t make the Boston Globe.
Those who hate the current state of affairs can join the National Motorists Association (just google it), which lobbies against this sort of nonsense, and helps people fight speeding tickets. (I am a member, but have no pecuniary or employment relationship with NMA.)
One other thing: as traffic becomes ever thicker, forcing people to drive the speed limit would increase traffic jams. The reason: if you drive more slowly from A to B, you occupy the road between those two places for a longer time. If everybody is doing this, there are more cars on that stretch at any given time.
If you are worried about cameras, just take your plates off. I’ve been running around the DC-Maryland area for over a year in a red RX-7 with a single back CA tag, and I haven’t gotten a second glance from the heat. My wife has a red civic with a broken front tag holder, so she only has a back MD tag. She’s never gotten any trouble either. If you are pulled, just have the front tag handy to throw up on the dash real quick.
Glenn,
If someone really was an “EXPERT” driver, they would be the first to acknowledge that going as fast as they felt like in traffic would be a pretty bad idea. The reason: simply that there are other drivers on the road that aren’t expert.
A NASCAR driver can race on a track at 140+ mph confident that the other drivers more or less know what they are doing.
If you ask Jeff Gordon to race against a field of drivers picked from the stands, I guarantee you he will not be doing 140 on the track.
Could JUST ONE state or large police agency point their traffic enforcement resources toward dangerous driving practices that are otherwise ignored?
Ok, you’d have to get DA’s on board. Let the public and the media know.
See what happens to traffic fatalities.
How could this NOT be politically popular?
With today’s electronics, cameras and communcation devices, it’s not rocket science to come up with strategies to record/ticket/prosecute/convict weavers, tailgaters, multiple lane changers and other motoring garbage. You could even do it during rush hour – wait till the driving POS gets off the highway.
Of course, the public may really not want that. 40K deaths and 40K serious maimings per year don’t get much attention. Getting law enforcement and prosecution culture to change may be even tougher.
Unmarked cruisers with a dash camera. Drive around a random pattern for the duration of a shift, and they will witness dozens of examples of brainless driving. Send the tape off to read the license plates and issue tickets, together with video evidence of the offence. Court summons through the mail.
A English historian commented not long ago that the first time the average middle class citizen in England actually had to deal with policemen was when traffic laws came into force in the 1920s. Empirical evidence is overwhelming that red light cameras do not reduce accidents, although they are wondrous for the profits of the private companies that both install and ADMINISTER their operation (and arbitrarily reduce yellow light time to increase the quantity of fines). I have long felt that any law that is routinely ignored by the public is bad law by definition. My guess is that the only reason the state of Washington (notoriously a place of highway patrol speed enforcement enthusiasm) has not already placed speed cameras everywhere is the WSP union…
“Personally, I am in favor of cameras at stoplights. Pervasive use of cameras does alter motorist behavior.”
Stop light cameras increase the chance of being readended by 600%. Those are too set up to increase revenue for the city. From personal experieence, stop light camera are installed with a tweak of the yellow light length to optimize the number of drivers cought with their pants down.
It’s pretty wrong when suddenly your concern is not driving safely but avoiding the camera at all cost.
Drivers who don’t expect the car in front of them to actually stop for a red light aren’t really the fault of the cameras.
I’d say they are a symptom of why the cameras are needed.
Unless, of course, you see nothing wrong with driving through a red light.
In Winnipeg where I live we have had photoradar for about 3 years. They started with red light cameras, and did not tell people that they would also be speed cameras until they were already installed. Whenever I go through an intersection with one of these cameras, if the light is about to turn yellow, I will slam on the breaks. Getting rear ended is better then getting a ticket. Our no fault insurance will blame the other driver who hit me. Their logic is if you rear end someone, you were driving too fast or too close. We also have mobile speed cameras mounted to vans or cars that they park in school zones and other places. Overall I have noticed that drivers have slowed down in the city because of these cameras, however agressive driving has gone way up. Just about the only time you see someone use a turn signal is when it was left on at the factory by mistake.
As for better driver education, this summer we had a police officer hurt or killed (don’t remember which), and a motorist killed when a driver turned left across a four lane main roadway, right in front of a speeding police car (with lights and sirens on) who was responding to an emergency call. Many people do not seem to realize that when you turn across traffic, you do not have the right of way.
Sorry that turned into a bit of a random rant, but the topic of speeding and revenue generating law inforcement really starts to get my blood up if I think about it for awhile.
In protest to a ticket received for travelling 120Km/hr (75mph), a teacher in Toronto got together with a friend and together drove the speed limit (100km/hr) for over 80 km on a two lane highway side-by-side. The line of traffic behind them stretched for over 10 miles.
The traffic jam behind them was enormous and people were doing all sorts of crazy driving to get around the two cars. The two drivers were eventually pulled over and charged with Obstructing the highway and public mischief, the latter crime being a criminal offense. The public mischief charge was eventually dropped, in return for pleading guilty to the obstruction charge. Both drivers wound up with a fine and a siz month license suspension.
Obviously the driver in the left lane was obstructing traffic, but the other driver was in the right lane going the speed limit. The fine for left-lane banditry is $100.
In and around Toronto, the traffic is very heavy during rush-hour, and I have to think that if everyone drove the speedlimit, the traffic would get worse. The “experiment” by the two gentlemen seem to show that anyway.
If you can find a way to get everyone driving 50% faster, then people are on the road for 33% less time, which would reduce the congestion. At least that is how I justify my own chronic speeding. ;)
Sorry, that should read “six month suspension”, not “siz”
Speed traps generate income for the municipality ..period. Speed enforcement rarely makes the roads safer . Just get a ticket in New Jersey where I live and see what your money can buy. The prosecutor for the municipality plays “lets make a deal ” before court begins. If you don’t want the points on your license you pony up a bigger fine . I’ve seen a 78 in a 35 dismissed for reckless driving with a big fine and no points.
Inattentive drivers yapping on their cell phones are a far greater danger to other drivers than someone 15 or 20 miles over the speed limit on a good road in good conditions as are drunk drivers. The trouble is you can’t generate the same income by stopping drunk drivers . You could however solve the budget crises in New Jersey if they put the same effort into fining cell phone users that they use to trap speeders.
I’ve noticed a lot of “Guilt” speed signs being installed around here … they have a speed limit and then flash your speed in big numbers if you’re over it. It seems a lot better at telling me to slow down than if I’m constantly worried that every white car behind me with a ski rack might be a cop and I might have drifted 2mph over a limit that was posted 10 miles back.
Why can’t they add rain and light sensors to these so they could adjust the limit to suit the conditions. If you blow through three and still ignore them, then ticket you. Really smart ones could use RFID tags in your car and adjust accordingly “Bend ahead, normally 35 limit, but recommend 25 in a Lincoln Town Car”, or “Steep uphill and a 70’s Diesel Mercedes ahead, expect delays and reduced visibility”.
If it’s about safety, how come the areas that they give out tickets are the safest places to speed? They don’t give out tickets to people doing 60 in a 40 on a busy bumper-to-bumper highway next to the mall. They don’t give out tickets to people running redlights, driving on the shoulder, making illegal turns, pulling out in front of you when there is plenty of room behind you… but they’ll be happy to give you one for doing 80 in a 70 on a clear sunny day with nobody in front or in back of you for miles.
The worst part about it is that nobody speeds more than law enforcement. Yeah, I’m sure they’re all on a call. A few days ago an officer passed me at what must have been at least 100mph… a few minutes later that $*##*! was on the side of the road with a radar gun sticking out of his door. I felt like calling him in, but I know all that would happen is that they would say “We’ll take care of it (yeah right!)” and keep my information(just in case they need to threaten or harass me). If you’re going to enforce laws for a living, you should abide by them to serve as an example for the rest of us. Who polices the police?
There is also the possible problem with Robert’s premise: a definition of democracy ultimately indistinguishable from mob rule. If two wolves and a sheep disagree on how to spend the afternoon, it’s not really in the sheep’s interest to call for a vote.
Have we simply considered slowing down to avoid tickets? Just because we can drive fast doesn’t mean we should. There are methods to changing the speed limit that I would encourage all of you to pursue. But do you really want everyone going 70 through a zone where there are children. Do you really want folks going even 10 mph faster while cell phones, changing radio stations, sipping that Starbucks (TM), etc. are legal distractions?
Driving isn’t a right…it’s a benefit. Any idiot can breed, vote, and continue to use up air that they really don’t deserve. But to drive, we all take a test and swear to obey the law by signing our license.
Sitting@Home,
What a great idea. Here are a few more warnings they could flash:
· “Woman applying makeup while driving ahead. Use caution.â€
· “Man who thinks he’s a Master of the Universe using cellphone ahead. Just pull over.â€
· “Cop with quota to hit or he won’t get paid. Drive 5 MPH below speed limit.â€
· “Stressed out mom in SUV she can’t handle ahead. Stay away.â€
· “Angry teenager with boner ahead. Watch for frequent lane changing.â€
I’d suggest: “loser who refuses to use turn signal until he’s already making the turn aheadâ€, but that would just flash all day.
JimHinCo, about 6 years ago I got my last speeding ticket for 5 over in a Neon. I almost laughed in the cop’s face, as I was actually trying to get it up a long hill in the middle of nofrickingplace, Michigan and hadn’t seen another car for fully 5 minutes, maybe a skunk or chipmonk.
So he writes me up and I had to pay $75, worry whether I’d have to pay inflated insurance for 3 year (this being my only infraction for oh, maybe 15 years), take time off work and go pay the fine.
So I told the nice lady behind the counter “OK sure, I was going 5 over. Guess what? From here on out? I’ll just drive the speed limit. EVERYWHERE. Hope you’re behind me often.”
By GOD I meant it too. It’s only been in the last 6 months or so that I “allow” myself to go about 3 over.
Guess what? The chronic tailgaters that were there when I went 10 over, are still there and always will be. The lane swappers, cell phone yakkers, people who pull out from side roads without stopping, people who go 42 in the 55 (in the left lane), all of them are still out there. But, by gosh, I don’t have to worry about getting nabbed for 5 over any more, since now the fine is like $200.
So, it is possible to actually drive the limit (exception: when I unfortunately have go to Detroit or Chicago – go with the flow or die).
My wife’s last ticket was when it was SO icy, the cop couldn’t even stand on the road when he stopped. Her car slipped off the road into a ditch in winter, taking our son to a doctor visit. He wrote her a ticket for “leaving the roadway.”
About 2 months later, my buddy saw a cop car (with cop inside) literally 5 feet up in the air on top of a snowbank, NOT on the roadway, with all 4 wheels still turning. He was sorely tempted to call the state police and demand that they come out and give the cop a ticket for “leaving the roadway” but decided the obvious – no point in even trying.
Doesn’t make for a good civilization to have one set of rules for some, and another set for everyone else, does it?
Two things that were mentioned here: one is the state of the cars that are on the roads and the other is the driver’s ability. For ex. Massachusetts has mandatory technical inspections on cars – that could be introduced country-wide. Not making sure that the steering and the brakes work impeccably on every car is a serious hazard to all drivers who are around that unchecked vehicle. Much poorer countries have greater restrictions that the US but there is a caveat: in the US there is NO alternative to driving in most cases. If very poor people are denied the right to have a car (because they could only afford a bad one) what would they do ? Use nonexisting public transport ? Walk 5 miles to the next grocery store ? This question is more complicated in a country build on the premise of a car.
The other thing is also linked to this issue. If driving is a necessity rather than a privilege how can you take away that necessity from people who cannot pass a more stringent driver’s test ? How can you take away driver’s licenses from old people that are not capable of driving safely any more, for example ? (as they do in some countries in the EU). In these countries old people can use public transportation so it is not as harsh thing to do as it is here.
Now if you could get pass these issues, there should be rigorous technical inspection every year or every two years. In some european conutries they do roadside screening for cars with bad brakes or bad steering – which is a serious offense and can lead to revoking of the registration.
About driver’s skills: the possibility of obtaining a DL without going through serious driver’s school that is federally or at least state-level approved and run by professionals is amazing. Bad driving habits just stay in the family because nobody is required to ever go through “real” training. How can you expect people to drive well if you never teach them ? The only place to stop bad drivers then becomes the DL test. My driver’s examination in the US is a telling story about that: the lady said that she does not make me parallel park between two cars because if she would do that to people she would have to write up way too many accident reports. No comment.
Just one more thought: in Germany on the autobahn most people drive 130-140 km/h (80-85 mph) even on no limit sectors, just because of fuel economy and convenience. So it’s not true that people would just drive faster at higher speed limits. Some would – but to have an “autobahn” you would need drivers with good cars and good driving skills (+the concept of a fast lane that they keep free for the few people coming with 250 km/h (155 mph) from behind) – and making sure of these things needs a bit more work in the US.
Cavendel:
Earlier this year, a group of Georgia State students did exactly what you described – they drove the speed limit (55 mph) 4 abreast on I-285 during the morning rush hour in Atlanta. They filmed it, and the film, “A Meditation on the Speed Limit” which was intended as a drama, won best comedy for Georgia at the Campus MovieFest. You can view the film, which includes comments from the students, at
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5366552067462745475
Glenn:
So you admit to breaking the speed limit…something you promised you wouldn’t do by signing your license agreement? What steps have you taken to correct this wrong?
What kind of civilization puts their signature on a form that they actually don’t intend on honoring…and then get upset when folks enforce them on it.
But shrinking for your responsibility because you saw somebody else do it is incredibly naive. I think we all learned that after 6th grade, we are accountable for our own actions regardless of the actions of others.
Did you know that over 50% of folks cheat on their taxes…should we just throw those out the door as well? Guess what the estimated amount is? More than that of the cost of illegal immigrant workers.
But if the majority of the police obey the laws that they do indeed enforce, are we going to still throw out the law for everyone because a select few break it?
Regardless…it doesn’t excuse you from your word. Responsibility starts with ones self.
Civil Obedience of the Speed Limit in Atlanta
Speed limit enforcement on Houston freeways is almost non-existent – and most drive 20 – 30 miles over the speed limit all the time. Speed traps seem to be reserved for easy to target surface roads. The problem is EVERYONE speeds – crap unsafe cars, ratty trucks, overloaded SUVs, ancient rusting rattle-traps – usually tail-gating all the way. It is a safety matter, but it’s also a courtesy matter: people cut others off or “punish†slower drivers by riding their bumpers … it’s like the wild west!
It doesn’t matter how well maintained or fast your car is – congestion and insane drivers have sucked all the fun out of driving. Until there’s some sort of effort at REAL driver training (and grading – “No, you can’t drive well enough to be on the freeway – sorry.â€), it’s only going to get more unpleasant…
I’m no longer as interested in performance (after owning several sports cars – staring with a Lotus Elan), I’m more interested in making the car tolerable to drive in traffic (comfortable, pretty, and nice sound…). The discussion about speed enforcement is moot if you live in a congested area and a default culture of disrespect for other drivers persists.
Sometimes I get to feeling like many drivers do not possess a level of skill or experience which warrants the level of automobile which they wield… err crash…. err drive. I’m slowly working on attaining a racing license, I typically drive like a normal person on my daily commute. I have to remind myself periodically that public roads are just like public places, one must behave in an acceptable manner.
Sure I love going fast, I cant get enough of it… I like it because it elevates the attention requirement and the level of difficulty which makes things more interesting for me. My comfort with speeds north of 100mph leaves me drowsy driving the limit and last I checked thats dangerous. I do my best to keep my speeding within reasonable limitations.
A few months ago a friend of mine lost his license for 30 days because he saw fit to drive well above the posted limit through a highly patrolled segment of road. I knew it was patrolled my V1 told me so, he didnt know and now he’s the worse for it. His choice to speed off ahead of me cost him dearly. Laughably this was on our way back from two days of driving a road course after which I’m always tired and as such I drive with the flow. Its not as if either of us are beginners, the person in question is an advanced group driver…. Just because you have the skill to control a car doesnt mean that you have the right to demonstrate your skills on public roads. Go run around in a crowded mall and see how long it takes for security to stop you.
Ahhh, my favorite topic.
I think what bothers me the most is that speeding tickets are arbitrary (Metro Virginia) and determined by someone whose only qualification is a G.E.D., crewcut and bad ‘Oakley-type’ sunglasses.
If it was really about safety then law enforcement would be working @ our wonderful DMV centers; better educating drivers and safety inspecting any vehicle gettting a new registration.
How many times have you seen the guy pulled over getting the speeding ticket and a half mile up the road is the flat-tire car or radiator-steaming car that really needs help?
I remember in LA the cop cars used to say ‘to protect and serve’. It should have said: ‘to collect revenue and be confrontational’. I have no respect for traffic police and yes I have gotten a few tickets, but not in over 6 years.
what’s up with these people that are like ‘you should just do what your told.’ ??? imagine if you went through your whole life like that. not tearing the tags off matresses, etc. how much does their life suck? sorry, i’m a rebel. this country wasn’t built by people who just do what they’re told. i used to be confident that democracy generally balances itself out – it swings one way, say mccarthyism, then the other, say hippyism… now i’m not so sure as i keep running into these brainwashed zombies that say things like, ‘why should i care if i’m monitored constantly and strip-searched on a regular basis, i’m not doing anything wrong.’ well ok, but i didn’t think that was what our forefathers really had in mind…
I wouldn’t mind paying a speeding fine once in a while if it didn’t also mean that with every ticket I’d be paying an ever increasing insurance premium. What I really care about is the insurance companies’ correlation of speed and road safety. If we can convince them not to equate the two, I’d be a lot happier. How about letting me take a thorough driver certification course every few years and then PAY for a special class of driver’s license that allows me to ignore the posted limits and use my own judgement?
“not tearing the tags off matresses”
This one made me laugh. :) you are allowed to tear the tag off as a consumer after purchase…just not a retailer. :)
The power of our society is that we can change things we don’t like. If you don’t like the speed limit, you have some choises…noone is telling you what to do, you are simply agreeing to a contract when you get a license.
I think what you are describing is anarchy…Deadwood comes to mind. I don’t think that’s a society that many of us would want to live in.
ahh but you do realize that a society where everyone drove 55 is a society NOBODY wants to live in (see various videos linked here). What I’m describing is not anarchy but rather civil disobediance.
You have the power to change the laws…do it!
I’m not saying you “can’t” go 55 in a 20 mph school zone…I’m saying accept the consequences after you told someone you would and were caught lying.
I wouldn’t really care if only one person in my neighborhood littered…or sped…or did drugs. But there is a threshhold at which it gets to be too much. Do I mind paying taxes to support schools in which I have no children? Absolutely not…but that’s based on 2ish kids per household. Bump that up to 5 kids per household…and I’ve reached my limit. A few people going 70 through the construction zone on the interstate…no big deal. 128,000 people…a bit over the limit (and usually at least 2 major accidents per day on each side of the interstate…we average about 2 deaths per month).
Are you saying your 10-15 mph isn’t worth saving 2 lives?
Go educate folks…encourage driving classes, encourage special licenses that allow you to drive in a special lane or at a special speed, built a chip so radar guns can detect that special feature you have.
It’s already been stated that the majority of the folks actually want some set speed limits (even if they break them)…the minority do not.
We aren’t legislating morality here…but safety. Huge difference.
Glenn: in Chicago it’s illegal to be in the left lane and driving slower than the person behind you wants to go. It doesn’t matter how fast that is. You have to pull right or get ticketed.
In practice, the middle two lanes are already going the “reasonable” speed of 10-20 MPH over, and the left lane is going 20-30 or more over. I’ll stay out of the left lane, but the idea of a cop ticketing me because I failed to let some idiot drive 85 MPH (that’s 30 over in the city and the suburbs) is aggrivating. 85 is not safe in this context. Anyone driving that fast is weaving in and out of slower traffic, which isn’t safe for any driver.
Somehow our foreign policy is based around the idea of not appearing to give in to any terrorist demands, ever. If bin Laden appeared on TV and told us to never eat kumquats, the next day Sec. Rice would be on TV giving our her kumquat pie recipe. So why would I get ticketed because some lawbreaker wants to exceed the posted limit by well over 50%?
The fact that I would never resist an arrest comes to mind. It sure is a lot easier to ticket me than the truly dangerous drivers. One wonders how much traffic enforcement is based around that idea. I see people do truly dangerous things right in front of a cop and the cop doesn’t bat an eye, yet ordinary drivers are pulled over every day for 5 over and rolling stops.
Once again, for those who are fed up, I recommend joining National Motorists Association (Google it.), which devotes itself to fighting outdated speed limits, red light cameras (and it’s true that they often reduce the length of the yellow so that they’ll nab more people, that has been documented). We’re never going to change the laws if we don’t become active, or at least support those who do.
“It’s already been stated that the majority of the folks actually want some set speed limits (even if they break them)…the minority do not.”
But if you actually go out and drive, you realize that the minority is obeying the speed limit. So what’s the point?
“We aren’t legislating morality here…but safety. Huge difference. “
Speed limits are not about safety. They are about feel good measure smothered with the illusion of safety. Speed limits are about money, through enforcement.
Did you read the article? Did you read everyone else’s opinion?
>>In practice, the middle two lanes are already going the “reasonable†speed of 10-20 MPH over, and the left lane is going 20-30 or more over. I’ll stay out of the left lane, but the idea of a cop ticketing me because I failed to let some idiot drive 85 MPH (that’s 30 over in the city and the suburbs) is aggrivating. 85 is not safe in this context. Anyone driving that fast is weaving in and out of slower traffic, which isn’t safe for any driver.
You’re bringing up the extreme. Nonetheless, the cops are there to enforce the law, and they should enforce it when the driving is truly dangerous. Block the guy going 85 yourself, and you’re likely to trigger some road rage that could result in a fatality or maiming, whereas the cop will get him over in relative safety. And, for all you know, you may be blocking a physician on their way to an emergency, or some citizen desperate to get somewhere for some good reason (my father driving home at 85mph because my mother thought my toddler sister had swallowed some of her African beads), or someone who’s parent has just had a heart attack.
I always move over when someone comes up behind me as soon as I reasonably can–although as much as possible I stay as far to the right as possible.
You are missing the main story here. An old adage of reporting was to “follow the money” and while you are very correct that these bogus safety programs are actually aimed at raising revenue for the jurisdictions that deploy them, a far more insidious money scheme is underlying the situation.
In most cases the speed cameras and red light cameras are underwritten by insurance companies. When you get the ticket they then have the ability to raise your insurance rates for several years. So they get to raise rates on the same drivers who now are probably driving slower after getting a ticket and even less likely than they were before the ticket to have an accident. Win, win… except for the driver/owner of the vehicle.
Here is how to “fix” this situation, once and for all. But as I said from work (listed as “Glenn”) we can dream about it but it won’t happen. UNLESS 50.1% of the voting population demand it. That us “car guys” (and gals), folks. All of us.
When I lived in the UK, I had to pass their test. I’d already been driving in the US for decades, so had to unlearn all of my old “habits”. I swallowed my pride, and hired a little white haired man with a red Mini Metro, with BSM stickers all over it and a big red “L” front, rear and on a roof placard. BSM = British School of Motoring. L = “Learner Driver”.
Now, driving in the UK is recognized as not a RIGHT but a PRIVILEGE. Fully 56% of those deemed test-worthy by their teachers, fail the first test and in subsequent tests, first time failures fail 70% of the time, time and time again. It’s THAT TOUGH. As it bloody well should be.
The UK has a death rate considerably lower than the US, but they drive faster, far closer (mirror-to-mirror) on thinner roads. The Brits obviously have SOMETHING down pat. It’s the educating and testing, folks.
Therefore, if we were to implement British type driving standards as a requirement for all new drivers, we’d need a lot more busses for a few years because fully 60-70% of the teen drivers wouldn’t be driving. We’d need it for probably 70-80% of the current drivers, who would have a harder time unlearning all the terrible habits they’d engrained into their heads. Yeah, we’d need a LOT more busses, busses where there haven’t been any since the days of the electric trollies.
ThriftyTechie, my whole point behind the idea of having graduated licenses was to ensure that if you did go fast in the fast lane, you were capable. Look at a lot of the other entries here – go drive in any big city – you’ll see rusty wrecks driven by bubba or Ms Bubba, at 85, when none of these cars would even pass a British annual MoT test. Yeah, cars actually have to pass tests as difficult to get through as the UK driver’s test is, after they are only 3 years old. No exceptions, not even for the Laird of the Manor with his Rolls.
Brian, it’s technically illegal in most locales to stay in the “hot” late and force others to go around on the right (even if they ARE speeding).
Finally, JimHinCo. Well, while I appreciated your sarcasm, I actually agree with you that people do sign on the dotted line for their drivers license and are supposed to obey the rules. What is the point in having rules if not to have a good reason behind them, and then agree to do one’s best to obey them? Of course, we can say the same thing about marriage in a church, where people swear to God and man to love, honor and obey until death separates the couple.
My points were hopefully well taken by everyone, and yeah, I did manage to go 3 over the limit tonight on the way home, pal. The point is, there is a difference between my going 3 over and oh, let’s see – how many examples can I give you from the past week?
How about the woman driving a huge SUV talking on the cell phone who nearly drove me off the road? She never even knew I was there. Or the guy who just had to be at the red light in front of me, screamed past me at 20 over, nearly took out my left front fender and slammed on his brakes in front of me? How about the minivan who didn’t bother stopping (coming from a side road on my right), turned left right in front of me? Or the guy coming straight at me at about 85 plus in a 55 zone, as he was passing on a double yellow line – I managed to slam on the brakes and pull over (thankfully we have wide, level gravel ditches on our 2-lane US highway here). Miracles DO happen folks – a cop was behind me, and the cop turned around and went after the bastard.
Yeah, we need better drivers, all right. And yeah, once enough of us get mangled we might even start demanding it of not only ourselves, which some “car guys/gals” already do, but also demanding it of our politicians to set into place and police to properly enforce. Miracles DO happen, but usually we have to make them happen ourselves.
“And, for all you know, you may be blocking a physician on their way to an emergency, or some citizen desperate to get somewhere for some good reason (my father driving home at 85mph because my mother thought my toddler sister had swallowed some of her African beads), or someone who’s parent has just had a heart attack.”
Rationalization is a powerful thing. All of the above are NOT good reasons to be driving 85mph. We have people in our society (EMTs, police officers, firemen) who have sirens to aid in safer expedited driving.
If you’re driving fast without a siren, you’re sneaking up on people without even knowing it.
The one time I nearly ran someone off the road on a highway:
I was driving in the middle lane 70 mph. I glanced in the rear view and side view mirrors and noted that there were no cars close behind. The closest vehicle was a black speck hundreds of yards behind me. In front of me was a car I was closing in on gradually. Probably going about 65 mph. So I signal left, glance in the mirrors again and proceed into the left lane.
Half way into the left lane, I realize there was a car in my blindspot that wasn’t there a few seconds ago and I was running him off the road. I quickly swerved back.
Turns out it was some jackass doing 90 or 95 who had snuck up on me. (Ironically, it was a highway patrol cruiser).
And no, he didn’t give me a ticket. He just moved on. Either he was startled or had sense enough to realize the incident was brought on (partially) by his speeding.
Underlying many of the comments is a misguided belief that driving on public roads should be exciting and that it’s a major achievement to get to work in 20 minutes instead of 25. Talk to a few of the soccer moms and dads just trying to get their precious cargo around town alive, who are tired of being tailgated, cut in front of, and otherwise stressed by fast drivers. If you like to drive fast and furious because it turns you on, lets off steam, or helps you flaunt your Porsche, go to a race track.
In the State of Victoria, Australia, the fixed and mobile speed cameras will fire at 3 km/h over the limit (2 mph).
That’s scarcely the width of the speedometer needle, and is less than the accuracy tolerance required by the Australian Design Rules:
18.5. SPEEDOMETERS AND ODOMETERS (ALL VEHICLES)
18.5.1. Speedometers
18.5.1.1. Unless otherwise ‘Approved’, every vehicle shall be fitted with a speedometer which shall:
18.5.1.1.1. indicate vehicle speed only in kilometres per hour and
18.5.1.1.2. indicate the actual vehicle speed, for all speeds above 40 km/h, to an accuracy of ± 10 percent.”
The road toll has been increasing in Victoria by increments, (from 330 in 2003, 343 in 2004, and 346 in 2005) since this draconian policy has been in place.
This is unfortunately very probably related to people peering down at their speedometer to ensure that Constable Kodak doesn’t get them, rather than watching the road ahead!!
In every country with decent highways I have been to, drivers want to travel at 65-70 mph. For a day-tripping salesman/woman with another 400 miles on the odometer most evenings, that means one hour and fifteen to thirty minutes shorter working day, and probably another half an hour for a evening meal break that he/she rather would have at home with the family.
And the cost and risk associated with the speed increase is insignificant compared to the personal gain. At the end of the week, they have saved a full working day. And a less fatigued driver is safer, right?
It’s amazing that decision-makers in all countries can’t see the pros and cons clearer. The way most important issue is to literally lift the drugged and uncertain drivers off the roads.
Personally, I have never in forty years had any problems with speeders, but everyday problems with slow drivers, unable to notice (or simply couldn’t care less) that they are delaying 25 plus professionals on their way to work (or the delivery to the discount shop to which they are heading). Also, raised speed limits are necessary to legally enable overtaking of these road blocks and smoking trucks. When I step on it, I’m doing 90 when I see the truck driver’s profile. Should I obey the 55 mph limit, and stay in the passing lane for ever? Which is safer? Hey, decision-makers we wan’t to legally drive 70 mph! Why not?
We have a lot of these speed cameras in the Netherlands too. In fact I think we have even more than in the UK per capita and it’s been that way for a long time now.
Initially, the general public got (understandably) quite angry about getting fined 30-50 Euros for driving 2 km/h “too fast” and subsequently, some speed cameras lost their lives in quite horrible ways (foam/shotgun/fire…)
After a while though the public mellowed and for the large part just accepted the fines as yet another extra tax on owning a car (like we haven’t got enough of them already; a standard Jeep Grand Cherokee goes for over 60000 Euros here).
Ultimately, the government even took up a target (literally) of increasing! yearly revenues from fines in the national budget statement, thus acknowledging that it is indeed, just an extra tax measure.
HawaiiJim,
If those “soccer moms and dads” would hang up their cell phones, put away the Blackberries, stop sluping their Starbucks, eat their breakfast before they got in their cars and PAY ATTENTION TO THEIR DRIVING maybe they’d have a better chance of getting “their precious cargo around town alive.”
HawaiiJim: Underlying many of the comments is a misguided belief that driving on public roads should be exciting and that it’s a major achievement to get to work in 20 minutes instead of 25.
The commute doesn’t have to be exciting, but there is no reason it can’t be pleasant and enjoyable.
HawaiiJim: Talk to a few of the soccer moms and dads just trying to get their precious cargo around town alive, who are tired of being tailgated, cut in front of, and otherwise stressed by fast drivers.
I’ll take the “fast” drivers (although 80 mph on a limited access highway is hardly fast), because they are more likely to be paying attention to the task at hand – driving the vehicle.
Maybe if those soccer moms and dads would hang up the phone and concentrate on driving, they wouldn’t be tailgated or cut off by other drivers. Serving as a rolling roadblock hardly contributes to highway safety.
HawaiiJim: If you like to drive fast and furious because it turns you on, lets off steam, or helps you flaunt your Porsche, go to a race track.
Sorry, but 80-85 mph on a limited access highway is hardly “fast and furious.”
The emphasis on better driver “education” and stricter testing is misplaced. Sure such education/testing might weed out the clueless or incompetent, which IMO comprise a small fraction of the driving public. Most people already “know” the basic rules; they just don’t care enough about driving or are just plain selfish (“I’m running late — everyone outta my way!”)
Glenn above mentioned being met head-on by someone who had crossed the double yellow line and was going 85 according to him. Did this driver not “know” this was risky and dangerous? No doubt he did, but HIS time was more important than anyone else’s safety. Would he do the same on a road test with a state trooper riding shotgun?
The comments here are instructive — “educate” drivers to learn the rules, but it’s okay to disobey one of the most basic rules — speed limits, and not by just small amounts.
As for the National Motorists’ Association, they’re basically an anti-scientific organization that would like to take highway safety back to the dark ages of the 1950s when all we did was exhort drivers to behave. Didn’t work then, won’t work now.
This group’s agenda is too refute/repeal any modicum of regulation that would hinder one’s ability to drive as fast as he/she wants. The NMA is against seat belt use laws, motorcycle helmet laws, red light cameras, photo radar, most speed limits (except those set by the fabled 85th percentile), and even the 0.08 drunk driving laws! Any scientifically based study that counters their beliefs is lambasted.
This group may as well be run by shamans and witch doctors, and has a the same philosophy as those wacko conservative groups that want to take the teaching of evolution out of our public schools.
Observations from reality and the posts here:
Cops write tickets to look good to their boss and bring in revenue.
The average American driver probably has no business leaving their driveway.
Driver education is woefully inadequate.
Traffic cams suck.
Virtually everybody speeds.
So what else is new?
It’s a matter of where and when you speed. The cops in my semi-rural town are aggressive. Interestingly, they will generally only ticket for 10+ over, this being a “reasonable and proper” state, so anything under 10 mph over will get tossed if the offender takes it to court. But since the roads are not busy I drive 5 to 8 over the limits, which are mostly about 5 mph low.
Limited access roads are where I do speed, but not as fast as I would like because (a) I don’t want a ticket and (b) because too many drivers out there are on the phone, eating, shaving, having sex, disciplining kids, watching videos, driving erratically, driving a beater, drunk, applying makeup, reading, using their Blackberry, smoking dope… pick any six. Empty road, I do push it, but still not the way I’d like, because if I’m the only car in 50 miles and I make the radar gun say 130 mph I’ll definitely get nailed.
In France a couple years back my family and I were running about 160 kph (100 mph) on an autoroute with a 130 kph limit. We’re in the middle lane, frequently passed by various cars, passing a few as well. Kids are asleep in back. My wife is snoozing in front. Later she said she knew we were going fast, but said it’s not an issue in France. “Everyone is running 140 to 160 kph, no one is weaving, people stay in their lane and actually use their turn signals. Much safer. And the road is much better, too.” This from the woman who tells me to slow down if I go over 75 here in the States.
What cops should be doing is nailing people for bad driving such as weaving or tailgating, but those are harder to define in court, but a radar gun is a lot more objective when writing a ticket or in court. So cops take the easy way out.
Sadly for those of us who feel the need for speed, this is gonna get worse. As population increases there’ll be more cars on the road driven by more poorly trained drivers. And more of those cars will be poorly maintained. Here in the U.S. I think we’ll see increased use of speed cams, first in cities, then we’ll see them like they are in the UK where they can nail you when you’re running 10 over on an empty highway on a clear, dry road.
210delray: As for the National Motorists’ Association, they’re basically an anti-scientific organization that would like to take highway safety back to the dark ages of the 1950s when all we did was exhort drivers to behave. Didn’t work then, won’t work now.
Except that during the 1950s, the number of fatalities per 100 million miles driven was declining. Roads were becoming safer throughout the decade. Whatever was being done on the traffic safety front, must have worked.
210delray: This group’s agenda is too refute/repeal any modicum of regulation that would hinder one’s ability to drive as fast as he/she wants. The NMA is against seat belt use laws, motorcycle helmet laws, red light cameras, photo radar, most speed limits (except those set by the fabled 85th percentile), and even the 0.08 drunk driving laws! Any scientifically based study that counters their beliefs is lambasted.
On seat belt use laws and motorcycle helmet laws, I agree that the NMA is on the wrong side of the issue.
However, red light cameras are intrusive and ultimately counter productive…plus, they increase rear-end collisions at intersections.
Photo radar hardly encourages compliance, as the presence of a police cruiser would. Plus, the police cruiser discourages OTHER bad and/or unsafe behaviors that a mere camera cannot.
As for speed limits – I’ll take a speed limit set by the “fabled” 85th percentile method as opposed to the stupid, ineffective 55 mph speed limit, which has been advocated by such groups as the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS).
Sophisticated, informed drivers ignored it when it was the national speed limit, and they will ignore it if it were to be reinstated.
As for the .08 blood alcohol content standard – there has been considerable debate over its real effectiveness. Even some police officers question the wisdom of charging people with a .08 BAC with drunk driving, as it distracted from the effort to get the really drunk drivers off the road.
In the local paper, every article on a traffic fatality caused by a drunk driver states that the offender’s BAC was well above .10; many times it is at the .20 level! These are hard-core alcoholics; targeting the social drinker is a waste of time.
Incidentally, in a recent article on traffic safety results for 2005, Mr. Lund of IIHS said, “We’ve lost momentum in reducing alcohol-impaired driving…”
Apparently the .08 BAC level isn’t working as hoped, which suggests that NMA and other opponents may have been on to something.
Considering that every state has instituted the .08 BAC (under threat of federal sanction), one wonders what the IIHS sees as the solution. The return of Prohibition?
201delray: This group may as well be run by shamans and witch doctors, and has a the same philosophy as those wacko conservative groups that want to take the teaching of evolution out of our public schools.
Is NMA perfect? No…no group is. But I certainly trust them more on many traffic safety issues than I do some other groups, such as the IIHS, which is still mouthing the “speed kills” baloney, and has its own unique way of bending statistics to “prove” its point.
Case in point: in the same article, Mr. Lund states that one of the causes of higher fatalities is “people are driving a lot faster.”
Except that reading the article further, one discovers that the real causes are the repeal of the motorcycle helmet laws and increased pedestrian deaths, which have nothing to do with driving 80 mph in a car on a limited access highway. Occupant deaths, which do not include motorcyclists, bicyclists and pedestrians, and thus more accurately reflect VEHICLE safety, which would be more impacted by higher speeds on limited access highways, DECLINED in 2005.
Have to agree with HawaiiJim’s comments above. While driving near the limits of the car’s ability can be great fun for a skilled driver, doing so in heavy traffic is just boorish and dangerous. Many people are NOT great drivers, don’t aspire to be great drivers, and just want to get where they’re going with a minimum of stress. I like to drive fast when conditions and traffic warrant, but I have no patience for people who bring their antisocial aggression issues onto the highway. Weaving through traffic at 80-100 mph on bad roads, which I see frequently here in the Northeast, is the equivalent of shoving people out of line at the supermarket waving a loaded gun.
“These are hard-core alcoholics; targeting the social drinker is a waste of time.”
I disagree, the hardcore alchoholics are gonna drive no matter where you set the limit. Its the social drinkers who are gonna be persuaded to not drive tonight coz they’ll get ticketed, penalized, and God knows what else.
I’d be happy to see speed limit laws relaxed, I’d be happy to see seatbelt laws dropped (its a personal choice, I wear mine, but I shouldn’t be legislated into it), but I for one do NOT want to see BAC laws relaxed.
Hell, make ’em harder.
gfen: I disagree, the hardcore alchoholics are gonna drive no matter where you set the limit. Its the social drinkers who are gonna be persuaded to not drive tonight coz they’ll get ticketed, penalized, and God knows what else.
Which is why you don’t want precious police resources out stopping the social drinker…instead, it’s better to have them targeting the drunks who don’t care, and will only stop driving when sitting in a jail cell.
gfen: Hell, make ‘em harder.
So we go back to Prohibition. Sorry, been there, done that, and it failed. People can drive safely after one or two glasses of wine…
tms999:
But if you actually go out and drive, you realize that the minority is obeying the speed limit. So what’s the point?
That we have a way to change the laws so that we don’t break them. The job of the local police force is to enforce the law. Their job isn’t to interpret the law…that’s the judicials and peoples initiative. Again, had this actually been 2 or 3 people in a city, it’s no big deal. But when it’s 70,000 idiots and deaths start happening, the government steps in. Why do so many violators have a victim mentality?
Speed limits are not about safety. They are about feel good measure smothered with the illusion of safety. Speed limits are about money, through enforcement.
That’s an opinion, not a fact. Basic physics shows the more momentum something has, the greater the damage to the objects when that momentum is changed (or stopped) at a rapid pace. Though our cars have become safer for the driver, the dollar amounts on repairs has escalated immensely. Insurance companies (all companies really) exploit those with bad records (even though folks here are claiming speeding tickets are bad at all…they are trophies of our independence and adulthood).
It’s still quoted in any defensive driving and drivers education class as well as your local police department that the number one reason for accidents is driving too fast for the conditions. Those are judgement calls that of course the average person doesn’t have “above average” judgement and abilities…so they make laws for us all to conform to.
Can I drive 20 above the speed limit safely…but society isn’t tailor made to my abilities.
Did you read the article? Did you read everyone else’s opinion?
Yes and yes. Emotional, knee-jerk reactions to a few real life experiences is completely different to statistical data and scientific research…none of which has been referenced in the article nor most folks opinions. I’m seeing lots of conspiracy theories to an amazing privilage we have in the U.S.
Should we challenge the way things have always been? Absolutely.
Should we question why speed limits are set to such a low number? Absolutely.
Should we use that same ability in reading an opinionated article that doesn’t list a single source for his facts? Absolutely.
I suggest you listen to the podcast.
JimHinCo: That’s an opinion, not a fact.
As someone who works in government, I can assure you that it is a fact, when it comes to limited access highways.
Now, in urban and suburban areas – yes, they are set with safety in mind.
JimHinCo: Basic physics shows the more momentum something has, the greater the damage to the objects when that momentum is changed (or stopped) at a rapid pace.
Except that there is no correlation between higher speeds on limited access highways and an increase in either fatalities or accidents.
Physics problems are interesting in the classroom; they do not necessarily correlate to what will happen in the real world – unless people are deliberately running into bridge pillars and trees. In which case the root of their problem isn’t exceeding an arbitrary speed limit.
Except that there is no correlation between higher speeds on limited access highways and an increase in either fatalities or accidents.
Yes, there is, and such studies have been published in respected peer-reviewed journals like Accident Analysis and Prevention. The trouble is that car enthusiasts don’t want to believe it, and readily lap up anything to the contrary spouted by anti-scientific organizations like the National Motorists’ Association and by loudmouths like Brock Yates and Pat Bedard.
The IIHS isn’t advocating a return to 55, only maintaining “reasonable” speed limits. Every state except Hawaii now allows at least 65 mph on its rural interstates or equivalent roads. Once you’re out of the more densely populated northeast, the maximum rises to 70. Cross westward into the plains states and beyond, and it’s mostly 75.
Speed limits on other roads in the midwest, south, and west have risen commensurately as well, to as much as 70 mph on 2-lane roads in Nevada and a few other states.
Certainly these speed limits are high enough as a reasonable compromise between safety and convenience. What’s unreasonable IMO is the degree to which they are flouted, and I don’t mean by 5 or 10 over. This is also the IIHS’s concern.
About the overall highway death rate, expressed in deaths per 100 million vehicle miles — it wasn’t falling just in the 50s; it’s been falling since records were kept, starting back in the 20s. So the sloganeering and “national days of prayer” to inspire safer driving didn’t cause the drop during the 50s (or in any other time period).
Sadly though, the absolute number of highway deaths remains about the same as it was in the 50s and early 60s (though not as high as in the late 60s, early 70s, and much of the 80s).
We’ve still got a lot of work to do.
210delray: Yes, there is, and such studies have been published in respected peer-reviewed journals like Accident Analysis and Prevention. The trouble is that car enthusiasts don’t want to believe it, and readily lap up anything to the contrary spouted by anti-scientific organizations like the National Motorists’ Association and by loudmouths like Brock Yates and Pat Bedard.
I’ve seen enough tortured statistics in “peer reviewed” work that was hailed as fact to be suspicious. If speed were such a factor in fatalities, it would have wiped out all other efforts by now, considering how many more vehicles are traveling faster than ever.
210delray: The IIHS isn’t advocating a return to 55, only maintaining “reasonable†speed limits. Every state except Hawaii now allows at least 65 mph on its rural interstates or equivalent roads. Once you’re out of the more densely populated northeast, the maximum rises to 70. Cross westward into the plains states and beyond, and it’s mostly 75.
I’ve seen plenty of IIHS statements where the spokesperson – I believe it is Mr. Lund – laments the elimination of the 55 mph speed limit. Maybe the organization has recently changed its tune – good for the IIHS, I’m happy to welcome it to the 1990s, now maybe it can join the 21st century when it comes to speed limits.
For the record, I applaud IIHS’s work on improving crash safety. The organization has done a lot of good work to raise awareness in this area, and drive improvements in vehicle design and crashworthiness.
And I agree with mandatory seat belt laws and mandatory helmet laws for motorcyclists. And I favor speed limits in urban and suburban areas. So I’m not against all safety measures…I just support rules and regulations that actually IMPROVE safety.
210delray: Certainly these speed limits are high enough as a reasonable compromise between safety and convenience. What’s unreasonable IMO is the degree to which they are flouted, and I don’t mean by 5 or 10 over. This is also the IIHS’s concern.
I’ve driven out west. Sorry, but 90 mph on an interstate highway in Wyoming or Montana is hardly a big deal. Even here in the east, 80 mph on certain limited access roads is not a big deal.
210delray: About the overall highway death rate, expressed in deaths per 100 million vehicle miles — it wasn’t falling just in the 50s; it’s been falling since records were kept, starting back in the 20s. So the sloganeering and “national days of prayer†to inspire safer driving didn’t cause the drop during the 50s (or in any other time period).
Considering that, in the 1950s, more cars were being driven faster than ever before when compared to the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, and automobile safety features and road design fell somewhere between “rudimentary” and “nonexistent”, I’d say that falling fatality rates disprove the “speed kills” thesis.
(The Pennsylvania Turnpike was the country’s first significant limited access highway, and it was not built until 1940, and that initial stretch only ran from Irwin, Pa., to Carlisle, Pa. So it couldn’t have impacted national safety statistics. The Interstate Highway bill was not signed until 1956, so there weren’t enough limited access roads in the 1950s to really influence statistics.)
In a prior post, you called the 1950s “the dark ages” of safety efforts…which is why I focused on the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles driven during that decade.
210delray: Sadly though, the absolute number of highway deaths remains about the same as it was in the 50s and early 60s (though not as high as in the late 60s, early 70s, and much of the 80s).
We’ve still got a lot of work to do.
Yes, but we’re driving more miles than ever before, there are more vehicles on the road than ever before, so the risk is lower.
And while there are certainly more work to do, penalizing everyone who exceeds an arbitrarily set limit in a limited access highway is not the way to do…unless the more “work” to do really is synonomous with “raising more revenue” or “increasing public cynicism of law enforcement.”
geeber:
As someone who works in government, I can assure you that it is a fact, when it comes to limited access highways.
Now, in urban and suburban areas – yes, they are set with safety in mind.
Federal, state or city/county? I’ve reviewed the ticket revenue here in Colorado and Colorado Springs. The majority of tickets are indeed in these urban and suburban areas…about 1/6th or 1/7th of all generated revenue goes to law enforcement, the rest is to the city, county or state. Folks have been unable, as of yet, to prove any influence from the State or City that police have ticket quotas, that they are pressured into generating revenue for the state, etc.
Again, you have the power to change the laws in this great country…what steps have you taken? Knowing that the law applies to everyone, not just drivers who are more talented than others and superior vehicles, do we really, really want an unlimited driving speed on the interstate? Sincerely?
JimHinCo: I’ve reviewed the ticket revenue here in Colorado and Colorado Springs. The majority of tickets are indeed in these urban and suburban areas…about 1/6th or 1/7th of all generated revenue goes to law enforcement, the rest is to the city, county or state. Folks have been unable, as of yet, to prove any influence from the State or City that police have ticket quotas, that they are pressured into generating revenue for the state, etc.
I already said that speed limits in urban and suburban areas are set more with safety in mind.
Plus, you are mixing apples and oranges. A speed limit can be reasonable, and there can still be pressure on law enforcement to write more tickets to raise more revenue.
If this is the way it is in Colorado – I’m glad. That is not necessarily the way it is in other states and localities.
JimHinCo: Again, you have the power to change the laws in this great country…what steps have you taken? Knowing that the law applies to everyone, not just drivers who are more talented than others and superior vehicles, do we really, really want an unlimited driving speed on the interstate? Sincerely?
Come here to the East…people are already driving 80 mph on limited access highways in more rural areas. The minimum speed really is 70 mph, even with a 65 mph speed limit. People are voting with their right foot…and we aren’t experiencing automotive Armageddon. And the “reasonable but prudent” speed limit in Montana did not increase fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles driven.
I came up with an idea that started as a joke, but the more I think about it the more I like it. Stay with me here. Whenever the technology is available, give every driver during a 24 hour period the ability to alter the power delivery in other cars 10 times: 5 increases and 5 decreases, 10% each time. So, a mom in an SUV is on her cell phone and swerves in front of you, you zap her ECU and her power is cut by 10%. A nut job is veering dangerously through traffic on a highway at 95 mph, maybe 10 people zap him and he’s on the side of the road for a “time out”. Someone yields to allow you to merge, you increase his power by 10% (maybe to help him get back to full power after cutting someone off earlier). Oh, and one driver can’t zap another driver more than a single 10% shot, so it’s a consensus thing. This is either the dumbest idea ever, or sheer genius, I can’t tell.
Anyhow, inattentiveness is the #1 driving safety issue. Driving is the one area where we can easily kill someone by accident just going about our business. But most drivers don’t act like they’re engaged in a dangerous activity. People generally don’t know the rules of the road either. That matters when there’s more traffic on our roads than said roads were designed to handle. For example, how many times do you see a group of 20 cars driving in a NASCAR restrictor plate racing pack on an otherwise sparsely travelled highway? Ridiculous.
Speed Limit Fun And Games
Recently my fiancee’s daughter was weaping and wailing about her tickets exceeding 35 mph. I told her to shut up, and said I drive faster and farther then anyone else I know, and have not had a ticket in more then 150,000 miles, and never had an accident at greater then parking lot speeds (last one 1974). In the last month alone I have twice hit the speed limiter on my supercharged Lincoln Mark VII.
IMHO, the number of speeding tickets you get and accidents you suffer is directly proportional to your inattentiveness behind the wheel. If you pay attention to DRIVING you will not have accidents OR tickets.