raise highway and interstate speedlimits 10 MPH

[Sean]

With all the technological advancements in safety and engineering and multiple stability systems on almost every decent car, why don't they raise the speedlimits on highways and interstates just 10 MPH?
I can't imagine it would be much more dangerous than the current speeds and I know that all the bits and pieces of a modern car can handle that speed
make it a left lane only speed, whatever, but make it so I can get there faster legally


what does everyone think?

[Raza]

10mph isn't enough. 

[James Young]

. . .why don't they raise the speedlimits on highways and interstates just 10 MPH?

The answer is political inertia.  The state legislators who set the limits are so afraid of raising them to the recommended levels and then having something happen for which they would be blamed, that they do nothing.  This is exacerbated by those with a political and/or financial stake in low limits and who actively lobby for lower limits under the auspices of public safety.

I can't imagine it would be much more dangerous than the current speeds and I know that all the bits and pieces of a modern car can handle that speeds everyone think?

It wouldn?t be more dangerous to raise limits to the speeds that motorists are already driving but it would eliminate most ?speeding.?

[Sean]

10mph isn't enough. 

this is true, but it's a start



I think this blame game people play is BS, just plain fresh smelly steaming BULLSHIT

[GoCougs]

One must first devise the justification to offset the costs of doing so. I really can't see the balance - and in reality, I don't want to be out on the highway with the average American driver doing 85-90 mph in any car, let alone big rigs.

[the Teuton]

I was going 70-100 mph last night.  I would feel scared as hell if I weren't doing that in the left lane and other drivers were doing it as well.  Some highways are just too narrow to have 75 mph speed limits, and I don't trust the reaction times of most drivers.  It would be suicide.

[Eye of the Tiger]

I was going 70-100 mph last night.  I would feel scared as hell if I weren't doing that in the left lane and other drivers were doing it as well.  Some highways are just too narrow to have 75 mph speed limits, and I don't trust the reaction times of most drivers.  It would be suicide.

If people don't have good enough reaction times to travel 75mph on any interstate, they need their licenses removed - or given a special license that only allows them to drive on surface streets at under 50mph. We need a more graduated licensing system with much more extensive training...
like in driver's ed, they tell you "steer into the skid", then toss you out on public roads expecting you to be able to do it, even though you have never practiced it. It's complete bullshit.

[the Teuton]

If people don't have good enough reaction times to travel 75mph on any interstate, they need their licenses removed - or given a special license that only allows them to drive on surface streets at under 50mph.

I think we need stricter license testing -- nationally -- and re-revaluations every 5 years.  If they did that, I would be all for faster speeds.  Right now, though, no.  Just no.

[GoCougs]

I don't think that graduated licensing would work. Again, the justification for the cost of setting up such a system isn't there; many/most US interstates simply aren't built for big speed differentials; slower drivers must be as mindful, or moreso, as fast driver in terms of lane discipline, merging, etc.

[Eye of the Tiger]

I don't think that graduated licensing would work. Again, the justification for the cost of setting up such a system isn't there; many/most US interstates simply aren't built for big speed differentials; slower drivers must be as mindful, or moreso, as fast driver in terms of lane discipline, merging, etc.

Driving on slower streets does require the same reflexes as drving on highways, but the consequences of screwing up are not as bad. The justification for the cost of improving the system will NEVER be there with the fucked up system we have now, but it would definately work if given a chance.

[James Young]

One must first devise the justification to offset the costs of doing so.

The ?justification? is that the costs of raising speed limits to scientifically-determined levels is negative; that is, we actually gain by recognizing legally what drivers are already doing.  The cost to the state would, of course, be the opportunity cost of lost speeding revenue but that would be a net gain to drivers.

I really can't see the balance - and in reality, I don't want to be out on the highway with the average American driver doing 85-90 mph in any car, let alone big rigs.

Balance of what?  That doesn?t make any sense at all.  And I don?t want you out on the highway either.  However, those ?average American drivers? already have an exemplary record.  Further, big rigs won?t be running 90 mph except perhaps through parts of the deserted West where some of them already run 90 mph.  Keep your straw man to yourself.

[Raza]

One must first devise the justification to offset the costs of doing so. I really can't see the balance - and in reality, I don't want to be out on the highway with the average American driver doing 85-90 mph in any car, let alone big rigs.

Then I'd stay away from highways altogether.  People are doing that already.

[ifcar]

It's much easier to drive a car fast than to be able to react to an emergency situation while driving that fast.

Also, it's much easier to leave speed limits relatively unenforced without going through political fighting.

[Eye of the Tiger]

It's much easier to drive a car fast than to be able to react to an emergency situation while driving that fast.

Also, it's much easier to leave speed limits relatively unenforced without going through political fighting.

There wouldn't be as many "emergency situations" if it wasn't such a clusterfuck of undisciplined and unorganized traffic.

Enforcement of laws should be consistent, rather than selective like it is now. I have little respect for a law that is only enforced selectively, because that just means it isn't important.

[GoCougs]

I think you guys should be putting efforts into maintaining the status quo - ever increasing statism IMO points to lower speed limits, if anything (the most recent statist sword being global warming, added to the already existing statist stilletos that are ever-increasing penalties and electronic enforcement).

[Eye of the Tiger]

I think you guys should be putting efforts into maintaining the status quo - ever increasing statism IMO points to lower speed limits, if anything (the most recent statist sword being global warming, added to the already existing statist stilletos that are ever-increasing penalties and electronic enforcement).

If that happens, I'm moving to Mexico.

[dazzleman]

You guys should love this column, written by a typical liberal newspaper columnist.  Of course, he makes no mention in his column of left lane blockers.

_______________________________________________________________

http://www.connpost.com/kendixon/ci_8012530

Each stopped driver makes road that much safer
KEN DIXON Kdixon@ctpost.com
Article Last Updated: 01/18/2008 09:45:47 PM EST


My idea of a happy morning commute consists of one or two things. It's immediately a good day if I pass a truck stopped on the highway shoulder by a State Police trooper in the midst of writing a nice, fat ticket.
All those tractor-trailer rollovers during Interstate 95 rush-hour commutes are never, ever, caused by trucks operating at the 55-miles-per hour speed limit.

A superb morning, upon which the sun shines through cloud cover, is the occasional day when some idiot passes me on the parkway at about 80 miles per hour and I see him ? it's almost always a man ? stopped around the next curve by an unmarked state police cruiser.

I can never figure out why someone would be in a hurry to go to work. Another theory of mine is that the amount of time aggressive drivers save while terrorizing those of us who merely exceed the speed limit by 5 miles per hour is lost in their eventual, inevitable emergency room visit and hospitalization after a collision.

They're collisions, not accidents.

It's not an accident when an idiot weaving in and out of traffic sideswipes someone on Route 8 or an aggressive driver cuts off another vehicle on the Merritt Parkway and causes it to flip.

An accident is when a tree keels over in a high breeze onto the roadway and a car crashes into it.

The very best kind of morning commute occurred last week, when not one but three speeding idiots were pulled over, in a row, by unmarked state police cars on the parkway. I saluted the law-enforcement scene. Then, a half hour later, I called State Police Lt. J. Paul Vance to see if the action was a vestige of the speeding and aggressive driving crackdown that the state Department of Transportation funded last month and into the New Year.

Vance wasn't sure whether the DOT money was still there last week, or if it had been used up, but the undercover units remain active.

Just during the New Year's holiday weekend there were nearly 300 accidents, 39 with injuries, 61 DUI arrests, 808 speeding arrests, 136 seat belt violations and 855 hazardous-moving arrests, state police reported.

"The program through and over the holidays was extremely successful from the arrest standpoint," Vance said over the phone last week. "We have an aggressive-driving unit within the traffic squad and what we've done focuses on that type of behavior."

These troopers blend into traffic and observe violations and dangerous drivers in their natural habitat, as opposed to setting up speed traps. Vance said the daily summonses are significant.

"Utilizing this approach, we think has a positive impact in addressing the aggressive-driver issue," Vance said.

Another new twist in the realm of nonviolent highway retribution is also available.

If you're tired of being bullied, intimidated and pushed around on state highways, take heart, because you or your vehicular companion can use cell-phone technology to call down the state police on drivers who may be threatening you.

Wherever you are, you can just call 911 and the connection rolls to the nearest state police barracks.

If you can identify the aggressive vehicle, include its marker number, location and direction. Chances are the barracks can dispatch vehicles to witness and intercept the offender.

"The classic at night is the high-beams push and tailgating to intimidate," Vance said, adding that while each investigation is different and according to a trooper's individual observations, charges can rise from speeding to reckless driving, requiring a court appearance to answer a Class A misdemeanor.

Reckless driving can mean higher insurance premiums, fines, multiple court appearance and even prison for the self-involved rolling road hazards. That's the kind of negative reinforcement these dangerous drivers deserve.

Even if you're alone while calling on a hand-held phone, you won't violate the face of the law because police can view it as an emergency that's allowed under the law against drivers using hand-helds. "Ideally, get the license-plate number if you can see and a description of the car," Vance said. "Call us and tell us about hazardous moving violations and we can put a trooper in position on an exit or entrance ramp or overpass."

With a cell phone, it's never been easier to protect yourself from aggressive drivers. And if more safe drivers take action, maybe we can take back the roads.

Ken Dixon's Capitol View appears Sundays in the Connecticut Post. You may reach him in the Capitol at (860) 549-4670 or via e-mail at kdixon@ctpost.com. Read his Connecticut Blog-o-rama at forum.connpost.com/politics/.

[Sean]

I'm 16 and I can attest to the fact that the test for a license is WAY TOO EASY
it's extremely vague and you learn how to go, stop, and turn
how useful!
I think wider 4 lane interstates could be 85-90, I usually do that anyways in a 14 passenger E350 without trouble
if the road conditions dont permit that speed, I do as much as I think I can without spilling my brains all over the shoulder


reading this states that I am not to be held responsible for the aimless babble of the post above

[dazzleman]

I'm 16 and I can attest to the fact that the test for a license is WAY TOO EASY
it's extremely vague and you learn how to go, stop, and turn
how useful!
I think wider 4 lane interstates could be 85-90, I usually do that anyways in a 14 passenger E350 without trouble
if the road conditions dont permit that speed, I do as much as I think I can without spilling my brains all over the shoulder


reading this states that I am not to be held responsible for the aimless babble of the post above

Welcome Sean.

I agree the driving test is too easy.

[James Young]

Ken Dixon.  Pandering a$$wipe.

[dazzleman]

Ken Dixon.  Pandering a$$wipe.

I can't stand the guy, and for reasons that go far beyond that column.

[Sean]

Welcome Sean.

I agree the driving test is too easy.

Thanks

[GoCougs]

I have to agree with that column. I get pleasure in seeing some knucklehead getting popped further up the road, that just prior was doing something dangerous.

Undercover aggressive driving patrols target really bad driving; tailgating, DUI, intimidation, etc., or otherwise those behaviors hard to spot from a stand still. Undercover patrols is the best way to enforce traffic laws IMO.

If they simply wanted to collect revenue, they'd set up stationary speed traps, with far better finanical payback.

[3.0L V6]

Depends on where, really. I can see rural interstates with 75mph limits, but in most major cities, I doubt it. Texas has already raised the day limit to 80mph on I-10(?).

[James Young]

I have to agree with that column. I get pleasure in seeing some knucklehead getting popped further up the road, that just prior was doing something dangerous.

Yes, but then you take pleasure in watching people go bankrupt, too.

[James Young]

Depends on where, really. I can see rural interstates with 75mph limits, but in most major cities, I doubt it. Texas has already raised the day limit to 80mph on I-10(?).

Remove limits on rural Interstates and set it at the 95th percentile in urban areas.  We already have the evidence that this works.

[dazzleman]

I have to agree with that column. I get pleasure in seeing some knucklehead getting popped further up the road, that just prior was doing something dangerous.

Undercover aggressive driving patrols target really bad driving; tailgating, DUI, intimidation, etc., or otherwise those behaviors hard to spot from a stand still. Undercover patrols is the best way to enforce traffic laws IMO.

If they simply wanted to collect revenue, they'd set up stationary speed traps, with far better finanical payback.

It depends on what you define as dangerous.

On an interstate in reasonable traffic and road conditions, I don't consider 80 mph to be dangerous.  If 'intimidation' consists of trying to move over drivers who are clogging the left lane at a low speed when there are other places for them to drive, then those being 'intimidated' deserve it.

That columnist is a mamby-pamby liberal who thinks that law enforcement is too tough on real criminals, and that we lock up too many 'non-violent' criminals (translation: the guy who breaks into your house or steals your car doesn't deserve prison).

So it's interesting to see that he suddenly supports law enforcement when it comes to issues like speeding.

There are times when I see a crazy driver that I hope gets caught doing what he did.  But I guarantee that my threshold is different than his.

[ifcar]

I'm not sure "aggressive driving" is just speeding. In fact, it seems to be the opposite, that they're going after reckless drivers that can't be caught by speed traps.

And trying to get someone to move over by tailgating them is far from safe, whether they deserve it or not.

[dazzleman]

I'm not sure "aggressive driving" is just speeding. In fact, it seems to be the opposite, that they're going after reckless drivers that can't be caught by speed traps.

And trying to get someone to move over by tailgating them is far from safe, whether they deserve it or not.

Generally, I like the tactic of blending in among the drivers to observe their behavior, rather than just setting up speedtraps.  I don't think that speeding in and of itself is the most dangerous driving practice out there.

The article mentioned flashing brights at people to get them to move over.  I see nothing wrong with that, and if you're in the passing lane and you get brights flashed at you by the car behind you, move the f*$k over.  Flashing brights is a way to signal desire to pass without tailgating, and shouldn't be considered aggressive driving in and of itself.

[ifcar]

"The classic at night is the high-beams push and tailgating to intimidate."

They offense is tailgating, not flashing your lights.