Should speed limits be abolished on highways?

[GoCougs]

Didn't we just break 300million citizens? And a large number of those are kids or seniors, not to mention all those in cities that dont' drive regularly...

Ah, but a bit of Googling prior to my post showed about 200,000,000 licensed drivers in the US.

FWIW, 40,000 deaths in 3 trillions miles is 1 death per 75,000,000 miles.

I see examples of really bad driving everyday - the vast majority of it is intentional - but it's relatively small compared to the actual number of drivers on the roadways.

[ChrisV]

Even mechanical failure is a very small percentage of fatalities/accidents. So old clunkers going waay too fast is also an unreasonable fear. If you look at it percentage-wise, even non-injury accidents happen to less than 3% of all registered drivers per year. Tha means that 97% of drivers have no problems at all. And yet average speeds are above the posted speed limits on most interstates. Which means that the majority of drivers are having no problems with elevated speeds (though most do keep speeds reasonable). Only a very few, a tiny fraction of a percent, drive unreasonably.

And most accidents occur at relatively LOW speeds, meaning that increasing or removing speed limits on limited access highways will not really change the accident statistics.

[Madman]

Should speed limits be abolished on highways?

In the short term, no.  However, I would recommend an immediate increase in highway speed limits to 85 MPH.

Why 85 MPH?  For several reasons.  First of all, there are quite a few cars on the road still equipped with the Ralph Nader/Joan Claybrook safty-nazi era 85 MPH speedometers.  Some of these older digital speedos probably can't be reprogrammed to register higher than 85 MPH.  Secondly, this appears to be the average speed of the flow of traffic when there are no Roving Revenue Collectors (AKA Police) around to slow things down.  If most people are comforable cruising down the highway at 85 then, logically, this should be a realistic speed limit.  Also, without the radical changes that are desperately needed in the testing and licencing of drivers, I don't think anyone would feel safer if our currently underskilled driving population were allowed to go faster than 85 MPH.  Not to mention the fact that the majority of US states require NO vehicle inspections whatsoever.  Would you want cars with bald tyres, spongy brakes, worn out suspension bushes and leaking fluids running at triple-digit speeds on our highways?

A wholesale sea-change in our driving culture would have to take place before an Autobahn-style highway system could be introduced in America.  And, contrary to what some of you Neo-Con nitwits out there may think, it WILL require the government to make it happen.  Here's how:

1.  All licenced drivers will be required to retake a new and vastly improved Driver's Education Programme.  The new test should be modelled on the German system.  ALL aspects of vehicle ownership will be covered including emergency handling manouvers and basic vehicle maintenance.  Drivers will be required to pass tests under ALL driving climates: dry tarmac, rain, snow, ice and driving at night.  ALL drivers will be required to learn to drive BOTH automatic and manaul gearboxes.

2.  Compulsory vehicle inspections will be required for ALL vehicles more than three years old on an annual basis.  No more smoke-spewing beaters with parts falling off!  If it's broken, fix it or get it off the damn road!!!

3.  American and Asian carmakers will need to get their act together and design their cars for higher average speeds.  The Europeans already do this and, as a result, make the best cars in the world.

4.  Crackdowns on distracted driving.  No more yakking the phone whilst swerving across three lanes of traffic.  Hand-held mobile phones in cars will be universally banned.  Get a hands-free unit or hang up and shut up!  Mega-penalties will also be levied for other such activities and putting on makeup, shaving, combing hair, eating and anything else that distracts the driver from the task of DRIVING!!!

5.  Investment in infrastucture and road maintenance.  Our crumbling roads will need to be maintained properly for unlimited-speed motorists.  For far too long, state and local goverments have been neglecting their responibility to properly maintain the roads.  These agencies will be given a big incentive to properly maintain the road networks by passing new laws allowing drivers to demand compensation for any damage caused to their cars by poorly maintained or neglected roadways.  In other words, if the city doesn't fix a pothole and a driver blows and tyre and bends a wheel because of it, the city must compensate the driver for the damage.  This will ensure that state and local goverments start doing their jobs and fix the damn roads!!!

When, and ONLY when all of the above measures have been taken will it be safe and prudent to allow speed de-restricted highways in the United States.  A lot of these measures will not be popular and it WILL cost money.  But we as a society will be all the better for it.  Naturally, none of this will ever happen in a country where every American believes they have a God-given right to a driving licence on their 16th birthday.  That attitude will be very difficult to change.


Cheers,
Madman of the People

[GoCougs]

"Neo-con nit wits"?

Won't be the first time that the extreme fringe minority has wanted to use bigger, more expensive and more invasive government to force the majority for ulterior means. 

Such a thing will never happen - people simply won't tolerate the taxation and invasiveness to satisfy a such a small and extreme fringe.

I think you'll get more payback by simply bucking up should you continue to drive like a Madman and just take yer lumps when caught.

[ChrisV]

Not to mention the fact that the majority of US states require NO vehicle inspections whatsoever.  Would you want cars with bald tyres, spongy brakes, worn out suspension bushes and leaking fluids running at triple-digit speeds on our highways?

I grew up and spent most of my life in one such state, Washington, and I simply do NOT see it as a real, actual, factual issue. And the state I live in NOW only requires a safety inspection when a car is purchased, not annually afterwards, and it STILL isn't a problem in reality. Even teh stats bear that out. As a percentage of accidents, and of cars on teh road, less than 1% of drivers have a problem with a mechanical failure causing an accident.

Again, most of your concerns were levelled at Montana when they went to "reasonable and prudent" instead of an actual speed limit number, and look what happened? No increase in fatalities, and they ONLY went back to a speed limit to get federal highway monies back.

[Madman]

"Neo-con nit wits"?

If the shoe fits........

Madman of the People

[sportyaccordy]

HAHAHAHAHA

How many street-legal Hondas do 150mph??
I know when I had my Taurus SHO (drag-limited 143mph) the BEST Accord could only do 138. That was in 2003-2004.

Hey don't go by what the manufacturers say.  I took a 140 HP Accord to about 125-130 MPH. I bet a Civic coupe with an H22 & good aero mods could do 150MPH no problem.

5.  Investment in infrastucture and road maintenance.  Our crumbling roads will need to be maintained properly for unlimited-speed motorists.  For far too long, state and local goverments have been neglecting their responibility to properly maintain the roads.  These agencies will be given a big incentive to properly maintain the road networks by passing new laws allowing drivers to demand compensation for any damage caused to their cars by poorly maintained or neglected roadways.  In other words, if the city doesn't fix a pothole and a driver blows and tyre and bends a wheel because of it, the city must compensate the driver for the damage.  This will ensure that state and local goverments start doing their jobs and fix the damn roads!!!

LMAO

With tax revenues being stretched thin already, do u think local municipalities would allow for a law to go in place to cost them more money??? To fix my rims???

I agree that America's driving system needs an overhaul though. BIG TIME. But in light of all the other things going on I don't see it as being that big of a deal.

[Madman]

With tax revenues being stretched thin already, do u think local municipalities would allow for a law to go in place to cost them more money??? To fix my rims???

I agree that America's driving system needs an overhaul though. BIG TIME. But in light of all the other things going on I don't see it as being that big of a deal.

If you damage somebody else property due to negligence, you can be held accountable, right?  Why shouldn't goverment be held accountable for their own negligence?  Under such a plan, local and state goverments will soon realise it's cheaper to just fix the damn roads than it is to pay for damage to cars.  It's all about holding goverment accountable.


Cheers,
Madman of the People

[GoCougs]

LMAO

With tax revenues being stretched thin already, do u think local municipalities would allow for a law to go in place to cost them more money??? To fix my rims???

And when is the last time you heard of a governmental agency actually paying for damage to cars as he suggests? Of course never. Even if they did, of course it's wouldn't be .0001% of the BILLIONS of $$$ needed to revamp the system as he suggests.

It's also ironic in that with such profound escalation in governmental intervention would come profound governmental control - you'd simply see speed cameras on virtually every roadway - something the American public inherently already knows would happen, and exactly why such a suggestion won't ever, ever happen.

I agree that America's driving system needs an overhaul though. BIG TIME. But in light of all the other things going on I don't see it as being that big of a deal.

Any system servicing 200,000,000 people from of all walks of life will never be perfect for everyone. The American system works pretty darn good as it is. the two primary issues facing the American driving system are being addressed with each passing year: continued escalation of penalties for bad driving, and continued restriction of licensing of new drivers.

[Onslaught]

All this doom and gloom aabout how sudenly the roads would run red with the blood of people suddenly doing 150+.

that's what they said about Montana, too.

But it never happened there. Why? Because MOST PEOPLE simply will not travel that fast. Given the free choice, and people instinctively drive at a reasonable speed. The few that won't, won't be obeying the law ANYHOW.

That and you don't have many people at all in Montana. Try that shit in Atlanta or NY area.

[Rupert]

Interstates out west already have an unofficial speed limit of 80mph...I've never been stopped for doing 80 in a 75, and I've passed a number of radar cops doing that.  I'm pretty sure they don't sweat it too much unless weather is bad.

I do 85 in 75, and ditto.

However, around where I live, traffic does not flow at those speeds. Not in urban areas, not in rural areas, and not in the places in between. There are usually a few people going 80-85 when the limit is 75, and 70-75 when it's 65 (etc.), but most people are going 0-5 over any given limit, unless there's traffic. This applies to most of the freeways in Oregon and Washington.

[dazzleman]

I do 85 in 75, and ditto.

...anarchist.....

[Rupert]

...Libertarian...

[TBR]

"A wholesale sea-change in our driving culture would have to take place before an Autobahn-style highway system could be introduced in America.  And, contrary to what some of you Neo-Con nitwits out there may think, it WILL require the government to make it happen."

Those Neo-con nitwits aren't the least bit opposed to expanding government power and spending..that's what makes them Neo-cons instead of just plain conservatives. For proof, see deficit.

[hounddog]

I voted no, however, I can see an opportunity. 

First of all, the status of the freeway system in America is simply too poor to allow this in most places.  And, the sheer volume of traffic on most major interstates would make this impossible.  Lastly, driver training vs. experience vs. ability would also make this simply unworkable. 

The opportunity would come if people were willing to pay for an indorsement of sorts. 
It would require specialized training, a high dollar indorsement fee, special insurance, minimum vehiclular requirements, and perhaps bi-annual inspections of the vehicle for safety, and even a multiple level indorsement system.   

The purpose of the above would be to insure that those allowed to travel at  speeds well above 100 would be the safest drivers possible because they would be sharing the roadway with others.   

[Rupert]

I... like that idea. o_0

[bing_oh]

Nope. Sorry, but I just don't have enough confidence in the abilities (or responsibility) of the average American driver to see how speed limits could be eliminated. There are too many people who can't seem to avoid running into each other or various stationary objects with the speed limits as they are now. While I'm sure that there is a segment of the driving population who could drive safely without speed limits, I think there are more who overestimate their abilities. At the very least, we have to make laws with the abilities of the median population in mind.

[Raza]

Bah, people won't drive much faster than they are now anyway.  The man will just lose a revenue stream.

[ChrisV]

That and you don't have many people at all in Montana. Try that shit in Atlanta or NY area.

You had a bunch of peopoel that WENT there to drive fast. *I* did. Volume went up, but fatalities did not.

The point was, that even there, MOST people didn't suddenly start doing 150 on the highway. When I was there, most people were doing 75-80, with no speed limit, as that's where they felt comfortable. Funny thing is, that's where most people seem to feel comfortable nationwide.

I'd be willing to bet that if nationwide speedlimits were abolished on the interstates, few people would go faster than what traffic is moving at NOW. And leaving it at "reasonable and prudent" would give officers the discretion to cite anyone they felt was NOT being reasonable or prudent, such as in heavier traffic situations, weaving in and out, or driving too fast for conditions, such as rain or snow. It would allow for freedom AND responsibility. Fuel costs would drive one's right foot as much as anything.

[ChrisV]

I voted no, however, I can see an opportunity. 

First of all, the status of the freeway system in America is simply too poor to allow this in most places.  And, the sheer volume of traffic on most major interstates would make this impossible.  Lastly, driver training vs. experience vs. ability would also make this simply unworkable. 

The opportunity would come if people were willing to pay for an indorsement of sorts. 
It would require specialized training, a high dollar indorsement fee, special insurance, minimum vehiclular requirements, and perhaps bi-annual inspections of the vehicle for safety, and even a multiple level indorsement system.   

The purpose of the above would be to insure that those allowed to travel at  speeds well above 100 would be the safest drivers possible because they would be sharing the roadway with others.   

The only problem I see with that is the same as with any graduated license scheme. How do you tell, at a glance from outside, whether the person IN the car is supposed to be driving in that manner? The plate or sticker may be on the car, but the person DRIVING may not be the one with the license to do so. Say if a husband and wife drive the same car, and one of them is certified to drive fast and the other is driving that day. Do they get to get away with driving fast in the indicated car because the car is so marked? You'd have to pull over the car ANYHOW to find out if they were supposed to be driving it that fast.

I think a better solution is to simply raise the cost of a license a bit for everyone, make a decent driver's school mandatory (I mean, many states no longer have driver's ed in school and require you to pay upwards of $400-500 for a private school anyhow. as an ex SCCA instructor *I* could teach better driving habits and skills in 2 weeks for $500 a student...) and let the people determine how fast they should go in any given situation on the highway, with limits set in town and for known danger areas like school zones and the like (with larger penalties for those areas), along with quicker, larger penalties for drunk driving.

[280Z Turbo]

You had a bunch of peopoel that WENT there to drive fast. *I* did. Volume went up, but fatalities did not.

The point was, that even there, MOST people didn't suddenly start doing 150 on the highway. When I was there, most people were doing 75-80, with no speed limit, as that's where they felt comfortable. Funny thing is, that's where most people seem to feel comfortable nationwide.

I'd be willing to bet that if nationwide speedlimits were abolished on the interstates, few people would go faster than what traffic is moving at NOW. And leaving it at "reasonable and prudent" would give officers the discretion to cite anyone they felt was NOT being reasonable or prudent, such as in heavier traffic situations, weaving in and out, or driving too fast for conditions, such as rain or snow. It would allow for freedom AND responsibility. Fuel costs would drive one's right foot as much as anything.

That's all well and good, but how does an officer enforce "reasonable and prudent" without clearly defining what it is?

[ChrisV]

Same way they taught it to officers in Montana. Seemed to work just fine. Hell, officers even now judge that on a daily basis in choosing which of the people they see driving fast every day they are going to pull over.

[Cookie Monster]

If there were no speed limits on the highway, I'd be doing at least 100+ all the time.

[r0tor]

My speeding plan has always been:

- left most lane of a highway has a 20mph fast speed limit and reserved only for modern CARS (no trucks/SUVs/80's crap wagons).  This applies to multilane roads with no left lane exits.

- Tickets are progressive depending on vehicle type.  Big Rigs/ Dump trucks ect have a 4x multiplier.  Trucks/SUV's has a 2x multiplier.

[ChrisV]

My speeding plan has always been:

- left most lane of a highway has a 20mph fast speed limit and reserved only for modern CARS (no trucks/SUVs/80's crap wagons).  This applies to multilane roads with no left lane exits.

- Tickets are progressive depending on vehicle type.  Big Rigs/ Dump trucks ect have a 4x multiplier.  Trucks/SUV's has a 2x multiplier.

So how do you deal with things like Ford Lightnings, Shelby Dakotas, Callaway Range Rover Sports, Porsche Cayenne Turbo S models, etc? Trucks/SUVs that are designed for and safe at elevated speeds? What if I BUILT a pickup in road race style? Something like a lowered Chevy LUV with a cage and sticky tires, a set back LSx engine, and trick suspension? Outside you seea typical lowered truck, but it's not. Or somehting lik ethis:



So you're saying according to your speed plan, a '01 Hyundai Excel can be in the fast lane, but that Porsche powered and custom suspension VW van or a Porsche Cayenne Turbo S cannot?


Oh, and I just noticed that you won't let '80s cars in there, either. So no custom built Pro Touring cars or even cars like my '86 RX7 Sport? That's retarded.

[bing_oh]

Same way they taught it to officers in Montana. Seemed to work just fine. Hell, officers even now judge that on a daily basis in choosing which of the people they see driving fast every day they are going to pull over.

Applying a personal definition of "reasonable and prudent" to who is pulled over and making it the law of the land, open to judicial scrutiny and proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law are two very different things. "Reasonable and prudent" will have to be legally-defined. Without a definition, then we have the opinion of the officer, the opinion of the prosecutor and defense attorneys, the opinion of the judge, and (potentially, depending on your state's laws regarding the right to a jury trial in traffic cases) the opinion of 12 jurors as to what is "reasonable and prudent." How can you even hope to achieve impartiality in a decision if the law itself is based on individual opinion?

[bing_oh]

I think a better solution is to simply raise the cost of a license a bit for everyone, make a decent driver's school mandatory (I mean, many states no longer have driver's ed in school and require you to pay upwards of $400-500 for a private school anyhow. as an ex SCCA instructor *I* could teach better driving habits and skills in 2 weeks for $500 a student...) and let the people determine how fast they should go in any given situation on the highway, with limits set in town and for known danger areas like school zones and the like (with larger penalties for those areas), along with quicker, larger penalties for drunk driving.

And, how long would a system like that take to put in place? Would you require all licensed drivers, regardless of age, to take an improved driver's school? If so, do you really think that a driver's school would make a difference in the bad habits that emperienced drivers already have? Do you think that a driver's school will really make a difference when it comes to behaviors 5, 10, 20 years later? How many people here still drive with their hands at 10 and 2 like taught in driver's ed? What I'm trying to get at is, improved training means nothing if that training isn't ongoing. When out of a controlled, monitored environment, people develop and revert back to bad habits.

[ChrisV]

And, how long would a system like that take to put in place? Would you require all licensed drivers, regardless of age, to take an improved driver's school?

At theri next sceduled renewal. Just like it got arbitrarily implimented for new drivers one day. And for elderly drivers. You just say it costs x amount of dollars now. And yes, you force bad drivers to take a really lame driver's school as it is. Just make a decent driver's instructional course happen and implement it in a staggered fashion.

If so, do you really think that a driver's school would make a difference in the bad habits that emperienced drivers already have?

i see it ALL the time when someone comes out and takes an SCCA driver's school for autocrossing or road racing. You can learn better driving and unlearn years of bad behaviors in one day's worth of autocroes school then any standard drving school does right now. It's an abridged version of your police driving school (that doesn't cover anything to do with perpes, pitt manuevers, etc), just car control in multiple conditions. I said I wouldn't use my direct expereince to make a point, but it just happens to be the case that I see it every time i go out there and it's been that way for the last 30 years I've been out there.

Do you think that a driver's school will really make a difference when it comes to behaviors 5, 10, 20 years later?

A drive'rs school and constant use of the new behaviors. Yes. Much like any training, if you take it and dont' USE the training, you can lose it. But if you take it and are allowed to use it, you can indeed retain it and even improve on it over the years. Just like a normal driver can start out really bad with the clutch and learn to be smooth and practiced in a short period of time. if they DON'T use a manual trans car for decades after learning it, they will be bad at it when they take it up again, but if they USE a manual trans regularly over the years, they will actually improve.

This is a basic fact of training, be it driving or software use or any other skill set.

How many people here still drive with their hands at 10 and 2 like taught in driver's ed?

We found in race school that that's not the most optimum position. And ypll find that those of us that have been taught like this revert back to our training when we go to drive fast, even years after we were trained. if I'm sitting in traffic, I'll use one hand. if I'm getting ready to drive fast, I use both hands (except in a manual trans car when I'm actually in the process of shifting). It's part of the training AND the regular USE of that training. And if you're allowed to use that training, you retain it, as mentioned above.

What I'm trying to get at is, improved training means nothing if that training isn't ongoing. When out of a controlled, monitored environment, people develop and revert back to bad habits.

TRAINING doesn't have to be ongoing. USE of that training should be. And what *I'M* talking about is training then the allowance of the USE of that training by letting the trained driver use that trianing on a daily basis, which will in fact retain that training for decades. I've seen it in person hundreds of times (including my own personal training).

[ChrisV]

Applying a personal definition of "reasonable and prudent" to who is pulled over and making it the law of the land, open to judicial scrutiny and proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law are two very different things. "Reasonable and prudent" will have to be legally-defined. Without a definition, then we have the opinion of the officer, the opinion of the prosecutor and defense attorneys, the opinion of the judge, and (potentially, depending on your state's laws regarding the right to a jury trial in traffic cases) the opinion of 12 jurors as to what is "reasonable and prudent." How can you even hope to achieve impartiality in a decision if the law itself is based on individual opinion?

How did they manage to pull it off in Montana? Maybe we could modify the Montana program with definitions, like speed differentials, and the like. How do you determine now that a lane change is normal and one that is reckless? Is there a real metric for that that says, "this is agressive and reckless, and this on here is merely passing normally?" You deal with subjective, trained, decisions on a daily basis.

[Byteme]

How many people here still drive with their hands at 10 and 2 like taught in driver's ed?

I thought current thinking was that 9 and 3 was better?      I see few people with both hands on the wheel.  Last week I saw a woman trying to juggle her cell phone a soft drink a cigarette and something she was reading the person she was on the phone with.  If you were to ask her I would be willing to bet she would say she is a pretty good driver.


Once concern I have about eliminating rural interstate speed limits is that the only thing holding back some fools from driving way faster than conditions warrant and way beyond their skills is the threat of a speeding tickets and the resulting loss of license and increased insurance costs (provided they bother to get insurance).