.......THE GREAT BIG SPEED LIMIT DEBATE.......
#16
06-03-2005, 03:18 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SOCAL, 91 x 605
Posts: 6,666
Rep Power: 317 
Originally posted by SilverTTCab
amen~
higher speed limits commiserate with most of the driving done in the country today on the highways.
toll roads with no speed limit, privately owned,
higher training and better qualification to drive faster. identified by big stickers!
where do i vote?
amen~
higher speed limits commiserate with most of the driving done in the country today on the highways.
toll roads with no speed limit, privately owned,
higher training and better qualification to drive faster. identified by big stickers!
where do i vote?
damn u were fast last staurday
#17
06-03-2005, 03:49 PM
Careful Ken, the NHTSA may classify you as a terrorist!
I remember debating this many, many years ago in school. Our highway system was designed using the autobahn as a guide. 50's era barges could cruise comfortably at 70+ without incident.
Until recently Montana had areas with no posted speed limits. After living in Arizona for a few years I became so accustomed to 75mph speed limits (with the 85th @ 85-90) that I was shocked and dismayed when I moved back East to our congested freeways. Sigh. I remember one run to SoCal @ night @ an average of 110mph.
I'm for abolishing the speed limit where it makes sense, on long deserted stretches of freeway. Sane limits on other stretches, especially near towns/cities and areas of congestion.
Never happen though. NHTSA is still quite powerful, and there is still a "speed kills" mentality throughout the Hill. I'm sure someone could easily pull the statistics for overall deaths per mile driven over a period of say, 50 years. I understand it would show a dramatic decline, with the decline continuing to this day.
I remember debating this many, many years ago in school. Our highway system was designed using the autobahn as a guide. 50's era barges could cruise comfortably at 70+ without incident.
Until recently Montana had areas with no posted speed limits. After living in Arizona for a few years I became so accustomed to 75mph speed limits (with the 85th @ 85-90) that I was shocked and dismayed when I moved back East to our congested freeways. Sigh. I remember one run to SoCal @ night @ an average of 110mph.
I'm for abolishing the speed limit where it makes sense, on long deserted stretches of freeway. Sane limits on other stretches, especially near towns/cities and areas of congestion.
Never happen though. NHTSA is still quite powerful, and there is still a "speed kills" mentality throughout the Hill. I'm sure someone could easily pull the statistics for overall deaths per mile driven over a period of say, 50 years. I understand it would show a dramatic decline, with the decline continuing to this day.
#18
06-03-2005, 04:32 PM
The 55 mph speed limit was not instituted for safety, it was during an oil crisis with the objective of saving gasoline. Gas is expensive now, but there is enough of it.
If you are really interested in some ideas to send to your congressman, read some of the columns that Brock Yates has written over the years about speed limits. If anyone has done their part to do away with them, this is the guy.
You could even take it a step further and do what he did in the late 60's and early 70's; race across the country as fast and as safely as you can to show the lawmakers what the highways and drivers of this nation can handle. I am certianly itching to go. Who's in?
Good discussion though. My vote is strict, mandatory, on-road driver's education; legitimate license requirements (possibly with different levels for different privileges), and no speed limits outside of a 50 mile radius of large cities. It would be like legalizing drugs, if people are allowed to do it and can get their fill for a short time, after a while they will stop. It will also motivate automakers to develop faster, safer, smaller/better handling cars. You might even see cars (sedans) outsell trucks (large, slow SUV's) as family cars. That would be nice.
-Ed
If you are really interested in some ideas to send to your congressman, read some of the columns that Brock Yates has written over the years about speed limits. If anyone has done their part to do away with them, this is the guy.
You could even take it a step further and do what he did in the late 60's and early 70's; race across the country as fast and as safely as you can to show the lawmakers what the highways and drivers of this nation can handle. I am certianly itching to go. Who's in?
Good discussion though. My vote is strict, mandatory, on-road driver's education; legitimate license requirements (possibly with different levels for different privileges), and no speed limits outside of a 50 mile radius of large cities. It would be like legalizing drugs, if people are allowed to do it and can get their fill for a short time, after a while they will stop. It will also motivate automakers to develop faster, safer, smaller/better handling cars. You might even see cars (sedans) outsell trucks (large, slow SUV's) as family cars. That would be nice.
-Ed
#19
06-03-2005, 04:44 PM
They need to have a 2nd tier of DL classification that requires more stringent levels of automotive knowledge and driving skills. Then, build an autobahn that will make travel more efficient in the states. The "super-license" will allow responsible, knowledgeable, and capable drivers who hold the license to enjoy using our cars at speeds, while at the same time, keeping me them safe from **** drivers that make up 99% of this country.
#20
06-03-2005, 04:59 PM
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 4,343
Rep Power: 198
I like the 50 mile radius idea. If any idea is to work, it absolutely MUST utilize the existing infrastructure. The existing highways are in bad enough shape as it is. We can't propose a plan that requires new highways.
Since the highways can handle the speed, it is a matter of driver improvement and strict enforcement of keeping right and directional usage. These issues will allow the flows of traffic to support the greater left lane speeds.
Of course Brock spearheaded the effort and ended up getting no where. I read his book "Cannonball" and of course saw the Cannonball Run movies that were bad adaptations to his ideas.
I was already in the Gumball in 2002 and that was quite a thrill. It also proved to me the ability of the highway system to support the higher speeds as long as you stay right except to pass.
Since the highways can handle the speed, it is a matter of driver improvement and strict enforcement of keeping right and directional usage. These issues will allow the flows of traffic to support the greater left lane speeds.
Of course Brock spearheaded the effort and ended up getting no where. I read his book "Cannonball" and of course saw the Cannonball Run movies that were bad adaptations to his ideas.
I was already in the Gumball in 2002 and that was quite a thrill. It also proved to me the ability of the highway system to support the higher speeds as long as you stay right except to pass.
#21
06-03-2005, 05:00 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Huntington Beach, California
Age: 77
Posts: 401
Rep Power: 38
In Vino Veritas
"but I for one question the judgment of people who drive when they know they might be over the limit."
I am sorry but I NEVER meant to justify anyone doing this. What I meant was that for the most part our system persecutes scores of people who will never cause an accident and allows the habitual abuser access to motorcars and mayhem. My cousins son was killed several years ago on a quiet side street crossing the street on his bicycle by a multiple repeat drinker fleeing from the police. This guy had been drawn in many times and was driving without a license.
So, we have set the blood alcohol level to an untenable level; trapping scores of people who have a glass or two of wine with friends. Road blocks catch them, they pay money to attorneys, and civic entities and guess what? It becomes a revenue issue.
Far better IMHO to go after the repeaters with a vengeance. Then spend the rest of the program on education and awareness and bring the blood alcohol level back up to a reasonable level. It is unquestionable that what we have today is not unlike prohibition, no one stopped drinking they just broke the law and lost that next scintilla of respect for civic responsibility.
I am sorry but I NEVER meant to justify anyone doing this. What I meant was that for the most part our system persecutes scores of people who will never cause an accident and allows the habitual abuser access to motorcars and mayhem. My cousins son was killed several years ago on a quiet side street crossing the street on his bicycle by a multiple repeat drinker fleeing from the police. This guy had been drawn in many times and was driving without a license.
So, we have set the blood alcohol level to an untenable level; trapping scores of people who have a glass or two of wine with friends. Road blocks catch them, they pay money to attorneys, and civic entities and guess what? It becomes a revenue issue.
Far better IMHO to go after the repeaters with a vengeance. Then spend the rest of the program on education and awareness and bring the blood alcohol level back up to a reasonable level. It is unquestionable that what we have today is not unlike prohibition, no one stopped drinking they just broke the law and lost that next scintilla of respect for civic responsibility.
#22
06-03-2005, 05:23 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Southern California
Posts: 801
Rep Power: 53
great topic ken.
as things are its WAY too easy to get a drivers license, just open up a ******* jack box and voila.
they need to make people have real skills behind the wheel and probably ban cell phone use to reduce distractions. good luck with altering the requirements through the circus called the DMV.
they should then increase the limit, not sure by how much. i saw a tv show not too long ago that went over how driving worked in Germany. no speed limit but if you tailgated someone the had hard core undercover agents filming, hiding etc...cloak and dagger stuff. point taken is that there is no accountability here to keep dangerous drivers in check.
i do like the idea of different driver license levels but it will never happen. how is anyone going to figure out whether you belong in the "fast lane" or not BEFORE the fact?
as things are its WAY too easy to get a drivers license, just open up a ******* jack box and voila.
they need to make people have real skills behind the wheel and probably ban cell phone use to reduce distractions. good luck with altering the requirements through the circus called the DMV.
they should then increase the limit, not sure by how much. i saw a tv show not too long ago that went over how driving worked in Germany. no speed limit but if you tailgated someone the had hard core undercover agents filming, hiding etc...cloak and dagger stuff. point taken is that there is no accountability here to keep dangerous drivers in check.
i do like the idea of different driver license levels but it will never happen. how is anyone going to figure out whether you belong in the "fast lane" or not BEFORE the fact?
#23
06-03-2005, 05:55 PM
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 4,343
Rep Power: 198
Garey,
Interesting analogy to prohibition. I am going to mull that one over.
All,
Lets look at this in another way.
One of the primary benefactory reasons for not abolishing the 55mph law is revenue. Let me spell that for you R-E-V-E-N-U-E!
Cops write tickets to speeders, a high percentage don't have the time or desire to defend themselves and they simply pay the ticket. It is a very easy system. The cops can remain stationary with their radar and laser guns and shoot unsuspecting motorists for points. Snagged, pay the court. Snagged, pay the court. Another one, PAY THE COURT!!
From an effort standpoint, law enforcement has it pretty damn easy. We are fish in a fishbowl. They shoot us and reel us in and issue a ticket. On the next victim.
They take pot shots at us and we choose to either fight it, at a loss of revenue for the courts, or simply pay. I would venture to guess that most people simply pay the ticket due to time and schedule constraints to attend court. This brings to mind a thought I had a while back which I will throw out there at the end of this post.......hold on.
The need for revenue is a necessary evil. Instead of issuing speeding tickets, presumably to drivers of performance cars that arguably have a little higher awareness to their car's dynamics, why not issue tickets to those morons who camp themselves in the left lane and cause backups. It is these people, and the resultant impatient followers that scoot around on the right that make things dangerous in my opinion.
The big problem is that enforcement of the keep right except to pass requires cops to actively drive in and assess the traffic rather than sit on the median with a box of Krispy Kremes. It takes more effort. The end result, however, in my opinion, is the same, if not more, revenue due to ticketing and SAFER HIGHWAYS!!!
It will not happen because people are inherently lazy. It is easier and lazier to sit on the median and pull a trigger than it is to actively drive in traffic and find the left lane squatter.
It is so backwards!!! Where is my plane ticket to Europe???!!!
Now, back to what I was alluding to earlier. Obviously it costs the courts and ultimately us as taxpayers every time someone decides to fight a ticket. The administrative costs associated with the plaintiff's case are costs that wouldn't exist if the defendent simply paid the fine. The courts count on this, otherwise, they would not be able to handle the volume, schedule or costs.
So, here is a proposal.....and you can spread the word.......
Fight every stinking ticket you ever receive. Tell your friends, and their friends and their friends to do the same. And so on, and so on, and so on. Of course this is idealogical, but if we the driving public were to align and do this, law enforcement would be forced to issue less tickets. Food for thought.
Interesting analogy to prohibition. I am going to mull that one over.
All,
Lets look at this in another way.
One of the primary benefactory reasons for not abolishing the 55mph law is revenue. Let me spell that for you R-E-V-E-N-U-E!
Cops write tickets to speeders, a high percentage don't have the time or desire to defend themselves and they simply pay the ticket. It is a very easy system. The cops can remain stationary with their radar and laser guns and shoot unsuspecting motorists for points. Snagged, pay the court. Snagged, pay the court. Another one, PAY THE COURT!!
From an effort standpoint, law enforcement has it pretty damn easy. We are fish in a fishbowl. They shoot us and reel us in and issue a ticket. On the next victim.
They take pot shots at us and we choose to either fight it, at a loss of revenue for the courts, or simply pay. I would venture to guess that most people simply pay the ticket due to time and schedule constraints to attend court. This brings to mind a thought I had a while back which I will throw out there at the end of this post.......hold on.
The need for revenue is a necessary evil. Instead of issuing speeding tickets, presumably to drivers of performance cars that arguably have a little higher awareness to their car's dynamics, why not issue tickets to those morons who camp themselves in the left lane and cause backups. It is these people, and the resultant impatient followers that scoot around on the right that make things dangerous in my opinion.
The big problem is that enforcement of the keep right except to pass requires cops to actively drive in and assess the traffic rather than sit on the median with a box of Krispy Kremes. It takes more effort. The end result, however, in my opinion, is the same, if not more, revenue due to ticketing and SAFER HIGHWAYS!!!
It will not happen because people are inherently lazy. It is easier and lazier to sit on the median and pull a trigger than it is to actively drive in traffic and find the left lane squatter.
It is so backwards!!! Where is my plane ticket to Europe???!!!
Now, back to what I was alluding to earlier. Obviously it costs the courts and ultimately us as taxpayers every time someone decides to fight a ticket. The administrative costs associated with the plaintiff's case are costs that wouldn't exist if the defendent simply paid the fine. The courts count on this, otherwise, they would not be able to handle the volume, schedule or costs.
So, here is a proposal.....and you can spread the word.......
Fight every stinking ticket you ever receive. Tell your friends, and their friends and their friends to do the same. And so on, and so on, and so on. Of course this is idealogical, but if we the driving public were to align and do this, law enforcement would be forced to issue less tickets. Food for thought.
#24
06-03-2005, 06:13 PM
I've often wondered how cops decide who to ticket and who gets away. The way I see it is that the highway should be a smooth flowing stream that flows as fast and safe as possible. Every car that hinders other cars or create a hazardous environment should be fined. Tailgating, hogging the left lane, weaving in and out of traffic are all things that shouldn't be taken lightly.
If you drive 100mph on a deserted road then you only out your one life at risk. If you, on the other hand, drive 40mph on a crowded highway in the midst of a blizzard, then you're putting other human beings in jeopardy.
The cops shouldn't focus on speed, but rather on actions that hinder or create hazards.
If you drive 100mph on a deserted road then you only out your one life at risk. If you, on the other hand, drive 40mph on a crowded highway in the midst of a blizzard, then you're putting other human beings in jeopardy.
The cops shouldn't focus on speed, but rather on actions that hinder or create hazards.
#26
06-03-2005, 06:21 PM
Garey, I know that you didn’t meant to justify driving under the influence, that’s not what I was implying. I'm sorry if it came out that way. My point is that you shouldn’t be in a car after a “glass of wine or two”. Off course you probably wouldn’t cause an accident, but why risk it?
People that continuously drive under the influence shouldn’t be allowed to roam free amongst us. If a citizen shows a total disrespect for other’s lives and well-being, then that citizen shouldn’t be allowed to live in our society imho. I whole-heartedly agree that we should go after repeaters but alcohol and driving just don’t mix. It’s the principle; you shouldn’t drive your car home from the bar, no matter if you had 3 or 13 beers.
I understand that you in no way support dui but I do think that there’s an imminent danger in letting people drive with a higher level of alcohol in their blood. The extremely low limit is there because you shouldn’t be drinking at all.
People that continuously drive under the influence shouldn’t be allowed to roam free amongst us. If a citizen shows a total disrespect for other’s lives and well-being, then that citizen shouldn’t be allowed to live in our society imho. I whole-heartedly agree that we should go after repeaters but alcohol and driving just don’t mix. It’s the principle; you shouldn’t drive your car home from the bar, no matter if you had 3 or 13 beers.
I understand that you in no way support dui but I do think that there’s an imminent danger in letting people drive with a higher level of alcohol in their blood. The extremely low limit is there because you shouldn’t be drinking at all.
#27
06-03-2005, 06:29 PM
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 4,343
Rep Power: 198
Matt,
I did. Fine the left lane squatters. Fine those that pass on the right. Fine the weavers. Fine those that don't use their blinkers. Left lane squatters and right lane passers will more than make up for the speeder fines.
I did. Fine the left lane squatters. Fine those that pass on the right. Fine the weavers. Fine those that don't use their blinkers. Left lane squatters and right lane passers will more than make up for the speeder fines.
#28
06-03-2005, 06:32 PM
Ken, another alternative is to give every soccer mom and left lane terrorist a trip to Germany and let them drive around on the Autobahn for a day. I guarantee you that they won't be able to keep driving in the far left lane for long
#29
06-03-2005, 09:44 PM
Senior Member
Originally posted by KPV
Matt,
I did. Fine the left lane squatters. Fine those that pass on the right. Fine the weavers. Fine those that don't use their blinkers. Left lane squatters and right lane passers will more than make up for the speeder fines.
Matt,
I did. Fine the left lane squatters. Fine those that pass on the right. Fine the weavers. Fine those that don't use their blinkers. Left lane squatters and right lane passers will more than make up for the speeder fines.