Oh believe me, I'm all for it, just playing the devil's advocate.

 

i always had the idea of the "super liscense".
My plan would to charge $1,000 a year for the super liscense, also have to pay for the class to get qualified, and on top of that, your car would have to go through a series of check ups every 3-6 months. I thought those would be a good way for the states to generate money. Maybe even charge for a "super plate" to seperate the fast drivers.

josh.

 

and what would the municipalities do without the ticket revenue??

 

The issue with speed limit is that it sets a false safety benchmark. Everyone I know drives 110km/h "because it's safe". They do not check their tire pressures, they do not care about the clunks their worn out tie-rods do, they do not care about the steering shimmy developed ... 110 is safe, man!". In my truck, I cruise around 90km/h because that's a steady speed, where the truck behaves correctly.

One point to keep in mind ... people are stupid!
Quick example. Until a few months ago, we couldn't turn right on a red light in Quebec. Now we can, we have to stop, check and go. Everyone just slows down (kinda fine) ... but you'd be amazed at the amount of dumbf*cks who understand "turn right in any cirumstances, do not stop, do not look, just go for it".

I'd go with a super license, with matched car! I don't care if someone has the technique and knowledge, if they drive a rust bucket, I don't wanna see them going flat-out.

Super License, with track training. Check up every 6 months for the driver, every 3 months for the car (quick inspection ... tires, brakes ... etc). You get your reserved far left lane, and autobahn where conditions allow (ie 3 lanes minimum). No tolerance for cell phones, booze and similar stuff for the super-licensees in the left lane.

Oh, and no tolerance for repeat drunk drivers. Get caught twice --> jail.

 

Steve,
The revenue would come from citations such as "Failure to stay right", "Careless Driving" (in the case of weaving), and "obstructing traffic". Read what I wrote earlier about the laziness factor.

Zorro,
The Super License idea is a great one....in theory. The problem is that it involves too much change to the existing system. Conversely, a nationwide campaign to educate the public that the national highway speed limit will increase to 80 mph while making it painfully clear that left lane squatting will not be tolerated any longer, and enforced stringently, shouldn't be as much of a "shock" to the existing system. Of course cops and troopers would have to get off their duffs and actually move in, observe and become more "active" in traffic rather than sit on the median and pull a trigger. Fish in a bucket.

 

Ken,
While I'd love to see all of these folks get tickets. Let's get real. Finding them and citing them is almost an impossibility. It is inherently easier to part in a bush and shoot a laser at the oncoming "Fast" lane.

With that said. Let's keep in mind that the laws are made for the masses, not the smaller percentage of us that want to go fast. Some of the things that are being proposed would require a massive amount of capital for infrastructure.

Now a real thought:

Some of the states fought against the govt a few years ago for the right to raise speed limits. They were even willing to give up highway money to do this. In the end, the govt caved and gave the right back to the states to set their own limits. If this has worked once, why not use this as an additional strategy to start another increase? Surely many of us have contacts within our respective govts or have the ability to contact and/or influence state senators and congressmen? Don't we? Some of the arguments made here would stand scientific scrutiny. Cars are better and safer. Education is needed. Relative differences in speed is dangerous. And the argument goes on. Let's get on the phones and talk to someone!

Sorry for the diatribe.

 

Great thoughts and I agree 100% but lets not forget driving is a privilege, not a right.

 

Wardhog,
I pulled out a copy of ye ol' Constitution and Bill of Rights and coudn't find much about privelege in a free society. I have a right to travel on public roads paid for by the public. If I abuse my right and endanger others, the right can be suspended or revoked based on the need to protect others. I'll agree to that.

If you let the courts call it a privelege, then you've given up your right. Ain't happenin' here brutha.

 

I just thought it was appropriate to bump this one up due to Parker's recent NJ speeding thread.



Or is it....

 

Neither, it's

 

Yup, many a judge has told that to me a few times for various indescretions on the road.

 

I've posted the idea of toll roads with no speed limit last year.

Instead of a high speed rail between SF and LA, they should build a super hiway instead where 130mph is the avg cruising speed.

I'll suggest that to Arnold.