". Anything over 20mph is typically considered wreckless driving - and that's for a reason - there are studies out there that will back up the fact that higher speeds cause significantly more damage if there is a wreck. Higher speeds should be given a wreckless driving offense as well."

What studies? Where are they? You can't find a VALID study that correlates speed with higher accident rates. Of course that is not what you have asserted, which is that higher speed cause higher damage. Of course it is more likely that damage will be greater at greater speed. That doesn't mean it will occur more often, and studies exist that confirm that less accidents will occur. You want a risk free and damage free world. Stay in your crib then and mommy will comfort you. Caltrans has confirmed that conducting engineering studies on California freeways will result in the conclusion that the limits must be raised to at least 85 and there would be LESS accidents at that speed. I haver that from a highly placed Caltrans official, You state that there may be some nut in bias plyed tires on his junkmobile that presents a hazard. Well, guess what? There will always be hazards in the world. Lose your diapers and prepare for staying alert. There are meanies out there so we should cower inside hiding from imagined catasrophes? One horrible wreck and we should run and hide from the world? Mommy, mommy, there are meanies outside, what should I do mommy?No one even hints here that we should simply raise the limitwithout implementing improved and extremely more stringent inspections procedures for automobiles and keep the junk off the road.

Define reckless driving? Prove that changing lanes more often than every 5 miles is reckless? Police officers do it every 2 seconds as they work their way through traffic at 80 to 85 mph in lesser vehicles. What is reckless about a lane change made with caution? Wht you fear is that someone can be more capable than you. What is being threatened here is your trust that what you have been told is not true, and what is being proposed will mean that you will need to stay alert and awake and competent. That is the perceived danger and that there will be layers of competence and efficiency against which you cannot or will not judge yourself. You want a sugar coated world. One with zero defects, and one in which we all atrophy to the state of fairies and jellyfish unable to cope with any stress at all. No risk, no danger, no life. Go to Disneyland. These proposals are working in other parts of the world, and have been proven to work in this part of the world. Are those facts to be ignored?
Prove to me that a driver using his car to negotiate through traffic by changing lanes carefully is being reckless and not thinking of the other drivers. Reckless driving is a conjecture not a fact. You are assuming that it is dangerous on its face. If you make that assumption, then all the officers that do it regularly should be cited and lose their licenses. All the racing drivers that do it should also lose their licenses. AND if you don't want someone to do it, ENFORCE THE LEFT LANE RULE as is done in Germany. You say it would not work here? You don't need Jesse Jackson to get on your case for saying that, because you have me to do so. What is so different about Germany and the US? The Gemans have more functional brains? Excuse me while I barf. What you are saying is that we have a system of untrained drivers in inferior machines that are not aware of the hazard they could present to others, while everyone operates below their potential on roads that have not been designed and constructed to minimum acceptable standards or marked properly, or patroled properly, and with the assumption that if any driver farts on the roadway it will traumatize other drivers into needing psychotherapy. ****. Pure ****. Infantile.

Our cars have gotten better with competition from other makes that must be capable of triple the speeds at which we are charged with operating our fairymobiles here. As a result, our drivers have been more comfortable driving at higher speeds because the cars are better and the drivers have more knowledge of vehicle dynamics (or can be taught them), and more passive safety features have been incorporated into the vehicles of today. Our interstate system has been built since the fifties and is capable of much higher speeds and is superior to many roads in countries which allow higher limits. Our drivers ed program sucks, but can be improved if you get the insurance companies out of it and let the scientists and engineers run it. Our heads are full of wishful thinking fantasies about a world of no risk and less personal responsibility, deferring to authoritairan idiots who have no sound basis for their subjective assertions. We are stuck in the Dark Ages with not a clue of the truth, like lemmings parroting what **** is shoveled at us in subservient ignorance and fear of our own potential.

As for closing speeds, when I drove a Volkswagen in Germany, I was aware of the fact that the closing speeds would be a problem, so guess what? I stayed the f**k out of the left lane. Duh. Try education. Try losing this patronizing, overprotective, ego-feeding, superior, psuedo-prudent attitude, judge(if you are a judge), and look at the facts. After all, you would claim objectivity over emotionalism wouldn't you? Find me a study that can prove that speeds in excess of 100 mph result in more accidents purely because of speed? Speed is a scaler quantity. It is relative. You of all people should know that, right? Think more highly of yourself and stop catering to your superego and trying to tell society what you think it wants you to say. It won't hurt, I promise. Speed, in and of itself, is not dangerous. 100 mph is an ARBITRARY number. Too many othe factors are relative. Condition of the vehicle, the driver's ability and health, the condition and weather of/on the roadway, the construction of the roadway, relative location of emergency personnel and facilities, surrounding traffic density and time of day, unknown hazards (noted in the engineering studies). Craig Breedlove has traveled at 750 mph in an automobile not without risk, but with success; of course I don't recommend it on the turnpikes, but speed in that case was also a bit of a relative matter now wasn't it? Why wasn't he killed doing a thing like that?
One bad accident and you run screaming that society will blame you for condoning a speed above stub-your-toe levels. Get real judge. Look in the mirror and ask yourself if you are really being honest, or simply telling people what you think you want them to hear.

You want to help society? Here's how. Keep the perpetual drunks off of the roads, period. It is NOT the occasional drinkers who cause most of the accidents. It is the alcoholics and constant drunks who are let off and allowed to continue driving without dealing with their addiction. Why? Because simply put, they don't know they are impaired. They are always drunk and believe that is the normal way to be and don't feel impaired when they start their engines and drive away. And they are continually excused and allowed to resume driving. Sleep on that sir.

Here's another way. Demand better and more rigorous driving education and training, including courses in vehicle dynamics. No more insurance company funded fairy conducted sugar coated driver's ed classes for kids to allow them their rites of passage. Either they have got it down or they walk.

Let the traffic engineers loose, and stop listening to emotional cries of visions of carnage on the highways from the smokeys. **** happens. Get over it. Preparation counters that. Because one horrendous accident happens doesn't mean that you have failed society. How many road miles are covered each year in your jurisdiction at the limit or above without incident? How much has vehicle use increased in the years since WWII? Alot, no? Of course, and given the conditions, it has been amazing that MORE accidents haven't happened. What does that tell you? In Oregon, recently, the Oregon State Police concluded after an extensive period, that enforcement had NO effect whatsoever on the accident rate. (I wil furnish the report if you will send me your address). None. Zero. They are considering disbanding the Oregon State Police and transferring the officers to duty with county sheriff's departments. Less enforcement=same accident rate. Hmmm.
Traffic is buzzing by smokey bears as they are writing citations, and not having accidents. In fact, absent smokeys, traffic speed increases without an immediate increase in accident rates. Jus follow a cruiser around and watch as it exits the freeway,and experience the rapid and immediate increase to well above the limit rate by practically everybody. Yesterday a friend with a radar gun along I-5 in central California recorded traffic at over the limit by 10 + mph on all but 2 vehicles including a sheriff's cruiser for an hour or more. No problems. The problem comes when traffic is not allowed to flow. I'lll say that again in case you missed it: The problem come when traffic is not allowed to flow. But you are a judge right? You knew this right? I mean you know as much as a traffic engineer, right? Then you also know that impeding flow impedes performance and judgement, and increases accidents. But that is good for your business right? Lots of business.

Read the studies performed for the Montana experiment IN THIS COUNTRY.

I must return to work to pay your salary. Nice speaking with you. Remember, as you know, you can't hide from the truth for long. I hope I haven't shocked your dainty ears, but people are being killed out there and some of them are my friends and one of them might be me, and shock may just be necessary.
__________________
Ron