Charley B

National Motorists Association. A study that shows the safest period on Montana’s Interstate highways was when there were no daytime speed limits or enforceable speed laws.

The doubling of fatal accidents occurred after Montana implemented its new safety program; complete with federal funding, artificially low speed limits and full enforcement.

Montana’s politicians succumbed to unfounded conjecture. They passed a politically correct law at a time when the state’s fatal accidents were at a modern low and its roads were never safer.

In the last 30 years we have institutionalized a billion dollar enforcement industry... a press that transitioned from investigative into a business... the ever ominous politicians looking to get reelected or establishing a legacy...

– and a public gladly sacrificing its liberty to false safety idols.

Ron_H

Thank you Charley. Well said. And true. Just examine the actual Montana Study raw data.

Circuit Motorsports

Just want to hit on the Montana part. The reason the daytime speed limit was ended in Montana was NOT because of conjecture or any discussion on accidents and safety. It was ended because the Attorney General argued that the law was unreasonably vague and unenforceable and the state supreme court told the lawmakers to set limits

Bret928

Yeah I know. I only used the term "independent" to detract from the almost automatic notion of mistrust or doubt surrounding any study that might of been performed by engineer who is in the employ of or seemingly beholding to the government that hired him. I wasn’t really referring to the current situation, just trying to determine what would be acceptable to you.

Now personally I don’t have a problem with raising the speed limits. But I’d like fair consideration for the drivers want to feel secure driving at a more sedate & reasonable clip at or just below that speed limit. Biggest thing to me would be that there be some sort of law restricting the usage of the fast (far left hand) lane. Kind of funny - but judging by earlier threads on the topic, most of us here in Rennlist wouldn’t have a problem with imposing a “fine” (Revenue builder or not) on those people, but tout how unfair it is to fine someone for breaking the law by speeding. But I guess I'm the only one who sees the irony in that.

But anyway my point was that I doubt that our government at any level is going to change the speed laws to the point where we’ll have something like the German Autobahns without some serious restrictions on usage and the types of vehicles allowed to either go at the highest “recommended speed” and or be capable of a minimum speed so as to allow for safer high speed driving. But someone's not going to like that either.

This brings up another touchy subject while we're re-writing the rules of the road. I don’t know about you but I see lots of people that aren’t capable of driving a vehicle at even the most tame of freeway speeds at 55mph let alone – 80 to 100 mph. If something like this was to work we’d need to have to either restrict these people to surface streets or maintain lower speed restrictions of the faster vehicles in areas where both need to use that particular steach of highway due to a lack of roadways.

Now personally I don’t have a problem with setting limits on some of these people but I suspect that they’d scream bloody murder about how their rights are being infringed upon. Case in point – many states have toyed with the notion of imposing driving tests and health screenings on elderly drivers at certain ages when vision & reflexes start to wane. But again like I said someone ain't going to be happy. But then this is getting into whole another “rights” battle probably better left to another thread of it’s own.

heinrich

"Silly", when the one who is being "silly" is holding a gun, and is authorised to dangerously exceed speed limits and ignore road safety .... is not so "silly" as it is dangerous.

Charley B

That was hardly the point. Was it?

Ron_H

There is no question about what is needed prior to conditions improving. First, licensing must be stricter and with more intensive and pertinent training requirements. Second, the left lane rule MUST be enforced like it is on the autobahn: pass on the right = lose your license and tow your car, and impede traffic in the left lane = automatic citation for impeding flow. Third, roads need to be greatly improved in many areas of the country. Lack of adequate barriers and shoulders and signage is a disaster waiting to happen. If I see no barriers in the median, I worry about someone crossing over the freeway and hitting me head on, particularly when only grass is in the median. But I scan oncoming traffic constantly anyway for ......well, I just do.

As for goons with guns, anyone who, while in some remote section of nowhere-ville, USA, is stopped by some dimwit with a badge claiming I broke the law be exceeding a posted limit and he got me with radar when I know my detector did not go off and he isn't using POP radar, knows how it feels to be at a disadvantage. This is particularly true if there is another deputy in the cruiser.
And no one on the road or passing by. So listen to Heinrich for he and I seem to share some concern about inequity in these insecure times of governmental abuse of power. For you see, it is not always about revenue. It is sometimes about a Mr. Dick problem. No one needs that stuff.

928SS

FWIW, the NSTB also has concluded that the 55 saves lives was BS. death rates went down when limits went back up to 70mph after going up when limits were dropped to 55mph..

I think a relative safety rule kinda like the basic speed law would be best. dry empty interstate, good car, alert driver, 100mph or so is fine. rain, heavy traffic, crappy vehicle, tired/distracted driver - posted limits or lower apply. but I'm not king so it's all just what we can get away with...

Charley B

It appears it is not just an "automatic notion". Quoting from the National Motorists Association:

Katacus

I know in Virginia, you can alway get a speed calibration done. Who has a dead accurate speedo anyways? Take the results to court. Most of the time they will reduce to defective equipment plus court cost.

Charley B

No.

heinrich

ohh .. I am crushed

dcmelik

Ron,

Just have that zeal for the "innocent until proven guilty" tenet of American justice for everyone who gets accused of something more heinous than speeding. I've always found it interesting that we on this list, and I include myself, are indignant at traffic enforcement. We know it's a revenue/tax game so we're upset when we're caught and we fight "every ticket" as if a scheduled fine were the revocation of our liberty itself. We think the law is unjust so we fight the law and, not coincidentally, the punishment for violating it.

Just remember that real liberty is being taken away from those accused, sometimes falsely, of crimes more serious than traffic violations.

heinrich

dc i agree ...

Dennis Wilson

Think it is official now.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080119/...us/photo_radar

Dennis