Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

Gubernatorial Candidate Wants to Sell Speeding Passes for $25 825

Posted by samzenpus
from the pay-to-play dept.
If Nevada gubernatorial candidate Eugene "Gino" DiSimone gets his way, $25 will buy you the right to drive up to 90mph for a day. DiSimone estimates his "free limit plan" will raise $1 billion a year for Nevada. From the article: "First, vehicles would have to pass a safety inspection. Then vehicle information would be loaded into a database, and motorists would purchase a transponder. After setting up an account, anyone in a hurry could dial in, and for $25 charged to a credit card, be free to speed for 24 hours."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gubernatorial Candidate Wants to Sell Speeding Passes for $25

Comments Filter:
  • by Antisyzygy (1495469) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @01:52PM (#33482406)
    I have no doubt this will make them money, but it will also make them look much worse on traffic accident statistics vs. other states.
    • by AliasMarlowe (1042386) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @01:55PM (#33482428) Journal
      apart from the state sharing in liability for accidents while speeding with permission...
      • by mysidia (191772) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @02:40PM (#33482794)

        Who says the owner(s) of the car(s) and person(s) present at the accident won't still be the only persons liable if an accident occurs due to speeding? Just because the driver didn't break any laws in injuring someone, doesn't mean the government is "liable" for this. South v. Maryland [endtimesreport.com]; local law-enforcement have no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws

        Only if the state has consented to this liability. The law that enables "speeding passes" could contain a liability shield for the state, Due to Sovereign immunity [wikipedia.org], the state itself cannot be held liable, unless the state has consented.

      • by TooMuchToDo (882796) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @03:06PM (#33482944)

        "Speeding" isn't illegal if the state has given you permission. The driver will still be the liable party.

        • by phoenix321 (734987) * on Sunday September 05, 2010 @04:18PM (#33483470)

          Are people in the Land of the Free truly thinking "The state could be liable for allowing people to do X?"

          Have I drunk the Kool-Aid? What happened?

          Is the state liable when people
          - die after drinking 10 liters of alcohol bought from the supermarket?
          - die after jumping from a bridge that has a guardrail that was lower than 3m?
          - die after shooting themselves in the head with an officially-licensed firearm?
          - die after shooting themselves in the head with an unlicensed firearm?
          - die after being shot in the head by a mugger owning an illegal firearm?

          Since when is the state liable for not preventing stupid people from doing stupid things?

          If that was even remotely possible, I'd rather sue the state and all state officials and law enforcement officers when anyone gets mugged, beaten or shot anywhere. After all, it was the state's fault for not putting a policeman there.

      • Eh? No. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Colin Smith (2679)

        Speeding is travelling to quickly for the prevailing conditions. That speed may or may not be above the speed limit, whatever it is set to.

        The speed limit is not "the safe speed". It is the legal limit of speed. Just because you are legally permitted to travel at up to 30mph on a street, doesn't mean it's safe to do so.
         

        • Re:Eh? No. (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Devout_IPUite (1284636) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @08:17PM (#33484962)
          This is something I always notice. I am comfortable driving faster than almost everyone else on the roads. However, when the conditions get worse I back off.

          A few weeks ago I was traveling home from a trip. Interstate speed limits in my state are 65 and I was probably hovering between 80 and 85. I was passing a lot of people. Then it started raining. I said to myself "oh, light rain just starting after a dry spell, loose dirt on the road, slow down". So I slowed down to 75. Then it got heavier. I said to mself "oh, can't see very well, slow down". So I slowed down to 70, 65, 60, people start passing me, 55. I'm cruising along at 55 which I feel is pushing the safe speed and people go zipping past me. I pull off to pick up my dog from the dog sitter. Get back on half an hour later. I saw 3-4 accidents from idiots who were afraid to travel 80 in clear skys with dry roads, but didn't flinch at all from going 65 when they couldn't see and the water was an non-trivially deep.

          People don't drive for the conditions. Either that or I way overcompensate for the conditions.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by PingPongBoy (303994)

            . I saw 3-4 accidents from idiots who were afraid to travel 80 in clear skys with dry roads, but didn't flinch at all from going 65 when they couldn't see and the water was an non-trivially deep

            The common "reasoning" is going too slow will cause someone to rear-end them. The craziest thing is people going the speed limit in fog so thick they can't see anything. There have been massive 200 car pile ups in fog, as though this is what would happen if lemmings drove cars.

            My opinion on raising the speed limit to

        • Re:Eh? No. (Score:4, Informative)

          by bhiestand (157373) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @10:29PM (#33485608) Journal

          Speeding is travelling to quickly for the prevailing conditions. That speed may or may not be above the speed limit, whatever it is set to.

          The speed limit is not "the safe speed". It is the legal limit of speed. Just because you are legally permitted to travel at up to 30mph on a street, doesn't mean it's safe to do so.

          A minor nitpick, but.. "speeding" is exceeding the legal speed limit, which may or may not be the POSTED speed limit. Legal definitions do exist for this, and "speeding" usually means something. In some states, speeding is merely exceeding the posted speed limit. In many others, there are additional limitations on speed which define speeding differently.

          In California, there are three ways you can be "speeding":

          1. Violation of "basic speed law": going faster than the conditions safely allow
          2. Violation of "prima facie" speed limits: going too fast around schools, rail road crossing, senior centers, and anything else specifically pre-defined by law
          3. Exceeding the posted speed limit

          Because "speeding" is legally defined, somebody (in CA) can not be "speeding" unless they are meeting the above criteria. In CA, you're legally speeding if you're going 65 mph on a highway at night in the rain and fog with 50 feet visibility unless you can demonstrate that this was safe.

          Nevada also has the basic speed rule [state.nv.us] so "the safe speed" is also "the legal limit" as long as the safe speed is equal to or below the posted limit.

      • by arikol (728226) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @05:00PM (#33483758) Journal

        Probably agree.
        The first court cases would be interesting, anyway.
        Grieving family members vs. the state.
        The state having condoned behaviour which was deemed by experts and the police to be the primary factor in the death of the Ronson family, including their cute 4 year old Jenna(shown on news broadcasts with cute curls), their 7 year old son Simon (shown smiling on his bike) and the family dog.
        Can't you just SEE the PR disaster?

        Even if the state would beat any charges, or charges wouldn't be filed, the state would still lose.
        A bill like this would inevitable become a huge liability for a state and would result in financial losses due to high income people moving out of state because of the state having become a less safe place to be. The cost of supporting crippled survivors, family members and rebuilding costs after powerful cars slam into nearby objects at ludicrous speeds would also make the profit somewhat smaller.

        This guy is probably just trying to get attention..

    • by Dr. Spork (142693) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @01:55PM (#33482434)
      That's not necessarily the case. Have you ever driven on Nevada roads? You can go 90, take a brief nap, and still be perfectly safe. I'm exaggerating, but only slightly. Germany has some roads without any speed limit whatsoever, and they're safer than comparable roads elsewhere in Europe.
      • by Austerity Empowers (669817) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @02:13PM (#33482566)

        I think it's just an admission by governments that speed limits aren't actually there for safety so much as to raise funds. If the road is safe enough to drive on at 90mph for $25, it's safe enough to drive on at 90mph for free. The government isn't AT&T, it doesn't get to impose bullshit laws unless the public good outweighs individual liberty.

        • by Antidamage (1506489) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @02:36PM (#33482758) Homepage

          It'd be really sweet if the families of anyone killed by a legally speeding driver got the $25.

          • by darkpixel2k (623900) <aaron@heyaaron.com> on Sunday September 05, 2010 @02:54PM (#33482860) Homepage

            It'd be really sweet if the families of anyone killed by a legally speeding driver got the $25.

            ...except you're not speeding. If the government comes out and changes the speed limit in front of my house from 15 to 25, people going 25 are not speeding. If the government says you can go 90, it's not speeding.

            But I wholeheartedly disagree with the government giving 'special' rights in exchange for money.

            • by quacking duck (607555) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @03:50PM (#33483266)

              But I wholeheartedly disagree with the government giving 'special' rights in exchange for money.

              Street parking? Licenses to drive, hunt, fish, concealed carry, etc?

              I'd say they're carrying on the fine tradition of doing just that.

              • by PRMan (959735) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @04:04PM (#33483372)

                Street parking? Licenses to drive, hunt, fish, concealed carry, etc?

                Street parking can be a limited resource and is usually only metered where it is. Charging for it increases the percentage of the population that can use the resource, thereby making it better for society at large. (People that park downtown everyday can usually beat the government rate, which works for them as well.) Hunting and fishing are again limited resources. Typically governments let people hunt and fish overpopulated species as much as they want. It's when they get to the low-population species that seasons and licenses start being talked about.

                Licenses to drive try to ensure that everyone has a minimum skill set before getting behind the wheel and potentially killing others. That program takes a lot of manpower and resources. The licenses by comparison are really not that much.

                Concealed carry has been abused so many times that people see it as a harm to society, even though it may be an overall good. But it's easy to parade the memory of a shooting victim around and get people to blame the weapon.

                But the pay-to-speed law is different than any of these, in that it is not protected a limited resource AND it is not perceived as a good for society. It's downright blood money as speeding DOES increase fatal accidents in Nevada and there are statistics to back that up.

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by HungryHobo (1314109)

                  Which state/city was it where people were getting parking tickets for parking in their own front yards because of some city ordinance that allowed them to do that.

                  These things start as protecting a shared resource, eventually they all end up as revenue generation.

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by dbIII (701233)

                  Concealed carry has been abused so many times that people see it as a harm to society

                  In other countries it's seen as outright insanity.
                  A major point of legally carrying a gun around in public is so that it can be seen and doesn't have to be used. What good is concealed carry to anybody apart from undercover police (who have other permits to cover it anyway) and organised crime? The general public carrying a hidden gun may get some sort of James Bond vibe but they really have no functional reason to hide t

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by Stiletto (12066)

                  It's downright blood money as speeding DOES increase fatal accidents in Nevada and there are statistics to back that up.

                  Driving increases fatal accidents over 'not driving'. Should we just outlaw driving? Why not play it safe?

            • by md65536 (670240) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @05:54PM (#33484146)

              ...except you're not speeding. If the government comes out and changes the speed limit in front of my house from 15 to 25, people going 25 are not speeding. If the government says you can go 90, it's not speeding.

              Can I buy a pass to temporarily raise the legal blood alcohol limit? Can I buy a pass that changes the definition of premeditative homicide? Or oooh, what about genocide? Cuz I got some plans. It would probably be expensive, but man what a night that would be! Nevada's sitting on a goldmine here.

        • by hedwards (940851) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @02:38PM (#33482776)
          Or more likely that he's a nut job that doesn't know what he's talking about. Roads are constructed to engineering specs. Even if you're on a long stretch of straight road, there's still engineering that goes on to determine the maximum safe speed. Things like lane size and spacing are taken into account. As are the size and spacing of the shoulder and the considerations as to how far away buildings need to be. Not to mention the fact that any road that has a curve is engineered to handle traffic going up to a maximum speed. The angle of the bank and the radius of the curve are chose on the assumption that people will be traveling at no more than a certain speed.

          While libertarians tend to get all outraged about things like this, there's no evidence that it's as safe to go 90mph on those roads as it is 70mph or whatever the current limit is. Even for roads like the Autobahn, when you do have a wreck, it tends to be pretty spectacular and much worse than the ones we typically get in the US. Beyond that mixing traffic speeds is a real danger. There's a reason why you're urged to keep up with traffic flow even if the traffic flow is going somewhat over the speed limit. It represents a risk to other vehicles to have people that aren't keeping up.
          • by shadowfaxcrx (1736978) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @02:57PM (#33482880)

            And roads are over-engineered. A road with a speed limit of 65 is not designed to fail or to become undriveable at 70.

            Your argument also breaks down when you realize that interstates originally had speed limits at or above 70mph - limits which were then lowered to 55 and have only relatively recently been creeping back up.

            The plain fact is that vehicles and roads can both safely support higher speed limits. The "speed kills" BS is there because it's more politically expedient to blame driving problems on an arbitrary number than it is to put the blame where it belongs - in the hands of the crappy driver that caused the wreck.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward

              Actually, speed does kill. Very few people are going to die in an accident that happens at 5 mph, other than from freak causes. Meanwhile, kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity, so going from 55 mph to 65 mph (an increase in speed of about 18%) increases the energy of the vehicle by almost 40%. Going from 65 to 90 increases speed by about 38%, but almost doubles the kinetic energy (about 92%).

              I'm not going to quibble with your opinion on whether or not the speed limits are high enough (tha

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by thegarbz (1787294)
              This also breaks down when you realise that most of these things are built for the lowest common denominator. For instance that sign we see on the side of our roads here which shows the upcoming corner and recommended speed, is for trucks, in my car I can safely go 10-15km/h faster around that corner when the road is wet and faster still.

              But let's talk speed limits on a flat road for a moment. Sure the road may be engineered to go at a faster speed, and you or I may be perfectly capable of handling the r
            • by Phat_Tony (661117) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @07:00PM (#33484490)
              I have a book (but it's in a box in my Mom's attic and I can't remember its name, so I can't link to it or anything) which includes an interview with one of the engineers who designed the interstate highway system. In the 1950's when they were considering it, standard consumer automobiles had routinely gotten faster and more powerful ever since they were invented, and the designers didn't know where that trend would end. There was much discussion about what the ultimate speed of cars would be. In the end, they set standards for curves, banking, etc. based on an assumption of travel at 100 MPH, hoping it wouldn't go significantly over that, and not wanting to have engineered the largest public works project in history only to find out it was significantly deficient twenty years later if they'd designed it for 75 MPH and everyone wanted to go 95.

              I remember that interview also had the information that at least back then, they determined the speed limits for entrance and exit ramps not with measurement of the radius of curves, slopes of embankments, and equations, but by driving a mid-level Ford sedan to every single ramp and driving around it in circles over and over, slightly faster each time. On the first pass where the tires slipped, they'd halve the speed they were traveling, round to the nearest 5 MPH and post that as the speed limit.

              I wish I had the source to point you all to. I think it was from a collection of some "answer person's" newspaper column from the 70's and 80', but I don't recall.
          • by Surt (22457) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @03:39PM (#33483174) Homepage Journal

            That's all true, except that the maximum safe speed is far detached from the specified speed. The specified speed on the federal highway system, and which virtually all states have adopted in order to get their share of highway funds was adopted for fuel efficiency, not safety.

          • by Blymie (231220) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @04:15PM (#33483452)

            "Roads are constructed to engineering specs."

            Yes, they are. That's why on older country roads, which had older 'specs', you will sometimes see them 'straighten' a section of road. That is, if there are too many accidents, or the road has shown that an intersection is designed unsafe, it will be redesigned and upgraded to current engineering specs.

            However, what are these specs based on? Are they based upon a top of the line car, with $2000 tires, and a braking distance 1/3 the length of a 1990s Ford Escort?

            Or, are they designed for the *worst* cars on the roads?

            The original article states that a car inspection would be required before permits could be issued. There is logic to this. There is a wide range of differing vehicle types on the road today, and the best are *easily* able to drive 100mph, and stop in 1/3 of the distance than the worst available.

            All cars are not equal.

        • by cgenman (325138) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @02:38PM (#33482778) Homepage

          People drive 90mph already on those roads anyway. Highway 5 in California has stretches that routinely flow-of-traffic at my car's electronically limited top speed.

          The old "55 everywhere" limit was put in place 40 years ago when that hit the fuel efficiency curve of cars at the time. That is no longer true. Now we have a voting block of really old people who don't feel comfortable driving at the normal flow of traffic, and as such keep voting down speed increases. Sigh.

      • by gmueckl (950314) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @02:15PM (#33482582)

        Those German highways without speed limits are dangerous and demand the driver's full attention because there's almost always a car nearby that is going much faster or much slower than you are (except when traffic is really dense, of course, in which case this degenerates into a massive stop-and-go where you're constantly changing from standstill to speeds up to 100km/h and back in a constant, rather tight cycle). It's quite stressful to drive on these roads for a couple of hours.

        Still, my guess is that the high demands on the drivers keep all of them so much more focused that the end result is a bearable rate of accidents. Actually, I find that I'm much more inclined to doze off on the wheel when I'm abroad on a highway with speed limit where everyone is going in a straight line at the same speed (did I mention that there's barely a highway segment in Germany that's really straight; I've heard that this is actually on purpose, but I'm not certain).

        • by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @03:07PM (#33482950)

          Those German highways without speed limits are dangerous and demand the driver's full attention because there's almost always a car nearby that is going much faster or much slower than you are (except when traffic is really dense, of course, in which case this degenerates into a massive stop-and-go where you're constantly changing from standstill to speeds up to 100km/h and back in a constant, rather tight cycle). It's quite stressful to drive on these roads for a couple of hours.

          I've driven those roads. They were no more stressful than any given highway in the US. If anything, they were less stressful because slower traffic stayed in the right lanes. The big problems I have during my daily commute in the US is when several lanes try to stay at (or below) the speed limit and there's a backup of others heading in to work used to going 10 - 15mph above the limit trying to find a way around them.

          To add to my German roads experience - I drove a lot of small country roads as well. Two lane roads that are about as wide as one and a half US lanes. No speed limits. Occasional blind hills and turns. Farm equipment occasionally on the road. The only accidents I knew of involved either a drunk driver or black ice. As the police say, "speed was a factor." But then, any speed would have been a factor in those cases.

          With that in mind, I knew that when a speed limit was posted, there was a damn good reason for it (and it wasn't to "save the children" or fund the local law enforcement). I paid attention to blind spots in the road. I knew to watch for black ice and moderate my speeds in colder months. I watched for tractors. And I got the heck out of the left lane as soon as I was done passing while on a stretch of Autobaun (one time I looked in my rear view mirror when I saw a flash of headlights, didn't see anytihng, looked back down and saw tail-lights in the distance - dude was really moving). I never had an accident and never had a close call in 3 years of driving there. In all, I'm pretty convinced speed isn't the demon the US likes to make it out to be - beyond the fact that any speed is unsafe in the right circumstances.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by j35ter (895427)

        Germany has some roads without any speed limit whatsoever, and they're safer than comparable roads elsewhere in Europe.

        Well, Germany has no speed limit on some (less and less) highways (Autobahn), where you have strictly divided traffic with special safety measures (side rails etc.). And even there you have a set of supplementing rules for driver behavior on these roads. Without all of this, you can bet your shiny, meaty, a**, you'll see a lot of injuries and deaths due to some morons buying 24h joyride tickets :)

        • Take a look at any speed limited (typically ~70mph or ~120kph) motorway in Europe, take a look at German Autobahn without speed limit... Same. I would hardly describe them as special. I'll also point out that the unlimited autobahns are not 100% unlimited or separated from other autobahns. They are simply sections of the regular autobahn which are without speed limit, and those sections have no worse Killed or Seriously Injured figures than any other section; once you get past 50mph it doesn't really make

      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 05, 2010 @02:22PM (#33482656)

        I'm German, and I find 160 km/h (100 mph) a very decent cruising speed. Sometimes I go up to 200 km/h for short periods of time (5 to 10 minutes) where it's legal.

        I've been driving around Pittsburgh for the past few days, and I learned driving in Iowa. All three are very distinct driving experiences, and while I think Iowa Highways couldn't support these speeds, their Freeways would; but in Pittsburgh, even 55 mph is often an unsafe speed because the roads are so chaotic, uneven, there's so much construction and hardly anyone ever uses their turn signals to show intent rather than stating the obvious.

        • by DancesWithBlowTorch (809750) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @04:52PM (#33483698)
          Fully agreed. I'm German too, and I have driven several thousand miles on American roads. I fully agree that 100mph to 110mph (180km/h) is a convenient speed on a German Autobahn, with a decent car. In fact I find driving on the Autobahn relaxing, especially at night, with a good talk radio programme.

          Many interstates in the US are of comparable or in fact better standard than the Autobahn. Especially in warmer parts of the States, the climate makes potholes rare, and the wide green strips between the opposing directions are a good safety feature that most Autbahns lack. In many parts of the States, the traffic density is also very low compared to the incredible bustle on Autobahns (Germany is right in the middle of the EU, and it seems everyone needs to get from Poland to France, from Austria to Denmark, and the other way round, every other day).

          But the big difference between the States and Germany is the culture of driving. Germans (and everyone else driving on the Autobahn) have learned to live with unrestricted roads, and they started learning, as a society, back when cars had a top speed of 60mph. There are laws requiring everyone to drive in the rightmost lane currently available (the "Rechtsfahrgebot"), and in contrast to the States or Britain where these laws also exist in principle, virtually everyone actually obeys them. Indicating is a reflex rather than a concious gesture: people even indicate at 2am on deserted roads in the middle of a forest, with noone but the moon to watch. And they have acquired an intuition for how fast a car is approaching in the rear view mirror, which is crucial on roads where the relative speed between cars on the right and middle lane can easily exceed 50mph. Americans would have to learn these things for everyone to be able to drive on those roads. In the meantime, there'd be a lot of accidents.
    • AP only (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tepples (727027)
      I thought it might be less bad if the proposal stated that someone using a pass would be deemed at fault in any collision. So I used Google to try to find the details of this plan, but they all appeared to be copies of the Associated Press story linked from the summary.
    • I have no doubt this will make them money, but it will also make them look much worse on traffic accident statistics vs. other states.

      Depends on where they are allowed to drive 90mph. 90mph is well within the design limits of most freeways in the USA - a fact demonstrated quite frequently by people who drive that fast regardless of legality. I've been in rush-hour traffic in some big cities where the traffic was flowing at 80+ mph - not just single speeders, but the entire flow of very dense traffic.

      I think what's fundamentally wrong with his idea is that it proves the lie that speed limits are set for our safety and not for revenue gen

    • by PsychoSlashDot (207849) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @02:09PM (#33482526)

      CUE INCREASE IN ACCIDENTS - I have no doubt this will make them money, but it will also make them look much worse on traffic accident statistics vs. other states.

      Interestingly, this isn't a given. Well, not in the dramatic sense you imply. Yes, increased speed means that in the event of a collision there's more energy involved to be disbursed and absorbed, leading to more severe injuries and frequent deaths in the event of a collision. On the other hand, it's not a given that a higher speed limit will result, for a number of reasons.

      Traffic tends to flow at rates generally in excess of speed limits. Speed limits are generally set (in the U.S.) 8 to 12 MPH below the speed 85% of traffic typically flows. This is done deliberately as one of the biggest purposes behind speed limits is to set a calibration number that most traffic will aim for. The goal is to have most vehicles going the same general speed. That is to say, it's important to reduce variance in vehicle speed. You set your limit expecting almost all traffic to flow within a few MPH of that limit.

      See, the problem is that if a road is well-engineered and conditions are clear, many drivers will push well beyond the speed limit if it's posted "too low". Folks (like me) who are afraid to get pulled over (I drive a tempting and obvious target) stay down very close to the speed limit. The result is that the variance in vehicle speed increases, which is inherently likely to cause more accidents.

      You want to reduce the number of accidents, then consider the severity of those accidents. Not the other way around. By setting limits wisely, even erring on the high side sometimes, you may actually make things safer. That's why you see so many different numbers on the roads.

      Final note: all of what I just wrote is why this plan is horrible. I'd [i]love[/i] to open up my car and go play. But allowing a small percentage of the traffic to flow potentially 50% faster than the rest is likely to result in more accidents. The will coincidentally involve worse injuries.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 05, 2010 @01:53PM (#33482414)

    A comedian (forget who) once said that the SL in a state should be proportional to how boring that state is. In Nebraska, for example, the speed limit should be roughly 200 MPH.

  • by longacre (1090157) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @01:54PM (#33482422) Homepage

    First, vehicles would have to pass a safety inspection.

    Only way I'd be okay with this is if they give the driver some sort of competency exam. Cars don't normally fall apart and cause accidents...it is usually driver error.

    • by jorghis (1000092) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @01:57PM (#33482448)

      Isn't that the purpose of the test you take when you get your driver's license?

      • by longacre (1090157)
        Most road tests don't go over 30 mph. They don't measure reaction time at high speed and such.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Mashiki (184564)

      >Cars don't normally fall apart and cause accidents...it is usually driver error.

      I agree with that. In all the accident scenes I've been to, it's usually driver error based on a contributing factor. Example, raining driver is going too fast, along with following too close. Snow, driver is going too fast and/or too close. Fog, driver is going too fast. And so on. I've only ever been to one accident where it was based on mechanical failure, and it was seizing of one of the front calipers(brake piston

    • by schwit1 (797399)

      No doubt. Even Lewis Hamilton is going to be more accident prone if he is distracted. A requirement of the higher speed is that you are permitted to do nothing else but focus on driving. Use a cell phone and it is jail time ... which should be the law anyway at any speed other than 0.

      That aside, it is good to see a politician thinking outside the box.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Fjandr (66656)

        My problem with this suggestion is that it's either already safe and they shouldn't be charging extra for it, or it's already not safe and they shouldn't be allowing it. The program is either corrupt or stupid, depending on which side of the issue you're on.

  • Unrelated News (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 05, 2010 @01:55PM (#33482436)

    This will never work. Who would pay 25 to speed for one day. When they can speed all week and if they are caught once pay a attorney 75 dollars. Do the math people.

    • Re:Unrelated News (Score:5, Insightful)

      by retchdog (1319261) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @02:10PM (#33482538) Journal

      Once there's a legitimate way to buy "speeding rights," one would expect enforcement to be stricter for the ones who don't buy indulgences.

      Of course it's probably a stupid idea anyway.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      This will never work. Who would pay 25 to speed for one day. When they can speed all week and if they are caught once pay a attorney 75 dollars. Do the math people.

      Do the math of points on your driver's license, and the insurance rate hikes. In Nevada, this may turn out to be only something like $200 total, but somewhere like New Jersey, it's very substantial, potentially in the thousands.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Fallingcow (213461)

        Do the math of points on your driver's license, and the insurance rate hikes.

        I believe that's what the $75 lawyer fee was supposed to take care of.

        It's called "pleading to a non-moving violation" and around here (the midwest) it's what you do when you get a speeding ticket, unless you don't know any better.

        You pay a bit to a lawyer (who probably does little other than this kind of shit all day, every day) who talks to some pal of his at the courthouse and files some bit of paper and ta-da! moving violation

  • Well.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rotide (1015173) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @01:56PM (#33482438)
    There are going to be arguments both ways on this. I'd like to see the statistics if/when this goes into effect. It's definitely an interesting concept. My only qualm is those that are "in a hurry" may have other things on their mind and might not be the best drivers at any speed. Then again, if every state had this system, or even if there was a national level system and you had a trip to go cross country. Could be an interesting idea. Although, then there is the problem of "Ya, I know the highway was crowded, but I _paid_ to speed, so I weaved in and out of traffic to keep up at 90mph." So I guess we'd really need a couple "speeding only" lanes. Still, I'd like to see the statistics after this has been in effect for a while.
  • How will highway patrol know which cars are breaking the law? In southern California, most of us drive 85mph already if there's no traffic.
    • by Ziwcam (766621)
      FTFS:

      motorists would purchase a transponder

      I presume that's how highway patrol would know who had a legit license to speed...

  • I find the safest way to drive is to go with the flow of traffic (even if it's fast, or insane like it was in Greece when I rented a car there). But having a road where cars abide by two very different speed limits makes this impossible. The constant, awkward interaction between 65-drivers and 90-drivers would be far more dangerous than if everyone just went 90.
    • The constant, awkward interaction between 65-drivers and 90-drivers would be far more dangerous than if everyone just went 90.

      Or 65. I'm 100% sure that 100% of people (rounded to 1 decimal place) aren't doing anything important enough that it matters if they take a little longer to arrive. For the remainder, exceptions are already built into law.

  • by HaloZero (610207) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <akedotorp>> on Sunday September 05, 2010 @02:01PM (#33482480) Homepage
    Nevada must be looking to get a foot in the door on the organ/tissue donation market. What they're not telling you is that when you get loaded into the DB, you're also flagged as a donor - much the same way licensed motorcyclists are.

    Moral of the story? If you need an organ, move to Nevada.
  • But.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by zmollusc (763634) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @02:02PM (#33482484)

    But if we exceed the speed limit, even a little, we die. Speed kills! Speed is the most important factor in car crashes! Incompetence? Distraction? Tiredness? They don't matter! Only speed matters! One car travelling faster than the other, law-abiding, drivers will cause untold carnage instantly!!

    At least, that is what authority has been telling me these last several decades.

  • I'd look for direct quotations from the poor misguided politician from elsewhere-- I wouldn't believe that particular news site if they said it was Sunday. If it turns out to be true (that the candidate thinks the state should sell free passes), it's another indication of the growing belief it should be possible to purchase one's way around our laws and regulations.

    And where did he get the "billion dollars" estimate of what this measure would bring in? I know where it came from. Don't look there.
  • just have speeds limits that are not to low Chicago area toll roads and Interstates are to low. They should be 65 or maybe even 70.

    The limit is 55 and next to no one does 55 most people drive 65-70 some do 75-80+. It can be unsafe to do 55 when others are doing 65-70. Also the work zone 45 is a joke make it 55 and full speed when no one is working.

  • >>The Nevada Highway Patrol isn't keen on the idea, saying it would lead to increased injuries and traffic deaths.
    And hospital costs would eat into the $billion jackpot, um, I mean revenue.

    I would gladly pay $25 for the opportunity to go 90mph by the elementary school: there is no word on where the speeding would be restricted to. How about mall parking lots? Cool.

    Nevada does have long stretches of nothing, even outside their politician's heads. Drivers can probably go fast there with minimal conseque

  • by mrmeval (662166) <`mrmeval' `at' `gmail.com'> on Sunday September 05, 2010 @02:13PM (#33482568) Journal

    He's a capitolist asshole. The spelling is deliberate look it up.

    But for my sake how about rear mounted, electrically fired black powder cannon loaded with chain mail and a fake license? It's cheaper and it does the exact same thing!

  • by Teun (17872) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @02:19PM (#33482616) Homepage
    Every day it's proven in Germany that high speed on a properly laid put highway is not an invitation to a high rate of accidents.

    As Nevada is one of the US states I've never visited it makes me wonder if their roads are anything compared to European or even German Autobahns...

    Until then I'll limit the times I hit 265 km/h (155 mi/h for the old fashioned) to the occasions I get in Germany.

    • by mseeger (40923) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @02:55PM (#33482862)

      Every day it's proven in Germany that high speed on a properly laid put highway is not an invitation to a high rate of accidents.

      I am a german and have been driving in the U.S. and Germany. If i would be given a choice, i would prefer to drive in the U.S. Here in germany, driving is a martial art with daily katas on the street. We have no right to bear arms, but cars make a good substitute. If you have ever seen a car accident with more than 150 mph relative speed, you can fully apreciate this statement (e.g. frontal hit between a minivan and a bus, engine of the van traveling completely through the bus, exiting at its rear).

      A further similarity between right to bear arms and the right to speed is, that both claim a bloody price tag. Maladjusted speed (which may not exceed the legaly allowed one) is a major cause of accidents here.

      I always apreciated the much lower speed limits in the U.S. I felt safer on worse roads than i did here on better ones...

      CU, Martin

  • by LynnwoodRooster (966895) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @02:24PM (#33482676) Journal
    90 MPH is pretty much the standard anyway. Seems to work rather fine with cars flying along at 90+ and trucks chugging up the passes at 30 MPH.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Glendale2x (210533)

      90 MPH is pretty much the standard anyway. Seems to work rather fine with cars flying along at 90+ and trucks chugging up the passes at 30 MPH.

      Same with the drive from Reno to Vegas. I cruise it at 85 with no problem. The NHP won't usually bother you unless you're going crazy fast. For those that haven't driven that route, US-95 is two lane undivided with short stretches of 25-40 MPH when you pass through the mere two cities and three "does anyone actually live here" outposts that exist on that 500 mile stretch. You will occasionally be stuck behind a convoy of people that can't seem to go faster than 50, at which point your vehicle needs to be ab

  • Street Neutrality (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CHK6 (583097) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @02:58PM (#33482886)
    Just like net neutrality, I'm for street neutrality. Let the carnage begin!
  • by RichMan (8097) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @03:43PM (#33483194)

    The argument for most laws is public safety. That is the reason for speed limits.

    If this gets passed then speeding is purely a money grabbing effort by the government and a differentiation between those with money and those without. A good lawyer should be able to defeat any traffic ticket if this gets passed, doubly so if the argument is in front of a jury.

  • by thestudio_bob (894258) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @03:53PM (#33483284)

    Think of all the other things they could apply this to:

    • $50 - Litter for a day.
    • $75 - Walk naked in public for a day (Attractive people)
    • $100 - Smoke marijuana legally for a day.
    • $150 - Drive the wrong way on the highway for a day.
    • $200 - Be a police officer for a day.
    • $1000 - Be the governor for a day.
    • $2500 - Walk naked in public for a day (Non-attractive people)

    Just think, all of the budget concerns could be over!!! Genius!!

Promising costs nothing, it's the delivering that kills you.

Working...