Gubernatorial Candidate Wants to Sell Speeding Passes for $25 825
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."
Cue increase in accidents (Score:4, Insightful)
What could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Funny)
So it's like the network neutrality issue but with cars.
Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Speeding" isn't illegal if the state has given you permission. The driver will still be the liable party.
Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You've never been to Nevada, have you? 90mph is not stupid fast in much of the state. Dead flat straight roads for hundreds of miles ... That's Nevada.
As a general rule the US interstate system was designed to be safe at 75mph in 1950s military vehicles. It is no great trick to be safe at higher speeds in modern cars, particularly in a big empty state like NV. Heck, in that area 80mph limits were the norm until they passed the national speed limit.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And who will decide that imposing speed limits are in fact a "reasonable state regulation"? A single judge? A jury of twelve?
Your State of Texas decided it is reasonable to allow all healthy adults free gun ownership and severely restrict highway speeds. Texans unite in claiming gun ownership is a right that the state has no grounds in restricting except for e.g. at special districts - and that civilians driving 210km/h or 140mph on a public highway is criminally insane.
My Federal Republic of Germany decide
Eh? No. (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
. 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)
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":
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.
Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Interesting)
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..
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Translation: roads where the speed limit is too low.
Re:Cue increase in accidents (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cue increase in accidents (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Cue increase in accidents (Score:4, Insightful)
It'd be really sweet if the families of anyone killed by a legally speeding driver got the $25.
Re:Cue increase in accidents (Score:5, Interesting)
It'd be really sweet if the families of anyone killed by a legally speeding driver got the $25.
But I wholeheartedly disagree with the government giving 'special' rights in exchange for money.
Re:Cue increase in accidents (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Cue increase in accidents (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
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?
Re:Cue increase in accidents (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Cue increase in accidents (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cue increase in accidents (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Cue increase in accidents (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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:Cue increase in accidents (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with you.
I'd like to add that faster speeds mean less reaction time. The road might be physically capable of handling 100 anything per hour, but the bottom line, is that we might not have fast enough reflexes to deal with various obstacles.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Cue increase in accidents (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Cue increase in accidents (Score:5, Informative)
Statistics on the other hand will show that the number of fatalities varies to the square of the speed of the vehicle involved in a collision.
Highway statistics show no consistent relationship between speed and fatality. That's probably because once you reach a speed that kills you, it doesn't matter how much faster you go. Higher speeds do seem to increase driver alertness, but of course you also have more stopping distance.
What we do know is that Germany has much higher highway speeds, yet much lower highway accident rates (1/3 of US) and lower absolute number of fatalities (1/40 of US at 1/4 the population).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn [wikipedia.org]
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/pl08021/fig7_5.cfm [dot.gov]
So, stop pulling statistics out of your ass.
German drivers and cars are simply better (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Cue increase in accidents (Score:5, Informative)
There is a much smaller percentage of licensed drivers in Germany than in the US (which is near 99%). And the drivers that are on the Autobahn have much more training and are far more skilled. Sure, they have less accidents, but not even remotely for the reasons you think.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Beyond a certain point, it doesn't matter how much more kinetic energy you have, you're dead anyway. Accident avoidance--fatigue, alertness, total travel time--become dominant.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Speed Kills" is a crock, but it has been adopted by law enforcement folks, and they can't really back out of it now.
Re:Cue increase in accidents (Score:5, Insightful)
Now is also a good time to mention how 80-90% of drivers consider themselves to be above average.
Re:Cue increase in accidents (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Cue increase in accidents (Score:4, Insightful)
"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.
Re:Cue increase in accidents (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Cue increase in accidents (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis#Conservation_and_reduction_in_demand [wikipedia.org]
To help reduce consumption, in 1974 a national maximum speed limit of 55 mph (about 88 km/h) was imposed through the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act. Development of the United States Strategic Petroleum Reserve began in 1975, and in 1977, the cabinet-level Department of Energy was created, followed by the National Energy Act of 1978.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/drivehabits.shtml [fueleconomy.gov]
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/images/speedVsMpg3.gif [fueleconomy.gov]
While each vehicle reaches its optimal fuel economy at a different speed (or range of speeds), gas mileage usually decreases rapidly at speeds above 60 mph.
You can assume that each 5 mph you drive over 60 mph is like paying an additional $0.24 per gallon for gas.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Speed limits are safe if people living there are used to them.
Native Germans driving in the US are probably bored to death on perfectly made freeways with a 55mph limit, suddenly understanding how people can actually, regularly, text on their phone while driving to work and survive until retirement.
Native USians driving the Autobahn would feel Shock and Awe while everyone around them would just do their daily commute, driving in their regular manner.
It's about regular vehicle safety inspections - and driver
Re:Cue increase in accidents (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re:Cue increase in accidents (Score:5, Informative)
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, Insightful)
I can only hope that I've inspired you to get out there and live life like I have. And stop reading 4chan.
Re:Cue increase in accidents (Score:4, Informative)
Where did I say that roads with speed limits are inherently safe?
Have you been driving in Germany yet? If not, my guess is that the kinds of situations you get on the highways there are hard to imagine. Seeing one car pull out behind a truck going at 100km/h while there's another car going 160-180km/h or sometimes even faster approaching from behind and getting far too close far to fast is normal. Very often, the faster going drivers are reckless enough to brake at the very last moment to come down to the slower speed with some 5 or 10 meters to spare between the bumpers and staying that close behind.
Re:Cue increase in accidents (Score:4, Insightful)
Because highways with speed limits are safe and you should feel free to talk, phone, text, eat, put on make-up, etc?
You completely missed the important part: because there's always another car going much faster or much slower. That's the problem. Speed doesn't kill - delta in speed kills. And yes, to take your counter argument to the extreme, if all the cars were going exactly the same speed then as long as everyone manages to stay on the road it would be perfectly safe to do all the things you've listed AT THE SAME TIME.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 :)
Um. German autobahns are like any motorway (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the rule is that insurance won't cover you if you are committing a crime at the time. Because it is a crime (and not just a traffic violation) to be driving in excess of 25 miles and hour (wasn't 35 miles an hour a couple years ago??), and most highways are 55, is where you get that 80mph from. If they make it legal to drive up to 90 mph, insurance will still cover you under most currently policies. In fact, they will cover you up to 115 mph.
Re:Cue increase in accidents (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Cue increase in accidents (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Cue increase in accidents (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Cue increase in smothering (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Cue increase in smothering (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I saw a documentary on TV.
They have a truck which drives up to the white posts on the side of the road and washes them with big brushes like a car wash to keep them clean and visible.
Now *that's* attention to detail.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So you would be in favor of making it illegal to pass on the right, just like on the Autobahn, in order to make highways safe at high speeds?
That's not such a bad idea. Right now it's permissible to drive slowly in the left lane because traffic can still get around you. If it were illegal to pass on the right, only then could you be impeding traffic. So "illegal to pass on the right" would kee
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In many states, mine included(IL), its not legal at all to drive in the left lane, unless you are passing, or in congested traffic. If you are the only car in the left lane, and have the ability to switch to the right lane, YOU are the one breaking the law. Some states will even ticket you if you are going the speed limit, in the left lane.
"At the start of the summer, the Washington State Patrol began pulling people over for violating the state's left-lane law, which prohibits "impeding the flow of other
proportional to boring (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:proportional to boring (Score:5, Funny)
And I'm here to tell you that it's way, way too slow. Even photons bitch about how long it takes to get through Nebraska.
Cars Don't Cause Accidents... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents... (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't that the purpose of the test you take when you get your driver's license?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Anyone skilled enough to pass a harder test on a yearly basis should be allowed to travel in the left lanes at a more rapid pace and everyone else should be restricted to the far right."
Yes, let's put all the slow people to the right side WHERE TRAFFIC USUALLY MERGES FROM, and thus cause even more on-ramp off-ramp congestion than we already have because nobody understands that an on-ramp is an ACCELERATION LANE.
bad idea, man.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents... (Score:4, Informative)
H rated is the standard tire sold in the US now, which is 210kph/130mph
The base 17 inch tires, the cheapest we could find that were made for our car, were V rated 240kph/149mph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tire_code#National_technical_standards_regulations [wikipedia.org]
http://www.carbibles.com/tyre_bible.html [carbibles.com]
Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents... (Score:4, Informative)
I work at a tyre wholesaler in the UK. You basically have to go out of your way to buy any car tyres now that are below H rated, which is 130mph. The commonest tyres sold are 205/55/16 91V, which fit all manner of standard cars which can get nowhere near the 149mph speed rating of them. You can get that size in H rating, but only with some specific branded tyres (like Michelin energy saver, Goodyear NCT5, Bridgestone ER300, Continental Premium 2). The budget performance tyres we sell most of, (Enduro 916+, Autogrip F107), are actually W rated... 168mph. No car that runs on this size of tyre will ever see that kind of speed... quick cars use lower profile, wider tyres.
The lowest (not truck) speed rating that sells is N (87mph) - they're commercial specification though - high profile, high load rating. I've not seen a standard tyre with a lower than N rating. You'll also sometimes get lower (than H) speed ratings on small high profile tyres (for old small cars), and 4x4 offroad tyres.
Unrelated News (Score:5, 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.
Re:Unrelated News (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
This works how? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
motorists would purchase a transponder
I presume that's how highway patrol would know who had a legit license to speed...
Two different speed limits on the same road? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Organ Donation? (Score:3, Funny)
Moral of the story? If you need an organ, move to Nevada.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But.. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
No truth in that media outlet (Score:2)
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 Chiacg (Score:2)
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.
not keen (Score:2)
>>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
I like him. (Score:3, Funny)
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!
Are Nevada roads that much above US standards? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Are Nevada roads that much above US standards? (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Anyone driven from LA to LV? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
So much for public safety (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
This is awesome! (Score:5, Funny)
Think of all the other things they could apply this to:
Just think, all of the budget concerns could be over!!! Genius!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then what are speed limit for? and at what arbitrary point are they set? If the road are straight and the trafic is low there is no reason you should not able to driver faster. If the weather is bad then the current speed limits are far too high.
In rural area's speed limits make a lot of sense because of other traffic. On interstates (equivalent to autobahn) they are just random.
If the problem is security then there should be tickets for insecure driving, not for driving 67 where 60 is allowed.
Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Funny)
Well, at least they still have the sense of speed. This means the magnitude of the vector is still there.