Speed Limits - Yea or Nay?

Visorslash

Deity
Joined
Sep 22, 2011
Messages
5,238
Location
Australia
I came across a thread (not here) debating whether to have speed limits or not. When I saw it, I laughed. Then I realised it was serious, so I did some reading.

Personally, I'm for speed limits, but I would like to hear the opinions from the rest of you guys, concerning whether speed limits should be removed or not.
 
Big Government should stop denying people the freedom to drive at speeds of their own choice. If you don't want to get hurt, either quit being lazy and incompetent or don't use the roads ever. It's that simple. No more nanny-state.
 
I assume you mean like highway/interstate travel speed limits (~65-80 mph or 100-130 kmh), i.e. long roads where you can drive safely at any speed, since I don't think anyone would disagree with having like a 20 mph (~30 kmh) speed limit in a residential area where theres children playing in the streets, etc. Or school zones, city traffic, roads that have curves, and the such.

I think it's fine to have speed limits on the highways; it discourages idiots from driving at 100 mph (160 kmh) when they shouldn't be, and probably more easily helps merging on/off traffic if people are generally driving at 80 mph than at 90 mph. (since speed limit often ~75 mph).

Plus I think it would discourage trucks from speeding/going in the left lanes. Trucks slow down traffic a lot and it's good to have a system where they stay on the inside lanes (in US right lanes) to let the left lanes be able to go faster and pass them; because if trucks aren't being discouraged by something then truck drivers would go and drive in the left lanes and slow things up.

at least I've been told trucks aren't supposed to drive in certain lanes.
 
Speed limits should be set by engineers, cars should have GPS trackers built-in which automatically issue steep fines for exceeding the speed limit, followed by police seizure of the vehicle for repeated violations.

Any revenue generated by fines and impounding is only to be used for traffic safety related expenditures, to help avoid conflicts of interest.
 
Both Nevada and Montana used to have speed limits in the more isolated areas determined by what was considered to be safe and prudent depending upon conditions. This meant there was effectively no speed limit in many areas during daylight conditions and the roads were clear.

Unfortunately, far too many Americans don't pay sufficient attention when they operate motor vehicles, unlike Germany where the autobahn works quite well. But their licensing systems is far more rigorous, and they know better than to stay in of the left lane except when passing other cars.
 
unlike Germany where the autobahn works quite well. But their licensing systems is far more rigorous, and they know better than to stay in of the left lane except when passing other cars.
Only partially a matter of knowledge.
Of course that's an offense that can and frequently is fined.

The major differences between the US and Germany are others though.
Essentially it comes down to driving in busy city traffic and driving very fast in the countryside or on a mostly open highways demand very different skills.
The US has an abundance of citydwellers who have to maneuvre city traffic skillfully on a daily basis and who, once they find themselves on a deserted highway (cue: Nevada), overestimate their competence.
In Germany cities are smaller and more dense which has two results:
1) More citydwellers don't have a car (or license to begin with).
2. Those who do are exposed to countryside driving (or open highway driving) more frequently.

Other things factor into that, too. Europe being a small place people driving places more frequently when Americans would fly etc.
But their licensing systems is far more rigorous,
The positive side effects not withstanding this is somewhat infamous in Germany cause it's for a large part a result of educators pressing for that (continuous expansion if it was to go their way), thus expanding their revenue base.
 
Keep in mind speed limits also help limit wasteful burning of gasoline which may help reduce global warming. In the 70's the speed limit was reduced to 55 in part to cut down on gasoline usage during the oil crisis (at least that is what I was told).

It simply is not efficient for most vehicles to drive over 55 mph.

deserted highway (cue: Nevada)

all you do is drive in a straight line, it isn't that hard. :D

I'm only kidding. It's the mountains that get dangerous. The California drivers that go through the mountain pass as stateline and again at Cajon pass outside of LA scare me to death. I was going 90 mph, and people were still passing me up.

Anyways, while I do have some libertarian tendencies, driving fast affects more than just yourself. It endangers others via car crashes, and increases oil usage and global warming. Personal liberties should not mean screwing everyone else over.
 
Speed limits should be set by engineers, cars should have GPS trackers built-in which automatically issue steep fines for exceeding the speed limit, followed by police seizure of the vehicle for repeated violations.

Any revenue generated by fines and impounding is only to be used for traffic safety related expenditures, to help avoid conflicts of interest.

Why not have automatic speed limiters fitted to all vehicles as well? With sensors by the roadside to alter the maximum speed according to conditions. The technology already exists.

It's clear that a lot of people aren't responsible enough to keep to sensible speed limits. And those that are wouldn't notice any difference.
 
Why not have automatic speed limiters fitted to all vehicles as well? With sensors by the roadside to alter the maximum speed according to conditions. The technology already exists.

It's clear that a lot of people aren't responsible enough to keep to sensible speed limits. And those that are wouldn't notice any difference.

There are times when driving fast is acceptable. Like if you are driving someone to the hospital with a serious injury. Or you are late for work...
 
The time you save by driving fast is minimal. On a distance less than 20 miles through an urban area, you're probably talking about less than a minute.

Driving fast because you're late for work should be unacceptable to any sane person.

Driving someone fast to a hospital in order to save their lives is such an outlandishly rare idea that I think we can safely discount it.
 
all you do is drive in a straight line, it isn't that hard. :D
:)

Yeah, but there is weather, dealing with internal factors (fatigue, boredom) and proper reaction to unusual obstacles (say roadkill, minor damage to the road and so on) etc. etc.
Some city people react to all that like it's from another planet. I am sure you know the type.
My speculation is that those people are a slightly more frequent occurence in the US.
I was going 90 mph, and people were still passing me up.
Totally normal speed to get passed by.
I am allways amazed that people aren't used to that.

Seriously: It's a friendly Dutch dude - no reason to have a freakin orgasm.
Yup, that's 90.
And without a speed limit, the speed differential between the fastest and slowest drivers tend to be higher, which has detrimental effects on safety and maximum capacity of a given road.
How about the avantgardistic solution of those two guys (the fastest and the slowest) not being idiots?
It's not like we did not already have rules regarding both idiocies... :mischief:
 
Just a point about heavily controlled road conditions. I have ridden motorbikes in many parts of Asia where road rules are merely a suggestion. And generally I feel much safer than here.

Here I need to worry about people in day dreams simply expecting their adherence and those of others to the rules to get them to their destination safely. Over there, it's like everybody knows that their lives are at stake, in their hands, and they act accordingly. As soon as they get out on the road, they switch on and focus. Young and old alike.

I also note that road rage never presents a problem there. It's almost like everyone knows that if that was added to the mix, it would be chaos.

Having said all that, I doubt the statistics would suggest it is a safer place than the west to drive.
 
You may have felt it, but your anecdote fails in front of facts. Deaths/injury is much much higher there than in a more controlled environment.
 
Back
Top Bottom