Gubernatorial Candidate Wants to Sell Speeding Passes for $25

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."

Comments

Cue increase in accidents

[Antisyzygy]

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.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Dr. Spork]

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.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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 generation or political pandering. Spending money alone does not increase safety, so either it is safe enough to raise the limit for everyone or it's not just a license to speed, it's a license to create mayhem.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[PsychoSlashDot]

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 accidents

[Wyatt Earp]

People that will pay the money and submit to an inspection generally are good drivers. 80-90mph on empty western US freeways are perfectly safe, I've driven from Seattle or Portland or Eugene to the Great Plains dozens of times, 80 or 85 or 90 are perfectly safe.

If I was in Nevada I'd be 100% in favor of this.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Austerity Empowers]

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

[gmueckl]

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

[Antisyzygy]

Ive driven on Montana highways at that speed. I got pulled over and fined big time. Thing is, its unsafe in the areas Ive done it. I suppose if Nevada is pretty flat and you can see a long ways then there is no problem.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[j35ter]

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 :)

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[PhreakOfTime]

Having grown up in the (flat) Midwest, one of my first drives through Nevada, I had a similar experience.

On finishing the upward part of climbing through a mountain pass, the road leveled off, and I was able to see the next town in front of me a short distance away. Well, I 'thought' it was a short distance away. The landscape was so wide open that my sense of distance was thrown completely off. After a few minutes, I began to wonder how far the town actually was, only to pass a road sign saying 'Nevada Town XYZ 19 miles'. The town was STILL almost 20 miles away, but my perception of it was that it was much closer.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[TheLink]

All depends on the drivers you have, and what they expect.

In Germany they even have crazy towns that got rid of most of its traffic signs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf-O5o4aqcs
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2010/0331/What-happens-when-you-remove-all-traffic-signs-A-German-town-finds-out

But somehow it works OK.

In Netherlands too: http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2008/0625/do-traffic-laws-cause-accidents

In India many don't seem to care much about traffic signs either, so is that the same thing? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjrEQaG5jPM

Would that system work well in China? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw-ZlHXs4Q8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj4LrSxjTIM

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[carou]

Spending money alone does not increase safety, so either it is safe enough to raise the limit for everyone or it's not just a license to speed, it's a license to create mayhem.

What about the vehicle safety inspection? Sure, you could mandate that all vehicles meet the (presumably more rigorous) standard, but people who don't drive at 90mph might not appreciate the increase in maintenance costs.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

I live in Reno and work in Carson City, in perfect honesty people are consistently going 80 MPH both ways, why not charge them. (Playing devil's advocate, personally I think this is a horrible idea.)

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Wyatt Earp]

I drove Portland to South Dakota in 2004 (that was the last time, had a stroke shortly after that and didn't drive for 4 years).

We set the cruise control at 85 in my truck for the whole way, saw one cop outside of Butte and then the other way back saw officers at the scene of a fatal motorcycle crash outside Butte.

The freeways in the American west, outside the urban areas are low volume and perfectly safe to drive at 80-90 for long stretches.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[prionic6]

While many people here say "Autobahn is dangerous", let me chime in to say 90 mph is not that fast (ca. 140 kph), standard cruising speed with a medium sized family car...

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Antidamage]

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

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Alastor187]

Those German highways without speed limits are dangerous and demand the driver's full attention...

Because highways with speed limits are safe and you should feel free to talk, phone, text, eat, put on make-up, etc?

How about people just assume that every drive, no matter how seemingly safe, was actually dangerous and required their full attention.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[JWSmythe]

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

  You described driving on any road. You should always give your full attention to driving. Cars can be anywhere from stopped to the speed limit, or even well over the speed limit. Just because we have a speed limit doesn't mean people follow it. If they were, then no one would ever get a speeding ticket.

  What you described (stopped to 100km/h or 62mph, applies to roads all over America, and is within the speed limit.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[hedwards]

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.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[cgenman]

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

[yotto]

I came in here to say this, only much less eloquently.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if it doesn't influence the accident rate, it will certainly increase the fatality rate. An accident at 50 mph is far more survivable than one at 90. Simple physics.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[blai]

How about:
- decrease speed limits of all roads to 10mph
- sell speeding passes for $50 so you can drive at 30mph for a day
- ???
- PROFIT

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[bhtooefr]

However, Germany gets along fine with having varying speeds on some of their roads.

Maybe enforcement of "keep right except to pass" would solve the speed differential problem.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[darkpixel2k]

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.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[leenks]

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.

Interesting - do you have any stats to back that up? I live in the UK where most of the roads outside of cities are 60/70mph limits, and I get significantly better fuel economy driving at 50mph than I do at 70mph, let alone 80 or 90mph (I have a fairly fuel efficient modern turbo diesel).

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[shadowfaxcrx]

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:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

while i'm not disagreeing with the conclusion that the streets are or aren't safe for 90mph all the time, your logic is, however, flawed. If a road is safe enough to drive at 90mph for $25 doesn't imply the same for free. You used the same flawed logic with AT&T. The whole reason being that if you charge for it, not everybody will do it. Maybe the roads can handle a few people doing it, but it may not be able to handle everybody. Same with AT&T, maybe it can deal with a few people downloading a whole lot, but not necessarily everybody.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[shadowfaxcrx]

Seconded. Statements complaining about roads requiring the full attention of the driver are generally statements made by people who should never be allowed behind the wheel.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

>> hardly anyone ever uses their turn signals to show intent rather than stating the obvious.

Shock news just in tonight!

Americans can't drive. Oh no, wait, this is news?...

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[shadowfaxcrx]

In general, if your car can safely go 70mph, the speed limit in many states, it can go 90mph just as safely from a mechanical perspective (assuming, of course, its powerful enough to reach 90). If its so poorly maintained that it can't safely go 90, then it's too poorly-maintained to be on the road in the first place.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[_Sprocket_]

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:Cue increase in accidents

[TooMuchToDo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis#Conservation_and_reduction_in_demand

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

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/images/speedVsMpg3.gif

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:Cue increase in accidents

[_Sprocket_]

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.).

I drove smaller, non-Autobahn roads in Germany with no speed limits. Some of them 2 lane country roads that would have been 1.5 lane roads in the US (when I first started driving there, I kept expecting my rearview mirror would collide with the oncoming vehicle's mirror - too awhile to get used to that).

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Thinboy00]

55 everywhere is a US thing, firstly. Secondly, USians tend to drive bigger and less efficient cars than Europeans, and hence our cars have different efficiency curves. I'm not sure where the maximum efficiency is, but it probably fails to coincide with your maximum.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[OnePumpChump]

Have you ever been to Nevada?

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

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

I call bullshit. When accidents do happen on the autobahn, the consequences tend to be horrific.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Gordonjcp]

Some of them 2 lane country roads that would have been 1.5 lane roads in the US (when I first started driving there, I kept expecting my rearview mirror would collide with the oncoming vehicle's mirror - too awhile to get used to that).

I had some friends come to visit from the US, and it was their first time driving in the UK. Now, to be fair, the first part of their 240-mile journey from Glasgow Airport to my house included the infamous A82 Loch Lomond section, where the road is about a normal UK lane-and-a-half. It usually takes me five hours, maybe six if I'm hanging about. I got a phone call after six hours, telling me they were at Tyndrum - about a quarter of the way ;-)

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Burning1]

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.

I strongly encourage you, and everyone else to attend a local SCCA trackday or auto cross event. You don't need to have a race car - the family sedan is more than capable of some very impressive speeds if driven properly, and the experience will both help develop skills, and really open your eyes to the realities of driving on the streets. If you do happen to own a sports car, you really owe it to yourself to drive it properly, at least once.

I personally race motorcycles, and ride on the street. I race a very small bike, and the speed differential between myself is sometimes staggering - I may be going 100 miles per hour, only to be passed by another rider going in excess of 140. Yet, it works because everyone knows and obeys the rules.

The rules are simple... There's no marked lanes, no speed limits, no brake lights, and no turn signals.

- When entering the track, do not cut across traffic. Stay outside until you're up to speed.
- When riding on the track, be predictable. Throw your hand in the air if you're going to do anything unusual (such as leaving the track.)
- Leave a reasonable margin of space for other riders*.
- Obey the track marshals.

* The third one is relative. For newer riders, 5 feet is considered safe. For racers, I've seen our guys knock fairings, elbow each other, and in one case, duck so one rider could pass under anther's handlebars.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[bored_engineer]

huh? It sure sounds like you're saying that the flow-of-traffic speed exceeds 100 mph, and that's just not the truth. Unfortunately, I've been in the annoying position of driving up and down I-5 between San Diego and Sacramento. I typically set the cruise control around 85, and find that I'm constantly adjusting my speed to wait for, or maneuver around slower traffic. Further, the truck traffic is so heavy that I think it would be very difficult if a significant portion of the traffic were exceeding 100 mph.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

I drove smaller, non-Autobahn roads in Germany with no speed limits.

No, you didn't. There are no non-Autobahn roads without speed limits. Those 2 lane country roads would have been Landstraßen and there is a speed limit of 100 kph on those.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[MadCow-ard]

I live in Germany and I completely agree with the above statement "and I find 160 km/h (100 mph) a very decent cruising speed.". But in Germany the older your car is the more expensive the taxes are. In some major cities they have made older, higher poluting, cars completely illegal to drive. The result is that a large amount of cars on the road are 3 years or less old. And of these, a majority are German made and German engineered. And in Germany it costs upwards of 1K Euro to earn a driving license, which can be revoked or mandatory additional driving lessons can be applied, costing significant additional cash.

The final result: attentive drivers, and very well maintained high end vehicles. Add in the high quality of most German roads, including signs, water drainage, and careful maintenance. All of this (in addition to the "German" quality of placing attention to the task at hand) and you have the conditions for safely driving at 100 mph or faster. I feel safe in Germany at this speed, I would not feel safe on any suburban US Freeway, or most rural ones which are fairly well driven.

The states simply doesn't have the road quality, the attentive drivers who adhere to the rules, and the high average quality of vehicles. It wouldn't work and would be dangerous, It wouldn't work in Sweden either, so don't feel bad.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the $25 day pass includes school and work zones or does this privilege cost extra?

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[the_other_chewey]

I drove smaller, non-Autobahn roads in Germany with no speed limits. Some of them 2 lane country roads that would have been 1.5 lane roads in the US [...]

No you didn't. All standard two-lane roads in Germany have a default implicit speed limit.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[couchslug]

If the US gets Autobahns, I'm fine with that as long as German licensing standards, DUI rules, and related laws go with it. ;)

US drivers are often ignorant, incompetent, and their drivers license tests meant nothing. This won't change in our lifetimes and there is no support for making things any different than they are.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[carp3_noct3m]

Having spent some time in Germany, the thing that makes the autobahn safer compared to the US, is primarily one law. You have to be as far on the right side of the road as possible. Pass someone? Ok, get back over into the right hand lane. Big trucks have to stay in the far right lane all the time except to pass. And you WILL get pulled over for not doing it. It creates a safer more efficient flow of traffic people need to learn in the states.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[FiloEleven]

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

I'd be interested to see how many people who are against this measure are okay with carbon credits.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[gmueckl]

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

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

Actually, I wasn't even thinking of that when I saw this article - here was my first thought association. New Dark Age?

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Surt]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

I've gotten a speeding ticket at 10pm for 73mph in an empty-ish highway, which happened to be 23mph over the "speed limit", a $195 fine, plus a "hidden" $300 fine, plus insurance increases due to 6 points on my license. That same road between the end of morning rush hour and mid-day traffic, every car goes at ~70mph even though it's moderately dense traffic. I find that ridiculous and purely a money grab, hell if I got pulled over and had to pay a $100 fine without the extra hidden troubles, I wouldn't really be that upset about it years later, but $500+insurance fees plus mandatory court hearing etc.. is far too much for a road obviously designed to handle 90mph+ speeds.

I found their commentary a bit annoying, but I think this video proves a great point about the speed limit: It's dangerous to go at the speed limit and if the speed limit was obeyed, it'd likely cost billions of dollars in manhours wasted on the road: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B-Ox0ZmVIU&feature=channel

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, that is the law in many US states, but people aren't given tickets for it, so no one does it anymore. That is how I was taught to drive (in Illinois), but that isn't how people drive today. Mom in a SUV doing 5 miles under the speed limit today, is more likely to be in the left hand lane on the phone putting on make up than in the right hand lane (or parked as she should be).

If you want to do 5-10 over the speed limit, there is no guessing which lane you need to be in to pass, more often than not, it's the right hand lane which no one is in because that's the slow lane.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Surt]

I don't have any stats, but I can tell you with 100% certainty from about 20K miles each of sample driving that my nissan altima hit maximum fuel efficiency at 70mph. 80 and 60 were both about 10% lower. Yes, I had a lot of boring drive time to experiment.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Just wanted to mention that in germany country roads - or 'Landstarssen' - have a speed limit of 100 km/h ( about 62mph ) as defined by the law and doesn't have to be announced by a sign. A sign is only mandatory if the speed limit is lowered below 100 km/h.
And additionaly you have to be aware if you're in city limits i.e. if you have a sign declaring in to be in city limits which isn't always decucible from the scenery. If you're inside city limits the speed limit is automatically 50 km/h, or 31 mph. If you're still driving 62mph inside city limits you will loose your drivers permit for a couple of months and, if you were above 62 mph possibly have to succesfully pass a test with a psychologist if you're 'fit to drive a vehicle'.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Surt]

Drive outside of commute hours. If you drive at night the flow routinely exceeds 100.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Niedi]

Those German highways without speed limits are dangerous and demand the driver's full attention...

Because highways with speed limits are safe and you should feel free to talk, phone, text, eat, put on make-up, etc?

How about people just assume that every drive, no matter how seemingly safe, was actually dangerous and required their full attention.

Because people tend to just not do that and it seems almost impossible to change it. At least as long as they are lulled by boredom and the feeling that nothing can possibly happen on these endless straight, wide roads with low speeds.
However, put them in an environment where it is completely obvious that not paying attention might lead to sudden demise and you have the right motivation to stay alert.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Ogi_UnixNut]

From personal experience (on UK roads) I've witnessed a cars fuel consumption go from 15l/100km to 13l/100km at the speed limit, to about 6l/100km around 220kph. Once we hit 250kph the consumption went up to about 10l/100km, but that was because that was the cars top speed, and the engine was at it's top end (where it was less efficient).

There seems to be some relationship, especially when you look at cars which both state their urban and highway consumption, the highway consumption is usually lower than the urban.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[TubeSteak]

And even there you have a set of supplementing rules for driver behavior on these roads.

"Keep right"
Germany has this law and enforces it.

It makes everything else about their magical land of no-speed-limits possible.
The States in America that do the same make driving a pleasure.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[horza]

I've driven the entire length of Germany a couple of times, usually over 250 km/h, and did not find it any more stressful than driving anywhere else in Europe. In fact it is FAR less stressful as you can watch the road instead of for speed cameras. And in France and UK all the lanes are going different speeds even with a set speed limit.

Accidents have far less to do with speed than the respect that drivers have for other road users.

Phillip.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

Highway 5 in California has stretches that routinely flow-of-traffic at my car's electronically limited top speed

I've driven I-5 all over CA, so I'm either going to say you have one funky car or your post is BS - I've seen traffic typically flowing 75-80, and the "flow" maxes at maybe 85 tops (yes, there's the occasional "nutjob" doing 100 but that can't be considered flow when he's passing everyone in sight).

What sort of car do you have that's limited to 85mph?

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

You are just plain wrong. An "Autobahn" in Germany is a road that has one of those "A" numbers, A1, A2, and so on.
There exist many roads that do not have an "A" number but yet have no speed limit. The legal minimum requirement for no speed limit by default is something like "either two lanes in each direction, or a clear separation of the lanes. The sign for those roads is this one:
      http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Zeichen_331.svg&filetimestamp=20060729145019

Conversely, many of the actual Autobahn roads have a speed limit.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Jedi Alec]

I've done the Loch Lomond part as a passenger...in a car that had the steering wheel on the wrong side for driving in the UK.

Let's just say it was an interesting trip and keep it at that ;-)

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Naturalis Philosopho]

There's a world of difference between maintaining an overall level of carbon emissions and speeding. For your analogy to work, the speeding law would have to average out the speeds on the road by requiring non-paying drivers to lower their speed below the posted maximum. In the real world trading carbon emissions rights works to limit the overall amount of carbon release and rewards those who are most efficient with money from those who aren't as efficient (ie it's like a free market). What the proposed speeding law does is allow people to buy immunity from the laws which are designed to limit the risk of collective use of a public good. Where I live it's flat enough that you can't use rifles during hunting season. This law would be like allowing people to pay for the right to break that regulation because they promise that their bullets won't go through any farm houses.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Delarth799]

They are curved for a reason and they are done on purpose, the white lines going by would cause people to space out pretty much and fall asleep so the gentle curves and whatnot keep them having to refocus on the road. They do it here in the states to, we got most of our highway tech/ideas from Germany although we did alter some parts.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking at this there are actually not that many cities where you are not allowed to drive in the inner city with an old car. This does not seem to be a valid argument.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[quacking duck]

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

[Linkota]

... 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.

While I dont wish to minimize the problem with poor or inattentive drivers, have you taken physics? i.e. does f=ma^2 ring a bell? Notice the squared term...

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[_Sprocket_]

I suppose it's what you're used to. I'd visit back home and drive US roads, really shocked at how much space I had ("Look - I can weave around and still not hit anything"). When I moved back, I had a co-worker here that drives all back-roads because he can't handle being on a highway. The city I live in is really designed around having a car and freeway driving. I have no idea how he deals with it.

(Incidentally, when I said "rearview mirror", I meant side-view mirror - it'd be a really rough driving experience if your rearview mirror collided with the other car)

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[socsoc]

Oh, are you the guy passing me at 105 MPH in the fog on Interstate 5? I had a T-Bird that maxed at 85, but depending on where you are driving on 5, that could also be way too fast. I-5 in CA and many highways in NV desperately need maintenance. For example, 90 MPH wouldn't be safe on much of US50 or I-80 entering NV from the CA side. Besides, the NV State Troopers need somewhere to hang out...

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[magarity]

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:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

The German Autobahn is also engineered for vehicles traveling at higher speeds, and rules about which lane you are supposed to be in are enforced (eg no passing on the right, left lane is for passing only). Also, obtaining a license is more difficult. And there is an "advisory" speed limit of around 80 mph.

Moreover, the Autobahn is run and utilized by *Germans*. Put a bunch of hicks from Nevada on a no-speed-limit highway in their hillbilly-mobiles, and there's bound to be carnage.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Lost Race]

I'm skeptical of the claim that higher speeds to not lead to higher collision rates. At higher speeds it takes longer to brake to a stop, which means more collisions with stationary (or near-stationary) objects. It's also harder to recover if you lose control in an avoidance maneuver or go off-pavement for any reason. Are there any actual data to back up the claim?

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

"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."

There's no evidence that it's as safe to go 70mph on those roads as it is to go 5mph, in fact there's a lot of evidence to the contrary. Should we all drive at 5mph?

People naturally drive at a speed which is appropriate to conditions taking in to account that time is valuable. What they do not do is leave themselves much/if any safety margin for mechanical failures/driver error.(themselves or others)

"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."

I agree with you, and that's the EXACT reason why this is such a retarded idea. Not because the roads are engineered for the speed limits(they're not, speed limits are designed to suppress the price of gasoline, and to lower traffic fatalities by allowing people a margin of safety. Towards this end: it's ludicrous that tailgating is not ticketed with as much fervor as speeders, as it causes an equal or greater reduction in reaction time.) but because differences in speed are what cause a driver who expects 65mph to make a right or left turn cutting off someone who is going 90mph.

On the other hand: you're 100% wrong about being urged to keep up with the traffic flow. In fact: the opposite is true. They will ticket you for going the same speed as another car and call you the unlucky fish the day you were fishing in an ocean full of fish. No: "going with the flow of traffic" is not a defense to a speeding ticket. Believe me: I've tried.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[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 (that's a matter of debate), but I think it's ridiculous to claim that speed has nothing to do with the severity of accidents.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Trahloc]

Doesn't sound that different from LA traffic actually. Except that the car doing 100mph is weaving around traffic since everyone else is doing ~80mph. If we actually implemented a law that required people doing 65mph from being in the far left lane (our 'fast' lane/1st lane) then we'd be fine. Most of our freeways have 4+ lanes. Going into Los Angeles proper your looking at 8-10 lanes per side depending on how you want to count.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[superdude72]

It *isn't* safe to go 90 mph on Nevada highways. That's why the highway patrol is not so keen on the idea.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

I got a good chuckle out of that comment!

When I lived in Vancouver, Canada, the 2 lane (one each direction), winding Sea to Sky highway between Vancouver and Whistler, with a cliff on one side and rock faces subject to frequent falling rock on another, had a speed limit of 110 km/h. By comparison, the Lougheed Hwy, with 4 lanes (2 each direction), largely straight and with medians for large stretches and wide shoulders had a speed limit of 60 km/h. The road could easily handle 150 km/h.

There's nothing "engineered" about these speed limits - they're arbitrary. In the case of the Sea to Sky, there's much incentive to get the tourism cash up to Whistler. In the case of the Lougheed Hwy, there's much incentive to set up speed traps and generate revenue.

I'd rather they offer different coloured license plates, with different speed limits, and a rigorous test to qualify for the fastest (ideally, no limit) plates. I've seen plenty of people driving the speed limit utterly oblivious to the motorists around them. They'd get a black plate, and other drivers would be free to bump them at will...

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

No. A hell of a lot more engineering has gone into the high speed autobahn than any US interstate highway. Grade and bank become such an important safety factor at these speeds that a significant portion of the autobahn is actually raised off of the ground to accommodate these needs even though there are no obstacles or cross-roads in these areas.

Additionally, the cost of building and maintaining the autobahn is staggering compared to U.S. highways (factor of ten? couldn't find a source besides the documentary I watched recently) and Germany has basically been over-budget and deep in debt on the autobahn since it was created. Another important consideration is that these high-profile, anomalous examples account for an extremely low percentage of actual roads (the autobahn accounts for less than 2% of roads in Germany), which is not very comparable to the US interstate system. Additionally, there ARE still speed limits there. For areas under construction or that do not have adequate traffic. In the event of a crash that leads to death or injury, those exceeding the advisory speed limit of 80 mph can still be held liable by the courts.

Its easy to say that the blame lies with "crappy drivers" because driver error factors into nearly every crash (97%) because even if road conditions are NOT safe, it is still the responsibility of the driver to perceive these conditions and reduce their speed or increase their following distance or otherwise be more alert to the road. But crappy drivers are less likely to cause accidents that lead to death and injury if we impose and enforce a law that restricts the speed at which they can travel. You can argue speed limits and traffic tickets do not reduce accidents, but by that logic should we simply lift driving under the influence laws because they cannot prevent the nearly 40% of traffic fatalities that occur each year?

Crappy drivers including those who choose to drive while impaired ARE a serious problem and one that demands our attention. Think about what these individuals do when they get in their cars. They set the cruise at about 2 mph under the speed limit to avoid ending up on highway patrol radar. What do YOU want their cruise set at? 53 mph or 88 mph?

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[BasilBrush]

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.

Actually you can't justify that claim. The government has no problem putting blame on drivers.

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.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[horza]

Blasting up behind whilst flashing your headlights also helps the person in front keep to the right. Driving with the hazard lights on or liberal use of the horn also helps.

Phillip.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[PRMan]

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:Cue increase in accidents

[_Sprocket_]

I do remember the city speed limits. And the region I lived in was dotted with small burgs. You really didn't want to drive through them fast anyway. Although there were roads that I drove that went a fair distance before touching a town.

You might have me on the default limit for country roads. I remember them as being without a limit. But I don't think I ever wanted to drive one above 100km/h - lots of turns and hills. Fun to drive but you wanted to be careful about what you'd find on the road ahead of you. It's been years and it's very possible I've forgotten the default limit. In any case, any such road in the US would have a drastically slower speed limit.

Having said that - I'm pretty sure that there were larger roads that weren't part of the Autobaun that didn't have a limit. These tended to go for quite awhile without a town, were multiple lanes, and involved long stretches with clear views. But again - it's possible I just don't remember the law that well.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[quacking duck]

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.

To add to this, I'm convinced part of the *reason* speed is demonized in the US and Canada is the prevalence of automatic transmission. People started filling in that "free hand" with food, drinks, cell phones, makeup, and other distractions. Add the fact there are far more big vehicles in the US and Canada that handle and stop poorly (they need to "be better protected" in an accident), and it's a recipe for disaster.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[arivanov]

German roads have LOTS of speed limits, just the speed limit is artistic. You have time of day speed limits, type of traffic speed limits (and limits on overtaking), real-time speed limit on traffic depending on traffic conditions and so on. So there is "no speed limit" only if you are driving a car (all goods traffic has one) and only if you have happened to be in a portion that has no limit at that particular time. I frankly prefer to have one reasonable speed limit. For example 130km/h (80mph) like everywhere in Europe except UK, Holland and Serbia is fairly reasonable.

I recently drove twice across whole of Europe west-east and after that east-west. So speaking based on first hand experience - after driving in Germany you feel like a lemon run through a juice press. 2h driving in Germany is as tiring as driving across the whole of ex-Czechoslovakia and Hungary (7h). I can drive for 3-4h anywhere else non-stop. In Germany I have to take a break after two hours tops, usually less. There is just too many psychotics on the road which are compensating for something by driving at 120mph in sub-50m visibility, pouring rain and standing water on the motorway.

So, not surprisingly their accident statistics are nothing to shout about. Austria, Holland (which has MUCH much more cars per linear meter of road on the road), etc have much better ones.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[MicktheMech]

Where on earth were you actually able to drive 220kph, let alone 250, for any extended period? By "UK roads" do you mean some kind of oval track?

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[phoenix321]

They drive 90mph. For our friends from outside the North Americas, that is 145km/h. The mind boggles at this blistering speed that is only a bit below the sound barrier.

Come on. Speed limits are usually set much lower than what could be safely driven on most parts of the road. Maybe this is because of a different culture of unattentive driving, driving-while-texting, driving while drunk or similar things in each county. Or maybe this driving-while-x-thing is a result, rather than a cause of road traffic that is so much too slow for a given road that driving there simply undersaturates the normal healthy brain?

Being forced to drive a perfectly made, perfectly straight, perfectly empty road with a joke for a speed limit can be painful, almost physically. Just go to a completely empty, perfect, straight street somewhere around and try to discipline yourself driving 75% of the speed limit for that road. Keep it up for ten minutes and you'll know what I mean.

Over here - guess, where I live - we routinely drive maybe 200-210km/h (130mph) in everyday situations, or whatever the cars themselves reach. There are cars that go faster, but it's actually pretty rare to see someone doing 250. Compared with the rest of the world, our speed limits - the lack of them - look like insanity, but for whatever reasons, crashes and damages in loss of life on these unlimited sections of our road network are only a fraction of all accidents in total, especially when compared to the distance covered by drivers on these roads. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn#Crash_evaluation

On the other hand, I've never heard of people driving on the Autobahn WHILE TEXTING. With you driving "incredibly dangerous" 90mph while Porsches, BMW and Mercedes could come crashing in from behind doing 60mph MORE, writing text messages is unthinkable. Speedy BMW and Mercedes are surprisingly survivable, slower vehicles with inattentive drivers aren't.

I would say, speed as a root cause of accidents is severely overestimated. Speed increases an accident's damage, it doesn't cause it. Intersections do that, overwhelmingly. On clear stretches of road - freeways - it's all about expectations the drivers have about other driver's speeds and behavior. What I said about texting also applies to pulling in and out of lanes. Over here, on our A-class freeways, people that pull out of their lane without looking back are quickly punished by a 2-ton piece of Bavarian steel hitting them at a differential speed of 100km/h. They learn that on their second day in driving school. Some do anyway, of course we also have our share of idjits, but thankfully, it's still very rare.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[superdude72]

The autobahn is run by and utilized by *Germans*. The people that this guy is proposing should be able to break the speed limit for $25 are *Nevadans*. That is a world of difference.

Autobahn: A guy in a well-engineered BMW or Mercedes, who has passed a required $2000 driving course, attentively cruising down the autobahn at the "advisory" speed limit of 130 km/h (80 mph) while maintaining lane discipline in accordance with the law.

I-80: Cletus the Slack-Jawed Nevadan weaving through traffic in his hillbilly mobile while chowing down on a Big Mac and a Thirsty 32 ouncer from 7-11, yelling at his 3 hillbilly kids in the backseat, while the hillbilly mobile takes horrifying damage from all the cracks in the pavement.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[_Sprocket_]

It's possible. I haven't been in Germany for years and I might have forgotten a good amount of the law there.

I've been called out elsewhere in this conversation for making this claim. :) Its been noted that there were limits for towns (which I remember slowing down before hitting a burg - and there was one town that didn't allow through-traffic at all). And it was noted that the default limit is 100km/h. That's pretty darn speedy by US standards for the type of roads we're talking about. It's possible it just FELT like there was no speed limit as I wasn't keen to go past it on those particular roads.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[nomadic]

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.

While variable, human reaction time is not an arbitrary measurement.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

there are statistics to back that up.

[citation needed]

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Corwin]

K.E. = 1/2 M * V^2 -- Speed does kill

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Blymie]

"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

[shutdown -p now]

It's two different things. Speed limits don't reduce accident rates much, but they do affect the outcome quite significantly - e=mv^2 and all that...

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[_Sprocket_]

I used to think the big difference between driving in Germany and the US was the drivers themselves. That the US was just more aggressive. But then I lived a year in the Silicon Valley area and found driving there to be (while heavily congested) a lot more pleasant. In comparison, I'd almost swear there are people in the Houston, TX region that are out to kill people on the freeway.

It could simply be a cultural thing. The US has very Puritanistic views towards alcohol and sex compared to Germany. Drinking ages and all manner of laws restricting sex-related industries are supposed to be there for our safety as well.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[thegarbz]

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 road at or above 70mph, however does that suddenly mean that everyone is capable of going at 90, just because they spend $25? Heck I would say that about 1/4 of drivers around here aren't capable of handling the speed limit as signed. These are the type who do 50km/h in a 60 zone because they're just not comfortable with the upcoming corner, or the guys who consistently do 10km/h under the speed limit.

I fully agree that speed limits are somewhat arbitrary due to the over-engineering of roads, but grandpa driving his 1980s era Mitsubishi Colt is not. While he has his licence, or while the guy next to you is about to take that next corner while sending an sms, or mum is shouting at her kids in the back I fully welcome the extra buffer politicians have added to roads which were otherwise over engineered. Unfortunately the death toll shows that as it is there is something wrong (whether it be speeding, stupidity or incompetence), and being cut off while travelling 90km/h is much more managable then being cut off when doing 110km/h.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[phoenix321]

They are revealing the truth in speed limits.

I would say, let them instate speeding-for-funds and then, after a few years, contest it in court, claiming the road safe for anyone at 90mph is also safe enough for you.

And then hope they do the right thing and allow 90mph for everyone, but also mandate regular safety checks for all vehicles and drivers every 1 or 2 years.

Safe cars and healthy drivers can prevent more accidents than lowering the speed limit by half.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[coryking]

Yup. When I did a daily car commute, the right lane was always the fastest. I mean, think about it, who would be caught dead in the "slow lane"? It would be just so unfashionable! Thus, all the inattentive soccer moms would pile up in the trendy left lane and camp there their whole trip. Even in dense traffic, the right lane would be the fastest.

It is so nice to drive on roads where everybody sticks to the right. Makes it easy to use cruise control and makes determining the relative speeds of fellow drivers easier too.

Moral? Stick to the right, jackass.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[drunkennewfiemidget]

Story of my life. I commute on Highway 401 in Southern Ontario, Canada every day. I spend the vast majority of my time in the far right lane passing everybody because it's EMPTY. Everyone is in the left and middle lanes going too slow or blocking up traffic. It's insane.

And yes, the 'get to the right' law exists here too. Nobody pays attention to it, nor is it enforced.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[phoenix321]

Speed limits are broken routinely, by the majority, all around the world.

It would be hones to construct the roads for a speed limit of X plus a safety of 5% and then do this:
Post a speed limit X and punish infractions severely, randomly.
If a significant fraction of the drivers exceed the limit without causing significantly more crashes, increase the limit by 5%.
If accidents, where speed was a major factor, increase, lower the speed limit by 5%.
Iterate.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[bistromath007]

Montana.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[ravenspear]

Perhaps the number of fatalities, that statistic kinda makes sense because your body will suffer more damage from a greater stopping acceleration. But I'd like to see a statistic that says there are necessarily more collisions from cars moving at a higher rate of speed. I would surmise that the majority of wrecks happen on city streets where the speed is quite low in comparison to highway driving.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[bennomatic]

Yes, and paying $25.00 will clearly make that crappy driver into a good one who can handle speeds up to 90 mph.

Don't get me wrong; I've enjoyed exceeding the speed limit at various times in my life, but when I see some kid blazing down a residential street at 50 mph, my first thought is not, and will never be, "I hope he paid his daily speed pass fee!" Not only is it the case that most people can't handle the responsibility of the additional speed, but also, even with vehicle inspections and the like, there's absolutely no way to account 100% for the conditions they'll be driving in on the day they have their pass. A small but sudden rain storm, followed by an animal dashing across the highway at an inopportune time will have a much greater effect for anyone going 90 than it would for someone going 55, 65 or even 70.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[bennomatic]

Cool story, bro.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[ModestMotorhead]

I would say that speeding isn't the true cause of accidents that are labeled as such - but that the ROOT cause is that people do not pay attention appropriately to their surroundings. Either to the condition of their automobile, they road conditions, other drivers, etc. So, selling the privilege to speed....ehh. I'd rather states look at how to streamline their budgets rather than discover rudimentary attempts at raising income by some sublime method.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[_Sprocket_]

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

[Gonoff]

It is not just Europeans that drive more efficient cars - it seems to be a sizeable chunk of the planet, but...

It is "on average - eg
There seem to be some people in the USA who drive efficient cars - even ones that are not Prius'.
Drive an overpowered enough BMW for example and you may find that you are using nearly as much fuel as something from the US. You even get some weirdos who drive US cars here. I passed a tanklike Dodge Charger yesterday. The guy driving even wore a cowboy hat! I wondered at the time if he was using as much fuel as the old touring bus that was following him.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

The government isn't AT&T, it doesn't get to impose bullshit laws unless the public good outweighs individual liberty.

Nevertheless, government IS voted in by you, and as long as the US votes in people who have the Big Money interests, they'll not run the state in the people's favour..

So think carefully who to vote in next time, and spread the word..

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

When Finland switched which side of the road they drove on, everyone expected the accident rate would go way up. In fact, it actually went down, because everyone was scared everyone else was going to screw up and kill them. The same thing happened on roads in Montana when they made the speed limits "as fast as safe". Basically, when drivers feel complacent, they stop paying attention and start doing stupid things.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[misexistentialist]

That's not recklessness; that's panache.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Dutchy Wutchy]

By "UK roads" do you mean some kind of oval track?

Come on, the UK isn't that small.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[phoenix321]

People are people. Doing 55mph on a perfect road with no traffic simply leaves the brain of a healthy adult severely underutilized. Of course we all should always give full attention to driving, but we all know how humans react to any repetitive task that is performed uneventfully for hours on end.

Texting-while-driving is simply another form of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation.

If so many people are texting, it means they subconsciously perceive a total risk low enough to do that. That doesn't mean it is correct, but they perceive the risk to be low enough.

Driving while texting can cause heavy road deaths at any speeds. Driving 20mph faster makes texting at the wheel seem insane to even the most ignorant folk, so people don't do it anymore. 20mph more increases the risks of all accidents slightly, but reduces driving-while-texting accidents to almost zero. Overall, this could mean a net-positive effect.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[DancesWithBlowTorch]

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.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

German drivers know to follow certain rules on the Autobahn - the first and foremost is that the left lane is for high-speed traffic and anyone being approached from the rear in the left lane must pull over to the right. There are high fines for passing on the right to encourage this behavior.

If Americans could be trusted to yield to high speed passers, this system would work fine here. But the truth is, most Americans are too self-absorbed (not paying attention), or they think they know what's best for everyone and drive exactly the speed limit in the fast lane without yielding to a faster car behind them.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[smurfsurf]

> I've driven those roads. They were no more stressful than any given highway in the US.

Anecdote:
The sister of my former boss works at Porsche. She hosts Americans who who personally fly in to pick up their cars (they have a vacation then get the car shipped to the US). Of cause, most of them drive straight from the factory to the Autobahn. And many of them do not manage to switch from the acceleration lane to the main lanes. So she has to picked them up. They are shocked and overwhelmed by dense yet fast traffic.

It is a pretty funny picture for any German :-)

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[HungryHobo]

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:Cue increase in accidents

[smurfsurf]

Agreed. More relevant are bi-yearly vehicle safety inspections. And there was a big cash-for-clunkers program just recently.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[phoenix321]

I would agree with your first point, however, I would not dare to decide about cause-and-effect of ignorant driving.

People are adaptable. Of course to the speed limit as well. With 55mph roads everywhere, people are shifting their mental capacity away from the road. I know I would. I've been driving 210km/h on business trips every other week and at that speed, I'm 100% sure no one would dare try to tap a text on their phone. I hope nobody is, actually.

With that habit, doing 55mph on a Freeway equal in quality to our Autobahn, I could be tempted to play PSP matches with the passengers after 10 minutes. After 3 hours, I would probably write /. posts just to keep from falling asleep. After 10 hours, I'm probably trough with one or two Special Extended LOTR movies. And I'd barely covered a tenth of my distance to travel, as your country is just that big.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[yyxx]

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/pl08021/fig7_5.cfm

So, stop pulling statistics out of your ass.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

did I mention that there's barely a highway segment in Germany that's really straight

There is one straight segment, it's the one going to the Dutch border next to Essen. Beware though, there's a speed camera on the Dutch side just when you cross the border and the border being in the Schengen zone is quite easy to miss.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[yyxx]

Once you get beyond around 50 mph, speed seems to matter less and less.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no doubt you have no idea what you are talking about.

There is no correlation between speeding and accidents.

You sorry no - brain douche bag.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[yyxx]

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:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa09028/resources/Synthesis%20of%20Safety%20Researc...pdf

now stfu

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

If the road is safe enough to drive on at 90mph for $25, it's safe enough to drive on at 90mph for free.

Unless you've seen some numbers I haven't, you can't trivially state that. For one, the $25 fee acts as a deterrent for some people, ensuring that not every single person will drive at 90mph which may or may not (I don't have any form of statistics on this) make it safer. Furthermore, and, again, I'd need to see the numbers for this, but it is also possible that the $25 is intended to cover costs of increased accidents in addition to upping revenues. While it's possible that I'm wrong on both counts, I have at least shown that your claim doesn't deserve it's +5, Insightful unless you can back it.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[yyxx]

What about the vehicle safety inspection?

Almost all "accidents" are caused by human error, even in states with no vehicle safety inspection. We don't need vehicle safety inspections at current speed limits, and we don't need them at 90 mph.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[klui]

Unlike most Americans who do among other things like text and talk on the phone while driving, Germans actually know how to drive and concentrate on the road. Their roads with no speed limits forces them to be more responsible. No wonder their roads are safer.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

It will have very little if any effect on traffic accidents. The speed limit on many of the freeways outside of town is 75mph, and nearly everyone is driving faster than that anyway. Reno to Winnemuca along I-80 is long, straight and boring. Driving 90 mph would make that stretch much less time consuming and boring, and therefore, less opportunity to fall asleep at the wheel from boredom. Reno to Vegas is the same crummy drive, except for a few interesting parts. Vegas to Barstow is tooo crowded to drive that fast most of the time. Most of these roads you have 10 -20 mile visibility. Ditto on the running for office, I just didn't want people to think of me like the crooked politicians in office now. With the Tea Party, a new crowd of regular "Joe's" are showing up, it may not be as bad now.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[spikedvodka]

I have taken physics, and f=ma^2 doesn't rung any bells

f=Ma does (force is the product of Mass and acceleration)
As does
p=Mv (momentum is the product of Mass and velocity)

Notice, neither of those has a square in it.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[PsychoSlashDot]

I'm skeptical of the claim that higher speeds to not lead to higher collision rates. At higher speeds it takes longer to brake to a stop, which means more collisions with stationary (or near-stationary) objects. It's also harder to recover if you lose control in an avoidance maneuver or go off-pavement for any reason. Are there any actual data to back up the claim?

I actually didn't say that. Really the thrust of my post was that overall speed isn't the most critical factor in road safety. As I illustrated above, when a limit is posted too low, you'll have more extreme variance in vehicle speeds which is a big factor. It's entirely possible that there's a sweet spot where the posted limit could be higher and reduce collisions because the bottom-end slower drivers speed up to match the faster drivers.

And honestly, while you're saying "citation required", I got my information from ten minutes of random Google-walking the topic "speed limit". That's why I didn't make numeric claims, merely logical claims. Oh, except the "8-12 MHP for 85%" thing. That's from the Wiki for Speed Limit. Go nuts.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm Dutch and our roads are constructed identical to German roads but there are more on- and offramps. I went shopping in Germany and on the way back home I drove a whopping 240 km/h (148 mph) up to the Dutch border where the limit is back to 100 km/h (60mph) for the same road. I think 90 mph is sensible speed limit on all modern multi lane highways.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Bull.

I've driven all over Germany, and the only roads without speed limits are relatively small sections of autobahn, and they're gradually being limited. Those small country roads all have speed limits, though not all are well posted.

In addition to the increasing imposition of speed limits, German law was changed many years ago to remove liability from insurance companies of drivers who have accidents at speeds of greater than (IIRC) 140 kph. You wreck above that speed, and your insurance company doesn't have to pay for any damages to you or your vehicle (though they're still liable to pay for any damages to others that were caused by your actions).

Germany does recognize the dangers posed by unlimited speeds. There's enough political opposition from the citizens who really like being able to drive their fast cars at high speeds that limiting speeds is a tough battle, but it's being waged and gradually won.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Asic Eng]

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.

If nothing else is posted, the speed limit on German roads is 100 km/h (~ 62 mph), 50 km/h in built-up areas. The Autobahns have no general speed limit, country roads do. See: Zeichen 393.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[jambarama]

This is true, but higher speeds may wear roads faster. As such, a surtax on fast driving may be appropriate - not from a safety perspective, but from a fairness in cost perspective.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[PsychoSlashDot]

I strongly encourage you, and everyone else to attend a local SCCA trackday or auto cross event. You don't need to have a race car - the family sedan is more than capable of some very impressive speeds if driven properly, and the experience will both help develop skills, and really open your eyes to the realities of driving on the streets. If you do happen to own a sports car, you really owe it to yourself to drive it properly, at least once.

I absolutely agree. I unfortunately haven't made the time to do exactly what you describe. Almost.

I drive a family sedan. A 350+ hp family sedan that's electronically limited to 150 MPH. To date it's remained shackled and limited to the odd 0-60MPH run (mid-5s). I really should be learning more about its handling.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[eugene ts wong]

In BC, we used to split "the $25" both ways, so both parties could carry on. I don't know if we do that now, though.

ICBC used to literally give both parties the exact same amount, regardless of fault.It sounds like something that you read about only in obscure articles, but I seem to recall them advertising it in the local papers.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

have you taken physics? i.e. does f=ma^2 ring a bell? Notice the squared term...

Have you? Couple of problems:

A formula containing an acceleration term would not be applicable since the GP was talking about velocity (i.e. speed). Perhaps you want (Kinetic Energy) = 1/2mv^2?

Newton's second law's formula is F=ma. If you squared the acceleration, you'd get the wrong units for the force term.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

Like 395 can't support 80 MPH traffic...

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, I get excellent gas mileage at 75-80mph, around 34mpg if I'm going steady on a flat plane. And that's in a 4.4 liter v8 heh.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[MadCow-ard]

I believe it is a valid argument. First off you are correct to question it but for a different reason: the exhaust regulation is fairly new, thus the main pressure comes from taxes. The point I was making is that this system reinforces the need to keep your vehicle current. But if you would like me to elaborate on the topic of age pressure I can.

First there is TÜV, the German street-ready tests. The older the car gets the more expensive the upkeep to pass the inspection. This isn't always a deterent in itself, since older cars can pass the inspection without too much hassle, it adds to the overall cost as a vehicle ages.

Second, fuel efficiency is a serious issue in Germany where normal gas costs 2-4 times what it does in some areas of the US. Thus newer cars, especially those German vehicles which are very efficient, so far as to shut off when they stop a red light, save money. Or said in another way, older cars can cost significantly more per Km to keep running.

Lastly, if you look at your map, and tracked inhabitants under those "few" dots, you would see that a significant portion of German population lives or works in those listed areas. And the areas are growing fast with plans to reduce exhaust levels across the country over the next years. Thus if you are not a farmer, you have a good chance of living, working, or needing to pass through one of these areas. You don't need to pass regulations for the Autobahn, but if you wish to exit in Munich, Berlin, Stuttgart, Bremen, Dusseldorf etc. you need to pass the inspection.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[eugene ts wong]

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:Cue increase in accidents

[jcr]

it will also make them look much worse on traffic accident statistics vs. other states.

Maybe not.

When Montana threw in the towel and started enforcing speed limits, their highway fatalities doubled. Now, it's probably better to abandon the speed limits altogether than to sell speeding passes, but I'd say the guy's heart is in the right place.

-jcr

 

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[epine]

The German driver thing illustrates that it might be safe for German drivers to speed on American highways. Sadly, many Americans have adopted the view that flaunting the least possible precaution demonstrates maximal independence from the nanny state. Somehow the Germans manage to maintain masculinity while wearing proper safety equipment. If America had a sane culture of safety, Palin's approval rating would be -300%

Have you ever used a chainsaw without wearing a face shield and Kevlar pants? No soup for you.

The second requirement is passing a piss test for shit-eating grin.

Robert Sapolsky on TOXO

Finally, I have to wonder what the medical response time in Utah looks like compared to any Hamburg in Germany. Half the time I bet the salt truck gets there sooner than the ambulance. Perhaps in Utah that's considered acceptable.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Tx]

Okay, so this is a way late reply which nobody will therefore read. However I'll just point out for the record that "fuel efficiency" and "fuel economy" are not the same thing. The former relates to the percentage of energy in the fuel that is converted to motive power, while the latter is about the distance travelled per volume of fuel.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Asic Eng]

US roads are typically not designed for that, quite frequently you encounter highways where you need to merge or exit on the left lane. With the German system something like this would be deadly.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[moonbender]

That doesn't really sound possible. I'm sure that modern cars can remain efficient fine at fairly high speeds, but 6l/100km at 220kph? I don't believe it.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[dgatwood]

And vehicle safety systems make a huge difference, too. People frequently walk away from wrecks these days that would have killed them with 100% certainty in a car built 30 years ago.

Also, dumb luck outweighs all of those things by orders of magnitude. While driving 65, if you hit the same bridge post at slightly different angles, you might veery off one way, veer off the other way, spin your car one way or the other, or stop rapidly over the course of about three feet. You can guess which of these is most likely to kill you instantly....

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[m85476585]

Not true, unless you get to the point where all accidents above X speed result in death. Energy increases as the square of speed. There is a good chance of surviving a 50MPH collision in a modern car, but at 90mph, the chances are much much lower. There is very little data for what happens above that speed, but there was one episode of Mythbusters where they crashed a car at a very high speed (around 80-90, I think), and the car was shortened to 1/2 its original length, while at the lower speed, the accident would have been survivable.

I think government crash tests should be conducted at the highest speed you might find on an interstate, so 80+mph. Currently frontal offset crash tests are conducted at 40mph in the US.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[md65536]

...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.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's just an admission by governments that speed limits aren't actually there for safety so much as to raise funds.

I think it's there for safety, it's everyone with kids that wants to go slow. Going 55 or 65 is much safer than going 80. At 60 the stopping distance is like half the stopping distance of 80. A moose or deer walks onto the highway, somebody crashes, you hit traffic, going slower helps.

Now that being said, on highways with almost no traffic in Nevada, there really doesn't have to be a speed limit.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Americium]

Here here, if you have a corvette, it should be much cheaper than 365.25*25 = $9,131.25 a year to go 90mph. A corvette going 100mph can't be any less safe than a 18 wheeler doing 75mph.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[nixNscratches]

The issue with your argument is that not all cars are created equal. Many cars on the road are equipped to operate well above operating tolerances assumed for these so called 'maximum safe speeds.' That said, the problem isn't the cars, it's the drivers. No matter how awesome your car is, the real limiting factor is the other people you share the road with. If you want to be remotely responsible about it, you have to assume a bare minimum of driving ability from each and every other driver on the road with you.

Your sudden lane change to avoid creaming them while they crawl along in the fast lane, even though you've been approaching them at high speed for the last minute and a half doesn't mean they won't see your front grill in the rear view and immediately swerve into the lane they should have been driving in in the first place. You see, your reasonable expectation that they won't drift into your lane as you attempt to pass goes right out the window when put up against their important cell phone call, while they're trying to pick spinach out of their teeth from lunch and change the DVD for the three kids in the back.

For your safety and theirs, it's always best to drive as conservatively and defensively as possible. No matter how much less fun it is. Find a track, or a truly deserted place to let loose instead of your local interstate.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[JSG]

Clearly you have not seen the scale of a pile up on an autobahn.

The trouble is that many people confuse their "ability" with everyone else's "ability" when it comes to speed limits.

The limit is there to protect you from other people (where you might actually be the other people from someone else's perspective)

You might be in complete control of your vehicle at 90mih-1 say but can you be sure that the person behind you who is tailgating you is able to stop in time when you throw out the anchors? If not then it will be carnage - you will get rear ended, and probably end up in three other states simultaneously.

Speed limits are generally a political thing - but I'd imagine that when someone does bother to get scientific about it, they weigh up the number of fatalities involved in a pile up at a given speed and compare that to their voting popularity.

What do you think is an appropriate death toll for a pile up?

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[moonbender]

Well, the law is not called Rechtsfahrgebot (literally, commandment) for nothing.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[dgatwood]

but they do affect the outcome quite significantly

Ah, but they don't. A human getting run over at 65 MPH kills with about the same probability as at 45 MPH (almost always, that is). Anything above about 20 or 25 MPH and you're probably screwed. Thus, since car accidents are so frequently not fatal, it should be pretty obvious that the largest component of accident safety is not the m*v^2 term, but rather the ability of the car to absorb that impact and spread the reduction in velocity out over a period of time.

Even at a modest 45 MPH, the only thing standing between you, as a driver, and almost certain death is your car's ability to crumple and absorb the impact. Up to the point at which it is no longer able to do so, the m*v^2 term isn't important, and above that line, you've probably gotten impaled by some part of the car or ripped the seatbelt out anyway. It's more important, therefore, to understand where that line is and be sure not to cross it. Oh, and also to avoid rolling the car.... :-)

Either way, given the current state of automotive safety systems, if you ignore pedestrian injuries, speed and the number of traffic deaths are not at all correlated.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Myopic]

I'd be interested to see how many people are daft enough to think that those situations are equivalent.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Migraineman]

No, no, no ... traveling fast doesn't kill anyone. Ever been in an aircraft? Nobody dropped dead moving at 400 mph. It's the abrupt change in speed that kills you ... or the need to dissipate kinetic energy without the benefit of a vehicle (should you be ejected from one that's moving.)

"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

[dgatwood]

No: "going with the flow of traffic" is not a defense to a speeding ticket. Believe me: I've tried.

And if you ever needed more proof that speed limits have zero to do with safety and are entirely a revenue generation scheme, that should be plenty. Since it is provably safer to be going the same speed as the rest of the traffic, pulling over people who do so has a provably deleterious effect on safety, as you are punishing someone for showing good driving habits and are thus encouraging him/her to impede the flow of traffic and put everyone else at risk.

If I had the money, I'd contribute $25 times the number of people in that state just to have a "no limits" day just to see what happens.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[wsanders]

I've only driven into Las Vegas and Minden from California.

**Every single time** I have driven into Las Vegas it's taken 3 hours to get into town from the state line because some ass clown has rear ended a bunch of slower cars at 90 mph somewhere outside of town and the NHP are busy cleaning up the mess.

As for the 2-lane roads in the rest of the state, feel free to take a nap while going 90 and pray some geezer rancher with a trailer full of livestock doesn't pull out 1/4mil in front of you.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[sznupi]

They are nowhere near over-engineered in few crucial places where it matters. Merging lanes are notoriously too short for example, even for present speed limits; doesn't help when people don't know how to merge, won't help when there will be some regular speeding nearby.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[moonbender]

So, not surprisingly their accident statistics are nothing to shout about. Austria, Holland (which has MUCH much more cars per linear meter of road on the road), etc have much better ones.

Road deaths per million population:
Austria: 76
Germany: 51
Netherlands: 44

For what it's worth, I can relate to your experience in bad weather, it's amazing the way some people will drive despite it. You can always take refuge behind some truck on the right lane and cruise along at 90 kph. ;)

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[harrytuttle777]

The problem is that stupid irresponsible people are allowed to procreate. We need to come up with government board that determines the suitability of parents to procreate. If the board determines that you are responsible, and you pay the correct fees you can become a dooley licensed parent. I don't see any problem with this idea. It is the only solution to keep the good people (you) from having to take care of those bums that are creating a burden on society, (those other people who are not reading this)

The good responsible people do not have a problem with creating a system where the state can tell you how to drive, if you may own firearms, when you may sell alcohol(at a hefty state profit). Shouldn't the next step on the road to a harmonious society be to create an official procreation sanctioning body.

Just thinking...

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

Part of the plan is 'vehicles must have safety inspections' .i know of the cars within 100ft of me right now, theres at least 3 i wouldnt let on the highway and 2 more that hsouldnt be going over 60 ever. doesnt matter if the road 'can' do 70 or not; that doesnt automatically mean 70 should be allowed.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[darkpixel2k]

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.

Yep--I also disagree with those too. The government has no authority to 'grant' me permission to hunt for food to feed my family. I don't have to pay them to harvest food from my garden.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[drsmithy]

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.

There's generally no evidence that going 90 instead of 70 is any more dangerous, either.

If you've ever actually been to Germany, you'll know that most of the unlimited sections of the Autobahn are no better engineered than the average American freeway, and many of them are noticably worse. The reason the Autobahn is so much safer is because a) vehicle safety standards are higher and b) licensing standards are higher. No-one builds a freeway today that you couldn't safely travel at least 90mph on, and quite a bit more in a good car with a good driver.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[bored_engineer]

I really hate to disagree again, but I must. I arrived home last night (from Sacramento) at 12:30 AM, and had driven the opposite direction at 6:00 AM. There are some drivers that exceed 100 MPH, but that is definitely not the speed of the general flow. Hell's bells, the trucks rarely exceed 55 MPH.

This may be a matter of semantics. I'm a traffic engineer, and the definition of the flow speed is the average speed (or prevailing speed) of all of the cars on the road. . . .or in the case of I-5, where there are clearly two different flows, you might try to gauge the two different average speeds. In no case, though, has the flow speed on I-5 neared 100 MPH.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[avajcovec]

The government isn't AT&T, it doesn't get to impose bullshit laws unless the public good outweighs individual liberty.

You must be new here.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[drsmithy]

There is very little data for what happens above that speed, but there was one episode of Mythbusters where they crashed a car at a very high speed (around 80-90, I think), and the car was shortened to 1/2 its original length, while at the lower speed, the accident would have been survivable.

How realistic was the crash scenario ? Because if they just drove it into a brick wall, that's not even a remotely convincing example.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[cduffy]

Two niggles:

• Severe, random punishment isn't nearly as effective as "swift and sure" -- punishment administered quickly and with a high probability, but not particularly severe. Harder to implement? Yes, absolutely -- but it works far better with human psychology, and doesn't have the massive inequity found in "severe and random" (consider the situation where you have 10 or 20 people losing everything they have for copyright infringement while millions of others engage in the same acts with no penalty at all; is this really the model you want to emulate?).
• Universally optimizing for maximum speed would be hazardous to pedestrians, cyclists, sub-30mph motor scooters, neighborhood electric vehicles, and other lower-speed traffic. Moreover, speed costs power; comparing the efficiency curve for various modes of transportation makes it clear that optimizing for speed above all else is far from ideal, discouraging smaller, more efficient vehicles.

Further -- if you optimize for the maximum safe speed for the mix of vehicles on the road today, you discourage slower, more efficient vehicles from entering the road tomorrow, perpetuating the existing vehicle mix and supporting urban sprawl (as individuals tend to choose their homes to be no more than a 45-minute commute from work, higher-speed transportation leads to decreased population density, increasing the demands on road capacity in turn). I live in Austin, and we simply can't afford to keep the existing ratio of single-occupancy vehicles with our projected growth rate downtown -- widening the roads would be beyond our means, so we're making an effort to bring people closer to their jobs to reduce demand on both road capacity and parking. Efforts such as bicycle facilities and free downtown parking for motorcycles and scooters aren't being done to appease the hippie contingent -- they're being done to try to make our existing transportation and parking network that much easier to sustain on the projected budget available.

Increasing speeds, and in turn increasing sprawl, would be counter to that goal.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[darkpixel2k]

Can I buy a pass to temporarily raise the legal blood alcohol limit?

Yeah. It's spendy though. You have to go through years of training along with dropping out of highschool before you can become a police officer. ;)

Can I buy a pass that changes the definition of premeditative homicide?

When you commit the act of homicide, you are ending someone's life. When you commit the act of speeding, you are violating an arbitrary number set by the government. Big deal.

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.

Once again, speeding doesn't hurt someone. Genocide does.

Now if you're doing 120 down the highway and your reckless driving causes you to hit and kill someone--yeah, you should be in big trouble.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

I completely see speeding as being a limited resource. I would think that the fewer the number of people speeding, the less likely they are to hit some idiot that pulls out onto the freeway going 30mph with, possibly, a blinker. If you can only have a limited number of people speeding to keep the statistics roughly the same, then, that seems limited. I would hope that they have an age limit...I don't really want a kid that just got his license out there driving 90mph.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

you can become a dooley licensed parent.

Is that a parent licensed by The Dooleys?

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[harrytuttle777]

So you are saying that the people actually driving their vehicles are not cognizant enough to determine their own speed, and let them pay the consequences if they go to fast. Instead we should rely on some super smart government engineers to tell us how fast we can go. These super engineers are just like mommy and daddy and always looking out for your best interest, when you are not smart enough.

I guess this explains why it is illegal to pass through a red light at 2:am when clearly there is noone else coming through in the other direction. Instead I must wait 5 minutes for the light to turn green, and also hold up the person behind me.

This makes perfect sense, because I am sure if I were to pass through the red light, an invisible car, that I can not see (because I am not smart like the government engineers) would come careening through T-Bone me, and kill a mother and 2 cute kids in process.

Sounds good.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[drsmithy]

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.

A driver inspection would be a vastly more useful thing to do, since no competent driver is going to drive a car faster than it can safely go anyway.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[drsmithy]

From personal experience (on UK roads) I've witnessed a cars fuel consumption go from 15l/100km to 13l/100km at the speed limit, to about 6l/100km around 220kph. Once we hit 250kph the consumption went up to about 10l/100km, but that was because that was the cars top speed, and the engine was at it's top end (where it was less efficient).

What vehicle ?

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[cellurl]

I think the electronics needed to maintain the database clear out to the squad car not pulling him over to the 911 calls from people reporting the reckless driving will eat away significantly at this profit center.

Why not have a get out of rape free day since its so close to Vegas.

All in all, its a good publicity stunt.

We know the speed limits

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

Larger engine cars tend to see smaller decreases in fuel efficiency from higher speeds than smaller engine cars. It's going to be more dependent on torque to weight ratios and aerodynamics than engine size.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[T Murphy]

Well saying "speed doesn't always kill" will get everyone assuming they're the exceptional driver that can handle higher speeds, and it is the ones who are overconfident that are the problem in the first place. Unfortunately that means "speed kills" is all you can say, as anything else will only encourage the wrong people.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[rcw-home]

They measured this on the Tesla Roadster. The graphs give you a good idea of what the forces are at work without worrying about engine inefficiencies at non-optimal power outputs.

Note that the sweet spot is less than 20mph. All of the thousands-of-miles-per-gallon records from purpose-built vehicles in hypermiling competitions are set at similar speeds, using a pulse-and-glide technique.

While the sweet spot for your own car is likely slightly higher, it's not that much higher, even with the A/C on full blast. If you're comparing 50mph to 90mph, you can safely assume that you're far enough away from the sweet spot on any car that drag is the major force and that a doubling in speed will take 4 times the power (although you will get there faster so you won't be running the engine as long). If your car gets, say, 40mpg at 50mph, it'll get roughly 33mpg at 60mph, 29mpg at 70mph, 25mpg at 80mph, 22mpg at 90mph, 20mpg at 100mph, etc.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[dbIII]

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 their weapon.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes... the Sierra Nevadas cater to driving 90 mph

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Phat_Tony]

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.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[BLKMGK]

Car will make peak MPG at it's torque peak if you can have the throttle as close to wide open as possible without triggering acceleration enrichment - this is due to pumping losaes. Diesels get part of their MPG bump from having no throttle blade and from having more BTU per gallon of fuel. Gear a slippery car well and it could get more MPG at higher speeds but in the end the resistance is exponential so I wouldn't expect the best top speed to be really really fast.

That said - I'm okay with speeding since most limits are set a bit lower than I'm comfortable with and the rest of the folks around me it seems. However giving "passes" to speed seems a poor idea since generally it's the differences in speed among those traveling along together that seem to bring on the most accidents. I'm a fan of going fast but find this idea a bad one...

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[harrytuttle777]

Amen. After having lived in a place where 'traffic laws' were more vague general suggestion, that you might choose to follow if you were so inclined, I can say that I felt much safer driving there than here. Traffic generally flowed much better, and it seemed to me there were fewer accidents.

Over there (Bahrain), The roads where chaos, but everyone knew that, so they were on the top of their game when traveling. If you didn't pay attention you would probably die real quick.(and they would push you off the side of the road to keep traffic moving).
    Over here (USA) traffic moves so slow that I can read a book, while texting my Mom, while drinking a fith of wisky and be safe 95% of the time. Thanks to the mommy and daddy state that have conditioned drivers to be slow pokes and to always obey the laws, you really do not need to pay attention to the roads. They problem comes when something does come up unexpectedly, the drivers have been lulled into such a false sense of security that they are not able to handle it, and they get in an accident. Then when the inevitable accident does occur, traffic gets backed up for miles and comes to an even slower crawl. Because traffic is moving sooo slow, more drivers inevitable get into fender benders because despite what they say in school, you can never really divert your full attention to something that is not moving fast (unless you are taking your government prescribed medication for A.D.D)

I have never been to Germany, but I have been told that the Autobahn actually (discovery channel) has fewer accidents then the U.S.A interstate. This makes sense, because you have to pay attention.

Personally I would choose freedom, and let people make their own decision about their safety then to trust the 'super smart hiway engineers' to make the decision for me.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[drsmithy]

I call bullshit. When accidents do happen on the autobahn, the consequences tend to be horrific.

When planes crash the consequences are horrific as well. Flying is still safer than driving.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[dbIII]

The "speed kills" BS is there because a lot of people died speeding.
Nearly everybody that has put in more than a month or two behind the wheel thinks they are a very good driver. Ironicly if you've got driving experience and don't think you are a good driver you are probably better than the majority. It often takes at least one potentially fatal smash that does enough damage to either injure the driver or passengers or at least take the car off the road for a few weeks before people wake up and understand that it's not mario kart.
There are a lot of crappy drivers out there that really have no clue about how well or poorly their car brakes and corners, but they think it's all easy because pressing the foot down is not hard. Speed combined with not knowing how to control a vehicle at speed kills - and it kills frequently.
So then say you are an expert race car driver, that's not going to fix everything because the guy going the other way that freaks out when you come around the corner at speed isn't and may do something fatally stupid.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

In Michigan state law requires the speed limit to be set to the 85th percentile, or an engineering study performed to set the speed limit to accepted standards. Many roads have seen their speed limits go up and the crashes lowered and speeding reduced. You can fight a ticket where a traffic study hasn't been performed since the law was passed and typically win.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[sznupi]

...

So you really don't realize that most accidents involve some amount of breaking before impact? Initial speed greatly influences what the brakes will be able to do & the speed at the exact moment of impact.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[sznupi]

Trucks typically have their own, separate speed limits.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Antisyzygy]

Yep. Keep in mind this does not only apply to highways in the desert.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugh, Government provided numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-sided_argument

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Antisyzygy]

If the rate of accidents stay the same, and the fatality percentage goes up. How does that not make it worse? Not saying I disagree with what they are doing, just making a facetious comment.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[sznupi]

Now is also a good time to mention how 80-90% of drivers consider themselves to be above average.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Antisyzygy]

Next thing you know we can pay 1000 bucks to assault someone. ;)

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

It's easy for gun lovers to claim that gun haters are "blaming the weapon" when gun lovers want to deflect attention away from the real problem.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Antisyzygy]

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[sznupi]

Most accidents involve some breaking; with its results (speed at the exact moment of impact) varying greatly depending on the initial kinetic energy.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

A thoughtful response... awesome. The internet needs more of you.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[billius]

The driver's license test in Germany is also difficult (something like 30% of people fail it on the first try), expensive (around $2000) and if you screw up later on (eg drive under the influence), your hard-won, expensive diver's license can be taken away from you forever quite easily. Compare that to our test, which seems to mostly consist of making sure you're the appropriate age and have a pulse. I trust German drivers going 90 MPH. American drivers, not so much. The safety of the Autobahn has nothing to do with certain stretches of it not having a speed limit.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Antisyzygy]

Its painfully slow to drive in Montana less than or equal to 75 at times. Down here in Houston people typically ignore the 65 speed limit on the interstates. I don't disagree with the fact that speed limits should be reevaluated. My remark was more of a joke.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Antisyzygy]

Or why not make prostitution legal. Oh, wait...

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[bdjbl]

The grand parent is confusing to needed energy to push an object through a fluid medium, Which does go up as a square of speed do to parasitic drag. However that the energy in the body is as parent said f=Ma.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[drsmithy]

There's no marked lanes, no speed limits, no brake lights, and no turn signals.

Sure you don't mean no headlights ? No brake lights would be phenomenally dangerous.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[internettoughguy]

While libertarians tend to get all outraged about things like this

The dumbest thing about that POV is that if roads were privately owned the speeding tickets would be as high as they could get away with. Not to mention that they could collude with car manufacturers and ban cars above a certain age, collude with energy companies and ban vehicles below a certain displacement/energy consumption. I know someone will mention the C word, but you can imagine how inefficient it would be to have competing road networks.
I can envision a user owned transport cooperative, but I can also envision similar speed limits being set by the voting body of such an organisation, granted driving is inherently dangerous, but a democratically set "level of danger" is really inevitable.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Eristone]

Can second this. Just slow down when coming off the Grapevine til you pass Buttonwillow - Highway Patrol there likes to sit just past overpass bridges, especially in the 15 miles after the I-5/CA-99 split.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

Can i buy a pass to sell alcohol, without which is illegal? Can i buy a pass to use certain radio frequencies, without which is illegal? Can i but a pass to operate a motor vehicle, without which is illegal? Can i buy a pass to put an addition on my house, without which is illegal? Can I buy a pass to use a certain toll road, without which is illegal?

They've been sitting on, and utilizing this goldmine, since the dawn of time (or thereabouts). It's called government. Get used to it.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[LiENUS]

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 their weapon.

Many people feel threatened if they see a gun. I live in a open carry legal state but you need a permit for concealed carry. Whenever someone goes out with a gun on their hip in accordance with state law, inevitably the police get called because someone felt threatened. Concealed carry avoids that, it also means criminals have to think twice, they never know who is carrying a gun. If everyone had to open carry they would always know who is carrying a gun and know to either not take action then or to take out the man with the gun first. Further organized crime types typically already have a criminal record. This is the purpose of the background check for concealed carry. Many states you don't even need a criminal record to be denied a permit. If they go into your background and suspect you are up to no good, no permit for you.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[sznupi]

Of course in Germany you have also mostly German drivers, with German training; cars need to pass very strict German maintenance standards and the Autobahns are built to very exact German specifications (also slope, etc.). When there is a speed limit (somewhat often, the Autobahns are constantly repaired / corrected), it is quite nicely followed.
All of "mommy and daddy state" kind; you have to find something different to alleviate your fears.

And the key word being how Bahrain only appears safer; very close to US in traffic fatalities per capita actually, despite having very significantly lower number of cars per capita.

It's not about freedom when your recklessness is quite likely to kill others in the process of claiming your life; that's where freedom ends, remember?

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[LiENUS]

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.

Funny when I want to traffic school for my job last year, we specifically were urged NOT to keep up with the traffic flow if it is somewhat over the speed limit. By the way, this was the same traffic class they give the police in this state. The problem is we have a lot of misinformed drivers who really need to go to traffic school, perhaps it should be mandatory every 5 years for license renewal. Maybe then we could safely increase the speed limit and have an increase in the number of cautious and attentive drivers on the road.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

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.
UGG boots online

shop
nike air max sale

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, using the turn signal and smooth lane changes in the northeastern US is just an open invitation for every asshole to box you in on the back and sides and every passive aggressive jackass to cut in front of you and slam on the breaks.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

Um...I bet I can find statistics that selling hunting licenses...increases the death of humans by bullet.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[dryeo]

Minimum speeds in each lane could be a solution.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got to move to Germany. I'm in the US and signal everywhere, even when I turn into my driveway at the end of the dead end street.

I hear you. I use to speed coming down from PA to DC and back. I had fewer bad situations speeding than I did staying near the speed limit and driving between wolf packs (like they "teach" you here in the US). Too bad I got ticketed a few times, everytime though being at night and when I was alone. Apparently, going 95 when it's 2am is horrible, but going 90 in a pack of 15 drivers near bumper to bumper at 5.5pm isn't.

The best was these massive lanes outside of I think Landover, Maryland. I was going to a town there several times a month, and the highway east of DC apparently is that wide to handle Washington Redskins football traffic (a Sunday or Monday only thing). During the day, there was little to no traffic. It was the strangest feeling going 90mph, seeing 3 cars pass you, join the widely spaced group, find out they're going 110mph, look in your rear view, and see a cop pull in behind you...but with no lights. So I pulled over to one of the middle lanes, the police officer passes me, and the 3 front cars continue on their way ignoring the police car, and the police takes one of the upcoming exits, without pulling anyone over.

In the US, it's common practice to use the left lane to block the speeding drivers. If you flash lights, they don't see it or don't care. If you honk politely, usually a hand comes out, either to flip or wave you off or to point at the speed limit sign. I believe the latter is considered righteous indignation, and it's rather common. People write into magazines lambasting the horrors of speeding.

"Americans would have to learn these things"

Not happening. I live in a transition area between rural-suburb and small city, and people don't signal for anything. Even those that do signal, don't often signal early enough--you often know they are turning before the signal comes on. My favorite are those that activate their signal DURING the turn. It's gotten so bad, people also don't even care when people do signal--I've almost been rear ended on this one dangerous spot I frequent (going downhill, there are 2 side streets on the left, and the oncoming traffic forms a Y with your lane and the second side street, with no shoulder on the right at all) despite putting the signal light on prior to the 1st side street and starting to brake a little earlier than needed. People just don't care. Hell, one time someone honked at me in annoyance because he had almost slammed into me. First thing I did was pull over at the next convenient stop and check if my turn signal worked. It was.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

A local radio station put this fact into stark contrast for me recently. I don't know their sources but they claimed that on average an officer (in our area, Southern Michigan) writes $200,000 of tickets each year. A long time ago they may have been about safety/fuel economy but nowdays they're all about collecting money.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Nursie]

Came here to say this - if it's safe for those that pay 25 bucks to go 90 then it's safe for everyone else too. In fact probably safer than having some able to go faster than others. It also makes a mockery of any claim that highway speed limits are there for safety reasons.

Which, IMHO is fine, they should be made a mockery of.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[lessthan]

Except that 25 or 90, hitting that animal is going to have the same effect. You are going to have an accident. You are going to damage your car and possible take injury. You may even die. Anything faster than 0 mph carries that risk. Arguing that 90 is worse than 55 is ridiculous. You've already accepted the risk by getting into the car (or should have at least realized the risk).

The pedestrian has it even worse. If a kid jumps in front of my car at 25 mph, he is going to be just as dead as if I were going 55 mph. Cars aren't very cushioned on the outside. Yes, there is a small possibility that he may only be injured, but does that possibility really vary, depending on my speed?

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[TheoMurpse]

But the pay-to-speed law is different than any of these, in that it is not protected a limited resource

It is a limited resource if 100 cars going 90 on the same street is exponentially more dangerous than only one car going 90 on the same street.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Stiletto]

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

[lessthan]

We don't do this because people are idiots. Without the immediacy of danger, people get complacent. We may be one of the few species on the planet to think about the future, but that doesn't mean we are any good at it.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[IndustrialComplex]

Yep--I also disagree with those too. The government has no authority to 'grant' me permission to hunt for food to feed my family. I don't have to pay them to harvest food from my garden.

I don't agree with licenses to drive in their current form, which is just there to give the government an excuse for further violating your rights. "Normally we couldn't do this, but by you exercising your right to travel, we are now claiming that you gave us implicit consent to do things to you that we would not normally be allowed to do. Just ignore the fact that it is impossible to live in 95% of the US if you aren't allowed to drive".

Hunting licenses are a different issue in that there is a limited resource which is consumed by the process of hunting. While you could argue that your garden plot is consuming limited resources in the soil, the level of consumption is orders of magnitude less.

Concealed weapons permits and other registration or attempts to license firearms? I disagree with them tremendously in their current form. The exercise of a right should not require payment of fees to the government (If it is a right, it is at your will to exercise it, and it is a responsibility of the government to support that right regardless of how often or if one desires to exercise that right)

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Idiomatick]

"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."

This is the important point. Laws around the world encourage you to flow with traffic. Different sets of rules will result in many deaths. The speed limit is hardly a concern in comparison. If Nevada decided to lower the speed limit to 55 and have the paid speed be 70 it would be bad. Even though the average speed would be lower, the incongruity of speeds would cause accidents.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[IndustrialComplex]

What good is concealed carry to anybody apart from undercover police (who have other permits to cover it anyway) and organised crime?

It keeps people from overreacting. I prefer concealed carry primarily for that reason. They don't panic if I'm carrying a razor sharp hunting knife because that too is in a sheath in my pocket or under my jacket (because I don't want it getting caught on something and falling out) The firearm for similar reasons: I don't want it to get caught on a door handle, or have some goofball reach for it, or make people uncomfortable.

People overreact to firearms. Consider in terms of physical danger, most men will think nothing of going to a barber, who will take a razor sharp blade and press it against your neck.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[IndustrialComplex]

Can I buy a pass to temporarily raise the legal blood alcohol limit?

Why not just raise the legal blood alcohol limit? For the level of punishment involved, .08 is low. When originally asked to determine a BAC threshold where an intoxicated driver becomes dangerous, they said .15

Why?

Because it wasn't a political topic then. These days, drunk drivers are a bit outdated though. The new scare words are Pedophile and Child Porn. You know, the current boogey man to get all of your authoritarian laws passed with a minimum of rational thought.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

When you ban the big rigs from the left lane, what happens is that you get a giant line of big rigs caravanning down the middle of the freeway doing about 50mph with no way for the other drivers to get from one side of the road to the other, leading to people in the "fast" lane going 45 trying to get through the caravan to their exit, and people in the slow lane going 30 because they can't pass the cement mixer that should never have gotten on the freeway in the first place.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[IndustrialComplex]

Yes, and paying $25.00 will clearly make that crappy driver into a good one who can handle speeds up to 90 mph.

Of course it will. It only cost them $20 to get their drivers license in the first place.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[rusl]

Cars stored even on private land could easily be classified as toxic waste storage and therefore you get the "shared resource" angle. Cars are a pretty bad example of individual vs. collective rights (or good depending on your perspective). We allow a huge amount more danger to the public from cars than from almost anything else. Cars are seen as an individual liberty, aid to mobility, right to drive etc. There is almost no acknowledgement of the actual public networks that cars run on - gasoline, electrical, roads, sidewalks, public or semi-public insurance, special classification of laws "traffic" to keep the deaths less, total ownership of right of way etc etc.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[shutdown -p now]

Ah, but they don't. A human getting run over at 65 MPH kills with about the same probability as at 45 MPH (almost always, that is). Anything above about 20 or 25 MPH and you're probably screwed.

Well, duh. Run-overs are one thing. Car crashing into car is another.

As a side note, that's why speed limits in cities are set up to lower speeds (typically such that pedestrian still has a chance of survival), and in residential areas, lower still. Around here it's 50km/h and 40km/h, respectively.

Even at a modest 45 MPH, the only thing standing between you, as a driver, and almost certain death is your car's ability to crumple and absorb the impact.

Yes, and that is defined by the amount of energy the crumple zones can absorb as they go away - that pesky mv^2. If that is exceeded in the crash, you die.

Either way, given the current state of automotive safety systems, if you ignore pedestrian injuries, speed and the number of traffic deaths are not at all correlated

The study you linked to does not imply that. It only implies that modern cars are safe to crash in at speeds higher than what the limits across US were - which is not surprising in the slightest, as those limits were set up long before, for auto tech of several generations ago.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[rusl]

All drivers are crappy - the crappiest are those that kill people and say they are safer than "other drivers" - which is basically everyone. Slow drivers are said to be bad. However, the one objective irrefutable law - physics - is very clear that the danger from speeding is exponential.

Actually its more politically expedient to blame individual drivers, drunk drivers, texting drivers etc rather than recognise that the whole endevour is stupid and reckless. if 1/3 of accidents are caused by drunk drivers 2/3 are not. Drinking, texting, being in a hurry, having slow reflexes - normal human qualities - these don't normally kill and trying to get people to stop being normal is futile. The better approach is to remove the loaded gun from peoples' hands.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[rusl]

"Save the children"

What a useless thing to try and do when I have somewhere urgent to get to!

Here's hoping you and all the others making excuses for speeding get to your FINAL destination a little faster. I think it would do us all a lot of good if the evolutionary factor were applied. Of course the problem is cars tend to kill the soft bodies around them first and the cradled bodies in them later. What a wonderful way to travel through life.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Grapplebeam]

Why not instead have multiple levels of license, where the most competent driver is allowed to act like a jackass because they can drive for every other idiot on the road? You could charge a huge amount of money for the license and transponder and applicable bumper sticker and have any still relevant traffic violations cost that much more. Like say, lanechanging without using your turn signal. But giving Joe Average who can barely remember his turn signals exist or to check when lane changing the ability to speed even more? No, I don't think this is a good thing.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[tibit]

What everyone is talking about is E=0.5*m*v^2. When you hit something, the energy to be dissipated goes up as square of the velocity. Increasing your speed to 90mph from 60mph more than doubles your kinetic energy. Unfortunately, when crumpled fast enough, typical structures dissipate energy while providing some force that's only a function of displacement. IOW, your car may well be too short to protect anyone inside when hitting a wall at 90mph, but at 60mph your kid in the backseat could perhaps just be an orphan. I'm not the one to say which is better; the "speed kills" screamers have already made the decision for everyone else.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

Hardly, most high speed drivers are paying far more attention then those who are going the speed limit or slower. Those maintaining the speed limit are typically in cruise control and; while looking at the road; are off somewhere else in their head. We like to call these people zombie drivers. These are the real people that most motorist and most accidents occur from. High speed crashes caused an approximate 3% of all crashes this year in the united states. The problem is they cause far more horrific accidents and are usually caused by one of those zombie drivers changing lanes and not checking their rear view mirror before hand. Causing the high speed driver to slam home into the car. And that is where the only UNSAFE thing about driving within the maximum limits of your car stands. Their is a small margin of window when it's too late to slam on your breaks, what the driver needed to do was shift lanes but was either A) Unable to do that or B) yes the driver should not have been driving at those high rates of speed as he was not well trained enough. Still case by case statistics show that those driving the speed limit or below speed limit cause far FAR more wrecks then those who drive fast.

Yes I did just argue both points, got a problem with that? Hell I think we should move to the drivers education of Belgium where they have to drive for a year before obtaining a license and their licensing test (both theory and driving) is incredibly hard and incredibly dangerous. At least we should require defensive driving tests as a mandatory not an option. You'd have to be a real fucking idiot to fail a driving exam. Honestly they should revoke your ability to drive if you ever fail it on the first try. Atleast in Kansas you have to answer 10 questions and then drive to the highway and drive home. The driving test basically shows 5 things: A) you can seat belt and start your car, B) you can turn on your blinker and turn, C) you can stop at stop lights, D) you can take the car to 65, and E) you can put two hands on the wheel. So dumb.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[shadowfaxcrx]

You know, the idea that the danger from speeding is exponential simply doesn't play out in real life. If speed alone were the killer, then the Autobahn would be a slaughterhouse. But as has been pointed out all over this thread, the autobahn, despite having no speed limits in many areas, is not a bloodbath because the people driving on the autobahn have to be damned good drivers, and they have to prove it before they're allowed behind the wheel.

What actually kills is speed differential. You could go 100mph all day long and if you didn't hit anything you wouldn't get killed. (yeah, I know, that's very obvious. Bear with me.) But when the poke doing 45 suddenly veers into your lane, the wreck will be catastrophic. Whereas if you were only doing 55 when the idiot cut in front of you, the wreck wouldn't be nearly as bad.

But both scenarios are caused by a bad driver doing something stupid. You'll never be able to eliminate that variable entirely from the driving equation, but we could limit it a lot more than we do.

After all, if speed kills, and we care about the more than 40,000 people per year who are dying on the roads (apparently from speed, if you believe the hype), then we should lower the speed limits further.

After all, if the speed limit on the interstate was 20, we'd have a lot fewer deaths right? Because. . Speed kills.

I say again - Speed does not kill. Speed is a factor in mortality only when other causative factors get involved - and generally the main causative factor in wrecks, both fatal and otherwise, is bad driving.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[tibit]

The main problem is that you have already assumed that we somehow need to be other people's nannies. Accident != accident. If someone kills/wounds only themselves due to speeding, who cares. The law should allow their health insurance to go through the roof, just like auto insurance would, though.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[tibit]

On a Volvo S80 2.9, the sweet spot seems to be 50mph. 600+ miles on one tank IIRC.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[OnePumpChump]

Germany also has stricter traffic laws, stricter enforcement, stricter driving tests, and better highway maintenance and construction, at least for the Autobahn. That said, it doesn't take much in the way of maintenance or construction to make a road fast in the Mohave desert, and I'm only comfortable going that fast if there's no one else in sight.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[adolf]

Agreed, completely, except for one point:

Speeding, driving fast, and driving too fast are all different things.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

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)

Well of course. All the idiots in Germany have already been killed.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Lord Kano]

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.

You can often tell how old people are by the arguments they choose. Anyone who claims interstate speed limits were about safety isn't old enough to remember that they used to be much higher and the reason for the artificial limit of 55 was to conserve fuel during the 1970s when the US was subject to embargo.

LK

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[dbIII]

Not very convincing, but I suppose it must be a cultural "only in America" sort of thing which I'll never understand.
It also must make life very easy for organised crime.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Meski]

So governments are going to start selling indulgences[1]. Why not? I'd buy a year's worth of no-speed limit for highways.
[1] I was going to put the wiki link to indulgences here, but apparently cut and paste died on this POS windows

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[_Sprocket_]

What a useless thing to try and do when I have somewhere urgent to get to!

I can understand the ire if I were driving on roads paved with children. Unfortunately, not every law designed to "save children" really does what it claims.

Here's hoping you and all the others making excuses for speeding get to your FINAL destination a little faster. I think it would do us all a lot of good if the evolutionary factor were applied. Of course the problem is cars tend to kill the soft bodies around them first and the cradled bodies in them later. What a wonderful way to travel through life.

Anywhere that I am speeding shouldn't have soft bodies to be hit. And in those cases, it's the overly cautious slow movers that tend to turn traffic dangerous. I hope that your tone isn't betraying you as one of those idiots who should stay on the feeder (or at least in the right lane).

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

What are all these abuses of concealed carry? As far as I know the jury is still very much out on whether it makes a difference in crime rate at all, and no one except the brady campaign, the NRA and a few other interest groups continue to seriously claim otherwise.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

You were probably unfamiliar with the traffic laws, I call bullshit, all roads in germany have speed limits, except some stretches of the autobahns. There are no 2 lane back roads with no speed limit. The speed limit was probably 80 or 100 km/h and you just didn't get caught. On another note, if Germany did want to decrease traffic fatalities they could stop planting those trees along roads, or at least put in guard rails. Also it depends on where you are now in the US and where you were in Germany which one is more stressful to drive on. I commuted from ingolstadt to munich on the A9 for years, and it was horrible, I live in north texas now, and it's not bad at all. If you moved from Regensburg to LA though, well, you might have had the opposite experience.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[RJFerret]

Actually, the Federal Highway Administration, under the US DOT, stipulates speed limits be set to the 90th decile of traffic flow, as determined by a speed study for each stretch of highway (straight separate from curve, separate from uphill and downhill).

Most state's speed limits do not conform.

As was clearly shown by the state which eliminated speed limits, and then subsequently had them reinstated, their accident rate dropped without limits, then increased when speed limits were put back in.

There IS evidence that it is actually safer to go faster. (Obviously speed has nothing to do with safety, other factors are at issue. The vast majority of accidents occur at very low speeds, not on limited access highways.)

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[okmijnuhb]

I love how people think that there is a road in Germany called "The Autobahn".
Autobahn is the German word for highway.
There are many autobahns in Germany.
There are speed limits on German autobahns in certain sections, generally in curves, and there are areas where there is no speed limit, generally the straight sections.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[ukemike]

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.

Well it may be safe for a well maintained 2005 BMW 5 Series, or even for a 2004 VW GTI to haul ass down I80 through Nevada at 90. But a 1985 Chrysler Lebaron at anywhere near that speed (at nearly any speed for that matter) is a threat to anyone in it or near it. That's why the law would require inspection first. Of course I can't believe that the permits would be granted in a rational fashion.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[_Sprocket_]

You were probably unfamiliar with the traffic laws, I call bullshit, all roads in germany have speed limits, except some stretches of the autobahns. There are no 2 lane back roads with no speed limit. The speed limit was probably 80 or 100 km/h and you just didn't get caught.

Sometimes its good to read a thread before you reply (or give mod points for that matter). Others have called me out on this. I've noted that my memory is probably faulty on this point. It was, in fact, years ago. And while I do like trivia, German traffic laws just haven't kept my interest enough for me to remember the details that I knew back when I was driving there.

Also it depends on where you are now in the US and where you were in Germany which one is more stressful to drive on. I commuted from ingolstadt to munich on the A9 for years, and it was horrible, I live in north texas now, and it's not bad at all. If you moved from Regensburg to LA though, well, you might have had the opposite experience.

That's very possible. I lived in the Eifel region so it wasn't exactly major metropolis. Its possible the times we drove to large cities was outside commute hours. I compare this to traffic in Houston, TX at the same time period. Houston traffic was a heck of a lot more chaotic. But if your experience is limited to outside rush hour, you might not find it so bad (YMMV - I know one guy who refuses to go on the highway). Of course, I've found traffic in other places in the US to be much better than Houston since then (and now). Interstate traffic in the US and the equivalent in Germany seemed to be mostly the same level of stress.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[yyxx]

Corwin said: "K.E. = 1/2 M * V^2 -- Speed does kill", and that's what I was replying to. Please follow the thread.

If you take braking into account, you need to take reaction times, attention, etc. into account as well. At that point, you're looking at accident statistics, and they don't support the view that "speed kills" either.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Compaqt]

Lemme expand on your thoughts...

First, we'll get rid of the Windoze users. No little Windows babies, not future Windows lusers to ruin a BOFH's day.

Next, Mac users are far too smarmy for theirs or anyone else's benefit. Anybody with a black turtlneck: beware.

Then, we'll finally winnow out the Emacs crowd. Don't like it? Learn to love : and ^C.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[yyxx]

There is a good chance of surviving a 50MPH collision in a modern car, but at 90mph, the chances are much much lower.

I doubt that's the case for the kind of messy collisions that occur in real-world scenarios. You're welcome to try to find some data to back up your claim.

There is, however, excellent data on speed limits and fatalities, and the answer is: the data do not support the conclusion that lower speed limits reduce fatalities.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

While I'm out I'll pick you up a license to kill.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a 2007 mazdaspeed 3, while going approx 80-85 on the turnpike, I got a whopping measured-at-the-pump 37 mpg. The car was pretty much in full boost the entire time and the efficiency was amazing. Now, turbocharged cars that spool up at a relatively low rpm are not that common, compared to the avg vehicle, not everything does terribly at high speeds.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[cgenman]

I did the LA->San Jose drive up I5 about once every two months for four years. Maybe it has slowed down in the 10 years since I've moved out to Boston, but on I5 between San Jose and the Grapevine I could usually set the cruise control at 90, and just go for hours. At night, you used to get a bunch of trucks that would all cruise together at about 100. 580 over the bay at 4 AM also had a huge average speed for the few cars that were out there. A group of us cars were casually rolling along at 110, when we had a cop pass us at about 130. Similarly, a commute up 280 at 7pm or so fluctuated between 70 and 90 mph or so as a normal traffic speed. Those last two routes I only did for two months, but I did a full trip round the bay every day. You'd better believe I figured out which roads had the fastest average speeds.

The police must have been clamping down on speeding recently. I can't imagine any other reason for the numbers you're coming up with. Trucks rarely exceeding 55 mph? I never used to see those guys doing anything less than 70. Most of the time they defined the speed of traffic, and they were in a rush. You're not in any sort of official-looking vehicle, are you?

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[dryeo]

So you are saying that the people actually driving their vehicles are not cognizant enough to determine their own speed, and let them pay the consequences if they go to fast. Instead we should rely on some super smart government engineers to tell us how fast we can go. These super engineers are just like mommy and daddy and always looking out for your best interest, when you are not smart enough.

As often as not it is other people paying the consequences. Why should my wife lose her husband because you're to childish to be cognizant of your speed on public roads.
I have more trust in engineers who aren't taking shortcuts to make more profit then the average young driver. I've witnessed too much to except that all people will naturally drive sanely.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[harrytuttle777]

So, I guess that Germans are just better the USAians because they have tougher rules and laws. Without these rules and laws, people would be running into each other all the time because their cars were breaking down and the roads did not meet grade specifications. The fact that the German government trusts the population enough to judge their own safe speed, and hence the drivers know they need to pay attention has nothing to do with the accident rate. It is all because they have exacting German road specifications.

I say let people speed. This will have a counterintuitive affect of decreasing the accident rate.

Self preservation is the most basic instinct that man has. People if left to their own devices are not going to drive in such a manner that is likely to kill themselves. They do not need an arbitrary law telling them how fast they can drive.

    Most people are probably shaking their head at this. It is a shocking concept for people who live in an environment that distrusts the ability of the individual, while placing a great confidence in the judgment of the state and the community.

As for being responsible for your actions. Of coarse I agree. If you kill someone from your negligence either speeding or not paying attention, you should naturally be held responsible. I have a problem with forcing people to obey unnecessarily conservative traffic laws when they have not killed or injured anyone in an accident. By your reasoning, we need traffic laws to prevent behaviors that are likely to cause injury to 'innocent' people. This is a preemptive law for the greatest good. By a natural extension it is reasonable to guess that if you procreate, your kids MAY turn out to be thugs and end of killing some innocent person. Should we therefore enact a law requiring your to get a license to procreate, or possibly require you to send your kids to some state sponsored 'anti-violence' school that teaches your kid to behave in a non-violent way at all times. We can not preemptively legislate out every type of behavior that might injure an 'innocent' person. Every person reading this WILL die. It may be of old age, It may be due to disease. It may be due to the negligence of others. This is the part of the bargain you agreed to when you were born. Accept it.

-To sue God over a natural disaster like Katrina would be silly, yet it is normal for some reason to sue the federal government. Go Figure.
      - John Billingsworth.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[sodul]

I did 120 mph (about 200 kph) on the Extraterestrial Highway last month. Next morning the waitress at the Little A'Le'Inn told me they never drive faster than 45 mph at night because of the cattle who tend to cross the road. That same morning my wife got a ticket for speeding at 87 mph (limit is 70), she was so pissed I had to do all the driving for the rest of the trip (2,500 miles). So yeah driving at only the speed limit on most nevada highways is very difficult, and we don't even have a sports car.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[bennomatic]

Yeah, great. I'm not sure what you think you know about me, but I do know that it's spelled "Autobahn". I think I saw it spelled your way in a Konami video game once.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[bennomatic]

Again, "Autobahn". "Bahn" means "train", so the faster roads were named that way to indicate that this was a way to get long-distance/high-speed transit like a train, but using a car. "Baun" means nothing.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Itninja]

Speaking of pulling thing out of asses, maybe you should have pulled your head out before you make statements like 'Germany has less accidents on the Autobahn blah blah blah...'. They most certainly do. Do you know why? Because 1) it is very cost/time prohibitive for a German citizen to get a drivers license (~$1600US, 6+ hours of first aid training, books, etc) and 2) Germany has one of the best (if not the best) public transportation systems on Earth.

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:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

I have just this to say: "license to kill"

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[_Sprocket_]

My spelling in English is pretty horrid also. Thanks for the tip.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

yes but you forget they teach people in Germany that when they fuck up it's THIER fault. in America when someone fucks up it's EVERYONE ELSE'S FAULT.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[bored_engineer]

I did the LA->San Jose drive up I5 about once every two months for four years. Maybe it has slowed down in the 10 years since I've moved out to Boston, but on I5 between San Jose and the Grapevine I could usually set the cruise control at 90, and just go for hours. At night, you used to get a bunch of trucks that would all cruise together at about 100.

I've been driving up and down I-5 regularly for the 9 1/2 years that I've lived here, and have never seen a truck doing 100. I was on CA 33 a few days ago, and did see a truck pushing 65. I've never seen any truck on one of the interstates doing any of the behaviour you describe. Are we talking about the same California?

The police must have been clamping down on speeding recently. I can't imagine any other reason for the numbers you're coming up with. Trucks rarely exceeding 55 mph? I never used to see those guys doing anything less than 70. Most of the time they defined the speed of traffic, and they were in a rush. You're not in any sort of official-looking vehicle, are you?

Nope, my car is an Integra; hardly official-looking. It sounds like, as you say, enforcement is much more than it was. Further, CA has experienced huge population growth over the last 20 years, and the freeways are considerably more congested than my wife says they were when she left 18 years ago. (The few times I've seen traffic numbers and been able to compare them to current numbers bears out my wife's hypothesis.)

I rather wish that traffic moved faster on I-5 when it does. The only time I'm on that freeway, I'm typically trying to go a long distance, and would love to go faster. Frankly, though, the cost of tickets here is a deterrent, and it's also just too much of a pain, with so much of the traffic only a few miles above the limit.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[DDLKermit007]

You mean kind of like the special right to drive?

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[The Iso]

The National Maximum Speed Law was repealed by the National Highway System Designation Act in 1995.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Hertzyscowicz]

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.

Not necessarily. If they really do check that the car's performance is up to the task of doing 90mph on the freeway without endangering the passengers or other road users, it will be the exact opposite; It won't make them look much worse on traffic accident statistics, but it won't make them all that much money either.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[xero314]

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

Then you must disagree with all fines. A fine is simply an after the fact charge that only applies if you get caught.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

And they may well be right: just need a few REALLY bad drivers to lower the average :)

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Sitnalta]

Very true. Nevada roads are pretty much straight as an arrow with no vegetation. You could go 200MPH without any problem. This is just a clever way of getting you to pre-pay for your speeding ticket.

Though to be honest, I'd totally pay for this in a heatbeat. $25 to get out of Nevada faster? What a deal!

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[thijsh]

Yeah, it kinda works like that already. But for efficiency you pay *after* the fact, and *after* you get caught, giving you a chance to get away with it for free. But when you do get caught this monetary transaction is can be made during several stages of prosecution, in general being: police, DA, judge, super-lawyers. The amount you need to spend may increase over time and no guarantees can be made... But in general the system works like this and has worked like this for a long long time.

Nevada is just innovative because they give you the option to pay (a bribe) *before* a minor infringement.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[DF5JT]

man Kraftfahrstraße

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

And there are statistics that disagree with you. Saying "there are statistics to back that up" doesn't make your argument true.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[heeen]

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.

Country roads actually have an implicit speed limit of 100km/h unless stated otherwise. http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Zeichen_393.svg&filetimestamp=20060729152001

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[X0563511]

... and you'd note that your Nissan is not a domestic car. It's a Japanese import. This makes a big damn difference.

Go do that test driving with a Ford or Chevy and I'd put money down that your numbers would be different...

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[AliasMarlowe]

On a Volvo S80 2.9, the sweet spot seems to be 50mph. 600+ miles on one tank IIRC.

It varies. With a Mercedes C200 stationwagon, I get well over 1400km (875mi) on a 60L tank, with mostly highway driving between 100km/h and 130km/h (60-80mph). On mixed dirt roads, country roads, and suburban commute, it gives at least 1000km (600mi) between fills.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[selven]

The general public carrying a hidden gun may get some sort of James Bond vibe but they really have no functional reason to hide their weapon.

Hmm, I think I'll go out mugging today. Mugging people with guns is too dangerous, so I'll just mug the people without guns. Good thing concealed carry is illegal, because if it wasn't I would never know for sure if someone is armed or not and my criminal activity might actually become dangerous for me!

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[GNious]

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

Just a warning I usually get from German colleagues: There are NO roads/Autobahns in Germany WITHOUT speed-limits. There are roads where you are allowed to exceed it, if you can do so safely, but any issue what-so-ever and you are it - they will consider it your fault, they will fine you (also for speeding) and it can get pretty nasty pretty quickly.

Yes, I too enjoy going 180 on the Autobahn, but I am being careful, and does so when weather and car allows.

On another note, a show on Discovery (or comparable channel, not sure which) said that rules for the German Autobahn, in regards to quality, inclination, turn-radi etc were more strict than anywhere else in the world. It kinda shows, too.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[AlexiaDeath]

I live in Eastern Europe and ended up on Autobahn a few years back going from Poland to Denmark. There are no such free roads around here so had no experience with them but I very quickly understood the rules witch seemed to be: Stick to right, find a comfortable cruising speed. My old Opel went all the way to 220km/h but felt very much unsafe at that speed. Ended up cruising peacefully at 160km/h in the right most lane. That leg of the trip was pretty fast and comfortable. A lot more comfortable than coming down though Poland to Wroclaw from Lithuania, where there were 60km/h speed limits and speed cams every 5km or so and everybody kept either accelerating or hitting the brakes constantly. Also, I don't know about US drivers, but when I was learning to drive, I was taught to ALWAYS use the turning signals, so it becomes a habit and wont be omitted when its really needed. It worked. I use my turning signals on village roads and in the middle of the night not because I decide to, but because its automatic.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

it's no bribe if it's legal

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

On a typical motorway in Europe you have:

1. Crash barriers to prevent cars from straying from one lane to another.
2. The crash barriers also minimise glare from the lights of oncoming traffic.
3. Plenty of additional lighting on the motorway - so you can actually see what's around you!

Driving across Nevada at night is terrifying when compared to driving on a european motorway/autobahn. Those lorries you have in the US are BIG! Infact, so big they are downright terrifying when they thunder past you in the opposite direction at 70mph just a few inches away from your car (not to mention the turbulence on the car as they go past). They are lit up like christmas trees, and have a more lighting emitting from them than a U2 concert - all of which means you have a 30second period of complete blindness when passing an oncoming lorry. This is not what I'd call 'safe'.

Comparing that experience to driving on an autobahn is absolutely absurd. You are kept well away from oncoming traffic. You rarely get glare from the oncoming traffic. The lanes are well lit so you can see everything around you. And hell, if you did fall asleep on an autobahn you'd hit a crash barrier and would probably be in a coma. If you fell asleep on a nevada road they'd be scraping your remains off the front grill of the lorry you hit......

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of other variables involved there though, from personal experience, people tend to drink and drive in the states, much more than they do in Europe, possibly because alternative transport methods such as taxi's, buses and trains are not really fit for purpose. Also driving tests tend to be more stringent in Europe, with people having to take months of lessons before they are allowed out on the road, compare this to the test i took in small town in Illinois after a couple of days practice behind the wheel. I barely saw another driver on the road during my test. Never got above 20 mph , screwed up the parking section and they still happily passed me!

Lots of variables that could adjust how valid those statistics are.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[PseudonymousBraveguy]

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.

They are indeed demanding the driver's full attention (but driving should ALLWAYS take the drivers full attention. Dividing your attention between driving and something else is stupid at any speed) but they are definately far from beeing dangerous. Germany's Autobahns have a traffic fatality rate of 2.2 per billion km driven, the US fatality rate is 4.5 (data from june 2010, [source]).

except when traffic is really dense, of course, in which case this degenerates into a massive stop-and-go

The traffic density is higher than on US freeways, and most of the traffic jams originate in bottle necks like road works. In some cases the roads simply don't have enough capacity, especially the east-west routes (after 1990, Germany quickly transitioned from beeing the border country at the iron courtain to the major transit country for all trade between east and west Europe.). The speed limit has nothing to do with trafic jams.

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

That's not on purpose, that is because germany is heavily populated. You simply can't build a motorway in a straight line if you have some town every few kilometers.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Ogi_UnixNut]

Motorway, It was the M20 towards Dover.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[PseudonymousBraveguy]

On the Autobahn I allways have a free hand, even with manual transmission. Usually you can drive all speeds from 80 km/h up in the highest possible gear, and you only need to swith gears if there is some kind of traffic jam or you want some faster acceleration than the highest gear can provide at lower speeds. (Usually I have that "free" hand on my wheel, because at higher speeds I like the added security of beeing able to use both hands in case of unexpected obstacles)

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

You made me picture license-theme-packages : "ROB A BANK!"- includes: 1 Grand Theft Auto pass, 1 speeding pass Free use of automatic rifle for 2 hours 1 complimentary skimask 1 Get-out-of-jail free card Make up your own, go!

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Ogi_UnixNut]

2.0L Saab Turbo (non GM). Admittedly it had modifications done to the engine, but I don't know how much that affected it's consumption.

Note that this was cruising speed on a flat surface, while we were accelerating the consumption was much higher

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Ogi_UnixNut]

Ok, If I remember correctly it varied between 6l/100km and 9l/100km. I think that was dependent on the incline. I suspect that 6l/100km was probably when it was going slightly downhill, but either way, it was lower than when we were going slower.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[PseudonymousBraveguy]

Having said that - I'm pretty sure that there were larger roads that weren't part of the Autobaun that didn't have a limit. These tended to go for quite awhile without a town, were multiple lanes, and involved long stretches with clear views. But again - it's possible I just don't remember the law that well.

The actual law is: Outside of towns the general speed limit is 100 km/h. Autobahnen, roads that have at least two lanes per direction, and roads that have the directions divided by a median strip do not have a general speed limit.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[jonbryce]

The A74(M) or the M6 toll are good choices if you want to drive fast.

On the A74(M) you need to watch out for revenue camera vans on the bridges and slow down for them. The average speed there is 79mph, against a speed limit of 70mph, and the average includes lorries that are speed limited to 56mph, one or two other people who observe the speed limit.

BTW your domain name has expired.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[PseudonymousBraveguy]

Funnily enough, German Autobahn have about 1/2 the fatality rate of the US motorways [source]. While there are many countries in Europe with a lower fatality rate, most have a much smaller traffic density. (The exceptions beeing Switzerland, UK and the Netherlands)

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

Now is also a good time to mention how 80-90% of drivers consider themselves to be above average.

Above the average drivers skill or above the average driving skill? If the later, a sufficiently bad skill level in the bottom 10-20% of drivers would make it true.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[sznupi]

"Above average" in those questions was usually defined as "in the top 50% of drivers."

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[dbIII]

You want to play hypothetical?
So you have a concealed gun and some guy tries to mug you because he doesn't know you have a gun. As you pull out your concealed weapon in close quarters it suddenly becomes a life and death situation where you have a major chance of getting killed by you own gun. Shot with your own gun but your wallet is safe.
How's that?
As I said, insanity.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

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

A toll road is a special right in exchange for money.
A permit to haul an oversize load (such as a house) is a special right in exchange for money.
A commercial licensed vehicle is a special right (size and weight limits being exceeded) in exchange for money.

Hell, your driver's license itself is a 'special right' in exchange for money.

The part of this plan which I don't like has nothing to do with 'rights' or money. It's the fact that most people are not competent enough to drive 90mph. They should require a vehicle inspection, and a rigorous driving test on a closed course which requires them to demonstrate, at speed, their ability to see and properly identify and react to various road hazards and conditions. These drivers should also be subject to random checks just like commercial vehicles are and have to renew the permit every 6 moths to 1 year. Basically what I'm thinking of is a program which would acknowledge that some people are professionals and capable of more than the average person. But my personal opinion is we should require a much more intensive driving test to get a license in the first place- I'd estimate a good 30% of the population wouldn't be able to pass even a basic reaction test, and frankly have no business being behind a wheel at any speed.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Not very good statistics, however. You see, those numbers are only as good as the cop who fills out the report. That little box that says "Speed was a factor" gets checked in almost every situation, even if it wasn't the primary, secondary, or even the tertiary cause. If some guy gets coked-up and piss drunk, and drives 150 mph while getting head from a hooker, in a car with a loose wheel missing lugnuts, the official report will say "Speed, alcohol, and driver error were factors". So then somebody comes along and says "Look, this accident was caused by excessive speed, so slowing down the traffic will reduce accidents" not paying any attention to the many other factors involved.

What's important to ask (and it's rarely, if EVER investigated), is "How much less likely was this accident to occur had the driver been going the posted limit?" In most cases, the difference in speed would not have had much, if any, impact on the chances of the event not occuring... since the vast majority it isn't the speed which caused the wreck, it was the inability of the driver to handle the vehicle at that speed. And in most cases, that driver wouldn't have done any better, and quite possibly much worse, even if they had the extra 0.25 seconds to react.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[thijsh]

Humans have been shown to have reaction times easily capable of speeds 4 times faster, and probably much more given the right conditions. The reason for speed limits on highways is not the reaction time, but massive increase in damage and inherent lower survivability. Given that car-safety has improved a *lot* (not only in collision situations, but also braking and handling) you would expect the maximum speeds to increase somewhat. But the original reasoning seems forgotten...

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Parasome]

"Bahn" means "train"

No, it means "way". Although you can shorten the word "Eisenbahn" (train) to "Bahn" (like you can shorten "hard drive" to "drive" in a computer context even if "drive" alone means, well, "drive").

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[thijsh]

And America hasn't? Check again.

I know you were only kidding, but history is read too selectively sometimes and a lot of people don't even know facts like this.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[eugene ts wong]

Are you telling me that you can tail gate at 400 km/hour, with no risk?

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[badkarmadayaccount]

Have you considered removing the speed limiter?

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[GameboyRMH]

To make a proper carbon credit analogy, you would have to leave massive loopholes and little verification that the non-paying drivers lowered their speed limit, so that the whole system would be a scam that doesn't cap the overall level of speed on the roads, but just makes people more money trading bullshit feelgood points.

Now speed difference is the real danger on the roads, not speed, so allowing a speeding pass really is increasing the danger on the roads. Allowing everyone to drive at 90 (or whatever speed is sensible depending on the road and conditions) would increase safety and boost the economy (trucks can go faster, traffic would be lighter, speed ticket revenue would be down, but people doing more productive things than being pulled over and paying speeding tickets could help make up for this). Drivers tend to settle around a similar comfortable speed - the speed limits on roads in the US are typically set at around 85% of this speed.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[RichiH]

In my scuba class, we learned that any place in Germany will be reached in 20 minutes or less and that we should plan emergency procedures accordingly. My personal experience confirms this.

Obviously, mountain-tops, gorges etc can be different though there is a system of interwoven helicopter access patterns with appropriate bases (hospitals, mostly) all across Germany.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[thijsh]

Tailgating is always unsafe, but it depends on your definition of distance. Distance should be measured in seconds, not metres. And in that case: Yes, the same distance that is safe at 100 is safe at 400 km/h. The distance is sufficient for the human response time to start braking when the person in from of you brakes. When you travel at the same speed it does not matter if you drive 50, 100, 200 or 400 km/h.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[RichiH]

We also flash the headlights to signal "hey, wake up, I am going about 100 km/h faster than you". It works and helps to educate drivers who do not believe in mirrors.

That being said, bumper-surfing is uncool and Should Not Be Done for obvious reasons.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[shadowfaxcrx]

Well, once you start talking about people not knowing how to perform basic functions of driving like merging, you get into the second part of my argument which is "the cars and roads can support higher speeds, why the hell can't the drivers?"

The answer, of course, is that USA driver training is utter crap. For my driver ed, we tooled around in a parking lot at 20mph max, and then had "on the road" training consisting of meandering around sleepy neighborhoods in a small town at no more than 30mph.

Then for my test I had to do the above plus parallel park. They never taught us or expected us to know skid avoidance, high speed panic maneuvers (swerving to avoid the kid who just popped out from behind a tree), spin recovery - - none of that. And we wonder why most people can't drive worth a damn.

Of course, to really effect the necessary change, we'd have to require people to actually put some effort into driving, and most people don't want to do that and would therefore vote out any politician who proposed it.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[shadowfaxcrx]

Don't misunderstand me - I'm not in favor of this "daily speeding pass" crap. What that would do (at best) is increase the speed differential so that you'd have those with money to burn doing 45mph faster than everyone else, which would be extremely unsafe.

Of course, it would also prove, were it to become law, which it won't even if this fool gets elected, that speed laws are there not for safety (because something doesn't suddenly become safe if you pay a fee), but for revenue generation. And since the government isn't supposed to be in the business of revenue generation, it would be fun to see how long it would take someone to file a lawsuit against speed limits in general once the government essentially admitted that 90mph is an acceptable speed. ;)

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[selven]

I love how the only one harmed in your example is the person carrying the weapon himself. If someone carrying a concealed weapon is harming no one but himself, that's not exactly a reason to ban the practice.

Concealed or not, guns turn things into life-or-death situations, that's kind of the point of a gun. The life-saving aspect of guns, as my above post illustrated, is deterrence. That's why this town, despite requiring a gun in every home, has had 0 murders in the last 25 years. Weapons that are clearly visible apply this deterrence effect to protect you, but the presence of concealed weapons protects the entire community, even those who don't have a gun.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[shadowfaxcrx]

The simple solution to drunk drivers is to take away their license forever on the first offense. And if they drive again with no license and have any alcohol in their system, you book them on attempted murder charges.

If you want to be lenient, do what Germany does. Get caught drunk driving and to get your license back you have to pass an array of medical and psychological tests ostensibly to prove you're not an alcoholic (but really to force you to pay north of 10 grand as a financially-based lesson not to do it again).

I'll agree with you that we have entirely too many drunks on the roads. And the reason is because there are states where people have racked up more than 20 (that is not a typo) DWIs and are still legally driving around. That has to stop.

BTW, I consider drunk drivers to be crappy drivers. You knew when you went out drinking that you were going out drinking. If you didn't make arrangements to get home before you had the first beer, then you're a crappy driver.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[cbiltcliffe]

But crappy drivers are less likely to cause accidents that lead to death and injury if we impose and enforce a law that restricts the speed at which they can travel.

And they'd be even less likely to cause accidents if we didn't let them drive in the first place. But we can't have that, because the state makes lots of money through traffic tickets and sales tax on high-risk insurance premiums, as well as licence fees for all those crappy drivers and the frequent cars they go through.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Calinous]

There is the issue of the car in front not braking, but catastrophically stopping (hitting a downed tree, or a stopped truck, or something). That makes you unable to stop if your speed is high enough, even if you're 6 seconds behind him (which, at 60 mph is about 500 feet - or 100 km/h and 160 meters)

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[thijsh]

You make an excellent point. That is why it's generally considered unsafe just to look just at the taillights of the car in front of you. Instead you are supposed to carefully observe the entire road ahead of you and identify obstacles that the car in front of you might have missed. While this is not possible behind a large truck those generally don't drive all that fast.

But when you name this as the limiting factor of speed - which it is - you can infer that because both the brakes (with ABS etc.) and the crash safety of cars have been vastly improved, theoretically a faster speed should be possible without causing more deaths. And statistically the autobahn in Germany is safer than most highways.

On the German autobahn I feel safer driving 200 km/h than some places in The Netherlands driving 100 km/h, but this is especially because the Germans drive better and keep a proper distance (well, in general, not always). Driving faster does require you to use your mirrors more often, because an Audi in the distance can be right behind you in a matter of seconds, even if you yourself already drive 200.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Dan541]

Also modern cars are far safer than their predecessors.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[DrXym]

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.

British drivers are told to keep to the left and generally do. You can only overtake by pulling out the right so if you are impeding traffic by being in the wrong lane. It's not like the US where it's a free-for-all.

There are occasions where a long line of traffic will get "stuck" in the right hand lane, usually because the person at the front won't pull over and no one else can pass them. Other times there may be stretches of roads with lots of junctions, lanes peeling in and out and cars weave around. But usually things are quite civil and motorists follow the rules.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[harrytuttle777]

I have personal experience with this. My mother got in a bad accident with a driver who swerved into the wrong way down the road and ended up in a head on collision. She ended up breaking her neck, but absolutely nothing happed to the other driver, because he was an illegal immigrant. Not even an appolgy. If seems if you do not have the documentation, you do not have to play by the rules. It is just to much trouble getting an interpreter, and going though the hastle with the ACLU.

Would a speed lower speed limit have prevented the accident? No. 90% of the people regularly break the law and exceed the posted limits. They realize the speeds are too conservative, the cops realize it. Doesn't this mean there is something fundumentaly wrong with the law making process.

As a counter to your example; what if your wifes huband's sister, is backing up out of the driveway and runs over my grandmother. Should we allow people to back up out of the driveway whenever they want wrapped in 3500 pound cacoons of death? I think not. We need to pass laws against these steel death traps. By totally eliminating these contraptions from the roads highway accidents will drop down to close to 0. More people die in car accidents every year then died in 9-11. The usa fought two wars against countries because of 9-11, shouldn't we do the same against automobiles?

Your contention is that yes, people are not cognizant enough to make their own determination of a safe speed. My contention is that if you are right, people are just too stupid to be driving on their own.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I buy a pass that changes the definition of premeditative homicide?

Join the military, and they pay you for what you're describing.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Dishevel]

Hmm. So you are saying that it may be safer to have 80% of the traffic going 65 and 20% at 90?
You are an idiot. Following the flow of traffic is safer. Creating a group of people that can go faster on the same road at the same time is unsafe.
Give us all 90mph.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[demonlapin]

If you don't want to carry, you don't have to. Lots of people know how to use a gun. Not all of them wear a badge. (And lots of the ones with badges shouldn't be carrying.)

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Lazarian]

Even though this was modded as funny, there should be some points for being insightful.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[danomac]

If it's the episode I'm thinking of, they tested collisions at 50 mph and 100 mph into a stationary wall, then crashed two head-on at 50 mph. They were trying to determine if two cars going at 50 mph in a head-on would be like a 100mph stationary collision.

The car crashed into a stationary wall at 100 mph was squashed like a pancake. Mind you, it looks like they used Chinese cars... it makes me wonder if they used cars that actually had some engineering behind them, then the crashes wouldn't be as spectacular.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[dontmakemethink]

Since it's only the car that needs inspection, and not the driver, no doubt it will add to the frequency and especially the severity of accidents.

However if the program were used as an incentive for drivers to pass higher licensing standards, I'd be all for it. Remember Nevada is for the mostpart a flat desert with long straight roads and few intersections. Surely they specify only certain highways are eligible for the higher speeds and you can't go ripping through a Reno subdivision at 90mph.

In fact I'd love to see this all over North America. The biggest danger to drivers here is other drivers. Where road conditions allow, including weather, low traffic, wildlife, etc, it's perfectly safe for a good driver in a safe vehicle to rip down many highways at 90mph, assuming they have to slow to 70mph to pass. Having such a program could be the incentive drivers need to seek training and better appreciate their driving record and increase the overall level of driver skill.

The downside is that many areas do not have suitable road conditions, for example the grueling 23 hour drive through Northern Ontario to the prairies at the legal limit of 90kph (56mph). Done it eight times in the last three years, at times careening over a cliff seems like a welcome idea...

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Surt]

But why ... no one buys those brands.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Its a huge difference between crashing at 90 mph or at 80 mph. This is slashdot, someone do the math.
 

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

as you say: *with a decent car*

the problem with the speed limit is that it ignores the two main variable that usually are involved in road crashes:

the car
the driver

stupid drivers that doesn't slow down under rain, are killers even at normal speed under stormy conditions.
stupid drivers that drives with sub compacts at full speed in heavy traffic because the limits say so too.

I've seen plenty of "smart" (you know, the minicar) at 90mph on italian highways. While I prefer to drive slowly and safely, I don't mind the occasional driver that wants to push the limit with a proper car and when there is little to no traffic.

the problem is that everyone else feels entitled to speed while the road2 is not in the condition to allow it, with cars that are designed for city comfort and almost no training or even talking to the phone.

and the problem is, the law could not cope with all those details without becoming a tangled mess. so we're stuck with a limit which is both too low for sporty cars on flat, straight, empty roads and too high for compact cars to be driven safely in traffic.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[phoenix321]

I don't care about reckless speeders removing themselves from future generations, I care about reckless speeders removing ME. No amount of insurance money paid to my heirs will improve MY situation in these cases.

On the other hand, I also care about actually be able to arrive somewhere sometime before the next ice age, so speed limits cannot be set artificially low.

But I like to repeat that it is - usually - not speed that causes accidents, except for accidents in bends, on ice, in rain etc.

For an accident where cars collide, one of them must have broken a rule of the road more severe than simply the speed limit: Ignored right of way, swerved out of the lane, left the parking lot without looking, driven while texting, driven while drunk, took the wrong turn, not used the turning indicator, not repaired the brake light, not repaired the brakes, not repaired the steering, driven the wrong tires.

Accidents, where speed is the only factor are actually pretty rare. Speed worsens accidents or disallows other drivers to react to prevent them, but it isn't the sole reason.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[phoenix321]

The road are currently optimized for the goals throughput/benefit, safety, costs. These are conflicting enough as it is, so I doubt it is possible or even desirable to include any piece of social agenda in that calculation.

I hope I'm with you when I advocate toll roads that make the users pay for their actual share, but I'm heavily against social goals implemented in concrete and asphalt.

On a side note, it is the hallmark - and namesake - of a totalitarian society to subordinate the total of things to a certain social agenda or goal. We should not do that. Roads are made for people driving safe and speedy to their chosen destinations, not DEFINING destinations to people. Let everyone pay for the costs they cause, so they can vote with their wallets.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Golddess]

I think it's ridiculous to claim that speed has nothing to do with the severity of accidents.

While you made a good point in the beginning of your post (which is probably what got you modded up), you're being delusional if you think anyone is denying that speed plays a role in the severity of an accident. No one is saying it doesn't. What they mean when they say "speed kills is BS" is that the simple act of going above the posted limit isn't what causes accidents, it's drivers driving in conditions beyond their capability that do it (which may or may not happen to coincide with the posted limit).

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[phoenix321]

Even if the rate of accidents AND the fatality percentage, it would not mean for sure that a certain provision is worse.

The reason behind this seemingly grim opinion is the fact that safety is not the only - maybe not even the primary design goal of road networks.

Simple counterexample: at a speed of 10mph, accident numbers will drop below statistical white noise. Fatalities will be reduced to a single digit number, above zero only because of a few heart attacks in endless traffic jams in the summer heat.

At 10mph, we would arrive at our destinations later, but safer. Even more at 5mph. Or 2.

That's why we need to balance cost, travel time and safety. Simply reducing speed limits can help, but the solution may not hit the optimum point.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[the_other_chewey]

man "standard two-lane road"

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[cduffy]

Roads are made for people driving safe and speedy to their chosen destinations, not DEFINING destinations to people.

The roads that are built define destinations despite themselves.

The modern road network -- a massive, government-funded project supported by massive corporate lobbying -- destroyed private commuter rail as a commercially-viable enterprise, in many cases deliberately, resulting in the sprawl we have today. This massive legacy of government-funded infrastructure means there is no level playing field to allow the market to select the most efficient option.

Societies which made different choices have different outcomes -- to take two cities of 10 million residents each, compare the Osaka rail map with the Los Angeles Metro rail map; the reason LA is a city of single-occupancy vehicles becomes clear -- not a result of individual agendas or goals being "subverted", as you put it, but because of different choices in the infrastructure to invest in. People in LA like their cars; people in Osaka like their trains. The reason for this difference? In either case, it's a matter of where past infrastructure investment has gone to make the most affordable and convenient day-to-day experience today.

Getting back to Austin -- giving everyone what they think they want is simply not an option here, because our population is growing but our roadways can't. There are decisions that have to be made, and it's foolhardy to ignore the consequences of those decisions on issues such a population density, transit and zoning which city planning is all about.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

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

But I thought that was the very bedrock of the US system of governance...

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[LordLimecat]

Why not just take your arguments to the logical conclusion and remark that, while it may be unsafe if EVERYONE drives 90mph, by imposing a fee to do so you control the number of people who can do so and thus allow speeding to be done safely?

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[DavidTC]

You're arguing in the wrong direction, dude.

Most people in 'favor' of carbon credits would be a hell of a lot happier if no one had the right to pollute. Carbon credits is the right's crazy compromise on the issue. (Or it had a chance to work, so the right pretended it was so onerousness they attacked their own idea.)

In fact, 'We have restrictions for a reason, don't let people pay money to get around them', and 'We don't have any damn restrictions at all, let's at least make people pay taxes', are both arguing for more restrictions.

If I say 'Person A should not smoke 3 cigarettes a day, perhaps he could cut back to 1', and 'Person B, who does not smoke, should not start smoking 1 cigarette a day', I'm arguing for 'different things' under your logic...with one person, I say he should smoke 1 a day, and for another I say he shouldn't. But that's stupid, I'm arguing for less smoking from the position of the status quo. I'd probably, in fact, rather the smoker stop entirely, but have decided on an easier first step.

Meanwhile, everyone here seem to be taking exactly the same position 'The speed limit on the road should be whatever is safe, period.'. Everyone is agreeing with that position.

Some people think 90 MPH is safe, so they're arguing: This stupid, if that's safe, then everyone should go it. Other people think 90 MPH isn't safe, so they're arguing: This is stupid, no one should be able to pay money to endanger people's life. Both sides think it's clearly stupid to have a variable speed limit based on money, they're really just arguing from the POV of whether the current limit is too low or not.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[DavidTC]

For your analogy to work, the speeding law would have to average out the speeds on the road by requiring non-paying drivers to lower their speed below the posted maximum.

That wouldn't really work either, considering a major cause of accidents is speed difference between cars.

With carbon emissions, people are releasing something fungible, and if someone releases less, and someone releases more, it comes out the same.

Safety doesn't really work that way at all. There's not some amount of safety that people have that they can dial up or down, where we could 'average' things.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[IndustrialComplex]

It also must make life very easy for organised crime.

Yeah, that makes sense, because organized crime is all about following the rules. Tell me, what keeps them from carrying a concealed weapon while they are committing their crimes?

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

Hawaii has mandatory vehicle safety inspections. Studies have shown that it has absolutely no impact on accident rates.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

Just make the price of gas like it is everywhere else - something like $7 a gallon. People will start minding their speed.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[HungryHobo]

I'm not too mad on what they're talking about in TFA but only 1 of the cars on the street going 90 is probably far far more dangerous than all of them going 90.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like there is no road in the US called The Highway.
There is however a collective highway and a collective autobahn, referring to the highway and autobahn systems.

So you... picked a nit that serves no purpose except to help you feel smug. Congratulations.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Burning1]

I meant what I wrote. :)

Here's a list of equipment requirements from a major motorcycle trackday provider in the bay area.

Most riders are very predictable in their braking, and the novice riders usually give some sort of a tell when they are about to stomp on the binders.

The only time it's ever been a problem is when I've followed around a novice rider who's riding with a group well above their skill level... I find that those riders often get on the brakes much harder and much earlier then I would expect.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Burning1]

Not much of a point, IMO. 150MPH is well above what anyone should legitimately do on the street, and very few cars (including cars that make 350 HP) are likely to see that kind of speeds on the track - the problem is that the front straights are usually too short to reach top speed. Most vehicles will hit the brakes for the upcoming turn at about 20-30 miles per hour below what they are capable of.

In northern California, the fastest race track 'Thunder Hill' which is located north of the bay area in a town called Willow Springs.

The front straight is about half a mile long, and the fastest I've ever heard of anyone going down it is about 170 miles per hour on a 200+ horsepower formula race bike.

I personally could hit about 140 riding a production GSX-R 600, which has a 0-60 of about 4.3 seconds.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

Stricter laws? STRICTER LAWS! in Germany it seems that you actually have to be concious to get a drivers licence.
I used to date a german girl, who among other things, told me (IIRC) that if you RUN OUT OF FUEL ON AN AUTOBAHN YOU WILL LOSE YOUR LICENCE.

No stuffing around there huh! if you aren't paying attention, goodbye you stupid arrogant soccer mom cabbage.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[tibit]

I agree. As for ice, the speed limit then is useless anyway, since a 35mph road covered in ice may be barely useable at 12mph. BTDT.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[yyxx]

Speaking of pulling thing out of asses, maybe you should have pulled your head out before you make statements like 'Germany has less accidents on the Autobahn blah blah blah...'. They most certainly do.

Well, so I'm right: statistics do not show that speed automatically increases accidents. That's all I said.

The rest of your posting is guesswork about why that may be the case, much of it unsubstantiated or plain illogical (how does a public transit system help reduce fatalities per vehicle mile traveled?).

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[vegiVamp]

Isn't that the same argument as the "Guns Kill" one ? Of course there is a clear link between speed and fatality rate, but in the end it's the driver who's responsible - save for "freak" causes.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Naturalis Philosopho]

Safety doesn't really work that way at all

Exactly my point. For GGP's analogy to work, it makes nonsense of his argument.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

Having driven on both, I can attest to the effect of (1). German drivers are indeed better. But I can't simply explain the 67% less accidents by the number of people with drivers licenses. The US may have 99% drivers, but Germany has a percentage near 90%. That's not _much_ smaller. However, this simple math hides the real difference - in the US, the bar is set so low that essentially nobody fails; in Germany the bar is set so high that several % of the Germans simply can't pass the exam.

As for the effect of (2), German long-distance trains may compete with the Autobahn, but in the US planes fulfil a similar role. I wouldn't attribute the safety of German road to public transport.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[PsychoSlashDot]

Have you considered removing the speed limiter?

Not really, no. And I've got a programmer that would let me do it in one button press. Aside from what Burning1 says below (ie. it'd be useless for me), my tires are rated for 150MPH max. That's 240KPH. My car should be able to edge a little over that, but it'd be unsafe for yet another reason... blowouts.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Itninja]

It's not guesswork junior. They are called verifiable facts. Look these up when you get a chance:

INFAS, DIW (2004): Mobilität in Deutschland: Ergebnisbericht. Projekt-Nr. 70.0736/2003, Bundesministerium Verkehr, Bau- und Wohnungswesen.

infas, DIW (2003): Mobilität in Deutschland 2002 - Kontinuierliche Erhebung zum Verkehrsverhalten. Projekt-Nr. 70.0681/2001, Forschungsprogramm Stadtverkehr des Bundesministeriums Verkehr, Bau- und Wohnungswesen. Endbericht.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[virg_mattes]

The problem with your argument is that it doesn't address the issue in the article. If the speed limit is artificially low, then it doesn't bear on this law. The law doesn't contain any method for filtering out bad drivers, so it simply allows anyone who can pay the fee to go faster without any concern for the issue of safety. If a bad driver has the cash, they can buy the right to risk a much higher speed crash. Also, since not everyone can afford the cost, you'll have legally allowed large speed differentials on the roads, which has been shown time and again to increase the likelihood of accidents. Coupled with higher speeds, that's a recipe for disaster that your comment doesn't address.

Virg

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[ender9441]

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.

My wife just renewed her license in Kansas. There is currently no driving test, no written test, no eye exam, nothing. You just pay $20 and get your picture taken. No driving skills required.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[MagusSlurpy]

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

Except that any statistics for that are useless, because the legal speedlimit in those cases was not 90 MPH, and the other drivers on the road who were involved were not expecting 90 MPH drivers. Assuming this went through, it would be just like leaving a metro area on an expressway when the speedlimit goes from 55 to 70 - the 55 MPH drivers should know to stay the hell out of the left lane.

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.

How about a second license exam then, one that is more rigorous and does allow for 90 MPH speeds in appropriate areas?

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[MagusSlurpy]

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.

But is there any evidence that it isn't as safe to have a 90 MPH limit on those roads as it is to have a 70 MPH limit?

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[shadowfaxcrx]

My argument was addressing hedwards' which claimed that speed limits are what they are today because the roads can't support higher speeds. I was refuting that, because they absolutely can.

As far as what you said, I agree entirely with you.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[c_jonescc]

I have a hard time believing this, so I have to look for some methodology flaws.
Since you wait to check for mileage at the pump, you have very little clear quantified knowledge of exactly how much time you spent at that speed as opposed to getting up to that speed, happening to be at the same speed of trucks, and thus drafting, etc.

I think it's maybe a better data point to log the revs at each speed on a flat road on a day with no wind. Gas will burn with each spin of the engine, so the total engine revolutions per mile traveled might be a better quantifiable way to determine most efficient speed.

I've always just assumed that the slowest speed I could go in my highest gear was my most efficient speed. And when I watch the guys at Top Gear try to drive insane distances on a single tank they often move along at 45 mph.

But, my current car has no tach, so I've no way to confirm my assumptions.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[SleazyRidr]

I think part of the rationalization is that concealed carry laws make it safer for everyone, as the prospective criminal has no idea if his target has a gun or not. If enough people do have guns that you can't be reasonably certain your target is unarmed, then you'd have a good reason to stay straight.

Not saying I agree with this reasoning, but that's how it's justified.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to say that my experience is the opposite of this. I record every fill up including mileage, gals, and cost. Most of the cars I've owned have gotten BETTER mileage at 65 then at 55. In some the mileage hasn't fallen to the 55 mileage until I get over 75. In general, at 65 I usually get 10% better gas mileage then the epa highway except for my newest car.

There was a history/discovery channel special on the German Autobahn. At that time the German's spent $1m/mile/year on the Autobahn. The US spent about $500k/yr/mi or half the amount on US interstates. The Autobahn has trucks to wash/clean/remove snow from the road signs. I've never seen a sign clean/washed/etc on a US highway.

Vehicles have been getting safer over time. The first car I owned that had airbags was a 78 Toyota. My first hand me down car had seatbelts, a 1965 Dodge Coronet. My current car has not only airbags, but side curtain side airbags as well..

It's hard to compare safety statistics as the safety standards have changed so much over time. Seat-belts, airbags, anti-lock brakes, vehicle direction stability. Some vehicles now have automatic brakes/speed reduction if you get too close to the vehicle in front of you, rear view cameras, driver alertness alarms, and more.

From the various specials I've watched, the US probably has one of the easiest to get driver's licenses. In NYS all you have to do is read a short driver's manual and pass a short written test to get a learner's permit. The road test is about 10 to 15 minutes and pretty easy depending on location. Other countries require hours to a day or more of instruction and testing to get a license. How much does training/practice affect safety? I'm not sure. Kinda hard to compare different driving conditions, rules, roadways, etc. and determine what is really happening.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Surt]

Yes, well, the 55mph limit was adopted in the 70s, during the gas crisis. The pool of cars they based their estimate on was probably considerably different from the car you're driving today, which is the problem with laws that don't expire by default, rather than continue by default.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not guesswork junior. They are called verifiable facts. Look these up when you get a chance:

There is no explanation in those studies about differences between US accident rates and German accident rates. You're just guessing at the explanation.

I didn't make any statements about the reasons, and I don't care about the reasons either. I just pointed out that higher speed limits don't necessarily lead to higher fatalities. Germany is one example of that, there are many others, probably each with their own explanation behind it.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[sempernoctis]

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? ...

They just don't advertise those passes...and you have to be a major corporation or senator to get them.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot. Newton's second law: f=ma
I think you meant f=mv^2 /2, the equation for kinetic energy.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[KingAlanI]

I've still learning how to drive, and as such, I'm especially interested in paying attention to the speed limit, and people try to pass. It's the equivalent of being called a stupid goody-two-shoes for actually doing what you're supposed to be doing.

Nevertheless, I do sometimes pull the add 5 or 10 mph thing.
Sometimes, it seems like a higher limit would be appropriate, sometimes it seems like a lower limit would be appropriate.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[KingAlanI]

Yeah, there's a reason that righthand drive countries have the steering column on the left - the viewing angles I suppose it is.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[phoenix321]

Never, never ever underestimate the power of cultural factors in any discussion that compares anything involving things so completely culturally different like Japan and the US, or any Asian and European-esque society.

I'm from Europe, we have nice rail networks here and we use them well and often. For long distance travel. For daily work commute, we absolutely love to use our cars, it's just that our cities are so small, anti-vehicular and expensive to park the car in anywhere.

Reason?

Other "travellers" in public transit, just like in LA. Less and less people like to be bothered by those lowlifes that are increasingly inhabiting our cities, infesting our subways, trams and buses. Anti-socials, lunatics, stinking crazies, beggars, cell-phone-"DJs", thugs, out-of-control youth, testosterone timebombs and such.

Osaka on the other hand is in THE center of social conformity pressure. People in Japan - in Asia in general - just don't fall out of line so much. They do have their anti-socials, maybe the bosozoku, if that counts as such. You will not meet even a tenth of those deliberate annoyances there in several WEEKS that you will encounter in any public subway in the "Free" West in just one day.

Eradicate punks and idjits and people will ride the subways. Perverted forms of individual freedom and mass transit just don't mix.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[_Sprocket_]

I try to make it easy for people to get around me when I need to drive slow. And likewise, I expect people to do the same when I want to go faster than them. There are times and places where it just doesn't work out that way - sucks for all parties involved. It sucks even more when there's drivers who think they can solve the problem by jumping around lanes and cutting people off.

There's also plenty of places where you really want to follow the speed limit. Some other poster in this thread jumped on me and raved about cars hitting soft bodies. They do have a point - although not well made, IMHO. You don't want to speed anywhere there's a good chance you'll find pedestrians.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[cduffy]

Eradicate punks and idjits and people will ride the subways. Perverted forms of individual freedom and mass transit just don't mix.

At the risk of drifting even further from the topic at hand, let me suggest that you might find yourself living in a friendlier and more enjoyable community if you reconsider placement of the line between "perverted" and "interesting"; writing off any nonconformist as antisocial means missing out on some of the more interesting and memorable human interactions. (Also some stupid ones -- but even those are stories to tell). Of course, it could be that Austin has a better class of nonconformist -- we do cultivate them here. :)

Back towards topic -- I support mass transit, but not nearly as much as I support good city planning with a focus on minimizing the distance an average resident needs to travel day-to-day -- a goal towards which a wide array of tools (zoning, tax incentives and, yes, roadway design) can be applied. I'm putting my money where my mouth is: in 40 hours I close on my second property, a condo downtown, chosen to have work, shopping and entertainment all in cycling distance.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[mirix]

For example 130km/h (80mph) like everywhere in Europe except UK, Holland and Serbia is fairly reasonable.

Serbia is also 130km/h, as far as my memory tells?

I'd usually drive a good bit faster though, only got a ticket once, but that was on a secondary road, not autoput.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Itninja]

That makes no sense. It's like citing a NASCAR race as evidence. They move at very high speed for hundreds of miles at at time, but accidents are minimal compared to miles driven. That would seem to be a great example. But one would fail to take into account the skill level of all the drivers, the nature of the roads traveled, and the very low numbers of cars on the road. Which all come into play in Germany.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Ogi_UnixNut]

Thanks for the tip! Thankfully the cameras were not a problem as the car had foreign plates on it.

And yeah, it's expired, it should auto-renew though..

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[mostlyDigital]

Regarding German drivers... You will NOT get passed on the right on an autobahn. Drive slow on the left and you will be honked and flashed but other drivers will not break the law because of your rudeness/ineptitude. Compare that to the US where cars switching lanes and passing on the right can often be seen four or more times within a single mile. Many American drivers think they're terrific and are actually hazards. Allow them to bump their speed up by 30% isn't just foolish. It's reckless endangerment.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[mostlyDigital]

These were the engineers who said "leave one car length for every ten MPH". First of all, we don't. Many roads have drivers leaving ten feet or less between cars at 60 - 65 MPH. Furthermore, distance isn't directly proportional to speed. Double your speed and you more than double your braking distance. Additionally, the number of cars on these roads far exceeds the number projected at 100 MPH. With all due respect to those highway engineers of the Eisenhower administration, they were designing roads for military transports, not high numbers of fast drivers. In the 50's they were still looking forward to flying cars.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[mostlyDigital]

The issues aren't strictly mechanical. Most roads have fixed limits. These limits don't change when traffic does or when weather conditions do. 70 /= 90 and using mechanical safety as your measurement is misleading. Even if I accept your assumptions, which I don't for a number of reasons, I don't accept the implied conclusions. Now go check the temperature ratings on your sidewalls.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[Phat_Tony]

They never argued that driving at 100 mph was safe or that people could handle it. Just because the design of the road doesn't prohibit it, that doesn't mean it's OK.

Maybe technology will still make driving at 100 MPH safe. If everything on the roads were computer driven with awareness and coordination between them, maybe sports cars could go 100 mph safely. I'm still glad they left a little leeway in the design of the roads, because rebuilding them all to accommodate higher speeds would be such a monumental project that it probably wouldn't happen. If we otherwise had cars that could handle 100 MPH safely, their speed would have been arbitrarily capped by freeway design.

Re:Cue increase in accidents

[shadowfaxcrx]

What implied conclusions? I answered a question about whether or not allowing people to go 90 would require more rigorous inspections. Since inspections only deal with the mechanical components of a car, that was the scope of my answer. Any assumptions made about my thinking that because a car can do 90, the driver should do 90, were yours, not mine.

I stand by what I said. If the car is mechanically safe at 70, it is mechanically safe at 90. That extra 20mph is not going to implode the windshield or make the wheels fall off.

As for tires, the only commonly-used car tire which has a speed rating below 90mph today is an M-rated temporary spare tire. Modern passenger car tires start at 112mph and go up from there. All of mine are rated at 149, btw, so all of my cars would be just fine at 90 from a tire perspective.

proportional to boring

[Anonymous Coward]

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:proportional to boring

[yourexhalekiss]

The speed limit is 75 most of the way through Nebraska on I-80. :-)

Re:proportional to boring

[CheshireCatCO]

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.

Re:proportional to boring

[bob8766]

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.

Yeah, but then New York would be 25MPH. If you think New Yorkers are pissed off now, just lower the speed limit to 25 and watch the fireworks.

Re:proportional to boring

[MindlessAutomata]

I just told someone earlier today (we are in Nebraska) that it's every Nebraskan's dream to one day leave Nebraska. Someday I will ascend. Someday.

Re:proportional to boring

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but then New York would be 25MPH. If you think New Yorkers are pissed off now, just lower the speed limit to 25 and watch the fireworks.

Can New Yorkers even *get* to that speed? Is it not just nose-to-tail traffic all day, every day?

oh, so speed limits are for revenue raising...

[FuckingNickName]

...and there was me thinking they were for the children.

Seriously, though, driving is the most dangerous activity performed by a large proportion of the Western world, and people are way too misled by the "freedom" of driving.

Uhoh, do you mod me up for my first point and down for my second, or vice versa?

Re:oh, so speed limits are for revenue raising...

[Anonymous Coward]

Down.

Re:oh, so speed limits are for revenue raising...

[leuk_he]

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:oh, so speed limits are for revenue raising...

[Surt]

Just so you know, every state in the US requires you to lower your speed to a safe driving speed in the event of inclement weather, and you may be pulled over for driving the speed limit in bad weather in every state. (Not that this is likely to happen, as the police usually have other stuff keeping them busy in inclement weather, but it can and does happen).

Re:oh, so speed limits are for revenue raising...

[presspass]

The parent and GP bring up two good points.
1). Speed limits are set arbitrarily. If this is not so, how can we allow one or more drivers to exceed the "safe driving limit"?

Quoting the parent:
>Just so you know, every state in the US requires you to lower your speed to a safe driving speed in the event of inclement weather
2). We're expected to know enough to lower our speed when conditions warrant but we're not smart enough to raise our speed if conditions warrant?

Bah.

--

My other sig is at the cleaners.

Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[longacre]

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.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[jorghis]

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

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Mashiki]

>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), the car itself was 8mo old.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[schwit1]

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:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Zan Lynx]

Car tires will fall apart at very high speeds.

Unless the owner has gone out of the way to purchase performance tires, the tires are often rated for only 80 mph.

Another serious problem is loose pieces on the car. A loose bumper, body panel or piece of trim will come flying off the car at high speeds when the wind hits it. That isn't only a problem for the driver (it might hit the window or a tire), but a problem for people driving behind him.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Anonymous Coward]

The driving tests are a joke. Personally, I'd love to have a system of driver rankings. 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.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Khyber]

"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:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[longacre]

Most road tests don't go over 30 mph. They don't measure reaction time at high speed and such.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except they installed drag lights on the on-ramps, which reduced the length to where most drivers can not accelerate to freeway speeds by the time they are forced to merge. Entertaining with a fast car, but it is horrible for fuel economy, safety, pollution, etc.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[dr2chase]

That's ok, the tires are only compromised at higher temperatures, which is never a problem in Nevada.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Wyatt Earp]

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
http://www.carbibles.com/tyre_bible.html

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[vlm]

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.

Driver error gets you into bad situations. Equipment quality gets you out of (some) bad situations.

Following too close is a driver error. Under inflated tires with no tread, bad shocks, bad brakes, is what prevents you from curing the problem.

Example, my stopping distance is supposed to be 110 feet or so at 60 mph, but due to shoddy maintenance its more like 300 feet. Bad driving is getting myself into a 200 foot situation. With good gear, no problemo. With bad gear, oops.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[jridley]

It's ALWAY driver error, since one of the responsibilities of being a driver is keeping your vehicle in proper operating condition.

The only time it's not driver error is when completely unforseeable incidents occur, like someone jumping in front of a car from a blind location like from behind a parked truck or something.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Anonymous Coward]

So instead you recommend the super-fast traffic move to the right lane, so that traffic merging in has to deal with a car coming up on them at 90mph out of nowhere? Ya, great idea man.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Anonymous Coward]

Most any modern car has a governor programmed with the OEM tire speed limit. My car is limited to 118mph (T rating). I believe the tire dealers won't install tires with a lower speed rating than the OEM tires. Not certain of that though.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[the_humeister]

We should raise gas prices to $10/gallon and then get rid of speed limits. That'll do pretty much the same thing.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[mangu]

I'd love to have a system of driver rankings. 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.

I think drivers should be tested at the maximum speed they are allowed to drive at. The test should be done at night on wet pavement and include emergency stops and slalom courses.

Besides, one should be allowed to do the test drunk. You could be tested for alcohol before and after the test, your BAC would be noted on your driver's licence and you would be allowed to have a BAC up to that level when driving.

It would cost more to do tests this way, of course, but it would be repaid in much lower accident rates.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[hedwards]

Strictly speaking you shouldn't be doing any of those things anyways. Thinking outside the box isn't universally a good thing. Sometimes the box has limits set at a given point for a reason. The reaction time at 90mph is the same as it is at 70, 55, 30 or for that matter even 10mph, but the stopping distance is greatly increased over even 70mph. Motorcycle riders tend to be more aware of it than car drivers are, but even slowing from 90 down to 70 mph is enough to cut the stopping distance from roughly 420 feet down to roughly 280 feet, if wolfram alpha is correct on this one. Which is a huge difference in safety margin even beyond just the energy that you'll have if you hit something. That assumes dry pavement, good tires, and a reaction time of 1.1s or so.

In other words this isn't a matter of thinking outside the box, this is an attempt at currying favor with people that are either insane or ignorant as to how physics works. Then to add in the mixture of people allowed to go 90mph and the ones that aren't, is just mind bogglingly dangerous. There's a reason why there are typically laws against holding up traffic and why LEOs focus on the first car in a grouping of vehicles that are speeding.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Khyber]

Trucks get their own road (18 wheelers, etc.,) Slow lane traffic needs to stay to the INSIDE of the roads, faster moving traffic should be on the outside lanes with the merging ramps.

I'd go through the whole thing but then some stupid civil engineer will come by and I'll have to make a fool out of them with deeper in-depth explanations that I just don't have the time to make right now.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Smauler]

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.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[amorsen]

Any car that can't do 90MPH safely on an otherwise empty road should be taken off the roads immediately. Do regular car inspections and that problem all but disappears.

Also, require tires to be rated for the maximum speed the car can do. That encourages electronic speed limiters, as above 250km/h tires are fairly expensive.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Anonymous Coward]

American driving tests seem to be based on the theory that we're all winners, and should be able to succeed at the test on our first or second time. How many required driving courses or tests in the U.S. encompass emergency handling, highway speeds, and driving at night? It wasn't until several years after getting my license that I tried autocross and I really learned how to control my car.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Anonymous Coward]

you do realize that the slow people ARE supposed to be on the right side. That's actually written into law.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Anonymous Coward]

The smart people are already on the left...

And therein lies the problem with much of the political left. Joining some club doesn't make you smart, no matter how much your self esteem needs that to be the case. Even if it did, being smart doesn't magically turn all of your opinions into facts.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[ThatMegathronDude]

What kind of shitheap cars are you driving around in? With the exception of truck tires, I've never seen a tire shop carry tires that weren't rated to 100mph minimum across the entire catalog. I've also never seen a vehicle equipped from the factory with trim or body pieces that would come off at 90 mph. Wtf man get a decent vehicle and ditch your rolling scrapheap.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are joking aren't you?

In most states, the exam is very easy to pass. The only way they could make them easier is if the only requirement to pass the exam would to prove you have a heartbeat!

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Anonymous Coward]

Without reengineering our existing freeways and highways where would you put the slow traffic? If you put them in the leftmost lanes then the faster (rightmost) lanes will slow down with every car thats getting on or off the freeway. Also, during high traffic times when off ramps are backed up the "fast" lane will slow to a crawl.

Having the faster traffic in the leftmost lanes makes much more sense. The only people in the leftmost lanes are the ones that worked their way over there. They are the last lanes to be disturbed when an offramp is clogged or a lot of people are merging onto the freeway. When you get on the freeway you'll start out going slower but you can work your way over to the faster lanes as you feel comfortable... makes perfect sense to me.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Bad brakes, burned out headlights, and bald tires won't make a car fall apart, but they will cause accidents.

Take a walk through a typical Wal-Mart parking lot sometimes and check out the tread on the tires on the cars there. Then remember, these people are allowed to drive 70MPH on the same freeway you do. Insane.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Anonymous Coward]

Therein lies the problem of idiots like you: A implies B is not the same as B implies A. Smart people also tend to breathe, for example, but not everyone that breathes is smart, as evidenced by your posting here.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Rogerborg]

How many people who have proactively shown an interest and put in the work to pass an advanced driving qualification would drive a vehicle with "no tread, bad shocks, bad brakes"? Education really is the silver bullet.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Xaositecte]

Poor tires? Poor Brakes? These don't contribute to accidents, what?

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless the owner has gone out of the way to purchase performance tires, the tires are often rated for only 80 mph.

Bullshit. You are a fucking idiot.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[KingMotley]

Would make the drivers test entertaining. Can you retake the test after you pass for a small fee?

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[dkf]

In most states, the exam is very easy to pass. The only way they could make them easier is if the only requirement to pass the exam would to prove you have a heartbeat!

Nah. They could allow someone else to take the test on your behalf. Why are states preventing this sensible move into subcontracting? Do they hate our economy so?

</sarcasm>

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ouch. Looks like I hit a nerve. Don't worry -- I'm confident there's yet another self-esteem club you can join to soothe the pain. Perhaps Mensa is in your future. That's assuming that you aren't already a member. Surely Triple Nine could make use of your keen insights and witty banter. You could even go the easy route and simply brag to your circle of friends about the scathing response you made to that mouth-breather on slashdot.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Thing 1]

There's a reason why there are typically laws against holding up traffic and why LEOs focus on the first car in a grouping of vehicles that are speeding.

Right! Because the car in front is likely "holding up traffic" -- those speeders behind it would have gone faster, if not for that meddling slow first speeder.

Reminds me of a comedian from back in the 80s, who told a joke about getting pulled over for "attempted speeding". The officer said "Yeah if you weren't driving such a piece of shit, you'd have been speeding!"

(I understood you; this is mere wordplay.)

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[lordmetroid]

Except in New York where they have ramps on both sides of the highway.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Anonymous Coward]

Kettle calling the pot black dude.
The OP made a joke and YOU took it seriously - your response was clearly not meant as a joke, but you fucked up your criticism.
Your failed criticism was taken seriously and your response to that was to get all self indulgent.
You haven't done one thing right and as a conservative I mean that in both senses of the word.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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

Nope, its just there to distract you from the fact that you are giving up lots of personal information for a national ID database.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[CheshireCatCO]

nobody understands that an on-ramp is an ACCELERATION LANE.

Not really. A lot of on-ramps (particularly inside cities) are not designed for acceleration due to twists, lights, or being uphill. And even if you do have a good ramp for it, they often kill your merging lane so fast you want to enter cautiously because you may not be able to get into traffic before your lane goes away. Going faster gives you less time and a smaller segment of traffic to sample from.

Basically, whoever designs on and off ramps seems to be doing a lousy job. (Or, more likely, the guys giving them their instructions. I suspect a lot of it has to do with rules like, "Don't take up more than X amount of space.")

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you worn out your jump to conclusions chart yet? I could certainly point out the incorrect assumptions you've chosen to make in reaching your conclusions; however, I suspect there'd be no point. If you choose to treat your opinions about my personal thoughts as facts, I don't see anything productive I can do about that.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[socsoc]

This morning I followed an elderly lady onto the on-ramp in a major city. It twisted and turned and she entered the US Highway at ~35 MPH. Going faster would have been safer for me, as cars routinely hit the end of this on-ramp at 60+ MPH to properly merge with traffic. Unless she was driving a sports car, there was no way to properly sample the passing cars and choose where to merge at this ridiculously low speed. Her vehicle and all the ones behind it just had to pray that a 18 wheeler wasn't coming and people on the highway were courteous to our tortoise-like merge.

They are designed (even if you argue poorly) to accelerate your vehicle to the flow of traffic. If you can't handle that, stay on the surface streets (coincidentally, she took the next off-ramp, making it a big exercise for a few minute travel time savings).

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, only once. Pilot's licenses require re-qualification but drivers do not, for some reason.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Anonymous Coward]

Trucks get their own road (18 wheelers, etc.,)

Huh?

Slow lane traffic needs to stay to the INSIDE of the roads, faster moving traffic should be on the outside lanes with the merging ramps.

What has this to do with on-ramps that rarely have two lanes merging into traffic of the actual highway? (I'm sure that there are areas of the country where such ramps are more common, but they're not common anywhere I've driven.)

I'd go through the whole thing but then some stupid civil engineer will come by and I'll have to make a fool out of them with deeper in-depth explanations that I just don't have the time to make right now.

If your argument is that weak, maybe don't post?

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[mabhatter654]

education.. and high car taxes, absurd 100%+ tax on fuel pushing it well over $8 per gallon (for the same stuff we get for $2.50) helps too.

Facts are in Germany you don't HAVE to own a vehicle. In most of the US employers will not hire you if you do not have a license, and a vehicle, even if you live across the street. I'd swear many companies in the US locate their plants off the public transit grid specifically so they don't have to hire "poor people".

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Fjandr]

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...

[SlashDev]

Oh yes they do, bad breaks, low inflated tires, too much inflated tires, bad balance, bad alignment...

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Zan Lynx]

I was wrong. I was looking at truck studded snow tires and got the wrong numbers.

So don't drive your truck with studded snow tires over 80 mph. :)

Car tires will be fine.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Anonymous Coward]

Her vehicle and all the ones behind it just had to pray that a 18 wheeler wasn't coming and people on the highway were courteous to our tortoise-like merge.

Had you considered hanging back and then accelerating once she was clear? It would have meant not rushing and tailgating the old lady, so maybe it isn't your style.

They are designed (even if you argue poorly) to accelerate your vehicle to the flow of traffic. If you can't handle that, stay on the surface streets (coincidentally, she took the next off-ramp, making it a big exercise for a few minute travel time savings).

Did you read anything that the GP said before you replied, or is this just a stock rant? There are many ramps, especially inside of cities where topography and space issues put bizarre restrictions on ramps, where you cannot get up to speed. A lot of ramps even have post limits half that of the highway speed. I personally have had friends (generally good drivers) total cars on on-ramps where the curvature was might too tight to allow for anything near the speeds needed to merge properly.

It doesn't matter what the intent of the on-ramps are (and yes, it's to get up to speed) if the actual implementation doesn't allow for it.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[ceoyoyo]

Those ratings are for the tire, new and undamaged, sitting in the shop.

If you read the actual specs that go along with the rating, basically any damage, use or repairs on the tire invalidate the rating.

I agree though, tires falling apart (unless you're a semi, which seem to regularly blow up their tires) are less of a worry than the driver falling apart.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[AK Marc]

The program is corrupt and the current system is corrupt. And in Nevada, corruption isn't a bad thing, it's the reason they get tourists.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Khyber]

No, my argument is not that weak. Slashdot won't allow a post that long.

Don't post? Sayeth the anonymous coward that can't be bothered to even reveal himself.

If your fortitude is that weak, you shouldn't even be on the internet.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Have you been to a DMV lately

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but A) the test is a joke that almost anybody can pass eventually, and B) if you're applying for a special "go faster" license, then you should be tested again to much stricter standards, and every 5 years after that in case your medical condition changes. The offer should not be available for people who have had an at-fault accident in the last 5 years (your record must be clean). The car usually isn't the problem these days, it's the human behind the wheel and biological limits to reaction time.

You want special privileges? Pay your money ($25 is too cheap), and show that you *qualify* for it.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, they do. I once did some consulting when I was an undergrad for a management professor. This was back around 1975/1976. If I remember correctly Cornell University did a 3 to 6 month study on accidents. They followed the NYS Police around and in about 50% of the cases the stat police listed driver as the cause of hte accident, Cornell found on analyzing the vehicle(s) involved the one causing the accident had a problem. These included low/no power steering, low/no coolant, low/inadequate brake fluid, and other problems that indicated the accident was more likely caused by a vehicle failure. This level of analysis is not normally done by the police.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to the DMVs of SC, I watched them wave through an old lady who couldn't handle the 1st line of the vision test. Then again, given how often signs are heeded by those who CAN read them... maybe quality of vision is effectively a non-issue.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents...

[Reziac]

Also, any such program should be coupled with a hard requirement that speed limits NOT be lowered. I can just see the state saying "We can make a whole lot more money if we make it necessary for everyone to buy a pass, since we lowered the speed limit everywhere to 5mph!!"

Well, that exaggerates, but you get the idea. But I can see it being lowered 5-10mph in high-traffic areas solely to make more people buy the pass, much as redlight cameras led to yellow light timings being shortened to ensure that more people would get tickets.

Beyond that, I totally agree with you.

What could possibly go wrong?

[AliasMarlowe]

apart from the state sharing in liability for accidents while speeding with permission...

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[mysidia]

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; 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, the state itself cannot be held liable, unless the state has consented.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Simply put, create the market. People want to speed, or have the equivalent of a US autobahn. To offset the risk and cost of accidents and insurance, require more frequent vehicle inspections (every 3 months) and more driver training. You really think every Jon Smith should be allowed to drive ANY vehicle at higher rates of speed?

This concept is acceptable, and there are appropriate ways to implement it, however our society has a propensity for doing new things half-ass because the 'right people', don't get their cut of the revenues. Once again, greed, and most likely government greed (and no, not talking about taxes here; see political implementation), will cause this type of thing to become a clusterfrak and will ultimately COST us more than we can use it as a revenue generator, if that's what its purpose truely is.

/f' the autobahn, where are my long-distance high-speed rails?

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[TooMuchToDo]

"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?

[santiagodraco]

One could argue that you are speeding at ANY speed. Speeding generally means the legal limit, not necessarily the only safe speed. For example in poor weather conditions you can be cited for doing the speed limit if it is unsafe.

In addition by buying the pass and being "authorized" (not given permission) you are no longer speeding but rather doing the speed you are authorized for which is deemed to be safe for the conditions and the vehicle you are driving.

This speed would only be allowed on certain roads as well, roads where that speed was deemed safe.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[phoenix321]

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:What could possibly go wrong?

[arikol]

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:What could possibly go wrong?

[dgatwood]

This speed would only be allowed on certain roads as well, roads where that speed was deemed safe.

Translation: roads where the speed limit is too low.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[postbigbang]

This speaks to one component of the US Constitution and *federal* liability-- not liability within the state. Encouragement to violate the law, safety standards, and put the public at risk of life and limb nullifies immunity by sovereignity in both Nevada and US litigation.

And it's a stupid idea. It leads to other unsafe behavioral remedies-by-tax, like peeing on the sidewalk, busting up parties with AK-47s, and other happinesses for some that are clearly illegal.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[cheater512]

This is the state saying 'pay us to do something stupid and its all ok' though.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[harrytuttle777]

The state is not responsible for people do stupid things. I just wish the state would get out of the gambling business and stop encouraging people to waste their money on lottery tickets. I also wish the state would stop profiting from the sale alcohol.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[RobertM1968]

apart from the state sharing in liability for accidents while speeding with permission...

Technically, (as this would become law) they wouldn't be speeding (unless they exceeded 90mph, or were driving over the regular limit after their 24 hour period expired). Though I suspect the state may be sued on other grounds.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[davester666]

But it's not encouraging anybody to violate the law.

He wants to change the law so you can pay to go faster. There's still a speed limit, and there probably will be some kind of 'or a safe speed for the road conditions' [like fog, driving through construction zones or within cities] like they most likely already have along with their current speed limits.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[postbigbang]

Heaven forbid that people can go only as fast as they can PAY for. I see insurrection....

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Antisyzygy]

Well, that court case sort of hamstrings the entire anti-gun movement since it sets a precedent that its not the duty of the police to protect us. Im not sure how we are supposed to protect our life and property if we can't arm ourselves responsibly.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Compaqt]

The very definition of "license" is to allow someone to violate a general law.

For example, a license to drive.
A license to hunt.
And now, a license to speed.

License: n. "1) Permission to do something otherwise prohibited under law -- for example, a license to practice law or drive a car."

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[silveride]

My vote also. People will definitely question the objective of such a bill. If the merit is to increase the speed on highway, the fees or fine will come under question. On the other hand, if its raising money ( 1 billion or 1 trilion), the priceless lives lost in those accidents will be on the weighing scale with it. "Gino" should know this. From an advertisement point of view, yes, this catches eye left and right. I mean think about the number of times we were behind the steering on a dump straight highway with no vehicles at all, but have to stick to the ridiculous state speed limit. Gino did tried to 'connect' with people but rather in an irresponsible way.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[LingNoi]

So it's like the network neutrality issue but with cars.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[badkarmadayaccount]

s/Funny/Insightful/

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[cbiltcliffe]

This guy is probably just trying to get attention..

I think this might be a mistake. Not a mistake to allow higher speeds, but a mistake in the "speed kills" propaganda wall that has been perpetrated on the North American public for decades.

The government refuses to raise speed limits because it's deadly/unsafe/irresponsible/pick-your-negative-adjective to do so. At least, that's what they've said for ages.

Now, however, we've got this guy saying "pay us money and you can drive faster." Which is basically a speeding fine in reverse.

So it's an indirect admission by the government that speed limits are in fact not about safety, but revenue.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[jimfrost]

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:What could possibly go wrong?

[Phoghat]

"First, vehicles would have to pass a safety inspection.

Nothing is said about the driver being tested for the ability to drive at high speed

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Burpmaster]

Is the state liable when people
- die after drinking 10 liters of alcohol bought from the supermarket?

No.

- die after jumping from a bridge that has a guardrail that was lower than 3m?

No.

- die after shooting themselves in the head with an officially-licensed firearm?

No.

- die after shooting themselves in the head with an unlicensed firearm?

No.

- die after being shot in the head by a mugger owning an illegal firearm?

No.

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

Any time a reasonable state regulation (such as speed limits) would have prevented said stupid people from killing an innocent third party.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Lord Byron II]

It's just like Slashdot for someone to insert their Internet analogy into the car discussion.

Oh wait.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Dan541]

That is already the case since they allow incompetent drivers to operate a vehicle with permission.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Sack]

Governments are immune from these types of lawsuit. (IAAL)

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[phoenix321]

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 decided, it is reasonable to allow all healthy adults (with safety-inspected cars) free speeds on highway and severely restrict gun ownership. Germans unite in claiming free driving on an empty highway is a right the state has no grounds in restricting except e.g. on special sections - and that carrying a loaded firearm on a public street is criminally insane.

So either we're both insane or there's something to both points of view. As both claim it is done because of reason and individual freedom, I doubt there's an easy and universal answer to it.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[cayenne8]

"- die after shooting themselves in the head with an officially-licensed firearm?

- die after shooting themselves in the head with an unlicensed firearm?"

What are these firearms licenses you're speaking of?

I've never had to get any type of special permit or license just to own a firearm....only time I ever got a type of gun permit that a state required was for concealed carry. Heck, all my guns in the past were purchased used from private individuals, so no background check, on traceable paperwork at all....

What state do you live in where it is so stringent?

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Moridin42]

Couple of nitpicks.

1) Your federal republic of germany isn't setting a speed limit and then charging to bypass it, as far as I'm aware. I have nothing against dismissing speed limits (even if only on certain segments of highways, like it is in Germany). But charging for some people to bypass the speed limit while others (in possibly the same model car, with better driving records) are subject to fines, insurance premium hikes, and possibly demerit points on your license for the same act.. is not the same as german law. If it is "okay" to drive above the posted speed limit, it should not matter if you've paid up on your protection money or not.

2)Texas restricts firearms carry at any location that posts a sign, specified in law, not just "special districts". Texas respects the individual's right to self defense, but also respects private property rights.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[musth]

http://www.physorg.com/news166980974.html

It has been shown over the years, repeatedly, that tighter speed limits save lives, including 55 mph vs. 65 mph. And you're bellyaching for a "safe" 75 mph because Nevada is "empty" and it's roads are "flat" and "straight". Selfish idiocy, as usual, continues to rule in the US.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[mysidia]

Maybe so, except they haven't proposed the law yet to reduce the speed of key roads in the state to 5mph, so that the pass is actually required to get around.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[JWSmythe]

I had thought about a proper implementation of this a long time ago. Unfortunately, it'll never happen. And as you said, his implementation is half assed.

My idea for an implementation went something like this.

Vehicles would have various speed classes where they are allowed to operate in. Obviously, they are allowed to operate as a lower class vehicle, but never higher until certified safe.

Drivers would be certified for their various speed classes.

Every vehicle would be inspected, and certified for speed ranges. We already have this to some degree. Mopeds aren't allowed on Interstates. Some states have different speed limits on highways and interstates for trucks and vehicles with trailers, versus passenger vehicles.

We'll use my car as an example. It was speed limited from the factory to 165mph (W). That's because the tires they sold with it were only rated to 168mph. The car itself is safe and capable of higher speeds with the proper tires. I generally use 186mph (Y) tires, not because of their top speed, but they are only about $10 more and have better wet and dry road traction.

Vehicles in lower speed classes would have yearly mandatory safety inspections. That's something that simply doesn't get done these days, and it's assumed the owner or driver will take care of it. It's scary how many cars I've worked on, that had seriously worn or broken parts, and the owners didn't know or care. How often do you verify your vehicle is safe? Many shops look for easy money, and will tell you things are worn or broken, without noticing serious problems. I was working on a minivan that had a list of problems from a professional shop. I went through their quote as a checklist, and found none of the problems to exist. They had completely failed to notice that the steering was so worn that the front left wheel was no longer attached to the steering, and the rear brakes were leaking fluid profusely. (hint, those are reasons to take a car off the road until its repaired).

Vehicles in higher speed classes would have quarterly mandatory safety inspections, or lose their high speed certification. For example, if a car was certified for up to 165mph, but failed to recertify, it would drop to a lower class, such as max speed of 55mph.

Drivers would likewise be certified. It's not the nonsense that we have now, where once you have a license, you have a license for life as long as you continue to renew it. I haven't taken a driving test for the state ever. I took drivers ed in high school (around 1989), and being that I passed the class, I had proven proficiency. Who's to say that I haven't forgotten some basic rules of the road, or adopted bad and/or illegal habits, sometime in the last 21 years?

I'll use myself as an example. I have, by my own choice, continued driver training. Some of those were for employment, and others were with various racing groups driving well beyond the expectation of normal highway driving. Just about anyone can make a car go straight on a dry road. Not everyone can recover from a 45mph rear wheel lockup on a wet road while turning. That was just an example of one the things that was mandatory in one training. It was on a closed track. The track was wet, and we took our class cars (Caprice Classic's and Crown Victoria's) up to 45mph, and set the parking brake while turning, and you cannot release the parking brake until you complete the exercise. That's a great way to spin a car. It's also a bastard to recover from. Further and advanced training is very useful in real world situations. You may have learned to recover from a slide on the track, but it can prove useful when there is water on the road and an unexpected slide happens.

To gain a higher certification, drivers would be required to prove proficiency through serious tests, and frequent re-certifications (such as quarte

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[JWSmythe]

    That's my biggest complaint about the proposal.

    I just posted a longer description of the way it could be proper. Certification of both the vehicle and driver.

    A lot of people have no business driving cars even at the speed limit. I know there have been proposals to retest drivers over 65, to ensure that they are still safe to drive. So, when they were 16 to 18, they got their license. That means for almost 50 years, they've been allowed to continue driving without any sort of proof that they are safe drivers, except the possibility of a mandatory retest because they did something amazingly stupid. I've heard that there are the occasional circumstances of it, but I haven't known anyone who it's happened to.

    I just renewed my license. I've been driving for about 20 years. They gave me a "retest", which was simply sitting down at a computer in the DMV office, and I was shown a series of street signs, and it was a multiple-choice test. I was thinking that there were trick questions, but they were all blatantly obvious. After I took the test, I asked how many I missed. I knew I hadn't missed any, but it was to see if any were trick questions. I got them all right. The clerk told me that quite a few people fail. So, these people could have been driving for 20 years, and sometime in that period, they forgot what the signs meant? No wonder I've seen people drive as if the signs aren't even there. Nope, that stop sign really means stop. Yield means you have to yield to traffic, not that they are going to yield to you. {sigh}

    Drivers really should be recertified at regular intervals. It should probably be yearly for normal drivers licenses, but people issued special licenses that allow speeding should have mandatory recertification to prove that they have a clue how to drive fast without killing themselves or someone else.

    Driving fast means you give lots of extra room. You pay attention to clues. A car swerving a little may be checking his blind spots before changing lanes, and they didn't bother to signal. (that's another thing that pisses me off). Some people just shouldn't be driving. I watched a guy a couple weeks ago, in the left lane, with his left turn signal on, cut across two other lanes of traffic to make a right turn. There was no question that he wanted to turn left. He almost it two cars in his stupid move. And these idiotic maneuvers were done at low speeds (about 45mph).

 

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[dwye]

Maybe he owns (or was thinking about the case of owning) a legal automatic weapon (which requires a Federal license that is NOT easy to get, for the Europeans in this discussion)?

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[lazorz]

That's an interesting piece of info (about the 75mph in military vehicles). Do you have any sources? I'd love to know more on the topic

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[blackest_k]

90mph isn't that fast, here in Ireland the national limit is 125kmh or 75 mph in the UK its 70mph.
In reality most free flowing motorway traffic will travel at 80-90mph anyway without any pass.

Autobahn speeds are much higher more like 125 mph or more.

I am assuming that there isn't a proposal to allow 90mph on city streets as idea's go, people do it anyway so lets tax it, isn't that bad.

Interestingly it is a license to drive at these speeds for a day. Which suggests that there can be restrictions on who can qualify for the license based on age experience and driving record. It could be used as an incentive to drive to a higher standard.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

When the State spends BILLIONS of dollars telling everyone the speed limit is there for safety on the roads, and even enacts penalties to reinforce that message.
they have, in a sense, said "speeding = danger" all these years.
Now, if they say "you can speed" and that person kills someone, they've opened the door to some amount of responsibility for any injuries caused by permitting that person to break the law. for that is what they are doing, they are an accomplice.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[jimfrost]

This is not selfishness, I live on the other side of the country where there's no chance in hell of ever getting speed limits raised to 90mph. Nor do I think they should be. Rather, I think highway speeds ought to be 80th percentile. But I have spent lots of time in cars in NV and Utah and NM as a passenger and frankly it seems that the biggest problem out there is simple highway hypnosis. It's a long $#@^ way between anything in those states. Shorter travel time can be a huge win.

Anyway, you are wrong about tighter speed limits, but that's probably because you have not looked at the literature.

What has been shown time and again is that reducing the speed differential between traffic reduces accidents and fatalities, independent of actual speed. Your chances of dying in a crash are higher if you're going faster, but if you can reduce the incidence of crashes it can be -- and is -- a net win. So the goal here is to reduce accident rates as much as possible.

The engineers say that the way to do this is the 80th percentile rule; you let traffic free-flow and watch how fast it goes. Set the speed limit to the 80th percentile, rounded up a little (5mph in the US, 10k elsewhere). Set minimums at 10mph (20kph) lower.

The statistics say that traffic travelling 10mph faster *or* slower than average sees accident rates climb to 300% normal. Moreover, the slower side sees multi-vehicle accident rates climb 900%! Slower drivers cause a lot of accidents, and they involve other people much more often.

Now let's put that into the context of a typical 55mph US highway. Average traffic speed is 67mph on those highways. Minimum limits are 45mph. That means that someone -- legally -- going at the lower limit is actually going more than 20mph too slow! Very, very dangerous, both to themselves and to everyone else. But someone going 70mph -- 15mph too high according to the law -- is statistically very safe.

Given these numbers typical interstate traffic speed limits should be 70 or 75mph, not 55 or 65mph, and minimums should be 60 or 65mph respectively. That's what the engineering says. We have, unfortunately, eschewed engineering in favor of politics.

So, we have some great data from when the NMSL was repealed and a lot of limits jumped to 65mph. The first really interesting figure is that average traffic speeds jumped -- to 69mph. This put to lie the idea that traffic is just going to run at the tolerance limit of the police regardless of the speed limit. In fact, traffic tends to drive at "comfort" speeds, which unsurprisingly are somewhere near the design speed of the road.

With such a minimal increase in typical speed you wouldn't expect a large change in fatalities. There was a significant change though, absolutely -- but not when normalized for vehicle miles traveled. Moreover the fatality rate for the road system as a whole dropped by something like 5%. It's believed that this is because the change in highway limits made drivers prefer the safer interstates to the less safe rural highways (now 70mph was unlikely to get you a ticket).

Anyway, I spent awhile researching this stuff awhile back and may even still have a bibliography buried in my archives somewhere but I encourage you to do the research yourself. Even Wikipedia mentions this stuff, you could start there.

I note that many of these figures are multinational. The data supports this in the US, the UK, France, and Germany at a minimum. The best studies of this are in France and Germany. (Germany is an odd man out though; the autobahn is pretty safe even though it has severe vehicle speed differences; driver training might have a lot to do with it. US driver training is pathetic, nigh on nonexistent, and I would not recommend autobahn-style laws here.)

Here are a couple of additional factoids for you:

- Average accident speed on non-interstates in the US is 27mph. Average accident speed including interstates is 29mph. What this means is that most accidents do not have spe

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[mysidia]

Im not sure how we are supposed to protect our life and property if we can't arm ourselves responsibly.

We cannot. But it is an inalienable human right to secure arms to defend ourselves, our lives, our property, our rights, our neighbors lives, and their rights, against unlawful assault, whether the enemy is some murderer off the street, or a soldier invading from another country, that right is so fundamental, that it is included in the bill of rights, 2nd only to the protections of rights to free speech and free practice of religion.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[DinDaddy]

Not necessarily, if you couple the higher limit with the safety inspection. I'd wager over half the cars on the road are unsafe at 90mph.

I'm a bit perplexed there isn't some sort of test or review of the applicant's driving record as well though.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[VolciMaster]

Well, the Eisenhower Interstate System was proposed to allow fast movement of defense equipment (a la the Autobahn) in the event of war. President nee General Eisenhower saw the system the Germans had while he was in Europe, and wanted to mimic it here.

See Interstate Highway System

My grandfather worked on several chunk of highway in New York in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, and [almost] all of the curves and grades were radiused for 75mph in commonly-available cars (ie, a 1950s BelAir... not a Corvette).

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[jimfrost]

That was the general practice unless there were overriding concerns. Another thing was that you had to have a straight of at least 1mi (I might have the distance wrong) every so often so it could be used for aircraft.

I don't have the energy to dig up my bibliography of sources but it was certainly not hard to find a lot of detail about the highway system. Quite a lot of thought went into its design, and the most interesting thing is that commerce was really a gravy side-effect.

I read an interview with one of the original architects and he said the one thing they really screwed up was running the interstates so close to cities, and having so many ramps in those areas.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[lxs]

"President nee General Eisenhower"

He was born a general? That's a tough childhood.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Asm-Coder]

It's just like Slashdot for someone to insert their Internet analogy into the car discussion.

On Soviet Slashdot, internet analogy gets inserted into car discussion.

FTFY

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[themonkman]

If I can now speed with permission, how about make it so I can pay $50 and be able to drive after drinking two beers, which I am still more than capable to drive after. The whole idea is beyond stupid. It just adds to the thought that if you have the money, you can be above the law.

Unrelated News

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[retchdog]

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:Unrelated News

[blackraven14250]

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:Unrelated News

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I think the Feds might come calling. Congress sets the rules for speed limit setting and enforcement of many laws on interstate highways, and the Federal government threatens to take away highway funding from any state that deviates from those rules. I can't imagine this little scheme of deliberate selective enforcement would go unnoticed.

Re:Unrelated News

[jfengel]

In Vegas, they rent sports cars, by the hour. This isn't how you'd commute every day. It's for tourist who want to rent a Ferrari or Lotus and drive it at Ludicrous Speed out in the desert.

Even 90 is probably to low for that, since a lot of people manage that in their off-the-rack sedans, but I suspect that they don't think they can get away with no speed limit at all.

So, it's a way of making more money from the tourist trade, in Sin City. They already had the gambling and the hookers; why not add the fast cars?

Re:Unrelated News

[Peeteriz]

If I was an insurance company and had access to a database which lists which drivers really, really want to drive at 90mph, then I'd definitely use it when determining the rates.

It would have a very significant correlation to the insurance amounts paid out - even if the accident rate was the same, the accident consequences tend to be harsher/more expensive at higher speeds, so it makes sense to charge higher premiums to those that admit that they paid $25 for a license to speed.

Re:Unrelated News

[Fallingcow]

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 becomes non-moving violation, you pay a fine that's very, very slightly higher than your ticket would have been, the court doesn't have to bother with you any more, and your insurance provider doesn't hike your rates. All very routine. Might (might) not work if you're doing 90+, but 80-85 in a 70? No problem.

Re:Unrelated News

[Fallingcow]

I figured it was for people crossing the state on roads like highway 50.

GOD that is a boring drive. Flat road, perfectly straight, ground so flat and featureless you'll think you've slipped in to a nothing-space between worlds, hours between towns (not cities, I mean any kind of town), and few other cars.

Re:Unrelated News

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention that this creates tiers of law, one for those with means (cash), another for those without.

License to rape next?

Re:Unrelated News

[Reverberant]

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.

Again, that's dependent on the jurisdiction. In MA, once you are cited for a moving violation, the prosecutor can't plead you down to a non-moving violation. They can reduce the severity of the citation (if you got ticketed for 85 in a 65 than can plead that down to 70 in a 65) but once you get a speeding ticket, it stays a speeding ticket with the accompanying increase in insurance rates (unless you fight it and win).

Re:Unrelated News

[blackraven14250]

We have a similar system , where we can't be pled down to a non-moving violation, but there is a pointless violation called "Unsafe Driving" here in NJ, with an accompanying $500+ fine.

Re:Unrelated News

[mabhatter654]

going 90 in my state would be 25 over, an automatic Criminal charge, not just a traffic ticket. The ticket for 5 over (they smallest they bother with) is $140+ after they add "fees".

Franky, this guy is low-balling it. Make the one-day pass more like $200 and it would be cost parity. After all, what happens when the police officer doesn't see the "pass" and pulls you over? You just nicked his quota for the day because he's not pulling over somebody else... that's a net loss to the police. Guy has the right idea, he's just not lining the right pockets. Of the $140 above the actual "infraction" is under half. The court gets a "court fee" for accepting your money, the secretary of state gets a cut, and there are several other $15-$20 fees for the particular city or township or widows and orphans, I'd suspect there's "sales/use tax" as well.

Re:Unrelated News

[Anonymous Coward]

And if I do want to speed, it's not going to be at a mere 90 mph.

Re:Unrelated News

[C0R1D4N]

Also in NJ (I just had a ticket here) points are not neccessarily automatic. The prosecutor can recommend no points as part of a plea deal. I just paid 50 bucks and no points for a $200 2 point ticket (I did a rolling stop)

Re:Unrelated News

[blackraven14250]

Well, the insurance companies could say that they won't insure drivers at those speeds without their own test to see if they're proficient enough to drive at higher speeds, then charge a relatively small premium instead of the much-higher one you're considering. They also have a special vehicle test for this, too, which alleviates the concern about unfit equipment.

Re:Unrelated News

[rusl]

Basically this is like saying that we aren't going to enforce so we will hope for more revenue from voluntary payment.

I wish they would build a big parking lot for all the cars to drive/speed enjoy going in circle inside of it. A race track. With a big cement wall around it. All the drivers could live in there and outside the sane people on the busses, trains, walking and biking could enjoy a safer city for once.

Re:Unrelated News

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like the cops would have a tough time pulling suspect speeders - what if they have a permit? Just'd be wasting time.

Re:Unrelated News

[Anonymous Coward]

Id pay this everyday and speed everywhere its a matter of convenience no getting stopped no getting harassed no having to deal with the courts. The faster I go the sooner ill be off the road and everybody wins.

Re:Unrelated News

[xero314]

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.

I thought the exact same thing. And in Nevada you can safely assume that a higher than average number of people will actually understand the odds in this situation. Mind you that doesn't mean they won't still take the wrong bet, I mean after all people still play craps, roulette and slot machines.

Re:Unrelated News

[xero314]

Why don't we just have a more direct relationship between insurance cost and hazardous driving. Instead of charging people higher rates because they are in a group that statistically drives more hazardously, such as speeding, why not just allow hazardous driving at a cost. If you want to travel at certain speeds you can as long as you pay high enough insurance. Heck, with nevada already stepping into this, why don't we put the bookies in charge and then we might actually get proportionately accurate insurance rates.

Re:Unrelated News

[retchdog]

Really it's even worse. There are three basic ways this can shake out:

Scenario 1: Almost noone buys in. Speeding is more strictly enforced, and almost everyone stays at 60 or whatever instead of finding the natural equilibrium; in addition there are a few road missiles flooring it to 100. Net result: more dangerous roads, and slower for most.

Scenario 2: Significant minority of people buy in. Same as above, probably a little less safe. State makes a decent chunk of money for it.

Scenario 3: Almost everyone buys in. State has effectively levied a highway tax. The few people who don't buy in are now forced by law to be virtual roadblocks for everyone else. Significantly more dangerous roads.

Well..

[rotide]

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.

Re:Well..

[somenickname]

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."

Just because you are allowed to drive 90mph doesn't mean you can't be pulled over for reckless driving. The midwest is full of very straight often very empty highways where, as long as you have a safe vehicle, 90mph is a perfectly reasonable speed to drive.

Re:Well..

[KingMotley]

There are many places in the midwest where 150mph would be perfectly reasonable with light traffic.

Re:Well..

[PseudonymousBraveguy]

The proposal is stupid. It is either safe to drive fast (i.e. the roads support the street, and laws like "left lane is only for passing" are in effect), than there is no argument for a speed limit at all. Or it is not safe to drive that fast, than is should be prohibited (and paying 25$ does not make it any more safe).

The main problem with paying for a speeding permit is that driving fast is only safe, if it is expected. If you are on the german Autobahn, where a big fraction of the casr drive fast, everybody expects fast cars and drives accordingly. If everybody is driving 55mph (or whatever the speed limit is in that state), and one single car drives 150mph, nobody will expect such a fast car.

This works how?

[PhrostyMcByte]

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.

Re:This works how?

[Ziwcam]

FTFS:

motorists would purchase a transponder

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

Re:This works how?

[badkarmadayaccount]

Someone give me a logic analyzer.

AP only

[tepples]

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.

Re:AP only

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I thought it might be less bad if the proposal stated that someone using a pass would be deemed at fault in any collision

The only problem with this is that it propagates the myth that driving fast is inherently unsafe on its own. If you were to say "jail time for any at-fault collision" I would agree - as this would help to ensure that those not able to do this safely avoid it. The at-fault rule wouldn't even do that much.

The issue with the bill itself is simpler - if it's safe to drive 90 when you pay for it, it's safe the rest of the time. The governor might as well have come out and said, "Our speed laws are arbitrarily set in order to earn revenue for the State."

DO NOT WANT

[vivin]

No thanks. I don't want my vehicle information in a database. Also, a transponder? Yeah sure - I definitely want my vehicle being tracked.

Re:DO NOT WANT

[Ubergrendle]

If you have a license plate registration, they *already* have your car information in a database. The inspection is more about whether you've modded your car, or let it fall into such disrepair that its not longer safe to drive @ 90mph.

Re:DO NOT WANT

[armanox]

Your vehicle information is already in a database - tag, title, registration and insurance.

Re:DO NOT WANT

[yyxx]

No thanks. I don't want my vehicle information in a database.

It already is.

Also, a transponder? Yeah sure - I definitely want my vehicle being tracked.

In addition to license plate readers, you can already be tracked easily using several RFID chips in your car.

Re:DO NOT WANT

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Sooo... might I suggest not purchasing a pass? (And also not getting a driver's license or registering a car?) \

Sounds a wee bit foolish

[coulbc]

I'm sure the insurance companies will be having quite a fit with this and I would to. Texting and talking at 90 mph is going to get people killed.

Re:Sounds a wee bit foolish

[Fred IV]

> Texting and talking at 90 mph is going to get people killed.

Texting at any speed is dangerous, if not necessarily for the driver then for nearby pedestrians, people on bicycles, etc.

Re:Cue increase in smothering

[Anonymous Coward]

...or not.

There is no statistical data that proves that an increase in speed increases accidents. Citation: Germany's Autobahn

You were told that speeding would kill you by your mother...who was overprotecting you. Perhaps she was right when you were first learning to drive, but not now.

You can safely drive at higher speeds now. You're a big boy.

*sigh*

[jmd]

more proof that this country has lost all sense of direction. so sad

Re:*sigh*

[Marble68]

We are all less intelligent for having read this post.

Re:*sigh*

[mangu]

more proof that this country has lost all sense of direction

Well, at least they still have the sense of speed. This means the magnitude of the vector is still there.

Re:*sigh*

[ceoyoyo]

It's just as big but pointing the wrong way? Yeah, sounds about right.

Two different speed limits on the same road?

[Dr. Spork]

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.

Re:Two different speed limits on the same road?

[jx100]

What, like all those roads with a 55 mph. speed limit on trucks, and a 65 on everything else?

You know, because those trucks are so maneuverable that it makes up for the speed differential...

Re:Two different speed limits on the same road?

[FuckingNickName]

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.

Re:Two different speed limits on the same road?

[Dr. Spork]

On most such roads, trucks are usually also not allowed out of the left lane. Yeah, if truckers were weaving about like typical amateur drivers, you can bet that it would be pretty damn unsafe. Also, the difference between 65 and 90 is quite a bit bigger. So you're going 90 in the passing lane and a guy who wants to go 65 gets in front of you because he's passing someone going 60. That's the kind of thing that would be happening all the time.

Re:Two different speed limits on the same road?

[Frequency Domain]

Most truck drivers are way more competent than your average driver, and they stay to the right for the most part on the 65/55 roads. On top of that, differences in speeds cause far more trouble than speed itself, and a 25mph difference is huge compared to a 10mph difference. Think of the last time you got caught behind someone who wanted to merge onto the highway at or below 40 mph.

Re:Two different speed limits on the same road?

[vux984]

That's the kind of thing that would be happening all the time.

It happens all the time now.

Re:Two different speed limits on the same road?

[Thing 1]

It's attitudes like this that drag whole economies down.

Re:Two different speed limits on the same road?

[FuckingNickName]

Hail Economy, full of grace, the Businessman is with thee; blessed art thou among religions, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Dollar. Holy Economy, Mother of Trinkets, distract for us workers, now and at the hour of our bankruptcy. Amen.

Re:Two different speed limits on the same road?

[Thing 1]

No, not really; just that forcing everyone to move at the top speed of horses means goods will get to the destination later, meaning some of them might have rotted or spoiled, and thus your attitude ("people aren't doing anything important, they should all slow down") means that more fruit will get spoiled on its way to you. That makes your fruit cost more. But whatever, continue chanting.

Re:Two different speed limits on the same road?

[FuckingNickName]

If you're driving an HGV at 90mph to stop your fruit spoiling, you're doing it very wrong. It sounds like the sort of thing a generic management consultant who had spent zero hours actually working with perishables would suggest.

Shame you don't live close (assuming probability's serving me correctly today). We have an insane excess of apples from the garden alone and you'd be welcome to take some if you're desperate for fruit.

Re:Cue increase in smothering

[dave420]

Germany's Autobahn is a very modern system, built with incredibly strict tolerances. Also, the rules for driving on the Autobahn are very strict, and German drivers have a very strenuous testing process before they can get a license. Comparing the two doesn't make much sense.

Organ Donation?

[HaloZero]

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.

Re:Organ Donation?

[HaloZero]

The supposition is cynical, and intended to be a jab.

Licensed motorcyclists in states such as North Carolina and New York are registered as organ donors as part of the licensing. I'm expecting this is also practice in other states, as well. You're welcome to Google it.

Re:Organ Donation?

[blackraven14250]

You didn't say it like you were supposing they were going to do it. You said it as if it were fact, stated somewhere, just not in TFA.

Re:Organ Donation?

[mlyle]

[citation needed] on slashdot is annoying. It's doubly annoying when you say it to someone who clearly is engaging in some over-the-top satire and not trying to make a true, serious, fact-based argument.

Re:Organ Donation?

[bky1701]

Because yelling "[citation needed]" adds nothing to the discussion, annoys people, and has been said on other stories (and wikipedia itself) ad nauseum times.

Re:Organ Donation?

[blackraven14250]

The supposition is cynical, and intended to be a jab. Licensed motorcyclists in states such as North Carolina and New York are registered as organ donors as part of the licensing. I'm expecting this is also practice in other states, as well. You're welcome to Google it.

Sure. Very over the top, he meant to be.

Re:Organ Donation?

[blackraven14250]

adds nothing to the discussion

Beyond calling someone out on making a claim that's not supported?

From another of his posts:

The supposition is cynical, and intended to be a jab. Licensed motorcyclists in states such as North Carolina and New York are registered as organ donors as part of the licensing. I'm expecting this is also practice in other states, as well. You're welcome to Google it.

He was serious, and he didn't have any information other than the guess that since other states do it, Nevada may do it. That's exactly the situation where there's a [citation needed].

But..

[zmollusc]

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.

Re:But..

[Attila the Bun]

Incompetence? Distraction? Tiredness? They don't matter! Only speed matters!

If there was a type of radar for detecting and quantifying incompetence, distraction and tiredness, the world would be a better place.

"I'm sorry sir, you're over the state incompetence limit. You'll have to come with me."

And road congestion would be a thing of the past.

Re:But..

[cgenman]

"I'm sorry senator, you're over the state incompetence limit. You'll have to come with me."

Fixed that for you.

Re:But..

[MadCow-ard]

Insightfull? I rate this a Funny!

Re:But..

[Zironic]

Thing is, when you have two wrecks and blood splattered everywhere, you can sorta reverse engineer the speed and direction they were traveling, if you're lucky you might be able to do a drug analysis on the remains, but you can't measure how stupid or tired they were at the time of the accident.

Re:But..

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice strawman, but that's not what anyone teaches. Ever seen the PSAs for drunk driving, buzzed driving, and tired driving?

Re:But..

[Anonymous Coward]

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'm assuming you're being sarcastic in your comments, so I will respond as such.

Impact force doubles every 10mph, so that leads me to believe slowing down a little could dramatically increase your chance of survival in a collision (caused by whatever). Most accidents caused by distracted driving are non-fatal because usually they occur at much lower speeds.

About 40,000 people die in America each year from auto-related deaths. I drive keeping these facts in mind.

I suppose you could argue I might be more likely to die of the flu, so I should stop licking doorknobs, but why take *all* the fun out of life...

Re:But..

[Anonymous Coward]

prick.

Re:But..

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this authority you speak of a man made of straw, by any chance?

Re:But..

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Authority? That's what people in general have been parroting to each other for decades. Just look at first comment here which implies the same thing - already +3 insightful, and I'm sure it will make it to +5.

Re:But..

[Anonymous Coward]

And they are correct.

If 65mph crash results in broken bones and 20% death rate, 90mph crash will be 95% fatal. It's called a road not a closed course for F1 races, and even there *professional drivers* die.

Don't believe me? Still know your high school physics? Let me refresh you. Energy in a collision goes as SPEED ^ 2. That means you increase speed by a factor of 2, the energy in a collision goes up by 4. A crash at 45mph is 4x less damaging than 90mph. Secondly, a head on crash at 90mph is 16x as damaging as if a head on crash at 45mph. And crashes at 45mph are already deadly.

But I guess speed doesn't kill? And guns don't kill people, but people kill people? So I guess toaster doesn't toast, a toast toast toast???

Re:But..

[garry_g]

Speed kills!

No it doesn't. You can speed all day and night and not be harmed.

Rapid deceleration on the other hand, e.g. by a brick wall or tree ...

Re:But..

[Anonymous Coward]

If cars are traveling that much faster than other cars on the road then it can be incredibly dangerous because of braking distances and you know...idiots. Germans can drive >200kph relatively safely because their driving schools are very strict and are taken much more seriously than they are here, Americans...I don't have so much faith in. We have distracted parents trying to clean their kid's face in the back seat, talk on the cell and wipe the stain of their other kid's socker jersey while barrelling down the highway in a 2-ton vehicle at 65 miles an hour; they don't even need a special license to drive it either!

Re:But..

[Jade_Wayfarer]

And what would you do without the whole branch of government?

Re:Cue increase in smothering

[Ichijo]

There is no statistical data that proves that an increase in speed increases accidents. Citation: Germany's Autobahn

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 keep slow drivers out of the fast lanes.

Re:Cue increase in smothering

[dr2chase]

I saw them working on a segment of the Autobahn some years back. They were laser-leveling poured concrete.

No truth in that media outlet

[abirdman]

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 Chiacg

[Joe The Dragon]

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

[tchdab1]

>>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 consequences.

Re:not keen

[Wyatt Earp]

Read the article.

"90 mph on designated highways"

Re:not keen

[penguinchris]

You might have a hard time getting past 88 in a mall parking lot

People trying to do 55 when most others at 65-70

[Joe The Dragon]

People trying to do 55 when most others are at 65-70 is just as bad and that is what to see when you have 55 on roads that are build for 65-70.

Re:Cue increase in smothering

[PhreakOfTime]

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 traffic." http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourCar/left-lane-slowpokes-drive-you-crazy.aspx?vv=800

Sure, let's sell the right to circumvent

[PoissonPilote]

the law to people. Next up: for $100 a day, you can murder any person of your choice. For $500 a day, you can consume up to 2 oz. of any illegal drug of your choice. We should have the whole law system à la carte like that.

Re:Sure, let's sell the right to circumvent

[teaserX]

"Freedom Freedom Freedom Oi!! Freedom Freedom Freedom Oi!" John Zoidberg

Re:Sure, let's sell the right to circumvent

[bcmm]

For $500 a day, you can consume up to 2 oz. of any illegal drug of your choice.

You are already allowed to consume certain drugs as long as you give your government a cut. It's called alcohol and tobacco taxation.

Re:Sure, let's sell the right to circumvent

[Anonymous Coward]

That is completely irrelevant to the original post, cuntslicer.

Re:Sure, let's sell the right to circumvent

[shutdown -p now]

You already have that - a few million, and you have a pet politician writing laws the way you want.

I like him.

[mrmeval]

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!

Pay as you go laws

[leromarinvit]

Next up, pre-register now for the new murder pass, for the low low introductory price of only $149.90! Bulk discounts available.

Seriously, if increasing the speed limit to 90 mph has negligible effects on safety, then allow it for everybody if you want to. But paying the state to be exempt from the law just stinks of corruption.

Are Nevada roads that much above US standards?

[Teun]

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.

Re:Are Nevada roads that much above US standards?

[Infernal Device]

I would imagine that it's not so much the roads that are the problem, its the *drivers*.

So, great if Nevada can implement high-speed driving tests, but there are 49 other states worth of drivers who would potentially be on those roads as well.

This pretty much only works if the State of Nevada takes on the full liability for an accident, since I cannot see insurance companies allowing this for their drivers. At that point, the first lawsuit will pretty much shut down the program.

This is an idiotic suggestion on the basis of how much the state could wind up owing.

Re:Are Nevada roads that much above US standards?

[mseeger]

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

Re:Are Nevada roads that much above US standards?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most US interstates are better roads than the autobahn, and except for the really crowded coastal parts of the United States you can generally make a better time on a US interstate because you can drive 5 miles over the speed limit the entire way. In most of Gernany there is enough crowding that the stretches you can go extremely fast are rare. Another factor beyond quality of roads is that the requirements for getting a drivers license are stricter in Germany.

Roads like I-80 through Nevada you can definitely do 90MPH on without problem. Today the only real danger is that on a rare day you might drive past a highway patrol officer. I-80 west of Reno is desolate, flat and straight, and the biggest danger is that you will fall asleep through tedium. At least personally I would say that
driving 90MPH through Nevada on I-80 is actually safer than doing 80MPH, simply because you get through the state faster, and thus you are driving fewer hours before you get to your destination. And a less fatigued driver is a safer driver.

Re:Are Nevada roads that much above US standards?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have driven in Nevada several times, and I feel their roads are much better than California's. (and their gas is cheaper too)

Despite not having sales tax like California does, (9%!) they manage to find the money to maintain decent roads, probably through casino revenue.

Furthermore, other than the Reno area to the west and Las Vegas to the south, Nevada consists of the longest, straightest, emptiest roads I have ever seen. 90mph would seem rather slow. For $25, you should be able to do at least 115.

Re:Are Nevada roads that much above US standards?

[Glendale2x]

Well, Nevada is number one in rural road condition in the country (#15 overall). The quality of our roads is not a problem for fast moving traffic, although Vegas residents might disagree. Reno's freeways are, overall, in great condition.

Re:Are Nevada roads that much above US standards?

[Anonymous Coward]

NV roads suck. The only good thing if this comes to fruition is that less state troopers will be hanging out at the CA entrances to NV.

Re:Are Nevada roads that much above US standards?

[EdIII]

I would think this biggest problem here is the logic.

Time and time again, it is drilled into our heads from different agencies, organizations, state troopers, etc., that speed kills. The reason why the traffic laws exist, and that speed limits are set (intelligently no less with engineering considerations on what the roads can handle), is to protect us and provide a safe driving environment.

I guess we are just getting rid of the pretense that financial penalties are designed to change our driving behavior now?

Does this $25 dollar pass entitle me to blast through a school zone at 90 miles per hour? How about a 35mph residential zone? Sharp curves with warnings to slow down? Just where would it even be safe to do 90mph anyways? Most of the highways and interstates could theoretically support it, but for those of that have been habitual speeders in the past (myself included) your biggest obstacle to obtaining speed is traffic. You just end up having to make 5 lane changes every minute. Not what I would call safe.

I have always felt that the fines were just complete bullshit. Anybody that can afford them does not change their behavior. I certainly did not, nor did I know anyone who ever did. If we wanted to change people's behaviors overnight, sentence EVERYBODY to community service. Spend 3 weekends in a row picking up trash and you will not speed again unless you have severe impulse control issues.

This candidate must be saying what most of us probably already feel. Speeding tickets are just about money anyways, so let's have the rich who can afford them subsidize the rest of us and allow them exceptions to their bad behavior. The logistics and safety issues, however, were very poorly thought out.

Personally, I would vote to see that this man never takes office. He has clearly indicated he is in favor of making exceptions for people that can afford them. Exactly what we need more of in government.

Re:Are Nevada roads that much above US standards?

[dkf]

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.

You should limit your speed to 255 km/h. Otherwise you'll overflow the unsigned byte used for the speed and then where will we be?

Re:Are Nevada roads that much above US standards?

[horza]

In Germany there are around 336,000 road accidents per year, and in the US 11M. Germany has 82M people and the US 307M. That seems to me one accident per 244 residents in Germany, and on per 27 residents in the US (ie Germany is about 10x safer). Or are my calculations faulty?

Phillip.

Re:Are Nevada roads that much above US standards?

[PPH]

Every day in Germany, the gov't doesn't hesitate to tell some drivers, "Sorry. No license for you". Sadly, this is changing as the EU is rapidly adopting the US model of incompetence.

If we could get the poor drivers off the road (I mean really off, not just driving without a license), I'd support a no speed limit freeway. Heck, cracking down on the LLBs would get us a ong way toward that goal.

Re:Are Nevada roads that much above US standards?

[Anonymous Coward]

Having recently driven most of the length of I80 through Nevada I can say that, yes, the nevada interstates are in fact in impeccable shape.

The pavement is smooth and flat, the shoulders are wide and paved, the rumble strips are rumbly, the lines are well painted, the onramps and offramps are wide and long, there are rarely any obstructions in the median or off the side of the road.

The limit is 75mph outside of the few large cities (Elko, Reno and so on), and it is utterly unremarkable to drive the whole length at 80mph. Doing it at 90mph would just mean passing other vehicles slightly more often.

Re:Are Nevada roads that much above US standards?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nevada is basically a big flat desert with hundreds of miles of this.

Re:Are Nevada roads that much above US standards?

[damsa]

Having driven both, Nevada roads are no where near at the level of the Autobahn and also the distances between services in Nevada can be as much as 100 miles and much of that is in the dessert. Having said that, I have driven over 120+ mph on Nevada's roads with no issues.

Re:Are Nevada roads that much above US standards?

[yyxx]

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.

I fully agree: driving in Germany is exhausting and people are very aggressive. But that is probably what keeps people alert and awake and reduces accident rates...

Maladjusted speed (which may not exceed the legaly allowed one) is a major cause of accidents here.

Germany has a fraction of the highway fatalities of the US, both per vehicle mile and per capita. Driving isn't pleasant in Germany, but it is safer.

Re:Are Nevada roads that much above US standards?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stricter license requirements (and more expensive ones) in Germany than the USA; thus there is a much smaller percentage of Germans driving than Americans driving. Further, commutes in the US are twice as long as in Germany. This total-distance-traveled difference accounts for most of the difference in the number of accidents.

There are differences in the severity of accidents, too; the higher speeds in Germany would tend to cause much more severe accidents, but the higher mandatory safety standards of the vehicles compensates somewhat. But from another angle, there are also a lot of low-speed accidents in the US (due to it being much easier to get a license, and much harder to lose it); these lesser accidents still get counted in the total accident statistics.

Re:Are Nevada roads that much above US standards?

[DarkFencer]

I know many who cannot afford the fines (at least in NY) for speeding and change their driving after a ticket (at least for a while). Worse than that, most states you accumulate points for speeding tickets and other moving violations. Once you get a certain number of points (they do decay over time and can be reduced with defensive driving courses every so often) you can get your license suspended.

THAT does change the attitudes for all but the worst offenders.

Re:Are Nevada roads that much above US standards?

[gad_zuki!]

In Germany exits/onramps are designed for high-speed merging. In the US engineers work around 65-70 mph. I don't think this short-sighted politician asked advice from any traffic engineers. Its unfeasible to have some asshole doing 100mpg in the right lane while a line of cars try to merge.

I also question the logic of having just one car out of many allowed to go fast. The idea with the autobohn is that the fast drivers can take over the left lanes and move relatively quickly. If only one of out 100 drivers was allowed to go fast then he would be swerving in and out of traffic lanes trying to get to a less busy stretch so he can do 100mph.

Oh, I'm sure in some perfect world, the assholes won't be speeding in the right lane or switching lanes line maniacs and will do all sorts of safe driving, but I live in the real world.

Re:Are Nevada roads that much above US standards?

[ceoyoyo]

You've left off "excellent training." German drivers pay thousands for training to drive on the unlimited parts of the autobahn. American drivers cough up what, twenty bucks, to take the test designed so pretty much everyone can pass?

Re:Are Nevada roads that much above US standards?

[Anonymous Coward]

Use Google Earth to look it up. They have very straight, very smooth roads, with very little traffic (outside of the cities). And when I had to drive two hours each way for work last month, being able to drive faster may have been worth it.

The lanes might not be as wide, and I worry about the truck traffic and trucks switching lanes in front of someone going 90-100 mph.

Re:Are Nevada roads that much above US standards?

[AK Marc]

Time and time again, it is drilled into our heads from different agencies, organizations, state troopers, etc., that speed kills.

They drill that in to prove their existence. Speed doesn't kill. The fastest drivers are the safest. You are more likely to die in a crash where the impact speed was below the speed limit than above. Roads with limits increased (assuming they were built for that new speed or higher) have a decrease in fatalities. Decreased speed limits and light enforcement (what we have now) is much less safe.

Inattention kills most. Then falling asleep. Then impairment. Though impairment can affect sleeping (you are more likely to fall asleep while drunk than not, as it is a depressant). But ticketing someone for inattention is hard. So the cop sleeping by the side of the road and waking up when the radar detector beeps and pulling over the next car they see, regardless of who generated the reading, is done much much more than actually trying to identify inattention in drivers and ticket for that more dangerous behavior.

This candidate must be saying what most of us probably already feel. Speeding tickets are just about money anyways, so let's have the rich who can afford them subsidize the rest of us and allow them exceptions to their bad behavior.

But that's exactly what's happening now. I can afford tickets, so I can speed with impunity. Sure, they might pull me over, but 2 minutes later, I'm off again and speeding after the speeding tax. If they charged upfront, then they'll take in more money. But the system wouldn't be any less fair than before. It's unfair now. The "real" fix would be to base tickets on net worth (or in absence of that, income). But that's socialist, so it's frowned upon. But the capitalist solution is even more absurd.

Re:Are Nevada roads that much above US standards?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not so much the roads, it's the driving schools. Germans spend *much* more time in driving school and take it much more seriously than Americans do.

Re:Are Nevada roads that much above US standards?

[PseudonymousBraveguy]

Road accidents per capita are not a good measure, because US citicens usually drive more (because the distances are usually greater in the US, and because the German public transportation system is better). And you should only count the accidents on motorways, because only there removing the speed limit makes sense. Accounting for that, the traffic fatality rate in the US on motorways per vehicle kilometer is about twice as high as in Germany.

Re:Are Nevada roads that much above US standards?

[Anonymous Coward]

Contrary to popular conception, car accidents kill far more people in America than guns do. If you want to talk about death by guns, you should keep in mind that more than half of the firearm-related deaths in the United States are suicide.

Re:Are Nevada roads that much above US standards?

[Anonymous Coward]

But, see, here, the way you feel about driving in Germany is the other part of the equation. With the required standard of driving being so high, people who aren't able to drive to that standard are afraid to go out there, contributing to the demonstratably lower incidence of accidents and mortalities on Germay's roads. Do you think that "maladjusted speed" is any less of a factor in the US accident rates?

Off the top of my head

[MintOreo]

This is ridiculous for a number of reasons. Speed limits are there for a reason: safety. I don't trust people to know what they're doing on the road as it is; give people a license to speed and it'll make it that much worse. You can expect road rage to increase significantly, both by people pissed off at the 'legally' speeding jack heads and the guys with the license at those who don't for slowing them down (which I can see them doing intentionally). This promotes irresponsible driving.

The whole idea is flawed anyway. The city generates revenue off those who speed by ticketing them. In generating revenue by allowing these people to speed, they pull directly from the first source of revenue. Even if the suggestion became a reality, it wouldn't take due to the inconvenience of car inspection and an incredible loss of privacy.

And the police force are supposed to tell who is speeding legally because of a transponder? These things can be faked. I trust that this won't get anywhere though.

So is he saying...

[jridley]

A) The speed limits are actually BS and speeding enforcement is simply a way to make money
B) He's willing to sell the lives (safety) of other road users for $25
C) They're actually going to put that money into a trust to be used to pay for property damage or personal injury of people hurt by a driver on the program?

ISTM that it has to be one of these, or some combination of them.

Anyone driven from LA to LV?

[LynnwoodRooster]

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:Anyone driven from LA to LV?

[Glendale2x]

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 able to reach 90+ to pass them. The fastest I've ever done out there was 110 to get around three travel trailers doing a max of 45 between Tonopah and Beatty.

Re:Anyone driven from LA to LV?

[LynnwoodRooster]

One of the smartest approaches ever was Montana before the Feds forced them to adopt a speed limit on the freeways. It was left to the discretion of the officer observing you about what was a safe speed. There are stretches in MT - just like NV - where you could tie your steering wheel down and take a 30 minute nap and not miss a thing! Any law or politician willing to consider freedom and flexibility in speed limits is a good thing, in my book!

Re:Anyone driven from LA to LV?

[Reziac]

Might be a short trip, considering even the Interstates in Montana seldom travel in a straight line for more than a couple miles at a stretch. ;)

"I drive Hwy 93. Pray for me."
    -- MT Highway Patrol bumper sticker

Re:Anyone driven from LA to LV?

[LynnwoodRooster]

There's a few stretches of 312 outside of Worden that have to be at least 8 miles long, completely straight and flat... Not as bad as the Dakotas, but still rather straight and monotonous!

Re:Anyone driven from LA to LV?

[Reziac]

That's a mighty specific location :) ...do you live around there? (I grew up in Great Falls.) I've been on just about every other road out that way, but somehow I've managed to avoid that stretch between Billings and Forsyth, so I'll have to take your word for it.

First time we crossed MT on Hwy 12, back about 1962ish, I forget if it was Circle or Jordan, but the highway was gravel through town. I guess it's been paved by now. :)

Crossing South Dakota is weird. It's flat as a board for miles and miles, then when you get to the Missouri there's this gouge like Paul Bunyan staggered along dragging his axe. Down, down, down, across the river, up, up, up, and then flat as a board again all the way to the end of the world. I was kinda surprised not to see any speedtraps there, considering North Dakota just past the MT border is the speedtrap capital of the universe. Maybe they're just better hidden in SD, or more likely fail cuz there's nowhere to hide. :)

Speed limits are dated...

[Bert64]

The current speed limits in the US and some other countries are extremely inefficient...
Having a static speed limit at all times of the day and night is inefficient, when the road is less busy its safer to drive at higher speed, especially if the road is well lit, straight and wide.

Similarly, the speed limit of what, 55mph on US highways is ridiculously low... Considering how many miles of highway exist which are straight empty roads.. If you have a 100 mile long road, which is dead straight with several miles of visibility and little or no other traffic there is no reason to be crawling along it at 55...

The speed limits were also set many years ago, since then the technology used to build roads, tires and vehicles has improved massively.. What was unsafe with 1960s technology could well be fine today.

You have the autobahns in germany where in some cases there is no speed limit whatsoever, you can drive as fast as you like. People aren't usually suicidal so they drive as fast as they feel safe, and the accident record on the autobahn is actually pretty good.

If your driving along at 55mph, modern cars will be making very little noise.. It's quite relaxing, and this actually increases your chances of falling asleep. On the other hand, if you're driving at the edge of what you feel is safe you will pay a lot more attention.

Re:Speed limits are dated...

[Zironic]

I suspect that someday in the future we'll have dynamic speed limits based on the time of day and congestion, I've seen them implemented as you come close to Stockholm.

Re:Speed limits are dated...

[tombeard]

Most of the western highways, and many of the secondary roads, were designed for and allowed 75-85 mph. During the 2nd oil embargo Carter (or was it LBJ?) reduced the speed limit nationally to 55mph to "conserve fuel". He did that by threatening to withhold matching highway maintenance funds from states if they wouldn't comply. That was in effect for about 20 years. During that time the states reduced their maintenance standards to reflect the lower speed limits. As far as I can see, they have maintained those lower standards even though the ridiculously low limit has been rescinded.

Re:Speed limits are dated...

[Wyatt Earp]

55 is the lowest maximum in the US, the old Federal 55 speed limit is gone, 70 to 75 is much more common with the NE of the US being 65

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States

Even here in Alaska the highway speed limit is 65

Re:Speed limits are dated...

[Wyatt Earp]

Congress and the Nixon administration passed the Federal 55 speed limit, but states avoided enacting it or created loopholes to get around it.

It was in effect from 1974 to 1987 and it raised the limit to 65, then in 1995 it was repealed.

Re:Speed limits are dated...

[tombeard]

Damn, I had forgotten I was that old. I was just out of basic training at Ft.Dix and just arrived at Ft Campbell and the last airborne Brigade in the 101st. The speed limit didn't impact my car-less existence much but I remember he also repealed return to standard time that year. I don't remember state loopholes though, but I didn't travel much then.

Goes to show

[abulafia]

Speed limits are far more about revenue than safety.

If you want to disagree, compare reactions between this and, say, drunk driving passes.

A bribe by any other name..

[Anonymous Coward]

You take the average joe, and he goes above the limit, and gets caught, and gets punished. After all he violated the law of the land. Worse if he was speeding when he caused an accident.

Take the one who pre-purchased the right to violate the law, and speeds, and gets caught, but flashes his permit, and gets off free.

You know, in many other countries you call this kind of thing a bribe. Just because you institutionalize the whole thing does not make it much different.

Let's make it all explicit

[Anonymous Coward]

"... of course, for a small donation, we might be able to look the other way..."

It's nice to see that the politicians are willing to extend the same kinds of deals to the general public that they do to their larger contributors. Perhaps as the sytem becomes more formalized, we'll be able to get licenses for things like litering, public drunkeness, domestic violence, etc. Maybe a few of us will even be able to save up for bigger ticket items like exceptions to copyright law or those pesky restrictions on child labor...

Another law to keep the poor, poor.

[Anonymous Coward]

Got late to work? Next time pay to get in time.

Got late for the meeting? Next time pay to reach it faster.

Got late for something else? Risk it and speed it anyway, oh darn, a ticket, now im poorer again.

Land of the free, land of the brave, land of the rich don't pay taxes as they should, land of where there's no proper national health care without corporate drug&insurances lobbying in, oh land of the poor get screwed from behind and stay behind.

Oh look seems like another perk for the wealthy is being prepared, esquisit wouldn't you say. Now if you don't mind, im late for my souflé, chaahrles, be a dear and step on it, i can see the faces of those disgusting driving commoners.

I was thinking that when I get my Ferrari

[Anonymous Coward]

that Law enforcement would supply me with a booklet of pre-printed speeding violations, to save them from having to pursue me. I just mail one in with the fine, when it notes a violation, like it registered on one local cop's radar. "Oh it's just him again; he knows what to do"

Compensate crash victims with this money, right?

[noidentity]

Since we've always been told that going that fast is really dangerous, they'll be putting aside all this money to pay to victims of all the wrecks this will cause, right? And while they're at it, can they offer day passes for breaking other laws as well? It'll bring in more money for the government, which is all that matters, right?

Worth it for truckers?

[Freddybear]

Might be worth it for a trucker on a tight deadline versus paying a penalty for late delivery.

driver training

[SuperBanana]

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.

Great. Then, just as we're allowed to train for flying airplanes (in all manner of different levels), big heavy trucks, etc- offer graduated driving licenses. If you're willing to go through extra training, you get to drive faster than people who can't be bothered. We're already seeing some of this; in many states, young drivers aren't allowed to drive at night or with juvenile passengers. Apply the concept in other ways, too: if you haven't completed a course in winter driving skills, you're not allowed to drive before roads are sanded and plowed.

Why we keep people from flying planes in instrument conditions unless they have the training for it, but let any asshole go out in his SUV with half-bald tires in fresh snow, is beyond me.

Also: bar insurance payments for anything except completely faultless situations (which are rare.) Watch how fast people get at being careful drivers, when hitting someone else with a car could mean you lose everything you own in damages to pay for their car and medical bills...and someone won't just hand you a shiny check for a new car.

It'd be a boon for public transit, too.

Re:driver training

[Cwix]

Also: bar insurance payments for anything except completely faultless situations (which are rare.)

SO I would pay the same amount for insurance(you know they wouldn't drop the rates).. but not get the same coverage..

Do you work for state farm or geico?

Re:driver training

[Surt]

Also: bar insurance payments for anything except completely faultless situations (which are rare.) Watch how fast people get at being careful drivers, when hitting someone else with a car could mean you lose everything you own in damages to pay for their car and medical bills...and someone won't just hand you a shiny check for a new car.

Well, that would be pretty crazy. Unless you were really young and had no children, you'd be unable to take the risk of driving at all. Even a moment's distraction from sunlight glaring off your windshield and a collision with a bentley could ruin you.

No ... unless we want to drop driving as a society (which is currently impossible ... it would take decades to retool our communities), insurance is a necessity, because even a truly minor error, the kind that as human beings we are simply not capable of controlling completely, can result in damages that grossly exceed our ability to pay.

Re:driver training

[badkarmadayaccount]

Who is the idiot banning night driving for young drivers? Hell, night is safer, less people on the road, no sun flare, no distractions, no sources of frustration, what the hell is the logic behind that ban?

They're going to need that $1 billion...

[Cytlid]

... for all the lawsuits of families who's loved ones die in speed-related accidents. Would make it too easy for lawyers. "Oh look, he bought a $25 'get out of jail free card' 45mins before taking out three other cars." Why are people in this country so stupid?

Re:Cue increase in smothering

[cgenman]

They are German.

All things considered, this could be the safety required for a roadway with those speeds. Or it could just be that Germany engineering is so much better than the crap the rest of the world puts up with. Having driven safely at 110 MPH on freeways in California (once being passed by a cop doing about 130), I'm guessing they're just being German.

Did the little piggy cry wee, wee, weeeee

[Anonymous Coward]

90MPH! Wee, wee, weeeeee! We're gonna need a stronger pinwheel!

I have driven on Nevada's roads

[Anonymous Coward]

straight as the crow flies, and nothing but desert surrounding you. The monotony stretches for hours; you run the risk of nodding off if you're tired. If Nevada wants to raise money this way, I can't think of a better place. And quickly, before someone says Monorail! Florida's Alligator Alley is more boring.

90mph? Did the little piggy cry wee, wee, weeeee

[Critical_Thinker]

90MPH! Wee, wee, weeeeee! We're gonna need a stronger pinwheel!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Except That

[carrier lost]

I live in Las Vegas and drive to So Calfornia and quite a bit.

Just about everyone is already going 90mph.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Nevada: Where Rich People Get to Drive Faster!

[sh3p]

If it's safe for people to drive 90mph, then the speed limit should be 90mph. Period.
Isn't this proposal just another way of saying: "Hey, rich people get to drive faster!"?
Gawd, are we going to have to start fighting for the neutrality of highway networks as well now?

Um. German autobahns are like any motorway

[Colin Smith]

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 a difference, you are mince anyway.

There is really nothing terribly strange about it. Lane discipline and driver alertness are generally good because unless you are doing 150mph, there *will* be someone coming up behind you at 150+.

Having said that... 80mph, 150mph. How much time are you really saving? I mean, how often do you do Berlin to Frankfurt, and wouldn't you rather use an ICE instead? At least you get to relax and do something other than stare at motorway.
 

Re:Um. German autobahns are like any motorway

[MoonBuggy]

Having said that... 80mph, 150mph. How much time are you really saving? I mean, how often do you do Berlin to Frankfurt, and wouldn't you rather use an ICE instead? At least you get to relax and do something other than stare at motorway.

Fair point, but then a lot of the comparisons are actually being made to the US - relatively low speed limits, very large distances and no high-speed rail network to speak of.

Re:Um. German autobahns are like any motorway

[X0563511]

10 miles @ 80mph: 7.5 minutes
10 miles @ 150mph: 4 minutes

It's not much there, but start multiplying them and you'll quickly see the difference.

Not really just fundraising

[Burning1]

Speed limits are also very much in place to placate the kind of people who think that 90mph is fast. When California proposed a law permitting drivers to go 75MPH on a few specially selected freeways (such as I5) a lot of people were up in arms over the death such a speed limit would create.

Hell, just look at slashdot for a cross sample of how many rational people are afraid of speed.

Meanwhile, speeds of 90MPH are relatively common in the bay area, despite significantly lower limits.

Re:Not really just fundraising

[Anonymous Coward]

slashdot, cross sample, rational people

Five words I never thought I'd see in a single sentence.

Re:Not really just fundraising

[Burning1]

I browse at +4. Your experience may vary.

Re:Not really just fundraising

[Belial6]

I found it interesting that contrary to "common knowledge", when the speeds here just north of the Bay Area, were raised to 65mph, the number of accidents dramatically decreased over what I was seeing prior to the speed change. I suspect it is because the basics of driving at 65 are not noticably more dangerous than 55, and with each car spending less time on the road, we had less traffic congestion thus keeping cars on the road even less time. This meant that you not only had less time to get in an accident, there were fewer cars to get in an accident with.

Re:Not really just fundraising

[phoenix321]

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's experience and expectations. You can't suddenly remove all speed limits on the freeway, but increasing it by 5mph every 5 years will go a long way before any trouble comes up.

Re:Not really just fundraising

[X0563511]

... not to mention the people intent on going 70 can do so without weaving around everyone else going 60.

Re:Not really just fundraising

[Dishevel]

I wear glasses that only let me see white people making $250,000/yr or more that do not have a criminal record. Your experience may vary.
Or maybe I just have no clue what is going on in the world.

Re:Cue increase in smothering

[TooMuchToDo]

Now *that* is German engineering.

What's next, DUI for $100?

[mykos]

There are only a few things that cops do that actually make me feel safer, and stopping speeding drivers is one of them. Although I've been in the deserts of Nevada and I can tell you that nobody drives the speed limit out there.

Re:What's next, DUI for $100?

[KingMotley]

Stopping speeders has never made me feel safe. I have in the past, and probably always will just consider speeding tickets nothing more than a gas guzzling tax. Now, if the police would pull over reckless drivers, ones driving the left lane, ones wolfpacking, that would be great.

Re:Cue increase in smothering

[Anonymous Coward]

They just redid the three lane road in front of the house. Took them three weeks to replace multiple layers of asphalt, for altogether four inches of it. One of the three lanes apparently wasn't good enough, so they redid it immediately.

Re:Cue increase in smothering

[Anonymous Coward]

Colorado has a similar law, but I have yet to see the highway patrol ticket the morons from Wyoming that think it's OK to just cruise I-25 in the left lane, and who have no idea what high-beams flashing in their rear view mirror means. Ticketing these people would be a great way to raise revenue in this state.

At least most Colorado drivers are finally getting the hang of it after 6+ years.

Supplemental rules: the money

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there's a pretty good supplemental rule: at speeds over 130 km/h (80 mph), your car insurance doesn't cover you. So, if you go 160 and get into an accident, it doesn't matter a single bit whether it's your fault or not: you don't get any insurance money.

Re:Supplemental rules: the money

[Anonymous Coward]

That is wrong. It does not cover you, if they can prove that the accident could have been prevented (or would have had a less costly outcome), if you would have been driving 130 km/h (80 mph) instead of whatever you had been driving.

Re:Supplemental rules: the money

[KingMotley]

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.

Source

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider the source on this: Breitbart.com, purveyor of phony news http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/07/29/shirley-sherrod-to-sue-andrew-breitbart/ Briebart.com has no more credibility than The Onion.

Does noone notice the inequality of this proposal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it interesting that the hot point of the debate isn't the fact that this law is effectively granting enhanced rights to citizens based on wealth.

Re:Cue increase in smothering

[Anonymous Coward]

The sad thing is that leaving the left lane open for passing should be common fucking sense, but too many people simply don't have that. I hate it when it is necessary to enact laws that prohibit things that shouldn't be done in the first place.

What especially pisses me of is when the highway is three lanes, with center lane designated as a passing lane on steep climbs, and also as a passing lane for traffic coming downhill. There are big signs that say "Keep Right Except to Pass" yet people still joyfully cruise uphill in that center lane, not only impeding traffic behind them, but impeding traffic coming the other way as well.

You're still going to get stopped for speeding

[ohiovr]

How are the cops going to know you have the 24 hour pass? ESP?

I'm from Nevada...

[Anonymous Coward]

Speeding? That's brilliant! Maybe they could include a "Right to Text and Drive" coupon with that. Then you could TWEET to your friends that you just wasted $25 bucks, while you're going 95MPH through Washoe valley.

Anyone from Nevada can tell you that the "engineers" here, don't have enough sense to build a decent parking lot, let alone a highway. The spaghetti bowl, where 395 merges onto 80 is proof. They have two on ramps and two off ramps all grouped together...mixed in together right before the highway merge. They're just plain dumb when it comes to building roads here. Not to mention, it SNOWS here! I can't wait to see the accidents from the "REVISION" they did to the spaghetti bowl. I wish some of the highway engineers from California who retire here would do some community service and show these people how to build properly.

Re:Cue increase in smothering

[Anonymous Coward]

It might even be enough to let drivers still pass on the right as long as they then stay on the right lane. The dangerous ones are those that pass you on the right, and then cross left right in front of you.

Oh, I get it...

[Ambiguous Coward]

So what this guy is saying is that the price point for bribing the police to not harass you about speeding is a mere $9,125 per year. This is a lot cheaper than I expected!

It's nice that they're willing to lay it out like that, though. Making proper bribes is always such a hassle, because you never really know where to start. I wonder what the price point is for other laws. I'm thinking maybe, oh, about $30,000/year for the right to rape, and maybe $100,000 per year to be able to kill people at my own discretion?

Oh, also, will sales tax apply to my state-sanctioned bribes? And will there be a different price for residents vs. out-of-staters?

Re:Oh, I get it...

[greyhueofdoubt]

So what this guy is saying is that the price point for bribing the police

You're not the first person to equate 'permit' with 'bribe'.

I'm not a big fan of paying for permits, but I understand why they exist.

You're a poacher unless you buy a hunting/fishing/trapping license.
You're in violation of most city ordinances unless you purchase a building permit to work on your house.
Where I live you need to purchase a license to buy handguns and 'assault rifles'.
Want to camp in a state/national park? Need to buy a permit.

Those are just a few examples I can think of where you need to pay officials for the privilege of doing something. Are you seriously saying that you consider a camping permit a bribe?

The logic behind this guy's proposal seems shaky, but the issuance of permits for privileges is not a new thing.

-b

Re:Oh, I get it...

[Ambiguous Coward]

The big difference is, the activity the permit is for in this case was previously illegal under all circumstances. Consider the hunting/fishing/trapping license. It's not like those activities were 100% illegal until they started offering permits. Those things were 100% permitted, and then they were limited with permits. What's going on here is exactly the opposite. It's all about the prior situation as compared to the permit situation.

Re:Cue increase in smothering

[Motard]

It would be interesting if someone got some English speaking German police and had them enforce the German laws on a stretch of American interstate highway. They couldn't give people tickets, of course, but they could tell them what they were doing was stupid and dangerous.

I doubt they'd get a minute's rest.

Rich get more rights

[Samy Merchi]

That seems to me like the beginning of an aristocracy, where if you can afford to pay, you have more rights than people who can't pay. While an interesting concept in principle, and I'm sure it would work without any major increase in accidents and provide the state with more money -- I just can't support something that's ethically wrong in my opinion.

Re:Rich get more rights

[ceoyoyo]

Aristocracy involves those with particular parents, or those who render extraordinary service to their country, getting special rights. The US embraced the idea that these people should be tossed out and money be the arbiter of social class and special rights.

Re:Cue increase in smothering

[smbarbour]

Actually, the law basically states that if you are in the left lane and there is someone behind you, you are required to move over if it is safe to do so.

From http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/publications/rules_of_the_road/rr_chap04.html:

When driving on an interstate highway or full access controlled freeway, a person may not drive in the left lane, except when passing another vehicle. Exceptions include when no other vehicle is directly behind the vehicle being driven in the left lane, when traffic conditions/congestion make it impractical to drive in the right lane, when weather conditions make it necessary to use the left lane, when there is an obstruction or hazard in the right lane, or when the driver is changing lanes to yield to emergency or construction vehicles.

Re:Cue increase in smothering

[carp3_noct3m]

Being a motorcycle rider (not crotchrockets, but I'm not one of those that disparages them to feel smugly superior) I constantly find myself getting quite angry at the irresponsibility of drivers in America. Particularly in a college town, I think people have far too little respect for vehicles, seeing as traffic accidents are over 4% (varies from year to year) of fatalities in the US. People need to realize they are driving a 2 ton bullet that can kill people in the blink of an eye. Some simple measures, such as much stricter testing like the Germans (and hence better education about driving), and things like a couple seconds more pause between a red light in one direction and a green in the other could drastically reduce these injuries. Instead you get things like some local and private company installing red light cameras, who then convince the city to shorten yellow lights, and cause more accidents than happened in the first place. It all boils down to money, so I feel the only way to improve it is to somehow convince people and the companies involved in the transportation industry that safety is more profitable than not... /rant off

So much for public safety

[RichMan]

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.

Re:So much for public safety

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the argument for seatbelt law?

Re:So much for public safety

[Infernal Device]

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.

It will be interesting to see how a traffic court judge handles the issue of discrimination against lower income classes of people.

Some roads are only reserved for the rich and yet everyone will have to pay for them?

One good thing...

[s0litaire]

... Might be to automatically add the person buying the "Speeding day" Licence to the Organ Donor Register...

Since their is a high chance that the driver doing 90 will have some sort of fatal accident when they try to overtake a car doing 45

Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Either it's safe for me to drive 90, in which case it should be legal for me to do so, or it isn't, in which case it shouldn't be. How can the state argue that it's right that someone can pay money to put other people at risk for their own convenience?

Re:Cue increase in smothering

[Delarth799]

Well in Germany they have a much different approach to driving in general even. A lot of times there is nowhere to even park a car in the big cities so most people take mopeds or bikes. I believe it costs several hundred dollars as well to even get your drivers license, in the states we seem to pretty much hand them out to anybody of age by comparison.

This is awesome!

[thestudio_bob]

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!!

Re:This is awesome!

[Anonymous Coward]

$100 - Smoke marijuana legally for a day.

That's already being done in some states, such as Massachusetts, in the form of decriminalization.

Re:This is awesome!

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately the budget concerns wouldn't be over. Liberals would still find some monetary black hole pork project.

Re:This is awesome!

[Anonymous Coward]

$1000 - Be the governor for a day.

The going rate is higher than that, but it's been possible to pay for the privilege for quite a while now.

Re:Cue increase in smothering

[horza]

You can drive on the German Autobahn at any speed with any valid EU license. I don't think the German test is any more strenuous than the UK or French tests, both countries having similar speed limits, which are very comprehensive.

Phillip.

As long as they're selling indulgences...

[Jeremi]

I would gladly pay $100 for the right to legally shoplift for 24 hours. Where do I send my check?

Random bloke, not government representative

[fantomas]

Reading the article (yes, unfashionable, I know) I see that the suggestion comes from a "Nonpartisan candidate". So I think this is an opinion by a random citizen standing for office (which I guess is open to the vast majority of people) rather than "an admission by government". The nearest we have to a government opinion in the article is the local Highway Patrol who think the idea is not sensible.

I am not sure what Nevada is like but where I live some proper nutty folk stand for election for all sorts of posts. I wouldn't give their opinions much credence so I don't think you have to assume that if a person stands for office their ideas are actually any good....

Speeding Fee

[Edward Teach]

I already do this for free. For years, I've looked at speeding "fines" as speeding "fees". So, I speed all I want. Every once in a while (has been many years now) one of the fee collectors will stop me and tell me it is time to pay my fee again. I'm not really sure how they determine that it's time again. There doesn't seem to be any logical pattern to the fee schedule.

Re:Speeding Fee

[RobinH]

This works until you get so many demerit points that they take your license away. (I know here you can go up to about 15km/h over and you might get a fine but no points - so that might work).

Re:Speeding Fee

[Vegeta99]

It's different in every state. In PA, 31 over is "loss of license"... but if you take a "points test", you don't lose it. If you get more than 6 points (about 2 speeding tickets), you have to take the test. Next time, you lose your license for 10 days (Pay $25, say "I cant find it", wait for the letter that says go nuts again), but you might get a little meeting with an angry DOT bureaucrat that, while angry, will stamp your file "NO ACTION NEEDED", and give you the license back.

In my experience, it's the insurance company that gets pissed. But they only ever check if you get in an accident or change providers, otherwise they never find out.

Candidate WANTS To Sell Passes

[Anonymous Coward]

As usual, the candidate is delusional.

Post another story when speeding passes are legal.

Until then, ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Bye.

Re:Cue increase in smothering

[JimBobJoe]

Germany's Autobahn is a very modern system, built with incredibly strict tolerances ..ish.

It is modern in the urban/suburban areas. But you can still find parts of the Autobahn that have no emergency lanes and short slip on/slip off ramps. It also so happens that these part of the Autobahn are in rural regions which have no speed limits.

Lawsuit waiting to happen

[jvkjvk]

The first time someone with a pass kills someone, you can bet it will cost the state much more than $25...

Regards.

Cops can make traffic worse.

[ikarous]

I live in Texas, where most freeways were designed with a 70MPH speed limit in mind. Unsurprisingly, the normal flow of traffic moves between 65 and 75MPH, even on roads where the speed limit was lowered to 55-60MPH despite the road's rated design speed. In my experience, this doesn't cause any obvious safety problems; however, an actual safety problem arises when a group of cars passes by a highway patrolman parked on the side of the road in speed-trap mode. Without fail, the drivers at the front of the line slam on their brakes, inevitably surprising the drivers behind them. Domino effect chaos ensues. The patrolmen are supposed to make traffic flow more smoothly, but when speed limits are lower than the normal flow of traffic, their presence is a mild hazard.

Re:Cops can make traffic worse.

[mmcxii]

Be thankful you don't live in Pennsylvania where people jam on their breaks when they see a cop... with someone pulled over... on the other side of the expressway... with a jersey barrier between them that stretches for miles. A real blast.

Re:Cops can make traffic worse.

[Vegeta99]

I lived my whole life in PA, and just moved.

At least we know how to drive!!! I'm in AZ now, and people look at me like I'm insane when I keep going the limit when it rains, and they're all going 10-15 under.

You've never met anyone that fell for the "driver pulled over trick?" In my old town (Williamsport), they would "pull over" and undercover car, and the undercover would have some bacon in the front seat with a radar gun. Next highway overpass had cops waiting. And our speed limits suck! Here in AZ, there's two-lane roads that are 65MPH, some of which PA wouldn't even call 45. When I worked for PENNDOT, though, I found out many highways are designed for 85MPH+.

Eh? No.

[Colin Smith]

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.

[Devout_IPUite]

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:Eh? No.

[Qzukk]

Just because you are legally permitted to travel at up to 30mph on a street, doesn't mean it's safe to do so.

Just because I'm legally required to go no faster than 40mph on the six lane divided road near my house doesn't mean that it's not safe to do so.

Re:Eh? No.

[bhiestand]

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 so "the safe speed" is also "the legal limit" as long as the safe speed is equal to or below the posted limit.

Re:Eh? No.

[PingPongBoy]

. 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 90 - don't make it a purchasable option, make it available for free, because otherwise one day someone will really want to do it and have no experience driving at that speed (although most drivers probably go that fast quite often already). Also, being legal at 90 just means the speeding ticket for 110 or 120 is that much less, so this is the zone where people will really get into trouble if they're not ready for it. At the higher speeds, things happen much sooner and stopping distances are much longer.

Furthermore, if a lot of people do buy into it, enforcement won't bother stopping people for such high speeds anyways. Who wants to do a traffic stop standing out there with cars going by at 120? Not to mention, someone already in a hurry will not appreciate buying a permit and then having to show it when stopped for going over the posted limit. And someone else not in a hurry isn't going to like another dude trying to get his money's worth even if it means tailgating, passing into oncoming traffic, and other unsafe practices to get to open road.

All this is, is a way to earn more government revenue. Raise ths speed limit, raise taxes on gas, increase the frequency of car inspections - that would be a safer way, though it costs a lot more to build high speed roads.

Re:Eh? No.

[mcrbids]

Just because you are legally permitted to travel at up to 30mph on a street, doesn't mean it's safe to do so.

Here in California, when the weather's not lousy, that's not true. If you drive the speed limit, it's pretty much always safe. Speed limits decline around corners (with clear, well-placed signs) and areas where visibility is diminished. The lines in the middle of the road go from dots to solids to double solids near intersections, etc. etc.

Unless there is an OBVIOUS reason, (such as traffic or extreme weather EG: snow) it's pretty much OK to drive the speed limit anywhere in California.

Re:Eh? No.

[zonker]

Having driven through Nevada (not just in Vegas) many times I have to say that you certainly wish the speed limit was much higher. Once you get outside of a city so much of it's just desolate, barren land for 100s of miles in every direction. Much of it is very boring often with very few other cars on the road. I have no statistics but I'll bet that a large percentage of accidents that take place in the rural areas of Nevada (99% of it is rural) are related to falling asleep or driver distraction while trying to find something to do to keep them awake.

But yeah, this law would likely increase the accidents significantly just out of driver inexperience at those speeds. Also most inexpensive tires aren't rated for over 85 mph for long distance driving, which is all you do in Nevada.

Re:Eh? No.

[somersault]

That's pretty obvious, and covered when he said:

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

It's stupid how many people automatically assume that you're perfectly safe going at the speed limit all the time in any conditions, but YOU'RE GOING TO KILL SOMEONE!!!111!! if you're doing 1mph over the limit. There are many intercity roads where you can very safely exceed the official limits, though I think 30mph around populated areas does generally make sense during the daytime at least. At night I think you should be allowed to go faster due to the lack of pedestrians, especially children - although this is somewhat counteracted by drunken adults.

Re:Eh? No.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

You made this part up, because that's what you would like to be true.

Re:Eh? No.

[Walzmyn]

It's not you.

I have noticed the same thing.

Re:Eh? No.

[demonlapin]

afraid to travel 80 in clear skys with dry roads, but didn't flinch at all from going 65

The former will garner them a ticket, the latter won't.

Re:Eh? No.

[cayenne8]

Not all states DO car inspections...

Re:Eh? No.

[Golddess]

someone already in a hurry will not appreciate buying a permit and then having to show it when stopped for going over the posted limit

Sounds like they've already thought of that.

First, vehicles would have to pass a safety inspection. Then vehicle information would be loaded into a database, and motorists would purchase a transponder

Re:Eh? No.

[JWSmythe]

    I totally agree. I was cruising on I-10 in the middle of nowhere. I saw the occasional car in the right lane, spaced miles apart. My safe speed could have been well above the indicated speed (my car was designed to drive much faster than those pesky speed limit signs). I would have been safe doing 140 or so. I restricted myself to the god awful drive across Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona to something resembling the speed limit. I really wouldn't have minded cutting the drive time in half across the whole stretch of nowhere.

    Likewise, there are speed limits which really mean you shouldn't go faster. I've cruised down residential streets at a whopping 15 to 20 mph, because there were kids playing in the front yard, and pedestrians who appeared they may just wander out in front of me. While my car will do insane maneuvers without losing control, and stop stop on a dime (verified on autocross courses), I'd rather just stop quick, and not risk someone's life. It's not always people. A cat decided to take a leisurely walk in front of my car. 20mph to a dead stop let the cat live.

Re:Eh? No.

[JWSmythe]

    I'd suspect that they have found a very interesting financial method.

    They can only fine so many cars for doing over the speed limit. Say they get 1 in 100 (a very high number in reality), and they may get fines of up to say $200. A percentage of those drivers will dispute the fine, win in court, and pay nothing to the state. So if 10 in 1000 drivers are ticketed, and 25% of them just pay rather than go to court, the income goes down to 7 in 1000, or $1.400. If they get all those drivers who want to drive fast to pay the $25 license, they now get $25,000 in income, and reduce their overhead. The majority of traffic stops are not honestly safety related. They are a revenue stream for the city or county.

    It's easy to see, they could gain $1,400 per 1000 drivers ticketed, or $25,000 per 1000 drivers without the overhead of putting patrols on the road and ticketing. Hopefully it would mean that they can reassign those officers to important crimes where the citizens are really in danger.

    I know, I know, the police are no longer "to protect and serve." They are in the business of being a revenue stream for the state.

Re:Eh? No.

[rainabba]

Proof that accident statistics are meaningless until our governments require better training for drivers on the road as in many other countries. Here in AZ, you can hold a license for something like 40 years without even having to be literate to begin with. Slow speed limits save far fewer lives than proper training, fewer ignorant/lazy drivers on the roads would. My experience is that trained drivers operating at high speeds (like myself and many professionally trained drivers I know), are more focused and aware at high speed and thus less likely to get into a bad situation to begin with than a more typical driver at/below the recommended/posted speed.

Re:Eh? No.

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

On French motorways at least, the speed limit changes for different weather conditions. 130kph in clear weather vs 110kph in wet conditions if I remember correctly.

Re:Eh? No.

[DarthVain]

I would likely say that road conditions are the #1 cause of accidents. I also drive the same way. Up here in Canada there is a law that allows for police to pull you over and ticket you at any speed, if they feel you are driving too fast as conditions warrant. Not sure how much they use it, as they would likely have to justify it rather than the cut and dry "your going X in a Y speed limit".

One thing that bugs me is people who drive without snow tires up here in the middle of a blizzard. Either A) They drive too fast, and are not long for this world, or road anyway, or B) they drive so ridiculously slow because it is all their tires can handle. Very frustrating. If your not equipped for the conditions get off the road!

I think in Canada, if they wanted to do one thing to reduce the number of accidents, would be to mandate that if there is snow on a road, vehicles must have snow tires on. I know there are some problems with that, but in some form I think it would really make a difference. All seasons are not all seasons, unless you maybe live in Texas or something. They do nothing in snow.

Re:Eh? No.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think in Canada, if they wanted to do one thing to reduce the number of accidents, would be to mandate that if there is snow on a road, vehicles must have snow tires on.

They did that in Quebec a couple of years back and that year there were no new snow tires to be found anywhere else in Canada that season.

Needs an amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Add "only the driver going 90 mph is allowed to get killed in an accident" to the law.

Oh, wait. That won't work.

Statistics on the other hand will show

[Gonoff]

Citation needed.

Re:Statistics on the other hand will show

[BasilBrush]

You're right to ask, because in a purely mathematical sense it is limited. A vehicle on pedestrian accident at 100mph will cause 100% fatalities. AT 200 mph it's still 100%.

But at lower, more common speeds, you'll see it's exponential, not linear or flat.

http://humantransport.org/sidewalks/SpeedKills.htm

Re:Statistics on the other hand will show

[IndustrialComplex]

You're right to ask, because in a purely mathematical sense it is limited. A vehicle on pedestrian accident at 100mph will cause 100% fatalities. AT 200 mph it's still 100%.

Maybe pedestrians should stay the hell off major highways and interstates?

Re:Cue increase in smothering

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they are Germans. They would laser-level anything.

What a fucking idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

As a pedestrian, I have enough shitty drivers to worry about who aren't going 90 MPH. Someone needs to reduce the number of shitty drivers on the road.

Most of Nevada is devoid of people.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've driven 120mph in Nevada for 10 minutes and didn't see any oncoming traffic. US50 through Nevada has been named the "World's Loneliest Road" By going 120 I may significantly increase the odds that I will die but when you don't see anybody else for 10 minutes there is next to zero chance that you will kill someone else.

Re:just have speeds limits that are not to low Chi

[tombeard]

Um.. I have lived in the Chicago area. Let me fix that for you:

The limit is 55 and about 10% will not exceed 55, although most people drive 75-85 some do 90+. It can be unsafe to do 70 when others are doing 80-90. It is insane to do 55 but that doesn't stop them. I assume they are the ones pissed off because they got a ticket doing 57, which is quite common in the area.

Video!

[ZDRuX]

This is what Nevada is gonna look like now with old grannies speeding: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6WHg5SihVY

Re:Cue increase in smothering

[cbeaudry]

Hmm, I thought it was illegal to pass on the right in most US states.
I guess I was wrong.

Here in Canada, it definitely is.
In Quebec for example on any roads above 70km/h it is illegal to pass a car on the right.

not necessarily

[yyxx]

Yes, but not for the reasons you think. US speed limits were enacted after the oil crisis of the 1970's to save fuel, not to save lives. It's known that higher speed limits by themselves doesn't automatically lead to more accidents.

This plan may lead to more accidents because some people will drive fast while others won't. That may cause problems (but it just isn't known).

A better plan would be to have for-pay stretches of high-speed highways.

nothing to "admit"

[yyxx]

Speed limits were enacted neither to raise funds not for safety, but in order to improve gas mileage.

US highways have always been safe enough to drive at 90mph, and modern passenger cars are built for that speed.

Re:nothing to "admit"

[dryeo]

I wouldn't trust a lot of tires to be safe at 90 mph, especially the Chinese ones that are becoming common as they are cheap to buy and keep car costs down.

Speed doesn't kill

[gsgriffin]

stopping instantly from a high rate of speed does.

Corruption

[Dr. Grabow]

Only in the very broadest sense are speed limits related to safety. On the overwhelming majority of US interstates any speeds up to 100+ are safe, especially in the western US. For the police to be out there ticketing for 5 or 10 over the limit is all about revenue, not safety.

How many times have we seen road hazards - big chunks of tires, debris, cars driving erratically - and find a few miles up the road some lazy-ass cop is sitting there with his radar gun rather than actually, you know, patrolling the highways for safety.

If it wasn't about revenue, we'd have longer yellow lights (proven to reduce accidents but lower ticket revenue) and well-marked speed cameras with warnings in areas where it really matters to lower your speed, like in England. Here in the US, it's just corruption and revenue. Don't kid yourselves.

The memories...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hiring a prostitute for 2 hours: $250 (recovered later)
1 shovel: $29.99
24-hour speeding license to make it to the desert before sunrise : $25

My memories of Las Vegas: priceless

I wonder how much money a 24-hour murder license would raise for the state.

look at the statistics

[yyxx]

Roads are constructed to engineering specs.

True. And US highways are generally built so that 90mph is safe, because many of them were designed before the oil crisis and strict speed limits. Furthermore, where it isn't safe, the state can still impose additional limits.

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.

Yet, the US has 40 times the number of highway fatalities for only 4 times the population. And the US has 3 times the fatality rate of German highways. And German highways have less than half the fatality rate of other German roads. Whichever way you look at it, the German highway system is safer even though people regularly travel at 100mph, and many cars go as fast as 130mph.

Re:look at the statistics

[moonbender]

The German highway system may be safer than other German roads, but it's not safer because of the higher speed limit (or, for 25% of them, no speed limit). You can't really compare a long-distance road network to other kinds of roads. Comparing long distance road networks of different locations is fine by me.

Re:look at the statistics

[dryeo]

From what I understand from Germans I've talked to, it is the drivers that are safer. Getting a drivers license in Germany and much of Europe is much harder then in N. America. You basically have to take courses and the test is much harder. Also they aren't so dependent on cars so a lot of people who don't feel comfortable driving don't.
I've also been told that lanes on the autobahn have minimum speed limits so the slow drivers keep right and the fast drivers safely pass them.

Re:look at the statistics

[yyxx]

The comparison with non-highway data indeed tells you something, namely that other factors are much more important than speed.

low limits allow police to stop anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

The real reason for low speed limits is that when all the cars are speeding, police are free to use speeding as an excuse to stop any car they want. In that way, it provides cover for stopping drivers or cars that simply look suspicious for any reason to a particular cop.

Haight Street

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like the church selling indulgences. :-)

What's next?

[shoehornjob]

Next thing you know they'll be legalizing prostitution and decriminalizing marijuana statewide. Yeesh things are getting out of control in Nevada. Seriously though...as you can see by some of the comments in this post, this is a very slippery slope to walk. Personally I think this is just a bullshit campaign promise that he will quickly rescind if he is elected.

reality

[yyxx]

From personal experience, I have to say that German drivers drive more aggressively than US drivers and have less following distance, which would tend to increase accidents. And I have seen far less police on German highways than on US highways. I don't think German drivers are what makes the German accident rate lower.

Maintenance of the German highway system is currently better, but lanes and shoulders tend to be narrower. The US could improve its maintenance; the structure of the US highway system seems as good or better. I don't think a lot of accidents are caused by maintenance problems; almost all are caused by driver error.

Re:reality

[drsmithy]

From personal experience, I have to say that German drivers drive more aggressively than US drivers and have less following distance, which would tend to increase accidents.

My experience is the complete opposite. Of the countries I've driven in (Australia, New Zealand, USA (AZ, CA, ID, WA), UK, Switzerland, Germany, France and Italy) German drivers were by far the least aggressive and most considerate. In particular, their lane discipline is exceptional.

The most aggressive drivers I've experienced (by far) were in Sydney. Australian drivers also have the worst lane discipline I've ever seen, with the USA running a very close second. Surprisingly, lane discipline in the UK was pretty good.

Re:reality

[yyxx]

Well, not my experience. Mercedes, BMW, and Porsche drivers in particular drive as if they own the road and as if every car before them should just pull over.

Re:reality

[Noughmad]

German drivers != drivers that drive German cars. You are both quite right.

Re:reality

[yyxx]

I was talking about German drivers driving fast German cars on German highways.

Vaporware

[RepRabbit]

This is vaporware to lure investors.

Er. I mean The candidate will never follow through on this,but he's doing it to get attention.

If he gets into office he'll find some reason it can't pass.

indulgences

[yyxx]

Next up, pre-register now for the new murder pass, for the low low introductory price of only $149.90! Bulk discounts available.

We call those "indulgences". They were popular just before the Reformation.

Seriously, if increasing the speed limit to 90 mph has negligible effects on safety, then allow it for everybody if you want to.

The original justification for speed limits was fuel economy, not safety. From that perspective, the fee makes sense.

Re:indulgences

[pcolson]

I would never be able to save money if this was passed!

Financials look speculative at best

[PongoX11]

$25 per 24/hr period

2009 Nevada pop: 2.643M

Target Revenue: $1.0B

---

So this works out to roughly 15 purchases per person, per year. However subtracting out those under 16 (sh*t is this going to be available to 17 year olds?!), unlicensed drivers, suspended licenses, those incarcerated, and all those (like my mother) who would have no interest in going 90mph ever, it seems that the average number of purchases per year by those who will actually use the system would have to be pretty high to reach $1.0B... and how about the costs to implement and maintain?

James Bond. Licence to Kill.

[MarkvW]

The guy really has a secret plan to sell murder permits. THAT would raise a lot of revenue for Nevada.

If somebody I cared about got killed by a speeder with a license to speed, I'd think long and hard about taking out my own permit to wipe out that wacko.

Speed kills

[Anonymous Coward]

Speed kills. Incompetence, distraction, tiredness - cause crashes. But speed kills.

Try it, get out of the car, as a pedestrian you are still incompetent, distracted and tired, you will walk into people and objects. But your low speed collisions are largely harmless. You almost certainly won't die. Speed kills.

Nevada roads are great

[SuperKendall]

I've driven through Nevada a number of times, the interstate is more than fine for 90MPH (which is what almost every driver you'll see on the interstate is already doing anyway).

wealthy idiots can kill you

[Anonymous Coward]

So....the plan is for people under stress because they are late, and who have money, get to disobey normal laws and put the 15yo on his permit at tremendous risk when they decide to try to swerve around him while doing 90. FREAKING BRILLIANT.

Highway Network Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet America, Highway Network Neutralitys you!

Bloody Hell

[WillyWanker]

Sweet Jesus this asshole is batshit crazy. First off, I used to live in Las Vegas, and they can't even go 40 MPH without getting into an accident. I can't even imagine trying to do 90 on Nevada highways. Who in their right mind would pay for this?

Re:Bloody Hell

[The Iso]

Raul Duke and Doctor--oh, in their right minds?

Not worth the price

[pcolson]

Most of the freeways are already 75 MPH, so $25 to dive 15 MPH faster doesn't seem like much of a deal. Maybe if it was retroactive if you get caught. :) I think that his estimate of a billion dollars in revenue is way too high, but at least he is thinking of ideas other than cutting education.

Re:Cue increase in smothering

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

This is a very valid point - and I'd love to see that same training, testing, and costs in place here before you could get a license here in the US. I don't know if ti's in place in Germany or not, but this should include annual retesting (behind the wheel, on the road.) How, GP does also have a valid point - while there's statistical evidence to support increased fatalities and injuries at higher speeds, there's little if any to support the notion of higher accidents frequency.

Re:Cue increase in smothering

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

In most states that law is already in effect. The problem is that it's seldom enforced.

I knew gas prices were through the roof!

[raehl]

You can assume that each 5 mph you drive over 60 mph is like paying an additional $0.24 per gallon for gas.

Geezus, I've been paying $4.98/gallon!

So then...

[RobinH]

Isn't he just saying he believes that the roads are safe to drive at 90 mph? If that's the case, why can't we all drive at 90 mph? If everyone drives the same speed, it's safer than a few people going a lot faster.

Buy two ..

[SlashDev]

speeding passes within a week, and you get a free helicopter pass to the hospital with 1 year accommodation.

reduced speed for stupid reasons

[freshfromthevat]

This does beg the question, why are they doing motor vehicle inspections at all of they pass a car that can't safely (for everybody else - occupants of the car are at least responsible for their own safety?) go 90mph? And having done so, why would a gvt want to put a lower speed limit on a road where inspected cars can do 90mph?

Oh, my own answer is that they have some arbitrary goal that has nothing to do with safety. Like trimming our ranks of capable people who have low tolerance for boredom, or saving energy so the Afghanis can have when they take over.

In Other News

[Antisyzygy]

In Other News : Gubernatorial candidate Eugene "Gino" DiSimone proposed a new "get out of jail free" card for those charged with being intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle. For 200 dollars, the police will "fail" to perform a field sobriety test and will accidentally "misplace" their breathalyzer. Mr. DiSimone is quoted as saying "Police men and women will no longer have to worry about their pensions or crappy paychecks every again, now they will have a direct source of income from those that are in a hurry to get home after a hard period of drinking".

due process and equal protection

[grimwell]

I believe this scheme runs afoul of Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Constitution. Laws apply equally to all. One can't pay a fee and then be exempted from some.

But hey it's America.. anything for a buck, right?
 

Re:due process and equal protection

[Vegeta99]

Under your analysis, I have a claim if I'm fined for driving without being licensed. Sorry dude, driving is a privilege, not a right.

What a ripoff.

[russotto]

$25/day? How much is a Nevada speeding ticket? Best I can tell, max fine is $1000. When I was driving every day, I was speeding every day, and only got caught once every few years. Even at $1000 per incident (which I imagine is not the typical fine), it still makes sense to take the risk. Especially limited to a puny 90mph.

One billion dollars?

[abirdman]

To take in a billion dollars, the gov would have to sell roughly 110,000 free pass tickets every day for a year. I don't believe that's likely to happen.

black belt driving licenses

[Anonymous Coward]

what is needed multi-levels of driving licenses. driving is a skill, just like a lot of things. a green belt and a black belt both know karate, but the black has way more skill and experience and has proven so and is recognized as such.

same needs to be done for driving. if you drive x amount of years and continue and pass x amount of tests/courses and break no laws like dui related ones you should get a new level of drivers license and a sticker on your car's bumper (just like a hov lane sticker) that indicates you have approval to drive faster than the posted speed limits... when reasonable and safe to do so (ie: light traffic conditions). the sticker will clearly show a +10, +20 etc so when a cop clocks you on his radar he has to add that number to the posted limit before he can pull you over and ticket you.

Hardly just LA to LV

[fnj]

I suspect 90 is typical in most areas. In Massachusetts, large sections of the commute on incredibly congested highways are normally bumper to bumper at 90. Both lanes. If you go any slower, you are a major obstruction to traffic. If you let a space open in front of you as much as one car length, an endless stream of bozos will pull in front of you from the other lane. Anything below this speed feels abnormal, like you are crawling. The fact that most of the highway mileage in the eastern half of the state is marked down from 65 to 55 because it is "urban" is just the subject of mockery.

This is not just on interstates, either. Older divided highways, where the merge lanes at interchanges are either very short or entirely absent, see the same traffic conditions.

During commute time, speed enforcement is pretty much given up, because every square inch of every highway is hopelessly packed with hurtling cars, and stopping anyone would be incredibly dangerous. On the other hand, ironically, when it is not commute time and traffic is much lighter, it is true that you are somewhat more likely to get stopped for this speed, if you don't pay attention and allow for known enforcement hideouts.

How about the average vehicle?

[damn_registrars]

Several points have been raised already about whether or not drivers in Nevada are competent enough to manage 90 mph. However it is equally important to consider the readiness of the vehicle for that speed. The braking energy from 90 to 0 is dramatic; and the handling acuity required for corrections at 90 mph are significantly greater than they are at 70. Sure most cars on the road in the USA today have speedometers that go up to 120 or more, but that doesn't mean that the car should be driven at that speed.

And of course tires are another major concern - I frequently see idiots on the freeway where I live passing people at 80mph with a space saver spare on a drive wheel of their car; the danger of that gets even worse at 90 mph (on a tire rated for 45 mph). Add to that the probability of any given car having at least one tire that is beyond its safety limit for tread wear, and there is a significant risk of a car accident that is not due to lack of driver ability, but rather due to lack of driver knowledge.

But that's OK for me, I never really had a reason to go to Nevada anyways.

Is he nuts?

[Katchu]

Forget about Nevada, I'm going around it next time.

Selling indulgences

[denbesten]

The Roman Catholic church has some experiencing selling indulgences. South Nevada, anyone :-).

Keeping with the traffic flow

[archmcd]

I didn't read TFA, but this is brilliant. A major cause of accidents on highways is inconsistent speeds among nearby vehicles. Slow moving vehicles such as loaded trucks in the way of fast moving smaller vehicles are a recipe for disaster. A variance in speeds results in increased lane changes, slow downs, speed ups and a cascade of other changes to driving patterns, all of which contribute to accidents. 90mph is only a safe highway speed if all vehicles maintain a comparable average speed, not if only some do. As others have already said, accident rates will rise significantly, and the knee-jerk reaction will be to lower speed limits as many legislators believe speed kills, not variance in speed.

Great idea! All hail the V8!

[letchhausen]

This is a brilliant idea in these days of economic crisis. Also, a big screw off to the insurance companies that lobbied for these ridiculously low speeds. Why if God had wanted us to go this slow he never would of allowed us to create the 300 HP V8. Or bigger engines.

Re:Cue increase in smothering

[Ichijo]

In most states that law is already in effect. The problem is that it's seldom enforced.

In Nevada (the state from TFA), the law is: "If any driver drives a motor vehicle at a speed so slow as to impede the forward movement of traffic proceeding immediately behind the driver, the driver shall...drive in the extreme right-hand lane". NRS 484B.627

But it arguably isn't impeding if other cars are able to get around by passing on the right. That makes it difficult to enforce this law. But if it were illegal to pass on the right, then cars couldn't get around a vehicle in the left lane, and that would give the law some teeth.

And in Discworld..

[Psaakyrn]

It worked for Ankh-Morpork. After the creation of the thieves guild, there were a significant reduction of illegal thefts, and thievery was essentially controlled.

This would be akin to a speeding guild. I'd see a significant reduction of illegal speeding, and speeding to be generally controlled.

German drivers and cars are simply better

[tentimestwenty]

It will be obvious to anyone who has driven with a German driver in Germany that the reason why they can drive fast and not die. The vast majority of German drivers are highly skilled, highly respectful of the laws AND are motivated to get from A to B as quickly as possible in a purposeful manner. They also fastidiously maintain their cars which are generally very well built to begin with. American drivers by comparison are unskilled, disrespectful of basic laws (like stop signs), distracted and they drive inferior automobiles in worse condition. I'd rather see an advanced driving test instituted. You pay $50 to take it and if you pass you can drive as fast as you want. Your car gets inspected once a year. Done. Privileges for those who are skilled and responsible.

Re:German drivers and cars are simply better

[thegarbz]

Flamebait but yet so very true. It's a simple case of driver training.

On the one hand you have Nervada where a simple written test, will get you a learners permit, and 6 months + 50h experience qualifies you for a 10min test of your lack of skill. You reverse parallel park and you get handed a licence to be a lunatic on a silver platter.

Contrast to Germany. Actually it's very similar, except replace the 50h you clocked up driving your drunk parents to the shopping center with 50h instruction by a certified instructor of the state, (something that'll cost you in excess of 1000 euros), and the simple written test with a 12h theory class, to be topped off with a practical exam by a neo nazi who punches kittens in his spare time and has little to no sympathy for you.

Re:German drivers and cars are simply better

[jonbryce]

In Britain, and I believe the rest of Europe, everyone has to get their car inspected once a year after it reaches 3 years old.

Re:German drivers and cars are simply better

[HyperQuantum]

Privileges for those who are skilled and responsible.

You can only test people's skill, not their responsability. How would you certify someone objectively as being 'responsible'?

Re:German drivers and cars are simply better

[yyxx]

It will be obvious to anyone who has driven with a German driver in Germany that the reason why they can drive fast and not die. The vast majority of German drivers are highly skilled, highly respectful of the laws AND are motivated to get from A to B as quickly as possible in a purposeful manner.

It's a bad idea to base public policy on what seems "obvious" (and this isn't even obvious to me). The right thing to do is to look at statistics, not to engage in wild guesswork.

They also fastidiously maintain their cars which are generally very well built to begin with.

Fewer than 5% of fatalities are caused by mechanical failure, so that isn't responsible for a 3-fold difference.

Re:Cue increase in smothering

[sincewhen]

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:Cue increase in smothering

[tibit]

I've passed next to an Autobahn segment in construction, and it looks nothing like road construction in the U.S. The construction is a multi-stage, 24/7 operated front, moving at a fixed speed. The machine that lays down the road is pretty much a continuous operation reinforced concrete layer, with GPS-referenced tooling. With a effing huge spools of rebar fed into it. You have prepared roadbed on the front, and a concrete runway out back. That's what I made of it, anyway. Highway construction in the U.S. looks, unfortunately, like something from a 50 year old dusty Encyclopaedia.

Lets make bribes even more legal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fines A points system that ends up with you losing your license and having your car crushed. Continue driving? If you get caught it's 6 months and a felony.

THEN you give the cops quota's for convictions and make them honest.

Take the cash out of the transaction and you make everything much more workable.

As a native of Nevada...

[Stone2065]

As a native of Nevada, and I mean I've been here since the 60's, the roads here that this would apply to the most (and I would GLADLY pay the tab for) are times like you're driving from Reno to either Elko or Vegas. Reno to Vegas is around 450 miles, all good, pretty straight road, and BORING AS HELL at even the 75mph it's at in the open areas. At 90mph, that would do wonders for your driving time. Also, keep this in mind kids... Nevada was one of the last states to go to the 55mph speed limit back in the day. Matter of fact, Nevada had to be threatened by the US DOT to change to 55mph. When the change came, and Nevada said "no thanks", the US DOT said "fine, no highway funds", to which Nevada changed to 55mph, BUT, you could speed up to 70mph and only pay a $5 "resources wasting fee". NOW, if you were say doing 75mph, you would get busted for the 20mph over the limit. Also, in this state, 20mph is "careless" driving plus the speeding, and 30mph is "reckless" driving. Careless is a nasty ticket, but Reckless can get you not only arrested, but your vehicle impounded. Just a little fyi folks.

For somebody from Germany...

[linuxhansl]

90mph (=144kph) is not actually very fast.
On a semi-empty highway 160kph (=100mph) is a good cruising speed. And when in a hurry you'd go much faster... sometimes 220 kph or faster (~140 mph)

This reminds of car chasing scenes in American movies I watched as a kid, where folks would force their car to its limits... and a closeup of the speedometer would show the needle laboring somewhere between 90 and 100 mph. We always had a good laugh from that.

Re:For somebody from Germany...

[Vegeta99]

When I was younger, I just HAD to see why my car had a speedometer that went up to 160.

I got to 155 before I chickened out. Why? I passed a car. It was just downright scary passing someone going 90MPH slower than you. I'm sure I took a year or two off that guy's life expectancy.

Re:Cue in, no poor left behind!

[Anonymous Coward]

What is that tax payer? You can't pay more? ... Back of the line.... and your vote only counts as null, come back when you have money to vote, now back to work slave, you minimum wage scum.

WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the stupidest idea I've ever heard. What a moron.

The problem isn't the speed. The problem is the 17 yr old kids paying with mom and dads money that think it's an open invitation to drive like even more of an idiot.

Horrible ideas are horrible. If this guy makes it into office we should all feel like ignorant twats.

Re:Cue increase in accidents : .us vs .de

[Anonymous Coward]

BMW's and Porche's do not come with cup holders in the driver's area unless you order them specifically from the factory. Bought in the US, it's an added option to most BMW cars sold. They're usually in the center console in replacement of an ashtray.

Why?

You're supposed to be *driving*, not casually sipping on a latte you inconsiderate clod.

This is a brilliant idea...for law enforcement

[pgdave]

This sounds like a great idea for law enforcement. You get all the speeders in the state to self-identify by applying for a speeding licence. Having thus identified them, and forced them all to buy a transponder, you can then track them on those days when they haven't paid their licence fee. In a week, you'd have them all off the road. Sorted.

I think the U.S. should adopt this plan!

[upuv]

I 100% support this idea. Ever state should allow a 50% speed increase over posted given an in advance fee.

I encourage every U.S. citizen to adopt and support this plan.

I beg you to adopt this plan.

I'm pleading please sign on the bottom line.

( Of course I live in Aus and I stand to financially gain from a radical drop in US population :) )

PS. I'm also for kids with handguns in the U.S. But that's another thread.

Great example for the future

[dgr73]

Take something away (example here: right to drive fast taken away by speed limits), then sell it back to the people. Next they'll start selling "Weed-waivers" or "Puff passes" and if that turns out to be profitable they'll ban alcohol and tobacco and start selling passes for those.

Hey good idea!

[Uzik2]

We could just extend this concept and allow people to buy their way out of all crimes!
Everybody knows funding government is more important that protecting the public!
Then we can cut out the church and start selling dispensations for sins too!

Good idea!

Speed Kills is BS

[thijsh]

Speed does not kill, momemtum kills. Other than that your post makes perfect sense, please carry on.

Yah; not true.

[RichiH]

A German posting here.

> Not to mention the fact that any road that has a curve is engineered to handle traffic going up to a maximum speed.

The legal speed limit in Germany is infinity. If the car can go fast enough and there is no limit, there is no limit. Though speed traps fail to work properly north of 350 km/h so the government is said to keep special tabs on those few.
The curvature of our highways is designed for the common case, 130 km/h, not the extremes.
If you think about it for a second, this is the only thing that makes sense, anyway.

> 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.

1) We have less accidents than pretty much everybody else. Partially because we are forced to be able to drive on a higher level. Also, our mandated, regular technical check-ups are brutal by most standards.

2) When we have accidents, they tend to be at less than the maximum speed. In fact, most accidents happen in the cities, i.e. between 30 and 60 km/h, mostly 50 km/h though.

3) Our mortality rate is excellent. Cue in brutal safety standards for cars & roads.

Finally, yes, if an accident happens at 250 km/h, it will not be as pretty as if exactly the same accident had happened at 100 km/h.

But pure speed is _not_ dangerous. It's the banging against each other bit. If you go 60 mph and I come at you with 60 mph, we have a combined relative speed of 120 mph. Yet, we can pass each other safely.

Oh come on...

[RichiH]

> that we might not have fast enough reflexes

I think you mean most people are not used to needing to be quick. This makes them slow.

Without pulling a Darwin on you, let me just quote this: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1777842&cid=33483756 and this: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1777842&cid=33487962

Yes, this _is_ Darwinism of sorts

[RichiH]

You are modded funny, but there is a grain of truth in there. We _need_ to be better drivers so we become better drivers all by ourselves.

This is painfully obvious every time the Netherlands have national holidays and they abuse us as their toll-free circumvention of France. Aggression rates across Germany soar.

Q: What happens to drivers in the Netherlands if they take more than three tries to get their licence?
A: They are forced to drive around with yellow licence plates as a warning to others.

And _you_ accuse others of pulling BS out of...

[RichiH]

And _you_ accuse others of pulling BS out of their asses?

1) I don't have precise numbers, but the percentage of Germans with driver's licences should be around 100%. I know _no one_ older than 18 who does not have one.

2) Our public transport might be good; Japan's is better. In any case, most people in Germany go by car.

Re:And _you_ accuse others of pulling BS out of...

[Itninja]

Ridiculous hyperbole aside, all I did was get the licensing statistics from the German Federal Ministry of Transport. Maybe there has been a massive increase in car ownership in the last few years, but I doubt it. In fact, given the steady decrease in the German economy, I imagine the ownership/licensing rates are even lower that the stats reflected several years ago. If you can find the time, look these up (assuming you can read German):
INFAS, DIW (2004): Mobilität in Deutschland: Ergebnisbericht. Projekt-Nr. 70.0736/2003,
Bundesministerium Verkehr, Bau- und Wohnungswesen.

infas, DIW (2003): Mobilität in Deutschland 2002 - Kontinuierliche Erhebung zum
Verkehrsverhalten. Projekt-Nr. 70.0681/2001, Forschungsprogramm Stadtverkehr des
Bundesministeriums Verkehr, Bau- und Wohnungswesen. Endbericht.

Some of the highlights:

- German households have no car whatsoever: ~25%
- German 18 to 19 year olds having no license: ~30%
- Germans over 19 (and younger than 50) with no license: ~10%
- Trips made using methods other than a car: ~39%
- Cars trips that are 5km or less: ~60%

Now maybe you passive observations trump all this, but I suspect you just don't that many people. It's true that most people do drive in Germany, but it's not even close to 100%. In contrast, the number of cars per household in the US is higher than the number of license drivers per household. The percentage of driving age people in the US that did not have a drivers license (in 2004): 6%.

Re:And _you_ accuse others of pulling BS out of...

[Anonymous Coward]

So what? What does that have to do with anything?

Fact is: higher speed doesn't automatically mean higher fatality rates.

Germany is just one example of that. I have no idea what the reasons are, and obviously, neither do you, since you're just guessing wildly.

There are studies in the US as well, which also do not show a consistent relationship between speed and fatalities, even on the same stretch of road.

The original statement "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." also doesn't make sense from a physics point of view: above a certain speed, you're just dead.

Now, if you have a point to make, make it.

Re:And _you_ accuse others of pulling BS out of...

[RichiH]

Pro-tip: cite your sources.

As I said above, I do not know anyone who does not have a driver's licence. Maybe it's a demographic or regional thing, I don't know. Thanks for the information, but please indicate you are not just making shit up. Too many people on /. do.

Re:And _you_ accuse others of pulling BS out of...

[Itninja]

Oooookay? So the sources cited from the GFoT just don't count? Not everything is on the Interwebz. You may actually need to leave you home, go to a library, an look it up. That's what I did (at least with the German statistics). It's all there. But you will need to find it manually and not just Google the keywords...you know, the way actual research is done.

Re:And _you_ accuse others of pulling BS out of...

[RichiH]

You seem to misunderstand what I said. Let me rephrase:

In http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1777842&cid=33496864 I was referring to the fact that you did not cite your sources in http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1777842&cid=33486272 . You cited them in http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1777842&cid=33491924 and I acknowledged the fact; accepting your figures.

Re:And _you_ accuse others of pulling BS out of...

[Itninja]

Understood. My apologies. Here are my sources:

The costs of certain elements vary greatly, so I went by this site, which adds the fees/costs using averages.

The quality of a nations public transportation system is, of course, a matter of opinion. But here are several sites that put German cities in the 'one of the best in the world' (or as the the best in Europe) category:

TravelPod.com: Hamberg listed as having ..."one of the best public transportation systems in the world..."
The book Germany: Unraveling an Enigma (Greg Ness - copyright 2000) list Germany as having "...one of the worlds's best public transportation systems..."
AskMen.com: rates the U-Bahn as #9 in the world
HelpGlobe.com: rates the U-Bahn as #11 in the world
USA Today: "Munich has Europe's best public transportation
VirtualTourist.com: "Munich has one of the best...public transport systems in Europe"
Plus countless Germany sites saying how superior it is (not exactly non-bias, so I didn't list them).

Oh come on...

[RichiH]

> It's quite stressful to drive on these roads for a couple of hours.

I call bullshit. I drive about 40,000 km per year. 99% of this in Germany. It's not stressful at all. You _do_ have to be attentive, though.

> 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.

Both our accident & fatality rates are amongst the lowest on Earth.

Re:Cue increase in smothering

[RichiH]

> They were laser-leveling poured concrete.

Until I read the above just now, I never thought it odd that anyone would do that. FWIW, I am German. Also, they are not merely levelling, they are triangulating for mapping purposes.

As an aside, they regularly re-triangulate the various anchor points you can find everywhere if you know what to look for. Roads do move, if ever so slightly.

guns... (was: Re:What could possibly go wrong?)

[beh]

...which is also the reason the state is sharing liability for all gun murders, after they gave permission to everyone to 'bear arms'...

Hold on - the state isn't sharing in that liability either...

Ho Hum

[Anonymous Coward]

Slow news day, when we're discussing a Breitbart report about an idea floated by a non-partisan candidate in a gubernatorial race. I'd love to hear how this crackpot thinks the Nevada Highway Patrol would know which of the guys going at 90 have paid for the privilege before they decide whether to stop them.

WOOHOO

[moeluv]

The return of the indulgence. Should this precedent be successful we should push for a $100 permit for 24hrs of hookers and blow!

Re:WOOHOO

[Vegeta99]

There's already hooker permits in NV!

Road difference (from an American)

[daemonenwind]

I've driven on both the Autobahn and on US freeways.

Those interested should think of it this way:
In the US, there are roads, highways, and the Interstate Highway, often called the freeway.

Roads are obvious.
Highways are sort of a middle-place; they can be 2-lane, 4-lane, or sometimes more. But they can still have cross traffic, and tend to follow the contours of the land. These seldom have a speed limit over 55mph, and for good reason. For example, Route 66 was(is) a highway.

The Interstate is a cleared, flattened passage designed for speed. When you get outside city limits, most parts of the US allow at least a 65mph speed limit. This is the closest thing to what tourists think of as the Autobahn.

With Germany, the Autobahn has 2 parts: that part of the network near cities where the speed limit is set, and that part which is somewhat more rural, where there is no limit.
It's not just a straight stretch; it resembles the American Interstate Highway system in most respects, except the surface of the road is significantly better from the start, and is generally maintained to a higher standard to support the high speed, and is more closely monitored for trouble so accidents/disabled cars can be removed before "really bad" becomes "virtual train wreck".

Also, driving slowly in a left lane is almost a birthright to some in the US.
In Germany, it isn't just illegal; it's a good way to die from Porscheinbackofme.

Other Charges?

[pentalive]

I wonder if you are caught speeding but have purchased your pass for the day if the officer will charge you with reckless driving or if the accident you cause while permissive speeding will automatically be 100% your fault. (State saves money on investigation-bonus!)

American AutoBahn for the WIN

[pentalive]

Build the American autobahn- no entrance or exit except just outside larger cities, forms a backbone across the USA - no speed limit - 2 lanes each direction (inner lane reserved for passing only) - Perhaps charge toll.

New State Motto

[Chowderbags]

Nebraska: Making Iowa look interesting since 1854.

Meanwhile, to get an adult view

[dbIII]

What do law enforcement think about civilians carrying concealed and loaded firearms in crowded public places?

Re:Meanwhile, to get an adult view

[BancBoy]

What do law enforcement think about civilians carrying concealed and loaded firearms in crowded public places?

Here in the United States, the law enforcement ARE civilians. Some of them don't like to be reminded of this, but any concurrent military service notwithstanding, LEO are not in the military.

Re:Meanwhile, to get an adult view

[dbIII]

You know exactly what I meant - so much for trying to bring this to an adult level. What do law enforcement think about the issue?

Re:Meanwhile, to get an adult view

[BancBoy]

Stranger, I don't know you from Adam. And I've no idea whether you live in a country with a militarized national police force or not without checking. And I certainly don't know that you live in the US and that you believe that the police are not civilians.
And then you insult me and my intelligence by suggesting that I wasn't trying to be an adult.
You are an assuming jackass, as best I can tell from my years as an adult. Your interpretation is the only one that is reasonable. Charming.

Re:Meanwhile, to get an adult view

[dbIII]

OK - then, I'll explain assuming you are not being deliberately difficult but are merely ignorant of how I've used the word and have not bothered to look at the context it has been used in above before writing your reply.
In English as in the UK and British Commonwealth the word "civilian" is commonly used by policemen to refer to members of the public that are not police. For instance office staff assisting the police have titles such as "Civilian Clerk". For instance, google turns up the article "BBC News - Strathclyde Police to cut 600 civilian staff".
It is also used by the general public to mean citizens that are neither police nor military, and does not exclusively mean non-military personel. I have also heard people from the USA use it that way so I know it has the same meaning there.
You see? I'll bet you knew that already but were either confused or pretending to be.

Re:Meanwhile, to get an adult view

[BancBoy]

I'll bet you knew that already but were either confused or pretending to be.

Sorry, you lose. Collect your consolation prize from the Civilian Affairs Officer.
Troll on, my son.

Missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is going to have time to call for permission when they're in a hurry?

my only problem

[mldi]

OK, so do these speeders get special highways? Because on my morning commute, my problem isn't the speed limit, it's the assholes who are in my way ;)

He should read Freakonomics

[ET3D]

One of the things I remember from Freakonomics is how giving an option to pay for something takes away any moral issues doing it. Being able to pay for speeding tells people that speeding is okay, it's just an issue of money. Actually, if he really does feel that the speed limit should be much higher, then it's a decent way to make some money.

speed variance

[Polo]

speed variance is more dangerous than outright speed.

So if everyone was going 90 mph, it would be much safer than 1 or 2% of the drivers doing 90 while everyone else
does 75. Or most do 90 mph, and a few do 75 mph.

Re:Cue increase in smothering

[KingAlanI]

I'm actually more cautious about motorcycles because they're smaller and harder to see (although easier to see around because of that - as a converse, boy do SUVs and the like piss me off, for this amongst other reasons)
Granted, I'm new enough that I'm not overconfident

Also a bit of applied Golden Rule because of my habit for nonmotorized bikes. :P

Re:Cue increase in smothering

[Magius_AR]

Umm, if anything, this tells me that speed doesn't kill. "Loose tolerances" do.

So adopt stricter laws in the US and let people drive whatever speed they want.