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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[_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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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.

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...

[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...

[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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[LingNoi]

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

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.

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: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.

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.

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?

[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

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:*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.

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: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.

[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.