[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Why it's set at 55 m.p.h...
thonhazz@clark.net (Jonathan Hazzard) wrote:
> I've been following the thread about speeders FYI and I think everyone
>who posted a followup is missing a very important point. The fact that
>the speed limit is 55 is not to _increase_ revenue. It's not a silly
>speed limit, even though everyone exceeds it.
> The state and the legislature, believe it or not, actually are
>concerned about highway safety. It costs far more money to clean people
>off the road after an accident than is gained in ticket revenue. There
>are two reasons why fines are collected:
> 1) as a deterrent to excessively exceeding the speed limit
> 2) to create a source of income to offset the costs of maintaining,
>patrolling, and providing emergency services on highways.
> What you all are failing to realize is that highways and other roads
>generate a great deal of expense for the states charged with caring for
>them. Some of this is paid by the federal government, some by gas taxes,
>some by ticket revenues, and some by other income sources. That's why
>there are fines for speeding: to encourage more modest speeds and recoup
>some of the cost of having roads in the first place.
> That said, let me address the issue of the 55 m.p.h. speed limit. Of
>course no one under 70 years old does the speed limit. Of course the
>police and the state don't expect drivers to obey the speed limit. What
>they DO expect is that most drivers will stay within several miles per
>hour of the limit. The Dept. of Transpotation does ongoing tests on
>highway speed, constantly reevaluating the average speed and safety of
>various roads.
> For example, let's assume the average highway driver will exceed the
>posted speed limit by 10 m.p.h. If we want traffic to flow at 60, we'll
>set the speed limit for 50. If we want people to do 40, we set it at
>30. When someone is travelling at a far greater speed, we'll ticket
>them, with a higher fine and point total with higher excesses. Have you
>noticed that 9 m.p.h. over the speed limit nets you one point and 10 nets
>you 2? Have you noticed that 25 over nets you 5? (I think)
> The speed limits and fines are set so as to control the average speeds
>on the highways and to deter greatly exceeding them. Revenue is an
>issue, but it goes to support the great cost of having roads in the first
>place. However, not even politicians are cynical enough to sit back and
>say, "Hahaha, we'll make the speed limit 25 so we can make a lot of
>money!" Usually, very low speed limits are set in an attempt to reduce
>the number of accidents and injuries on particularly accident-prone
>stretches of road, not as a tricky way to get your money. If the state
>needs more money, there are far better and more efficient ways to get it
>than to have a $20/hour cop pull you over and spend 15 minutes writing a
>$70 ticket--things called TAXES.
> Get over your paranoia. Speed limits are set to reduce operating
>costs and fines are set to discourage exceeding the limits by great amounts.
> ~~~~ Jonathan
> ~c--oo thonhazz@clark.net
> >
> -
I do not normally speed unless the traffic is moving greater than the
speed limit. Even then, I never exceed 9 miles above the limit,
however, the idea that the roads are built for perhaps 10 mph greater
than the set limit (or the limit is 10mph below the safe limit for the
road) irritates me.
What ever happened to honesty with respect to our government? If a
road is safe at 45 then what right does the government have to set the
limit lower, thus anticipating people are going to speed. This is
highly disfunctional and encourages speeding since the public cannot
trust the honest judgement of the government as to what is safe and
not safe.
I think I have the right (considering the amount of tax money I've put
into the road system) to have the government or highway authority set
the limit of speed accurately with respect to the safe travel of the
road and not fudge it so as to compensate for people who are not law
biding to begin with or to lower it because it's in what the
government defines as an urban area. There are many roads where 55 is
too slow, but it MUST be set at 55 because it's within a magic
boundary of a city. Go out of that magic boundary and it increases to
65. Also, there are many roads out in very open spaces where 80 could
be deemed safe, but the government doesn't permit ANY speed over 65.
Try driving in western Kansas and you'll know what I mean.
We need accurate speed limits, no politics, and VERY STRICT
consequences when an accident does occur due to improper speed.
Why not try a new approach. Let's get rid of the ticket writing
police and set the speed limits to the true accuracy of safe travel.
If someone get's in an accident due to speed in excess of the
recommended speed, they should then pay for all the damage, whether to
the other parties or to any other entity that may own damaged propery.
A drivers licence should be revoked for 6 months. Let this be
mandatory and for "prevention" purposes, spend huge sums of money to
advertise this. Now watch the speeders slow down!
Follow-Ups:
References: