Weirdest Speed Trap...
#61
Originally Posted by DiamondDave2005,Jun 28 2007, 10:33 AM
It's no less interesting than what you seem to be proposing, ie that we all obey all laws at all times just because it's the law.
Originally Posted by DiamondDave2005,Jun 28 2007, 10:33 AM
I brought up that specific example because it WAS the law in 1850. You're telling me you wouldn't have known right from wrong?
It isn't 1850. Would I have known right from wrong in 1850? Who can say? It's a silly hypothetical.
Originally Posted by DiamondDave2005,Jun 28 2007, 10:33 AM
My question is no more absurd than your views on speed limits.
#62
Improve Traffic Safety: Repeal Federal Speed Limits
Written By: John Semmens
Published In: Heartland Perspectives
Publication Date: July 7, 1995
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Senate recently voted to repeal the federally mandated 55 mph speed limit. If the House approves the measure and the president signs it--both of which are likely--then a national speed limit will be a thing of the past.
The federal government got into the business of mandating speed limits during the so-called "energy crisis." In 1974, Congress required states to lower their maximum highway speed limit to 55 miles per hour. It was projected that doing so might reduce energy consumption by about 1 percent.
The energy crisis was ended 15 years ago when President Reagan abolished the price controls on fuel that had spawned the temporary shortages. One might have expected the 55 mph speed limit to be jettisoned at the same time. However, it was able to hang on as a purported "safety enhancement." Not until 1987 were states permitted to increase speed limits to 65 mph, and then only on rural Interstate routes.
Today, persons opposed to allowing states to set their own speed limits warn of the carnage it would unleash. Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) asserts "if we raise the speed limit . . . people will die." Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) says raising the limit "will directly contribute to death and injury for thousands." The facts, however, fail to support the senators' rhetoric.
Studies of accident records since the partial lifting of the federal speed limit in 1987 find no evidence that the overall level of safety has been harmed by higher speed limits on some road segments. In fact, a study done for the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found that fatality rates improved 3.5 percent more in states that raised their speed limits than in states that did not.
Why did the new speed limit lower the overall fatality rate? The AAA Foundation study suggests that high-speed traffic may have shifted to highways better designed for high-speed travel. As a result, fatality rates on roads with raised speed limits may be higher than they otherwise might have been-- but fatality rates on other, less safe roads have fallen by more than enough to compensate.
Even if lower speed limits should, in theory, lower fatality rates, the fact is that drivers ignore limits they perceive as unreasonably low. Prior to 1987, when the maximum speed limit was 55 mph, the average speed actually driven on those roads was 66 mph. The drivers of nearly 80 percent of vehicles on the road violated the limit.
Those drivers, as it turns out, may have been acting quite rationally. The Transportation Research Record reports that it may be safer to exceed unreasonably low posted speed limits than to obey them. Drivers appear to minimize the probability of g etting in an accident if they exceed the posted speed limit by 10 to 15 miles per hour. That is not to say that speed itself reduces risk. It is likely that other factors--perhaps an elevated level of alertness on the part of the driver--offset higher speeds.
The legislation now under consideration would permit states to evaluate each roadway and set speed limits appropriate to the design features and traffic composition. That promises to produce speed regulations more reasonable than the "one size fits all" national speed limit. More reasonable speed limits are more likely to be obeyed, which would free law enforcement resources to deal with greater threats to public safety.
Though it is seldom mentioned, faster transportation has value. The ability to cover more ground in less time opens up wider possibilities for improved productivity and recreation. Since lifting the federal speed limit would produce these benefits and open the way to safer streets, Congress should not hesitate to enact the proposed legislation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Semmens, a senior planner at the Arizona Department of Transportation, is a policy advisor to The Heartland Institute.
Written By: John Semmens
Published In: Heartland Perspectives
Publication Date: July 7, 1995
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Senate recently voted to repeal the federally mandated 55 mph speed limit. If the House approves the measure and the president signs it--both of which are likely--then a national speed limit will be a thing of the past.
The federal government got into the business of mandating speed limits during the so-called "energy crisis." In 1974, Congress required states to lower their maximum highway speed limit to 55 miles per hour. It was projected that doing so might reduce energy consumption by about 1 percent.
The energy crisis was ended 15 years ago when President Reagan abolished the price controls on fuel that had spawned the temporary shortages. One might have expected the 55 mph speed limit to be jettisoned at the same time. However, it was able to hang on as a purported "safety enhancement." Not until 1987 were states permitted to increase speed limits to 65 mph, and then only on rural Interstate routes.
Today, persons opposed to allowing states to set their own speed limits warn of the carnage it would unleash. Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) asserts "if we raise the speed limit . . . people will die." Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) says raising the limit "will directly contribute to death and injury for thousands." The facts, however, fail to support the senators' rhetoric.
Studies of accident records since the partial lifting of the federal speed limit in 1987 find no evidence that the overall level of safety has been harmed by higher speed limits on some road segments. In fact, a study done for the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found that fatality rates improved 3.5 percent more in states that raised their speed limits than in states that did not.
Why did the new speed limit lower the overall fatality rate? The AAA Foundation study suggests that high-speed traffic may have shifted to highways better designed for high-speed travel. As a result, fatality rates on roads with raised speed limits may be higher than they otherwise might have been-- but fatality rates on other, less safe roads have fallen by more than enough to compensate.
Even if lower speed limits should, in theory, lower fatality rates, the fact is that drivers ignore limits they perceive as unreasonably low. Prior to 1987, when the maximum speed limit was 55 mph, the average speed actually driven on those roads was 66 mph. The drivers of nearly 80 percent of vehicles on the road violated the limit.
Those drivers, as it turns out, may have been acting quite rationally. The Transportation Research Record reports that it may be safer to exceed unreasonably low posted speed limits than to obey them. Drivers appear to minimize the probability of g etting in an accident if they exceed the posted speed limit by 10 to 15 miles per hour. That is not to say that speed itself reduces risk. It is likely that other factors--perhaps an elevated level of alertness on the part of the driver--offset higher speeds.
The legislation now under consideration would permit states to evaluate each roadway and set speed limits appropriate to the design features and traffic composition. That promises to produce speed regulations more reasonable than the "one size fits all" national speed limit. More reasonable speed limits are more likely to be obeyed, which would free law enforcement resources to deal with greater threats to public safety.
Though it is seldom mentioned, faster transportation has value. The ability to cover more ground in less time opens up wider possibilities for improved productivity and recreation. Since lifting the federal speed limit would produce these benefits and open the way to safer streets, Congress should not hesitate to enact the proposed legislation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Semmens, a senior planner at the Arizona Department of Transportation, is a policy advisor to The Heartland Institute.
#64
Originally Posted by DiamondDave2005,Jun 28 2007, 10:57 AM
Roadblocks are an unconstitutional violation of 4th amendment rights in the United States.
If roadblocks are unconstitutional why haven't they been banned nationwide? Surely this must have occurred to, say, lawyers at the ACLU. Has nobody challenged their constitutionality? Has it ever been upheld? Has it ever been refuted?
This quote sounds a lot like someone's individual opinion and very little like a substantiated legal pronouncement.
#65
Originally Posted by DiamondDave2005,Jun 28 2007, 10:42 AM
Q. Aren't most traffic accidents caused by speeding?
A. No, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) claims that 30 percent of all fatal accidents are "speed related," but even this is misleading. This means that in less than a third of the cases, one of the drivers involved in the accident was "assumed" to be exceeding the posted limit. It does not mean that speeding caused the accident. Research conducted by the Florida Department of Transportation showed that the percentage of accidents actually caused by speeding is very low, 2.2 percent.
A. No, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) claims that 30 percent of all fatal accidents are "speed related," but even this is misleading. This means that in less than a third of the cases, one of the drivers involved in the accident was "assumed" to be exceeding the posted limit. It does not mean that speeding caused the accident. Research conducted by the Florida Department of Transportation showed that the percentage of accidents actually caused by speeding is very low, 2.2 percent.
Speed never kills anyone, its the stopping quickly part that does it.
#66
Originally Posted by magician,Jun 28 2007, 12:42 PM
No.
I'm a magician.
(Also a math teacher, finance teacher, risk management teacher, project management consultant, and software developer and marketer. I'm told it's called a portfolio career.)
I'm a magician.
(Also a math teacher, finance teacher, risk management teacher, project management consultant, and software developer and marketer. I'm told it's called a portfolio career.)
#67
Originally Posted by magician,Jun 28 2007, 03:07 PM
If roadblocks are unconstitutional why haven't they been banned nationwide? Surely this must have occurred to, say, lawyers at the ACLU. Has nobody challenged their constitutionality? Has it ever been upheld? Has it ever been refuted?
This quote sounds a lot like someone's individual opinion and very little like a substantiated legal pronouncement.
This quote sounds a lot like someone's individual opinion and very little like a substantiated legal pronouncement.
#68
Magician sure sounds like he's grasping at straws to defend an extreme position he took because he has nothing to do at work so he decided to "stir the flames".
You have to remember that you lose future credibility when you take such a stance.
You have to remember that you lose future credibility when you take such a stance.