Thu, December 8, 2005
The Need for Speed—2:27 PM
I came across an article today about a Nebraska judge who found a man not guilty of reckless driving, despite his speed of 128mph. It's enough to make me want to move to Nebraska. (If it weren't so dangerously close to Kansas...)
I've been wailing about this for years, but lately it's really been bothering me. Speed limits only exist as justifications for revenue-generating tickets. If you're careful and you know what you're doing, speeding alone isn't going to be any more dangerous than following some arbitrary limit.
We should abolish speed limits everywhere, and enforce reckless driving statutes much more strictly. Going 50 in a 35 on a straightaway without bothering anybody? Fine. Going 37 in a 35, but cutting people off and swerving without a signal? Prison.
See which one results in fewer fatalities. My bet is, it's the same one that results in me getting home from work five minutes faster.
"Mike" — Fri, 12/9/05 8:48am
As much as I like driving fast, I have to disagree. Speed limits also serve the purpose of providing drivers a reasonable expectation of understanding what other drivers will be doing.
If the speed limit is 35, I can reasonably expect drivers to go somewhere between 30 and 45 MPH. This makes it much less likely that I will misjudge what another driver is doing - meaning that I am less likely to pull out in front of them in an ill-advised way, come up on them too fast, etc.
The dissolution of speed limits would cause accidents for several reasons. First, and most importantly, if there is no speed limit, I could be going 75 around a bend and slam into someone going 20.
To be fair, you said that you wanted to go 50 on a straightaway without bothering anybody. Yes, but what about if there are other cars? What is the threshold for bothering someone? Would your going 50 make me panic, swerve to let you by, and have me hit a telephone pole?
Also, if the road curves, do you slow wayyyy down to 25, do I rear-end you then? What if your car is big and mine is small and I am behind you, so I can't see that there is a curve ahead, so I don't know to slow down?
Speed limits exist for four main reasons: 1) in town, they exist to provide for safety - by both ensuring that drivers are moving at about the same speed so that drivers, as I said above, can more effectively guess what their fellow drivers will be doing.
2) On the highway, they exist to make cars burn less gas (Not that I agree with this idea, but it is a reason they exist)
3) In both town and the highway - they exist to provide revenue; though I would submit the dual purpose of safety here as well.
4) They exist to minimize the likelihood of damage if there is an accident (again, this may or may not be the government's job, but it is a reason they exist).
So, in my view, speeding alone is more dangerous than an arbitrary limit. It removes other drivers' ability to predict what speed the other drivers on the road will be doing, it increases the likelihood of accidents, and it hurts gas mileage which increases our dependence on foreign oil, requiring war in the Middle East (just kidding on that last one...well, mostly kidding).
Joe Mulder — Fri, 12/9/05 9:31am
So... anrgy...
Must... not... respond... while... homicidally... mad...
Must... wait... until... later...
"Mike" — Fri, 12/9/05 9:44am
Get over it.
Speed limits are like football rules. As a quarterback, I want to know that if someone hits me in the head three seconds after I throw the ball, there should be a penalty.
As a driver, I want to know that if someone zooms past me, endangering me, there is a penalty.
The debate is in the balance. Well, we have to hit quarterbacks – it is football for the love of God, and yet, we shouldn't make them sitting ducks either.
We should probably have some rules governing how fast people can drive, but we probably shouldn't make them as overregulated as they are either.
Bee Boy — Fri, 12/9/05 10:28am
And that would be reckless, reckless driving. The penalty for which is (checking my notes): Prison. Problem solved.
I understand the "panicking other motorists" reason, and maybe an improvement to my proposal would be speed limits, but no enforcement whatsoever. So roads have a "rating" from 15mph to 75mph, giving you some expectation about how fast the average motorist will be traveling. But you don't get in trouble for going 50 in a 35 as long as it's not reckless. (For examples of what would be reckless: tailgating someone, taking a corner at 50, changing lanes without signaling – yep, we're cracking down here. The rule is, drive as fast as you want, but do everything else perfectly.)
And, I didn't specifically mention this in my original post, but there would also be the death penalty for people who disregard that "Slower Traffic Keep Right" sign. Turning left? Passing someone? Come on over. Otherwise, if you're driving 34.3 in a 35, stay over there until we call for you. There should be a lot less panic then. Just sit tight in your lane, and that Maserati doing 95 will be past you in the blink of an eye.
Most roads have a top speed at which they could reasonably be driven, anyway. The width of the lanes, the frequency of stops, curves, and cross traffic, other cars entering/leaving lanes – it just wouldn't be possible to go top speed on every street. Following my proposal wouldn't result in people driving 20 and 75 on the same road.
And if someone slows way down to 25 to take a turn, that shouldn't result in a rear-end collision any more often than it does now. Brake lights. Just like on today's arbitrarily speed-limited roads. You see motorists ahead of you slowing down, you either slow down or you pass them. Come on.
And I don't buy the gas mileage thing. In town, sure. But if I set my cruise control at 140 on the interstate, my gas mileage will be just as good as if I set it at (har!) 65.
Oh, and as a fellow Angeleno, I'm going to bet that this is part of what's got Mulder hopping mad:
We have the experience to tell you that there is no way to get a reasonable expectation of what other drivers will do. No amount of laws will stop people from being stupid.
"Mike" — Fri, 12/9/05 10:59am
Much of what you say sounds reasonable to me.
You're wrong about the gas mileage though, going faster uses more gas -way more gas. That's fine with me, though I have been spending my last 3 weeks coding newspaper and magazine articles about the 'energy crisis' in the 1970s and OPEC and JImmy Carter and all that stuff, so I am well versed on failed energy policy at the moment.
And if what you say is true about driving in LA, which I believe it is, then your point that people won't drive widely variant speeds on the same road crumbles.
It isn't the amount of laws that keep people from being stupid. If that was the case, then there would be no need for laws about, say, buying and using a gun. And furthermore, LA is different than the rest of the country. I have driven at length in Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Houston, (I've been everywhere, man, I've been everywhere), and in general people drive about the same. People like to say, "Oh, in my town, it's different" – and again, I do think the LA and New York are exceptions to my generalization, but in general you have pretty good idea of what to generally expect on the roads and one reason for that is speed limits.
All I am talking about here is variance: having a road go from 15-75 is quite a wide variance to reasonably manage the roads.
It isn't that I think people are complete idiots and unable to drive. I do think though, that a 60 mile per hour range of variance in driving speed will result in lots of unexpected and dangerous situtations that occur quickly and without reasonable warning.
If that part got Joe hopping mad, well that's okay - I have about 40 years of random-sample traffic studies on my side of that one.
I think that, in general, speed limits should be higher in towns and on highways, I am all for more signs that alert drivers to the upcoming conditions: straight road , 8 miles, speed limit 90.
And bless your heart on the right lane death penalty thing. Amen, sister.
"Mike" — Fri, 12/9/05 11:16am
In the interest of fair play, I have checked out the latest research on speed limits and fatalities.
While lower limits (not my argument) generally equals less fatalties, fewer accidents, less waste, the increasing safety of cars may eventually mitigate that concern.
In other words, in a few years, cars might be safe enough to not have to worry about adverse effects, death-wise, for getting into an accident at a high rate of speed. Of course, your likelihood of getting into an accident still increases without speed limits, but since most people are not in car accidents most of the time, it may well be a risk worth thinking about.
Joe Mulder — Fri, 12/9/05 11:27am
This was what did it in particular, along with the whole post in general.
[and, obviously, I wasn't really mad; when I'm really mad, I try to post a reasoned and polite rebuttal, and when I'm fake mad I pretend I'm really mad.]
Anyway, despite what people like Mike would have you believe, lower speed limits no not save lives, and higher speed limits do not cost lives. The facts, both in particular and in general, seem to confirm this.
Those who point to the coincidence involving the lowering national speed limit in the 70s and the decline in auto fatalities conveniently ignore the vast improvements in automotive safety (and the effect of seat belt laws) that accounted for the decline, speed limits having little or nothing to do with it. (note: I can't point you to an article or study about this because I made it up, but I'm sure I'm right about it anyway).
Besides, from what I hear, the speed limits came about in the 70s in response to the gas crisis, not because of safety concerns.
Then again, a government-knows-best liberal such as Mike has every reason to support arbitrary, freedom-stifling speed limits that just happen to drive money out of the pockets of the oil industry, thus killing two birds with one Birkenstock-wearing, patchouli-reeking stone.
[see? Fake mad at the end there]
"MIke" — Fri, 12/9/05 11:38am
I raise your Fake mad to Fake argumentative and pissy!
Joe is right about the fatalities in general, or at least he'll be right soon (see my previous post, the one right before his), but he doesn't mention accidents. (Fake argumentative and pissy alert!) And why would he? Accidents go way up on roads with higher speed limits, especially when the roads are two- laners (Review for Policy Research 2005 and Transportation Quarterly 2004).
Of course, a government-knows best liberal like myself went ahead and gave you peer-reviewed sources from scholarly journals rather than two from the NMA, which had the basic purpose of changing the speed limit laws, and thus constructed their studies in ways that provided results that led them to that end.
Though again, I think speed limits should be very high on interstates, 55 on two-lane roads, and higher (40-55) in towns and cities.
And I'd never wear, eat, or be around patchouli. Ewww.
(Final fake pissy alert!) And the ultimate freedom stifler would be to get killed by some gun-totin' conservative's Hummer that was doing 95 while I was out saving the whales or singing a song of freedom.
Bee Boy — Fri, 12/9/05 11:48am
Just quickly, when I said from 15 to 75, I didn't mean a 60mph range. I meant, a road might have a posted speed – which might range from, say, 15mph on one road to, say, 75mph on a different road. That would indicate a reasonable starting point, but it wouldn't be enforced as a speed limit, per se. Just a bit of clarifying, there. Now on to the vicious, ad hominem attacks!
"Mike" — Fri, 12/9/05 11:57am
Aha! Carry on.
Of course (dammit!, I can't stop posting today), speed limits are kind of enforced the way you suggest anyway. I guess the problem would be that they are enforced differentially - so that I can go 77 in a 65 in Indianapolis and not get picked up whereas I would get a ticket in Terre Haute.
But really, I am on your side for the most part - the reason I posted in the first place was because I think that there are some reasonable reasons to have speed limits. I do think they should be higher, and I do like your idea of a reasonable starting point, per se. I'll see you at the public meetings – we'll put the system on trial!
Brandon — Fri, 12/9/05 12:03pm
Jameson, how do propose enforcing your traffic law changes? To my mind, enforcing your "reckless driving" laws would be much harder, in that the violations are more subjective in nature and require that the police be in the immediate vicinity in order to witness them. Speeding, on the other hand, is a much more objective violation, in that you're either going too fast or you're not (though certainly there is ambiguity there in how far you can go over before a cop pulls you over, and there's some wiggle room on the accuracy of radar guns), and the police can spot speeding violaters from much farther away.
I think that would lead to more breaking of the reckless driving laws (unless prison is actually the penalty, but come on, let's be honest, there's no way in hell that's happening), because if there's no cop in your line of sight, you can get away with it pretty easily. With speeding limits, I think there's more self-policing because you know that all it takes is a cop suddenly appearing from around a corner or popping up on the horizon and he can nail you.
And if someone slows way down to 25 to take a turn, that shouldn't result in a rear-end collision any more often than it does now. Brake lights. Just like on today's arbitrarily speed-limited roads. You see motorists ahead of you slowing down, you either slow down or you pass them. Come on.
Yes, but slowing down becomes a much trickier proposition if you're going 50 rather than going 35. It's going to result in at least a few rear-endings that wouldn't be happening at a lower speed. And yes, in that scenario, the rear-ending driver would be guilty of driving recklessly, but you're still creating more accidents, and one would think that would create a greater likelihood of possible fatalities. (Note I'm saying I think that would happen - I have no facts nor no certainty of that)
Finally, on L.A. driving - I'll take it any day over Chicago. Chicago's fucking insane.
Bee Boy — Fri, 12/9/05 1:36pm
Mike, I have to believe you on the gas mileage thing because you're backed by journalists from the 1970s, back when journalism meant something. In my experience, I use more gas accelerating, and less gas maintaining a constant speed, so I figured any constant speed would be as good as another and who could refute me anyways? Damn 1970s journalists!
Oh, so suddenly there are realism requirements for my half-baked legislative proposals? I knew I should've crashed the set of the live West Wing debate, where there were no such restrictions.
My proposal is incomplete without severely restricting reckless driving. Prison or other harsh penalties would have to be there as a deterrent. You'd also increase patrols; rather than having officers (or, increasingly, mannequins) sit in cars along the road just pointing a radar gun, they'd be out there keeping the roads safe. (In hybrids, of course – wouldn't want to upset Mike's precious foreign oil/domestic patchouli balance!) But the point is, even when you're driving unsupervised, you'd drive smart and safe because you'd know if you slip up and get caught (or, God forbid, cause an accident), there will be hell to pay. Drivers who couldn't handle higher speeds without being reckless would learn to drive at lower speeds and stay out of trouble. (Also, like Joe's Montana data says, apparently motorists are magically more courteous without speed limits.)
(I also like what the Montana charts say about multiple-car crashes. Artificially limited speeds – especially on highways – will tend to clump drivers together, which is less safe because if one of them loses control, the others are more likely to be involved in the collision.)
We talk about a lot of extreme cases in the debate, but I think most people would stay around 15-20mph over today's limits in most situations, and they'd go much faster on highways or late at night when nobody's around. I don't think there are many people (not even me) who want to do 70 on neighborhood streets in heavy traffic. I just want to drive 85mph on the 10 in the middle of the night without having to worry about fines and traffic school. The minute I kill someone doing that, the cop can throw me to the ground and shoot me, execution-style. And then fool around with my corpse or put it into little outfits, for all I care.
I'm not saying I have the whole thing planned out – you certainly wouldn't want to switch to this overnight and just let the bodies pile up as "collateral damage" while you wait for the recklessness deterrents to kick in. But reckless driving and fast driving are not one and the same – as the Nebraska case points out – and I think reckless drivers are the ones we should be punishing. Dave Barry's proposal was simpler: offset speeding ticket revenue with a roadside booth where you could pay $15 and a policeman would whisper the day's real speed limit in your ear. My idea is bulkier but no less silly. I just wanted to get the conversation started, and look where we are: two Fridays in a row with comments in the double digits! I'm on to something here, and I've got the 1970s journalists to prove it!
My point is, stop creating a needless panic over speeding tickets, and put all your enforcement energy into creating strong incentives for courteous, careful driving at any speed.
Bee Boy — Fri, 12/9/05 1:51pm
(Ed. note – please do not confuse "Joe's Montana data" with "Joe Montana's data." Joe Montana's data indicates that he needs to cut back on salty foods.)
"Mike" — Fri, 12/9/05 2:21pm
The internet: where fun ideas get needlessly trod upon by arrogant Ph.D students!
Bee Boy — Fri, 12/9/05 3:43pm
After all, isn't that why Al Gore invented it?