Frezik
Celtic Anarchy
Anarchy Empire
   |
Posted - 2007.02.25 18:22:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Bosie
Originally by: RedFall
My point is this: As an honest person, should you obey a law that is dishonest?
As an honest person you should obey the law and use the laws of your country to challenge it.
A safe person would ignore abnormally low speed limits and drive at the speed the majority of traffic is moving at.
Quote:
Where I live the speed limits on major roads are faster, but if we were to change it to make more economical sense we would drop them to around 60mph I hear. As to setting the limit to 50mph to fill their coffers, I would be interested to hear how that limit performs that.
The maxim of "speed kills" doesn't work out in practice. In 1995, when the US Congress was considering getting rid of the federally-mandated highway speed limit of 55 mph, Ralph Nader claimed that "history will never forgive Congress for this assault on the sanctity of human life."
In fact, after the repeal of the national limit, US highways have become the safest they've ever been (mind you, that article has a strong Republican bent, but I think it makes some good points in between all the liberal-bashing).
One can look to a British Columbia Ministry of Transportation on speed limits. Some highlites:
Quote:
The majority of motorists drive at a speed they consider reasonable, and safe for road,
traffic, and environmental conditions. Posted limits which are set higher or lower than
dictated by roadway and traffic conditions are ignored by the majority of motorists.
The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable person should be
considered legal.
A speed limit should be set so that the majority of motorists observe it voluntarily and
enforcement can be directed to the minority of offenders.
From the section "EFFECTS OF RAISING RURAL SPEED LIMITS FROM 90 TO 100 KM/H":
Quote:
Based on the analysis, it appears that raising the limit from 90 km/h to 100 km/h
resulted in a 12.9 percent reduction in crashes at the sites where speed limits were raised.
(Emphasis mine).
A study in Montana (where there was previously no posted limit on highways) showed that after putting limits back in place and increasing enforcement, fatal accidents doubled.
The majority of drivers don't speed just because they're late. They simply drive at a speed they're comfortable with given road conditions and the level of traffic. Raising the speed limit, therefore, has no effect on the actual speed traffic moves at. In fact, on well-maintained flat highways with low traffic and a well-maintained car, there is no reason to have a speed limit at all. This is the philosophy behind the German autobahn, which has a safety track record comparable to other European highways.
So why aren't speed limits set to the 85th percentile speed, like so many highway engineers suggest? By definition, this is the speed most motorists will be traveling at anyway.
Because then police would have fewer traffic tickets to write out. And they're doing it under a banner of "safety", when there is so much evidence to the contrary.
|