The Speed Limit

[Suburbanite]

I am currently watching a show on CNN comparing the accident rates in Germany to other countries. The German rate is a much lower. On a particular highway, in one year they had 8 deaths. They make a Speed Minimum set to about 80mph (120km I believe), and that year they had no deaths. They feel speed limits encourage reckless driving whereas requireing faster speeds on their freeways reduce fatalities. Anyone have any opinions?

[mojo_the_migo]

That freeway is the autoban I believe. Anyway, I think they have a point. Having too low of a speedlimit OR speed minimum can give way to road rage.

Problem is, I'm not sure how well they would work in our more congested freeways. From what I have been told, the autoban does not have the same kind of congestion that most of our freeways do. PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong. I do not know much of this subject and any and all info of the above could very well be off. :confused:

[Suburbanite]

Well, most freeways are pretty open. From what I know the autoban is not just one freeway, it is several. I live in LA, so I know what a congested freeway is, I've had the ability to get out of my car and smoke a cigar while driving home from class on a freeway once, it can get bad, but for those times it isn't.... this is a damn good idea.

[PatrickHenry]

You're only talking about highly engineered , restricted access, multilane highways, right? Not in congested urban streets or high volume roadways?

I think that some of the lack of fatalities on German autobahns, and the lower level of accidents generally, may be due to rigid laws about what level of auto maintenance is required. Body damage? Don't even go on the autobahn.

[Mozart1220]

I can se higher speed limits on open highways, but With the congestion we have her, combined with the obvious lack of driving skill shown by most drivers, I'd rather see slower traffic not faster.
Plus I think it should be illegal to talk on a cell phone while driving.

[Kajun]

Now illegal in UK to use a cell phone while driving unless it's got a hands-free kit: i.e. you can't hold it in your hand to send an SMS, let alone talk. Been that way since December and although you only get a £30 fine at the moment, it'll be opened up to criminal sentencing soon. Government did something right for once.

The autobahn has no speed restrictions and people drive as fast as they feel comfortable, so long as it's above the minimum speed. These are well built motorways constructed for speed and convenience, and the Germans have been using them for years. And perhaps that's the crux of the matter: they know how to use them. Introducing such a scheme in the US or UK would require every driver reassessing their driving skills and engaging in a lot of experience/testing before they truly felt comfortable bombing along at 140mph. One of the main reasons for not raising the speed limit at the moment is purely because people driving at 110mph in a speed limit of 70mph scare the hell out of other drivers who're mosieing along at 70, in turn causing them to make errors.

[Mia]

The speed limits were imposed to cut gas use, were they not?

[Suburbanite]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
The speed limits were imposed to cut gas use, were they not?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I think the speed limit exists so you get speeding tickets. City Hall makes massive amounts of money off of it.
Yea Pat, I'm not really talking about streets or anything like that freeway system in NY (dangerous!!!). They also can't use cell phones. Hmm... I think around where I live, there is a freeway called the 101, sometimes it is jammed, around 4-5 and at 12. But the rest of the day is moves, it would be nicer if people moved quicker.

[Uppity]

Suburbanite,
I am new to this site, but so far, I have agreed to all your posts. You must be a real genius. I am so glad I may learn from your wisdom.

[Impenitent]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
The speed limits were imposed to cut gas use, were they not?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

yes originally... carter wouldn't drill either...

-----------------

speed limits.... 10 grams mainlined...

Speed limits on open highways could be increased or eliminated. On those roads it's not the speed that causes problems, it's differential speed. Thats when you have one car going 90 and another car going 50. It would be unwise to have no speed limits in congested areas, but I think drivers adjust according to traffic patterns already. Deutchland only has no speed limit on the Autobahn, not around cities.

Hey Uppity, you must be easily impressed. LOL

[Mozart1220]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
The speed limits were imposed to cut gas use, were they not?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

When the speed limit dropped to 55 mph, we had a '73 Chevelle. It got about 28 miles per gallon at 75 mph, and maybe 20 mpg at 55. It was designed to run at 75 miles per hour.

The 55 mph speed limit was SUPPOSEDLY to save fuel, but it was actually to use MORE fuel right after the price of gas went from 65 cents a gallon to over a dollar. Greed...nothing but greed.

[Suburbanite]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dave654,)
Hey Uppity, you must be easily impressed. LOL<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Ouch!

[damnrad]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Suburbanite,)
I am currently watching a show on CNN comparing the accident rates in Germany to other countries. The German rate is a much lower. On a particular highway, in one year they had 8 deaths. They make a Speed Minimum set to about 80mph (120km I believe), and that year they had no deaths. They feel speed limits encourage reckless driving whereas requireing faster speeds on their freeways reduce fatalities. Anyone have any opinions?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Hey, the speed limit is 186,000 MPS, and you can live with it.

[commonsense]

I happen to follow the auto industry, but if you "follow the money" in any number of seemingly unrelated industries, you'll discover what's behind many of our legislative trends.

I won't go into how the National Institute for Highway Safety, and others are actually lobbying fronts for the insurance industry, because the examples are too numerous and the relationships between the judiciary revenue machine, stinking nazi cops, and the "safety" industry and the driver/consumer are too intricate, and most of you are already too brainwashed by our socialistic educational system to see its injustices and frauds, the idea that "well, if it saves just one life, ever. in its legislative existence, then the law is necessary".... is so firmly implanted in your squirrel-sized brains, but example abound that I won't go into (like the dispute over mandatory airbags that have mixed consequences, safety, ecological, and economic)

so I'll pick a battle I have a chance of success at enlightening you about here:

Traffic Redlight-Running Cameras

Statistically, almost no one gets injured by someone running a redlight in a given year...

However, beginning quite a few years ago, bell&howell began marketing a camera system that took and developed pictures, automatically ticketed drivers and collected the money... and deposits it in the town coffers.

"Well, you shouldn't be running red lights, right?"
Right.
Except for one thing:
The camera set-ups, printing and documenting systems cost whatever one-horse (or more accurately, "one traffic-light town") between $750,000 and a million dollars upfront... and are marketed as "trouble-free" no "overhead" profit centers for the greedy municipalities guaranteed to pay off the investment in a given amount of time... If they don't, the company offers to "adjust" the duration of the yellow signal until a significant amount of offenders are created.

Soon enough, the local residents begin to adjust their driving habits after enough of them get stung and word gets around to slam on the brakes, even when reasonably just passing under a yellow (born out by reaction time studies) that should allow a driver to continue (we're not talking about flooring it in response to a yellow a 1/4 mile ahead)

The Result?
A significant number of rear-end collisions and injuries where none existed prior to installation of the lights or cameras.

Its a win-win for greedy municipalities because they can issue even more tickets if a crash occurs.

This was contested in court because a lawyer disputed whether he was in fact driving the car when it was photographed in the intersection after the red signal...

The judge responded with "maybe you weren't driving, but the law reads: the OWNER is ticketed" ... and smugly added, "We've built a better mousetrap"

This is among the simplest of examples of government abuse, but I'm sure you good little parrots out here will see it as corporate greed instead.

[PatrickHenry]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (commonsense,)
I happen to follow the auto industry, but if you "follow the money" in any number of seemingly unrelated industries, you'll discover what's behind many of our legislative trends.

This is among the simplest of examples of government abuse, but I'm sure you good little parrots out here will see it as corporate greed instead.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

It's both isn't it? They're both mining it. Fraud is frequently a collusion between government and industry.

Like the $900 Defense Department hammers. It was a fraudster company that was selling 'em. And the DoD colluded to fleece...us! Some Pentagon bureaucrat's friend has a nice Swiss bank account...

Back to the thread, why is it so hard to let off on the accelerator when the sign says "Speed Zone Ahead"?

[commonsense]

The distinction between the two parties involved in the collusion between business and government is obvious.

Were government not involved in spheres not constitutionally mandated, business would pursue its interests without tapping the treasury by way of antithetical legislating, and congress could stay home most of the year and pursue their individual interests in the free economy like the rest of us taxpayers.

I thought you were a Constitutionalist.

[Suburbanite]

You have too much faith in Big Business. You called our educational system socialistic, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Since Rockefeller Corporations have been sponsoring schools and legislation around turning class rooms into training facilities. Microsoft has set up dozens of computer labs designed around programming around schools. Pixar and other digital animation companies have done the same. The educational system breeds more failures than successes because business thrives off the work of failures.

[lessthan]

suburbanite i saw that same video clip on the autoban freeway. yes if they increased the pseed limits in areas it may help reduce the amount of congestion they have i think if they did that in LA they would have a good and bad effect on it the good thing is that even though there are millions of cars on it that it would get them home quicker with less congestion but there are probably more bad sides then good like there would be congestion at freeway exits meaning cars would be backd up and eventually there will be an accident from someone that didnt see them stopped. another would be that if there was an major accident that it could also turn in to a catastophic accident from everyone driving to fast and not everyone is expierenced at driving fast just as that lady said on the video clip aboutthe autoban she actually said that she could not hold going at this speed for very long the vibratioons were making her nervous i believe.