Re: Repeal of the National Speed Limit Law
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com wrote:
> I think 55 is an *unreasonable* speed limit. Most of the major inner
> highways have 40-45 limits and on a freeway we just get 10mph more? I
> believe a resonable limit would be around 70 or so. It looks like 55 was
> set to make more money for states in ticket fines. My 2¢ worth.
It was set to save gas, that's why it's called the "Energy Speed Limit" and
why the Federal Govt has justification to set the limit (otherwise outside
of their consitutional authority) but they made it a matter of foreign
policy. I have mixed feelings about this, but I would probably agree that
70 is a reasonable limit.
However, in some instances the 70 mph would increase the variability in the
speed of traffic, which would lead to more accidents and headaches.
As such Im not sure I would favor higher speeds inside the city where traffic is
always heavy. However, the route between SF and LA for example, could
tolerate a limit of 80 or so (in fact, I sometimes wonder if the limit
is 100, since you occassionally see bands of cars goings 110 or so and
can tag along if you have a good enough car). I think you're right in
assessing that the speed limit is kept in place in order to raise money
for the states/cities. however, this isnt surprising after the loss
of revenue-sharing during the early 80s. Higher speed limits would probably
mean higher taxes, but I would be happy to pay.
STEPHAN ANAGNOSTARAS UCLA BEHAVIORAL NEUROSCIENCE