[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Solve speeding by limiting cars!
The idea of speed limiters is nothing new. I remember about 15 years
ago, a device was proposed for cars that would allow the police to shut
off the engine by remote control. The idea was to prevent high-speed
chases. A noble idea, but hollow nails work well at that too.
Speed limiters are safety limiters too. What about the volunteer
firemen, paramedics etc? There are times where going over the speed
limit is warranted albeit not always legal. Would you want to say you
had an accident because you couldn't step on the gas to get out of the
way? But we're missing the real point here. We're assuming that all
speed limits are set correctly. If that was true, there would be no such
thing as speed traps for revenue enhancement. People pulled over for
speeding would deserve a ticket. Unfortunately, that's not the situation
today.
There's another issue related to that: Properly set limits reflect the
-actual- (on-road, as opposed to meaningless talk) desires of drivers,
meaning that the limit would be self-regulating. This defeats any need
for a limiting device.
By the way, in some states, the speed limits are prima facie, not
absolute. PF speed limits are illegal to exceed unless you can prove
that doing so isn't dangerous. This is tacit acknowledgement of the
effects that variations in roads, weather, cars, etc. play in the speed
situation. Absolute means just that; it is never legal to exceed it.
For example, Montana's speed limit, when 55/65 is repealed, will have no
numerical limit during the day. It's called "reasonable and prudent", a
part of their basic speed rule. (The MT Highway Patrol chief supports
the repeal, BTW)
If you feel that 56 mph is too fast, please stay in the right lane so the
rest of us can pass.
--
National Motorists Association Join the NMA!
nma@genie.geis.com $29 a year.
http://www.msn.fullfeed.com/nma/ Sign up online.
References: