[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For example, Montana's speed limit, when 55/65 is repealed, will have no 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: