Should there be speed limits on freeways?

[2952-0-0]

On Germany's Autobahns there are no speed limits and there aren't so many accidents. How about in the US?

[minionofmidas]

Lemme tell you: There would be fewer accidents if there were speed limits everywhere. Anyways it's not as if there weren't any speed limits anywhere on the Autobahn.

[2952-0-0]

Lemme tell you: There would be fewer accidents if there were speed limits everywhere. Anyways it's not as if there weren't any speed limits anywhere on the Autobahn.

Some people drive at something like 200km/h over there. Slso it's illegal to honk unless it is absolutely necessary.

[MasterJedi]

And the autobahn is practically straight. Most of the roads here aren't straight. They're very windy and dangerous, and on those people drive in the middle of the road. No, maybe on some highways it would be okay but overall, no.

[Inverted Things]

Speed limits are a tool for the cops to harass us. Either enforce them vigorously or don't enforce them at all.

[minionofmidas]

And the autobahn is practically straight. Most of the roads here aren't straight.

and where it isn't, there's a speed limit. Which gets disobeyed.

[opebo]

Speed limits are a tool for the cops to harass us. Either enforce them vigorously or don't enforce them at all.

This is true, but in a free country without laws against drugs or prostitution, one would have little to fear in getting pulled over.  Clearly higher speeds are more dangerous.  Also American interstates are fairly poor roads compared to the autoban.

[minionofmidas]

Depends on which one, actually. They vary.

[angus]

On Germany's Autobahns there are no speed limits and there aren't so many accidents. How about in the US?

1.  there are speed limits in sections

2.  unlike here, they are not ignored

3.  I can't remember the last time traffic actually flowed at the posted limit

4.  it's not a federal matter, imho.  it's a state matter.

5.  Yes, of course there "should" be.  And it "should" be determined by physics, which I think trumps both state and federal governments and medical science and religion and pretty much all other laws. 

If your point is that the posted limits are artificially low, and nowhere near the designed and tested maximum safe speed for cars, then it's well taken.  It's like the boy who cried wolf.  You get so used to seeing signs that say 45 on this corner when you know you could do 75 that by the time you actually see one that really means it, it's too late to slow down.  Yes, there should be some truth in advertising here.

[minionofmidas]

2.  unlike here, they are not ignored

they are. Well, not by everybody. But I think that's true in the US as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh? Okay.

[angus]

well, if we want to use the german autobahn as an example, then I think it's a good one.  my impression was always that the signs were less ignored in Germany than in other countries.  and I think it is precisely because they conform to the physics behind the road.  If you design a road for 90 mph traffic, then put up a sign that says 65 mph, people will start to ignore the signs.  If, on the other hand, you design a road for 90 mph traffic, and up up a sign that says 90 mph, then the folks start to have some faith in the signs.  I think that may be the major difference between the german autobahn system and the freeway systems of most other countries, including the USA.  Also, of course, such laws are rarely enforced outside Pennsylvania.

[bullmoose88]

well, if we want to use the german autobahn as an example, then I think it's a good one.  my impression was always that the signs were less ignored in Germany than in other countries.  and I think it is precisely because they conform to the physics behind the road.  If you design a road for 90 mph traffic, then put up a sign that says 65 mph, people will start to ignore the signs.  If, on the other hand, you design a road for 90 mph traffic, and up up a sign that says 90 mph, then the folks start to have some faith in the signs.  I think that may be the major difference between the german autobahn system and the freeway systems of most other countries, including the USA.  Also, of course, such laws are rarely enforced outside Pennsylvania.

You shouldn't drive more than 75 on our roads...

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The problem we have is that in too many places the speed limits are or have been set for reasons other than ability to safely control a vehicle so that people have have gotten into the habit of ignoring them.  Setting speed limits for any other reason on any road is a bad idea, no matter how well intentioned because doing so causes people to ignore speed limits.

[DanielX]

On Germany's Autobahns there are no speed limits and there aren't so many accidents. How about in the US?

Few things:

1. Germany has stricter lisencing requirements and tougher tests then most US states.
2. If I'm not mistaken, there used to be no speed limits in rural Montana.  Is this still the case?
3. Opebo, the reason US Interstates are 'duller' and less fun to drive then the Autobahn is that, unlike many international highways, US highways were designed for long-haul freight - originally for military purposes (the reason all overpasses are about 13' above the highway is because that makes it just tall enough for a missile-bearing truck to get under - and, incidentally, that makes it tall enough for a standard freight truck too). Most heavy trucks don't do as well on twisty roads as small, maneuverable cars do.  Also, the long straightaways in rural areas are also capable of being used in emergencies as take off and landing strips for small aircraft (including fighters).  The Interstate system is very utilitarian - designed primarily to move trucks, and secondarily cars, as efficiently as possible. Also, it's easier to drive less challenging roads - although they can get boring, especially out in the plains where a road will be essentially straight for 100 miles or more.

If you want interesting US roads, you need to get on local streets - especially in the mountains.

[Bono]

Lemme tell you: There would be fewer accidents if there were speed limits everywhere. Anyways it's not as if there weren't any speed limits anywhere on the Autobahn.

Some people drive at something like 200km/h over there. Slso it's illegal to honk unless it is absolutely necessary.

Lots of people drive at 200Kh/h here. That doesn't mean it's legal.

[dazzleman]

I echo the comments of angus and Ernest.

I support speed limits (despite my sometimes spotty driving record) but I think they should be set based on safety requirements, and not made artificially low.

Philosophically, I think it's better to have less restrictive laws that are strictly enforced when they are broken, than more restrictive laws which the majority of people ignore without much of a consequence.  Such a situation breeds disrespect for the law and removes the social stigma from lawbreaking. 

Social stigma, not a limp-wristed punishment from the court system, is the greatest deterrent, and there is absolutely no social stigma to speeding.  All my friends jokingly trade speeding ticket stories on occasion, something most people would never do with more serious offenses.

I find that when I drive down south, where the speed limits are set higher, I actually pay attention when they lower the speed limit, because I figure there must be a reason.  Up here, where they set a 55 mph speed limit on most interstates that were designed for much faster travel, I simply ignore the speed limit and drive 80-90 mph under the right conditions.  Most of the time, I drive about 75 mph, which is still well in excess of the speed limit.

When the vast majority of people are lawbreakers, meaningful penalties are impossible.  Better to have higher speed limits, based on real safety issues, and slam the people who break them hard.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If I'm not mistaken, there used to be no speed limits in rural Montana.  Is this still the case?

No.  They set a 75 mph speed limit IIRC.  It wasn’t even the case that they had no speed limit, rather the limit was R&P (Reasonable and Prudent) which basically meant that they couldn't pull people over for speeding because of the difficulty of gettuing a jury to agree with the cop that the speed was unreasonable, but if excessive speed contributed to you having a crash they could charge you for going too fast.  They went to 75 mph to have something easier to administer.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I echo the comments of angus and Ernest.

I support speed limits (despite my sometimes spotty driving record) but I think they should be set based on safety requirements, and not made artificially low.

Philosophically, I think it's better to have less restrictive laws that are strictly enforced when they are broken, than more restrictive laws which the majority of people ignore without much of a consequence.  Such a situation breeds disrespect for the law and removes the social stigma from lawbreaking. 

Then you'd agree with Lawrence v. Texas because that's exactly what those type of laws were. And this is also a good argument for legalizing prostitution as well. Not that I disagree though, that's one of the reasons why I think prostitution should be legal. As for Lawrence v. Texas though, it was just becuase those laws were so ing stupid.

[TheresNoMoney]

Freeway speed limits should be 75 mph in densely populated areas and 85 or 90 mph in rural areas.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Freeway speed limits should be 75 mph in densely populated areas and 85 or 90 mph in rural areas.

define "densely populated". 75 mph is still way too high around the Twin Cities area. It's 70 mph in all of rural Minnesota and 75 mph in the Dakotas though, which I think is fine.

[Inverted Things]

Freeway speed limits should be 75 mph in densely populated areas and 85 or 90 mph in rural areas.

define "densely populated". 75 mph is still way too high around the Twin Cities area. It's 70 mph in all of rural Minnesota and 75 mph in the Dakotas though, which I think is fine.

I live in the Twin Cities area and consistently drive 80 mph. When I'm in a less densly populated area I do 90-95 mph.

[opebo]

Freeway speed limits should be 75 mph in densely populated areas and 85 or 90 mph in rural areas.

define "densely populated". 75 mph is still way too high around the Twin Cities area. It's 70 mph in all of rural Minnesota and 75 mph in the Dakotas though, which I think is fine.

I live in the Twin Cities area and consistently drive 80 mph. When I'm in a less densly populated area I do 90-95 mph.

Good lord man, what kind of car do you drive?  That seems awfully fast to me.  But if you're in a BMW and Born on the Floor is in a Geo, maybe that explains the disparity.

I actually forget how fast I drive in the US, but it seems like 80 would be a maximum.. average about 60-70.  And thats in a Buick Park Avenue!

[Inverted Things]

Freeway speed limits should be 75 mph in densely populated areas and 85 or 90 mph in rural areas.

define "densely populated". 75 mph is still way too high around the Twin Cities area. It's 70 mph in all of rural Minnesota and 75 mph in the Dakotas though, which I think is fine.

I live in the Twin Cities area and consistently drive 80 mph. When I'm in a less densly populated area I do 90-95 mph.

Good lord man, what kind of car do you drive?  That seems awfully fast to me.  But if you're in a BMW and Born on the Floor is in a Geo, maybe that explains the disparity.

I actually forget how fast I drive in the US, but it seems like 80 would be a maximum.. average about 60-70.  And thats in a Buick Park Avenue!

I drive a Toyota Echo. I should say that I only drive 80 mph on freeways. City roads I generally keep it under 40.

[dazzleman]

I echo the comments of angus and Ernest.

I support speed limits (despite my sometimes spotty driving record) but I think they should be set based on safety requirements, and not made artificially low.

Philosophically, I think it's better to have less restrictive laws that are strictly enforced when they are broken, than more restrictive laws which the majority of people ignore without much of a consequence.  Such a situation breeds disrespect for the law and removes the social stigma from lawbreaking. 

Then you'd agree with Lawrence v. Texas because that's exactly what those type of laws were. And this is also a good argument for legalizing prostitution as well. Not that I disagree though, that's one of the reasons why I think prostitution should be legal. As for Lawrence v. Texas though, it was just becuase those laws were so g stupid.

I never said that I thought "stupid" laws should be remedied through the judicial branch of government.  If the majority favors a stupid law, and it's passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, and it's not unconstitutional, then a court should not take it upon itself to decide the law is stupid and strike it down.

I think some speed limits are set too low, and that that's bad policy, but it is not a constitutional issue, and should not be decided by the judicial branch.

[??????????]

American roads are not designed for traffic to travel more then 70 mph.