How fast is too fast?

Reasonable speed limits are in everyone's best interests. The question is, how do we agree on what speeds are "reasonable"?

By observing traffic flow on any given stretch of road, traffic safety engineers can arrive at a scientifically objective speed limit that corresponds to the rate of travel the majority of drivers naturally gravitate toward. This so-called "85th percentile" speed is based on the altogether sound idea that most drivers are neither reckless nor suicidal

If the majority – indeed, the overwhelming majority – of American motorists are driving faster than the posted limit, the limit is clearly too low. Something is amiss when the majority of drivers on any given road at any given time are technically guilty of "speeding." We're either a nation of maniacs who love to defy death – or we're simply guilty of paying no mind to legal technicalities erected by greedy politicians to help them rob us blind.

With more people opting to drive rather than fly, raising the speed limit may become necessary. Raising the speed limit will then make driving competitive with the shorter commuter flights.

Yesterday, while returning from Texas to SC, I noticed most people were driving 80 mph. The highway patrols were out in force, but were not pulling a lot over.

This so-called "85th percentile" speed is based on the altogether sound idea that most drivers are neither reckless nor suicidal – and usually drive within safe limits.

Since reading about setting the original Interstate speed limits at the 85 percentile several years ago in the WSJ, I began to think the 85 %ile and other super-majorities would very comforting alternatives to simple majorities for many of the activities of government. For example, how about an 85% majority to increase taxes? Or to pass major new legislation. Hillary Care would never have stood a chance (not that it passed anyway, but there were some tense moments) of getting a super majority.

Super majorities would provide additional checks on power. Currently, special interest lobbyists, needing only a simple majority need only to lobby for a few votes to add to those honestly in favor and those corruptly bought, to pass bills not favored by the citizenry. Just this week, the citizens of Tennessee fought heroically to thwart yet another push for a state income tax opposed by the citizens but favored by those with power and those who expected to benefit.

Simple majority democracy favors minorities seeking benefits over majorities who will pay for them. Benefit recipients, both direct and indirect, stand to gain proportionally more than those who must pay stand to lose. Ergo, they expend more effort attempting to enact and expand the benefit. The pressure is to grow government.

Super majorities in the legislatures would ensure that significant change has broad support. Simple majorities can, and often do, produce divisive laws that increase the level of hostility in society and serve to divide, rather than unite. Here in Connecticut, we "enjoy" a state income tax that passed by a single vote. It divided the state. Its main proponent, Lowell Weiker, Jr. refused to face an enraged electorate and high-tailed it out of the state when his term was up.

Super majority rule would have saved our country from the uselessness and corruption of the Departments of Energy and Education. For those who think this would mean the end of government actions, I point to President Bush who proposed the Department of Homeland Security in the wake of September 11. Does anyone think a super majority will not be found for this?

Moreover, people who still insist upon driving 55 or 60-mph in the far left lane

Ahh yes, the Minnesota Flying Wedge! Who else has had the pleasure of tailing the bozo for 15 miles on an Interstate because he just knows he can pass that other car when they both have their cruise control set at five miles below the posted speed limit?

Around Minneapolis and St. Paul (Heck, most of Minnesota and parts of Iowa), I found that it is quicker and less congested in the far-right lane.

Hmmm, that was about the time I found out I really was a Republican.

Cool! Didn't know I had QOTD! Next time flag me will ya?

Far as speed limits go, I have two thoughts on them.

First, we need them as a matter of public safety. Along with MAXIMUM speed limits, we should have MINIMUM speed limits and they should be strictly enforced too! Anyone driving 40 on the highway should be ticketed and REMOVED from the road, period.

Second, Our speed limits are TOO LOW. Our roads were built to handle 70+ and cars today are MUCH SAFER than they were in the 60's and 70's where the school of thought was "bigger, heavier, more rigid" bodies that didn't absorb impacts. We could easily have speed limits of 75+ on highways outside of metropolitan areas. Just my opinion though.

The problem with American drivers is they think of driving as a right and not a privilege that bears responsibilities. Here, anybody with a beat up Chevette or some land barge from the '60s thinks that they can drive anywhere at any speed, whether it be too fast or too slow. Ideally, a drivers license should be something that is awarded to those who have proven that they are capable drivers (and not just with a short test and a trip around the block)and they have a car that is safe. Allowing unsafe drivers in unsafe cars on the roads can get a lot of people killed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.