Wouldn’t Chadby’s assertion that “that vehicles are much safer now than they used to be.” account for this?
Anyway, the 55 MPH speed limit wasn’t abut safety, was it?
It is one possible cause for the effect, but not the only one. I just don’t think such a cause/effect relationship has ever been established. Another possible cause is improved emergency care, consumers purchasing vehicles that are less about performance and more about economy, etc… There are many possible reasons for the reduction in traffic deaths.
But, using the specific example cited above, it is hard to argue that our traffic laws have any other purpose then to raise revenue for the gubmint.
1 Like
Crumple zones, collapsing steering columns, padded interiors, side door beams, ABS brakes, stronger rollover roof protection, airbags, red center stoplight, anti-sway technology, higher seat belt usage, child seats, all probably major contributors that cumulatively cause the downward trend especially as older cars without these features are leaving the highway over time. Also, barrier design has made great improvements in preventing cars from flipping and being thrown out in traffic and slowing down dissipating energy better as well as preventing being blinded by opposite direction lights at night… Rumble strips for lanes also help.
I think there are a lot of things that are attributable to the lower fatality rate. I seriously doubt drivers are better since there are now more things to occupy a drivers attention other than driving.
2 Likes
Yes these are all of the engineering changes I had in mind when I made my statement. These changes exist because of mandated crash protection standards.
“There are many possible reasons for the reduction in traffic deaths.” I can agree with this. There are often multiple causes. But the vehicles are demonstrably safer. I’ve seen videos of testing where modern and vintage cars are put through crash tests. There’s a night and day difference.
My understanding is the 55 mph limit was about fuel conservation not safety.
I’d say the left lane passing laws are more about aggravated people with clout getting fed up with people poking along in the left lane and deciding to do something about it. Not all laws are consistent or come from the same source. Especially state laws.
That’s correct it was also a Federal mandate to lower the speed to 55mph or states could lose Federal funding. As I recall only one state said “Keep your money.” I believe it was Montana and they did it for “safety reasons”. They claimed driving 300-400 miles at 55 vs 70 or 75 added sufficient driving time that driver fatigue was an issue since it could add several hours of driving time in state their size.
I was raised in California and the freeways were designed for 70 mph (banked and larger radius curves). I also got a ticket the third day the law went into effect. (Of course I was going ABOVE the old speed limit which may have been a factor in what I thought of at the time as unjust selective enforcement).
California from way back into the 60’s had what was called the “Impeding Traffic” law. Even if you were going the speed limit in the fast lane, if traffic was forced to go around you it was found that a lot of accidents were happening because of this due to the choke point. Get over into a lane that was going your speed and let traffic flow. The true speeders could be picked off. “Bouncing Betty’s” that were just weaving in and out of lanes aggressively to go faster were real targets of the Highway Patrol as these folks could cause folks to serve and brake to avoid them causing numerous accidents.
Safety was one of the reasons cited for the law, as it usually is with gubmint regs. But, the 55 law raised the rate of non-compliance to between 65% and 90% across the country.
The last law passed with that kind of non-compliance was prohibition. There is an old saw in the military that you don’t give an order you know is going to be disobeyed because it damages discipline.
I come back to passing lane laws. They are the perfect example of a law that only serves to raise revenue.
I disagree.
This is one of the few laws which I think exist to ACTUALLY do what roads auspiciously do: allow the movement of good and personnel overland.
Although I’m too lazy to research this, I’d conjecture that “slow traffic keep right”, especially in practice if not law, predates most speed limits and other traffic laws. When farmers move implements, they certainly need to go slower than farmers moving produce. Simple rules like this just make sense, especially once the cucarachas started tearing up the roadways at previously undreamed-of paces.
It’s an added bonus that the revenooers get to collect, too.
Win-win from the gubmint perspective…
I thought that while Montana did not post 55 they still managed to keep federal highway funds by writing a law that driving over 55 was illegal, subject to being ticketed for environmental impact. From what I heard it was a $5 fine, not reportable to insurance, no points, etc.
I think photomancer’s response answers this. Yes you shouldn’t speed but the phrasing of the law indicates to me at least that they were trying to prevent obstructions. Hard to guess what the intent of the person writing the law was though so I guess we’re all free to have our own opinions.
How about the concept of speed enforcement is the right of the state, not the people? Or that from a practical matter, if you have people form a speed blockade at 55, it can back up traffic so bad that the blockade would never know that emergency vehicles caught up with the back, and need to get through.
That is the "G rated theme!
2 Likes
So you are obligated to let people break the law so that more tickets are possible. Without a revenue incentive such laws would never be enforced. For instance there have been several speed traps on I35 over the years. The state stopped one of them, but only because the city stopped sending the state its required cut of the fines collected.
There have been several cases of citizens being arrested for holding signs like the one above. Why, getting people to slow down is safer right? Guess not if it keeps the state from collecting money.
2 Likes
And the police forces are regularly set straight on that by the courts. Don’t mistake what police do with what the ‘state’ is doing.
An unfortunate feature of the way we run law enforcement here (mostly the culture, and partially due to funding structure) sees police do things that are definitely not legal uses (and sometimes pretty obviously not appropriate uses) of their power to protect their personal interests.
It doesn’t matter if the cop is breaking the law if you spend a night or weekend in jail.
I think you are conflating a number of issues into a single beef.
What beef? Haven’t had a ticket in 20 + years. But the fact is that revenue generation drives nearly all traffic regulations and most other government law making.
One that is particularly illustrative is asset forfeiture. Has been legal for years, but was rare until law modified to allow local police to keep a percentage of assets. That little change saw over 1000% increase in application of the law in less then a decade.
1 Like
Any car is unsafe if driven by an idiot
Yup.
As an aside, abuse of post flagging is getting on my nerves. When do we get an “unflag” button to over-vote the easily offended?
The original poster can edit the flagged post. That resets the flags.
Only option is for site admins to increase flag threshold to something like 5 or more