Are speed limits an infringement of our rights?

[lovemachine]

I never follow the speed limit anyway. So...nope

 

[MinuteMan47]

Well, let me explain this to you. To change lanes SAFELY AND LEGALLY, it is incumbent upon YOU to make sure there is an opening! It isn't that difficult a concept!

Thanks for explaining. Sometimes when people are SPEEDING it's hard to see them coming.

SAFELY and LEGALLY? Isn't it ILLEGAL to speed? I fail to see your point.

 

[Hkindiana]

SAFELY and LEGALLY? Isn't it ILLEGAL to speed? I fail to see your point.

Isn't it illegal to carry a firearm without a permit? Yet many/most people on this site agree that it IS an infringement on our right to require a permit.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Some speed limits address the skill of lowest denominator, not the highest. There are plenty of roads where I, and most others, would be comfortable doing 80mph but conversely, I certainly don't want the new 16 year old driver or the grandma in the Lincoln keeping that pace.

 

[MinuteMan47]

Isn't it illegal to carry a firearm without a permit? Yet many/most people on this site agree that it IS an infringement on our right to require a permit.

What does that have to do with anything?


He is saying it is ok to speed....which is currently illegal....but, it's not ok to make a lane change without making sure there is an "opening" first?

Even though if they are speeding, it may be hard to tell how big or small the opening is because it's hard to factor in the other cars speed.

 

[Suprtek]

My two statements were completely unrelated. The first was in response to the comment that "if it ain't in the Constituion...."

The second was based on my personal opinion and had two meanings. First, I feel driving is a mode of transportation and we are free to move about this country as we see fit. Restrictions on such movement are no more valid than restrictions on any other freedom we have that government has usurped for revenue generation/control. Second, if the state's power to regulate is a de facto indicator of an action's status as a privilege rather than a right, then carrying your firearm becomes a privilege.

You can't have it both ways. That's just how I see it.

I must admit, you make some interesting points. I would submit that one major factor that must be considered when comparing 2A rights to driving is the fact that 2A rights do not require the existence of an infrastructure that is paid for by tax dollars and therefore must be subject to the conditions under which those taxes were created. In other words, if you literally own the road and the property it is on, you make the rules. If the infrastructure is owned by everyone, then everyone gets input regarding the rules. Government, while imperfect, is still our best vehicle to allow that public input.

 

[Dragon]

Some speed limits address the skill of lowest denominator, not the highest. There are plenty of roads where I, and most others, would be comfortable doing 80mph but conversely, I certainly don't want the new 16 year old driver of the grandma in the Lincoln keeping that pace.

This is exactly what I am trying to say. We're not all cut from the same cloth, and we're not all equal in ability, therefore you have to base things on the least capable. I guess this too could be viewed as infringment of rights.. lmfao!!

Hey I wanna have 10 beers in an hour and then drive, is that cool with you guys?

 

[Kutnupe14]

I must admit, you make some interesting points. I would submit that one major factor that must be considered when comparing 2A rights to driving is the fact that 2A rights do not require the existence of an infrastructure that is paid for by tax dollars and therefore must be subject to the conditions under which those taxes were created. In other words, if you literally own the road and the property it is on, you make the rules. If the infrastructure is owned by everyone, then everyone gets input regarding the rules. Government, while imperfect, is still our best vehicle to allow that public input.

This!

 

[joslar15]

Thanks for explaining. Sometimes when people are SPEEDING it's hard to see them coming.

SAFELY and LEGALLY? Isn't it ILLEGAL to speed? I fail to see your point.

So, since someone is speeding, in your eyes, the so-called "victim" is no longer responsible for causing the accident by an unsafe lane change.

I'm done wasting my time with you on this.

Have a nice day.

 

[MinuteMan47]

I'm done wasting my time with you on this.

Have a nice day.

Thanks.

 

[MinuteMan47]

So, since someone is speeding, in your eyes, the so-called "victim" is no longer responsible for causing the accident by an unsafe lane change.

No. My point is that no one should be the victim. You started this conversation by saying that if you can't speed it infringes your right to pursue happiness. Well, you aren't the only car on the road, other people may not want to speed and by you doing so they are at risk when sharing the road with you, and you have violated their right to pursue happiness as well.

 

[88GT]

How many people are capable of driving competantly at high speeds? How many people are capable of having the reaction time to push a pedal while paying attention to their surroundings?

I just googled and found multiple sources that state there are around 30,000-35,000 fatal car accidents per year. Of those about 17% are pedestrians, do they have no rights when people are driving out of control?

The day and hours that people are most likely to speed are Saturday and Sunday between midnight and 4 A.M. according to one study, and the likelihood of a fatal car crash is almost triple of that during morning rush hour to work. That's interesting.

There are already laws in place that we must abide by, so I'd say we already know who the arbiter is.

Also I'd like to add, I'm not wikipedia'ing information, I'm pulling it straight from the NHTSA - National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. www.nhtsa.gov

Oh, crikey. You people and you're "because it's always been done this way" logic. For just one second can you pull your head out of the government's statism and recognize that legitimacy of authority isn't based on prior claims to and action on that authority? So just because the government has exercised a power in the past doesn't mean it exercised it justifiably then, and it certainly doesn't mean it's exercising it justifiably now.

If I drive over a posted speed limit, am I infringing on anybody's rights? Do I specifically cause an accident by driving over the posted speed limit? Speed isn't the problem. Speed too great for current road conditions, speed too great for weather conditions, speed too great for traffic congestion, speed too great for the individual's driving skills. Not just speed. Speed is only a contributing factor when someone ****s up in another area. A point which needs to be made with this disclaimer: such ****-ups are capable of wreaking havoc regardless of speed. So tell me again, how speed is the problem?

Or this simple test: what's the death rate per mile driven of professional racing? If speed were the factor, it should be far greater than the national average?

I must admit, you make some interesting points. I would submit that one major factor that must be considered when comparing 2A rights to driving is the fact that 2A rights do not require the existence of an infrastructure that is paid for by tax dollars and therefore must be subject to the conditions under which those taxes were created. In other words, if you literally own the road and the property it is on, you make the rules. If the infrastructure is owned by everyone, then everyone gets input regarding the rules. Government, while imperfect, is still our best vehicle to allow that public input.

Nothing I disagree with there. I have zero problems with traffic regulations that standardize driving expectations to diminish the risk of collision. In that regard, I don't even mind speed limits. Though I suppose speed suggestions would be better. But I do have a problem with having to register my vehicle for a fee and ask the state for permission to drive on roads for a fee. In that regard, I'd much prefer toll roads. Pay based on usage. I feel for those old bluehairs that subsidize my driving. I probably out-drive them 20-1 in terms of miles and we still have to pay the same for our "privilege" of using the road (auto excise tax differences notwithstanding).

Of course, I'm am taking it to the extreme for illustrative purposes. I recognize the ridiculous aspect to my argument. But I do not justify the regulatory role of standardizing traffic patterns as evidence that driving is a privilege. Two different issues, albeit related.

No. My point is that no one should be the victim. You started this conversation by saying that if you can't speed it infringes your right to pursue happiness. Well, you aren't the only car on the road, other people may not want to speed and by you doing so they are at risk when sharing the road with you, and you have violated their right to pursue happiness as well.

Good God, someone needs to let Germany know they're just seconds away from mass chaos and death.

 

[Love the 1911]

Speed limits are generally too low. In my subdivision they are all 20 mph when 30 or 35 would be just fine. The cops like to hang around and pick folks off. Usually I keep to about 25, and get passed often. On the interstate, if you have a decent car and know how to drive, 90 is fine in a lot of open areas. I figure I'm probably as good a driver as the average German, and their interstates (auto bahn) has no limits. I think the bureaucrrats setting limits imagine an 85 year old lady driving a model A.

This is very true about the speed limits being set low. I don't stop someone until they are 15+ over the limit for this reason. Neighborhoods are 20 mph limit, I give them 36 before I stop someone. While 20 is too slow, 38 (IMO) is way too fast in an area where there are parked cars and kids that could jump out from between them at any time. If we set the speed limit at 35 and I stopped someone for 38, people would think I was extremely petty.

In my town, it's $150 for any speeding violation. Thankfully, my dept has no issue with the number of warnings that I issue as I would have trouble sleeping if I wrote tickets to even half the vehicles I stopped. $150 would mess with my budget and I'm sure I'm not alone there.

 

[Dragon]

88GT, thank you for saying the same thing I stated, twice I believe that Speed in fact is NOT the cause of accidents, it's normally some form of negligence on the part of the driver. But yes, thanks for stating it differently using the english words I comprehend on a daily basis.

What is with people feeling like their personal beliefs are the only ones that are right? What's with people who think that what they hold to be true is in fact the only truth? Why is it that you can't even have a conversatio or discussion anymore without someone telling you that you can't believe the government, or that they're feeding us lies, bs, BLAH BLAH BLAH.. The statism I found, government or not is THE ONLY true factual evidence that I can base my own opinion on, and rather than attempt persuading me to pull my head out of something, you should instead choose to educate yourself further first? No? Yes? Maybe?

A professional driver is what the namesake says, Professional. Meaning they have spent countless hours behind the wheel with the best training and equipment made honing skills, reaction time, and muscle memory involved with their profession. Matter of factly, the deaths per mile or million miles would be much lower than John Q Public. But hey, you don't want to hear stats, you said it yourself that government statism isn't necessary nor believeable right?

I'm going to end my part of this "discussion" in stating that, unless you have the training, you shouldn't be speeding. Bend it, twist it, say it any way you'd like, but the fact remains that unless you're on the Bonneville Salt Flats alone, you put the lives of other people at risk due to your negligence behind the wheel.

 

[jbombelli]

88GT, thank you for saying the same thing I stated, twice I believe that Speed in fact is NOT the cause of accidents, it's normally some form of negligence on the part of the driver. But yes, thanks for stating it differently using the english words I comprehend on a daily basis.

What is with people feeling like their personal beliefs are the only ones that are right? What's with people who think that what they hold to be true is in fact the only truth? Why is it that you can't even have a conversatio or discussion anymore without someone telling you that you can't believe the government, or that they're feeding us lies, bs, BLAH BLAH BLAH.. The statism I found, government or not is THE ONLY true factual evidence that I can base my own opinion on, and rather than attempt persuading me to pull my head out of something, you should instead choose to educate yourself further first? No? Yes? Maybe?

A professional driver is what the namesake says, Professional. Meaning they have spent countless hours behind the wheel with the best training and equipment made honing skills, reaction time, and muscle memory involved with their profession. Matter of factly, the deaths per mile or million miles would be much lower than John Q Public. But hey, you don't want to hear stats, you said it yourself that government statism isn't necessary nor believeable right?

I'm going to end my part of this "discussion" in stating that, unless you have the training, you shouldn't be speeding. Bend it, twist it, say it any way you'd like, but the fact remains that unless you're on the Bonneville Salt Flats alone, you put the lives of other people at risk due to your negligence behind the wheel.

No more so than the guy doing 50 in a 70.

 

[Bunnykid68]

My two statements were completely unrelated. The first was in response to the comment that "if it ain't in the Constituion...."

The second was based on my personal opinion and had two meanings. First, I feel driving is a mode of transportation and we are free to move about this country as we see fit. Restrictions on such movement are no more valid than restrictions on any other freedom we have that government has usurped for revenue generation/control. Second, if the state's power to regulate is a de facto indicator of an action's status as a privilege rather than a right, then carrying your firearm becomes a privilege.

You can't have it both ways. That's just how I see it.

This ^^^^ Everyone needs to remember at one point in time, one did not need a license to drive, need to register and plate their vehicle and all of that was added later after roads were already being created and driven on.

 

[88GT]

88GT, thank you for saying the same thing I stated, twice I believe that Speed in fact is NOT the cause of accidents, it's normally some form of negligence on the part of the driver. But yes, thanks for stating it differently using the english words I comprehend on a daily basis.

You're welcome. I aim to please.

What is with people feeling like their personal beliefs are the only ones that are right? What's with people who think that what they hold to be true is in fact the only truth? Why is it that you can't even have a conversatio or discussion anymore without someone telling you that you can't believe the government, or that they're feeding us lies, bs, BLAH BLAH BLAH.. The statism I found, government or not is THE ONLY true factual evidence that I can base my own opinion on, and rather than attempt persuading me to pull my head out of something, you should instead choose to educate yourself further first? No? Yes? Maybe?

Educate myself on what? I'm not debating the statistics. I'm calling into question the validity of government's regulation because they regulate. Usurping a power doesn't legitimize one's claim to it.

A professional driver is what the namesake says, Professional. Meaning they have spent countless hours behind the wheel with the best training and equipment made honing skills, reaction time, and muscle memory involved with their profession. Matter of factly, the deaths per mile or million miles would be much lower than John Q Public. But hey, you don't want to hear stats, you said it yourself that government statism isn't necessary nor believeable right?

It's a simple comparison: if speed is the factor, then those who drive at greater speeds for longer distances will have statistically higher rates of collisions involving injury and death (extra safety features of the vehicles notwithstanding, of course). Speed is a mitigating circumstance in almost all collisions, but causal in only a few, I would imagine. Ergo, simply driving faster doesn't directly increase the chances of collision in and of itself. I'm no more likely to crash traveling down the road at 55 than I am at 65, 75, or 105. Introduce a second factor and things might change, but speed is rarely the direct cause of an accident.

I'm going to end my part of this "discussion" in stating that, unless you have the training, you shouldn't be speeding. Bend it, twist it, say it any way you'd like, but the fact remains that unless you're on the Bonneville Salt Flats alone, you put the lives of other people at risk due to your negligence behind the wheel.

Oh, so now it's negligence and not speed. If I were properly trained and speeding, it wouldn't be a problem. So it's not the speeding that's a problem. Was that so hard?

 

[superjoe76]

That said, it isn't speed that kills. It's differences in speed. Thus, there should also be a minimum speed requirement of no less than 10 mph below the posted limit, which on the highways should be higher.

On our way to Florida a couple weeks ago, a few states posted the Max and Min speeds allowed. I thought that should be a great idea for here!

 

[kevman65]

On our way to Florida a couple weeks ago, a few states posted the Max and Min speeds allowed. I thought that should be a great idea for here!

Most states have a minimum speed on interstate/highway surfaces. Unfortunately the difference between the maximum and the minimum speeds is great enough that if two vehicles traveling at the opposite extreme of those limits meet, it can be very fatal. I would love to see a -15 law implemented, gives enough time to see there is enough difference in speed and react accordingly. The -25 law most states use does not give enough time for most people with their experience in driving.

Germany is imposing a speed limit on the Auto Bahn, even they recognize the fact drivers lack the skill in these times to function at high speeds.

Now onto another thing stated in this thread, you have the Right to drive how you see fit on your property. You are given the Privilege to drive on public streets in the manner proscribed by your state and local laws. This Privilege can be revoked by the state or local justice system at any time they prove you are not following the laws.

 

[Miller Tyme]

Why do we accept the notion that driving is a privilege? Speed limits inhibit my right to the pursuit of happiness.

The same arguement could be made about shooting my a s s h o l e boss but that still doesn't make it a constitutional right........