Speed Limits are Total Statist Bullshit

in #speedlimits8 years ago

Speed Limits are Complete Nonsense; Based on Lies, Bad Data, and are Unenforceable.

The reasoning for the implementation of speed limits, is completely erroneous and false. The average speed limits on roads today were implemented in the 1960's long before the invention of ABS brakes. The stopping distance of cars in the modern day has so vastly improved it is a complete joke to have the government, not only in America but in many countries still citing ridiculous data for stopping distances. If you try driving the 55 mph speed limit on any highway or interstate you can be rest assured to be passed by everyone on the road, as everyone basically treats the speed limit as the "slowest" you should drive on a road. I mean seriously try driving under the 25 mph speed limit on some back roads and see how slow it really is. Almost no one adheres to the speed limit, except for a very small number of people. So how can the Police hand out tickets to people when basically everyone on the road is breaking the law? Isn't that the very definition of selected enforcement? What about the Police themselves who constantly drive around like maniacs, way above the speed limit, tailgating the crap out of people with their lights not on and in no rush? Shouldn't the Police all be sitting under the speed limit by definition of the law if they are going to be driving around not in an emergency situation? Just let me know if you EVER see a Cop with his lights off driving under the speed limit, I have never seen it in my life. So the whole notion they can drive around like maniacs while handing out tickets for "speeding" when they do the same thing is nonsense. Should reckless driving be punished, yes, however not all speeding is "reckless", in fact often times speeding is just keeping up with the flow of traffic and therefore less "reckless" than driving under the speed limit. Just because the Government says you have to do something doesn't mean they are right.

Stopping Distances...

One of my favorite shows that got canceled for being too Politically Correct lulz, was Top Gear UK and they did as always a fantastic segment on stopping distances. They were referencing UK distances, but as almost every US highway speed limit is based on 1960's data, this is applicable to the US also. I really have nothing else to add on to what they said so here is the clip from YouTube and this 100% makes my point, so I will let them say it and do more of my own Statism bashing in the following paragraphs:

As you can clearly see from the above short clip, that highway code stopping distances are complete rubbish.

Accidents and Deaths Caused by Excessive Speeding

Okay, so as we have already established, roughly about 99% of the drivers on the road, including 100% of the Police drive at speeds above the speed limit. So technically the incidents should represent this, we should see that speeding was involved in 99% of all traffic accidents. However it isn't. In fact according to the Insurance Institute for Highways Safety speeding is only a contributing factor in traffic accidents about 30% of the time from 2005-2014, and over those years has dropped on an annual basis. So as Cars become better at braking and at acceleration and top speed, speeding as a contributing factor in accidents drops. You would think, with every passing year as cars become quicker, that speeding would cause more accidents. But look at the data, it is the opposite. Also as 99% of everyone is speeding all the time, only 28% of the accidents in 2014 even had speeding as a contributing factor, not the "cause" mind you, just a contributing factor. This tells me that speeding is not a problem. Not only that, as time progresses it is improvements in technology that cut down on speeding related incidents and it has nothing to do with speed limits. Despite the FACT there are significantly more drivers in 2014 than in 2005, we can clearly see speeding was a related cause in significantly less incidents in 2014.

IIHS Graph (Source)

So the above graph shows us that now that speeding related incidents have dropped to such a low percentage of the crashes, maybe it's time to open up the speed limits and let people drive as fast as they want within reason. Obviously a Truck towing a trailer should not be driving so fast they can't handle maneuvers. Some form of common sense would still have to be employed. However to limit people with extremely expensive cars, built to handle speeds that far exceed 65 mph, to the same speed limit as a 18 wheel Tractor Trailer, is the definition of insanity. Why should someone with a say Alfa Romeo 4cS on a Sunny day be limited to the same speed as a dude in a Toyota Prius? The Alfa driver pays far more money in excise taxes, far more money in gas taxes which pays for the roads, so why shouldn't the Alfa driver be allowed to drive faster on the roads he pays far more for than some Prius driver who bought a car with no gas pedal and barely pays any excise or gas taxes by comparison?

Let's Take look at Germany's Autobahns for a Comparison

So let's say we just abolished speed limits on Highways. If we did that we can take a look at the data from Germany, to see how speed limits either affect or do not affect traffic accidents. Naturally anyone can argue as you increase the speed, the likelihood for death is increased if an accident occurs. However how much more likely are you to get into an accident because you are on a road with no limit versus a road with a limit? Well according to this Guardian Article and the ETSC:

But do speed limits affect the number of deaths on motorways? A 2008 report by the European Transport Safety Council (ETSC) found that of the 645 road deaths in Germany in 2006, 67% occurred on on motorway sections without limits and 33% on stretches with a permanent limit. The fact that 33% of German motorways have a permanent limit and 67% have either a temporary limit or none means that these figures, at first glance, show that having a speed limit does not the lower the number of fatalities on motorways.

(Guardian Quote Source)

Though the Guardian Article attempts to debunk these initial statistics, it does a very poor job of it from my opinion. From my perspective looking at the data they have collected, speeding incidents drop per year regardless of posted speed limits which are universally ignored. The "voluntary compliance" they rely on to enforce speed limits is universally ignored and not adhered to, yet they continue to post speed limits as if anyone is going to actually drive under them. So by looking at Germany and the statistics from Europe as well as America, I conclude that speed limits are useless, especially on highways and interstates. Reckless driving should be punished but to punish people based on some arbitrary speed limit number is complete nonsense. It is just a waste of the tax payer's money, it is targeted against people with nicer vehicles who are the actual taxpayers already, and it doesn't save any lives according to the data.

My Solution = Global Non Compliance and Grass Roots State Level Petitions in America

In America the Speed Limits are basically set at the state level. The Feds have a "National Highway Limit" of 65 mph, but many states don't adhere to it since 1994. My state does unfortunately but Massachusetts is one of most most liberal regressive statist run states in the entire USA. It would take a massive effort to fight the State Government and the Police Unions to get rid of the speed limits in my state, but if MA can do it, any State can. So I will be looking into starting a State Petition to end speed limits, stay tuned to my blog for that. I would love to be able drive whatever speed I want without having to worry about the occupying army called the Police pulling me over to demand my "papers" as if this was Nazi Germany. The Police in my opinion by setting up speed traps and driving around with license plate scanners are violating the Fourth Amendment, but hey since when did the Law actually matter to Police?

The obvious solution to this is everyone should just ignore the speed limits and drive whatever speed they feel comfortable at. If we all stopped complying completely they would have no choice but to change the laws or change the limits. Anarchistic defiance is the solution to this ludicrous enforcement of speeding. If enough of us gather together and start petitions and just stop complying, they won't be able to give us all tickets, they won't be able to keep this bullshit going.

Image Credit:

  1. "It's the Law"
  2. "IIHS Graph" My own Screenshot from: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/overview-of-fatality-facts
  3. "Papers I Win"
  4. "I Write Tickets to Save Lives"
  5. My Selfie during the Million Mask March 2015

Thanks for reading my blog post! Don't forget to vote and follow me @TitusFrost for more hard hitting posts!

You can also connect with me on:

Sort:  

The best way to reduce accidents is to train better drivers i.e. advanced driver training for all. Simple.

Forced advanced driver training?

yes but the Gov't should decrease in size by at least 75% and pay for it. If saving lives is the true goal then we should be focused on education rather than penalization.

Government does not pay for things, the taxpayers do and they are not nicely asked to pay taxes. I guess you know that. Since you're for decreasing the government.

I think you're gonna have a hard time decreasing Big Mafia and keeping it small, try to make it interested in saving lives. Well maybe you can convince them with the argument of saving tax-cows lives.
I'm not gonna talk you out of trying to decrease your government, thought.

Yes, the taxpayer pays everything, that's a given.

It's nigh on impossible to decrease the size of Gov't while this many humans are living. That is one reason why investing in driver training (which saves lives) is unlikely to happen - they don't want more people to live, they want to kill us - they want far less people as we are then so much easier to manage.

I was merely stating what a better model would look like - but I think that you know that already?

The speed limit is based on LEGALITY (not lawful) between two parties that have agreed to a contract. The contract that we agreed to was the BIRTH CERTIFICATE which makes us a ward of the State. The U.S. corporation enslaved us all by FRAUD. I explain this a little bit when I called the Josh Tolley show:

Yeah that is part of the problem for sure. However if I do not recognize myself as the corporate entity that they claim is on the birth certificate, their maritime law does not apply to me.

100% agree with you. What sucks though is that you may be totally within the law but the low IQ police don't know any better and just follow protocol. Check out what happend to Private Attorney General Anthony Williams when he was pulled over due to driving unregistered automobile:

Crazy stuff, yeah you are right. However, just wait till the Police are replaced with trans humanist police and robots. Things will get worse, Music Video I made:

WOW! I'm happy I clicked on that -- that was some good editing and compilation. I can definitely see cyborg police like you depicted towards the end. Also, you have some other good videos on your channel so I have subscribed. Please keep doing what you're doing.

Dude, I was on my twitter just now and your article just popped up in my feed, retweeted by "clu." Never ran into you before and now you're everywhere haha. Followed you. My twitter handle is @SaltMashPotatoe.

Lol, cool man, gonna give you a follow.

I'm upvoting this because it's an interesting topic, but I think some of your conclusions resulted from errors. You said:

Okay, so as we have already established, roughly about 99% of the drivers on the road, including 100% of the Police drive at speeds above the speed limit.

You never established that, as far as I could tell. I agree that a lot of people speed, but I think most keep it within ten miles of the limit--so the law does curb speeds--and police tend to focus on those going a good bit faster. And no, I don't like speed traps either, where police zing you for a mile over when you couldn't even see the speed-limit sign. It's time to restructure how small towns earn revenue.

You dismissed speeding as a contributory factor in accidents, as if it isn't important unless it's the sole causative factor. Speed added to other factors--drinking, bad weather--not only can increase the likelihood of a wreck, but also the severity of the outcome. A wrong-way driver going slowly down a tiny pedestrian street isn't likely to result in funerals. You have a wrong-way driver on the interstate, you'll probably need body bags.

You said that modern brakes should allow for faster speeds, but how fast a car can brake is only one factor in avoiding a wreck. People's reaction times must also be a factor, except in driverless cars, and with people distracted by phones and other things, I can't imagine reactions are faster. In addition, what good does it do to stop so quickly you can avoid the car in front of you, only to be hit by a car behind you with slower brakes or a driver reacting more slowly?

Brakes may have improved, but roads are deteriorating, which can greatly impact whether you can avoid a wreck.

You said:

The Alfa driver pays far more money in excise taxes, far more money in gas taxes which pays for the roads, so why shouldn't the Alfa driver be allowed to drive faster on the roads he pays far more for than some Prius driver who bought a car with no gas pedal and barely pays any excise or gas taxes by comparison?

Well, how elitist. It sounds like you'd enjoy a dual-road system. While we're changing things, why don't we have an economic system that more fairly rewards people for work, so a CEO doesn't make a million times the salary of a laborer ruining his back, so that laborer can afford a car with decent tires and brakes? Why don't we make it so that anybody working full-time can support a family without government assistance? Why shouldn't we reward the driver who is improving the environment for all of us by his choice of vehicle and charge the real cost of gasoline by eliminating subsidies and tax breaks and charging for environmental degradation?

Finally, safety is not the only factor in setting speed limits. Speed limits had been trending upward in the U.S. until the gasoline shortage of the early 1970s, if memory serves. Speeds were dropped to save gas, and it worked not just to cut gas consumption but also to reduce highway deaths.

Thanks for the response and the up-vote. I think you brought up some good counter points so I will address them.

  1. How I established that 99% of everyone speeds, based on my personal experience. Even you admitted in your rebuttal:

I agree that a lot of people speed, but I think most keep it within ten miles of the limit

Keeping it "ten miles of the limit" is still speeding. So all of those people keeping it within "ten miles of the limit" just goes to further validate my point that the speed limit is the minimum people drive. I would say from my experience that out of every 100 drivers, 99 of them drive above the limit regularly.

On your second point, about the likelihood for death to be increased if the speed is increased, I said this in my article:

Naturally anyone can argue as you increase the speed, the likelihood for death is increased if an accident occurs.

Your next point on my "elitism":

Well, how elitist. It sounds like you'd enjoy a dual-road system. While we're changing things, why don't we have an economic system that more fairly rewards people for work, so a CEO doesn't make a million times the salary of a laborer ruining his back, so that laborer can afford a car with decent tires and brakes?

I never advocated for a dual road system, in fact it is the opposite of what I am advocating for. I advocate for a single road system that we are all able to use equally based on our driving skill, our car's technical ability, and the situation. Not some arbitrary number meant to keep everyone "equal". Guess what the world isn't equal, the world isn't fair. Doesn't mean you can legislate an equal world, will never happen. Don't know what CEO salaries have to do with my argument, that seems like bait and switch a logical fallacy. Then to add the climate change pseudoscience at the end really hurts your argument.

Global Warming is a scam to charge people carbon taxes, Carbon has been at much higher levels in the atmosphere than it is currently. Driving a "Prius" actually does nothing to help save the planet, in fact driving hybrids is causing the roads to deteriorate because people are getting more miles without paying the same amount in gas taxes which is what pays for the roads. In fact the states actually blame increased gas efficiency for the crap road situation, and the reason they need to bring forth carbon taxes to get that revenue they are now missing out on. So all these hybrid cars are literally making the roads worse for the rest of us, while we get to pay ever increasing gasoline taxes to make up for their lack of contribution. They do nothing to help save the planet, the only thing they are saving is money on gas for people and making the roads slower and worse.

Okay fine, so fuel consumption. So we should all be limited to the speed we can drive because of fuel consumption and some 1970's shortage I wasn't even alive for? Lolz, that is funny. Seriously, 1) there is plenty of oil & gas to go around, 2) we no longer have the shortage of the 1970's, so that whole argument has been bunk for awhile now.

Thanks again for the comment, I know we disagree but I do like the fact we can have a debate on this without flagging each other and resorting to ad hominems. Peace!

We definitely disagree on whether climate change is happening. And on whether one should be quoting broad statistics based solely on personal observation.

Regarding the shortage in the seventies: reduced speed for all the years since and improved fuel efficiency contributed to having more gasoline now, just as increasing speed limits will reduce available gas and eventually drive prices up.

Not having enough money for roads is not the fault of the Prius driver but of a tax structure that hasn't changed to address other changes.

"Climate Change is Unfalsifiable Woo-Woo Pseudoscience" - by @CorbettReport

"Sky Scratch" - How GeoEngineering and "Chemtrailing" are tied to "Climate Change".

Watch and learn.

Drive as fast as you want (but responsibly). Just like you should live life the way you want. Just don't let the pigs catch you.

55mph? Thats for the braindead.
Go that speed on the Autobahn and you d better NOT use the right lane. Too dangerous. 88km/h and even some of the trucks will try to shove you off the left lane.
My bike is a bit slow, doesnt do more than 100mph. Which is not fast on the autobahn.

People forget to slow down in rain though.
Even in heavy rain and vis down below 100m, some idiots still surf by at 120mph plus in their Audis and Mercedes. No matter how good the electronics and how high the driver's testosterone: that IS dangerous.
Physics still does not offer any discounts...

Agreed, people should use common sense, when it's raining go slower.

Nice article! Love that you included the Top Gear clip :P

Thanks! Yeah I miss the real Top Gear.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.29
TRX 0.12
JST 0.032
BTC 63491.36
ETH 3082.44
USDT 1.00
SBD 3.86