I was casually cruising down the 105 freeway this morning at a comfortable 70mph (it's Saturday so traffic was very light) when I passed a speed limit sign. The sign was for limiting large trucks to 55mph. I started thinking of the implications of this and the fact that at the beginning of next month, I owe $225 to the city of Long Beach because I didn't come to a complete stop at a stop sign with no oncoming traffic and a clear view in all directions.
A large majority of these rules that are forced on us under the guise of "keeping us safe" have become nothing more than clever ploys to generate revenue for the city or state. We are apparently incapable of making rational decisions as individuals in regards to our own safety or the safety of others in our keep. It is imperative that officials step in and make laws to punish us financially for making those mistakes. See, we all still commit these heinous crimes and they know that. Do these laws really make us much more safe?
Consider this in regards to speed limits: You're driving down the freeway when some lunatic is weaving in and out of traffic at upwards of 100mph. The anger you feel for his/her recklessness or the envy you feel because they're willing to risk those speeds and you are not, incite this longing to see them get caught, pulled over and punished. Oh the vindication your emotions would receive as you bask in this glorious display of justice. We've all been there. The real question is whether or not these laws have the effect that were supposedly intended. Sure, you say to yourself, "It might not have stopped them, but it will stop others". Although that may be true in some cases, I believe that for the most part, if you want to speed, you are going to. Is it somehow justified to restrict or punish everyone based on the few who choose to be reckless regardless? I would say that the number of deaths per year from auto-accidents speak volumes in regards to the effectiveness of these limits. In fact, according to Michael Rask, author of "American Autobahn", the Autobahn in Germany where there is largely no speed limits, is safer than U.S. highways. "In 2001, the death rate there was 27 percent lower (0.59 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled versus 0.81 per million for the U.S. interstates)."
Nevertheless, not citing someone for absurd speeds that endanger everyone around them is a difficult case to make for obvious reasons, so let us look at it in other aspects. In residential areas the speed limit is typically 25mph. Why 25? I'm sure you could dig up studies that suggest that the level of response time in hitting the brake and coming to a complete stop or maneuver is sufficiently better at 25mph than at 35mph, and I'm not arguing that. My point is that 25mph is not a comfortable speed for most, and is pretty hard to maintain. Have you ever tried to keep your car at 25mph? What gear coasts comfortably at 25? Most vehicles coast pretty smoothly at around 35/40mph in their highest gears, and I find at least from my experience driving or being in the car with others, that is the average speeds in these areas. Unless of course it is a small area with stop signs every few hundred feet. So how many people including yourself, drive in these areas at 25mph? I'd say save for Grandma, not many. I think that speed limits are primarily kept, on average, about 10mph slower than what is comfortable and normal in staying consistent with the flow of traffic for the sole purpose of catching you exceeding them in order to extort money from you through fines. I say "kept" because although it may have been true in the past that limits were set at 25mph and cars were less safe and responsive, therefore more risky at higher speeds, due to technological advancements, cars stop and maneuver much better than in the past and could now function just as safely at a higher speed.
The same goes for the stop sign. I was not putting anyone, including myself, in any danger by not coming to a complete stop. If you roll up to a stop sign and can clearly see there is no oncoming traffic, it is asinine to completely stop and then proceed. Furthermore, if you roll up to a stop sign and see another car is coming or has already reached their stop sign first, of course you're going to stop until you judge that the coast is clear. Do you think that if it were not a law that we must come to a complete stop, people would be just plowing through stop signs and break-neck speeds throwing all caution to the wind? Of course not, that goes against our own protective instincts. Sure, there are some that would, and those are the ones that are doing it now with the laws in place. So, now I'm $225 poorer, some patrolman got closer to his quota, and I'll let you in on a little secret, I still don't come to a complete stop when I see there is no danger.
I think most of these LAWS would be just as well served as precautions. "Signal when turning/changing lanes. Don't change lanes in the middle of an intersection. Don't pass people from the right hand lane." All these are criminal offenses that can cost you hundreds of dollars. Why not just educate you on these cautious preventions while taking driving classes or tests and leave it up to you to practice them with your judgment? After all, they're willing to issue you a license that states they have evaluated your ability to drive and deemed you worthy of the responsibility therein. Because if it's not a law, they can't generate revenue by fining you for not doing it. It is widely known that it is in your best interest not to go swimming until at least 30 minutes after you eat. It is no less absurd to make that a law. You might cramp up and drowned, or drag someone else under with you trying to save you as well, but no one should fine you because you didn't follow these cautious suggestions.
If it is illegal to drive over 65mph on most freeways/interstates because our loving and caring nanny government is concerned with our well-being and we're too incompetent and stupid to decide what is a safe and comfortable speed for ourselves, why are cars made to go 85-160mph? If we're willing to allow these arbitrary restrictions on us, then surely the majority would accept the mandating of vehicles to be produced that only accelerate to 65mph right? If they're so concerned with you and feel you can't take care of yourself then why don't they implement that mandate? Because if they did, they would lose hundreds of thousands of dollars a year from traffic fines and court costs. How would they fund their already bloated system? Fat would have to be trimmed and we can't have that. We can't have people absorbed into industries where they could actually be needed, productive and useful. Bureaucracies grow and become dependent, like a parasite, on private citizens. Ask any Cop if they went through the academy and all the training so they could sit in a dark alley like a vulture waiting to catch someone not signaling. Of course not. They're forced to do these menial tasks at the expense of the people by an agency frothing at the mouth for revenues to facilitate its existence. They have become nothing more than tax collectors for the state.
Even if these senseless laws were originally intended to protect you, where does that line end? Where is the limit to which others are allowed to dictate your actions? So often under the intent to protect you, people who do not know you or your character, decide how to regulate your life because they feel they know better than you, what's best for you. To quote Milton Friedman "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results. We're all familiar with a famous road that was paved with good intentions"
