by Chris Basten

  One of the more questionable ideals incorporated by the State is the strictly-enforced concept of speed limits. The intention is to reduce traffic accidents and the vehicular injuries and casualties that can accompany them. It all sounds like a good idea and a safe, noble concept-in theory, anyway. But for any individual willing to look closer at such a well-intentioned idea, the bucket just doesn't seem to hold water.

I am not suggesting that everyone should ignore the posted speed limits. That wouldn't get any of us very far because State and local troopers just do their jobs. Getting philosophical with them about why we disagree with the government's enforced laws during a pull-over is not wise. They don't care what your excuses are; they just stop and ticket speeders. But for the sake of conversation, let's delve into why speed limits don't really accomplish what they set out to do. In fact, I suspect that it is a mere gadget of more government force all in the name of keeping us safe.

Consider speed traps themselves. They do nothing more than catch a very small fraction of people who drive too fast by State standards. Speed traps are silly, actually. If you ever pay attention to the flow of traffic when drivers see a police vehicle parked to the side, you'll notice that everyone brakes to slow down regardless of whether or not they were traveling at a speed conducive to the posted speed limit. Not only is it a conditioned response, it can sometimes be dangerous because some people panic and nearly slam on their brakes to slow down. The traffic behind them has to act fast or face a major pile up especially when roads are slippery.

Speed traps, then, are actually nuisances that cause reactive braking and don't change people's behavior. You'll witness this when people slow down near a noticeable speed trap, drive within the speed limit for about 5 miles thereafter, and then speed up again to the rate they were initially driving at. How effective is this in curtailing speeding?

Consider what usually happens when someone is pulled over by a State trooper. Squad cars turn on an obnoxiously bright light to make out one's every move as if to showcase their power to others zipping past the scene. For every person pulled over, there are probably several dozen who weren't unlucky enough to get caught and cruise at far higher speeds than those who actually are the unfortunate ones distracting the police at that moment. This is silly, indeed. The State will never be able to track the number of speeders that zoom past them and yet they play a game of crapshoot everyday trying to do so. It's a game of chance that never does much of anything but cause distractions for other drivers and makes it dangerous for troopers who walk the tightrope of skinny highway shoulders.

And of course, if you don't have a government-approved license you're in deep trouble. Never mind that having a license does nothing to signify whether or not you are actually a good driver; it just means that you passed a DMV test and paid an absurd amount of money to get a lousy photo taken. If you haven't renewed your tabs, expect a big fine for not putting a new State-sanctioned sticker on your license plate. Some have even theorized that cops actually pull over cars randomly to check the contents of their vehicles for such things as open liquor bottles and drug paraphernalia. I wouldn't put anything past our State patrol units especially with the greater liberty they have been given by judicial systems. They are almost always given the benefit of the doubt over any citizen who pays exorbitant taxes, license fees, and renewal costs that subsidize the salaries of police forces.

I'm not saying that speeders aren't hazardous but their driving should be kept in context; something a radar gun and a hard-ass cop does not do. Driving fast if it is not obstructing the flow of traffic seems unnecessary. I have found that slower drivers are actually more dangerous than speeders because they make everyone else have to compensate and attempt to pass them which is very unsafe, indeed. But since the government and the lawmakers advertise that speed kills, it must be heavily policed.

Speed does kill in some instances but definitely not all of them. The National Motorists Association has this to say:

In 1966, Congress passed a momentous law that required public safety issues to be based on findings of fact and uniformly applied across the land. The law created the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) with safety on our nation's highways as its prime directive.

Eight short years later, Congress turned this agency into a propaganda arm of the government where they "knew what was best for the people" despite the fact that their good intentions were contrary to human nature, advancing technology and the findings of the safety engineers.

After 25 years of enormous cost to the nation, NHTSA created an Urban Myth that equated lower speed limits with safety. The evidence at every stage of the process was indicating neither speed limits, nor that enforcement had any meaningful effect on traffic speeds and accident rates.

Like all government programs, organizations like NHTSA were initially created to research and report the facts. Instead of keeping this in mind, these subsidized organizations keep getting more and more money and strengthen old laws that don't work or are no longer applicable with the advancement of automobile and highway engineering that have made us all safer.

Perhaps a better solution is to give drivers the benefit of the doubt and trust that they can take care of their own safety and well-being on the road. Any person knows that accidents are a part of driving and because roads and vehicles have become safer (government intrusion aside), most of them are minor incidents. Driving a car on any road is dangerous and it is common knowledge that billions of people are willing to take that risk everyday for the convenience that transportation brings. Any of us could die on the road but life is risky business and there is no reason to punish those who choose to drive faster than others when they show no visible signs of obstructing the general flow of traffic. True infractions are obvious to any casual observer. They're the idiots we shout expletives at and witness weaving in and out of lanes to get by everyone else. Of course, we never see them get pulled over.

Driving is best left to chance because that is exactly what it is. Life is full of chances and the road is no exception for them. Shit happens when you travel at any speed and only the exceptionally dangerous should be dealt with. But even this is relative. How do we judge what one might deem hazardous and unnecessary and another may see as normal and safe? The State cannot control speeding anymore than it can control the lobbyists who plead for highway safety commissions. I think we're better off letting drivers figure out conditions individually. If an accident does occur, witnesses usually abound. I think we can handle things ourselves without the government always babying and scolding us. It is so radical and simple that it might actually work.