In this fourth [1] installment of Tyranny of the State, I'd like to discuses the issue of speed limits; why they are not necessary, and expose the fact that their only purpose is to rake in cash for the state.
The fact is that strict speed limits were mainly imposed due to an oil shortage in 1973, by president Richard Nixon. At that time, the speed limit was lowered from about 75mph, on average, to 55mph. Several studies had initially shown that the lower speed limit reduced accidents, but further studies, including one by the Cato Institute, showed that the safety record actually worsened in the first few months of the 55mph speed limit, suggesting that the fatality drop was a short-lived anomaly that regressed to the mean by 1978. But even after the oil shortage was over the speed limit remained at 55mph, despite several studies showing an increase in accidents. I argue that this decision had nothing to do with safety and everything to do with the fact that the government saw a great opportunity to take more money from people by fining them when they were caught going over the speed limit.
Some claim that the slower speeds help to save drivers on fuel, but a study done by The Heritage Foundation in 1986 showed that the total fuel savings during the national speed limit was no more than 1% overall. [2] But, even if that were true, who says that the government has any right to regulate how much gas someone uses in their own car? That's just plain retarded. If someone wants to use a lot of their gas driving fast then who cares? It's their money.
Other than the Cato Institute study mentioned above, there are several other studies along with past, and current examples of high speed driving not being a main cause of accidents.
In 2005 a study was done by David Robinson and Richard Campbell, of Road Safety; Department for Transport. It was named Contributory Factors to Road Accidents, and it found that some of the leading causes of accidents were not speeding, but failing to look properly, or an error on the part of the driver. These accounted for 32% of all accidents, while speeding was only a factor in 15% of all accidents (taking all the data together). In a chart separating the percentages of crash causation "exceeding speed limit" accounted for only 5% of the accidents. "Going too fast for conditions" accounted for 12%.
Looking at a chart which showed a number of reasons for accidents, and the percentage that each was a factor in either a fatal, serious, or slight accident is noted. They list "going too fast for conditions" to be a higher cause of accidents than just speeding alone. "Going too fast for conditions" accounted for 17% of fatal accidents, 13% serious accidents, and 11% slight accidents. In contrast, exceeding the speed limit only accounted for 12% of fatal accidents, 7% serious accidents, and 4% of slight accidents.
A study done in 2008 by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [3] on the main causes of accidents reported that distraction, inattention, etc. accounted for 41% of accidents, and driving too fast for the conditions accounted for only 8.4% of crashes. Surprisingly, the report mentions almost nothing about vehicle speed. The only references to speed are a lack of judging another car's speed (3.2%) and driving too fast for conditions. Just as in the 2005 study done by David Robinson and Richard Campbell this study confirms that the largest factor in accidents seem to be distractions, and errors on the part of the driver, daydreaming, etc.
Even in a USA Today paper from the year 1997 stated that "Fewer dying despite faster speed limits." [4]
Other studies that have been done show that despite the lowering, or raising, of speed limits, the behavior and speed of the drivers changed very little. [5] So, despite the speed limits changing, it hasn't seemed to effect how drivers drive to begin with. So with this data it seems clear to me that the safety benefits touted by the government is only to fool naive people into not challenging such pointless regulations.
More evidence regarding the effects that speed has on crashes are the following two studies. One takes place in Montana, in which the state repealed its speed limits on its highways for a time, and during that time Montana recorded its lowest fatality rate.
The experience in Montana also confirmed what the previous studies noted. The fact that just because the speed limit is raised (or becomes non-existent) doesn't mean that drivers' habits will change. The findings showed that, "The Montana experience solidifies the long held traffic engineering axioms, 'people don't automatically drive faster when the speed limit is raised, speed limit signs will not automatically decrease accident rates nor increase safety, and highways with posted speed limits are not necessarily safer than highways without posted limits.'"
In the chart it shows that during the last twelve month period without any speed limits, the fatality rate dropped from 140 fatalities at the most in 1997 and 102 fatalities in 1999, but during the period without speed limits, the fatality rate dropped to 101. [6]
Another real life experience with speed and a lack of any kind of speed limit is Germany's Autobahn. The Autobahn's number of fatalities or injuries per year is drastically lower than other countries such as Austria. From the years 1970 to 2006, the total number of accidents was 211,973. This might seem like an enormous number, but in comparison rural areas without Autobahns had a total of 1,004,972 accidents. Fatalities for the same dates on the Autobahn total 8,792, while the rural areas without Autobahns had a total of 53,609. A very large difference to say the least. [7]
I think with this data it's pretty clear speeding is not a large cause of accidents; reckless driving, and lack of awareness is. I would also put responsibility in that list also, because a person can still drive fast but be responsible. When someone does drive fast and pays attention to the other drivers and road conditions, the likelihood of a crash is highly reduced, as all the findings seem to show.
Another issue related to speeding are what's called a "speed trap." A speed trap is defined as "a section of a road where hidden police, radar, etc., carefully check the speed of motorists and strictly enforce traffic regulations: sometimes characterized by hard-to-see signals, hidden traffic signs, etc. [8] I would include in that definition, sneaky little tricks that cause people to go over the speed limit. I'll give you two examples of what I mean from personal experience. The first one occurred in my hometown in the mid west. On one stretch of road I noticed that on one side of the street the speed limit was set at 35mph (if memory serves...could have been 40 and 35) while the other side of the street, the speed was posted at 30mph. Now, this is the same street, with one lane going one way, and one lane going another, only divided by a yellow line. I think this is such a stupid ploy because this obviously has nothing to do with safety, but revenue. If someone is not aware of that trick, they could say the speed limit was listed at 35 if a cop stopped them. But the trap on that particular side of the street has the speed at set at 30 so technically he would be speeding, and the dirty pig would still give him a ticket despite the unfairness of it all.
Another dirty trick was here in Arizona while driving in Mesa, I think it was, several years ago. I was unaware of the traffic signs of the area and as I was driving I noticed that the speed all of a sudden dropped ten miles below the previous posted speed limit, and the sign came not far after the regular speed limit sign. I slammed on my breaks to slow down so as not to get a ticket, but I didn't have enough time. As I kept going I saw that the speed limit abruptly went back up ten miles not far from that other sign where it had dropped, and my passenger said that it was a speed trap (it made it worse because it was a dark street and was hard to see the signs as I was driving at night). If there was a cop there I would have gotten a ticket because they don't give you enough time, between the different signs, to react to the large change in speed.
And they say speed limits are for safety?! If that were even remotely true they wouldn't set up speed traps, or give you tickets for going a few miles over the speed limit! Some pigs will give you a ticket if you're going even one mile over! How the hell is going one little mile over the speed limit a danger to anyone? It's not! It's purely for the revenue just as I've been arguing.
There is also very little deterrence effect in stopping people from speeding by giving tickets. In a study that was done in the March 2007 issue of Traffic Injury Prevention called Do Speeding Tickets Reduce the Likelihood of Receiving Subsequent Speeding Tickets? A Longitudinal Study of Speeding Violators in Maryland, by Saranath Lawpoolsri, Jingyi Li, and Elisa R. Braver, they conclude that "[o]ur findings indicate that a single speeding citation has limited effects on changing drivers' likelihood of receiving subsequent speeding citations. To the extent that speeding citations are a valid proxy measure of speeding behavior, this study suggests that speeding citations have inadequate deterrent effects in the context of the current law enforcement system." [9]
So why do police continue to give speeding tickets despite the lack of change in behavior? MONEY!!! Why else? When it comes down to it the government is all about getting more money.
I hope this paper makes it very clear the tyranny that the state subjects the people to. This issue of speeding is just one of many such issues. Several of the others have already been discussed in previous installments of this series. This is why I named the series The Tyranny of the State; it was a perfect name for what the government has done, and continues to do.
Speeding, as I've shown, has not been controlled through the giving of tickets and fines, or the changing of speed limit signs. Speeding, in and of itself, is not nearly as dangerous has the "authorities" would have you believe, and is purely for revenue which goes into the greedy pockets of the state.
References:
1. This is actually the fourth in a series of articles I've written condemning various aspects of the state machinery. Other subjects discussed in this series are the ineffectiveness of prison and drug laws.
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law; accessed 6-11-09
3. DOT HS 811 059
4. Managing Speed: Review of Current Practice for Setting and Enforcing Speed Limits, by the Transportation Research Board, page 223
5. Ibid; pages 292-293
6. http://www.motorists.org/pressreleases/home/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox/; accessed 6-11-09
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn; accessed 6-11-09
8. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/speed%20trap; accessed 6-11-09
9. http://www.motorists.org/blog/traffic-tickets/do-speeding-tickets-deter-drivers-from-speeding/; accessed 6-11-09
