A "Reasonable And Prudent" Approach To Speed Limits
November 6th, 2008 Posted in Eric Peters, Speed Limits, Traffic Tickets
By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist
"Speeding" is one of those things that’s very much in the eye of the beholder — and the letter of the law.
There is the legal definition: Traveling in excess of the posted maximum (whatever the number). Exceed the posted maximum and you may be ticketed for "speeding." Very straightforward.
But there is another — possibly better — definition. One that actually correlates with safe, appropriate rates of travel (unlike the current definition, which is rigid, dogmatic — and frequently bears no relationship to safe, appropriate rates of travel).
It is the "reasonable and prudent" standard.
In a nutshell, it correlates at-fault accidents with excessive speed. If you lose control of your vehicle and get into an accident, then by definition you were driving too fast for conditions, your skill level, etc. And you get a ticket for speeding. Your insurance premiums also go up, based on the objective evidence that you (and your driving) constitute a higher risk than accident-free drivers.
Doesn’t this strike you as much more sensible than the system we have adopted — which defines "speeding" according to arbitrary numbers that go up and down with the winds (and whims) of bureaucrats? Under which you may be ticketed and fined and branded guilty of "unsafe" driving even though you may never have so much as dinged a door — let alone caused an accident?
We all know the current system is clumsy, random — and corrupted by money-lust. Even the cop manning his radar gun knows the majority of the drivers he pulls over haven’t done anything that’s genuinely unsafe. They’ve just made the mistake of traveling faster than the number on a sign says they may. The judges know it, too. So do the insurance companies. We all play our parts. The officer lectures; the judge scolds — the insurance company admonishes (by letter) and premium "adjustment."
It’s all very cynical.
Worse, it muddies the waters about what constitutes safe driving by taking common sense and sound judgment out of the equation — and in their place demanding blind obedience to often obviously silly rules (the old 55 mph highway speed limit being an obvious example), "just because."
We all knew driving 55 mph on highways designed for 70-75 mph was absurd. But even though most of us ignored the rule whenever we had the chance, we’d play the game when pulled over. "Yes, officer. I’m sorry officer. I won’t do it again, officer."
Today, of course, the 55 mph limit is no more — and on those very same highways it is now perfectly lawful to drive at 65, 70 mph (or faster). It didn’t become "safer" to do so by legislative fiat. It just became legal. But for 20-plus years, American drivers were harassed and fined and made to cavil like wretches before the god of the double nickel. We all had to pretend 55 mph was the "safe" speed — and pay the piper whenever we forgot.
The same ugly little con continues to play out on secondary roads all over the country. Every town has its 25 mph (or 35 mph) radar trap zone. Roads where the posted maximum is set 5-10 mph (or more) below the natural flow of traffic — so that virtually every car is technically "speeding" and its driver vulnerable to a fat fine.
Under the reasonable and prudent standard, all that would go away. Drivers would be judged on their merits (or deficiencies) instead of how well they hew to arbitrary edicts (or how adept they are at slipping the noose). A direct, causal relationship between good (or bad) driving — as measured by your ability to avoid accidents — would be substituted in place of the current regime, which often as not penalizes excellent drivers who may drive faster than dumbed-down limits say they should, but do so with skill (as demonstrated by their knack for not wrecking their vehicle) while rewarding inept, marginal (and more accident-prone) drivers who always obey the letter of the law.
It makes sense, the data supports it — but there’s less money to be made for the powers-that-be.
And that’s why we’ll never see the reasonable and prudent standard put into practice.
Comments?
www.ericpetersautos.com
Other Related Articles
- How To Objectively Identify Unsafe Drivers
- Ford’s MyKey System: The Rise Of The Mom Culture
- The Old Man In The Buick — And The Return Of Drive 55?
- Avoid Speeding Tickets: The Value Of A Good Radar Detector
- Driver Re-Education: The Hypocrisy Of Speed Enforcement
To change the picture next to your comments, sign up at Gravatar.com. Each picture is associated with a particular email address. (This is a third-party service not affiliated with NMA.)
Sounds like a good way to fill the streets with murder.
I think the people who would take advantage of this are the exact people you don’t want driving fast.
Nick, if you’re worried about someone driving too fast, pull over and let him go. If he’s that fast and dangerous, you won’t see him again. History has shown again and again that attempts at preventing crime – especially crimes that harm no one, like driving 80 in a 65 zone – do little more than harm liberty and separate otherwise law-abiding people from their money, which as Eric Peters points out, is the real objective.
I agree that your scenario is complete BS, getting a ticket for that is weak.
Now convince me it’s a good idea to have no speed enforcement in:
- school zones
- residential areas
- commercial areas
- constructions zones
- hazardous areas (e.g. weather, dangerous roads, animals)
- high traffic roads
Why is it that people continue to jump on the extreme case of school zones all the time? (”Think of the Children!” nonsense).
As for your other suggested areas, they fall right into the line of thought here. A posted limit should be a SUGGESTION for those inexperienced with the road/area. If you are driving too fast for the condition, or you are inexperienced, then you are going too fast – PERIOD. Whether it’s a residential area, construction zone, commercial, whatever.
The point is, if you bother to read the entire article, posting an artificially low number just eliminates our trust in the posted number (ie, crying wolf) thereby making them useless even as a reference, and makes it a penalty even if you aren’t doing anything unsafe (ie 65 in a 55 on a highway).
Please try to keep your comments on-topic, at least. No one said anything about school zones, but we are complaining about 25-zones where the road clearly supports higher speeds safely (I know of NUMEROUS such roads in my area, which are only used as speed traps for revenue generation… it’s not about safety.)
I drive 75-90 in a “high traffic zone” 5 days a week (sometimes called rush hour). Funny thing, most of the other vehicles on the road are doing the same thing. This just proves the speed limit is underposted.
Why are there lower speed limits in construction zones when no human being is present doing any construction work?
I did read the article and my post is on topic (note how it talks about speed enforcement).
I’m saying that the idea is grand some of the time (all those mentioned in the article) and fails miserably – imo – in other scenarios (the ones I mentioned). But why focus on where it works – the article did that? So I focused on where I see it failing.
I see it failing with drivers who over-estimate their skill and are driving in areas where they could hurt someone. And I bet their are a lot of mediocre drivers who over-estimate their skill and I bet they drive where people live, work and play.
It would be great to drive hundreds of miles and not have to worry about BS speed limits, but I don’t want people cruising all over my town at break neck speeds because they “think” they’re good drivers.
[...] Wow, what a concept! Instead of arbitrarily set speed limits, how about "reasonable and prudent" speed limits? Eric Peters explains on the National Motorist Associati&… [...]
Nick, what did you say your badge nunber was? Just wondered.
JOE what about all of those tests that have been performed that when law inforcement was increased in areas that the accident rates went down a lot. That pretty much shows that Nick was correct.
Randy writes: {JOE what about all of those tests that have been performed that when law inforcement was increased in areas that the accident rates went down a lot. That pretty much shows that Nick was correct.}
Yes, Randy, what about al thos tests? Why don’t you provide us with a bibliography of all those studies? Remember, though, to be academically relevant and admissable, they must show a long-term improvement in crash rates directly related to a long-term increase in enforcement activity. Hint: I’m giving you your choice of how to quantify the intensity of enforcement.
Good luck
James Young I already gave you a lot of studies. Can you not read them? Jim gave a link of a Michigan city that cut down accidents over many years by increasing enforcement. Have accidents in other cities in Michigan also had over 30 percent cut in accident rates?
What you have provided us with is a bunch of hooey. The next item is that the reports don’t always say what you claim they say. You see enforcement, the crash rate blips downward and suddenly you see cause and effect when it was really just random variations. As I have said many times, show us the long-term effect of enforcement on crash-, injury-, and fatality rates. It just ain’t there. If it were there, every law enforcement agency in America would be quoting it in front of every legislature in America, trying to get ever more funds for their favorite playthings.
James Young I have a better idea. Provide us with staticstics and what happens when we reduce police numbers. What happens to the accident statistics and death rates? There are dozens of statistics on what increased enforcement of both DUIs and speeding enforcement do to increase safety. What happens if all police are removed?
Believe it or not more enforcement by all states for DUIs are cutting the numbers of deaths and accidents down a lot along with safety enforcement of seatbelts and child restraints.
There are dozens of reports out there that show what increased enforcement does. You go find them and tell us why you disagree with all of them. You do not believe anything I post so go and find the reports yourself.
Look, you’re the one who continually harangues us with the assertion that key traffic safety measures improve with increased LE presence. There are multiple problems with this. First, we don’t know what constitutes increased presence or if their effort is aimed at improving real measures of safety performance or whether they’re just out to make a buck. Given the state of municipal finances, one cannot benign intentions.
You also continue to make the post hoc ergo propter hoc error. Yes, DUIs are declining but so are all of the other causes of crashes. Our fatality rate nationwide is better than ever in our history. Yet, you want to assign all of the credit for this to enforcement. That is logically incorrect and intellectually dishonest. Is it not equally true or greater that drinking and driving has been demonized and publicized so people – not just drivers – are avoiding drinking at all?
We know that crash, injury and fatality rates change directly in concert with engineering improvements in vehicles and roads. This is a statistical fact backed by years of data. Trying to show LE influence on those same rates is much more problematic and, in the long term of, say, 20 years, there is no correlation at all. What happens if all the police disappear? In a word, nothing.
You’re the one making the absurd assertions and the burden of proof is yours alone. You don’t understand the science, the statistics or the reality of the situation, yet you want to preach to us who have a lifetime of working with these things, that we’re all just a bunch of speed demons whose only desire is to go as fast as we want without regard for anything or anybody else.
Your arguments are stupid and you have become a caricature. Give it up and go back to your insurance sales job.
James Young as far as DUI crashes decreasing, most of it is due to the fact that many police make random stops and roadblocks during peak times to catch DUI drivers. The penalty from what I hear is about $5000 in lawyer costs and a few months without a license. That is what has cut down on DUI crashes.
Our fatality rates may be down but at the same time they should be down a lot. If you increase the safety of vehicles through legislation of better crash survivability, with air bags, mandatory seat belt laws and child restraints and better brakes in a lot of vehicles. If you propose to increase the fatality rates back up to where they were before with more reckless driving then you are going the wrong way.
As far as your road improvements go, the changes in the past 20 years are so small they are almost off the chart compared to the other changes that have been made explained above.
I find it interesting that Tandy thinks unconstitutional road blocks are a good answer. Drinking and driving is a bad thing, but loss of personal liberties is even worse, in my opinion.
We need better education, not road blocks.
Randy writes: {James Young as far as DUI crashes decreasing, most of it is due to the fact that many police make random stops and roadblocks during peak times to catch DUI drivers. The penalty from what I hear is about $5000 in lawyer costs and a few months without a license. That is what has cut down on DUI crashes.}
Nonsense. DUI has decreased because it has been demonized for so long that it ranks right down there with pedophilia. The public is much more aware of the dangers of and the social stigma attached to drunk driving. Random stops and roadblocks serve only to erode Constitutionally enumerated rights. However, once again, you are the one making the wild assertion that random stops have a long-term significant effect on DUI crash rates and, once again, I say show us the money. Where is your evidence? And don’t tell us to go look it up ourselves. The burden of proof is yours alone. You need to put up or shut up.
{Our fatality rates may be down but at the same time they should be down a lot. If you increase the safety of vehicles through legislation of better crash survivability, with air bags, mandatory seat belt laws and child restraints and better brakes in a lot of vehicles. If you propose to increase the fatality rates back up to where they were before with more reckless driving then you are going the wrong way.}
Where you come up with some of this crap is beyond me. We do not propose to increase the fatality rates and we do not advocate reckless driving. You are either a moron if you have so misunderstood what we have been saying and believe what you say or you are simply lying through your teeth. Once again, we advocate public policy based on scientifically sound principles, tested for effectiveness in their ability to alter behavior that leads to improved crash-, injury-, and fatality rates. We also advocate being left alone by law enforcement whose actions do not promote safer driving but do extract enormous sums of cash from otherwise safe and sane drivers.
{As far as your road improvements go, the changes in the past 20 years are so small they are almost off the chart compared to the other changes that have been made explained above.}
First, road changes have occurred over far more than 20 years. The Interstate system was envisioned first by General Eisenhower during WWII and signed into law in the mid-1950s. This provided separation of opposing traffic, longer sightlines, gentler curves, and limited access. Since then, we have added reflective paints, rumble strips, Botts dots, wider medians, collapsible crash barriers, and breakaway signage.
John Warren is it a constitutional right of someone that has been drinking to crash into me or someone I am close to?
JAMES YOUNG you are out of touch with reality. You say that drunk driving is down because it is looked down upon. If that is true then why are they trying to make it minor fine on this site? They are trying to make it like not having your seatbelt on unless of course you are so drunk you can not walk and then they allow higher fines. I have talked to many people that say they do not drink and drive because they can not afford the costs of being caught and because they have to be able to drive and cannot be without a license.
Randy writes: {JAMES YOUNG you are out of touch with reality. You say that drunk driving is down because it is looked down upon. If that is true then why are they trying to make it minor fine on this site? They are trying to make it like not having your seatbelt on unless of course you are so drunk you can not walk and then they allow higher fines.}
Bullshit. Drunk driving has been demonized for over 30 years. Characterizing that as “looked down upon” misses the point, which, given your history of postings, misreads, and general confusion, is not surprising at all. Consider smoking, also demonized for a long time and generally in decline as a percent of the population that smokes.
NMA is not calling for minor fines but does ask that rational laws and practices be applied so that we as a society do not end up chasing the trivial while ignoring the critical, wasting resources and missing our goal of reducing DUI fatalities.
{ I have talked to many people that say they do not drink and drive because they can not afford the costs of being caught and because they have to be able to drive and cannot be without a license.}
And I have talked to people who sincerely believe that they have been kidnapped by aliens but that certainly doesn’t constitute a very important element of our population, just like yours. While there are undoubtedly people who base their personal decisions on such fears, they are not the problem drivers upon whom we should be exerting our efforts. We need to concentrate on those drivers with a proven history of alcohol abuse. We already know who they are because they have been in trouble because of alcohol before.
Where do you come up with this stuff?
James Young it takes only one time of drinking and driving to cause a real mistake. It is true that there are those that drink and drive daily but there are also thousands that drink and drive once a week. The ones that only do it once in a while are just about as bad as ones that do it every day. It sounds like John Warren and yourself want someone to cause a big accident and then lock the drunk up. It needs to be done before the accident if possible and it has happened. There are thousands that do not drink and drive because they do not want the consequences. Many people would otherwise be driving because they feel like everyone else here does that accidents happen infrequently and they do not happen to them so they can disobey any laws and nothing bad will happen.
Drinking and driving is reckless and anybody who does such a thing should have their drivers licsence taking away, $5000 fine, 4 months in jail, and must complete 140 hours of community service. Driving while drunk is just as bad as doing 156 mph in a school zone. Drinking and driving is reckless PERIOD!!!
{It sounds like John Warren and yourself want someone to cause a big accident and then lock the drunk up.}
How you glean that out of our writings is puzzling, not surprising but puzzling. What we want to do is concentrate our social resources on those drivers most likely to cause problems. For DUI, that means those folks with a history of alcohol abuse because they are involved in hugely disproportionate numbers in fatal crashes. We need to stop them by intervening between the drunk and the driving not the drink and the driver because, as empirical evidence shows us, they do not respond to cajoling, information or legal threats.
James Young if I would go and have 3 or 4 beers this afternoon and crash into someone then that is ok with you because I do not have a “history of alcohol abuse”? You are so wrong on this one. There are thousands of people out there that cause accidents from drinking too much that would not be in your classification of “history of alcohol abuse”.
What is your plan on “concentrate our social resources on those drivers most likely to cause problems” to solve the 30+ percent accidents caused by drinking?
{James Young if I would go and have 3 or 4 beers this afternoon and crash into someone then that is ok with you because I do not have a “history of alcohol abuse”?}
Do not attribute words to me that I did not write. You keep trying to set up these bogus strawman arguments and I’m not letting you get away with such dishonesty. It is NOT OK.
{ You are so wrong on this one. There are thousands of people out there that cause accidents from drinking too much that would not be in your classification of “history of alcohol abuse”.}
Do you not believe that we should concentrate our resources and our efforts where they will have the greatest impact? If you do, then we should apply those resources to those drivers with a documented history of alcohol abuse, i.e., those most likely to be involved in fatal alcohol-related crashes. In simpler terms, do you want 6 cops running a roadblock sniffing Suzy Secretary’s breath or do you want to put an interlock on Phil Burper’s 1994 Buick to prevent him from starting his car if he can’t pass the cognitive test or the BAC test? Remember, Phil has been arrested 12 times and has 6 convictions for alcohol abuse of one kind or another. NM has had very good success with interlocks for intervening between the drunk and the driving. NM had to do something because they have such a large population with the genetic anomaly that leads to alcoholism.
Certainly, Suzy may crash but to assume that her risk is just as high as Phil’s is worse than naïve; it is wasteful and dangerous.
{What is your plan on “concentrate our social resources on those drivers most likely to cause problems” to solve the 30+ percent accidents caused by drinking?}
Ignition interlocks as noted above. Alcohol abuse is a disease; one cannot cure a genetic disorder with legal proscription.
James Young where you are wrong is that everyone that crashes is an alcoholic. There are thousands of accidents caused by people like Suzy that only drinks once a week to excess. Interlocks are fine but you would need them on most all cars except for people that do not even have one drink a year.
{James Young where you are wrong is that everyone that crashes is an alcoholic.}
I believe you meant to say not NOT everybody who crashes is an alcoholic. That is true and I never said that all drivers involved in alcohol-related crashes were alcoholics. However, alcoholics and those with a history of alcohol-related problems – loss of job, jail time, public intoxication, divorce, alienation from family, etc. – are represented far disproportionately in alcohol-related crashes, particularly fatal crashes. How many times have we read in the newspaper that the driver had a history of prior convictions?
{ There are thousands of accidents caused by people like Suzy that only drinks once a week to excess. Interlocks are fine but you would need them on most all cars except for people that do not even have one drink a year.}
That is not realistic and we must choose wisely where to put our resources to have the greatest benefit. Consider that the state of NM has 500 ignition interlocks. Do you really want to put those 500 locks on cars based on random numbers or do you want to put them on Phil Burper’s car? NM chose wisely and as part of the adjudication of DUI convictions, had some of those convicted purchase and install the interlocks on their car. This has had a very beneficial effect.
James Young you were the one that brought up the interlocks I didn’t. What I meant to say was that all drinkers that cause accidents while intoxicated are not alcoholics and a vast majority are not. If you want to put interlocks on all cars when people are know to be alcoholics or people that have been charged with DUI then that is fine with me but only a start on the problem. There are thousands out there that will cause the accidents and deaths that have not been charged yet or have been classified as alcoholics. Again you go back to the point where you want to have someone get in an accident first and then do something or maybe just drive into the ditch first.
Eric Peters writes(But there is another — possibly better — definition the It is “reasonable and prudent” standard.)
Wasn’t this standard tried in Montana and didn’t it fail miserably?
Jeff writes(Why are there lower speed limits in construction zones when no human being is present doing any construction work?)
Because there is a greater potential that a human being working in that zone will be in the driving lane. I have yet to see a Work Zone where NO workers are near or in the driving lane. Additionally there is a potential for slow moving machinery to enter or block portions of the driving lanes. Driving slower through these work zones gives you more time to react to the potential hazards that lurk just off the driving path. If you are referring to the off duty time of the workers they keep the lower speed limits so that there is a continuity of the speed through that section of roadway so not to promote the “I thought they didn’t start till 8:00am” argument when a passing speeder kills a worker.
Randy writes: {James Young you were the one that brought up the interlocks I didn’t.}
I brought them up because they work to reduce alcohol-related crashes.
{ What I meant to say was that all drinkers that cause accidents while intoxicated are not alcoholics}
Not true. What I think you meant to say is “What I meant to say was that NOT all drinkers that cause accidents while intoxicated are alcoholics.” Word order makes a significant difference.
{ . . . and a vast majority are not.}
Wrong. Period. The majority of drivers involved in fatal alcohol-related crashes have a history of alcohol abuse.
{There are thousands out there that will cause the accidents and deaths that have not been charged yet or have been classified as alcoholics. Again you go back to the point where you **want** to have someone get in an accident first and then do something or maybe just drive into the ditch first.} Emphasis added by JY
While what you say is true – there are thousands of drivers who have not yet encountered alcohol problems but will become alcoholics or problem drinkers – it ignores the practical side of public policy. We must use our resources intelligently and wasting them on drivers that have displayed not signs of problems yet is ignorant and wasteful. Nobody **wants** more crashes but we need to allocate our resources wisely.
Phil M. writes: { Eric Peters writes(But there is another — possibly better — definition the It is “reasonable and prudent” standard.)
{Wasn’t this standard tried in Montana and didn’t it fail miserably?}
It was tried in Montana and it worked beautifully. Only after Montana went to a numerical standard did their crash and fatality rates increase.
{Because there is a greater potential that a human being working in that zone will be in the driving lane. I have yet to see a Work Zone where NO workers are near or in the driving lane.}
Then you have never been across Kansas on I-70. They have stretches of highway that are officially “construction zones” that haven’t seen any actual work since the 1970s. It is just a method to lower limits and raise fines.
James Young I drove across I-70 a little less than 2 years ago. There was not one construction zone. Maybe that was another country with a state of Kansas you were talking about. Maybe in your mind.
James Young writes(Wrong. Period. The majority of drivers involved in fatal alcohol-related crashes have a history of alcohol abuse.)
(We must use our resources intelligently and wasting them on drivers that have displayed not signs of problems yet is ignorant and wasteful. Nobody **wants** more crashes but we need to allocate our resources wisely.)
Is using our resources wisely anything like explaining to NMA members effective ways of reducing the numeric results of the breathalyzer? Or Propagandizing scientific results by quoting portions of them out of context to imply a false conclusion with no other purpose than to create public distrust of the police? Maybe if the NMA wasn’t so anti authoritarian they could use thier resources to actually help decrease the number of auto related fatalities each year.
James Young writes(As I have said many times, show us the long-term effect of enforcement on crash-, injury-, and fatality rates. It just ain’t there.)
so what you are saying is if there was no retribution for driving drunk there wouldn’t be an increase in the number of people who consume alcoholic beverages then drive home, regardless of how intoxicated or impaired they have become? Somehow I don’t believe that and it works with speeding, redlights and everything else. If there is no retribution for not following the rules less people follow the rules.
Randy writes(James Young I already gave you a lot of studies. Can you not read them? Jim gave a link of a Michigan city that cut down accidents over many years by increasing enforcement. Have accidents in other cities in Michigan also had over 30 percent cut in accident rates?)
It doesn’t matter what any study you can provide proving your positions says. He will discount and condemn any study or report that doesn’t support his personal agenda.
James Young writes(It was tried in Montana and it worked beautifully. Only after Montana went to a numerical standard did their crash and fatality rates increase.)
Then why did they suddenly abandon the reasonable and prudent approach and go back to a numerically posted limit? Why because people were driving like lunatics there they were flocking there just to drive as fast as they wanted. Then when they crashed and were arrested for driving faster than reasonable and prudent they got the NMA to step in and defend thier actions getting those who were actually guilty of exceeding reasonable and prudent off without any retribution for thier actions. If the NMA did an about face and started actually caring about the deaths on our highways they could do alot of good. Just imagine if the NMA became as powerful a lobby as MADD has. They could do it to all they have to do is abandon the “nobody should be punished” approach to traffic control.
Randy writes(James Young I drove across I-70 a little less than 2 years ago. There was not one construction zone. Maybe that was another country with a state of Kansas you were talking about. Maybe in your mind.)
It must be in his own little world the I-70 of which he speaks. Because, I travelled a large portion of I-70 last year and I don’t recall ever seeing any construction zone signs, construction zones or construction. Now that I think about it I don’t recal seeing anybody pulled over for traffic violations either.
James Young writes(You also continue to make the post hoc ergo propter hoc error. Yes, DUIs are declining but so are all of the other causes of crashes. Our fatality rate nationwide is better than ever in our history. Yet, you want to assign all of the credit for this to enforcement. That is logically incorrect and intellectually dishonest. Is it not equally true or greater that drinking and driving has been demonized and publicized so people – not just drivers – are avoiding drinking at all?)
and you’d assign it to that we are driving faster. ergo we should be driving even faster yet.
“Then why did they suddenly abandon the reasonable and prudent approach and go back to a numerically posted limit? Why because people were driving like lunatics there they were flocking there just to drive as fast as they wanted”
No. They changed it because there needs to be a hard number to be a legally enforceable speed limit – otherwise it is too vague for due process. And here you thought you could just come in after everyone else and pretend to win.
I wanted to post the facts on Montana which this site promotes lies. The fact is that the daytime deaths dropped 10% right after the daytime speed limits were put back into place. NMA says that the deaths doubled right after the daytime limits were put back into place. Go look at the facts.
In all reality the speed limit should be reasonable and prudent, on divided highways, but also the driving license test should be harder to pass than driving through a 25mph zone around the block, and a simple maneuverability or parallel parking test, there should be real high speed tests, to actually test the accident avoidance ability of these people before allowing them to drive, or keep the posted limits, or even lower them for persons with the current license, and require a reasonable and prudent license, for which you could get after actually taking and passing a driving performance evaluation which includes accident avoidance. The main article is not about drinking, so i have nothing to say on the topic. I Love the ignorance nick portrays of himself on the first comment.