A "Reasonable And Prudent" Approach To Speed Limits
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
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.)
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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(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 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(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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
{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 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.