The NMA is the National Motorists Association and everyone should join.
http://www.motorists.org/
The National Motorists Association is a membership organization devoted to representing and protecting the rights and interests of North American motorists.
——————————————————————————–
Founded in 1982, the National Motorists Association advocates, represents, and protects the interests of North American motorists.
We are the organization that promoted federal legislation which eliminated the 55 mph National Maximum Speed Limit.
NMA Objectives:
To guarantee the retention of your individual rights when using public streets, roads, and highways.
To support traffic laws based on sound engineering criteria and public consensus.
To protect your right to own and use the kinds of vehicles you prefer.
To support improved driver training and education.
To oppose speed traps and other traffic enforcement measures carried out for revenue-generation purposes.
To promote driver-to-driver courtesy and cooperation.
I agree with them on a lot of that stuff, particularly the abuse of “traffic safety” measures as a way to gouge random people who are driving safely. Like, the summer I was driving on the weekends between a job near NYC, and a gf in Baltimore, I got ticketed several times in PA when the only cars in sight were me and the cop who pulled out from a speed-trap. If there’s literally no other car in sight, and I’m driving on a perfectly straight strip of four-lane highway, I don’t see how it’s unsafe for me to drive 85-90 mph. I also definitely oppose the use of tolls as a general revenue generator — like sales taxes, they’re regressive; improved mobility of people benefits everybody, and ought to come out of general revenues. Even if you personally don’t use the bridge, it’s likely that somebody who provides you with services — even if it’s just the trucks delivering groceries to your local supermarket — does. I’m upset about the hikes in the bridge tolls around SF.
Unfortunately, they also say: “We were one of the first organizations to speak out against overzealous emissions requirements, ‘clunker’ bills, and burdensome inspection programs.” I think they’re dead wrong on this issue. I support phase-in of CA style strict emissions laws nationwide. :-/
If there’s literally no other car in sight, and I’m driving on a perfectly straight strip of four-lane highway, I don’t see how it’s unsafe for me to drive 85-90 mph.
Hey, remember those sound engineering priciples mentioned in the NMA goals? Those engineering principles do not say “We’ve determined that a generally safe speed for this road, given the traffic and use it experiences, is X mph. But hey! You’re a good driver. If in your judgment you should be going X+15 or so, that’s cool with us.”
Which is to say that I don’t buy whining about ‘speed traps’ if, in fact, they are lawfully run–that is, the cops are in fact making sure people are exceeding the speed limit and not just ticketing out-of-staters.
My problem with speed limits is not that I think I’m a better driver than other people. It’s that “safe speed” varies depending on things like traffic and weather. On a dry day, on a perfectly straight limited-access highway, with no other car in sight, it’s safe to drive 90. In heavy traffic, or in the rain, it isn’t, and I certainly wouldn’t drive that fast under those conditions.
It’s that “safe speed” varies depending on things like traffic and weather.
Yes. That’s why they set an upper limit: on a clear, dry day with good road conditions, you should be going no faster than X mph. That also takes into account things like pollution (you know that’s why we had 55 for so long) and death rates.
See, it’s not just about you hitting somebody. The faster you go, the more momentum you have, the worse the damage if you screw up, and the less time you have to recover from mistakes. So if you were INcorrect that there are no other cars on the road (oops, that guy just pulled out of the shoulder), glanced down a little too long to twiddle your radio knob, or perhaps weren’t as good and clear-headed a driver as you thought just at that moment…
So, no, I don’t have a problem with ‘speed traps’ if they are run properly. If you don’t think the speed limit on a given road is reasonable, get like-minded folks to raise it. There’s really no reason to go 90 except “I’m in a hurry.”
Nobody takes that “upper limit” seriously, not even the cops. On a typical high-traffic day on 280, the slower cars on the right are going 5 over, the vast majority are going about 10 over, and a few people in the passing line are going about 15 over. Every now and then, somebody doing 15 over will get ticketed, but most of the time you have to have reached 20 over (i.e. 85) before you get ticketed.
And considering that 280 actually is wide enough, and the traffic usually light enough, I think this is entirely reasonable. If it’s foggy, rainy, or whatever, then sure, I’ll slow down. In fact, in serious fog (which happens along there sometimes), I’ll slow down all the way to 35 or 40, and stay in the rightmost-but-one lane (leaving the rightmost for people entering/exiting, and the ones to the left for people who are too dumb to slow down).
As for things like cars on the side of the road, or glancing at your radio — well, don’t do stupid things when you drive. On a long straightaway, if you’re driving fast, and in the lane closest to the center divider (with no left shoulder), people entering from the shoulder are not going to be a problem, and in any case if you’re paying attention you will be able to see them. If you need to change the tape/CD or whatever, slow down, or better yet, pull over at a rest stop. (Having a CD changer that is nontrivial to operate, I only ever swap the CDs in my garage or in a parking lot, never on the road.)
Also, having driven a (curvy) track at about 135 in a stock street-drivable car, I feel fairly confident of my ability to maintain control at 90.
In short, I still say that, depending on conditions, and assuming you’re not being a moron, it can be perfectly safe to go 85-90. As for the only reason for that being, “I’m in a hurry,” I could just as well say that the only reason to drive a car instead of taking public transit is because you’re in a hurry, or that the only reason to drive 65 instead of 55 is because you’re in a hurry. Of course I’m in a hurry — I didn’t go out on the road for fun, I went out on the road because there’s someplace I want to be, and I’d like to spend as little time as possible on getting there.
As a sidenote, on the pollution issue, as I understand it, though 70s and 80s engines ran at peak efficiency only around 45-55, modern engines with adjustable valves maintain peak efficiency throughout the range of highway speeds, up to about 75-80. I’ll note that I am, of course, not an expert on the topic.
Nobody takes that “upper limit” seriously, not even the cops
But the complain is about “speed traps.” In other words, if the cops take the speed limit seriously by setting up designated, stringent enforcement, they’re unfair. Which is it? You can’t simultaneously complain that they enforce speeding (speed traps) and that they don’t (pulling over only really high-speed lawbreakers).
EVERYBODY thinks they have supah l33t driving abilities that let them break traffic laws with impunity because, you know, they can handle it. Unfortunately there is no magic skill score tattooed on your forehead, or painted on your car, so that a cop looking at the bumper knows you (unlike that other bozo in the right lane) can handle going as fast as you are.
It’s never ‘perfectly safe’ to go 90 mph. I assume what you mean is that you believe, under certain conditions, that it is not significantly less safe to go 90 mph rather than 65 mph.
The problem, again, is that we need to have some limit on speed other than “dude, whatever you can handle.” It should be a limit that, in ordinary circumstances, is safe, appropriate for wear and tear on the roads, and efficient for fuel–and your comment about peak efficiency at 75 is incorrect. For MOST people, under MOST conditions for the road in question, the given speed limit is (or should be) the highest safe speed. If you think that stretch of road can support 90 mph, you and the NMA should lobby for a change. Exemptions for “I’m a good driver and in a hurry and, gosh darn it, I’ve handled worse conditions than this” aren’t really appropriate.
I’m sure there are people who are such good drivers that they can steadily maneuver a vehicle in traffic at a BAC of .09. Does that mean drunk-driving laws are stupid and cops are unfair if they give you a ticket for driving while impaired?
and I’d like to spend as little time as possible on getting there
Me too. That interest has to be balanced against road safety and environmental considerations. I’m sure you’d agree it’s selfish of me to say that it’s OK for me to tailgate, cut in and out of traffic, and change lanes suddenly just because I’m in a hurry. Driving too fast, just like tailgating, puts you and others in danger. Would you buy my saying that I’m such a great driver I am not causing any problems by riding up the tailpipes of slower cars?
Driving at all puts other drivers in danger — the more crowded the road, the more the risk.
And yes, I was saying, roughly, that under some conditions, 85-90 is not significantly less safe than 65.
And I don’t see how it’s inconsistent to complain that they enforce the current law erratically, while also feeling that the current law is wrong. If they wanted to put up signs that said “speed limit 85 in fair weather, 65 in rain, 45 in heavy fog” on 280, and then enforce that stringently — like, pulling people over for +5 — I’d be fine with that. I’m also fine with pulling people over just for weaving around and driving erratically, following too closely, etc.
You’re again presupposing that it’s a good idea for 85 to be the speed limit in fair weather on that stretch of road.
I don’t think “I want to get there fast” should be the alpha and omega of determining reasonable speed limits. Nor do I think it’s reasonable to want a But My Driving r0x0rz! Exemption to traffic laws. After all, if you know you can handle 90 mph, who’s to say I can’t handle tailgating? Don’t you trust me when I say I know what I’m doing?
Two other things: It occurs to me to compare the “bad law, enforced erratically” thing to the War on Some Drugs. (see: punishments for crack vs white powder) Traffic law is currently messed up. Not quite as messed up as drug law… but close
Also, regarding the score idea: No, there isn’t, but it wouldn’t be a half-bad idea. We could have an annual certification program, where you can drive a track and demonstrate competency well above the ridiculously low standards they have for issuing a license, and if you pass, you get a different license that raises your limits.
Uh. No. Not even a hundredth as close. I’m sorry, the lack of perspective here is jaw-dropping.
Oh, and don’t believe me on the fuel mileage, believe Click and Clack. 🙂
http://www.cartalk.com/content/eco/tips.html#6
Ahhhhh Laurel…. so good to see you! Heh. I’ll add you to the friends stuff so you can whack me with many a clue-by-four instead of only an occasional one.
“Hmmm…should I use the braided leather clue-by-four or the flat wooden one with the holes drilled in it?”
😉
ha. M’lady’s choice. 😉
Yeah. I put you on all filters because I am certain x 100 that I will never shock or offend you. I do ask that when you see me being particularly upset please don’t go off on me. I know when I’m being stupid. I don’t need you to tell me as well. 😉
Hey, if I go off and you don’t need or want to hear it, just say so and I’ll back off. I’m never TRYING to make you feel like crap. 🙂
you’ll get about half the mileage driving at 70 mph compared to 50 mph!
I have trouble believing that this is not an exaggeration. Maybe in a car shaped like a box. But based on checking my trip meter and my gas purchases, I get 25-35 mpg in my car, and I do better when I’m doing a lot of highway driving (as opposed to, say, driving in SF, where lights force many stop/starts — and I do try to brake sanely and avoid accelerating hard — and I have to drive up and down steep hills). I really doubt I would actually get 50 mpg driving 50 mph instead of 70. I’m not sure even the hybrids consistently get 50.
Well, feel free to tell them to quit spreading misinformation.
I have to agree with the last comment. Your right to drive the sort of car you want is trumped by my right not to die of lung complaints caused by your air pollution, and my kids right to die not to die of global warming from your greenhouse gasses.
Heh. Yeah.
Ever encountered the Viridian Design Movement? Bruce Sterling is my hero. “Many people claim not to be convinced by [the] climate change
evidence. That is because they are shortsighted sociopathic morons who don’t want to lose any money. . . . [I]t’s a severe breach of taste to bake and sweat half to death in your own trash… To boil and roast the entire physical world, just so you can pursue your cheap addiction to carbon dioxide…. What a cramp in our style! It’s all very foul and aesthetically regrettable.”
I would like to enthusiastically second that statement.
I’m afraid their position on environmental issues is something of a deal breaker. Let me sugges instead the Better World Club.
Cool! It even has the endorsement of Clik’n’Clak. 🙂
I’ll have to take a look at it in more depth at some point. But not right now. Currently I am rushing through a last LJ check before packing my bags to fly to Minnesota.