Drive at Your Own Pace

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

On the main road that bisects my rural county, I typically lope along at 75 or so. This, to me – for me – is a reasonable speed. It’s within my comfort zone. Not so fast that I feel I’m pushing my limits as a driver – or the limits of the car. I state this as a mature adult who has taken several high-performance driving courses, drives professionally to earn my living (test driving/evaluating new cars) and who – most relevantly – has not had an accident in decades of driving. One of two things must be true: Either I am very lucky – or I am a responsible, careful driver.driving lead

The speed limit, however, is 55.

This means I am usually driving much faster than is legally permissible. In fact, in my state (Virginia) it is technically “reckless driving” to exceed any posted limit by more than 20 MPH. That means 76 in a 55 – even if 55 is palpably ridiculous, almost universally ignored – and doing 76 is not much faster than the normal flow of traffic on that road.

A fundamental problem – technically, not ethically – with speed limits is they are one-size-fits-all, the “size” typically being a half-blind, borderline senile, fearful/timid and poorly skilled driver – for whom that speed might indeed be the limit – the fastest they probably ought to be driving (if they ought to be driving at all).

But what if that’s not you?

What if you can safely – based on objective criteria – operate at a faster clip?Why is it wrong for you to do so? And why should you be punished for doing so?short bus pic

Consider other life situations. We don’t (yet) put the smart kids on the short bus. Insist that the expert skier take the bunny hop course.  Are sprinters forced to limit their pace to that of the slowest runner? When you are out walking in public, do you expect others to walk no faster than you’re walking?

These, of course, are not exact parallels, but the fundamental point does apply. People are individuals – and individuals vary in almost every conceivable way, including their skill behind the wheel. Some are much better – and some much worse – than others. This is as self-evident as the fact that some people are better athletes than others, can tackle advanced math more adeptly than some can deal with basic arithmetic. And so on, throughout and across the spectrum of human life.

Speed limits – to be generous for the sake of this discussion, let us assume they are not set over-low deliberately, for purposes of mulcting motorists – are typically set on the assumption that everyone is worse. No, it’s more than merely that. Speed limits require every driver to drive at the level of the worst drivers. Those who refuse to get on the short bus – so to speak – are punished for not following the rules.

Not because they are bad (or dangerous) drivers.

As a result, there is a gross (and growing) disconnect between “crime” and “punishment.” Meaning, people who know they’ve done no wrong, who were in full control of their vehicle, are nonetheless punished – with ever-increasing severity. See, for instance, Virginia’s “reckless driving” statute, which imposes four figure fines and the possibility of jail time merely for driving in excess of 20 MPH faster than any posted limit. This is a fundamental injustice – and bad social policy besides. One of the main reasons otherwise straight-and-narrow citizens are becoming ever-more-contemptuous of police is that they view them as thieves acting under color of law. The roadside prattle about “safety” and “do you know how fast you were going” is insufferable cant. It’s a shakedown, legalized robbery – nothing more.Va cop pic

This tends to piss people off.

The system would work a whole let better if it permitted what ought to be SOP in an allegedly free society – the exercise of judgment and the individual assumption of responsibility for the consequences. Why not, in other words, let drivers gauge the “right” speed for themselves? Some will drive faster than others are comfortable with – just as others will drive more slowly than others are comfortable with. But neither is a safety issue – as such (provided each type of driver is courteous and neither crowds slower-moving drivers nor attempts to box in faster-moving drivers).faster:slower pic If a driver causes an accident, hold him accountable – irrespective of the speed he happened to be driving at the time. It’s not the speed that’s relevant – it’s that an accident happened.

A free society needs – no, requires – people who are not biological automata. Who are capable of evaluating a situation and taking appropriate action on their own initiative. Without being punished for doing so. For transgressing some arbitrary rule.

The immediate objection – in some quarters – will be that absent one-size-fits-all, without arbitrary rules, people would just run amok. Drive 100 MPH through subdivisions, half-empty fifth of Jack Daniels in one hand, cell phone in the other – steering by knee. It’s ridiculous – unless you take the position that most or even many people are reckless (actually reckless), even sociopathic. As unconcerned about their own lives as they are about the lives of others. It’s ludicrous.

The fact is, most people do behave. Act reasonably, with consideration for others. Without need of laws to tell them to – and not because they fear being punished. With regard to driving, most people want to arrive alive – and drive accordingly. Like me, they drive within their limits, within their comfort zone. Just like most people who own guns handle them responsibly, do not shoot up schools, do not shoot themselves.obey pic It’s the people who can’t control themselves who have this mania to control others – who assume the worst about others because they know, in their hearts, the truth about themselves.

These people are the problem.

Me? I’m getting tired of being held accountable for what other people do. Being punished, not because I’ve caused anyone any harm but merely because I chose not to get on the short bus, grin like an imbecile and accept being treated like an imbecile because some people are imbeciles.

Aren’t you getting tired of it, too?

Throw it in the Woods?

PS: If you like what you’ve found here, please consider supporting We depend on you, the readers, to keep the lights on and the wheels spinning.

The link to our “donate” button is here. You can also use snail mail – if you prefer to avoid PayPal. The address is:

721 Hummingbird Lane, SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079


  1. I try to avoid using the word “accident” because these are usually unavoidable. I prefer the use of the word “crash” because I believe these are avoidable and usually due to inept automobile operators usually exceeding their limits – and avoiding the use of “drivers’ because most are only clueless operators.

    • In the Army we used to call them “steering wheel attendants”, since they might as well have their hands holding a newspaper instead 😉

  2. My, perhaps wrong, understanding is that there is a speed limit of sorts on Germany’s autobahn. If the insurance can prove you were traveling over X kph then they are not obligated to cover you. (X being really fast)

    Is this a better compromise? Have insurance set your speed limit. You pay your fee based on driving record and how fast they will cover you at.

    Not saying this is practical. Just trying to think outside the box of state controlled law enforcement.

    • I’d be OK with this if you aren’t REQUIRED to get insurance. But in the current world of being required to get it, I could see it being even worse.

      • Exactly David. Imagine an insurance company being judge, jury and executioner.. They might BEGIN by reporting you speeding and then cancelling your insurance, but they’d push for further powers if it were possible. Thankfully it’s not – yet.

  3. I’m sure getting sick of the “think of the children” crew. That blank stare from thoughtless folks that can’t, and won’t, defend asinine arguments. All I can see in my head is that teacher from The Simpsons and it at least gives me a smile.

    I recently had a conversation about whether or not all cops are bad. Actually it was more like talking to an unthinking wall. Not because we didn’t come to agreement, but, as usual, because the other person refused to defend their positions with logic or even a pretense of logic.

    Some cop in California pulls some lady from a burning car. Ipso Facto GOOD COP! Nevermind that Hitler built libraries (not to be dramatic). These people never want to draw things out to their logical conclusion. And they never seem to want to start with a logical premise. I’m getting better about getting people to actually think. And, frankly, the lunatics in charge are making that conversation a lot easier for people like us.

    • @PreacherRye- Man, this is tough, even for me. I mean, ultimately, I agree with you, and Eric, on that issue (Depending on how you define “bad’ of course.) But I still struggle with it, and I don’t really live in a way that’s consistent with that viewpoint (In fairness to me, I still live at home and my parents aren’t ancaps so there’s that). Its difficult because everybody, or at least, most people, know a nice guy who’s a cop and its not easy to overcome the brainwashing you’ve been taught your whole life. Sometimes its hard even for me.

      • Hi David,

        On the “nice guy” cop:

        A state cop lives down the road from me. We know one another; talk (about bikes) every now and then. He is friendly, seems like a “nice guy.”

        But I am under no delusion that this “nice guy” cop would be not-so-nice to me (or you) if we met in a different context. For instance – and let me preface this by stating, for the record, that I have not so much as puffed a joint in nearly 20 years and do not “do” or otherwise have anything to do with arbitrarily illegal “drugs” – imagine this “nice guy” rolls over to my house one day to chat about bikes and notices I am growing some pot plants in my yard. How “nice” do you suppose he’ll be?

        And even if he is nice to me, do you suppose he’ll be nice to someone he does not know who is “guilty” of the same “offense”?

        We all know the answer to that one.

        It is exactly like being friendly with the local mob enforcer. He might not give you a beating, but he gives out beatings to others. Would you describe Luca Brasi or Tony Soprano as a “nice” man?

        • Good description of “the nice guy” eric.

          It seems to me David has some growing up to do. and many other people do too.
          The question is, do they want to?
          In David’s case, it seems he does.
          But everybody else… I’m not so sure they do.

          “That way,… there be monsters.”

        • Exactly right, Eric…another example I use when someone tells me about the “good” cops is that they don’t do jack about the BAD cops, in fact often they fully support them!

          Look at the thousands of videos showing cops doing illegal and immoral things. For EVERY one of them, we should see an arrest made, but do we? The good cops are looking at evidence of a crime by fellow cops and ignoring it. And that’s the GOOD cops!

          Interesting story about good cops: In my province we have an interesting news report where a checkpoint was set up to catch drunk drivers. A vehicle approached it and sped up, then slammed the brakes at the last minute, obviously drunk. But the driver was RCMP, so and I quote, the GOOD officers manning the station “decided to let his supervisor deal with it” WTF??? You ARREST the DRUNK that approached your DRUNK CATCHING ROADBLOCK you moron!

          But it gets better, as the RCMP then SPED AWAY. Now the cops don’t like being ignored and by this point other people in the line saw clearly that it was a cop in the car, so they couldn’t just let him go anymore…so they had to speed after him and when they administered the breathalizer AT HOME he was drunk.

          Note this…at the ROADSIDE they did NOT administer the breathalizer, but they claimed they were going to let the supervisor deal with it. But they were not going to arrest him nor were they going to collect any evidence.

          These are the GOOD cops…imagine the BAD ones!

        • Does this cop know how you feel about… well… cops?

          Look, I totally get your reasoning, and I agree with you. I still don’t know what the right balance is between principle and general manners when it comes to this stuff. Its not easy when we all know regular guys who are cops who may not even know better, but its still true. I’m with you.

          The reality is that most people do not agree with us, and if we point this stuff out, WE’RE the ones who get ostracized, or at the very least, ridiculed. Heck, I get it from my own parents, who I live with, from time to time. They just don’t understand how I feel so STRONGLY about the non-aggression issue, and so they, like most people, think I’m “arrogant.” I imagine they’d say the same thing about most people here. Heck, there was even a debate about this topic on RPF (that’s, for anyone who doesn’t know) about whether its OK for people who get it to be “arrogant”. Some people felt like even using the word “educate” to describe our political encounters with the masses is arrogant. Even a lot of people who know the truth don’t realize that they know the truth, if that makes sense. At the same point, being a jerk doesn’t really work either. I, much more than most people, can deal with logic and reasoning. I can totally agree with you, on principle, on the “bad cop” bit even if I don’t really FEEL like the cop that I know personally is a “bad guy.” I can acknowledge that the US military is a gang of murderers even if I don’t necessarily “feel” quite that way when I hear someone wants to enlist (It still sickens me, but probably not quite to the level that it should, incidentally most of the partially brainwashed think that I take it too far so maybe my reactions are correct after all.) But most people can’t do that, they’ll shut you out.

          I don’t know what the solution is to this. Maybe someday it means forming our own communities and separating from statists entirely. But I don’t think we’re there yet, and I don’t think most of us would do it. I’d have a really hard time completely doing it. Maybe it would be easy for you, Eric. I don’t know.

      • Hi David,

        I’ve enjoyed much of your back and forth with Eric over the past months. I imagine a lot of non/rare posters like me have as well.

        To further on Eric’s reply to you, I also know several cops. One I’ve known for 20 years and I’m close with. He knows very much so how I feel though, and I know how he feels. He’s pretty conservative libertarian, but he draws some fundamentally flawed conclusions about liberty. And he participates in all sorts of nastiness, much of the sort that is discussed here. He also truly believes he is doing “good.” And “helping people.” No amount of history lessons, logic interventions, evidence to the contrary, or possibly even brute force would change his mind either.

        We’ve been friends for a long time and he’d be there when I needed him, and I will be for him in a SHTF situation. You aren’t alone. There are many people who don’t live exactly in step with their viewpoints and principles. I just prefer people at least be honest about their own hypocrisy which just doesn’t seem to happen nowadays.

        • Just out of curiosity, PreacherRye, are you a Christian pastor? The reason I ask is because a lot of times in these debates you get Christians that will just fall back on “Romans 13”, or some such, and avoid really having the debate. And for the record, I say this as a Christian myself, one of the most vocal if not the most vocal on this website.

          And this is part of what I wanted to get at in that other religion thread. Even if Eric and others like him don’t believe, they should still try to learn enough scripture to be able to respond to those types of things, or at least, I think it would be helpful. Telling them that their religion is the problem is NOT going to help you or them. Explaining how people are taking certain verses too far or out of context to defend that which should never be defended might work.

          I usually do poorly in that debate, despite being a Christian who probably does have more scriptural knowledge than most people my age. I know a couple of people on RPF who are better at it. Its tough because the standard interpretation is “Obey the government, period” and liberty minded Christians, or at least I can speak for myself as a liberty minded Christian, do not agree with that. But looking at the very anti-state attitude of the Old Testament and the gospels takes work. Saying “Obey the governing authority” is a good sound bite with a thin Biblical basis, so most people just stop thinking about it at that point. If I were going to get to a point where I would shun the statists entirely and 100%, I’d first need to get to a point where I could confidently articulate how I deal with Romans 13. As it is, I’ve been confronted with it multiple times, and while I always try to address it, I don’t know as much about it as I should, and its not an easy topic, so far too many Christians are brainwashed into thinking that the government being ordained by God actually means that its a good thing that should be supported.

          • David, I was once told by a judge that the Magna Carta (enacted in England in 1215) was “ outdated document that has no bearing on this court”.

            Shoulda seen him squirm when I noted that the Ten Commandments were at least twice that age and are still in high regard – apparently and, the Bible we swear to tell the truth by isn’t proven to be a reliable account of anything at all.

    • Hi Preacher,

      Yup – I have the same defeating experience, regularly. People have been trained to emote, not reason. To not be able to follow a logical conversation; to spew non sequiturs as a defense of the rote orthodoxies (“Good cop!” “Speed kills!” “I support the troops!”) they have memorized.

      This – in living memory – was once characteristic of the lower classes. The educated middle and upper classes still followed the rules of logical discussion/debate.

      That has been thrown in the woods. Today, we have quite literally the separating out of human beings into a great mass of unconscious proles, the Outer Party (which is reared, conditioned and trained to operate strictly and reflexively within certain limited parameters and to never breach the orthodoxies) and the Inner Party, which runs the show.

  4. I have pondered this at length. It seems to me that any fine which exceeds perhaps a day of minimum wage for an activity which has no measurable harm constitutes an excessive fine under the eighth amendment.

    Put another, way, I will gladly make restitution to my victim for my crime of (DUI, speeding, sporting with a shady lady, refusing to wear a seat belt, carrying my unregistered gun, et al. Because there isn’t one.

    • Exactly so, Ernie.

      The key is getting people to realize the fundamental wrongness of punishment in the absence of harm done (or even plausibly threatened). Restitution is just; you caused someone else a tangible harm – you have an obligation to make them whole. No issue with holding people accountable for what they do.

      But this business of dunning (and worse) people for nothing more than Authority Decrees It is an outrage. Who – cue Seinfeld – are these people? By what right do they waylay us? Take our money using threats and violence?

      It’s as wrong as what Don Corleone does – except most people accept it when it’s done by this thing called “government” – a miracle of semantics. A vile act when committed by a mafia becomes acceptable public policy when it is done by “government.”

      That’s quite something!

  5. My oldest daughter, old enough to recognize when I’m going over the speed limit, called me out on it the other day. I told her those signs are only “suggestions”.

    I got the eye roll from the wife. Mission accomplished.

    • Excellent!

      One regret I have about not having a kid is not being able to rear a future recalcitrant. The country desperately needs more of ’em.

      • Eric – My dad tried everything he could NOT to raise a recalcitrant. The trouble was he also taught me not to buy into straw man arguments, circular logic and common misconceptions. He told me numerous times to reduce everything down to its lowest common denominator before you evaluate it. Once you start applying a little critical thinking to “the system” it’s hard not to rebel against it if you have any balls at all. And in some cases the rebellion was already done for us, as in the Second Amendment. Now those who would presume to run “the system” want to convince us that “shall not be infringed” is subject to interpretation and THEY have the right to tell where and when we may bear arms. Being a rebellious recalcitrant in this case means we follow the supreme law of the land and ignore the nattering nabobs along with their petty (and unlawful) edicts; to carry where ever and when ever we please.

        The same goes for traveling. I’m careful to avoid encounters with the highwaymen bearing official robes and medallions. But that doesn’t mean I’m not going to be a hoon when I feel like it. I ride a fast bike for a reason. And there’s nothing more satisfying than to be on a bike and have one of their “velocity tax” collectors trapped in traffic watching you depart at your own chosen velocity unable to pursue. If we are recalcitrant, rebellious and contrarian, we follow in the footsteps of (some of) the framers and that’s about as American as it gets; clover’s dull eyed perception of a blissfully ignorant, compliant and downright subservient populace being the personification of “order” notwithstanding. As long as we don’t aggress against others or do them harm, it is our right and I aver that it is our duty to stand apart, question authority and defy it when it is illegitimate. That is a big part of being on the narrow path as I see it.

        • Tell me Boothe, have you ever seen a traffic accident and death caused by one of your fellow rebellious friends. I have. It is not a pretty sight. If you get a chance go and see one of those and tell me about all your rights to rebel against someone trying to get you to drive correctly.

          • I’ve been so busy at work I haven’t been able to comment.

            But I see this exchange in my email inbox…and I thought I’d become immune to clover-stupidity, but THIS one reaches new heights!

            Derpa-derpa-derpa, stupid pointless example of nothing, derpa-derpa, bad grammer, derpa-derpa strawman, derpa derpa me smart…

            I will never collaborate with or agree with the Elites. But when I see these clovers, I sometimes wonder if they’re right and we NEED a culling for the good of the species. Fear this: clover might breed.

          • Thanks Meth. There were only 34,080 traffic deaths in 2012. I guess they just were not driving fast enough. If you piled that many dead people up how many miles would that be? Yes the number of traffic deaths is dropping. There are those that think that mandatory seat belts and air bags and a crack down of DUI has done nothing! Yes some people are brainless and that would not be me. Look in the mirror.

          • Clover – I have seen numerous traffic accidents caused by carelessness and stupidity. But it wasn’t me that caused them. I’ve been very careful not to ride or drive beyond my abilities or road conditions. I have a strong sense of self preservation. For you to imply that I don’t “drive correctly” is presumptive and ludicrous. You don’t know me and you’ve never seem me drive, so don’t make ridiculous assertions based on what you feeeeeel I may be doing.

            You were probably that middle aged woman that cut me off last Wednesday because she was in a full sized Dodge pick up truck and I was in a Miata and she knew she could get away with it. Or maybe you were the ding-bat teenage girl in the Pontiac Grand Am the very next day that pulled out in front of me covering both lanes. When she finally managed to turn and get back in her own lane, grinning sheepishly, she was holding her half eaten breakfast burrito in one hand and the wheel in the other. In both cases, I was the one actually paying attention and avoided the collision. But by your way of thinking they were “safe drivers” because they were the slow drivers, even though they were the ones screwing up. Had I not been paying attention and avoided them there WOULD have been an accident in either case. The point is I don’t need advice from a sleep walking milquetoast conformist such as yourself on how I must conduct myself on the highway. I have a clean driving history and no fatalities or even any injuries on my record. How ’bout you? Crawl back into your hole little troll while I enjoy my life and my vehicles.

  6. The roadside prattle about “safety” and “do you know how fast you were going” is insufferable cant. It’s a shakedown, legalized robbery – nothing more.

    One of the most glaring pieces of evidence to support such a statement is that how, mysteriously, all of the roadside speed traps disappear when it’s raining. You know, when excessive speed may actually be unsafe in some situations. You’d think there would be more speed traps in the rain if it really and truly is about safety.

    Even in a sure moneymaker like a school zone, the first patterings of rain will make any nearby motorcycle cop disappear faster than the Wicked Witch of the West.

    I can’t help but wonder how many other people either consciously or subconsciously notice these things.

    • Notice it all the time Ferret. Fog or rain also renders laser speed measuring devices almost useless – not that the cops will ever tell you that – but it’s more the hot coffee and donuts they seek in such situations.

  7. I agree that people should be able to choose their driving speed…IF one could state that everyone is intelligent and can accurately gauge their abilities. Common sense tells me that this is not true. Idiots would misjudge and be killing the good drivers every week under this system. I know this because it happens under the current system too.

    THUS SAID, I also agree that making the “good” drivers (i.e. you) lower to their level is equally absurd, for all the reasons you stated.

    So, what do you think of this compromise…turn all “speed limit” signs into “speed recommendation” signs, non-enforceable but a suggestion based on analysis of the road (just as is done now), let people travel at their speeds, and ONLY IF an accident occurs, the pigs can tack on an additional charge is the person was going past this recommendation. (i.e. they misjudged their abilities and caused damage/death).

    Everyone wins, right? Freedom to drive as you can, protection against those who can’t (as anyone who misjudges risks more money fleeced) and the pigs get their extra cash when someone messes up.

    • I doubt it would be any worse than the current setup, but there’s no such thing as a “voluntary” law — not for long, anyhow.

      Also, here’s a thought. Under this proposed system, we could have two car crashes both resulting in identical damage, and one is regarded as “more serious” than the other because somebody had broken a “guideline.” This doesn’t sit well with me.

      • I get your point but it would still be better than the current system, where all you have to do is break the “guideline” and you get punished.

        Plus, and I agree with Eric that this isn’t usually applicable, but I think there are extreme cases where speed really does make a difference. If I hit a kid while driving 20 in a housing community, it was probably an accident; if I’m driving 80 I was, at the very least, being stupid. I have no idea where the line is here, of course. Hence why we need private roads.

    • mamba, the so called good driver you are talking about wrapped his car around a tree driving too fast. I guess you can not get a better example of speed causing an accident. It is just a good thing a family of four was not in the way when it happened.

      • So is your logic: “everyone must drive slow because the actions of an individual can cause a horrific accident even involving innocents?”

        Because if that’s what you’re saying clover, then we must disarm all cops immediately because some cops clearly are killing innocents.

        …or we must ban ALL driving and ALL alcohol, because some people can’t handle it.

        …or we must ban ALL guns because some people shoot and kill with them. Oh wait, that last one IS being said by some people. (laugh)

        Really now, what ARE you trying to say here? Sounds like the old “think of the children” argument, and the logic cuts both ways. Yes the idiot who drives too fast will cause an accident and be appropriately charged with the existing law of DRIVING WITHOUT DUE CARE, while those others like Eric would not. Exactly where’s the problem? andremember, if you try and claim “Well it’s to protect innocents”, then see my points above on alcohol guns and cops.

        • Mamba the speed limits and drunk driving laws that we have are reasonable. I can get to where I need to go in a very reasonable amount of time. You do not need to be plastered to go out and drive. The speed limits on the rural highways are mostly in the 70 to 75 mph range. Is that not reasonable? I have seen others that go beyond that and yes the killed others. Clover
          Yes there are stupid people out there and you do need to set limits. Even in Germany in areas where there are no speed limits you can be stopped if you are driving dangerously around other cars.
          Last week it got very warm here and we also had rain and lots of snow runoff. We had dense fog along with it. I came home and there was an idiot pickup driver that was I am sure driving way too fast when he came upon water on the road and lost control and went into the ditch with water almost to the top of his hood. I told this to a guy I have been working with. He said he was diverted to the interstate. He said he went to the left lane for fear he would crash into a slower car in the right lane. Can someone tell me why there are 50 car pileups? If someone can not stop or slow down behind a slower vehicle how are they going to stop if there is an accident ahead? Here are the rules of the road while driving in fog that people do not seem to ever follow any more: “Do not overdrive your headlights. Stay within the limits of your vision. You may have to stop suddenly.”

          • Reasonable limits aren’t the issue…the issue is why is it a LAW? Speed limit SUGGESTIONS are reasonable too, but why is it suddenly a punishable crime to go faster? As for drunk driving, you’re trying to divert the issue here as nobody said anything about drunk driving. Nice try though, cop.

            You claim that you’ve seen people driving faster and cause accidents. And I have seen people driving SLOWER and cause accidents, often seniors. So your argument is nullified. It’s not SPEED that causes accidents, but LACK OF CONTROL…and that’s an individual matter.

            As for your example given, you only prove my point…that individual would be driving without due care and if an accident occurred would be charged appropriately. You still have no actual counterargument to why it’s a LAW and not a SUGGESTION.

          • mamba you are a brain washed ——. You say, why is there a speed limit? Really? You have no idea? Go do your research and find the answer rather than listening to your friends that do not have a clue what they are talking about. Just one example out of 10s of thousands is the recent crash a death of a big actor and an ex race car driver. All they did wrong was drive too fast and well over the speed limit. If they drove legally they would still be alive. There are 10s of thousands of similar examples out there. You still say that speed limits are not necessary? The fact is that many people do drive more responsibly because there are speed limits. The others that do not have a thousand times more chance of causing an accident and death than I do.. Your example of an older driver causing a n accident is a poor one. If they are driving to the best of their ability I do not have a problem with them driving. If they are not physically capable of driving safely they should be taken off the road. Most states that I know of have yearly tests for drivers over a certain age. You say we need to punish drivers after they have an accident. Tell me how you plan on bringing back that person or possibly my family member after they are killed by that person?

    • I am all for recommended speed signs. If you are unfamiliar with the road it gives you a good gauge as to how fast you can safely go, for the most part. There are exceptions, one of the roads I use daily has a caution speed of 30mph as you go over the railroad tracks… unfortunately 30mph is entirely too fast as the road is severely damaged around the track… one time going 30mph over it, is enough to convince most not to try that again 🙂

    • I agree with your recommendation Mamba – many more here in Australia feel this way too.

      I remember a traffic expert at least a decade ago who used to recommend speed limits for certain roads was always backhanded by the local councils and his recommended speeds were reduced by 10 or 20 k’s, considering that wide, straight roads with ridiculously low limits made more fine revenue. His final stance on television after resigning his position out of frustration was for all speed limits to be “recommended” only.

      If we take ourselves back to the days before the horseless carriage was invented, speed limits were virtually unheard of, never mind the thousands of annual accidents caused by spooked and runaway horses – imagine your stability control being spooked by something every few miles – it’d never be implemented.

      In the first days of horseless carriages, English parliaments were gripped in a panic over these monstrosities. Not that they could go much faster anyway, but were limited to 4 MPH and had to have a flagman furiously waving his red rag on a stick walking beside this monster in order to warn pedestrians. How anyone couldn’t possibly be aware of such a thing from half a mile away is beyond me, considering the smoke and noise they made.

      How times have changed, but not much for the better. Before the horseless carriage, privately used wagons needed no registration or licence, amazing considering they were far more dangerous that modern cars today. The only ones that had to have rego and licences (permission) were the traders – commercial carriers, for hire taxi’s, buggies etc., since monetary gain from public-paid roads isn’t fair and of which is the only thing grabbermint has control over in such an environment.

      Since the mass-production of the auto (Model T), greedy grabbermints decided to get in on on the moola and require registration and licences for all. Although some might claim that the rapid requirement for better roads at that time was costly and the revenue generated from such measures were justified – and still today – the fact is that roads are created in Fee Simple, meaning taxes from virtually all sources go into building and maintaining them.

      However, as we know, roads are almost the last thing on grabbermint minds – not forgetting lives.

      Licences for all in the interests of safety is bogus. Pass one simple test and continue paying the renewal fee, it’s valid until your heart stops, without ever having to be retested. We all know how well that system works.

      Notice that your licence can be used for commercial carrying – that your boss can pay you to cart parts all over the country in a pickup without you requiring further permission. Eric knows what I mean. He doesn’t need anything special to be paid to “drive”.

      According to all law dictionaries on the planet, a “driver” is “one employed in conducting a coach, carriage etc.”. So every time a cop wants to see your licence, he’s interacting with you as if you were engaging in commercial enterprise – NOT just travelling to grandma’s. Law dictionaries also define “traffic” as commercial road-going activity and “passenger” as a fare-paying person.

      The whole thing’s a con. Simply because it’s mechanically propelled – and SAFER than a horse and cart? Pah!

      Speed limits are just a play on emotions, attempting to appoint guilt (most often successfully on the global warming enthusiast next door) on those that exceed an arbitrary limit, ensuring a greater chance of paying the fine, the money for which often goes into purchasing more speed cameras.

      Interestingly, I reckon that almost everyone has travelled through mountain twisties, where the speed limit is “open” or State limit (55, 60, 75 etc.), but every corner has a “recommended” speed sign of less than half.

      On motorcycles over the past nearly 30 years, I’ve found that in dry conditions those recommended speed signs can easily be doubled, often exceeding the State limit for what it’s worth.

      No doubt there’d be a handful of wowsers out there screaming at me to “think of the children”. Instead, they should be screaming at the parents, since the road is no place for children to play and, their infantile evidence (based only on fears foisted upon them by grabbermints) that people like myself, Eric and many other great thinkers here are the only cause of the road toll is woefully lacking, if not proven wrong at every turn.

      Motorcyclists here are affectionately known as “temporary Australians” by those that have never dared attempt balance on 2 wheels. For nearly 30 of my 45 years they’ve been wrong and, many of those naysayers are now 6 foot under, if not a coating of soot inside a chimney somewhere.

      If it’s working for you, keep up the good work 🙂


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here