The Right Speed Limit is Your Limit!

90
3914
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

People will never agree what the speed limit should be – which you’d think would raise questions about why there are speed limits at all.

It’s an odd business – this top-down imposition of one-size-fits-all when it’s obvious it fits almost no one. Even the most ardent defender of speed limits is usually guilty of “speeding” – i.e., he at least occasionally drives a little bit faster than whatever the arbitrarily-decreed fastest-allowable speed is. Such people will often defend their “speeding” as being reasonable – while decrying those who “speed” a bit more.

This being as arbitrary a standard as the speed limit, itself.

The great (and late, unfortunately) comedian George Carlin explained it best in one of his rants on the subject: Everyone who drives slower than you is an idiot – and everyone who drives faster, a maniac.

It’s painfully funny – because it touches truth, like a dentist touches a nerve with his drill. We laugh because we are at some level aware of our own idiocy.

This is the art of comedy.

The question isn’t what the speed limit should be. Which is to say: How fast should everyone be allowed to drive?

It ought to be: How fast should you drive? 

This size will not fit all. Just as the clothes you wear don’t fit all, either. They fit you. You chose them for that reason. You would not chose clothes that don’t fit you and if someone told you that you had to wear clothes that didn’t fit you then you’d know you were either in boot camp or prison.

The road shouldn’t be like either of those places. When it is like them, the result is frustrating, boring, dangerous – and unjust.

It is frustrating – and boring – to drive at a speed much lower than you can safely drive. And most people know perfectly well what that speed is, already – because that’s how fast they do drive. No matter the speed limit, which they obey only when necessary. Not because they feel the need to – an important difference.

This is actually the way speed limits are supposed to be set, by the way. It is called the 85th Percentile Standard and it is derived by taking note of how fast the majority of drivers naturally drive on a given stretch of road; the posted limit is set such that the majority of drivers aren’t “speeding” or not by much. This is an interesting admission in that it suggest formal speed limits aren’t needed as most drivers will not drive faster than their own limits even if there is no law forbidding it.

For the same reason it is unnecessary to pass laws forbidding people to swim who cannot.

Most people have more respect for their safety than the law and when there is a conflict, it is their safety that carries the day.

Of course, everyone has a different gauge as regard what is safe – when it comes to driving and otherwise. Is it safe to go for a five-mile run on a cold winter’s day? Not if you aren’t used to such things and can do them safely. Is it safe to drive faster than whatever the sign says you may? If you can do so safely – if you know the road, know your limits and don’t exceed them – then it may well be. Just as it may well be unsafe for a different person to drive the speed limit, which is above their ability to safely drive.

What’s not safe – for everyone – is expecting everyone to drive the same speed. It engenders the frustration and boredom mentioned above and both of these things are almost certainly greater threats to safety than not minding exactly what the totem pole by the side of the road says.

Bored drivers are inattentive drivers. Their attention wanders – from the road to what’s on the radio. They play with their phones. Cruise control is arguably the most dangerous “safety” device ever installed in a car  – after the automatic transmission.

Might as well tuck a pillow behind the driver’s head.

It is asking for trouble. For when attention is needed – as in, right now – it often takes a vital moment or two for the not-paying-attention driver to re-focus it. By which time it is often already too late.

It is difficult to fall asleep when you are occupied – as when actually driving. You necessarily focus on what you are doing when you are driving at a speed that is not boring because it is above the speed you can drive when half-asleep, using your legs to steer. driving faster is safer – for you. Punishing you for it makes about as much sense as punishing someone who works out because he’s in better shape than people who don’t work out.

It is also frustrating – another dangerous thing. Arbitrary speed limits result in inconsiderate driving. In drivers who won’t yield to faster-moving traffic. After all, they will say – I’m doing the speed limit!

Result? Increased tension, generally – also tailgating and swerve-passing. Neither the former nor the latter is justified anymore than obstructing faster-moving traffic – but the point is that mindless reference to the speed limit is what lays down the conditions leading to both. These conditions would largely dissipate if, rather than mindless obedience to speed limits, people practiced mindfulness – and adjusted their driving to syncopate with the ebb and flow of traffic.

But the most destructive consequence of one-size-fits-all is arguably the injustice of the thing. Of punishing people – with “tickets” and insurance premiums jacked up on the basis of such “tickets” – for nothing more than “speeding.” By equating this with dangerousness,  which is silly and everyone knows it (they just disagree over the threshold at which “speeding” becomes “dangerous”) as well as unjust by any fair standard.

Because it is fundamentally unjust to punish people when they haven’t harmed other people.

Whether you feel they might have – and regard that as sufficient – is monstrously unjust because the principle behind it opens pandora’s box to punishing people for any harm someone else feels they might cause.

By now, everyone who is still thinking straight – or even just thinking, at all – ought to be able to see the danger of that.

Which far exceeds the danger of me driving faster than you feel comfortable driving – or the other way around!

. . . .

Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in! Or email me at [email protected] if the @!** “ask Eric” button doesn’t work!

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

My eBook about car buying (new and used) is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.  If that fails, email me at [email protected] and I will send you a copy directly!

Share Button

90 COMMENTS

  1. Great point. Now that I pull a 10K pound RV almost everywhere I go I have come to the conclusion that most speed limits are designed for those pulling heavy loads. I am very comfortable driving the arbitrary speed “limit” because of what I’m driving.

    I was pulling my RV on a rural TN highway and there was NO WAY I felt comfortable driving 55mph on a curvy mountain road. Same thing in both TX and CO, where there speed limits were higher than I wanted to safely drive. Then you go back east and almost all of the speed limits are way too low, even for me.

    Do you remember the English town that removed all road signs? Soon traffic accidents dropped significantly. It turns out that if you expect drivers to think and drive accordingly, they will

  2. Yeah I was driving on a dark but clear, dry and safe 2 lane 35 mph city road in Fort Wayne one night and was getting frustrated behind a SLOW driver for 5 or so miles. Finally he turns, and I stomped on the pedal and hit supposedly 53 mph. Cop saw me.

    He pulled me over, he gave me the classic ‘do you know why I pulled ya over?’ and ‘where ya headed to in such a hurry?’ I gave him the classic 22 year old short answers ‘Nope’ and ‘No where’. He must not have liked not having his ass kissed because he gave me two tickets for speeding. One for 53 in a 35 zone and another 53 for in a 30 zone, as I crossed into it as he was pulling me over.

    As he handed me two and walked away, I spoke normally but clearly ‘Well this is bullshit’. Two $150 tickets. I called a lawyer and he said the same thing. He charged me about $175 to get one of the tickets removed completely and the other one off of my record for the insurance companies. I essentially paid both tickets and an extra $25 to get off the hook for extra premiums.

    *COUGHCOUGHextortionCOUGH*

    Excuse me. Nasty cough I got there…

  3. But alas there is a speed limit we all must abide by. As I answered and AGW once when he asked me if I new what the speed limit was here, “of course I do. It’s the same as everywhere else, about 186,000 miles per second.” The speed of light.

  4. Eric,
    You’re killing me with common sense. Driving with your legs had me spitting coffee!
    The points you make are not even arguable, it’s so simple it’s stupid (like speed limits)
    What’s the real reason for speed limits, anyway? I think we all know. If the cops were so concerned for your safety, why would they demand $$ for their so-called concern? Same with the safety moralists, so concerned for YOU. You MIGHT cause harm. Penalize you before you can, a pre-crime fine. That’s so laughable, yet these imbeciles are all around us. Shoot someone? Run someone down with a car? Take all the guns and cars away from everybody who didn’t do it. That’s the mentality of their ilk. A total lack of any mentality
    I have never fallen asleep while driving “my” speed. It just figures to be safer that way. When you get behind one of these comatose drivers, what do you do? Look all around to avoid nodding off. Thankfully I can sleep and drive at the same time.
    Laughed my butt off. Thanks!

  5. George was one of the last remaining people that no matter what he said, it was closer to the truth than any of the other garbage from the media. A few years back, I got a ticket for the first time in over 30 years. I hated paying that extra premium to the auto insurance company robbers for 3 years. 1 freaking ticket. Failure to yield.

    So, I don’t make it a habit of speeding or trying to undo the laws of physics while driving. That puts me in the vast minority, perhaps. And I suppose most crashes are just bad luck as opposed to driving too fast for conditions.

    To be stopped by a cop these days can be extremely tense. I do not mind driving so much, I rather enjoy it, especially in the less traveled countryside. But I think for most people it is a necessary nuisance and like something unpleasant, they want it to be over as quickly as possible.

  6. Great point! These limits are a key example of rejection of basic human liberty and refusal to acknowledge or respect individual common sense.

  7. On talk radio in the early 1990s I heard something I first intuited in the late 1970s when I began driving, that most speed limits are purposely set artificially low to exasperate the best drivers into officially speeding to maximize ticketing. In the early 1980s I surmized re very low speed limits in thinly populated small towns bi-sected by state roads with reasonable speed limits on either side of the towns the very low speed limits were the towns’ way to assert control on those passing through, the vast bulk of whom have no reason to stop & spend money; blanket spiteful prospective punishment of strangers. No explicit validation of this idea yet though.

    Rational, earnest law abiding people are this ill regarded in their most innocuous & surely productive practic pursuits by statists. How these statists think any thing could actually be accomplished with no incentive, inducement, latitude nor confident expectation is a mystery. They are all credentialed experts too so balking them is social sacrilege.

    Sigh.

    • There were no reasonable speed limits in the 1980’s. Every limit was 55 mph and later 65 mph on rural interstates only. Back then, roads carried about half the traffic they do today. As a result, you were easy pickings when your needle turned north of 75 mph. Even with all of the traffic calming BS going on in the country’s more liberal secctions (big cities) and some summary lowering of limits, it’s better now than at any time since 1973. Not one state has lowered its speed limits since states were “allowed” to post their own speed limits without coercion. More than 11 states post 80 mph limits on limited access highways and more than half of speed limits are 70 mph plus.

  8. Not everyone is capable of focused high performance driving. Those that can do. Those that can’t, well, their actions speak for themselves. The mindset they operate under leaves a lot to be desired.

    • Hi JMDGT,

      I’d settle for competent driving. That’s something most people are capable of – provided they are expected to be competent, rewarded for it – and held accountable when they aren’t.

      • Their minds work just enough to ruin it for everyone else. Liberte egalite fraternite is all the justification they need. We are not the same. We are not equal. They are not like us. And that’s OK. We just need to be cognizant of their existence.

    • THAT”S the whole point! Sooo everyone should be restrained b/c some are incompetent? That’s validating the nonsense. It’s THEIR job to get competent.

      • Amen, Riv!

        It’s no accident that everyone is being pressured to wear a Face Diaper – and roll up their sleeves – notwithstanding that most people have little to no meaningful risk to worry about. But – so goes the argument – if “it saves even one life” (no matter the cost to other lives) then it is justified…

        • As goes the argument “you can’t put a price on a life”, as if we didn’t do it all the time. A million dollars to save one life, or a million dollars to save a hundred? Sucks to be the one life, and so it should be.

      • In their feebleness they see themselves as competent. They will never be more than the minimum requirements needed to be on the road or anything else for that matter. They get through life attending pass fail classes, affirmative action programs and virtue signaling. Dissident realism tells us all we need to know about them.

  9. Regarding the German Autobahnen – German drivers are very well trained. A driver’s license is difficult to get, unlike in the US where the blind teach the blind.

    • They also enforce rules strictly, things like blinker usage, passing etiquette, stuff like that. In the US, cops only care that you’re not speeding, and they tack on those other violations if you happened to do them while speeding.

        • Well Manse, it is a complicated device to operate. You have to move that lever and all. And you have to realize you are indeed going to turn or change lanes, before you actually do it. It’s just not worth the physical exertion and mental focus required.

    • Hi Jim,

      Very true regarding licensing standards in Germany vs. here. That said, a license doesn’t necessarily mean you can – or cannot – drive well. I don’t like granting the state authority to license anything because then the state has power over that thing. As regards driving, what was once a right becomes a conditional privilege.

      It’s why I prefer a much more objective standard with regard to driving: The No Harm No Foul standard. If you haven’t caused any harm, then you shouldn’t have to worry about enforcement. Actually that word is problematic. Hold people accountable when they cause harm. But otherwise, leave them be.

      • “Hold people accountable when they cause harm. But otherwise, leave them be.”

        Now, let’s shift this to DUI “enFORCEment”.

        Taking the the GovCo stats at face value that 28% of traffic fatalities involve alcohol “impairment” [note: impairment is not implicitly drunk] this means 72% or, nearly 3 in 4, there is no alcohol involved. Why aren’t these people held to the same standards of punishment? That glaucomic granny with 2 dozen meds coursing through her veins gets a pass while some guy who had one beer gets crucified. I know, same with cops getting off for doing what others get slammed for, laws for thee but, not for me. Double Standard is they name Criminal Justice[sic] System.

        • I made the argument 40 years ago to a television station (by telephone, before internet). After an expose’ on drunk driving, during which they reported that “half of all traffic fatalities involve “drunk” drivers, I pointed out that the OTHER half involved sober drivers. So should sober drivers be required to take a double shot before they drive? If Eric’s “no harm no foul” rule was enforced, the subject need never come up.

  10. Might want to keep physics in mind. Momentum is one half car mass times velocity SQUARED. Consequences of collision on impact have to do with how rapidly deceleration occurs, I don’t know the formula. Really 90 mph is probably pretty adequate and that is whilst paying attention. Great article.

      • Indeed, one cannot prepare for a Delta-V of 40 or 50 miles per hour with no warning. I once topped a hill on two lane black top running about 60, and here was a car not only stopped in the middle of the road, but BACKING UP! Apparently without checking for visibility by other drivers, and possibly being done with life and not caring. I managed not to hit them by rapidly checking the on bound lane and driving around them.

  11. Off topic, but a question that no one seems to address:
    I just read that Hertz is going to purchase 100 thousand Teslas. It made me think for a second; if this trend continues, what impact will this have on all the current jobs supported by the automobile in its current configuration? All the young mechanics who will live long enough to watch their skills and knowledge become worthless. What will happen to the small repair shops, the oil change places? There will still be older vehicles to service, but these will eventually disappear.

    • Hi Oskar,

      If I am an auto mechanic I would not be sweating over this and here’s why. 1. Tesla has some of the most unreliable delivery schedules that I have ever seen. Just because Hertz decided to purchase tens of thousands of Teslas doesn’t mean Tesla will actually deliver them. 2. Why do most people rent cars? For long drives. Many of my clients rent them for upcoming travel because they don’t want to add additional miles to their personal vehicle. They will LOVE having to drive to Charlotte NC or Buffalo NY while stopping 2 or 3 x times to recharge at an hour a pop. Since time isn’t money or something like that. 3. The die hard pro fuel injector crowd will do anything to keep their autos running. My hubby recently sold a 2017 truck to purchase a 2003 car. Some of us are going backwards not wanting to deal with the newer technology or battery powered autos that we feel are being forced upon us.

      The small repair shops will be kept busy. People will not buy what they don’t and will do everything in their power to keep what they have going.

      • Unless and until they ban ICE cars, mechanics should be able to work on them for decades to come. Look at those colorful jalopies in Cuba.
        On the rental cars, I’m afraid some day you’ll be able to rent a Tesla for say $50/day while an ICE will cost $80. In California, and probably elsewhere, a Prius costs a lot more to rent than a regular compact or even standard car.

        • Last time I rented a car you just order a class of car economy, compact, suv, minivaan etc. But Idk what shitbox they give me till I get there. And then sometimes you get a free “upgrade” cause all of the shitboxes are in use and they need someone to drive the abnoxious pos midsize car. And you dont realize what a pos it is till you drive it.

        • Hi Luis,

          You have made some valid points.

          I believe the rental car companies forcing electric vehicles on patrons would be a good way to expedite their bankruptcy. How many people are going to have electric chargers where they are vacationing? Is their Holiday Inn or vacation rental going to have a plug in the driveway? Not to mention the addition electricity charges this will accumulate. How many people are going to want limited driving range? Do I really want to watch my battery usage when I am supposed to be sight seeing? The whole thing sounds like more aggravation than it is worth.

    • Hi Oskar,

      Whats’s being attempted is a replacement – by force – of non-electric cars with electric cars. Force being necessary because electric cars increase the cost of driving and reduce the freedom to drive. The whole point being to limit/restrict personal mobility, via car. It has nothing to do with “the environment.” That is a sop for people so stupid they can’t be saved. It has everything to do with erecting a new feudalism, in which for the most part only the very wealthy elites will own cars – or homes in the country. The cattle will be penned in urban enclaves, where they will “own nothing and be happy about it.”

  12. Eric,

    I think that there SHOULD be limits in residential areas though. It’s simple physics that, the slower you’re going, the less distance you’ll need to stop. If a kid darts in front of you while chasing a ball, if you’re going a few mph too fast, then you might not be able to stop in time.

    • So, the only thing keeping you from doing 70 in a housing development is the sign?

      You are making the classic argument, “Oh, it’s not for ME, it’s for all those ‘evil others’ out there.” You seem to be assuming that everyone one but you is a suicidal killer if not for the grace of GovCo.

      C’mon, MarkyMark, you’re better than that.

    • Hi Mark,

      The problem with your position is that it rests on a faulty premise, provably so.

      Speed limits do not stop “speeding.” They only illegalize it. They also serve to take away agency – the obligation of adults to act in a responsible manner, in their cars and out. If there is a speed limit, it encourages people to drive that fast even when it may not be safe to drive that fast. It fosters passivity and discourages accountability.

      Speed limits also “hold accountable” people who’ve caused no harm and for that reason it is unjust to “hold them accountable.”

      Be responsible for controlling your car; be held responsible for any harms caused if you do not. But otherwise be left alone – and leave others alone!

      • Eric,

        I have to disagree with a couple of your points. One, holding someone accountable AFTER they harm someone (e.g. kids in a residential area) is too late. Two, speed limits don’t encourage people to drive the speed on the sign.

        One, hitting a kid can harm him for life, so what GOOD does it do to hold someone accountable after the fact? Isn’t it a little too LATE at that point, at least for the kid, who may have brain damage as a result of the impact? Isn’t prevention better? Isn’t it better to prevent the injury(ies) in the first place? It’s all well and good to preach no harm/no foul, but after the fact, it may be too LATE! How would you feel if you were injured for life because someone was going too fast for their own good or anyone else’s? Why not practice prevention?

        Two, in my driver manual, it was clear that the speed limit was for ideal conditions only; it clearly said that, if bad conditions are present, then go slower. Anyone who drives should KNOW this; it’s common sense, for cryin’ out loud! Is it LEGAL to do 70 on the Interstate when there’s snow and ice out? Yes. Is it a good idea? Hell no!

        • Uh Marky. The only way to hold someone accountable for their action is AFTER said action. Otherwise you should just join the matrix and be happy. Your logic is assailable.

          • Then hold them accountable BEFORE real harm is committed! There are certain harms that, once done, cannot be undone. If someone is doing 40 or 50 in a residential area with kids, then the time to hold them accountable is before their recklessness hurts or kills someone.

            • Hi Mark,

              Here’s the problem with holding people “accountable” before they cause harm: There is no inarguable, objective measure that justifies it. If I wreck my car, it is inarguable that I lost control of the car; if I damage someone else’s property – or harm them – then it is inarguable I have done that. No sane person would feel unfairly treated when held accountable for that. But is it fair to “hold accountable” the person who has not caused harm – on the assertion that he might have? How is this to be established? According to what standard?

              Do you see?

              I understand your concerns about reckless actions likely to cause harm. But do you understand that be giving the government power to presume harm, it will presume harm generally – since further presumption enhances its power?

              Wouldn’t it be preferable to limit government’s power to holding people who have actually caused harm accountable – and giving the benefit of the doubt to those who have not?

              I am all for holding people who cause harm completely accountable for harms hey cause. But I very much oppose “holding accountable” people the government feels “might” cause harm.

              • Eric,

                I see where you’re coming from; not only that, in principle, I agree with you. The thorny question then becomes: how to implement that? Another thorny question is how to hold someone accountable for permanent harm, e.g. permanently injuring or killing someone’s child? How can the guilty party be PROPERLY held to account in that instance? How can the harmed party(ies) be made whole?

                No matter what’s done to punish the guilty party, the child will still be permanently injured or dead. There’s no undoing certain injuries, particularly brain injuries; there’s no undoing death. How can the guilty party ever be properly held accountable?

                • Hi Mark,

                  You write: “The thorny question then becomes: how to implement that? ”

                  Easily enough! The ancient common law standard that a victim must be produced to establish harm (crime) has been done. Absent a victim, then – no matter how otherwise objectionable – a man cannot justly be punished, as he has not harmed anyone.

                  Per your follow up: There is no adequate justice when a person is murdered. But we nonetheless do not presume everyone has committed murder nor punish people who haven’t committed it.

    • IF a kid runs out in front of you you MIGHT not be able to stop in time. They also MIGHT be hit by a meteor. A lot of maybes there. Perhaps children should be taught NOT to run out into the street. By placing a speed limit on such street you have authorized people to drive that fast. Which may or may not be SLOW enough for a particular driver. That would be a decision made by the driver, which one should assume has a fair assessment of their, and their car’s ability.

      • One, see my points above.

        Two, while kids may be told to not run out in to the street, the fact of the matter is that it will happen; the kid might not do it intentionally, but he may do it, e.g. when chasing a ball got away. Sometimes, in the heat of the moment, people do stuff they shouldn’t do, especially kids; they don’t think-even if they’ve been repeatedly instructed to not do something.

        Three, the odds of a meteor hitting anyone are ASTRONOMICALLY SMALL! The odds of a kid darting out in the middle of the street is more likely-a lot more likely than than a meteor impact.

  13. I was stopped for speeding on a Montana interstate and was kind of surprised I did. Was going 85 mph in an 80 mph zone, got fined 20 dollars. Pay the fine and move on.

    State highway billboard sign out in the Montana hinterlands: “Let tax day and election day be the same day.”

    Dream on.

    Was driving highway 85 through Wyoming on a clear day, the two-lane road was safe for 70 mph speeds on the stretch of road ten miles out of Torrington. Up ahead to my left I could see some kind of flag warning, probably a thousand yards away.

    The closer to the traffic situation, you had to slow to a crawl and avoid the convoy transporting a rather large machine that needed their right shoulder, the full lane and some more. You had to drive to the right onto your shoulder.

    There was a lead pickup truck warning oncoming traffic to slow down and allow clearance.

    Just one of those things that does happen out in the great wide open. You have to pay attention. All of a sudden, out of the blue, comes something unexpected.

    The amount of road miles traveled each year compared to 1968 fatalities, there would be well over 100,000 deaths from traffic accidents in the US today. Better roads and good driving skills do decrease highway fatalities per 100,000 miles driven.

  14. Drivers on the German Autobahn get the message… when someone can be coming down the pike at 200mph, it’s prudent to keep right.

  15. the government is a thief, speed limits (purposely set too low) and traffic lights (yellow set too short so the speed cameras give out thousands of tickets), it is all about revenue not safety, traffic lights and too low speed limits have killed 100’s of thousands of people. Traffic lights are very dangerous and a stupid invention, traffic circles, roundabouts are safer and flow 30% more traffic (and you don’t have millions of vehicles idling, wasting fuel and polluting, stuck at lights.

    “The Nazis had a phrase that covered all abuses by the State: ‘Für euer sischerheit’ —> ‘It’s for your safety’”

    Auschwitz = Arbeit macht frei (Work will make you free)

    Earth 2020 = Vaccine will make you free

    • ‘Earth 2020 = Vaccine will make you free’ — Larry David

      Carmakers 2021 = Chips will make you free

      In 2009 the average vehicle contained about 80 chips. In 2021, it’s nearly 300 chips per vehicle. Chart:

      https://ibb.co/4KhBcNJ

      ‘Planned obsolescence’ was considered an industrial scandal (or conspiracy theory; take your pick) in the 1950s.

      Funny how planned obsolescence only really hit its stride in the 2020s.

      So the automakers can’t get chips? Let them revert to analog circuit boards.

      Hell, if audio purists still cherish vacuum-tube amplifiers, give me a classic pontoon-fendered cabriolet with a straight-8, analog wiring, and a vacuum-tube radio.

      And an amorous flapper girl nipping her flask in the passenger seat. 🙂

  16. I have a recipe from my personal history that has made me an excellent driver: 1) I drove a 25ft delivery truck for a couple of summers in college, 2) I drove the autobahn, 3) I drive a motorcycle, 4) I drive a manual transmission car.

    Even with all this cred, I sometimes get inattentive. Which is the problem.

  17. Speaking about breaking the speed limit, I was wrong about Tesla double-topping at $900 a share. In the past five business days, TSLA has blown up from $900 to a high of $1,094. Chart:

    https://tinyurl.com/mad27eve

    Knowing the business ethics of Elon Musk, I wouldn’t be surprised if this turns out to be a pump-and-dump scheme. Apparently they are buying far out-of-the-money call options, at strike prices such as $1,500 and even $2,000, which in turn forces options dealers to buy the stock to stay hedged. And up it goes into the ionosphere …

    • Well are those out-of-the money calls short or long term? Well, I’m guessing way the hell out, unless they’re using them to hedge bear call spreads.

      If I was made of money, I would write some cash-covered TSLA puts also out of the money but not way out. Like JAN 2023 $960 PUT. Maybe even further out of the money like $850 PUT.

      I’m gonna try that in my paper money account just for shits and giggles. I recently did something similar with DIA right on the heals of one of the many fabricated/hysterical dips.

      Ties up a lotta capital but works pretty well. Just gotta pray that the real-deal crash they’re been prophesying forever doesn’t actually hit. And looking around lately… you never know.

  18. On a side note,
    I never realized that there was a music video of Sammy Hagar’s “I Can’t Drive 55”.
    I will have to check it out.

      • G’Morning Eric,

        Thanks for the link…I just checked it out…well worth the watch!

        It reminded me of a cross between the Dukes of Hazzard and Smokey and the Bandit…great song from 1984!

        • I remember driving between Memphis and Jackson Ms. to business meetings in the 70s in my 76 Trans-Am that Elvis had bought for his step brother. He had bought three for the three brothers but a couple weeks later they pissed him off about something and he sent them back to the Pontiac dealer in Memphis where my cousin’s husband was the finance manager.
          The speed limit on I-55 was 55 but we drove anywhere between 90 and 150 while making the trips. Never had an accident and got very few tickets due to the CB radios.

      • But Eric, people “might die!!”… This is just another example of the Safety Cult in operation. Its been growing for decades. Our current Plandemic is just the perfect storm of all of those trends. Good parts of the country are more than tired of this. But the Branch Covidians just keep pushing more of their insane mandates. We will have to see what happens this winter. Any bets on the mid terms?

      • I used to be a bit of a Van Halen fan back in the day and that Ferrari led to him becoming the next singer of Van Halen after Roth. It was Claudio’s who sold Sammy the Ferrari who hooked Sammy up with Eddie Van Halen. I forget the specifics of the story as I haven’t read that article since the mid-80s. But one conversation led to another and then Van Hagar was born.

  19. What caused the change from going with the 85 percentile? Was it because civil engineers began designing roads from scratch after speed laws were enacted? Someone with connections wanted slower speeds? Boss Hogg looking for revenue?

    I had this thought this morning. There are 3 vaccines available. None of them work all that well, if at all. Vaccines are a form of technology. In normal, unfettered/unregulated tech, there’s a natural urge to improve the product. Especially when there’s clearly a need for improvement. If these MRNA vaccines are so easy to produce (some of the marketing-news about the Moderna vaccine stated they had a basic formula ready in a few days), why not constantly improve the stew with each batch? Instead, we’re told that we need “boosters” that are the same low efficacy stuff they peddled last year. But no, why bother? If they wanted to get it out to market quickly the FDA would have to get another emergency authorization through, and why bother with that? No, just keep pushing out last year’s defective model because it’s easier than innovating.

    • ‘Why not constantly improve the stew with each batch?’ — ReadyKilowatt

      Given regulatory hurdles, the farthest they’ve been willing to go is to make low-dose jabs for kids. If it were legal, they’d probably offer meth-laced Halloween candy, too.

      ‘Vaccine’ as a term for mRNA jabs is deliberately misleading. It rides on the credibility of real vaccines that offer true immunity. But covid jabs, we now see, are more like flu shots — only partially effective, for a few months.

      This excerpt from Wikipedia is revealing:

      ‘Tom Jefferson, who has led Cochrane Collaboration reviews of flu vaccines, has called clinical evidence concerning flu vaccines “rubbish” and has therefore declared them to be ineffective; he has called for placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials, which most in the field hold as unethical. His views on the efficacy of flu vaccines are rejected by medical institutions including the CDC and the National Institutes of Health, and by key figures in the field like Anthony Fauci.

      Children

      ‘The CDC recommends that everyone except infants under the age of six months should receive the seasonal influenza vaccine.’

      Same old, same old. Who gives flu shots to kids? That’s insane. So are covid jabs, which are much more dangerous than flu shots.

  20. Eric – theres a road around here coming from the main motorway to close to my house. The width and look is exactly the same as the motorway, except for the motorway we are allowed by our benevolent leaders to drive 70, whereas on this identical road the limit is 40. Not only is it 40 but theres an average speed camera down the whole stretch..

    So – you come off a motorway driving a speed youre comfortable with (and attentive at) to suddenly an extremely wide and well made road at 40 because if you exceed for too long you get fleeced….. the net result, the first thing you start fiddling with your radio, phone, one of the many settings on the car…. and if I dont I just start yawning i find…. always think to myself if I crash it’ll probably be here after a long drive on the motorway……

    • Hi Nasir,

      Yup!

      I realized the truth and the facts about this – to borrow Clover’s trademark phrasing – from riding a motorcycle and driving cars on the track. You focus on what you’re doing – and that makes you safe. People – like the new Clover (Richard) ululate about the “danger” of exceeding the speed limit by whatever arbitrary amount they deem “dangerous” – but it is inattentiveness that’s the real danger. And that is much more apt to be a danger at low than high speed.

      • I think I brought this up in response to Sir Richard. That I personally experience such decline in focus when forced to drive far TOO slow. Things that normally do not distract me now do. That I take my driving less seriously, which I willingly take the blame for. My experience with “one size fits all” is that it fits nothing and no one. The very fact that nearly all of us ordinarily exceed the “speed limit” by 10 percent or more, which even Sir Richard confessed to, is evidence there is no reasonable foundation for them. The perfect demonstration of such is that MOST of us are perfectly willing to risk a fleecing by an armed government goon to EXCEED that snatched out of thin air “speed limit”.

  21. My best friend is a trucker –his observation from over 25 years of driving is most motorists have a happy place on the interstate around 75-80 mph. Some go slower & some go faster but the bulk are in that part of the normal distribution.

    • Hi Mike!

      Many people are unaware that the Interstate system was designed – in the ’50s – to safely accommodate average speeds in the 70-80 MPH range. In the ’50s. There is no legitimate reason for throttling any modern vehicle to such low speeds, assuming its driver can handle higher speeds. Many can. But they are throttled because of imputed incapacity, based upon an arbitrary and very dumbed-down standard.

  22. Just take down all the speed limit signs(give them to me, I’ll take them to the scrap yard) and disconnect all speedometers. People will then have to actually pay attention to their driving and monitor the situation. Besides, speed limits encourages lawlessness. And, while we’re at it, ban automatic transmissions for anyone that isn’t a paraplegic.

    A mindlessly obedient society invites tyranny.

    • Hi Mark!

      Yup. There are no speedometers in race cars – because target-fixation on speedometers when driving is distracting. Pay attention to the situation and the speed takes care of itself.

      • A competent race car driver knows how fast he’s going with only a tach. The speedo is actually a superfluous gauge. If you know what gear you’re in and the engine RPM you know your speed.

      • Eric, I have two road race cars, a Miata and a Formula Ford. I disconnected the speedo in the Miata years ago to accommodate wiring for the kill switch. Inevitably when people first find out I have race cars they ask, “How fast will it go?” I really have no firm answer, only a guess. The FF has a Hewland trans that allows for easy gear changes so it depends on what my 4th gear is. The Miata has a 5-speed and all I know is that I’ve topped 7200rpm in 5th bump-drafting out of Nascar 4 at Daytona. You tell me. I depend on my “butt dyno” for cornering speed.

    • I have mixed feelings about banning ATs. For one thing, it would indeed dispose of a lot of incompetent drivers. On the other hand, it would reduce drivers on the road, period. Which is a green thing. I’m surprised the Psychopaths In Charge haven’t thought of it yet. Perhaps they’re holding too much GM stock to do so.

    • I spend most of my 17th year driving a car that had no working speedometer or odometer. I learned to just go with the flow of traffic or drive what felt reasonable if there was no traffic for comparison. It was a big ol’ 70s hooptie, so I wasn’t screaming around corners or zipping through parking lots, but it could get up there, speed-wise. I got very few stops for speeding, so I guess I got pretty good at estimating my speed. I was a conscientious teen driver. I wanted to be safe and avoid tickets.
      Now, I really don’t care all that much about either. The 30 years between then and now have led to very little respect for societal norms or laws. Nearly every speed limit I encounter is unreasonable, IMO. A golf course I recently visited had theirs at 12 mph. Another neighborhood has it at 20. My car does not function well at those speeds.
      And school zones are the worst. I could understand if there were kids outside, crossing the street, walking around, etc. But in my neck of the woods, they lock them up all day. They go from mom’s SUV, directly into the building with a recess in a yard with a 10-foot fence, then back to Mom’s SUV and home. So 25 mph from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. just because the little tykes are inside the prison walls is ridiculous.
      But I think I could still function just fine without a speedometer.

      • Haha – Amy the car I learnt to drive on also had no working speedo!! But this was in Karachi and as you say you just drive with the traffic, adjusting for the limitations of your own car which this car had plenty !! Infact because the brakes were so crap… you had to make sure you would be able to stop it before go too fast… i guess in a way that was the speed limit…

        • Funny. I think the younger generation is missing out on the character building you gain during that life-stage where you have to drive an absolute junker. You learn some necessary coping and survival skills. And an appreciation for when you finally do get to have a nice car.

          • Very true Amy. Drove junkers on their last legs for years. Learnt to work on and maintain cars. The most exciting day of my life to that point was the day I went to get my first new car, a 1983 Dodge Colt. No radio, no AC, no PS. But I was the first driver. Had it 4 years before moving overseas.

      • Had a old beater with cable drive speedometer. When it got cold outside, the speedometer would bounce back and forth between 40 and 80, until it warmed up. I got pulled over once, and the armed goon asked me if knew how fast I was going, and I told him, “somewhere between 40 and 80”, which cracked him up so bad he could barely stop laughing long enough to issue the warning.

    • I have long argued the root of all automotive evil is the automatic transmission.
      If I were to put aside my belief in liberty for one thing it would likely be to ban the automatic transmission without a valid physical disability requiring one.

      • Same here, though I would not propose banning them. They are simply too easy to get started going down the road. A child could do it. Even an adult size child.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here