Founders In Their Own Words
James Madison in “Property” published in the National Gazette (3/29/1792):
“That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, …” (emphasis added)
What would James Madison say today about speed limits? He would probably agree it is an abomination!
Why Unconstitutional?
It is a prime example of how government constantly kills individual responsibility and imposes on its citizens a one size fits all solution.
Founders who gave us a 2nd Amendment and similar provisions in various state constitutions would be more than amused to see that 200 years later citizens and their elected representatives have chosen such limits on the freedom of movement.
Freedom is indeed never more than only one generation away from extinction to borrow these famous words by Ronald Reagan.
Speed Limits Are Highly Arbitrary
Speed limits in their current form are a manifestation of paternalism. We are all treated equal, right? Like any paternalistic/authoritarian measures it severely undermines individual responsibility and liberty.
There is no doubt in my mind that speed limits as defined on many US roadways are highly arbitrary and defy common sense. Given the advanced technological state of today’s motor vehicles a speed limit of 55 or 65 on many US highways is ludicrous.
Speed limits are a typical example of the pervasive government regulatory approach of one size fits all. It’s liberty killing presumed fairness by subjecting everyone to the same cruelty. It’s government meddling in our lives exploiting that law abiding citizens abide by these rules.
Justifications For Speed Limits Are Bogus
1) Justification: Safety
I do not believe that there is any convincing, critically reviewed evidence out there that higher speed causes more injuries and death than under those restrictive speed limits like in the US. statistics that purport to show a reduction in fatalities after introduction of speed limits are a fallacy. I might be wrong, but I think most of the statistics out there were produced by people interested in maintaining speed limits. Most likely these static statistics do not reflect humans enormous capability to adapt very well to different environments.
Really bogus are any arguments along the line that introducing higher speeds would have adverse effects on safety. Only during a transition period, I would tend to agree.
2) Justification: Energy Conservation
To counter fuel consumption or high prices of crude oil. I would argue that fuel consumption in idling traffic going stop and go etc. wastes a lot of fuel on major highways every rush hour. Speed limits impede the flow of traffic on highways and exacerbate the phenomenon of frequent, sudden, dramatic slowdowns for no good reason etc.
The National Maximum Speed Law (NMSL) Act of 1974 was a disgrace. That it took the US Congress until 1995 to repeal it and to return the authority to set or not to set speed limits to the states is a prime example of federal overreach.
3) Justification: Environmental
Vehicle noise is much less a concern today than it was perhaps in the past. If someone really cares of about vehicle noise emission why are loud motorcycles and cars not immediately impounded?
As mentioned before unreasonable speed limits cause all kinds of perverse traffic patterns that likely worsen the air quality.
A False Sense Of Safety
How many drivers on US highways do not properly look in their rear mirrors before they make a lane change? Too many.
Why were US soldiers warned every day on American armed services radio to be aware of defensive driving on German highways? You could be road kill if you forgot to look in the rear mirror.
Thus, I would argue unreasonable speed limits have a deleterious effect on individual responsibility.
Speed Limits As A Source Of Government Revenues
Speed limits are often just that a fairly predictable source of significant government revenue. Thus, there is obviously a conflict of interest in setting speed limits on our roadways.
Congestions Caused By Highway Patrol Officers
Highway patrol police cars standing visibly on the side of the highway during rush hour are causing unnecessary congestions. Instead of chasing criminals or reckless car drivers these police officers earn money sitting in their cars doing what? Watching out for citizens so they obey speed limits?
Highly Demeaning To Responsible Drivers
I strongly believe that most individuals are most of the time acting responsible especially if basic rules are clearly defined and punishment for irresponsible, harmful actions is swift and commensurate.
I personally find it aggravating that I have to constantly watch my back and every entrance ramp, HOV lane or other potential hiding areas along the roads where these dumb and highly overpaid highway patrol police officers might be preying by car or motorcycle on you. What a waste of taxpayers money for no good reason! Cops ought to catch criminals not law abiding citizens (a speed limit is not a law)!
Thus, I have to divert my precious attention from watching the traffic and surroundings to avoid accidents to spotting police officers.
Alternatives
Why is telecommuting/teleworking still so rare?
Severe sentencing of irresponsible drivers who caused traffic accidents. In case of personal injury, stiff jail time should be mandatory. No excuses. Irresponsible is, e.g., someone who drives an old, worn out car too fast. Driving and drinking will get you in jail, if an accident occurs.
Speed limit signs should be replaced with realistic recommended speed plus higher save speed postings.
Difficult roadways need more warnings.
Today’s technology would also allow to install drive recorders (like black box flight recorders) or to have more traffic surveillance cameras. Thus, when an accident occurs, there will be more evidence.
Other, Related Blog Posts
