Legality of the current methods used to define speed limit?

[yhelothar]

I'm pretty sure most drivers has more than once asked themselves the question, who am I endangering by going 80 on an empty freeway? The speed limit must be justified somehow right?

Modern speed limits are supposedly set by traffic engineers do studies on what is the safe speed for the majority of the drivers. That sounds like a good rule of the thumb to set a good speed limit that benefits drivers as a whole.

However, due to many political factors, this is not the sole means of defining the speed limit. A bit of research, reveals that current speed studies show that the majority of speed limits is always set well below the majority's speed by as much as 8 to 12mph source.

Wikipedia reports that the reasons for this is that:source
Political or bureaucratic resistance to higher limits.
Statutes that restrict jurisdictions from posting limits higher than an arbitrary number.

So in light of this, it seems that the current speed limit is more of an arbitrary standard rather than one that serves the purpose of the general safety of motorists.
When you consider the fact that the constitution states that all laws must have a rational basis, doesn't the legality of the current speed limit seems a bit questionable?
When examining how the US legislation system reviews if a law is rational, it seems like certain arbitrary laws can be made constitutional due to loopholes in the system, such as the necessary and proper clause.
Any law majors/specialists here want to clear up how it works?

 

[sswingle]

Good luck with getting it changed.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: ScottSwingleComputers
Good luck with getting it changed.

But given that my interpretation of the law was correct, and that there is a lawyer that's competent enough in proving this case, wouldn't there be a good chance in getting it changed?
One shouldn't just accept it and push it aside because of its difficulty.

 

[Aimster]

im hiring u for my next speeding ticket court date

 

[thirdeye]

I personally think they're stupid, but they're there for stupid people. 90% of the people on the road cannot drive.

 

[SunnyD]

Dude... get over it. ALL LAWS ARE ARBITRARY. Hell, when they wrote the constitution, they arbitrarily decided to put what was in it in it.

This is just like saying, "Well the law on murder is arbitrary... as what I did was a benefit to society by removing that individual from the population." That is your arbitrary interpretation of the law... just like someone else's says that person could have been a fully productive member of society and that you're a tool.

 

[vi edit]

Legality?

There is no legality involved. It's about the $$. The Feds set a benchmark and the states can either adhere to it, or they can go against it. If they go against it, they lose a boatload of federal funds. This applies both to speed limits and BAC limits.

Plus, it just makes ticket writing that much easier since people are more apt to speed and that's added income to the state.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
Legality?

There is no legality involved. It's about the $$. The Feds set a benchmark and the states can either adhere to it, or they can go against it. If they go against it, they lose a boatload of federal funds. This applies both to speed limits and BAC limits.

Plus, it just makes ticket writing that much easier since people are more apt to speed and that's added income to the state.

So what keeps a competent lawyer from getting the law changed if it's not legal?

 

[xchangx]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
I'm pretty sure most drivers has more than once asked themselves the question, who am I endangering by going 80 on an empty freeway? The speed limit must be justified somehow right?

Modern speed limits are supposedly set by traffic engineers do studies on what is the safe speed for the majority of the drivers. That sounds like a good rule of the thumb to set a good speed limit that benefits drivers as a whole.

However, due to many political factors, this is not the sole means of defining the speed limit. A bit of research, reveals that current speed studies show that the majority of speed limits is always set well below the majority's speed by as much as 8 to 12mph source.

Wikipedia reports that the reasons for this is that:source
Political or bureaucratic resistance to higher limits.
Statutes that restrict jurisdictions from posting limits higher than an arbitrary number.

So in light of this, it seems that the current speed limit is more of an arbitrary standard rather than one that serves the purpose of the general safety of motorists.
When you consider the fact that the constitution states that all laws must have a rational basis, doesn't the legality of the current speed limit seems a bit questionable?
When examining how the US legislation system reviews if a law is rational, it seems like certain arbitrary laws can be made constitutional due to loopholes in the system, such as the necessary and proper clause.
Any law majors/specialists here want to clear up how it works?

You have to keep in mind that regardless of the speed limit, most peoeple will probably go at least 10 over. Given that you have much less time to react + a lot more can happen when you are going that fast, I think the current speed limits are fine.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: vi_edit
Legality?

There is no legality involved. It's about the $$. The Feds set a benchmark and the states can either adhere to it, or they can go against it. If they go against it, they lose a boatload of federal funds. This applies both to speed limits and BAC limits.

Plus, it just makes ticket writing that much easier since people are more apt to speed and that's added income to the state.

So what keeps a competent lawyer from getting the law changed if it's not legal?

Usually state legislature, state executive branch, federal legislature, federal executive, popular vote, the judicial system, lobbies, PACs, and... um, money.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Dude... get over it. ALL LAWS ARE ARBITRARY. Hell, when they wrote the constitution, they arbitrarily decided to put what was in it in it.

This is just like saying, "Well the law on murder is arbitrary... as what I did was a benefit to society by removing that individual from the population." That is your arbitrary interpretation of the law... just like someone else's says that person could have been a fully productive member of society and that you're a tool.

It doesn't seem like you understand what arbitrary means.
The law on murder is beneficial to society as a whole, as if there was no law on murder, there's nothing that stops joe gunowner from going over to the shop and killing the owner. Therefore it's rational, rather than arbitrary.
The constitution isn't arbitrary, as the authors carefully and rationally analyzed what is the best methods for creating a well functioning society. It would be arbitrary if it was a bunch of random laws that had no benefit to its purpose.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: xchangx

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
I'm pretty sure most drivers has more than once asked themselves the question, who am I endangering by going 80 on an empty freeway? The speed limit must be justified somehow right?

Modern speed limits are supposedly set by traffic engineers do studies on what is the safe speed for the majority of the drivers. That sounds like a good rule of the thumb to set a good speed limit that benefits drivers as a whole.

However, due to many political factors, this is not the sole means of defining the speed limit. A bit of research, reveals that current speed studies show that the majority of speed limits is always set well below the majority's speed by as much as 8 to 12mph source.

Wikipedia reports that the reasons for this is that:source
Political or bureaucratic resistance to higher limits.
Statutes that restrict jurisdictions from posting limits higher than an arbitrary number.

So in light of this, it seems that the current speed limit is more of an arbitrary standard rather than one that serves the purpose of the general safety of motorists.
When you consider the fact that the constitution states that all laws must have a rational basis, doesn't the legality of the current speed limit seems a bit questionable?
When examining how the US legislation system reviews if a law is rational, it seems like certain arbitrary laws can be made constitutional due to loopholes in the system, such as the necessary and proper clause.
Any law majors/specialists here want to clear up how it works?

You have to keep in mind that regardless of the speed limit, most peoeple will probably go at least 10 over. Given that you have much less time to react + a lot more can happen when you are going that fast, I think the current speed limits are fine.

But that isn't a justification for the speed limit. That isn't a justification for me having to get raped up the ass by the cops when I'm driving perfectly safe.
Perhaps if they actually rationally imposed a speed limit, people wouldn't drive 10 over the limit?

 

[nole1fan]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
who am I endangering by going 80 on an empty freeway? The speed limit must be justified somehow right?

How about to yourself? If tire gets burst or loose control, hitting the trees, and your Medical Bill of $125,000 to keep your ass alive will make my insurance cost go high for your stupidity.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Dude... get over it. ALL LAWS ARE ARBITRARY. Hell, when they wrote the constitution, they arbitrarily decided to put what was in it in it.

This is just like saying, "Well the law on murder is arbitrary... as what I did was a benefit to society by removing that individual from the population." That is your arbitrary interpretation of the law... just like someone else's says that person could have been a fully productive member of society and that you're a tool.

It doesn't seem like you understand what arbitrary means.
The law on murder is beneficial to society as a whole, thus it's rational, rather than arbitrary.
The constitution isn't arbitrary, as the authors carefully and rationally analyzed what is the best methods for creating a well functioning society. It would be arbitrary if it was a bunch of random laws that had no benefit to its purpose.

Bah, it was pure coincidence that everything in the constitution was beneficial. It's all pure randomness! Arbitrary!

Besides, if it wasn't arbitrary, every single beneficial law that is modern would have been in the original constitution.

Seriously... all laws are arbitrary. At a given point, someone thought it would be a good idea for (insert law here). Some laws get repealed, some don't. It doesn't mean they won't in the future. Just because YOU don't like the law doesn't mean the majority doesn't.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
So what keeps a competent lawyer from getting the law changed if it's not legal?

who has standing to sue?

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: nole1fan

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
who am I endangering by going 80 on an empty freeway? The speed limit must be justified somehow right?

How about to yourself? If tire gets burst or loose control, hitting the trees, and your Medical Bill of $125,000 to keep your ass alive will make my insurance cost go high for your stupidity.

:roll:
Let's see, who's the stupid one here.
You can't spell lose, you can't make a coherent argument, you can't think further than a lemming, and you can't grasp the fact that traffic engineers have done studies to determine that the current speed limits are well below what's safe.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Dude... get over it. ALL LAWS ARE ARBITRARY. Hell, when they wrote the constitution, they arbitrarily decided to put what was in it in it.

This is just like saying, "Well the law on murder is arbitrary... as what I did was a benefit to society by removing that individual from the population." That is your arbitrary interpretation of the law... just like someone else's says that person could have been a fully productive member of society and that you're a tool.

It doesn't seem like you understand what arbitrary means.
The law on murder is beneficial to society as a whole, thus it's rational, rather than arbitrary.
The constitution isn't arbitrary, as the authors carefully and rationally analyzed what is the best methods for creating a well functioning society. It would be arbitrary if it was a bunch of random laws that had no benefit to its purpose.

Bah, it was pure coincidence that everything in the constitution was beneficial. It's all pure randomness! Arbitrary!

Besides, if it wasn't arbitrary, every single beneficial law that is modern would have been in the original constitution.

Seriously... all laws are arbitrary. At a given point, someone thought it would be a good idea for (insert law here). Some laws get repealed, some don't. It doesn't mean they won't in the future. Just because YOU don't like the law doesn't mean the majority doesn't.

There goes any chance of getting a rational argument out of you.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: vi_edit
Legality?

There is no legality involved. It's about the $$. The Feds set a benchmark and the states can either adhere to it, or they can go against it. If they go against it, they lose a boatload of federal funds. This applies both to speed limits and BAC limits.

Plus, it just makes ticket writing that much easier since people are more apt to speed and that's added income to the state.

So what keeps a competent lawyer from getting the law changed if it's not legal?

I don't know. Why don't you call up a competent lawyer and ask him why he hasn't tried. And while you are on the phone, ask him to work on getting taxes repealed too.

 

[Tobolo]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: xchangx

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
I'm pretty sure most drivers has more than once asked themselves the question, who am I endangering by going 80 on an empty freeway? The speed limit must be justified somehow right?

Modern speed limits are supposedly set by traffic engineers do studies on what is the safe speed for the majority of the drivers. That sounds like a good rule of the thumb to set a good speed limit that benefits drivers as a whole.

However, due to many political factors, this is not the sole means of defining the speed limit. A bit of research, reveals that current speed studies show that the majority of speed limits is always set well below the majority's speed by as much as 8 to 12mph source.

Wikipedia reports that the reasons for this is that:source
Political or bureaucratic resistance to higher limits.
Statutes that restrict jurisdictions from posting limits higher than an arbitrary number.

So in light of this, it seems that the current speed limit is more of an arbitrary standard rather than one that serves the purpose of the general safety of motorists.
When you consider the fact that the constitution states that all laws must have a rational basis, doesn't the legality of the current speed limit seems a bit questionable?
When examining how the US legislation system reviews if a law is rational, it seems like certain arbitrary laws can be made constitutional due to loopholes in the system, such as the necessary and proper clause.
Any law majors/specialists here want to clear up how it works?

You have to keep in mind that regardless of the speed limit, most peoeple will probably go at least 10 over. Given that you have much less time to react + a lot more can happen when you are going that fast, I think the current speed limits are fine.

But that isn't a justification for the speed limit. That isn't a justification for me having to get raped up the ass by the cops when I'm driving perfectly safe.
Perhaps if they actually rationally imposed a speed limit, people wouldn't drive 10 over the limit?

You dont seem to understand that the people that set the speed limits are the ones who write the laws. They can make the speed limit whatever that want and within a day or two they can have a law passed and in effect to support any decion they made. The only thing that you could argue about is if it violated part of the state constitution, which was proably written before cars so your most likely SOL.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: vi_edit
Legality?

There is no legality involved. It's about the $$. The Feds set a benchmark and the states can either adhere to it, or they can go against it. If they go against it, they lose a boatload of federal funds. This applies both to speed limits and BAC limits.

Plus, it just makes ticket writing that much easier since people are more apt to speed and that's added income to the state.

So what keeps a competent lawyer from getting the law changed if it's not legal?

I don't know. Why don't you call up a competent lawyer and ask him why he hasn't tried. And while you are on the phone, ask him to work on getting taxes repealed too.

Only after I ask a logician how taxes relates to the legality of speed limit laws.

 

[DAWeinG]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
who am I endangering by going 80 on an empty freeway? The speed limit must be justified somehow right?

The first person you are endangering is yourself by assuming that the freeway is empty. Next are the passengers, if any, in your vehicle. Third, anyone else or any animals on the road which you assume to be empty. The thing is, you can't ever prove that the road will always be empty whether it be empty of people, animals, or objects.

It's there to give people a chance to have enough time and stopping distance to react to unsuspecting situations.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: DAWeinG

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
who am I endangering by going 80 on an empty freeway? The speed limit must be justified somehow right?

The first person you are endangering is yourself by assuming that the freeway is empty. Next are the passengers, if any, in your vehicle. Third, anyone else or any animals on the road which you assume to be empty. The thing is, you can't ever prove that the road will always be empty whether it be empty of people, animals, and objects.

wow, I guess I probably shouldn't drive at all then, given that there might always be people, animals, and objects on an empty freeway without me knowing.
:roll:

 

[DAWeinG]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: DAWeinG

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
who am I endangering by going 80 on an empty freeway? The speed limit must be justified somehow right?

The first person you are endangering is yourself by assuming that the freeway is empty. Next are the passengers, if any, in your vehicle. Third, anyone else or any animals on the road which you assume to be empty. The thing is, you can't ever prove that the road will always be empty whether it be empty of people, animals, and objects.

wow, I guess I probably shouldn't drive at all then, given that there might always be people, animals, and objects on an empty freeway without me knowing.
:roll:

Yeah you probably shouldn't since you missed my point and made another false assumption.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: nole1fan

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
who am I endangering by going 80 on an empty freeway? The speed limit must be justified somehow right?

How about to yourself? If tire gets burst or loose control, hitting the trees, and your Medical Bill of $125,000 to keep your ass alive will make my insurance cost go high for your stupidity.

:roll:
Let's see, who's the stupid one here.
You can't spell lose, you can't make a coherent argument, you can't think further than a lemming, and you can't grasp the fact that traffic engineers have done studies to determined the current speed limits are well below what's safe.

Roll your eyes all you want but he is right.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: nole1fan

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
who am I endangering by going 80 on an empty freeway? The speed limit must be justified somehow right?

How about to yourself? If tire gets burst or loose control, hitting the trees, and your Medical Bill of $125,000 to keep your ass alive will make my insurance cost go high for your stupidity.

:roll:
Let's see, who's the stupid one here.
You can't spell lose, you can't make a coherent argument, you can't think further than a lemming, and you can't grasp the fact that traffic engineers have done studies to determined the current speed limits are well below what's safe.

Roll your eyes all you want but he is right.

I guess it would be better ask nole1fan next time about road safety rather than traffic engineers huh?
:roll: