Ready for NMSL v2?

[vdeane]

Indeed, using WaPo's own arguments, large numbers of people don't obey speed limits. So, you think they're going to start obeying them if you lower them?

Unfortunately there's a perception that "people will always go X mph over the limit", where X is usually 5 or 10.  While some people do (such as myself, because I simultaneously believe most speed limits are underposted and don't want to get a ticket), most people are just driving whatever feels comfortable for the roadway, with a small number of speed demons and some people porking along at the limit.  The solution, of course, is to raise the speed limit so the people who actually go the limit aren't going slower than the majority of traffic on the road, but the lobbyists don't want to hear it because they want the police to be able to pull over most people at their leisure (usually for revenue but sometimes for the war on drugs).

Can't stand the whole "speed kills" claims that people make. There should NEVER, ever, EVER be another NMSL. I was born the year that the NMSL was repealed, and I couldn't imagine having to go 55 on a freeway out in the middle of nowhere. Boring!

I can't either.  It feels painful when I have to slow to those speeds for traffic or some work zones where the lanes are fine but they lower the limit anyways (or lower the limit far away from where the work is actually being done).

I drive a stick and set my cruise control at 72 in 65 mph zones.  So it looks like, not only do you believe in the "speed kills" narrative, but you feel superior because you drive an automatic.

Wow. Wrong and even more wrong. Speed doesn't kill. What kills is what happens when something at great speed makes contact with something at a much lower speed.

Guess you should take a look at your previous post.  It sure looked to me like you were implying that everyone who drives stick shift was a dangerous speed demon making the roads unsafe for the innocent automatics doing "whatever speed".

Here's how it rendered on my computer:

I'd be highly surprised if the people with their cruise controls set, at whatever speed, are more of a danger than the speed demons driving their sticks.

[slorydn1]

Even during the height of the NMSL days, I can remember long road trips where my dad would be doing his customary 60-61 (and saying he was letting his hair down, feeling like a criminal, lol) in the right lane and getting his doors blown off by many people running 80+ in the left. The speed differential between the legal beagles and the scofflaws was utterly ridiculous. At least the way things are now, the legal beagles are doing 65-70, even 80 in the states that allow it and yes, there are some 90-100 mph idiots out there, but not the steady stream of people going 15-25 over the limit that there was during the NMSL days.

My usual freeway cruising speed is 5-6 over whatever the limit is (why I really don't know, guess I got that from my dad) and although I do get passed here and there, I don't usually have people going by me fast enough to shake my car. There isn't a huge differential between me and those who are passing me, nor between me and the legal beagles that I am passing.

As for low limit governors on trucks (well really any vehicle) no, just no. I hate them with a passion.

Although we often get pissed at the trucker in the left lane who is running side by side with another trucker in the right lane on the interstate he often times really isn't doing it just to be a dick. What usually happens is that something causes him to decide to pull out to pass the truck in front of him, and then when he gets over the other truck gets back up to his maximum speed and there you go, 2 trucks, side by side, at 65 in a 70 zone and he's stuck there. He can't speed up to complete the pass, and the other truck isn't willing to slow back down to let him back in and now there is a line of 30 of us in the left lane getting more and more pissed by the second while it takes them 5-10 miles to sort it out.


The solution isn't lower speed limits. The speed limits need to be set at the appropriate speed that engineers (not politicians) say should be the limit for that road. Then the penalties for exceeding those appropriately set limits (with some slop allowed for differing speedometers) need to be so prohibitively draconian that no one would want to exceed those limits by any significant amount. I know some people referenced VA's reckless driving statute above and how people violate it all the time. People violate because a) they feel like the limit is set to low for the road they are travelling on (and in many cases, they are right) and b) they still feel that the possible penalty is still worth the risk-or maybe that a good lawyer will be able to find them a loophole that allows them to plead to a lesser offense that won't be too unpalatable, or even get them out of it altogether.  If the limits are set high enough, and the penalties severe enough, then why would any sane person want to even chance it?

[lordsutch]

While I don't want to wade too much into political discussion here, at least at some point in the past the likely next president advocated a return to the 55 mph speed limit. There would probably be serious backlash against any effort to impose such a limit again (in the 1973 oil crisis, the states were already moving in that direction anyway, whereas now that seems unlikely to occur), but it's certainly not outside the realm of possibility.

[jbnv]

Guess you should take a look at your previous post.  It sure looked to me like you were implying that everyone who drives stick shift was a dangerous speed demon making the roads unsafe for the innocent automatics doing "whatever speed".

Here's how it rendered on my computer:

I'd be highly surprised if the people with their cruise controls set, at whatever speed, are more of a danger than the speed demons driving their sticks.

That's how you chose to interpret it. I don't care whether the speeders are using manual or automatic. I do care that I have to watch out for them as I maneuver around slower traffic, lest they come out of nowhere.

[kphoger]

Although we often get pissed at the trucker in the left lane who is running side by side with another trucker in the right lane on the interstate he often times really isn't doing it just to be a dick. What usually happens is that something causes him to decide to pull out to pass the truck in front of him, and then when he gets over the other truck gets back up to his maximum speed and there you go, 2 trucks, side by side, at 65 in a 70 zone and he's stuck there. He can't speed up to complete the pass, and the other truck isn't willing to slow back down to let him back in and now there is a line of 30 of us in the left lane getting more and more pissed by the second while it takes them 5-10 miles to sort it out.

I used to drive an Isuzu cab-over box truck, and you could drive with the pedal to the floor and it wouldn't go over 73 mph unless there was a strong tail wind.  When I found myself in the situation you describe, trying to pass someone but unable to complete the maneuver, I would slow down and cut back over into the right lane to let other traffic on by.  There isn't 'nothing' the driver can do, just 'something' he's unwilling to do.

[slorydn1]

Although we often get pissed at the trucker in the left lane who is running side by side with another trucker in the right lane on the interstate he often times really isn't doing it just to be a dick. What usually happens is that something causes him to decide to pull out to pass the truck in front of him, and then when he gets over the other truck gets back up to his maximum speed and there you go, 2 trucks, side by side, at 65 in a 70 zone and he's stuck there. He can't speed up to complete the pass, and the other truck isn't willing to slow back down to let him back in and now there is a line of 30 of us in the left lane getting more and more pissed by the second while it takes them 5-10 miles to sort it out.

I used to drive an Isuzu cab-over box truck, and you could drive with the pedal to the floor and it wouldn't go over 73 mph unless there was a strong tail wind.  When I found myself in the situation you describe, trying to pass someone but unable to complete the maneuver, I would slow down and cut back over into the right lane to let other traffic on by.  There isn't 'nothing' the driver can do, just 'something' he's unwilling to do.

Yeah, valid point, but you you have been driving a long time, you know what happens next. The car/truck that had been behind the one that pulled out fills the gap, everyone in both lanes are now lined up nose to tail, so slowing down for the truck stuck in the left lane really isn't an option any more at that point.

I mean, yeah, they "could" slow down further but then they are going to hold up the entire line of cars that are already in the passing lane, which you know as well as I do causes people do start doing all sorts of stupid stuff. They see the cars in the right lane are now passing them so they get desperate and that's where the wrecks happen. I've been caught out on both sides of that one. I have been stuck in the right lane trying to leave a safe distance to the car in front only to almost have my nose chopped off by a dive bomber from the left lane because it seized up all of a sudden, and I almost ate the ass end of a car in the left lane because everyone decided to slam on the brakes because the left lane seized up-only thing that saved me there was that I don't tailgate, and the guy behind me decided it was better to get a grill full of grass from the center median than a grill full of Mustang.


I guess my experience is colored by the areas of the country I do most of my driving in, too.


I'm not without fault, I am one of the "we" I referenced in the quoted post. I have found myself finally getting extricated from the cluster that the left lane trucker caused beeping the horn, flipping him off and cussing him and every member of his family that ever existed because I look ahead and see miles of clear road. It took me marrying the daughter of a trucker to finally realize that usually they aren't just screwing with us because they can.

[TXtoNJ]

With GPS improvements, I think we could get to the point that most internet and SMS functions are automatically disabled on Interstates, and at any point a driver is traveling at more than 30 mph. Map and voice functions would still be available.

It wouldn't be popular, but it might be a reasonable compromise.

As mentioned in a previous thread, this would also prohibit passengers, those in buses and trains, and others from using their phones as well, making it a non-starter of an idea.

Also, why should it be ok to use phones while driving in residential neighborhoods? If this idea had any sort of merit, make it 10 or 15 mph, not 30 mph.

That's what the GPS is for - it would also notice if you were on a train line. Furthermore, buses could include override sensors.

[jeffandnicole]

With GPS improvements, I think we could get to the point that most internet and SMS functions are automatically disabled on Interstates, and at any point a driver is traveling at more than 30 mph. Map and voice functions would still be available.

It wouldn't be popular, but it might be a reasonable compromise.

As mentioned in a previous thread, this would also prohibit passengers, those in buses and trains, and others from using their phones as well, making it a non-starter of an idea.

Also, why should it be ok to use phones while driving in residential neighborhoods? If this idea had any sort of merit, make it 10 or 15 mph, not 30 mph.

That's what the GPS is for - it would also notice if you were on a train line. Furthermore, buses could include override sensors.

And as for passengers in vehicles???

[1995hoo]

Guess you should take a look at your previous post.  It sure looked to me like you were implying that everyone who drives stick shift was a dangerous speed demon making the roads unsafe for the innocent automatics doing "whatever speed".

Here's how it rendered on my computer:

I'd be highly surprised if the people with their cruise controls set, at whatever speed, are more of a danger than the speed demons driving their sticks.

That's how you chose to interpret it. I don't care whether the speeders are using manual or automatic. I do care that I have to watch out for them as I maneuver around slower traffic, lest they come out of nowhere.

I had the same reaction vdeane did, perhaps unsurprisingly because in 27 years of driving I've never owned an automatic-shift vehicle. Whether you meant it that way or not, "the speed demons driving their sticks" being compared to cruise control users came across as a bizarre attack on manual-shift drivers. Illogical, too, since there's no reason a manual-shift driver would not be using cruise control. I do all the time–funny thing is, I use it most often at about 28 mph on the street leading into and out of our neighborhood as a way to keep my speed down. But it's a lifesaver on long hauls like 700-mile days regardless of what speed I might be driving at any given time.

[cl94]

Guess you should take a look at your previous post.  It sure looked to me like you were implying that everyone who drives stick shift was a dangerous speed demon making the roads unsafe for the innocent automatics doing "whatever speed".

Here's how it rendered on my computer:

I'd be highly surprised if the people with their cruise controls set, at whatever speed, are more of a danger than the speed demons driving their sticks.

That's how you chose to interpret it. I don't care whether the speeders are using manual or automatic. I do care that I have to watch out for them as I maneuver around slower traffic, lest they come out of nowhere.

I had the same reaction vdeane did, perhaps unsurprisingly because in 27 years of driving I've never owned an automatic-shift vehicle. Whether you meant it that way or not, "the speed demons driving their sticks" being compared to cruise control users came across as a bizarre attack on manual-shift drivers. Illogical, too, since there's no reason a manual-shift driver would not be using cruise control. I do all the time–funny thing is, I use it most often at about 28 mph on the street leading into and out of our neighborhood as a way to keep my speed down. But it's a lifesaver on long hauls like 700-mile days regardless of what speed I might be driving at any given time.

I used cruise control all the time when I drove a manual. Actually did it more than I do now with a CVT. Granted, it's easier to use cruise control near Buffalo than it is near Albany, but still. Quite a few places through there where the speed limit was ungodly slow and I used cruise to stop myself from getting tickets.

[hbelkins]

With GPS improvements, I think we could get to the point that most internet and SMS functions are automatically disabled on Interstates, and at any point a driver is traveling at more than 30 mph. Map and voice functions would still be available.

It wouldn't be popular, but it might be a reasonable compromise.

As mentioned in a previous thread, this would also prohibit passengers, those in buses and trains, and others from using their phones as well, making it a non-starter of an idea.

Also, why should it be ok to use phones while driving in residential neighborhoods? If this idea had any sort of merit, make it 10 or 15 mph, not 30 mph.

That's what the GPS is for - it would also notice if you were on a train line. Furthermore, buses could include override sensors.

And as for passengers in vehicles???

I have a better idea. Don't do anything and quit being a nanny state.

[cl94]

With GPS improvements, I think we could get to the point that most internet and SMS functions are automatically disabled on Interstates, and at any point a driver is traveling at more than 30 mph. Map and voice functions would still be available.

It wouldn't be popular, but it might be a reasonable compromise.

As mentioned in a previous thread, this would also prohibit passengers, those in buses and trains, and others from using their phones as well, making it a non-starter of an idea.

Also, why should it be ok to use phones while driving in residential neighborhoods? If this idea had any sort of merit, make it 10 or 15 mph, not 30 mph.

That's what the GPS is for - it would also notice if you were on a train line. Furthermore, buses could include override sensors.

And as for passengers in vehicles???

I have a better idea. Don't do anything and quit being a nanny state.

Thank you. Just ban texting and driving, actually enforce the laws, and give out Darwin Awards with the tickets.

[kphoger]

Although we often get pissed at the trucker in the left lane who is running side by side with another trucker in the right lane on the interstate he often times really isn't doing it just to be a dick. What usually happens is that something causes him to decide to pull out to pass the truck in front of him, and then when he gets over the other truck gets back up to his maximum speed and there you go, 2 trucks, side by side, at 65 in a 70 zone and he's stuck there. He can't speed up to complete the pass, and the other truck isn't willing to slow back down to let him back in and now there is a line of 30 of us in the left lane getting more and more pissed by the second while it takes them 5-10 miles to sort it out.

I used to drive an Isuzu cab-over box truck, and you could drive with the pedal to the floor and it wouldn't go over 73 mph unless there was a strong tail wind.  When I found myself in the situation you describe, trying to pass someone but unable to complete the maneuver, I would slow down and cut back over into the right lane to let other traffic on by.  There isn't 'nothing' the driver can do, just 'something' he's unwilling to do.

Yeah, valid point, but you you have been driving a long time, you know what happens next. The car/truck that had been behind the one that pulled out fills the gap, everyone in both lanes are now lined up nose to tail, so slowing down for the truck stuck in the left lane really isn't an option any more at that point.

I mean, yeah, they "could" slow down further but then they are going to hold up the entire line of cars that are already in the passing lane, which you know as well as I do causes people do start doing all sorts of stupid stuff. They see the cars in the right lane are now passing them so they get desperate and that's where the wrecks happen.

Sorry, but this is what turn signals are for. If you're stuck in the left lane, holding up faster traffic and unable to pass, then, as soon as you starting dropping back, you put on your right signal to show everyone what you're doing. In my experience, people immediately understand your intention, appreciate it, and do not engage in the behavior you describe. Whereas, without your signaling in advance, people don't know what you're doing, assume you're just an annoying slowpoke, and do anything they can to get around you.

[jeffandnicole]

With GPS improvements, I think we could get to the point that most internet and SMS functions are automatically disabled on Interstates, and at any point a driver is traveling at more than 30 mph. Map and voice functions would still be available.

It wouldn't be popular, but it might be a reasonable compromise.

As mentioned in a previous thread, this would also prohibit passengers, those in buses and trains, and others from using their phones as well, making it a non-starter of an idea.

Also, why should it be ok to use phones while driving in residential neighborhoods? If this idea had any sort of merit, make it 10 or 15 mph, not 30 mph.

That's what the GPS is for - it would also notice if you were on a train line. Furthermore, buses could include override sensors.

And as for passengers in vehicles???

I have a better idea. Don't do anything and quit being a nanny state.

Thank you. Just ban texting and driving, actually enforce the laws, and give out Darwin Awards with the tickets.

In some states, it is banned.  The problem with enforcing the laws is that there are simply too many laws to enforce.  If a cop sees 4 drivers go by...1 speeding, 1 not using turn signals, 1 drinking a beer, and 1 using a cell phone, which one does the cop go after?

[hotdogPi]

In some states, it is banned.  The problem with enforcing the laws is that there are simply too many laws to enforce.  If a cop sees 4 drivers go by...1 speeding, 1 not using turn signals, 1 drinking a beer, and 1 using a cell phone, which one does the cop go after?

Most likely the one that's in the easiest position for the policeman to pull over, unless one is an out-of-state license plate.

[jeffandnicole]

In some states, it is banned.  The problem with enforcing the laws is that there are simply too many laws to enforce.  If a cop sees 4 drivers go by...1 speeding, 1 not using turn signals, 1 drinking a beer, and 1 using a cell phone, which one does the cop go after?

Most likely the one that's in the easiest position for the policeman to pull over, unless one is an out-of-state license plate.

So go after the guy that didn't use a turn signal, ignoring the drunk (who could be driving on a suspended license due to previous DUIs)?

And when that guy is pulled over, 3 others who committed infractions continue going, with everyone else saying "Where's a cop when you need one?".  Well, that cop is currently going to have to spend an hour or two dealing with locking up the drunk again.

It's simply a no-win situation, because for everyone that is caught doing something wrong, numerous others get away with driving infractions...

[MikeTheActuary]

And as for passengers in vehicles???

You know, requiring people to learn how to live unplugged for a short period of time would be a nifty fringe benefit to combating the idiots who apparently don't get the message that it's a bad idea to text-and-drive.

[jeffandnicole]

And as for passengers in vehicles???

You know, requiring people to learn how to live unplugged for a short period of time would be a nifty fringe benefit to combating the idiots who apparently don't get the message that it's a bad idea to text-and-drive.

So passengers aren't allowed to use their phone for directions?

I ride in a carpool.  I can't use my phone to make a work-related phone call?

I just traveled 16 hours in a car to Florida. Is that a 'short' period of time?  I'm not allowed to check my email while my wife drives?

I know, I know...you're only thinking people in cars are family or friends, and are just in the car for 'short' periods of time.  By far, that's not the case for many people.

And finally, so much is made about punishing everyone for the few that cause the issue.  That's exactly what you're proposing.

[compdude787]

With GPS improvements, I think we could get to the point that most internet and SMS functions are automatically disabled on Interstates, and at any point a driver is traveling at more than 30 mph. Map and voice functions would still be available.

It wouldn't be popular, but it might be a reasonable compromise.

As mentioned in a previous thread, this would also prohibit passengers, those in buses and trains, and others from using their phones as well, making it a non-starter of an idea.

Also, why should it be ok to use phones while driving in residential neighborhoods? If this idea had any sort of merit, make it 10 or 15 mph, not 30 mph.

That's what the GPS is for - it would also notice if you were on a train line. Furthermore, buses could include override sensors.

And as for passengers in vehicles???

Do the thing that they do in Pokemon Go where it warns you that you're going too fast, then you can say "I am a passenger."

And as for passengers in vehicles???

You know, requiring people to learn how to live unplugged for a short period of time would be a nifty fringe benefit to combating the idiots who apparently don't get the message that it's a bad idea to text-and-drive.

LOL, that could work too, I suppose. 

[UCFKnights]

With GPS improvements, I think we could get to the point that most internet and SMS functions are automatically disabled on Interstates, and at any point a driver is traveling at more than 30 mph. Map and voice functions would still be available.

It wouldn't be popular, but it might be a reasonable compromise.

As mentioned in a previous thread, this would also prohibit passengers, those in buses and trains, and others from using their phones as well, making it a non-starter of an idea.

Also, why should it be ok to use phones while driving in residential neighborhoods? If this idea had any sort of merit, make it 10 or 15 mph, not 30 mph.

That's what the GPS is for - it would also notice if you were on a train line. Furthermore, buses could include override sensors.

And as for passengers in vehicles???

Do the thing that they do in Pokemon Go where it warns you that you're going too fast, then you can say "I am a passenger."

Except that doesn't work either. I know plenty of people who played Pokemon Go while driving, just hitting they are a passenger, and Waze also has that prompt, and all it makes me do is either spend more time reading and pressing buttons on my touchscreen, or use Google Maps instead of it.

Is there research on whether the anti-phone-use laws actually even help safety? People seem to ignore them, and worse, try to hide their phone usage while they're driving keeping the phone is a worse position that takes their eyes further off the road.

I too personally find I pay much more attention to the road and am less likely to fiddle with anything when I feel like I'm going the maximum safe speed for the road. Low speed limits encourage distracted driving, for me at least.

[hbelkins]

I'd prefer that the cops quit enforcing traffic laws and patrol high-crime areas where there are lots of shootings, drug deals, etc.

[MikeTheActuary]

You know, requiring people to learn how to live unplugged for a short period of time would be a nifty fringe benefit to combating the idiots who apparently don't get the message that it's a bad idea to text-and-drive.

So passengers aren't allowed to use their phone for directions?

I ride in a carpool.  I can't use my phone to make a work-related phone call?

You could do both, hands-free, just as the driver can....although I'm of the opinion that extended phone calls when in a confined space with others who aren't also participating in the call is rather rude and therefore probably ought to wait.

I just traveled 16 hours in a car to Florida. Is that a 'short' period of time?  I'm not allowed to check my email while my wife drives?

I know, I know...you're only thinking people in cars are family or friends, and are just in the car for 'short' periods of time.  By far, that's not the case for many people.

Actually, I'm regularly driving between Connecticut and Memphis, and since I'm a telecommuter, I haven't really thought about the physical commute experience in a while.  (Although I do recall my time on an express bus as being a great opportunity to nap, or read a dead tree book.)

I've found that there aren't too many emails that require a response before the next gas/bio stop...especially if you set an out of office message saying "call me at...if you need an immediate response".  And yes, a few of those calls, answered hands-free, have resulted in my giving Google Maps a voice command to route me to the next Mickey D's along the route, so I can break out the laptop and address the fire drill.

Cell phones, especially smart phones, are relatively new things.  For many decades drivers and passengers survived short jaunts and long road trips quite well without them.

If locking such devices when traveling at certain speeds is what it takes to protect people from the idjits who insist on texting while driving....it'll suck, but it'll worth it.  If you don't believe me, come sit at my desk for a while and read some auto insurance claim files.

That being said...I doubt that any such "features" will be built into future gadgets.  At least on today's devices, I would assume that the only thing needed to circumvent the measures would be turning off the GPS receiver / location services daemon.

Mostly I was just obliquely commenting on just how much more frequently distracted driving is factoring into my claims data, as well as on how over-attached some of us (myself included!) have become to our gadgets.

I'd really, really prefer to see people have the good sense to do the right thing on their own when it comes to gadget use and driving.  Sadly, I don't see it happening.

[vdeane]

I have never been a fan of limiting people based on the lowest common denominator.

[1995hoo]

I have never been a fan of limiting people based on the lowest common denominator.

I tend to agree with this, and I go further in subscribing to the old maxim that, for the most part, the government that governs best governs least. But I do think there is a role for the various laws restricting handheld phone usage, reading e-mail or text messages, etc., even if as a practical matter it's difficult for police to enforce those laws and a lot of people refuse to obey them. Those laws can be persuasive evidence of the applicable standard of care in a civil case, and once a court accepts that, the defendant's phone records will usually become discoverable to prove that, for example, he sent a text message one minute before rear-ending someone at 70 mph.

[cpzilliacus]

I honestly do about 80 whenever I'm able to, even on the crowded portions of I-95 around Baltimore, DC and Northern Virginia and the Baltimore Beltway, obviously when they're not crowded. I'm not a libertarian, but I sure drive like one sometimes.

You are aware of the reckless driving provisions in Virginia law, right?

That only applies in VA, right?

And based on what I've seen, many people in the NoVA area don't seem too concerned about it especially when traffic is heavy.

Yes, the "80 MPH is reckless driving" is (as far as I know) only applicable in Virginia. Or "20 MPH over the posted limit is reckless driving" only applies in Virginia (last time I checked, in Maryland, 30 over the posted limit can lead to a reckless driving charge).