32 votes

Speed Kills Your Pocketbook: The Greatest Takedown of Speed Limit Laws & Revenue Collection Officers


http://youtu.be/2BKdbxX1pDw

Does speed really kill? Sometimes, yes, but when the speed limits are set artificially low, and enforcement is targeted to those areas where the limit is far below traffic speed, then all the speed kills campaign does is keep drivers complacent about paying fines that don't improve safety.

In this video, Chris at www.six7films.com investigates the culture and science surrounding speed enforcement in BC, coupled with his trademark Simpsons, Supertroopers, and Family Guy references.

Enjoy and discuss!

___



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Garan's picture

Artificially Low Speed Limit Enforcement is Supressive

If officers actually enforced all the laws (not signalling lane changes, entering traffic in the wrong lane, etc...), everyone would have tickets every day.

The State's behavior must be corrected.
..and "we the people" should not be managed as financial cattle.

Must we all drive as slow as the worse drivers?

It's also mind-numbing, miserable, and creates victims of the state.
Who wants to create a population of such people?

It would be nice to feel relaxed, free and not have to always look over your shoulder for legal predators.

Speeders tend to be highly attentive drivers; avoiding all the other inattentive law breakers and people who play games (trying to negatively affect other drivers, holding back traffic, etc...).

Let's wake up, watch out (front, sides, AND behind), and stay out of each other's way.

We'll all be happier for it.

Why not end the monopoly on roads and privatize?

Why can businesses seem to take care of every other problem in the world except roads? Why not offer the roads and highways for sale to the public? Then the roads would be private property and the owner of the roads would be responsible for setting and enforcing their own rules?

MA

How exactly?

Auction off the roads to the highest bidder, and then all maintenance becomes the responsibility of the new owner? Toll roads are one thing when you have a small number of entry and exit points, but how, practically, would the owner of a residential road, say, collect fees?

Suppose I buy the road outside my house, and then tell the neighbor across the street on this lttle dead-end section of road that it's going to cost them a million a year to access the road, is that my right as the new road owner? Sadly for them there's really no other practical way for them to get to their property. And if they don't pay, can I refuse them access? If that reduces their property values to approximately zero, then I'll take that property off their hands cheap. It's worth something to me even if it isn't worth anything to anyone else.

Where does the plan of road privatization stop that sort of thing from happening, or does it?

I'm not disputing that private ownership, etc., can be far more efficient, but this is the sort of thing where it's hard to see how to make the transition. Except on roads where some sort of toll system (with some sort of enforcement mechanism) is possible, and multiple routes exist so that there's competition, which is teh sort of real-world situation where it makes good sense.

no auction

you dont auction off the roads. They are not "the governments roads." they are the peoples roads. You just give them back to the people. The ownership of the roads would be apportioned according to who owns the adjacent property. That way everyone who owns land along the road has a stake in the operation running successfully and no one is prevented from "buying in."

How would that work?

I think that makes more sense in residential areas than on highways. On highways it would amount to a transfer of wealth to the corporations that happened to own adjacent property, for example, who now would suddenly find themselves owning a very valuable asset probably worth a lot more than the property that got it for them. Just for happening to own that land with a run-down warehouse on it that they lease out, they now own a resource that tens if not hundreds of thousands of people have little choice but to use every day. Cha-ching.

And it doesn't really solve the problem even in residential areas. My house is on road A but I don't have any choice but to use road B to go anywhere. Can the people who would end up owning road B charge me arbitrarily high amounts for access to my property?

Basically anyone who ends up owning the road that's unavoidable for access to some area, or some set of roads that represent all the access options, now has the ability to make all of the property in that area worthless (to everyone except the owner of that access point) by setting the price so hight that access is impractical. In some areas just buying up a few key houses would be enough to render some much, much larger area inaccessible, and therefore of little market value to anyone other than the owners of those few key houses on the roads needed for access. The consequences of that seem pretty obvious.

There are lots of roads I have a strong interest in, beyond just the road I live on. So in the sense that they are the people's roads, it's not just the road in front of my house that is "my" road.

There would be a lot of issues with making this work if you were designing a city from scratch. It would work and work well if there's competition -- if two companies own roads and I can use either one, then yeah, I'm going to pay for and use the one that gives me the best value for the price. But if one company owns both roads and I don't have any other viable choice, I'm hosed. That's something you might address if you designed it all from scratch. But I just don't see how to make the transition from the current system.

you have no faith in voluntary interaction

your argument is basically that people cannot find mutually beneficial voluntary ways of interacting with each other and that if the state does not intervene to "make things right" all sorts of people will be systematically exploited by vicious road owners.

I personally believe people can do better without the violent coercion of the state and dont claim to know how everything would be without a violent coercive state road system but I am guessing it could be much better.

That said I dont think there is necessarily a problem with companies making money on roads. I mean what is wrong with that? If they provide a good service they should be rewarded for it. Better than the state putting a gun to everyones head and then wasting most of it on boondoggle road construction. If they charge too high a fees there is massive economic incentive to find alternative routes and then the traffic will stop flowing by these areas.

There are many solutions to the issues you raise of access. Ownership of dead end streets could be mutually owned by a private non-profit corporation made up of the adjacent land owners and maintenance fees could be determined by majority vote or some such thing.

if we have a private road system it is likely many things would be different, like zoning laws, utilities, and other services. You act as if there is no possible recourse. In a voluntary society people could build around troubled persons creating competition. They could publicize the mistreatment and get community support to help change the behavior by people refusing to interact and provide services for the offending individual.

A friend of mine has some land way up north. They have a little cabin by the lake and there is a private road that heads in there. there are about 12 houses on this road. I asked who owns it and he said he didnt think anyone did. Every few years it needs new gravel and all the people just get together and pitch in and take care of it. Everyone also mutually pitches in to cover someone taking care of snow removal, ETC. it is all done voluntarily and it works fine. It just happens.

Maybe someone near the front of the road could have a survey and prove that they own the road or some such thing. then try to start charging people. but they wouldnt do that. They couldnt enforce it. Most people are good people, neighbors. A few bad actors can be dealt with. better than basing a whole system on violence and mindless bureaucracy.

I think you've misunderstood me

I totally agree that sometimes people do work together very well. In the example of the cabin you gave, that's just the kind of situation that makes it happen. There's a mutual need, non-cooperation doesn't hurt the others badly (they can remedy the problem easily, and the non-cooperator may learn the value of being a good neighbor). And if he non-cooperator never does learn, it doesn't hurt the others that much, just a slightly larger share of the work. I've seen that kind of situation work out very nicely too.

But that's very, very different from the situation I described. Suppose one of them owned that road, and there was no agreement in place about access. They're neighborly, let's assume. But a speculator offers them double what their cabin is worth. If they sell, the speculator closes the road. Suddenly the others have to buy up other land to make a new road, which may not be possible physically or financially, or else lose the use of their property (if they don't have a helicopter). Their property values go to zero, and the speculator buys them up cheap. Twelve houses for the price of two basically. It's not neighborly, but a speculator isn't a neighbor, they're just looking to make a buck. Put that kind of opportunity out there and someone will take it.

And I'm not saying there's no possible recourse. I'm saying that I can't think of one, in situations where the profit motive works against instead of in favor of mutually beneficial solutions. Basically the only thing I'm objecting to is a solution that requires altruism.

BTW, when someone finds themselves owning a road, how could they charge for access? And each only owns the little section in front of their house, then driving between here and the grocery store I'd be traveling across probably two or three hundred different road owners. Again I'm not saying there's no solution, just that it's hard to imagine one, especially without being very intrusive on privacy in order to know what roads I've used, so that the owners can charge me accordingly.

no one in your scenario is

no one in your scenario is going to come buy the land from the speculator under these conditions. They would be risking everything cause the spec could just double cross them and run the same scam again. Plus if all 12 people are really going to lose everything as you claim they could just come together and buy the guy out and keep the spec out.

also if the spec is really destroying the value of all these peoples land and the only issue is access vs them losing everything they can pool together and devise access in another direction. It is hard to envision a scenario in which a spec can come in and buy land in a complete circle around people to totally prevent access. Even if there was a few such scenarios it makes little sense to base a whole system on avoiding a few exceptions when the alternative, bridges to nowhere, tearing up roads and rebuilding them just to fulfill budgets etc is so detrimental.

I mean how pissed would people be around the spec if they started destroying property values. do you think the people around the spec in the other directions would just sit idly by while some vulture destroys their community. If it was true private system all the other people on the other side could just cut off the spec to help defend their neighbors!

And I think the whole paying for access thing is overblown. People talk about it because if people own it they technically could charge people. But I dont think it would work that way. People on a dead end road would have few to charge and why would they want to. They are not going to charge the delivery man or their friends coming over. They would maintain the road as a service to themselves and those who come. Further in commercial areas the local businesses would have strong incentive to maintain the roads and to not charge anything to make it as easy as possible for customers to get there. So I think most places would not charge in residential/commercial areas.

As for toll roads, as I said before there could be large groups that form to administer such an operation. People could retain ownership of the land but give up some rights (like a condo association) for the purposes of profit sharing. there could be contracts that negotiate the details. People could also sell their part of the land to a road company. So it would not be patchworks of hundreds of toll booths or something.

The market drives efficiency and there is a huge demand for efficient travel. Think of all the people in all the large cities in this country sitting there for an hour in rush hour traffic. how many of them would not pay an extra $5 to get home an hour sooner?

That's where I disagree

You suggested that people might sell their road to a road company, which is fine, but what sort of road company is going to pay money for a resource that costs money to maintain and produces no revenue? A road company might very well buy the road. In fact I have no doubt that this would happen, because there's money to be made there. But they'd buy it (or lease it from the owners) for the revenue it would produce. RFID tracking is the only practical way to charge, and if the loss of privacy doesn't bother you then maybe there's a solution along those lines.

I do still think you're underestimating the effect this would have on property values, and my objection there is just that it's a transfer of wealth for arbitrary reasons, not because a company provided a good service. People have an interest in many more roads than just the one in front of their house.

Toll roads are the easy one, as we've both said. I have no doubt that new toll roads would be constructed in strategic places. If you can control access so you can charge the users, you can make a profit. If there users have multiple roads to choose from, competition will result in the user having some good choices at good prices. That's the sort of situation that I have no problem with. When the goal (better roads) aligns with the profit motive, and there is competition, that's the easy case. That's where the result is almost certain to be sweet. It's the other cases that are problematic.

like I said, I dont know how

like I said, I dont know how it would all work, I am just throwing ideas out. What would a free society look like? Who knows? Never seen one.

But I see the opposite view as a default. Confiscating peoples money through taxation is a "transfer of wealth for arbitrary reasons." It is not necessary.

Maybe roads would be worse, maybe some peoples property values would go down...maybe not. But transitioning to a society that relies less on violent force and more on voluntary interactions would be a net positive regardless.

Thanks for the thoughts.

x

x

MA

Great Video...but

the supposition is that the government is here to help.

I feel for people like the author of this video, as he actually believes that any of the vested interests in road regulation, are all of a sudden going to have an epiphany and stop being defacto tax collector/enforcers.

Great Post

Learned some good things.

donvino

It's not Speed, It's the Reaction Time That Avoids a Collision

The police are required by the political establishment to enforce the laws of a municipality (state, county, parish, town, village, etc.) Unfortunately for the public that includes speed limit laws which we all know are abused by government (e.g., speed traps, etc.) to steal from us using judicial fines and penalties.

How are speed limits determined and by what standards? Here is one explanation used in New York State (see: http://www.upstatenyroads.com/speedlimits.shtml).

Traffic engineers use established metrics to come up with what they think is a safe speed for a particular road. The problem is that traffic density patterns are dynamic and vary depending upon a number of metrics (e.g., time of day, day of week, weather conditions, road construction standards, etc.). So why pick one static speed limit? Why not have a dynamic speed limit depending upon the previously mentioned factors? Obviously that would be too complex to manage, impossible for cops to enforce and government would lose a significant amount of non-tax revenue.

But that brings up another question; is it the vehicle's speed that is the main cause of a collision or something else? Let's explore this concept.

Assume I'm driving on the New York State thruway which has a posted speed limit of 65 mph. There are no other vehicles for three miles in front or behind me. Effectively there is no chance of an imminent collision with another car. I should be able to drive 70, 75, or 80 miles per hour depending upon road and weather conditions until I come upon other automobiles in the traffic flow. Then I have to use sound judgement and decide what is a safe speed in relation to the distance between my car and other vehicles.

What I'm saying is it's not the speed of a vehicle, it's the distance between vehicles that determines reaction time to prevent a crash event. Collisions happen at any speed but are greatly reduced when sufficient distance is maintained commensurate with the speed traveled.

One rule of measurement is one car length for every ten miles of forward speed. If I driving 80 miles per hour I should be at a minimum of eight car lengths (preferably more) behind the traffic in front of me. It's a dynamic situation.

How does government enforce a rule to address collision avoidance in an environment of constant change in traffic flow? They can't because it's impractical so they pick a speed limit which is a flawed attempt to reduce vehicle collisions.

In my opinion government should not be enforcing a static speed limit. What should be regulated is the evenness of traffic flow and singling out those vehicles that are tailgating, changing lanes abruptly, weaving across lanes, merging into traffic in an unsafe manner, etc.). Those are the individuals that are likely to be involved in collisions, not the car that is a safe distance behind a vehicle but traveling five or ten miles over a posted speed limit.

Thats a good thought. This

Thats a good thought.
This reminds me of a post I once read. Someone who regularly used the NJ Turnpike(somewhere along there) would see people getting ready for work in their car and then dive across 5 lanes of traffic to get to their exit. Talk about dangerous. They were commenting on the fact that its these people that end up causing accidents.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

Differential speed kills

Speed doesn't cause accidents, differential speed does. When speed limits are set artificially low, e.g. 55 mph on a divided highway, it forces the issue. This is by design, of course.

The 55 mph speed limit began as a temporary remedy to the 70's "energy crisis" when the government claimed it would conserve oil by improving mpg. It was then kept in place as a "safety issue". As roadways have improved, and most certainly automobile technology, in the ensuing decades, differential speed in highway traffic caused by artificially low speed limits increases risk for the sake of the opportunity it creates to ticket drivers.

You could always sign up a

You could always sign up a bunch of you friends to drive on that stretch of road going EXACTLY the speed limit in all lanes during what should be lighter than normal traffic. If that doesn't p!$$ people off enough to want the speed limit changed, nothing will.

Garan's picture

I've heard of people doing that during the worse of traffic.

..to make a bigger point.

Sometimes, driving the posted speed limit is disruptive and has a massive negative impact on a disproportionately huge number of drivers.

Issuing traffic tickets during rush-hour has the same effect.

bump

.

I need permission

On how fast I travel? Like slaves need permission from their masters and when they do not listen they have punishments doled out by the master.

Its about time slavery was abolished.

If speed kills me its my life if I do harm to others they will seek remedy from me.

sovereign

Two Points

1) Those who own the roads (the citizens who paid for their construction) have a right to set rules for their use. Don’t like their rules? Don’t use their roads. You can travel as fast as you want on your own road.

2) There is no remedy for the injury or death of another person.

One point

colectivism is dictatorship.

Let me get this straight, those roads acording to you belong to me. Well you say WE. But I have not entered into a agreement or contract to own part of any road and you nor anyone else can prove ownership of said roads. Sounds like one more of many false claims over my private sovereign life.

Who makes those rules that you clain represents the owners of that road (WE)?
Let me answer: A few puppet criminals that work for a Crime family that uses these rules to slave and control to subvert my individual soverenty. A group of criminals that use false national debts and corupt counterfeit money to make these same claims when stealing my property.

Dont tell me a free man that you have the right to restrict my free travel by false claims of property that you do not own. This can not come to a good end.

The point is I do not own them roads. Certianly the term we does not include me. If I own some road or part owner I want my proof of ownership.

sovereign

"When everybody owns something..."

"When everybody owns something, nobody owns it, and nobody has a direct interest in maintaining or improving its condition. That is why buildings in the Soviet Union -- like public housing in the United States -- look decrepit within a year or two of their construction..."
- Milton Friedman

Or if that doesn't hit home:

This is a story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody. There was an important job to be done and Everybody was asked to do it. Everybody was sure Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. Somebody got angry about that, because it was Everybody's job. Everybody thought Anybody could do it but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn't do it. It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.

"Those who own the road..." Just who owns the roads? The public? I've never been given an opportunity to set rules for road use. Have you?

In a system where property rights were respected, road construction, maintenance, and safety, in my opinion, would be far superior than any road owned by "the public."

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

My Friends

There will always be forms of collectivism in any society. Yes, even ones that are completely liberated and free of governmental collusion. When people live together they are going to build things that are for the mutual benefit of their village, town, city or whatever.

For example, the people living in a village close to a river that often floods may decide to construct a dyke in order to protect their property; their homes, crops, etc. That dyke then belongs collectively to the people of that village. Or at the very least, it belongs to those who constructed it and/or paid for its construction. It is not everybody's dyke, it's private property of the people of that village. They get to decide what the rules for its use will be.

In exactly the same way, the roads in my city belong collectively to me and my neighbors. They are not everybody's roads, they are our roads. We paid for their construction and they are our property. We decide what the rules for their use will be. If you don’t live and pay taxes in my city, you have no say. We allow anyone to use our roads under the condition that you abide by our rules. We have the right to protect ourselves and our property. Don’t like our rules? Don’t use our property.

There is a difference between...

There is difference between voluntary collectivism and forced collectivism. The argument that libertarians or voluntaryists don't believe and advocate for the better good of the society or community are generally wrong in my opinion. We LOVE our communities. We love helping society. We just don't like your community or your society telling our society how to organize ourselves, and we really hate your society forcing us to interact with and fund your society....the collective "your."

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

Dead on

I would add that the reason you nor I own those roads is because those who own the government puppets, (Rothschild and their crime gang, think that they own those roads. The ownership is just one more control measure to control free humans. Those who do not abide by the rules (DICTATES) are identified as opposition to their criminal slave rule over humanity and are punished. I know that there are those out there that will not see the huge Rothschild elephant in every corner as I do. I have special financial glasses I wear from years of investment advising. I found that every trail leads to the same name and the same criminal gang.

So when one gang has control of humanity with false debt as the yoke of control. They have unlimited resources. To not understand that this evil acumulation of power and control of humanity is being used in every way possible to garner more control and donimance is niave.

sovereign

It's about freakin' time!

I argued this point with the cop teaching my 'rehabilitation' class that I had to take after getting a speeding ticket years ago. After he couldn't make his case during the class, he asked that we table it til break where he ultimately agreed that it was not related to safety but revenue.

Having driven about 3/4 of a million miles and having a statistics focused mind, I've given this a tremendous amount of thought over the years. My conclusion is that speed is absolutely irrelevant IF OTHER SAFETY RULES ARE FOLLOWED. All accidents and near misses that I've seen have been due to following too close, angry reactions to bad behavior (mostly driving too slow) or inattention to the situation. PERIOD.