It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why no minimum speed limits?

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Make Speed Limit 45
 


If lowering the speed limit is the cure. then what was there reasoning on uping the limits. Before I could drive freeway speeds were 60 now they are 70. The speed limits are fine. It is the people that can't for what ever reason drive the speed limit that is the problem.

It has been said on this thread already that the people that so drive slow is because they are vision impaired or just terrified by all of the vehicles. And the way that you enforce min. limits is if the person driving to slow is causing unnecassary backups. Or they are endagering the other drivers.




posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   
It's a good idea on having minimum speed limits, but vehicle type has to be taken into consideration also. For example, trucks usually are not capable of going up a decent hill at the speed limit if loaded. And if the speed limit going down a long hill is, say 100kph, and you try to do that in a loaded truck, you will be forced to use your brakes. They will then overheat in a very short space of time, and then they will not work at all, or even catch fire.

But the motorist in their brand new family sedan that sits on 80 in a 100kph zone is just infuriating. At that point, they become an obstacle, forcing competent drivers to go on the wrong side of the road to get around them. And for those who insist it's safer, why don't you be extra safe and do, say, 25?

When a driver holds a license that implies they are competent driving at 100kph, and they don't feel they can do this speed in good weather conditions in a 100kph zone, then, by rights, they should not hold that license.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 02:38 AM
link   
We have minimum speed limits here in GA.


Usually they are like 45 or something.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Down Under
 


Yes there is a rule that entering traffic must yield the right of way to
highway traffic. So when the woman pulled onto to the highway and
caused an accicdent because of existing traffic piling into her, she should have been ticketed for "Failure to yield the right of way".
Existing highway traffic is not supposed to yield to entring traffic.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by NuclearPaul
 


At some point or another we all drop below the spped limit, just like we all occasionally go over it in the course of riving.

I'm not singling those occasions, but the consistant slow drivers.

Incidentally I have seen a few highways that do enforce different speed limits for trucks.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
I know here in Illinois, on roads where the speed is critical, like expressways, they often have minimums posted. I'm with some of the people here, if you can't keep up with traffic, get off the road and find another one.

I figure it like this, if you're going appreciably slower than prevailing traffic, you're a hazard, just like if you're going noticibly faster you're not being safer, you're being more dangerous.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ant4AU
reply to post by Make Speed Limit 45
 


If lowering the speed limit is the cure. then what was there reasoning on uping the limits.


The auto industry wanted speed limits raised because that means more wrecked cars and more money for the industry. They paid congress to raise limits.

No question lower speed limits save lives. That was proved in 1974 when limits were cut to 55 and immediately annual highway deaths went from 55k to 46k.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45

Originally posted by Ant4AU
reply to post by Make Speed Limit 45
 


If lowering the speed limit is the cure. then what was there reasoning on uping the limits.


The auto industry wanted speed limits raised because that means more wrecked cars and more money for the industry. They paid congress to raise limits.

No question lower speed limits save lives. That was proved in 1974 when limits were cut to 55 and immediately annual highway deaths went from 55k to 46k.



In 1974 we had a gas crisis too. That would drop the rate of deaths since no one could afford to drive. Why not quote back in 1908 the rate of death went up cuz henry ford built his 1st Model T?

I'm not saying that slowing down doesn't, possibly, cause less accidents. I'm just saying you have to look at all the data in regards to your facts.
If people aren't driving because they can't afford gas, get gas, then there would obviously be less car accidents.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Minimum sure would be helpful in this neck of the woods. Especially if I'm on the expressway and someone decided to do 30~35 for the past few miles before my exit came up; ( I was following behind the person and was simply shocked as I saw my speed gauge stay right in between those two). For the most part though, it seems like just like with the maximum, not everyone will follow the minimum speed limit that has been posted. Speed limit could be 35 here and we have people pulling 50s and 60s. A minimum and they would just laugh at it probably wondering what is it's purpose.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join