Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Gubernatorial Candidate Wants to Sell Speeding Passes for $25

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the pay-to-play dept.

Transportation 825

If Nevada gubernatorial candidate Eugene "Gino" DiSimone gets his way, $25 will buy you the right to drive up to 90mph for a day. DiSimone estimates his "free limit plan" will raise $1 billion a year for Nevada. From the article: "First, vehicles would have to pass a safety inspection. Then vehicle information would be loaded into a database, and motorists would purchase a transponder. After setting up an account, anyone in a hurry could dial in, and for $25 charged to a credit card, be free to speed for 24 hours."

cancel ×

825 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Cue increase in accidents (3, Insightful)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482406)

I have no doubt this will make them money, but it will also make them look much worse on traffic accident statistics vs. other states.

What could possibly go wrong? (5, Insightful)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482428)

apart from the state sharing in liability for accidents while speeding with permission...

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (5, Informative)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482794)

Who says the owner(s) of the car(s) and person(s) present at the accident won't still be the only persons liable if an accident occurs due to speeding? Just because the driver didn't break any laws in injuring someone, doesn't mean the government is "liable" for this. South v. Maryland [endtimesreport.com] ; local law-enforcement have no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws

Only if the state has consented to this liability. The law that enables "speeding passes" could contain a liability shield for the state, Due to Sovereign immunity [wikipedia.org] , the state itself cannot be held liable, unless the state has consented.

Re:Cue increase in accidents (4, Insightful)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482434)

That's not necessarily the case. Have you ever driven on Nevada roads? You can go 90, take a brief nap, and still be perfectly safe. I'm exaggerating, but only slightly. Germany has some roads without any speed limit whatsoever, and they're safer than comparable roads elsewhere in Europe.

Re:Cue increase in accidents (5, Insightful)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482566)

I think it's just an admission by governments that speed limits aren't actually there for safety so much as to raise funds. If the road is safe enough to drive on at 90mph for $25, it's safe enough to drive on at 90mph for free. The government isn't AT&T, it doesn't get to impose bullshit laws unless the public good outweighs individual liberty.

Re:Cue increase in accidents (3, Insightful)

Antidamage (1506489) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482758)

It'd be really sweet if the families of anyone killed by a legally speeding driver got the $25.

Re:Cue increase in accidents (4, Informative)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482776)

Or more likely that he's a nut job that doesn't know what he's talking about. Roads are constructed to engineering specs. Even if you're on a long stretch of straight road, there's still engineering that goes on to determine the maximum safe speed. Things like lane size and spacing are taken into account. As are the size and spacing of the shoulder and the considerations as to how far away buildings need to be. Not to mention the fact that any road that has a curve is engineered to handle traffic going up to a maximum speed. The angle of the bank and the radius of the curve are chose on the assumption that people will be traveling at no more than a certain speed.

While libertarians tend to get all outraged about things like this, there's no evidence that it's as safe to go 90mph on those roads as it is 70mph or whatever the current limit is. Even for roads like the Autobahn, when you do have a wreck, it tends to be pretty spectacular and much worse than the ones we typically get in the US. Beyond that mixing traffic speeds is a real danger. There's a reason why you're urged to keep up with traffic flow even if the traffic flow is going somewhat over the speed limit. It represents a risk to other vehicles to have people that aren't keeping up.

Re:Cue increase in accidents (4, Interesting)

cgenman (325138) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482778)

People drive 90mph already on those roads anyway. Highway 5 in California has stretches that routinely flow-of-traffic at my car's electronically limited top speed.

The old "55 everywhere" limit was put in place 40 years ago when that hit the fuel efficiency curve of cars at the time. That is no longer true. Now we have a voting block of really old people who don't feel comfortable driving at the normal flow of traffic, and as such keep voting down speed increases. Sigh.

Re:Cue increase in accidents (5, Insightful)

gmueckl (950314) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482582)

Those German highways without speed limits are dangerous and demand the driver's full attention because there's almost always a car nearby that is going much faster or much slower than you are (except when traffic is really dense, of course, in which case this degenerates into a massive stop-and-go where you're constantly changing from standstill to speeds up to 100km/h and back in a constant, rather tight cycle). It's quite stressful to drive on these roads for a couple of hours.

Still, my guess is that the high demands on the drivers keep all of them so much more focused that the end result is a bearable rate of accidents. Actually, I find that I'm much more inclined to doze off on the wheel when I'm abroad on a highway with speed limit where everyone is going in a straight line at the same speed (did I mention that there's barely a highway segment in Germany that's really straight; I've heard that this is actually on purpose, but I'm not certain).

Re:Cue increase in accidents (2, Interesting)

Alastor187 (593341) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482772)

Those German highways without speed limits are dangerous and demand the driver's full attention...

Because highways with speed limits are safe and you should feel free to talk, phone, text, eat, put on make-up, etc?

How about people just assume that every drive, no matter how seemingly safe, was actually dangerous and required their full attention.

Re:Cue increase in accidents (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482774)

demand the driver's full attention because there's almost always a car nearby that is going much faster or much slower than you are

  You described driving on any road. You should always give your full attention to driving. Cars can be anywhere from stopped to the speed limit, or even well over the speed limit. Just because we have a speed limit doesn't mean people follow it. If they were, then no one would ever get a speeding ticket.

  What you described (stopped to 100km/h or 62mph, applies to roads all over America, and is within the speed limit.

Re:Cue increase in accidents (2, Informative)

j35ter (895427) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482598)

Germany has some roads without any speed limit whatsoever, and they're safer than comparable roads elsewhere in Europe.

Well, Germany has no speed limit on some (less and less) highways (Autobahn), where you have strictly divided traffic with special safety measures (side rails etc.). And even there you have a set of supplementing rules for driver behavior on these roads. Without all of this, you can bet your shiny, meaty, a**, you'll see a lot of injuries and deaths due to some morons buying 24h joyride tickets :)

Re:Cue increase in accidents (1)

PhreakOfTime (588141) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482610)

Having grown up in the (flat) Midwest, one of my first drives through Nevada, I had a similar experience.

On finishing the upward part of climbing through a mountain pass, the road leveled off, and I was able to see the next town in front of me a short distance away. Well, I 'thought' it was a short distance away. The landscape was so wide open that my sense of distance was thrown completely off. After a few minutes, I began to wonder how far the town actually was, only to pass a road sign saying 'Nevada Town XYZ 19 miles'. The town was STILL almost 20 miles away, but my perception of it was that it was much closer.

Re:Cue increase in accidents (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482620)

All depends on the drivers you have, and what they expect.

In Germany they even have crazy towns that got rid of most of its traffic signs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf-O5o4aqcs [youtube.com]
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2010/0331/What-happens-when-you-remove-all-traffic-signs-A-German-town-finds-out [csmonitor.com]

But somehow it works OK.

In Netherlands too: http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2008/0625/do-traffic-laws-cause-accidents [csmonitor.com]

In India many don't seem to care much about traffic signs either, so is that the same thing? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjrEQaG5jPM [youtube.com]

Would that system work well in China? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw-ZlHXs4Q8 [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj4LrSxjTIM [youtube.com]

Re:Cue increase in accidents (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482636)

I live in Reno and work in Carson City, in perfect honesty people are consistently going 80 MPH both ways, why not charge them. (Playing devil's advocate, personally I think this is a horrible idea.)

Re:Cue increase in accidents (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33482656)

I'm German, and I find 160 km/h (100 mph) a very decent cruising speed. Sometimes I go up to 200 km/h for short periods of time (5 to 10 minutes) where it's legal.

I've been driving around Pittsburgh for the past few days, and I learned driving in Iowa. All three are very distinct driving experiences, and while I think Iowa Highways couldn't support these speeds, their Freeways would; but in Pittsburgh, even 55 mph is often an unsafe speed because the roads are so chaotic, uneven, there's so much construction and hardly anyone ever uses their turn signals to show intent rather than stating the obvious.

Re:Cue increase in accidents (1)

prionic6 (858109) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482748)

While many people here say "Autobahn is dangerous", let me chime in to say 90 mph is not that fast (ca. 140 kph), standard cruising speed with a medium sized family car...

AP only (2, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482444)

I thought it might be less bad if the proposal stated that someone using a pass would be deemed at fault in any collision. So I used Google to try to find the details of this plan, but they all appeared to be copies of the Associated Press story linked from the summary.

Re:Cue increase in smothering (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33482460)

...or not.

There is no statistical data that proves that an increase in speed increases accidents. Citation: Germany's Autobahn

You were told that speeding would kill you by your mother...who was overprotecting you. Perhaps she was right when you were first learning to drive, but not now.

You can safely drive at higher speeds now. You're a big boy.

Re:Cue increase in smothering (5, Informative)

dave420 (699308) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482476)

Germany's Autobahn is a very modern system, built with incredibly strict tolerances. Also, the rules for driving on the Autobahn are very strict, and German drivers have a very strenuous testing process before they can get a license. Comparing the two doesn't make much sense.

Re:Cue increase in smothering (5, Interesting)

dr2chase (653338) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482518)

I saw them working on a segment of the Autobahn some years back. They were laser-leveling poured concrete.

Re:Cue increase in smothering (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482814)

They are German.

All things considered, this could be the safety required for a roadway with those speeds. Or it could just be that Germany engineering is so much better than the crap the rest of the world puts up with. Having driven safely at 110 MPH on freeways in California (once being passed by a cop doing about 130), I'm guessing they're just being German.

Re:Cue increase in smothering (2, Interesting)

Ichijo (607641) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482512)

There is no statistical data that proves that an increase in speed increases accidents. Citation: Germany's Autobahn

So you would be in favor of making it illegal to pass on the right, just like on the Autobahn, in order to make highways safe at high speeds?

That's not such a bad idea. Right now it's permissible to drive slowly in the left lane because traffic can still get around you. If it were illegal to pass on the right, only then could you be impeding traffic. So "illegal to pass on the right" would keep slow drivers out of the fast lanes.

Re:Cue increase in smothering (2, Interesting)

PhreakOfTime (588141) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482558)

In many states, mine included(IL), its not legal at all to drive in the left lane, unless you are passing, or in congested traffic. If you are the only car in the left lane, and have the ability to switch to the right lane, YOU are the one breaking the law. Some states will even ticket you if you are going the speed limit, in the left lane.

"At the start of the summer, the Washington State Patrol began pulling people over for violating the state's left-lane law, which prohibits "impeding the flow of other traffic." http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourCar/left-lane-slowpokes-drive-you-crazy.aspx?vv=800 [msn.com]

Re:Cue increase in accidents (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482468)

I have no doubt this will make them money, but it will also make them look much worse on traffic accident statistics vs. other states.

Depends on where they are allowed to drive 90mph. 90mph is well within the design limits of most freeways in the USA - a fact demonstrated quite frequently by people who drive that fast regardless of legality. I've been in rush-hour traffic in some big cities where the traffic was flowing at 80+ mph - not just single speeders, but the entire flow of very dense traffic.

I think what's fundamentally wrong with his idea is that it proves the lie that speed limits are set for our safety and not for revenue generation or political pandering. Spending money alone does not increase safety, so either it is safe enough to raise the limit for everyone or it's not just a license to speed, it's a license to create mayhem.

Re:Cue increase in accidents (1)

carou (88501) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482628)

Spending money alone does not increase safety, so either it is safe enough to raise the limit for everyone or it's not just a license to speed, it's a license to create mayhem.

What about the vehicle safety inspection? Sure, you could mandate that all vehicles meet the (presumably more rigorous) standard, but people who don't drive at 90mph might not appreciate the increase in maintenance costs.

Re:Cue increase in accidents (5, Insightful)

PsychoSlashDot (207849) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482526)

CUE INCREASE IN ACCIDENTS - I have no doubt this will make them money, but it will also make them look much worse on traffic accident statistics vs. other states.

Interestingly, this isn't a given. Well, not in the dramatic sense you imply. Yes, increased speed means that in the event of a collision there's more energy involved to be disbursed and absorbed, leading to more severe injuries and frequent deaths in the event of a collision. On the other hand, it's not a given that a higher speed limit will result, for a number of reasons.

Traffic tends to flow at rates generally in excess of speed limits. Speed limits are generally set (in the U.S.) 8 to 12 MPH below the speed 85% of traffic typically flows. This is done deliberately as one of the biggest purposes behind speed limits is to set a calibration number that most traffic will aim for. The goal is to have most vehicles going the same general speed. That is to say, it's important to reduce variance in vehicle speed. You set your limit expecting almost all traffic to flow within a few MPH of that limit.

See, the problem is that if a road is well-engineered and conditions are clear, many drivers will push well beyond the speed limit if it's posted "too low". Folks (like me) who are afraid to get pulled over (I drive a tempting and obvious target) stay down very close to the speed limit. The result is that the variance in vehicle speed increases, which is inherently likely to cause more accidents.

You want to reduce the number of accidents, then consider the severity of those accidents. Not the other way around. By setting limits wisely, even erring on the high side sometimes, you may actually make things safer. That's why you see so many different numbers on the roads.

Final note: all of what I just wrote is why this plan is horrible. I'd [i]love[/i] to open up my car and go play. But allowing a small percentage of the traffic to flow potentially 50% faster than the rest is likely to result in more accidents. The will coincidentally involve worse injuries.

Re:Cue increase in accidents (1)

yotto (590067) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482792)

I came in here to say this, only much less eloquently.

Re:Cue increase in accidents (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33482548)

Have you seen the mouth-breathing idiots that apparently make up a substantial chunk of Nevada's population? We'd all be a little better off with a few less teabaggers...

Re:Cue increase in accidents (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482556)

People that will pay the money and submit to an inspection generally are good drivers. 80-90mph on empty western US freeways are perfectly safe, I've driven from Seattle or Portland or Eugene to the Great Plains dozens of times, 80 or 85 or 90 are perfectly safe.

If I was in Nevada I'd be 100% in favor of this.

Re:Cue increase in accidents (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482596)

Ive driven on Montana highways at that speed. I got pulled over and fined big time. Thing is, its unsafe in the areas Ive done it. I suppose if Nevada is pretty flat and you can see a long ways then there is no problem.

Re:Cue increase in accidents (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482706)

I drove Portland to South Dakota in 2004 (that was the last time, had a stroke shortly after that and didn't drive for 4 years).

We set the cruise control at 85 in my truck for the whole way, saw one cop outside of Butte and then the other way back saw officers at the scene of a fatal motorcycle crash outside Butte.

The freeways in the American west, outside the urban areas are low volume and perfectly safe to drive at 80-90 for long stretches.

proportional to boring (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33482414)

A comedian (forget who) once said that the SL in a state should be proportional to how boring that state is. In Nebraska, for example, the speed limit should be roughly 200 MPH.

oh, so speed limits are for revenue raising... (0)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482416)

...and there was me thinking they were for the children.

Seriously, though, driving is the most dangerous activity performed by a large proportion of the Western world, and people are way too misled by the "freedom" of driving.

Uhoh, do you mod me up for my first point and down for my second, or vice versa?

Re:oh, so speed limits are for revenue raising... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33482488)

Down.

Re:oh, so speed limits are for revenue raising... (1)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482502)

Then what are speed limit for? and at what arbitrary point are they set? If the road are straight and the trafic is low there is no reason you should not able to driver faster. If the weather is bad then the current speed limits are far too high.

In rural area's speed limits make a lot of sense because of other traffic. On interstates (equivalent to autobahn) they are just random.

If the problem is security then there should be tickets for insecure driving, not for driving 67 where 60 is allowed.

Cars Don't Cause Accidents... (5, Insightful)

longacre (1090157) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482422)

First, vehicles would have to pass a safety inspection.

Only way I'd be okay with this is if they give the driver some sort of competency exam. Cars don't normally fall apart and cause accidents...it is usually driver error.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents... (4, Funny)

jorghis (1000092) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482448)

Isn't that the purpose of the test you take when you get your driver's license?

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33482504)

The driving tests are a joke. Personally, I'd love to have a system of driver rankings. Anyone skilled enough to pass a harder test on a yearly basis should be allowed to travel in the left lanes at a more rapid pace and everyone else should be restricted to the far right.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents... (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482520)

"Anyone skilled enough to pass a harder test on a yearly basis should be allowed to travel in the left lanes at a more rapid pace and everyone else should be restricted to the far right."

Yes, let's put all the slow people to the right side WHERE TRAFFIC USUALLY MERGES FROM, and thus cause even more on-ramp off-ramp congestion than we already have because nobody understands that an on-ramp is an ACCELERATION LANE.

bad idea, man.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33482588)

Except they installed drag lights on the on-ramps, which reduced the length to where most drivers can not accelerate to freeway speeds by the time they are forced to merge. Entertaining with a fast car, but it is horrible for fuel economy, safety, pollution, etc.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33482708)

So instead you recommend the super-fast traffic move to the right lane, so that traffic merging in has to deal with a car coming up on them at 90mph out of nowhere? Ya, great idea man.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33482532)

The smart people are already on the left...

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents... (1)

longacre (1090157) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482522)

Most road tests don't go over 30 mph. They don't measure reaction time at high speed and such.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents... (2, Informative)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482474)

>Cars don't normally fall apart and cause accidents...it is usually driver error.

I agree with that. In all the accident scenes I've been to, it's usually driver error based on a contributing factor. Example, raining driver is going too fast, along with following too close. Snow, driver is going too fast and/or too close. Fog, driver is going too fast. And so on. I've only ever been to one accident where it was based on mechanical failure, and it was seizing of one of the front calipers(brake piston), the car itself was 8mo old.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents... (1)

schwit1 (797399) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482496)

No doubt. Even Lewis Hamilton is going to be more accident prone if he is distracted. A requirement of the higher speed is that you are permitted to do nothing else but focus on driving. Use a cell phone and it is jail time ... which should be the law anyway at any speed other than 0.

That aside, it is good to see a politician thinking outside the box.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents... (0, Troll)

Zan Lynx (87672) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482500)

Car tires will fall apart at very high speeds.

Unless the owner has gone out of the way to purchase performance tires, the tires are often rated for only 80 mph.

Another serious problem is loose pieces on the car. A loose bumper, body panel or piece of trim will come flying off the car at high speeds when the wind hits it. That isn't only a problem for the driver (it might hit the window or a tire), but a problem for people driving behind him.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents... (0, Troll)

dr2chase (653338) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482618)

That's ok, the tires are only compromised at higher temperatures, which is never a problem in Nevada.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents... (4, Informative)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482648)

H rated is the standard tire sold in the US now, which is 210kph/130mph

The base 17 inch tires, the cheapest we could find that were made for our car, were V rated 240kph/149mph

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tire_code#National_technical_standards_regulations [wikipedia.org]
http://www.carbibles.com/tyre_bible.html [carbibles.com]

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33482716)

Most any modern car has a governor programmed with the OEM tire speed limit. My car is limited to 118mph (T rating). I believe the tire dealers won't install tires with a lower speed rating than the OEM tires. Not certain of that though.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents... (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482696)

Only way I'd be okay with this is if they give the driver some sort of competency exam. Cars don't normally fall apart and cause accidents...it is usually driver error.

Driver error gets you into bad situations. Equipment quality gets you out of (some) bad situations.

Following too close is a driver error. Under inflated tires with no tread, bad shocks, bad brakes, is what prevents you from curing the problem.

Example, my stopping distance is supposed to be 110 feet or so at 60 mph, but due to shoddy maintenance its more like 300 feet. Bad driving is getting myself into a 200 foot situation. With good gear, no problemo. With bad gear, oops.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents... (1)

jridley (9305) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482698)

It's ALWAY driver error, since one of the responsibilities of being a driver is keeping your vehicle in proper operating condition.

The only time it's not driver error is when completely unforseeable incidents occur, like someone jumping in front of a car from a blind location like from behind a parked truck or something.

Re:Cars Don't Cause Accidents... (1)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482722)

We should raise gas prices to $10/gallon and then get rid of speed limits. That'll do pretty much the same thing.

driver training (1)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482754)

Only way I'd be okay with this is if they give the driver some sort of competency exam. Cars don't normally fall apart and cause accidents...it is usually driver error.

Great. Then, just as we're allowed to train for flying airplanes (in all manner of different levels), big heavy trucks, etc- offer graduated driving licenses. If you're willing to go through extra training, you get to drive faster than people who can't be bothered. We're already seeing some of this; in many states, young drivers aren't allowed to drive at night or with juvenile passengers. Apply the concept in other ways, too: if you haven't completed a course in winter driving skills, you're not allowed to drive before roads are sanded and plowed.

Why we keep people from flying planes in instrument conditions unless they have the training for it, but let any asshole go out in his SUV with half-bald tires in fresh snow, is beyond me.

Also: bar insurance payments for anything except completely faultless situations (which are rare.) Watch how fast people get at being careful drivers, when hitting someone else with a car could mean you lose everything you own in damages to pay for their car and medical bills...and someone won't just hand you a shiny check for a new car.

It'd be a boon for public transit, too.

Unrelated News (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33482436)

This will never work. Who would pay 25 to speed for one day. When they can speed all week and if they are caught once pay a attorney 75 dollars. Do the math people.

Re:Unrelated News (4, Insightful)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482538)

Once there's a legitimate way to buy "speeding rights," one would expect enforcement to be stricter for the ones who don't buy indulgences.

Of course it's probably a stupid idea anyway.

Re:Unrelated News (2, Insightful)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482594)

This will never work. Who would pay 25 to speed for one day. When they can speed all week and if they are caught once pay a attorney 75 dollars. Do the math people.

Do the math of points on your driver's license, and the insurance rate hikes. In Nevada, this may turn out to be only something like $200 total, but somewhere like New Jersey, it's very substantial, potentially in the thousands.

Re:Unrelated News (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482782)

I think the Feds might come calling. Congress sets the rules for speed limit setting and enforcement of many laws on interstate highways, and the Federal government threatens to take away highway funding from any state that deviates from those rules. I can't imagine this little scheme of deliberate selective enforcement would go unnoticed.

Well.. (4, Insightful)

rotide (1015173) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482438)

There are going to be arguments both ways on this. I'd like to see the statistics if/when this goes into effect. It's definitely an interesting concept. My only qualm is those that are "in a hurry" may have other things on their mind and might not be the best drivers at any speed. Then again, if every state had this system, or even if there was a national level system and you had a trip to go cross country. Could be an interesting idea. Although, then there is the problem of "Ya, I know the highway was crowded, but I _paid_ to speed, so I weaved in and out of traffic to keep up at 90mph." So I guess we'd really need a couple "speeding only" lanes. Still, I'd like to see the statistics after this has been in effect for a while.

This works how? (1)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482440)

How will highway patrol know which cars are breaking the law? In southern California, most of us drive 85mph already if there's no traffic.

Re:This works how? (1)

Ziwcam (766621) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482462)

FTFS:

motorists would purchase a transponder

I presume that's how highway patrol would know who had a legit license to speed...

DO NOT WANT (0)

vivin (671928) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482452)

No thanks. I don't want my vehicle information in a database. Also, a transponder? Yeah sure - I definitely want my vehicle being tracked.

Re:DO NOT WANT (1)

Ubergrendle (531719) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482470)

If you have a license plate registration, they *already* have your car information in a database. The inspection is more about whether you've modded your car, or let it fall into such disrepair that its not longer safe to drive @ 90mph.

Re:DO NOT WANT (1)

armanox (826486) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482494)

Your vehicle information is already in a database - tag, title, registration and insurance.

Sounds a wee bit foolish (1)

coulbc (149394) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482454)

I'm sure the insurance companies will be having quite a fit with this and I would to. Texting and talking at 90 mph is going to get people killed.

Re:Sounds a wee bit foolish (1)

Fred IV (587429) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482700)

> Texting and talking at 90 mph is going to get people killed.

Texting at any speed is dangerous, if not necessarily for the driver then for nearby pedestrians, people on bicycles, etc.

*sigh* (0, Troll)

jmd (14060) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482464)

more proof that this country has lost all sense of direction. so sad

Re:*sigh* (0, Flamebait)

Marble68 (746305) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482528)

We are all less intelligent for having read this post.

Two different speed limits on the same road? (1)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482472)

I find the safest way to drive is to go with the flow of traffic (even if it's fast, or insane like it was in Greece when I rented a car there). But having a road where cars abide by two very different speed limits makes this impossible. The constant, awkward interaction between 65-drivers and 90-drivers would be far more dangerous than if everyone just went 90.

Re:Two different speed limits on the same road? (1)

jx100 (453615) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482506)

What, like all those roads with a 55 mph. speed limit on trucks, and a 65 on everything else?

You know, because those trucks are so maneuverable that it makes up for the speed differential...

Re:Two different speed limits on the same road? (1)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482540)

On most such roads, trucks are usually also not allowed out of the left lane. Yeah, if truckers were weaving about like typical amateur drivers, you can bet that it would be pretty damn unsafe. Also, the difference between 65 and 90 is quite a bit bigger. So you're going 90 in the passing lane and a guy who wants to go 65 gets in front of you because he's passing someone going 60. That's the kind of thing that would be happening all the time.

Re:Two different speed limits on the same road? (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482786)

That's the kind of thing that would be happening all the time.

It happens all the time now.

Re:Two different speed limits on the same road? (1)

Frequency Domain (601421) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482624)

Most truck drivers are way more competent than your average driver, and they stay to the right for the most part on the 65/55 roads. On top of that, differences in speeds cause far more trouble than speed itself, and a 25mph difference is huge compared to a 10mph difference. Think of the last time you got caught behind someone who wanted to merge onto the highway at or below 40 mph.

Re:Two different speed limits on the same road? (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482516)

The constant, awkward interaction between 65-drivers and 90-drivers would be far more dangerous than if everyone just went 90.

Or 65. I'm 100% sure that 100% of people (rounded to 1 decimal place) aren't doing anything important enough that it matters if they take a little longer to arrive. For the remainder, exceptions are already built into law.

People trying to do 55 when most others at 65-70 (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482554)

People trying to do 55 when most others are at 65-70 is just as bad and that is what to see when you have 55 on roads that are build for 65-70.

Organ Donation? (2, Funny)

HaloZero (610207) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482480)

Nevada must be looking to get a foot in the door on the organ/tissue donation market. What they're not telling you is that when you get loaded into the DB, you're also flagged as a donor - much the same way licensed motorcyclists are.

Moral of the story? If you need an organ, move to Nevada.

Re:Organ Donation? (-1, Troll)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482606)

[citation needed]

Re:Organ Donation? (1)

HaloZero (610207) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482816)

The supposition is cynical, and intended to be a jab.

Licensed motorcyclists in states such as North Carolina and New York are registered as organ donors as part of the licensing. I'm expecting this is also practice in other states, as well. You're welcome to Google it.

But.. (2, Insightful)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482484)

But if we exceed the speed limit, even a little, we die. Speed kills! Speed is the most important factor in car crashes! Incompetence? Distraction? Tiredness? They don't matter! Only speed matters! One car travelling faster than the other, law-abiding, drivers will cause untold carnage instantly!!

At least, that is what authority has been telling me these last several decades.

Re:But.. (1)

Attila the Bun (952109) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482572)

Incompetence? Distraction? Tiredness? They don't matter! Only speed matters!

If there was a type of radar for detecting and quantifying incompetence, distraction and tiredness, the world would be a better place.

"I'm sorry sir, you're over the state incompetence limit. You'll have to come with me."

And road congestion would be a thing of the past.

No truth in that media outlet (1)

abirdman (557790) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482524)

I'd look for direct quotations from the poor misguided politician from elsewhere-- I wouldn't believe that particular news site if they said it was Sunday. If it turns out to be true (that the candidate thinks the state should sell free passes), it's another indication of the growing belief it should be possible to purchase one's way around our laws and regulations.

And where did he get the "billion dollars" estimate of what this measure would bring in? I know where it came from. Don't look there.

just have speeds limits that are not to low Chiacg (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482530)

just have speeds limits that are not to low Chicago area toll roads and Interstates are to low. They should be 65 or maybe even 70.

The limit is 55 and next to no one does 55 most people drive 65-70 some do 75-80+. It can be unsafe to do 55 when others are doing 65-70. Also the work zone 45 is a joke make it 55 and full speed when no one is working.

not keen (1)

tchdab1 (164848) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482536)

>>The Nevada Highway Patrol isn't keen on the idea, saying it would lead to increased injuries and traffic deaths.
And hospital costs would eat into the $billion jackpot, um, I mean revenue.

I would gladly pay $25 for the opportunity to go 90mph by the elementary school: there is no word on where the speeding would be restricted to. How about mall parking lots? Cool.

Nevada does have long stretches of nothing, even outside their politician's heads. Drivers can probably go fast there with minimal consequences.

Re:not keen (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482674)

Read the article.

"90 mph on designated highways"

Sure, let's sell the right to circumvent (1)

PoissonPilote (1274002) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482560)

the law to people. Next up: for $100 a day, you can murder any person of your choice. For $500 a day, you can consume up to 2 oz. of any illegal drug of your choice. We should have the whole law system à la carte like that.

I like him. (2, Funny)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482568)

He's a capitolist asshole. The spelling is deliberate look it up.

But for my sake how about rear mounted, electrically fired black powder cannon loaded with chain mail and a fake license? It's cheaper and it does the exact same thing!

Pay as you go laws (1)

leromarinvit (1462031) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482584)

Next up, pre-register now for the new murder pass, for the low low introductory price of only $149.90! Bulk discounts available.

Seriously, if increasing the speed limit to 90 mph has negligible effects on safety, then allow it for everybody if you want to. But paying the state to be exempt from the law just stinks of corruption.

Are Nevada roads that much above US standards? (5, Informative)

Teun (17872) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482616)

Every day it's proven in Germany that high speed on a properly laid put highway is not an invitation to a high rate of accidents.

As Nevada is one of the US states I've never visited it makes me wonder if their roads are anything compared to European or even German Autobahns...

Until then I'll limit the times I hit 265 km/h (155 mi/h for the old fashioned) to the occasions I get in Germany.

Off the top of my head (1)

MintOreo (1849326) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482646)

This is ridiculous for a number of reasons. Speed limits are there for a reason: safety. I don't trust people to know what they're doing on the road as it is; give people a license to speed and it'll make it that much worse. You can expect road rage to increase significantly, both by people pissed off at the 'legally' speeding jack heads and the guys with the license at those who don't for slowing them down (which I can see them doing intentionally). This promotes irresponsible driving.

The whole idea is flawed anyway. The city generates revenue off those who speed by ticketing them. In generating revenue by allowing these people to speed, they pull directly from the first source of revenue. Even if the suggestion became a reality, it wouldn't take due to the inconvenience of car inspection and an incredible loss of privacy.

And the police force are supposed to tell who is speeding legally because of a transponder? These things can be faked. I trust that this won't get anywhere though.

So is he saying... (1)

jridley (9305) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482664)

A) The speed limits are actually BS and speeding enforcement is simply a way to make money
B) He's willing to sell the lives (safety) of other road users for $25
C) They're actually going to put that money into a trust to be used to pay for property damage or personal injury of people hurt by a driver on the program?

ISTM that it has to be one of these, or some combination of them.

Anyone driven from LA to LV? (4, Informative)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482676)

90 MPH is pretty much the standard anyway. Seems to work rather fine with cars flying along at 90+ and trucks chugging up the passes at 30 MPH.

Speed limits are dated... (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482682)

The current speed limits in the US and some other countries are extremely inefficient...
Having a static speed limit at all times of the day and night is inefficient, when the road is less busy its safer to drive at higher speed, especially if the road is well lit, straight and wide.

Similarly, the speed limit of what, 55mph on US highways is ridiculously low... Considering how many miles of highway exist which are straight empty roads.. If you have a 100 mile long road, which is dead straight with several miles of visibility and little or no other traffic there is no reason to be crawling along it at 55...

The speed limits were also set many years ago, since then the technology used to build roads, tires and vehicles has improved massively.. What was unsafe with 1960s technology could well be fine today.

You have the autobahns in germany where in some cases there is no speed limit whatsoever, you can drive as fast as you like. People aren't usually suicidal so they drive as fast as they feel safe, and the accident record on the autobahn is actually pretty good.

If your driving along at 55mph, modern cars will be making very little noise.. It's quite relaxing, and this actually increases your chances of falling asleep. On the other hand, if you're driving at the edge of what you feel is safe you will pay a lot more attention.

Goes to show (1)

abulafia (7826) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482692)

Speed limits are far more about revenue than safety.

If you want to disagree, compare reactions between this and, say, drunk driving passes.

A bribe by any other name.. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33482712)

You take the average joe, and he goes above the limit, and gets caught, and gets punished. After all he violated the law of the land. Worse if he was speeding when he caused an accident.

Take the one who pre-purchased the right to violate the law, and speeds, and gets caught, but flashes his permit, and gets off free.

You know, in many other countries you call this kind of thing a bribe. Just because you institutionalize the whole thing does not make it much different.

Let's make it all explicit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33482714)

"... of course, for a small donation, we might be able to look the other way..."

It's nice to see that the politicians are willing to extend the same kinds of deals to the general public that they do to their larger contributors. Perhaps as the sytem becomes more formalized, we'll be able to get licenses for things like litering, public drunkeness, domestic violence, etc. Maybe a few of us will even be able to save up for bigger ticket items like exceptions to copyright law or those pesky restrictions on child labor...

Another law to keep the poor, poor. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33482718)

Got late to work? Next time pay to get in time.

Got late for the meeting? Next time pay to reach it faster.

Got late for something else? Risk it and speed it anyway, oh darn, a ticket, now im poorer again.

Land of the free, land of the brave, land of the rich don't pay taxes as they should, land of where there's no proper national health care without corporate drug&insurances lobbying in, oh land of the poor get screwed from behind and stay behind.

Oh look seems like another perk for the wealthy is being prepared, esquisit wouldn't you say. Now if you don't mind, im late for my souflé, chaahrles, be a dear and step on it, i can see the faces of those disgusting driving commoners.

I was thinking that when I get my Ferrari (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33482724)

that Law enforcement would supply me with a booklet of pre-printed speeding violations, to save them from having to pursue me. I just mail one in with the fine, when it notes a violation, like it registered on one local cop's radar. "Oh it's just him again; he knows what to do"

Compensate crash victims with this money, right? (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482730)

Since we've always been told that going that fast is really dangerous, they'll be putting aside all this money to pay to victims of all the wrecks this will cause, right? And while they're at it, can they offer day passes for breaking other laws as well? It'll bring in more money for the government, which is all that matters, right?

Worth it for truckers? (1)

Freddybear (1805256) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482752)

Might be worth it for a trucker on a tight deadline versus paying a penalty for late delivery.

They're going to need that $1 billion... (1)

Cytlid (95255) | more than 3 years ago | (#33482802)

... for all the lawsuits of families who's loved ones die in speed-related accidents. Would make it too easy for lawyers. "Oh look, he bought a $25 'get out of jail free card' 45mins before taking out three other cars." Why are people in this country so stupid?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>