Regarding the current, and former, Montana speed limit,I've lived in Montana, and worked as a staff attorney for the Montana Legislature, since 1981. At the time that the feds imposed what was known as the "conservation speed limit", Montana's speed limit was that:
"A person operating or driving a vehicle of any character on a public highway of this state shall drive the vehicle in a careful and prudent manner and at a rate of speed no greater than is reasonable and proper under the conditions existing at the point of operation, taking into account the amount and character of traffic, condition of brakes, weight of vehicle, grade and width of highway, condition of surface, and freedom of obstruction to the view ahead. The person operating or driving the vehicle shall drive the vehicle so as not to unduly or unreasonably endanger the life, limb, property, or other rights of a person entitled to the use of the street or highway."
Montana went back to the above speed limit after the feds repealed the conservation speed limit law. There were two main reasons why Montana later, in 1999, got rid of the careful and prudent speed limit and adopted numerical speed limits. One was that the vast majority of Montanans were fed up with and felt endangered by the excessive speeds of a lot of drivers. You have no idea what it was like, unless you lived here. Even seasoned, hard and fast driving, born in Montana, get the government off my back, drivers, had had enough. The other reason was that we were tired of being pilloried, put down, and made fun of by the rest of the nation and its constant media news coverage of what they called our unlimited speed limit. The coverage rarely pointed out the actual wording of the careful and prudent law. It simply snidely portrayed Montana as a backward state having a law that let everyone drive as fast as they wanted, anywhere, at any time. Contrary to the claim of the study referred to in prior posts, the government officials who testified in favor of the bill TRULY DID support the bill, and were not just doing the Governor's bidding. The bill passed the Senate by a 48-2 vote and passed the House by a 73-27 vote, and one of the reasons for the lopsided votes was that the legislators were voting the wishes of their constituents, the vast majority of whom favored the bill. I was there, and I know what I'm talking about. That study, by the way, is suspect in other respects, not the least of which is that the obvious patent dislike of and prejudice toward government officials tips the reader off to the fact that the person(s) behind the study have both an agenda and an axe to grind. Such studies are always suspect, because they are always carried out in a manner designed to produce predetermined results. I've read hundreds of such studies in the course of my legislative work.
The kind of sustained, long distance, high speed, law-breaking, driving that bulwnkl is obviously contemplating, is not safe when engaged in by most drivers. Yes, of course, many drivers are capable of doing it safely. On the other hand, there are far too many kids, old people, hot dogs, poor drivers, distracted drivers, etc. that think they can drive at those high speeds in a manner that is safe for themselves and others when in fact they are deluding themselves and are a menace to themselves and others.
Am I the only one that finds it ironic that bulwnkl, who recently strongly attacked SUV's because of safety concerns, particularly for drivers of small vehicles, obviously believes that its ok for a person to take long trips (in a small vehicle by the way) at illegal high speeds with no apparent concern for their lawbreaking activity or for the safety hazards posed to others? I sure that hope he and an SUV don't collide.
