one thing that outrun touched upon, but hasnt been considered enough is the very fact of fuel utilization and fuel costs.
Take NJ for example. Up until the mid 1990s, the speed limit on all roads was 55mph. in the mid to late 1990s, gas prices started to drop... I can look in my book and verify dates that I bought gasoline in NJ in the late 90s for 80c/gallon, at reputable name-brand stations.
Coincidence? Well no more or less than the fact that now that fuel is so pricey, folks (including outrun) are slowing down to conserve.
I recall seeing in history books how in the 40's there were 'war' sped limits of 35. I know from my father that during the gas chrisis, he tried to cruise constantly at 45 MPH, as it was the point where he could get optimal fuel economy (he, like I, have ALWAYS logged every tank of fuel in every car we own).
I wonder if that has something to do with the "outrageously low" speed limits that many have such gripes about. Personally, I dont think the limits are too low - I think that many people drive way too fast. Without VERY STRINGENT quality checks on cars, excellent training, perfect road care, etc.
And dont try to compare it to Europe. The social structure is different, the training is different, the enforcement is different, and guess what? A little VW doing 110 MPH on the highway is going to use a LOT less fuel than our big comfort cruisers and SUVs that we have here. If the Euro folks want to drive extremely fast, they usually have the money and pay for it in more ways than one. People in the US want to drive fast, but then dont even want to pay for proper maintenance of their cars.
I am glad the speed limit is 65 MPH. I never drive faster than 71. Between my parents, brother and I (four people), we own 5 cars. EVERY SINGLE car beats the EPA MPG estimates. How many other folks can say that? And, how many have the calculated logs to prove it? There is a reason why the EPA has to drop their fuel economy reporting numbers, and it isnt because of the cars, car companies or the government.
The only times Ive been rearended or close to rearended are when accelerating from a dead stop at a stoplight, when the jerk behind me insists on a jackrabbit start, and I in my MT car is acclerating safely but gradually (2500-3000RPM shift points aren't exactly turtle speeds in BMWs and Saabs). The other times have been when traffic has energency stops. My MB was ruined because a girl wasnt paying attention, driving too fast, and didnt note the emergency stop with people fully halted in the roadway.
SOme of it has to do with geography, and for all I know, the intelligence of people. For example, take a drive on a Friday afternoon down the NJ parkway to the shore. People are less than a carlength apart, driving 65-75MPH, and can do it for mines and miles on end. Drive in DC on 295/395 in rush hour; through the traffic, they can stay close and not need to resort to super fast starts and hard stops. Then, go to I-95in Delaware - the people are idiots who dont have a clue and make the driving experience so far from fun that I get unduly stressed out and angry. Noplace that I had ever driven had I ever experienced so many folks making emergency stops where they had to pull to the shoulder for extra braking space because otherwise they would hit the car in front. I see at least one of these stops at the 95/DE rt. 1 interchange (exit 4) EVERY DAY.
People need to take responsibility, and even if its just "little" things easily caught, like speeding, it needs to be further enforced for the greater good of safety, fuel use, etc., etc. Until folks can prove that they have some control, have the ability to drive with both hands, not holding a cellphone, maintain their cars, accelerate and brake smoothly, leave space between themselves, learn to drive in traffic so that you go slow but brake requirements are minimal, etc., etc., I really wish things were more stringent.
I also thing that insurance is a terrible institution, where any non-PC judgment flies like there is no issue - diuscrimination because of sex, age, race? All are OK. I think that if law enforcement is going to enforce their rules (A-OK by me), and insurance is going to raise their rates (its true that someone is no more or less safe before a ticket compared to after), that the insurance companies should be forced to raise that driver's liability limits too - if this makes their rates skyrocket further, I could really care less, but I think its justified. For example - the girl who destroyed my car, she had past traffic violations, she was at some point excluded from others' insurance policies due to the risk that she caused... she didnt even have a car. And when she destroyed 4 cars, guess what happened? She had state min coverage, even though she was the biggest risk there could be, and nobody ended up with any $ for repairs. Im now caught up in the legal system, wasting my and many others' time as a result of the runaround by her and her insurance company whom is sworn to protect her in court. If she had been forced to have higher liability coverage limits, than her risk level as evidenced by the public would be minimized, since damage that she caused can now not be paid for, she has no assets, and everyone is screwed - our policy that we pay for now gets to go up if we use it for some reimbursement... thats the rality of the so-called protection of insurance. Not good for much when you really need it.
Go ahead and enforce traffic, and if youre caught, fess up and pay for it... but, ensure that if nothing else, that the system fairly treats all users in terms of use of the $ (I have no problem with it supporting local police and fire departments, but it shouldnt necessarily go to other stuff), the fines levied ont users by insurers, etc., etc.
JMH