The last few days, I’ve seen so many things on Mises.com that I wanted to blog here, but there’s really way too much: the best thing is to get over there now and get involved in what is turning out to be a wonderful conversation about liberty and economics.
In any case, I do want to draw attention to this post and this picture: one of six Mises stickers on this car. Someone ask why he obeys speed limits if he is against government. Response: “I drive at safe speeds out of respect for other people and their property as well as keeping my own person and property safe.”
{ 34 comments }
I follow the speed limits when I’m alone on the road or in an unfamiliar place, otherwise I just follow the crowd. The crowd typically speeds 10 over the limit on major highways.
It’s tough to exceed the speed limit on my bike. No conflicts here.
cunx raises some good points, though, speed limits, in general, are rather conservatively set.
Many highways, in the words of DOT themselves, are designed to accomodate much higher rates of speed.
Although, I find Stop signs to be a good idea/very worth heeding.
I think the ideal ‘rule’ for everyone is ‘no harm, no foul’.
If you can safely proceed through a stop sign without meeting any particular other requirement under whatever particular circumstances, then really no one has cause to complain. If you can safely control your particular vehicle on some particular road at some very high speed, then likewise, there should be no complaint.
BUT on a PRIVATELY owned road, your use of it would be subject to whatever posted rules the owners demanded. If a rule was ‘technical stop required at a stop sign’, and you broke it, the owners could certainly eject you from their road.
NOT threaten you with firearms, NOT rob your pockets (beyond what the contract might require), not lock you in a cage, nor ban you from any other road (except by that owner’s consent).
—
Of course a free market road would seek to maximize revenue by getting as many new and more importantly returning customers enthusiastically using the road as often possible.
This means guaranteeing a high level of predictability of travel plans, maximizing throughput, minimizing risk, maximizing comfort, and so on.
This might actually mean brutally strict enforcement of limits, or it may mean beyond autobahn-style freedom, or it may mean the roads get decommissioned in favor of automated ‘private rail’, as communities fully internalize their currently-subsidized shipping costs and begin re-urbanizing to compensate….
—
Anyway, one other good reason to obey the limit is because the king’s henchmen will capture, torture, imprison, and possibly kill you if you don’t.
I never go the speed limit. I rarely even pay attention to it. If there are other people around I slow down, but if I can pass a car I’ll do it by any means necessary, even if that means driving on the shoulder – which I HAVE done before.
I can drive much faster than the speed limit and still be safe and respect others and their property, but I try not to drive too much faster than the speed limit out of fear of the state.
The owner of a road, be it a business or a community, would be able set contractural limits on behaviour as they please and spelling out the liabilities would be rather easy in a free market. I guess some roads might have no speed limits at all, others could be very stern, whatever fit the goals and needs of both the owners and customers.
This is one of those issues I don’t have much of an opinion on, since private roads will also have speed limits to the extent that they are necessary and desirable.
When driving, I always do what is most responsible to my person and property at that moment. Regardless of the speed limit or not. I live in Miami, Florida and our roads here are spectacularly hazerdous (thank you very much central planners for already taking away two of my school mates with their incredible highway systems, R.I.P.). There have been many occasions where I have avoided accidents by going over the speed limit (like speeding away from a drunk driver on the highway, which happens a lot down here). I think that most people would do responsible things just in this way.
Further, if roads were in the hands of entreprenuers there would be preventitive measures that do not exist today on the roads we drive. Most fatal accidents have tell tale signs of a very risky driver behind one of the wheels. If they swirve too much, or speed too much, or handle their car irresponsibly, or if their car insurance rate is very high and they have a bad driving record there is a great chance that an entreprenuer would charge a higher price to these risky drivers or not serve them all together. Forcing a change in habits and making everyone safer. (Check out progressives new car insurance GPS tracker. It keeps track of your driving habits and creates a premium tailored to your risk. This would give the people who owned the roads a great deal of information about how risky you are.)
Abolish the control of our roads and everything else, justice until the heavens fall!
Ron Paul 2008!!!
Speed limits? Come on, I’m surprised no one here has mentioned what the real purpose for speed limits is. They exist so that traffic cops can issue citations and gain revenue. Their bureaucracies depend on it.
The sheer number of possible traffic infractions in many places in the US is mind-boggling. They don’t give people tickets for doing 20-over on a deserted road or rolling through a stop sign for safety reasons, after all. If they cared about safety, you’d see more cops parked outside of bars and nightclubs, waiting to nail drunk drivers.
I don’t have a problem with speeding tickets, G. Or parking tickets for that matter, which are a good way of rationing scarce parking spaces. For the most part, I think speed limits in most areas are pretty much spot-on (including very remote areas here in Australia which have no speed limit, although I think certain authorities are seeking to abolish them). No Libertarian argument can really be leveled against speed limits in a qualitative sense, since speeding drivers are not only endangering their own lives, but mine as well. Seatbelt laws are a different kettle of fish…
I always ask myself, “If Christ were driving my car right now how fast would He be going right now?” I also wonder if when I’m encouraged to exceed the speed limit if that is the work of the Holy Ghost(the Spirit of Truth) or the work of the Devil’s spirit. That usually settles the debate in my mind real fast
On the interstate, I travel at a speed between 60-70 mph. It’s not so much because of the speed limit, rather, it’s because it’s an ideal, safe speed.
1. Whether your daily commute is 30 miles or 240 miles, how much time do you actually save travelling faster than 60-70 mph? To cut that time in half, how fast would you need to travel? Is the extra speed worth the risk? What percentage of the 60 mph travel time do you gain? If you don’t want to be late, leave early and arrive early.
2. Highways aren’t racetracks which are kept free of road hazards. The biggest hazards are other drivers that don’t respect this fact. The faster you drive, more attention is required, you have less time to process information and less time to react. It’s not a question of today’s cars are built better or the speeds highways are designed for.
3. Better MPG at 60 mph.
4. Would you feel comfortable if from the cockpit of the airplane you’re flying on, you hear loud music. You go up to check and see the pilot talking on his cell phone having a non-flying related converstation.
I always wonder about those people that pass me on the highway as I maintain 60 mph. I wonder what they’re thinking. I ride a motorcycle. I can leave behind most vehicles if I wanted to. I don’t.
the autobahn seems to work ok.
i wonder why the autobahn works ok.
maybe the laws of physics are different in germany or something.
I drive as little and as slowly as possible, in a one-man attempt to bankrupt the Saudis, Khaddafi, and Hugo Chavez.
Studying speeds, and speed limits, is the reason why Rothbard’s take on government intervention was not surprising to me when I first encountered it years ago. In fact, I was surprised I’d never really encountered that perspective before — I had thought I was the only crazy one.
I reasoned like this: if everyone wants to go the same speed, you’re going to get gridlock when people need to change lanes. If you have “speed preference”, which you allow to range freely, with some simple rules the driving experience can be much improved.
The rules?
1. Don’t get too close to the car in front of you.
2. Don’t let the car behind you get too close. You can do this by (a) getting the hell out of the way if you can, or (b) tapping your brakes and convincing bupkis you aren’t going to go any faster.
3. (Advisory) Try to go faster than the car to your right. Whenever possible, always choose to pass or be passed, whether the opposing car is to your right or your left. This is actually the most important rule for good traffic flow.
As a collorary to all three rules, you need to be acutely aware of what is in front, back, and on either side of you at all times.
Isn’t that simple? No arbitrary speeds. Just property rights applied to vehicle spaces.
Different people have different speed preferences. If some people go slow, then that is good, if there is a way around them. If there’s not a way around them, then the “free market” of road space automatically slows people down to the fastest safest speed.
Leaving aside situations when a car goes out of control, you get wrecks mainly when people tailgate, or swerve without looking. Speed is only a factor when you hit something.
People get very uncomfortable when they’re in a car with me. Most of my passengers, even the ones who don’t talk to each other, spontaneously refer to my car as the Bat Out of Hell. This is because I like to go very fast — but by my driving record I’m one of the safest drivers on the road.
And who screws it all up?
The government, of course! With their idiotic maximum (and minimum) speed limits.
One thing I’ve always wondered: even if maximum speed limits were absolutely necessary, how much taxpayer money is wasted each year on minimum speed limit signs?
We had a situation here in Ontario a couple years ago, where photo-radar was installed on the 401 highway near Toronto (some readers may be familiar with this particular state-operated wasteland).
It was an automated, zero-tolerance enforcement of the posted rule – and people went ape.
The mindboggling thing was, no one argued “the limits are wrong”. Everyone was clearly upset because they wanted to drive the typical 120-130 km/h without risk of penalty – but instead of arguing for uppint the limit, the prevailing arguments were about invasion of privacy, reliability and accuracy of the mechanism, etc.
The conservative government responded to the unpopular enforcement program by pulling the cameras, and going back to sporadic enforcement at officer’s discretion.
Now tell me again how important is that everyone obey this arbitrary limit, for the safety of the children, or the cute furry animals, or the memory of our heroic ancestors who sacrificed everything in the war to secure the life we enjoy, or whatever apologetics are in vogue for state rule today?
G called this particular spade for what it is. Speed limits are there to pad the police budget.
We live in a madhouse.
Let’s say I know someone who speeds, significantly faster than the law allows for. This person regularly travels at 100MPH, in a car designed to do speeds up to 150MPH. They don’t drive this fast around other vehicles and have the vehicle checked on a regular basis (tire pressure, suspension, brakes, headlights, etc).
This person has an hourly value that tops $150 per hour. For them, the time savings of 100 MPH versus 70 MPH for a typical 100 mile drive between offices 1-2 days per week means a time savings of nearly 20 minutes per leg, or up to 80 minutes per week. The time savings alone can account for almost $7000 a year in time saved, versus maybe an additional $500 a year spent in reduced fuel efficiency.
An additional cost is also the $50 required to prevent a citation for driving recklessly if restrained by an officer of the law. That generally only happens 2-3 times per year, though, due the a use of anti-radar devices to facilitate the reduction of speed in any ensnarement operations on the highway.
I hate it when the facists use the “You get better gas milage if you go slow” excuse to enslave me even further. The statement “Cars get better mpg at 60″ is not true. My car gets peak mpg at about 90 mph, therefore you can’t make such a general statement.
I drive the desolate area between Houston and San Antonio weekly and between towns and packs of cars, I go around 100 because I get better gas milage that way and it shortens the terribly boring drive. I’m an extremely cautious driver around other people and have never caused a wreck, but I constantly have to be on the lookout for a P.I.G. (particularly ignorant goon) looking to oppress me. Just another injustice we’ve been taught to accept.
I seriously think that if cops were allowed to oppress people more they’d take a pay cut just because they hate other people being free.
I also think that Houston’s police have a new “no-chase” policy. Now I just need to get some other license plates so if they try to pull me over I can just give them the bird and keep going.
I really hate speed limits. Recently I have been pulled over for two non-speeding violations. Though unrelated, that prompted me to start following the speed limit religiously. Most of the highways around Cleveland are 60mph, and almost nobody goes that slow. I’m hoping that enough people that get stuck behind me will be angry enough start demanding change in traffic enforcement.
Let’s not confuse “The Rules of The Road” with speed limits. The Rules of The Road spell out things like: Don’t tailgate; keep right except to pass; turn on your headlights when lighting conditions are sub-optimal; slow down for blind corners and blind hills; stop for stop signs; stop for yellow lights so that left-turning traffic has a chance to get out of the intersections safely; and the “right-of-way” precedence: Already in the intersection, then going straight, then turning right, then turning left. Don’t forget “right on red”.
These rules were developed over time as a way to share the road. It is a evolved system of interpersonal interaction, no less rational than letting people off the elevator before trying to get on.
Arbitrary speed limits are an imposed rule. They are by definition arbitrary, taking into account nothing about road conditions, vehicle conditions, traffic density (or lack there of), weather, etc. On a bright sunny day on good road without obstructions or narrow turns, a speed limit is absurd. Under any other time, only dangerous drivers will go fast, and those same people will go fast regardless of any speed limit.
It is educational to realize that “driving dangerously” (by whatever technical title) is grounds for a ticket no matter how quickly or slowly one is driving at the time. So speed limits are redundant as well.
The accident incidence on the German autobahns may be no worse, or even better than on U.S. interstates, but does this account for factors such as road design and maintenance differences, number of lanes, type of traffic, etc.
How does the death rate per accident compare on German autobahns with that on U.S. interstates? Anyone have a reference? I would guess that the death rate per accident is higher when the speed involved is higher. Or, is that not correct? Anyone know of any studies?
I once spent 3 week driving around the autobahn in Germany. I observed that the roads were much better maintained and very smooth. Upon entering France, it was like returning to the potholes and uneven surface of most CA highways.
It’s hard to know if they are safer, but I do know that they are very strict about tailgaiting, and you never, ever pass on the right. The reason is that if you are in the left most lane, you had better keep an eye on the rear. I’ve had cars pass me at what seemed 130 mph or more. So, you need to be able to move to the right quickly w/o fear that the guy overtaking you will swerve to the right to pass you or that someone else was overtaking you on the right.
My rental car was a ford and it could only get up to 100, so I had to keep right mostly. But I was told that when they do have accidents, they are real doozies.
But what I really liked about Germany was that if you had to take a leak you were ok to do it on the side of the road. People there are at least as free as dogs on that regard. Oh, and if you see a motor home parked on the side of the road with the interior dome light on, you can buy some nookie, and no cops will bother you. And we think we are the land of freedom – hah!
I agree that in theory, speed limits are fine. The sellers of road usage have the right to regulate their roads as they see fit, and I don’t have any problem with the government protecting motorists. The problem is that government has a monopoly on traffic enforcement, and often uses it to extract rent from motorists. In some places I know this isn’t true, but in many places in the USA it is.
There are some small towns located on major highways which extract as much rent as they can from motorists who pass through. The locals like it, because it keeps taxes down. In larger cities with more serious “crimes” (like drugs), I think this is less prevalent.
Because kinetic energy = 0.5*m*v^2. Argue with Newton.
Tatiana, your formula is correct, yet i dont think that it applies to the situation. It’s not energy that will kill you in a car crash…it’s usually impulse, or the change in momentum. Momentum is m*v. Also, through the conservation of momentum, if both cars are going nearly the same speed in the same direction, neither receives much impulse. It’s those pesky head-ons, walls, poles, and stopped cars that cause problems…and lets face it…55 or 100…muerto.
Besides…it’s about freedom…which people don’t seem to understand these days.
Any discussion of roads outside a forum like this one is simply and completely ANNOYING. Most annoying of all is the ENDLESS reams and reams of elaborate theories individual road users concoct postulating how THEY think the scarce resource of roadways should best be allocated to consumers.
But since most of the public are unenlightened Hobbesians, the obvious and fundamental point that gets lost on them is that central planning leads to chaos, whereas the free market leads to order spontaneously.
There is NO MORE evidence of the failure of central planning leading to a state of CHAOS than when you have EVERY INDIVIDUAL CONSUMER of the resource (of roadways) left to their own devices (as opposed to the private owner whose decisions regarding rules, guided by profit-maximization, will always be optimized) to try to decide a system of ‘ethics’ that all other users must obey to ensure its smooth functioning.
Point out to them that gallons of ink are not spilled by consumers of, say, supermarkets, each concocting his own theory how supermarkets should be operated, and you get that look telling you you’re irrelevant.
I forgot to mention, that “you’re irrelevant” look is invariably followed by the (in their mind) brilliant riposte, “but roads are different…” blah, blah, blah.
My Dad taught me to drive when I was 14 in 1956. Seen it all happen since then.
The worst, by far was the 55MPH. Talk about revenue gathering. The real un-intended consequense was that complete compliance was impossible. People realized this and a new attitude emerged. The cops can’t be everywhere, so where they are not, anything goes. Pretty much what we see everyday on every road.
All semblance of decent behavior has vanished. The rules of the road, a nice person posted them above, seem known to no one.
To those that drive slow in the left lane: Whatever your feelings say, you never can know that you may be holding up a brain surgeon on his/her way to save your child’s life. Put your politics on the back burner and move over. Don’t judge others.
I obey speed limits because of safety and responsibility. To answer the “Government” question, my answer is ownership.
I am not the owner of the road or street, and therefore I must abide by the rules set by the owner. The same is true with cell phones in hospitals or in movie theatres.
The “owner” of the roads is mostly the government, and the government sets the rules for its roads. Nobody forces me to use the roads and I am free to stay home. The speed limits are the same for everyone.
By contrast, the Income Tax is quite different. The idea of the Income Tax is slavery where the Government owns you.
By the way, I don’t think the Government can legally own anything since it obtained its money through coercion.
Daniel, I agree with your last point. The government does not rightfully own the roads, which is why I do not follow their rules on the roads. The government does not own my life, which is why I don’t feel it necessary to follow their laws.
Just shows how the state has got you. In fact stop signs and stop lights are more dangerous than an uncontrolled intersection. If you try to bring up the snarls that lack of control would bring to major roads, the (rare) roundabout is much safer than any other method of control, and doesn’t require you to stop when there are no other cars in sight.
There are a couple cities in Europe that have got rid of all stop lights and stop signs. Roads are safer without them.
I apologize for the possible off-topic Folks, but could you inform me which web hosting company you are using right now I have a problem because my current web hosting company godaddy.com is kicking me off. They say that our website is using too many server resources. But our website only gets 200 visitors per day. Anyway, what would be your recommendations? Are you happy with your web hosting company? I am checking LCN at the moment, but is it real that they can provide unlimited disk space? I have contacted them and they say something like 500gb disk drive costs only $40 per month, so if some day we will start running out of disk space we will simply add a new 2000gb drive so can continue uploading.. Whats your opinion? Any ideas and web hosting company name suggestions are much appreciated.
Thank you for making the sincere effort to talk about this. I feel very strong approximately it and would like to learn more. If its OK, as you gain more extensive knowledge, might you thoughts including extra articles similar to this one with additional information? It could be extremely useful and helpful for me and my friends.
Comments on this entry are closed.