C. E. White
Blocking other people from pbutting you is aggression against the rights of other persons. Simply going fast is not. What part of that simple, obviously true explanation don't you understand?
If that were true, cars would be banned, because no one could be trusted behind the wheel. Even speed governors wouldn't be sufficient, unless they held everyone down to walking speed.
It was devised by engineers and has been proven by years of experience.
US federal regulations (the MUTCD) require most of this process (they require the measurement to be made that way, but allow local government to refuse to follow the result), and in most of the rural Western states it is done that way -- except that each state sets a fixed upper limit on freeway speeds. Which is why freeway speed limits are more likely to be unreasonable -- and to be disregarded -- than limits on city streets.
The Right to Drive SafelyMotorhead Lawyer So? The Consbreastution predates even that. Does that somehow invalidate the Consbreastution? NO. The case I refer to speaks of the Locomotion Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways. What ever...
Free flow conditions in clear weather during daylight, by that same standard.
That objection is well taken, which is why having no speed limits is ideal and having 85th percentile limits is only the next best thing.
Speeding, per se, is a victimless crime. If you actually hit anything then other laws come into play, but until then, if the state punishes you it is punishing you because something "just might" go wrong, and "just might" isn't proper cause for law enforcement. Period.
How does that make them less worthy than people who trot out unfounded fears, or annoyance that people are driving past their homes, as excuses to have the limits lowered? Driving fast is the proper use of the road.
It's not our job to prove those things. It's the job of those who want to restrict us to prove a level of danger that justifies the restriction.
