Dems' latest oil answer: Speed limits

Tell it to the illegal aliens.

 

You're the one being obtuse, Ragu. Not everyone is allowed to drive. They have to earn permission to drive. No one has the right to a driver's license. They have to earn a driver's license via paper and practical testing and health exams (vision).

Anyone cannot get a driver's license. If having a driver's license was a right, you could walk into the local driver's license bureau and demand they issue one to you. However, you cannot just go down to the driver's license bureau and demand they license you to drive. You have to prove you have the physical ability and education to do so. The government can also take away your driver's license in cases of repeated violations of traffic laws or physical/mental impairment. If possessing a driver's license were a "right," the government would not be able to do that.

Anything that is not an absolute right is a privilege that has to be earned. Driving, by its nature as we practice it, is a privilege that has to be earned.

 

A driver's licence is a privilege which can be revoked or not granted if you fail to meet certain conditions. That precludes if from being a right.

 

I. Unlike the 1970s, there is not currently a shortage of gasoline in this country. It may be selling for a high, hugely unpopular price, but if you've got the bucks you can buy as much as you want, without fear of blocks-long lines or having to memorize your license plate so you fill up on the "right" day. Therefore, if consumers choose to burn more energy than a third party deems "necessary," they are within their rights to do so.

II. The Interstate Highway System was designed to handle vehicle traffic that moves well in excess of 55 mph, and that was at a time when cars were much less safe than they are now. With everything from better handling, better tire technology and better brakes to air bags, padded dashboards and better body/pillar construction, vehicles are more equipped than ever to avoid crashes and hold up better in those that do occur.

III. Crazy commuting stories aside, most people tend to adjust their speed to a level where they feel they won't get killed. That could be 80 mph on a sunny day on west Kansas interstate or 25 mph on an icy two-laner in backwoods Appalachia. But invariably, most drivers settle into a fairly narrow range of speed on a given road. And you are much safer going with the flow of that traffic, regardless of what the speed limit may be. If the limit is set arbitrarily low, a greater range of speeds results, increasing the probability of accidents.

IV. Arbitrarily low speed limits are notoriously difficult to enforce, leading more people who would not ordinarily be classed as law-breakers to violate the limits and diminishing respect for the law overall.

V. Since the repeal of the 55 mph limit, industry has become much more dependant on "just in time" shipments from suppliers, to the point where even small disruptions in the supply chain can lead to serious, cascading financial consequences. Adding extra time onto these shipmentscould have the unintended effect of further weakening an already-struggling economy.

VI. Congress does not leagally have the power to impose a national speed limit. The way they got around it before was to hold federal construction money hostage unless states complied. That leads to an excessive amount of power going to the federal government when it should really be handled on the state level. As another posted alluded to, a Congressman from the northeast coridor likely has little to no understanding of the transportation issues faced by someone in New Mexico who might go 80 miles or more between red lights.

 

Try asserting that driving is a right when you have multiple DWI notches on your belt.

 

I think you've figured it out. All our "rights" are actually privileges that we have earned for ourselves (or more likely, somebody has earned for us), frequently via the shedding of blood. Try standing up for your "rights" in Iran or Burma sometime. They'll grant you a different right: the right to scream as they interrogate you --- if they don't just shoot you and dump your corpse in a pit.

 

You all have the right to quit arguing.

 

Det. Friday, are you saying we have the right to remain silent?

 

Precisely.

 

Okay, now we are getting to the meat and potatoes of it all. Let us put away the privilege v. right argument for a little bit.

I see exactly where you are going. I think that my main issue is with the overall good that will come.

On the one hand, you have the institution of stricter rules in such a way as to reduce the consumption of a good that is necessary for everyday life. Reducing the consumption of this good will decrease the price; this is the market theory. By reducing the price of this necessary good, essentially the cost of nearly every good produced will go down and/or the profit will increase.

As a kick-start to our general economy, which is rather sore right now, this seems like an interesting way of trying to get things going. Fuel consumption drops and things can pick up again. In theory, that is rather nice.

On the other hand, you have the idea of consumption being a liberty. If the limits are 65 and I want to burn fuel at a higher rate than someone else, I should be allowed to.

The market states that if enough people wanted to save gas and they knew that driving slower would do so, they would do it. Therefore a national reduction in the speed limit wouldn’t be necessary. It would happen on its own.


As of right now, I would have to think about the current impact that oil prices are having on the economy right now. If it were possible to institute a 55mph cap and have it be effective in reducing oil consumption, the idea is very good.

I empathize with your concern, Ragu, over the loss of a certain liberty. I do also recognize the slippery slope that is inherent in the argument. I happen to think the slippery slope doesn’t apply in this situation because it goes back to driving being a privilege and not a right.