I ran accross this article and is so true!!.... read and comment...


It's sad--and indicative of their woeful lack of comprehension of the fundamental source of our traffic problems--that the self-styled "safety advocates" who bleat endlessly about "speeding" rarely, if ever, focus on our frighteningly lax driver's-licensing procedures. A "speeder" is arguably far less dangerous than a person lacking the skill to merge safely onto a freeway--who, riding his brakes, timidly pulls at 35 mph into fast-moving traffic--or who parks in the far left lane at exactly 55 mph, refusing to yield to faster-moving traffic.

We need to get away from the idea that driving is a right--it isn't--and direct people who are not sufficiently competent to the bus station--not the parking lot. All by itself, this step would likely result in a drop of 20 percent to 30 percent in nationwide accident and fatality rates within 5 years of implementation.

The next step should be the creation of an "expert" endorsement for driver's licenses. The bearer of such an endorsement could use dedicated "fast lanes" on the highways, where speed limits would be significantly higher than elsewhere.

Given that the interstate highway system was designed back in the 1950s for average speeds in the 75- to 80-mph range (and that was assuming 1950s brake, tire, and suspension technology), 90- to 100-mph limits in the fast lanes doesn't seem unreasonable today. Modern cars have far better brakes (usually four-wheel discs with anti-lock vs. the pre-ABS drums that were common in the '50s), radial tires that can handle higher speeds much more safely, stability control, etc. If a 1950s-era Packard riding on 14-inch bias-ply tires was deemed safe to run at 75 mph by traffic-safety engineers, surely a 2004 high-performance sport sedan, enjoying all the benefits of the technological advances of the past 50 years, can be driven at least as fast with equal safety.
ERIC PETERS
article (http://channels.netscape.com/ns/autos/package.jsp?name=autos/fast_lanes2)

that's a good point....what's the url of that article

there is more to the article...there is a read more at the bottom. the link is at the bottom of the article underlined. that article is very true...a very good point made.

I agree as well, there is a major difference between driving fast and driving careless. If I can go 90Mph without having to go in and out of traffic I think it is ok. People should get a ticket for weaving through traffic, sitting in the fast lane and not getting back over, not yielding (I hate when people don't yield), not taking control of the intersection when they are waiting to turn, etc...

Anyway, good article

Basically the article is sound, however there are some additional features which need addressing before such a system could be introduced.
Essentially the law makers had to cater for the lowest common denominator, which means poorly maintained old cars of minimal design specification, poor drivers, high traffic density, etc. If you could guarantee that only skilled drivers in well maintained, high performance cars would drive in low traffic density then they'll probably change their minds and the laws. However, would you put your name and career on the line for a bill increasing speed limits which then results in people being killed in high speed accidents...no? Neither would I.


Cars need to be of a minimum performance standard.
Drivers need to be graded.
Roads need to be graded.
Monitoring and control needs to be implemented.
Someone needs to pay for all this.

that would be cool if we had faster lanes, but i do agree with stoggers. i think that u should be able to go to a drivers school type thing and if u and your car passes, u can go a higher speed limit.

that would be a great idea, because if you think about it, 10 mph in a crash isnt much but you get places alot faster, it would be great if they had an extra lane on the side of the road where you can drive any speed, but there is no passing. that would be safe unless you are stupid and speed around corners on ice or something

In the UK they are now introducing toll roads where if you pay, you can go on less busy roads...
How about introducing toll roads where you can only go on them if you've taken a 'Performance Driver' course (at your own expense) and acquired a licence which permits you to drive at high speed.
The course would focus only on performance driving similar to that which Traffic Police take, rather than on how to park, drive safely through School zones, etc

Private roads..hmmm how would the insurers see that?

I agree that there are some roads that the speed limit could be safely raised. Even with the gains in automotive technology, there is still always the human factor to think about. Even if the car could stop in time, you have to figure that it will take the driver a certian amout of time to react to a sudden obstical (such as a deer or debris in the road). Even if special permission was needed, who's to say that a so called 'good' driver isn't going succumb to any of the common distractions that all drivers face. Most people don't want someone fidgeting with their radio (or worse yet....a cell phone) while they are driving at 100 mph. Even people with some sort of 'special' permission on their license will be doing such things. No matter how good the stopping power of the car is, the laws of physics still apply. If you double your speed, your stopping distance increases by 4 times.

I think the DMV should have tougher test/requirements. Also they should have awareness test cause some people are just plain blind or just stupid....Like they should give you a picture( a real one not some hand made drawing) with a whole scene and who should yield and all that crap....I am tired of these blind people who don't know when to yield and read signs...it is annoying as the blind/idiots who just merge without signalling and even looking....like they expect us to be mind readers and know they want to switch lanes.....

It would probably happen except for one thing:

Speed limits aren't for safety, they were imposed after WWII as a source of revenue for the government. Police officers don't pull you over for speeding because it's unsafe, they do it for money.

The only time they will pull you over for being unsafe is if you are going WAY OVER the limit. In this case, it's not called speeding but 'reckless endangerment' or 'exhibition of speed'

Nobody ever said speeding was dangerous... only that it's dangerous in bad conditions or way too fast.

hell yeah!

First of all a lot of what people are saying is true I just wanted to address a couple of posts. First Referring to "ferrari_adidas5"'s commment "10 mph in a crash isnt much but you get places alot faster" and " it would be great if they had an extra lane on the side of the road where you can drive any speed, but there is no passing" However going 10 mph faster is NOT going to get you places faster I drive at least 50 miles to school one way 5 days a week. If I drive regularly I get there in an hour If Im late and speeding like crazy I can get there in 50 minutes. Most trips people take in a car are only an average of 10-20 minutes long how much time is it going to save people a few minutes at best that doesnt sound like much of an improvement to me. As for the second comment/idea of a special lane for speeders. Think about it some kid gets in that lane in his "cool" little civic thinking hes hot stuff and decides the gentlmen in the Lincoln Continental going 65 in a 40 isnt going fast enough and since hes not going to get in trouble for going 80 he gets mad and trys to pass even though its illegal and ends up killing 10 people. Second of all where would this lane be? on the left? in the middle? how would turning work would the speeders have to weave over three lanes to turn right or would the regular slow drivers have to merge into the fast lane to turn right. My point is creating such a difference in speeds in lanes is dangerous think about it you have people going slow constantly wanting in and faster drivers constantly deccelerating to get out of it. Then on three lane roads you make one of them a fast lane 80% of people then want to use it and it gets crowded and dangerous. then People will just want to raise the whole speed limit and isnt that the issue now. One more thing I just thought of reffering to JoeWagons comment on the safetey of driving fast. I agree driving fast is very safe... for an experienced alert driver. however when you lean over to grab a cd @ 90 mph it doesnt take as much to screw up and cause a pileup. what about people who are inexperienced at fast driving or people who overestimate their skills. Granted we could grade drivers and their cars and roads but cops cant tell the difference between a real experienced driver in a safe car and some guy who thinks hes cool until he wrecks and kills someone. To conclude it does sound like kind of a good idea but there are so many things that could go wrong the whole idea is a ticking timebomb. please think about this and tell me your ideas I would love to entertain them



- The mark of an educated mind is the ability to entertain an idea without accepting it.

JLink2004 has the right idea here; id just like to add that 10 mph in a crash IS actually quite a lot more dangerous for the people involved- obviously depends what kinda speeds we are talking about here.

Unfortunately speed limits arent imposed to create revenue, theyre designed to limit the number of crashes and fatalities on the roads; after the speed limits were introduced on the motorways in England the number of fatalities dropped dramatically ( speed cameras are a whole other kettle of fish :angryfire ).

You dont seriously think we can have a whole lane reserved for "better drivers"? come on! :rolleyes:

In the UK they are now introducing toll roads where if you pay, you can go on less busy roads...
How about introducing toll roads where you can only go on them if you've taken a 'Performance Driver' course (at your own expense) and acquired a licence which permits you to drive at high speed.
The course would focus only on performance driving similar to that which Traffic Police take, rather than on how to park, drive safely through School zones, etc

Private roads..hmmm how would the insurers see that?

These roads dont exist here and they never will. And as for the idea of having certian cars with 'expert' drivers in fast lanes is bs. How will police enforce this?

I live in NY so with all the traffic around here its rare to find a safe place to go over the speed limit anyway. I do agree though that in places where traffic flow is light and the roads are in good shape, there should be either no speed limit or a limit of say 90.

In Canada we have a law concerning our highways that states that you must drive in the right hand lane at all times. The only time you should be using the left lane is to pass. The trouble with this law is that the police do not seem to know of it.
I was driving down the highway in the right hand lane during the very early morning hours. The speed limit is 100km/h and I was doing 115 or so. It didn't seem too reckless, as I was the only car on the road. I ended up being pulled over. The cop said that he only pulled me over not because I was speeding, but that I was speeding in the wrong lane. What? Wrong lane? He said that if I was going to drive that fast on an empty highway that I should be in the fast lane. He did not give me a ticket, he just stopped me to advise me of the safe lane to be in...I just agreed with him at the time so as not to get a ticket for ticking him off.
My point is this...If everyone followed this law, I think it would be a lot easier to get from point A to point B. There wouldn't be as many tie-ups on our roads because the people that insist on staying in the left wouldn't be clogging up the faster moving traffic as was pointed out in a previous comment. Also, we would always have a safe "out" if there was an emergency stop situation(shoulder or left lane)
Now, I realise that this doesn't help any in a town or city, but it could help immensely on our long stretches of highway.
I do agree however, that speed limits could be raised slightly with further explanation of the laws, better driving education and more frequent testing.
As with everything else, someone has to pay for the programs. But I'd rather pay from my pocket than to pay with lives.

With new technology being considered for caddilacs, where the car senses a collison and brakes, cars should have a distance sensor, along with a spedometer, while on the highway, you have a max distance, like 8 secound stop or something, so as long as you have your 8 secound distance you can drive as fast as you tires are rated for, like in Europe.

there is no such thing as safe speeding.

Gosh I wish I had been in this from the beginning. I'm going to work backwards since that seems easiest...

Davo - yes there is safe speeding. The two terms have nothing to do with each other. Speeding only refers to your speed versus that dictated by law. The law is written to the lowest common denominator so that everyone stays "safe". Therefore, more than a few cars will end up being held back from their potential while others are almost at the point of being pushed when driving the speed limit. I can guarentee you that my Eclipse with JIC FLT-A2 suspension, and R-compound tires is just as safe at 70 as it is at 65. Can you say the same about Suzy Soccer-Mom's base model 1976 Ford Pinto? Not even close. The arguments that modern cars are safer and can safely handle higher speeds (i.e. Speeding) is correct.

jdrumstik - I personally do not like the idea of any computer telling me I can't do something because of some pre-engineered safety level that a desk jockey came up with. I don't know the last time I had 8 seconds of travel time between me and the next car on my local highways. We have WAY too many cars here for that to have a chance in the minds of the performance oriented.

burnM - California has a similar law, but again it doesn't get enforced. It even gets treated the same. I've been given royal ass chewings for speeding in the second lane to the left rather than the left lane. HUH? Whatever...there are tons of extra traffic laws that don't get enforced simply because officers don't want to take the time. My father's best friend is a local traffic cop. I became very good friends with Concord PD Officer Thorpe when he was the regular enforcer around my high school. I became good friends with the Concord Traffic Court judge. This all happens when you get 21 tickets in 14 months, by the way. They all said the same thing...there is such a myriad of traffic laws that the officers only memorize a few and enforce those strictly. The rest of the time they try to keep the traffic flow safe.

op012503 - Those roads do exist here in California. There is a highway in the Irvine/Costa Mesa area that is a toll road and has very few on or off ramps. Last I heard it wasn't patrolled by CHP. It was designed for people that needed to get from one end to the other quickly and didn't need to stop in between. Thereby relieving traffic in the city areas. Wish I remembered the number, but I don't live there - my aunt does.

Mike(M3) - yes, you are correct. 10mph does make a significant increaese in the damage caused in an accident. Your speculation at having a reserved lane for "better drivers" is dead on.

Jlink2004 - Please learn better English before you post like that again. That was one of the hardest posts I've found to read. Your point that 10mph will NOT get you there much faster is also dead on. Keep in mind that adding 10mph to any speed becomes less significant the faster the original speed was. The time saved going from 30 to 40 is more significant than the time saved going from 90 to 100. So at what point is that 10mph considered useless? That has to be a personal decision, but should be tempered with safety in mind. The speed difference in lanes is a REALLY good point. Plus, what about the a-holes that speed up when you try to pass them? Now you've got a real problem on your hands...

JoeWagon - This only applies to California, but I wanted to put it out. The "Exhibition of Speed" citation is only applicable in the presence of another vehicle without an accompanying cite of offense. There are codes for chirping tires, burnouts, etc. If you are simply doing 120mph down the road, they can't use that one. Get a lawyer and fight it. If they use "Reckless Driving" or "Reckless Endangerment" then you are hosed. The "Exhibition of Speed" does require visual or aural proof to accompany it.

vsiev - The DMV would never do that. People don't have to pay to take the tests, only to get the actual license. If you make it harder to pass, then less people get licenses and the DMV loses money. When was the last time DMV cut their prices? I don't remember it happening. I agree with the theory, it just isn't going to happen on a mass scale. A tiered license has merit, but lots of problems to go with it. Some have been mentioned here.

84and85bird - Your point on distraction is special to me. I consider myself a better than competent driver. I got into an accident one day because I was messing with my radio presets right after leaving a stop signal on a four lane boulevard. Three cars ahead of me, someone hit their brakes for a dumb reason (a bum was sitting in the median with a dog). So everyone piled on the brakes...except my dumb ass. Who could expect that? We had all just left an intersection, working at getting back up to normal speed for the road (50mph). I had a median on the left and a brick of traffic to the right. I was dumb, I messed up. Fact remains that an accident was caused.

To the rest that want the idea of higher speeds once you and car are tested - Oh my freaking god! How the heck can the highway patrols hope to regulate that? What is to say that your car hasn't deteriorated to the point that it wouldn't perform at the same level? How often do you actually check those A-arm bushings again? If you have the flu, how is anyone else to know that you aren't performing at 100%? No way that would ever work. You expect the government to have a system where an officer has to suspect you, pull you over, verify your information, then let you go with nothing done IF you are correct? No, I can't see anything like that being implemented. I've thought about how great it would be to have a special "good driver" license and be allowed to speed. However, reality is that it can't happen because enforcement isn't feasible.

The closest that I can see to a reasonable variation to the speed limit laws is one that was brought up in the magazine "Sport Compact Car". In the Oct 99 issue Dave Coleman wrote another riot of a Technobabble. In it the idea of MOMENTUM limits was brought up. If the article is no longer available from SCC I'll be willing to transcribe it. The laugh is enough to make it worth it. But in seriousness, he has a point.

If speed limits really are to keep us and everyone around us safe, then lets start at the beginning. What are we keeping ourselves safe from? Damage due to an accident. What can influence this damage? Momentum and Matter Density. Well, we don't want cars to be less dense, or we get hurt more. So instead let's lower Momentum. With density not changing, our choices are lmited. Hence the speed limit. But wait, we said momentum, not speed. What is the difference, mass. So why not make a system based on the GVW of cars as they come off the factory production line. You could even have a system for re-weighing vehicles after production. What would it require, a scale? Every state has highway scales. At a minimum that is something. Make a few classes of vehicles in weight catergories. Make plates like Japan does where there are symbols and numbers to classify vehicles on sight. Now you have an enforceable system. If an officer sees a Ford Excursion doing 80mph, it is pretty obvious that it would be speeding. I think we can all agree that 7700lbs at 80mph is dangerous. I see an enforceable option that protects the public safety and allows those with capable vehicles to enjoy their spirited driving.

I realize this has been drastically long. Hope you all made it through all right. I think this conversatin can continue for many decades still.

we can dream but its never gonna happen, as nice as it sounds.
to reduce the number of highway fatalities i call for a bumper lane for drunk drivers !

RocketDSM has done what alot of people needed....correcting

Well I was going to reply but it seems ROCKETDSM already posted all my answers. Thanks for saving me the typing time.

Here, here, on the bumper lane. That would be great, even to just sit by and watch.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that speed limits were reduced in the 70s to reduce gas consumption.

That was one of the many arguements used. It has become conventional wisdom that current vehicles easily exceed the mileage standards of the 70s oil crisis. Also, the efficiency has been increased. Leading to the conclusion that the arguements for using speed limits as mileage controls is long past. In the more recent times, the Federal Government has instituted what is called CAFE standards. These state that a manufacturer's entire lineup must have an average mileage of XX depending on the class of vehicles included. I'm not a laywer so I don't know all the details, but that is the general gist of things. One of the items SEMA fights on a regular basis are the large increases of the CAFE which the EPA constantly tries for in Congress. The problem being that if average mileage is forced up even just a few MPG, which cars are hit? All the trucks and most of the sports cars. Why should this segment of the industry be singled out? The ideal behind raising the CAFE standard is not what most of us are against. Just the way in which it would be implemented.

America needs to take a tip from Germany about how cars should be driven in the way they are designed for:thinkerg:(in there case, going reeaaalll fast). Sure there are still the commuters. The VW Lupo Tdi gets like 70+mpg and still go about 115mph:22yikes:, and we don't get the chance to utilize it. And sure every other car class is still there, but they still are taught to be driven to their most efficient potential. Germans are the masters at tightassed efficiency. :bananasmi

is it so hard to keep the racing on the track?

This has nothing to do with track vs street or racing vs street.

This has to do with the fact that some of us (namely most everyone in California) prefers high speed transportation. I'm not talking about rivaling another vehicle without legal repercussion. I am talking about simply getting from Point A to Point B faster. When I was in college a lot of us students started looking at wastes of time in life. One that I keyed on was transit time. Why do we have to put up with transit time? Do you accomplish anything while getting from Point A to Point B? Generally not. Transit time is a waste of life to me. The less time I have to spend on a congested highway the better. If my vehicle, and the corresponding roadway, can maintain safe speeds in excess of 90mph, then that will save me time compared to the current 65mph speed limit. So long as it is safe, why shouldn't I be allowed to save roughly 25% of my time?

Racing has nothing to do with this particular discussion.

The fact alone that people don't know how to change their oil or even the simple practice of putting gas in your car:wtf: should be enough to convice the way people use motorvehicles in America is compleatly up it's ass. In the frame of mind where people don't know and they don't want to know is a very dangerous combo when it comes to driving. They want to put there feet up:sleeping:, read their paper, and put their makeup on while talking on the phone as the dvd player blares out reruns of "Friends." :slap:
The oil companies don't want us to drive fast, efficient vehicles. If a car can go 155mph and still can get 25-30mpg, that's going to be cheaper for the driver. Rather than any SUV that sits in traffic and gets 8-10mpg. They get people to their destination in both cases which do you think is the better take. Cars were invented in the first place to get us from point a to point b faster and more efficiently than walking or horseback [even if the first one's that could only go 5mph, they took the work off the horse that could also go do something more productive (like working at the glue factory)]
Then there's the whole police state of the country that binds us from doing anything but be hearded around like giant mettalic sheep. I'll save this for the next post though, In need to calm myself before I call forth my dogs.


Take the bus people and leave the roads to drivers, not passengers behind the thing that makes the car turns!:thinkerg:

One of my favorite ways of putting things, similar to the way yours, is this:

Most people don't drive their cars. They ride their cars. Driving a car means keeping positive control of the vehicle and making it do the best it can to accomplish your goal, usually getting from Point A to Point B. Riding in a car is doing six other things while futzing down the road oblivious to everything around you and the vehicle content to allow the car to dictate to you what will happen and when.

Too many people think that the later is safer. I disagree. Yes, you see the horrific accidents of people that caused accidents at 110mph on the news. What you don't see if the vast number of problems caused by people that were going the speed limit, but didn't have the capacity to drive competently. Here in San Diego, CA we recently had a rash of senior drivers doing really dumb things. I'm not picking on seniors by any means, but it proves this point. They weren't speeding. But due to mental failures they hit the wrong pedals, or didn't stop mashing the gas and people were hurt and property damaged. Had nothing to do with speed, just driver competency. That most annoying of vehicular phenomona known as Traffic would be almost eradicated if people learned how to merge, exit and change lanes properly. Again, has nothing to do with speed. Those that can't seem to understand the logic to the traffic systems in use should be limited to public transportation so the rest of us can get on with our lives.

The insurance corporations don't help with how people drive either, same goes for drunk driving b.s.
The insurance companies tells the u.s. that, in every case it can be proven that it was something or someone else's fault, not the person driving. Nobody wants to hold any responsibility when something bad happens. (It's the American way after all...) This is why there are so many laws in effect about "traffic saftey" it's not there to keep us safe and under control. It's to put blame on someone else after you ram somebody from behind, killing the people in the car in front of you, then suing the family you hit for spilling your coffee and burning your leg. It's like walking down the street like a badass swinging your arms and saying "If you get in my way and end up getting hit it's your own fault." Some serious ego problems are apparent.

Fast lane ?.... no need to create a so complicate thing.
Look in Germany, ther is no speed limite on 70% of their highways, I drove their with a Laguna II at an average speed of 200-220kmh and was still overpassed by Mercedes, Porsche, Maserati, etc.
In Italy, the speed limit is 150kmh since january 2004 (95mph).
In the rest of Europe, it's between 120 and 130kmh (75 and 80mph) with a tolerance (10-15%) of course and not many cops on these ways.
Why are we not doing like Germans ? or at least Italians ?

The biggest thing you have to look at if you are going to compare foreign roads to US roads is the competency of the drivers.

I'm in the US Navy and was stationed in Yoksuka, Japan for 3 1/2 years. Over there they have the almighty Skyline and lots of other highly modded vehicles running the roads with near impunity. How? Because getting a license in Japan is insane. You only go through the hassle if you really mean it. Even after you get your license you have to keep a little green and yellow sticker in your rear window for everyone to see that you are a new driver (I think that lasts for a year, not sure). I know from experience that they KNOW how to drive over there. Yes you have the crappy little "K" cars doing their 75Km/h on the same road as Skylines and Supra TTs doing 250-300Km/h. How? The people in the slower cars know that when someone is closing on you fast you get out of the damn way. They merge correctly, they don't move into fast lanes without actually going fast. Why don't we hear about horrific accidents from people doing 300Km/h on their highways? The roads are the same as ours. Because the drivers are more highly tested and understand that if you don't belong somewhere, don't go there. I was in a Nismo Skyline R34 just after they came out in 1999 (wasn't mine, but I wish it was). Friend of mine got on the Yoko-Yoko (major highway) and started out doing 120Km/h. Once we were clear of the city type area he slammed it up to 250Km/h. We then tooled down the highway at insane speeds totally secure in the safety of the roadway. The posted speed limit is 100Km/h. As we approached cars, they would move about a 1/4 mile ahead of us since they could see the bright white rocket heading straight for them.

Do you foresee this EVER happening in the US? No way. People are too caught up in their right to use the fast lane for their personal space. We give licenses to any shmuck that can follow a yellow line. Anyone here know the fear and dread that motorcyclists face for their driving test? Why aren't cars the same way? A car can deal a LOT more damage than a motorcycle can, but we make motorcyclists prove beyond a doubt that they can handle the bike in any circumstance. When was the last time you saw a car and a bike pulled to the shoulder for having an accident? When was the last time you saw anyone pulled over for an accident in a foreign country? You don't because they are better drivers than the everyday Joe that is allowed to take his 4 ton Excursion in the fast lane and tool along at whatever speed he feels is comfortable, regardless of the traffic around him.

Bottom line is that without a significant raise in the competency of American drivers, we can't afford to chance the carnage of raising our speed limits to match foreign countries.

RocketDSM : you're hard ! :D but I agree. I don't really know American roads. I only went in Florida, NY and California (and National Parks) during 1 month each travel (3 times). But I've noticed that, indeed, people were driving very slow and didn't care of driving on the right. In France, Italy, or Germany, if you're on the left lane of an highway, without overpassing, or overpassing to slowly (under 140kmh), you'll be flashed and horned. Can't imagine that in the USA without having a police car behind me !
However, in Montana (or Orégon ? I don't remember), there are no speed limits on some highways. I've never been there, and don't know more, but, they are also American drivers. They are maybe not totally lost !
What is your opinion on this point ?

It WAS Montana that had no speed limits. That was immediately following the federal repeal of mandated speed limits. Unfortunately, too many idiots took advantage of it and went there to get stupid fast on public roads. Montana has since instituted speed limits on most public roads. I hear there are still a couple that are open, but the roads themselves would preclude true high spirited driving. Thanks for backing up my point about the underqualified US drivers. Even if it meant I had to loose my license I would support tighter regimens for the testing over here.

I know someone who passed his driving licence in the USA (he's half French half American) and said it was very easy.You've to come with your car (automatic is allowed), adn drive... that's all. French driving livence is not excellent, but you've to drive in towns (you know European towns...), on a manual car of course (school cars as 206, Clio, Golf, etc.) during 40minutes. You've to do a parallel parking, etc.
And no need to say that people passing their driving licence in Paris (intra muros) have less chances !... if you know the Place de l'Etoile (Arc de Triomphe) mainly, that's funny :D
In the US, the driving licence should be harder. On contrary, I think police is too hard in the USA.

I think the police and highway patrolman are over stringent to make up for the lack of driving skill :)

the whole fast lane thing would be great but it's impossible. even if it did happen that way, there's absolutely no chance in hell they could do it on city streets because there's too much that can happen (people jumping in front of the car, etc.) what really needs to happen is that highways need to be expanded. with 3 lanes it's hard to get around people sometimes. if there's 5 or 6 ( i know it doesn't always work out in LA) then there's usually a lot of room for the driver to work with assuming it's not rush hour.
with the speed limit, the problem is the people driving under the speed limit. i usually cruise between 70-75 mph on the freeway. fast yes, but managable. i've been cut off God knows how many times by people going 55-60. it's the fact that they never learned (or just don't bother) to check their blind spots before going. also you occaisonally run into the people that go 60 in the fast lane. this is a problem because you end up getting losers that are to impatient cutting other people off next to them to get around the initial loser. so the lack of speed causes the flare up of tempers which causes accidents.
driver education is also a big thing. i was privlaged (sp?) enough to go to a driving school with a guy who passed the test in France and Germany (and maybe England...i forgot). anyways, he REALLY knows what he's doing. from the accounts i hear from my friends that went to other schools, they were pretty much tought what the pedals and steering wheel did and were given free reign of the car. the education programs need to be greatly increased, which will also help get rid of the problem.
as far as comparing European drivers to American drivers, don't even bother. the test in Europe (from what i hear) actually forces you to prove you belong behind the wheel of a car. the test here pretty much makes sure you know how to use the steering wheel and brake pedal at 35 mph in an auto. if we kick up the test to the level it is in Europe, then we will get rid of a good percentage of idiots that don't know how to DRIVE.
as far as the whole cop thing goes, they have to pull over faster drivers because they are legally at fault in most of the accidents. now obviously if somebody going 20 mph slower than you are cuts you off and you hit them, a normal person would think it's their fault. the way the court sees it, it's the person's fault who was driving in a straight line. another thing that has almost (and luckly never) bitten me is swerving around somebody that cuts into your lane when you are right next to them. you swerve to avoid them but theirs another car there. you hit that car and the person that cut into your lane drives away without anything happening. the laws could be redefinied a little to help the situation.

damn...that was long...sorry :)

One, that wasn't long. The points made on people using improper speeds in improper lanes has been brought up again. I think it's safe to say we all agree on that one. However to fix it, harder tests and more stringent driver education is the only solution. What I really liked in your post was the mention of legally at fault. I was struck by this anomally when a bicyclist served in front of me. Of course I hit him. The witnesses all agreed that he swerved in front of me. The police report noted that front the evidence it appeared the bicyclist was in front and swerved into the path of my vehicle. I was found at fault, only because I didn't have current insurance. What the heck does that have to do with the accident? Nothing. Same type of thing 93rollaracer mentioned with having to swerve. In California, it is actually written that any vehicle with front end damage or evidence of a front end collision is to be considered legally at fault. Regardless of circumstances.

A lot of interesting ideas here. Unfortunately I think highly unlikely to ever see put into law. I agree with Rocket on many points. Rather than go over the same things, let me sum it up to say there are too many variables involved to make much of this a reality.

.1- Speed limits based on experience, vehicle, road surface, etc. Would drive the hiway patrols nuts, and load up the courts for years with people fighting tickets. They have to keep it simple. Plain & simple.

.2- Higher limits for expensive exotic cars would create a socio-economic prejudicial issue. Only the very wealthy could afford to speed?

.3- Yes I agree that newer cars can handle speed & maneuvers better than older cars. A 35yr old big block classic, may have the muscle to exceed 120mph, but cant brake or swerve at those speeds. But where is
the threshold drawn? Every model of car would have to be speed-rated, but then each individual car is different. Some are in better shape than others.

.4- Even if a new Porsche driven by a pro stunt driver, can brake & handle at 100+, what if some adverse condition appears, not the fault of the car & driver? Like a downed tree branch or an animal, or ice?
It’s then as vulnerable as the 76 Pinto.

.5- No one (I don’t think) mentioned collateral damage? Even if a new Porsche + pro driver can handle 100+ speeds safely, what if the car looses traction, becomes airborne or rolls. A spinning/rolling vehicle going 120 will do a lot more damage to other cars & property, then one rolling at 65.

.6- Special lanes would be great but just not practical from a real estate point of view. NJ spent billions on HOV lanes (2or more passengers) then the lanes were seldom used, while the other lanes were jammed with traffic. People strongly resist car pooling. No govt can force you to drive a stranger to work. NJ had to repeal the law.

.7- Traffic laws & regulations are primarily designed for public safety, not to generate revenue. That said, some laws are a bit too intrusive, and isolated local law enforcement do abuse the situation, and this selective enforcement does generate local revenue. When this happens it’s up to the people to rally pollitiacally force amendments to unreasonable regulations, and abuses of it’s enforcement.
But the public seldom does this, they just write a check & grumble

I think everything else has been brought up already.

I sit hear reading this and I realize I have never seen so many egos on the loose at one time before. I had to laugh at rocket for telling us what a great driver he is , then telling about rear ending a vehicle in front of him. I guess he was riding instead of driving as he stated in another post.
The fact is most people consider themselves to be a much better driver
than they actually are. I agree with the statment there is no safe speeding. The fact is there is one weak point in every car, the driver.
No matter how great the condition of the car there is always the human factor, and folks, you are not as good as you think.

Thank you for selectively quoting my posts. I specifically noted that even the better drivers can have bad days (as I was chronicling there). I think a lot of people are better than they are given credit for by the overzealous nuts that make laws pointed at protecting the general populace. Like I just posted, even if it meant I lost my own license I would support tougher testing to increase the competency of our drivers.

3 lanes or 6 lanes, from what I saw in the USA, it doesn't change many things. The problem is that in the USA, people are driving at the same speed and on each lane !
I went in Tampa and was a passenger of a guy who was driving at about 90mph on the highway (4 or 5 lanes)... he was doing a slalom between cars. In France, driving at 90mph or 120mph is not dangerous as the left lane is very often free (people drive on the right). People dont' drive under 60mph (on the right lane of course), and they don't change lane without looking in their mirrors. That's why there are quite few accidents on European highways. And the more the average speed is high, the more people will adopt this behaviour (driving on the right, etc.). Look in Germany !
I think a good point in the USA should be to make speed limits faster (maybe 70mph in a first time) and to oblige people to drive on the right when they are not overpassing !

People feel to protected by insurance companies when it comes to accidents. So they feel the right to do whatever else they can besides drive while on the road.
The u.s. needs to take a tip from the U.K. and tax the car by engine size or something along those lines.

I think when the state DOT’s make regulations, they take into account the total public safety, based on the least experienced drivers, operating adequately safe vehicles, with minimum insurance, on the worst possible road conditions. Anything above that threshold is a given. That’s why traffic laws seem more restrictive than they should be to the average person.

And the US does tax according to Car & engine size, by way of mandatory liability insurance. It cost more to insure a RS Camaro, than a Cavalier. The insurance compaines starting charging according to horsepower way back around 1970.

The u.s. needs to take a tip from the U.K. and tax the car by engine size or something along those lines.

Amen to that.

Big difference in insurance companies charging more versus the government charging more. The relative power of a given car is only one part of the equation a company uses to insure a vehicle. They also look at the market that buys the vehicle. In general, Grandma O'Leery who is too timid to think about a speed over 65mph will never buy an RS Camaro. Guys on power trips that want to do 120mph everywhere they go are the ones that buy RS Camaros. THAT is the major influence on insurance costs. Hence the reason that I LOVE getting "normal" sedans and coupes and hot rodding them. The insurance is low, nobody suspects you, and you can still whoop a good deal of ass when challenged.

In foreign countries, the government straight up charges you more for having a sports car. Again, I can only pull examples from Japan, since that is the only country I've lived in besides the US. On Japanese license plates you find a small size number at the top center. This isn't a vehicle class, or speed class. It's your TAX class. Certain numbers have to pay different amounts every other year when their registration is due. Doesn't go to some company's pocket, it goes straight to the government. If you want that bad ass 650hp Skyline, you WILL pay for it. It is not uncommon for specialty vehicles and the extreme elite of the street racers to pay over $5000 (not Yen) for registration. That doesn't include the mandatory safety check, which is VERY stringent. Ever wonder why so many vehicles get sold used from the JDM (Japanese Domestic Market) when they are only 3-5 years old? That tax. Your initial purchase will normally come with a 3yr registration. At that point you have to get the vehicles safety inspected to confirm driveability, safety, and mechanical soundness. Once that is passed, THEN you get to pay your registration (with government taxes). So many people hate the hassle that at 3 years they dump their car. If they go ahead at the 3yr mark, it comes again at the 5yr mark. By that time, most Japanese drivers would rather trade it in for a new car rather than deal with maintaining the one in their possession. Hence, 3 and 5 yr old JDM cars are CHEAP. But all that money they are "avoiding" is direct payment to the government. Paying extra to an insurance company doesn't count squat towards the government.

Rocket no where in my reply was there a quote, to be more correct I was paraphrasing. You do however, make my point for me. If all the great drivers in the fast lane you are advocating have a bad day it would be a very large pileup. As for a lot of drivers be better than they are given credit for, well I stand by my statement that most or all greatly overestimate their driving ability.

Rocket after reading some of the threads I came across this....by the way, this is a quote.."Back in 1993 I got a speeding ticket for 167mph in a 55mph zone.

I was driving home from Phoenix to San Fran. I had been up for 36 hrs when I noticed a car with a red light behind me around the Buttonwillow exit on I-5. At the time, the Feds has recinded the highway speed limit restrictions, but none of the states had decided what to do about it. So I-5 had dropped from 65 to 55 (now a 75). My Camaro's speedometer pegged at 85mph so I had no clue how fast I was really going. The CHP pulled up behind me, threw open the door with pistol drawn and yada yada yada. Once he realized we (my friend was in the car) weren't drug runners or armed he put his pistol back and talked normally with us for a little while. Turned out that a plane had originally tagged me, but had to turn back for fuel. The first interceptor had turned over the chase because he couldn't make the intercept from where he was. This guy had been tailing me for 18 minutes at a steady 167mph. He even noted that it was some of the best driving he had seen for the speed. Unfortunately, I can't take credit because I was essentially asleep at the wheel. After our discussion (about 30minutes) he decided to write up the ticket (my record at the time only showed 3 of an eventual 21 speeding tickets) for "Speeding in excess of 100mph over the posted limit". He also forced us to sleep there on the side of the road for 3hrs. He waited and woke us up when he felt our nap had been sufficient. "
I think most would agree that this many tickets does not mean you are a great driver, it means you are an idiot.That is not even mentioning the fact that you are full of crap.167 in a 55 ....yeah right.
You sound more like a highschool kid with too much time on their hands.

no camaro built with a 85mpg speedo would do 167 unless it was dropped from a B52, and even then - maybe

I said it sounds like BS, but it is honest truth, swear to god. Once again, MadMax didn't quote the whole thing, just the part that served his purpose. The car came stock with a 305 SBC. I transplanted a 350 and played with it a little (as listed above). The only thing with the 85mph speedo is because it was a base model nothing Camaro when bought from the factory. I would scan the ticket to prove this better, but my mother threw it out when I joined the Navy and left home. Keep in mind that weird differential ratio, it makes for huge top end. That is the only reasoning I can come up with anyway.

My accumulation of speeding tickets is my defense of my driving skill...

Through all my high school stupidity (yes I had just graduated high school) in getting that many speeding tickets, what damage was caused? I hit a car that had slammed on his brakes right after leaving a red light on a four lane road with a 45mph speed limit (we were doing about 30mph) because I was fiddling with my radio like a stupid teenage driver does. Had nothing to do with going fast (i.e. GETTING TICKETS). Lots of speeding tickets just means that I habitually drove faster than legally allowed. So what? Isn't that what the whole discussion in this thread is about?

Madmax, the point wasn't the word quote, the point was the word SELECTIVE. You specifically chose to use certain lines without listing the reasoning that followed them.

As for your line of "If all the great drivers in the fast lane you are advocating......" HUH? I never advocated a seperate lane. I was specifically against it. It would be too hard to enforce for law enforcement and the logistics are ridiculous.

If you are going to insist on bashing me personally, don't do it in the public forum. That is what IM and EMail are for.

Just to add my .02, I am sure most of this has been said, so I'll try to keep it short. First I doubt this would ever happen, like alot of things in our country, which would be great, but no politician would back them.
I lived in Germany for 3 years, and right before we moved back to NY I was in the process of getting my German license. Let me tell you from experience that it is a totally different mindset.
You have to be 18 first off, when kids are younger, they get scooters...not cars. Secondly, I enrolled in a driving school there, and a good one in NY. Let me tell you that the German one FAR exceeded the NY one. Just the hours that you spent learning theory prior to ever sitting in a car, then you got plenty of time in the car one on one with the instructor(who was also the person to grant you a license or not) so he was with you from the beginning, not just hops in the car for 5 mins. The NY license test that I took consisted of 3 blocks of driving, 1 left turn, 1 K turn, and 1 parallel park. It was in a suburban neighborhood with 1 minivan, no other traffic. Germany also charges an inordinate amount for all the schooling and expenses involved in getting your license. So it came out to almost a grand for me over there, not the 40 bucks or whatever here. In Europe, if you want your license you will work for it, its a privelage not a right.

Yes they have the Autobahn, where at times there are no speed limits( they have a fast lane and you damn well better know that if you aren't flying you better move over) But they also have 30km speed limits inside small towns. That is slow as hell. And they don't have unreliable cops, but rather intermitent mirrors with radar and cameras that photograph your license plate. You speed you get the ticket. They take every aspect of driving over there to be alot more serious. I am not saying that it solves everything though. I think it dramatically decreases accidents caused by stupidity. (similarly to their views of alcohol, they are brought up with it and taught to respect, not abuse it) They have alot less idiot 16year olds getting hammered every friday night and getting alcohol poisoning. I am not saying that their policies eliminate problems, but I think its a better approach. Education should come first, not just hoping that the person will develop a certain amount of maturity before they reach an obligatory age.
Also, just to give you guys something to consider. The Autobahn is coming under alot of criticism. A woman and her child were driving in the left lane and not flying. A guy in a sports car came up behind them, going over 150mph. He flashed his highbeams and blinded the woman and she crashed, killing herself and daughter. He is being charged with manslaughter if I remember correctly. This story can be considered both ways. Obviously this wouldn't have happened if he was going so fast, but at the same time, she also was driving too slow for that lane. Whether she knew better or not, the results remain the same. I personally think that such high-speed lanes would be an excellent idea. But I think that the average American youth(myself included) + adults for that matter, would need more of an education from the beginning to learn how to operate their vehicles safely, to have full knowledge of the laws(not just 60% or whatever the passing grade is), and be THOROUGHLY tested in their and their car's abilities.

I mean I've been pulled over for speeding 8 or so times(never been convicted tho). But I never felt that I was speeding unsafely. There have been 1 or 2 times, when I do think I was not ready to take my car up to the speeds I reached(130ish), and that was because I did it when I had my license for less than a year and was driving beyond my ability...and it was scary as hell. Now I have a 3000gt vr4 that could go 160 if I tried, but there is no way in hell I plan on doing that right now, it isn't necessary. Granted, when I drive the 200 miles from college back home, I cruise around or above 100mph. I don't think that it is unsafe. I check my tirepressure, my brakes, and everything before the drives to make sure my car is in working order. And I am a very alert driver always watching everything around me. If I'm tired, inattentive, bad weather, or anything like that, I slow down considerably. I feel that I have the ability to handle my car at the speeds I drive.

I think this is a great notion, but I don't think America is ready for it...unfortunantly.

Why are you talking of a Camaro ? It's not serious to drive too fast with these kind of cars. I drove one (in Florida, a 3.3V6), it was handeling nothing ! On an highway, maybe it's enough (mhh?) but on little roads with curves, heum !
But the subject is not the car ;)
Igorvert : indeed, in Germany (and EU), the learning is quite good (not perfect though but deeper than in the US) and people are respecting speed limits (in Germany this time :D) when there are some.
Free highways is, to me not a bad idea, but if it had to be imported in the US (or in France), it'd certainly be too excessive. But between the very low 65 or 75mph in the US and the 85mph in France (even if there's a tolerance) and the none speed limited highways in Germany (60 to 70% of the german highways), we could find a compromise. I don't really know in the USA, but from what I saw, I think 90mph (to begin) is not too much. But people have to learn to drive on the right and to take more care of other people on the road.
In France, 120mph would be good. Highways are in a perfect condition with an average of 2 to 4 lanes. People drive there already at an average speed of 120-140kmh (75 to 90mph) for the slowers and maybe one car out 10 drives between 160 and 200 kmh (100-125mph). For sevral months, politic on the roads are tougher. So these speeds are a little bit slower. But with people driving at these speeds, there were "only" 5% of deads on French Highways for one of the biggest highways network in Europe.

So that's maybe too easy to link speed to death on the road. At least on the highways.
Far more problems are coming from alcohol while driving, phoning, no seat belt, too high speed in towns, etc. In Europe as in the USA. At least, that's my opinion ;)

Yeah, in New York, they've made it illegal to talk on a cellphone while driving, I think its a great law. Anything to limit distractions of drivers who already don't pay enough attention to the road.

They tried passing the same thing here in California and it was beat down fast. I wish it had passed, I hate it when the already questionable driving skill is burdened by splitting attention to the phone.

I don't know how something like that would ever pass in Cali. I think it should be a law throughout the country.
Igovert500 you got good things to say. So do you Rocket. We gotta get these foolish people who don't know what they're doing, off the road. So that we foolish people can concentrate on what we should be doing, driving.

In France (and in Europe), the use of cell phone while driving is forbidden. If you're caught, you get a fine of 90€ and 2 points (on 12) less on your driving licence.

I am glad we do not have the spped limits you all seem to favor. There are enough people being killed
at 55. I should say some at 55 and some by drivers who are so good they can speed and still be safe.
I also saw a comment here about a driver who had no current insurance at the time. If you are on the road without insurance it should automatically be your fault because you are driving illegally. It should be mantatory jail time for anyone driving without it. The one thing I would like to see is the
CRIME of speeding taken more seriously...ie...bigger fines and in the case of repeated offences even jail time. It is other peoples lives you are endangering.

I fully understand that this is off topic, but I just want to entertain something for a moment..... Why does insurance have to be mandatory? I understand it's law now, but it wasn't always. What arguement was used to pass this law? I don't see where the justification for mandatory insurance came about in history.

It has been proven time and again that our modern road construction practices make surfaces that are safe at higher speeds than the past. We all agree that cars are safer today than they were 30yrs ago. So why not raise the speed limits? The only arguement I can't rebutt is that those vehicles from 30+yrs ago are still driving and would be unsafe at those higher speeds. In which case the DRIVER should know that they are being unsafe and take it upon themselves to control the risk.

As for stiffer fines and jail time for repeat offenders, California does. No California ticket ever has the fee printed on it because most offenses follow a graduated scale. Hence why my 167mph ticket cost $1041 (which was the MINIMUM fine, btw). Talking to officers and reading up on the vehicular code the officer could have written me up for a lot more than he did. I got lucky, and I know it. Lots of people get "lucky" everyday. I commute at 70-85mph (65mph Speed Limit) most of the way (20mile commute). I feel that my 30minutes a day, roughly, is well worth the miniscule risk I add to the highway. I do this in a 2000 Cavalier (KYB GR2 Shocks, Eibach Pro-Kit Springs, Suspension Techniques Rear Sway Bar, RKSport Front Strut Bar, Konig 17x7 wheels, Kuhmo Ecsta Supra Tires), if anyone thinks I'm pushing the safety limits of the car, try again. I know I push the boundaries of what I can get away with, and if I get caught I am up front and honest and pay my penalty, whatever that is.

I think a lot of the difference here is where we are each from. Here in California the vast majority of people speed and life is set to a pace that nearly requires it. In Kentucky, you are much more relaxed and expect certain things to take time and it's "ok" there. Just a difference in lifestyle. I must agree that, of the stereotype of Kentucky (and the whole 2 people I know from there and what they tell me) raising the speed limits of Kentucky would not be appropriate. Your populace generally doesn't speed, doesn't have a desire to speed, and that is just the way life is. If it ends up taking 45 minutes to get somewhere, then so be it. Here in California, we aren't willing to spend our life just getting from one point to another. That is not productive and therefore not appreciated around here.