I remember when the Republicans won the Congress in 1994, and wondering when I would actually see some tangible benefit from it. The first time that I felt that there was really a change in the country was when they repealed the idiotic national speed limit, and I could once again drive legally at a rational pace.

Well, according to the DOT, it turns out that it's not only increased national productivity, but it's had no measurable effect on increased loss of life (and may even have reduced traffic deaths).

I've long thought that 55 was more deadly, for several reasons. It increased the lengths of trips, making driver fatigue more likely. It also made for more boring driving, resulting in an increase in driver inattention.

I suspect that it also reduced traffic on the freeways, shifting it to the more-dangerous primary highways, since the advantage of using the freeways was greatly diminished by the low speed limit. I know that I tended to use back roads more, because the freeway wasn't much faster, and the trip was more interesting. And of course, it was particularly stupid to impose a fifty-five MPH speed limit on a freeway that was designed for seventy (and for a different generation of cars, that handled and braked much more poorly than modern ones).

It's not absolute speed that's dangerous on the highway--it's relative speed. In fact, that's why it's unfortunate that most states don't post minimum speeds as well as maximum. Growing up in Michigan, the speed limit on the freeways was minimum 45, maximum 70, and you could get a ticket for driving too slowly as well as too fast. In fact, I think that's too large a spread, since you have cars sharing the road with a differential of twenty five miles an hour. I think that sixty-five to eighty would in fact be safer, given the performance of modern cars. If there are three lanes, you might allow slow traffic in the far right, but otherwise speed should be generally encouraged, within reason.

Anyway, Steven Moore has a piece in NRO today on the stupid hysteria of Ralph Nader and Joan Claybrook and the other safety nannies, and the fact that they refuse to accept the steaming plate of crow they so richly deserve.

If memory serves it was Elizabeth Dole who implemented the 55 mph speed limit during the Reagan administration. She threatened to pull Federal Highway funds from any states that did not comply.

Yes, just as her husband was the tax collector for the welfare state, she was the enforcer for the nanny state.

Uh, the national 55mph limit was enacted during the '70s. Ludicrous Liddy simply lobbied against lifting it during the Reagan Administration.

Saying she "implemented" the limit implies that it went into effect while she was SecTrans.

I stand corrected, if I'd read the link before I posted I would have realized it was inacted in 1974. Duh. Looks like she campaigned to keep it.

Still, I always knew she was on the wrong side of the issue.

I knew what he meant--implemented was the wrong word. She certainly did enforce it, but like many socialist meddling enterprises, it was a creature of the Nixon Administration, mainly as PR to pretend he was doing something about the "energy crisis" caused by his oil price controls...

Good point about Nixon. In addition to his other faults, Nixon was a "closet regulator" who actually believed in silly things like wage/price guidelines. He had no credentials as a conservative on domestic issues.

I think Libby Dole was the Transportation Secretary when the feds bullied the states into raising their drinking age to 21 (or lose federal funds).

Not the 55 mph speed limit, but a very similar outrage, constitutionally speaking.

It was great coming to the crest of Lookout Pass and see the big sign on the overpass at Exit 0 now said -- "Daytime Speed Limit -- Reasonable and Prudent".

Montana finally had to impose speed limits because the old law gave patrol officers too much leeway inenforcement, and a driver couldn't know in advance when they were actually speeding. The Claybrook and Nader types cheered this limitation, but never said a thing when it turned out that the state highway fatality rate, unlike the rest of the country, subsequently went up two years a row.

Accidents tend to happen during periods of speed fluctuation. So if you go 100mph or 55mph you have fairly good relative control. It?s when someone?s going another speed where things get difficult. That should be the national law: Driver must assume relative speed to other drivers by a range of 5mph.

When everyone wants to make an argument of what people can put up with, they quote national car accident statistics; usually against airplane accidents. Why are car accidents acceptable? Impact at these low speeds (under mach I) are calculable and solvable problems. Sadly, the reason we don?t protect our cars to acceptable levels is that they have become vanity objects. The good news is that beyond submerging the car in bumpers, there is new hope on the horizon: telescoping nano-springs. If we can get funding and a national desire, we?ll be able to distribute the impact force across the car and actually store the energy resulting from it. For now, it seems we?ll have to live with ?acceptable statistics?.

Good idea on the speed differential limit Transistor...I think they do similar with the autobahn in Germany, different lanes for different speeds, and you have to match them.

Although I'm sure someone will point out how I got that wrong!

What?s more impressive about the autobahn is more of the cultural control over the situation. If anyone has been there, they know how almost suicidal it is to try to pass on the right. Then, if you?re in the left lane driving behind someone going slower than you, you flip on your left blinker and they move over to the right to let you by. It?s amazing.

You guys almost have it. The utopian situation would be to institute a maximum lane-to-lane passing speed that would vary anywhere from 5 mph for rush-hour crawl to 25 mph for wide open highway. A no pass on the right rule is a good idea, but mathmatical models show that regime collapses when traffic density increases past a critical point.