Should there be speed limits on freeways?

[dazzleman]

I echo the comments of angus and Ernest.

I support speed limits (despite my sometimes spotty driving record) but I think they should be set based on safety requirements, and not made artificially low.

Philosophically, I think it's better to have less restrictive laws that are strictly enforced when they are broken, than more restrictive laws which the majority of people ignore without much of a consequence.  Such a situation breeds disrespect for the law and removes the social stigma from lawbreaking. 

Social stigma, not a limp-wristed punishment from the court system, is the greatest deterrent, and there is absolutely no social stigma to speeding.  All my friends jokingly trade speeding ticket stories on occasion, something most people would never do with more serious offenses.

I find that when I drive down south, where the speed limits are set higher, I actually pay attention when they lower the speed limit, because I figure there must be a reason.  Up here, where they set a 55 mph speed limit on most interstates that were designed for much faster travel, I simply ignore the speed limit and drive 80-90 mph under the right conditions.  Most of the time, I drive about 75 mph, which is still well in excess of the speed limit.

When the vast majority of people are lawbreakers, meaningful penalties are impossible.  Better to have higher speed limits, based on real safety issues, and slam the people who break them hard.

[dazzleman]

I echo the comments of angus and Ernest.

I support speed limits (despite my sometimes spotty driving record) but I think they should be set based on safety requirements, and not made artificially low.

Philosophically, I think it's better to have less restrictive laws that are strictly enforced when they are broken, than more restrictive laws which the majority of people ignore without much of a consequence.  Such a situation breeds disrespect for the law and removes the social stigma from lawbreaking. 

Then you'd agree with Lawrence v. Texas because that's exactly what those type of laws were. And this is also a good argument for legalizing prostitution as well. Not that I disagree though, that's one of the reasons why I think prostitution should be legal. As for Lawrence v. Texas though, it was just becuase those laws were so g stupid.

I never said that I thought "stupid" laws should be remedied through the judicial branch of government.  If the majority favors a stupid law, and it's passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, and it's not unconstitutional, then a court should not take it upon itself to decide the law is stupid and strike it down.

I think some speed limits are set too low, and that that's bad policy, but it is not a constitutional issue, and should not be decided by the judicial branch.