|
The people of Montana are
more fortunate than most
folk. Their legislature
meets in regular session
only every other year; so it has
half the usual number of
opportunities for mischief. But maybe
even these biennial parlays are too
frequent. Many Montanans are girding their loins in fearful anticipation of the next legislative session, which opens in January. For this body will consider whether to enact a statewide highway speed limit. The idea has broad bipartisan support in government and the media. Even the Republican governor, Marc Racicot, apparently favors it. The only disagreement comes from the citizens of this fine state, who, stubbornly refusing to recognize the superior wisdom of their leaders, oppose limits nearly 2-to-1. The controversy has been building for a year. On Dec.8, 1995, after Congress repealed the federal speed limit, Montana highways automatically fell under the jurisdiction of the state's earlier "Basics Rule," which set no maximum limit but rather stipulated motorists drive in a "careful and |
prudent manner" At that time, "experts" predicted lifting the limit would create a "bloodbath." The national media depicted Montanans as wind-in-the-face sociopaths. Jay Leno summoned Mr. Racicot to "The Tonight Show" to explain himself. But the bloodbath didn't happen. The average speed on Montana highways increased a mere 2 mph and traffic fatalities went down. Other states experienced similar results when they raised limits. This non-event shouldn't have surprised anyone. Virtually all studies conclude that limits do more harm than good. They encourage disrespect for the law and cost the country billions in lost productive time. Yet they have little effect on driver behavior. Furthermore, no evidence has been found to confirm that "speed kills." Fatality rates on the German autobahn, which has no limit, are identical to those on U.S. interstates because Germany has more stringent license tests, tougher seat-belt enforcement and stricter drunk-driving laws. Meanwhile, accident rates have been declining uniformly around |
the globe, regardless of speeds.
After the federal interstate limit
went up to 65 mph, a study by the
University of California at Irvine
found the "overall fatality rate fell
by 3.4 percent to 5.1 percent in the
states that adopted the 65 mph
limit." To be sure, limit advocates like to cite a report by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, claiming that 34 percent of fatalities are due to "speed related factors." But that document's fine print reveals "speed related factors" include drunk driving and bad weather, along with "improper lane changes, following too closely, unsafe passing, inattention, reckless driving, high-speed chase, erratic/changing speeds and driving slower than the posted minimums." Limit advocates, however, refuse to be dissuaded by mere facts. When it became clear that Montanans weren't driving faster, newspapers blamed visitors - running drum-roll headlines such as: "Tourists hot-trotting it across state's highways." When studies revealed that tourists drove just 1.5 mph faster than state residents, limit |
advocates changed the yardstick by
which safety is measured. Citing
no hard evidence whatsoever, they
insisted accidents had become
"more severe" and more costly
and that drivers found the Basic
Rule confusing. And when public
opinion turned against a limit,
they averred the issue too
"critical" to be resolved by a
"popularity contest." In fact, limits have little to do with public protection. Rather, nationally they're promoted by special interests, including: * State and local governments, which collect an estimated $3.75 billion to $7.5 billion in traffic tickets each year. * Insurance companies, which amass an additional $3.75 billion to $7.5 billion by surcharging motorists caught speeding. * Highway patrols, which, in many states, have become highway tax-collection agencies whose budgets grow as the limit is lowered. * Labor unions recognize, as the National Academy of Sciences has already observed, that lower limits require truckers to stay on the road longer and thus generate more trucking jobs. |
To these, one may add other
powerful groups that benefit from
higher ticket revenues, stricter
law enforcement or greater
concern about traffic safety -
including the federal National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration,
state highway agencies, "public
interest" lobbies and trial lawyers.
Then there are the media that,
whether motivated by a desire to
be "responsible" or by an
uncritical faith in governmental
remedies, parrot the "speed kills"
mantra. Thus, the speed debate finds Montana's leaders siding with special interests against their constituents. Limits affect the daily life of the average, law-abiding citizen more directly than any other laws, except the income tax. And while most people, like myself, almost never receive traffic citations, they resent the fright they feel when flashing blue lights appear in the rearview mirror. So Montana's leaders better beware. Voters may retaliate by limiting the legislature to just one meeting every leap year. Alston Chase is a nationally syndicated columnist. |
| The Washington Times | National Weekly Edition December 15, 1996 |