In April 25th National Review, Stephen Moore takes a brief look at the impact of national speed limits. Since highway death toll data was first collected in 1966, the number of highway deaths per mile have been decreasing. Interestingly, stagnation occurred from ‘75 to ‘80 during the days of the infamous “double nickel” speed limit.
Since the 55 and subsequently the federal 65 maximum were abolished, death rates have continued to decline.
He goes on with information from the Cato Institute. The data from 2003 shows that states with a 75 MPH limit had some of the sharpest declines in fatality rates. For example, Utah, Nevada, and Arizona each saw decreases of more than 20%. Cato also estimates that “between $3 and $6 billion a year” are saved by reducing lost man hours by about 250 million per year.
If I notice the article on NRO, I’ll be sure to provide a link.
I certainly don’t consider Moore’s piece to be extensive. There are certainly a multitude of factors that affect the statistics. Certainly vehicle safety is a major factor. Unfortunately, 56% of those killed were not wearing seat belts. So where is the trade-off? At what point to we accept the fatality rate and go for increased time and money savings?
I think we already have, but don’t kid yourself if you think we aren’t turning some of that money right back over to the car manufacturers and their sub suppliers. I would also like to note that the speed has never been nearly the issue as the difference in speeds. Now that everyone is allowed to go 65 or 70, law abiders are traveling at less of a differential to the “speeders,” who have alwasy traveled at increased rates. With everyone operating on a closer level, expereince builds and issues such as timing and distance are not as variable, allowing everyone to motor along more happily. Just watch out for me on I-77 between exist 11 and 5 after 2. The speed isn’t nearly the concern but the experience and compensation ability is building. Ooops, but now you know.