Yes, you are correct. Some places responded by issuing token “resource wasting” tickets to people who were going over 55 but under the original speed limit of the road.
When they finally got rid of that, I could swear there was a run on clutching pearls, fainting couches, and remedies for the vapours from reading letters to the editor in the paper. Widespread carnage was predicted. “If you let them go 70, they’ll go 90”, which didn’t happen. Those that went 90 were already doing that when the limit was 55.
Most people will drive a safe speed even if there is no speed limit. You can see the proof in bad weather where everyone is going under the speed limit.
Most isn’t good enough. There’s a lot of speeding in Albuquerque. Just yesterday I saw a Jeep Wrangler half-way into a compact on Central (the middle of the front wheels were in the compact). The guy in the compact must have died quickly. I suspect the compact driver was turning right on red and didn’t notice the Jeep coming, though the Jeep could have run the light. In either case he had to be going too fast to get that embedded. What’s the marginal compliance?
@bing Most of the metro area municipalities making revenue off sections of the interstate/s in their jurisdiction are along I-270, such as Des Peres, Town and Country, Maryland Heights, Creve Coeur, St. Ann, and several others in north county. There are also munis that make speeding ticket revenue along sections of I-70, I-44, and I-64 both in St. Louis County and in St. Charles County. Then running south on I-55 into Jefferson County has sections that snag speeders.
The area you mention near Arsenal on I-55 is right by the Budweiser brewery and is within St. Louis City jurisdiction. In forty years I’ve lived here I have never seen St. Louis Metropolitan Police, i.e. city cops, on the sections of interstates that traverse City jurisdiction except responding to accidents or in pursuit. That includes segments of I-44, I-55, and I-64 which is also locally known as Hwy 40. If they do patrol for speeders I’ve not seen it.
However, Missouri Highway Patrol does run some patrols on all segments of the interstates on the Missouri side of the metro area while Illinois State Police do so on the Illinois side.
Those people will speed no matter what the speed limit is, unless it’s so heavily enforced that they can’t get away with it. An unenforced speed limit = no speed limit. I’d rather see a well enforced 80 mph speed limit than an unenforced 55 mph speed limit.
Yes, we occasionally see snow, but we often get something that’s makes snow look like a cakewalk, freezing rain. The pavement appears “normal” but your brakes suddenly don’t work and your steering wheel suddenly doesn’t steer. In heavy rain with low visibility, you don’t see very many people driving the speed limit where I live, they go much slower. People aren’t suicidal.
We have a toll road with an 85 mph speed limit. I drive it at 70-75 and very few people actually pass me. So much for the “if you raise the speed limit to 70, everyone will be driving 85-90” argument.
The area I mentioned is along I-170. Charlack, Bel Ridge and the like. Not what I think of as “north county” and I live in University City. Those municipalities are well known for giving out tickets.
@davepsinbox_157004 Ah, my error. I didn’t catch the I-170 as opposed to I-70. You are quite right on all counts. I misread your original comment and therefore made reply that wasn’t germaine. My apologies!
You of course are right and it is government by blackmail from federal bureaucracy at the direction of a President. It violates the part of the constitution that says that all powers not specifically granted to the Federal government shall remain the purview of the states. The wording may not be exact , I was too lazy to look it up but I think it is the most widely violated part of the constitution.
Without getting political I would say that when the states won’t act in the best interests of the people the Federal government has an obligation to step in.
I just read where California has enacted a law that by 2035, any vehicle sold must produce zero emissions. This means no internal combustion engines. If you enjoy pumping gas, you’d better keep at it before it’s too late.
The federal government has no mandate or authority to decide what the best interest of the people of a particular state or my personal best interest is. The reason we have states is to add variety to the choices in our lived are. A small example, in NY. no one is allowed to swim anyplace without a lifeguard. Across the border in Vermont, they put up a sign, no lifeguard on duty, swim at your own risk. I prefer the latter and I don’t want the feds deciding that NY rules are so wonderful that they must impose them on everyone. I want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and I don’t want a nanny government getting in the way.
If the people of California decide they want to ban gasoline powered cars in 2035, that is their business and they will have to beat the consequences. Kust don’t impose that on states that don’t feel they need it.
It seems that most people have forgotten the period of The Articles of Confederation, under which The US operated for 8 years. Under that document, the states were the ultimate power, with the central government being almost powerless. Because that system proved to be so unworkable–including such things as states imposing tariffs on goods from other states–it was replaced by The US Constitution.
Although the US Constitution increased the powers of the central government, it was only able to be ratified because it continued to grant certain specific powers to the individual states, and then to further clarify this system of power-sharing, Amendment 10 was enacted. Amendment 10 states, “The powers not delegated to The United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people”.
It is very clear that states have the right and the ability to regulate most situations within their borders, and both tradition and court rulings have defined the extent of, and the limitations on, the powers of the states.
What we have with California is something different. California doesn’t deliberately force its will on the other 49 states, but it is such a large state that auto manufacturers find it easier to apply California’s regulations throughout the USA than to have one standard for California and one standard for the other 49 states.
In other words, the people making the decision to apply California’s regulations on a national level are the people managing the car companies, not the people who run your government.
That is true, but the federal government is in the business of protecting the minority from tyranny of the majority. We don’t just have majority rule in this country, we have majority rule with checks and balances, and those checks and balances increase the likelihood that the arc of the moral universe will bend towards justice.