Speed Limits: The Latest in American Individualism

By Paul Skowronek

Staff Writer

ith the 1996 Presidential race beginning to heat up, everything either Clinton or Congress seems to do these days becomes a page one story or is afforded five minutes of coverage on the evening news. Clinton's recent announcement pledging American military involvement in an international force destined to end the Bosnian tragedy serves as an important example. But aside from Bosnia, what else have Americans been recently discussing at the bar or around the dinner table? The answer may surprise you, yet has consistently been the topic of much controversy since the early 1970's, the speed limit.
Back in 1973 when the United States and other nations became embroiled in what became a serious conflict with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, (OPEC) 130 percent price increases and an ensuing oil embargo led lawmakers to enact a federal speed limit of 55 miles per hour. While the measure, combined with the production of smaller, more efficient automobiles, intended and achieved energy conservation, the American public and lawmakers alike soon realized that 55 did indeed save lives as well. Countless studies, surveys, and statistics have conclusively illustrated that the federal limit has reduced the number of accidents and deaths along American roads.
Even having been provided such conclusive data, Americans over the past 20 or so years have been restless and even defensive over their so-called "right" to drive as quick as they see fit. Years of frustration over the legal limit coupled with an equally unnerving number of speeding tickets has ignited discussion over raising the legal limit for some time now. This year, with many now powerful, conservative Republicans committed to returning to the doctrine of Reagan's new federalism, which mandates that certain legislation be entrusted to the states rather than mandated federal level, the speed limit issue has resurfaced in Congress.
The legislation drafted, which provided that the jurisdiction over setting legal limits be handed over to individual states, thus eliminating the national limit of 55, surprisingly sailed through Congressional committees, and the United States Senate passed the bill by a 65-35 vote on June 20th, 1995. President Clinton signed the legislation into law last week.
In an effort to research this essay, I, as usual, consulted the World Wide Web for information and was not disappointed. An organization calling themselves Reasonable Drivers Anonymous, which can be found on the Web at: http://www.clark.net/pub/kevina/sl/ provides a wealth of information on why the speed limits across the nation should be raised. Of course, they are thrilled by the recent legislative developments. Their major argument resembles something horribly logical like, "well all drivers speed anyway, so we may as well raise the limit." To back this up, they claim that on average, motorists drove 5 to 16 miles per hour above posted limits. This data was collected from surveys conducted in 22 states. They also believe that raising limits does not cause drivers to speed at even higher rates above the raised limits and have more numbers backing their position. In short, I gather that they might conclude the following, toying with the speed limit will not cause drivers to alter their chosen speed (as listed on their page), so the limit should be raised to avoid "breaking the law."
The recent abolition of the national 55 mph limit on highways in the United States raises other important concerns which, like the speed limit controversy, will be debated for years to come. This entire discussion entails whether or not Americans have the right to drive at faster speeds. Other famous disputed questions entail the right to bear arms, or to speak and express oneself freely. It appears as if America has long been obsessed with individualism manifested in and protected by all of these rights that Americans hold so dear. While other nations sacrifice personal freedoms for less crime and national health care to name but two, America refuses to let go of it's individualistic, rights entrenched roots. In the case of speed limits, it is downright ridiculous. Congress can grapple for years about changing a law which is not consistently enforced anyway, yet when it comes to more pressing issues like public education, drugs, violence and deficit reduction, no one has any ideas and Congress becomes deadlocked, clinging to unproductive yet politically secure partisan lines yet again. Kind of makes you wonder what society might be like if some of our "cherished" rights were sacrificed. I venture to guess that society might be more liveable.
As pamphleteer Thomas Paine forcefully advocated the rights of all Americans over the British monarchy in 1776, Americans today seemingly look to their short history in demanding such "necessities" as a higher speed limit, the right to bear arms, and a decentralized health care system. In the future, will Americans still demand such individualized and even localized decision making in shaping public policy or will we unite behind national goals and policies? When answering this highly unresolvable question, we can, I think, surely look to the past for some advice. Consulting the past for advice, however, will not necessarily heighten American progress as we em the next millennium.