Should highway speed limits be increased? Should we strike down every sign that the government posts and uses to regulate the speed limit on the thousands of highways around the country? Should we trust the driving ability of each and every person to drive within a reasonably safe speed? The response that most people lean toward is one of negativity. People automatically assume that the speeds presently posted on our highways are there only for our own protection.

People do not believe that the government is knowingly implementing speed limits that are below a safe speed for a given roadway. It is true that the government claims to set speed limits that are for the public well being. As the United States Department of Transportation puts it, "Speed limits are appropriate speeds based on the traffic of an area, road conditions, weather, and the lighting" (The Star Ledger). But the fact of the matter is that their arguments have no factual basis. Suppose the government is really setting speed limits that are safe. If this were true, speed limits would change constantly. If the roadway were wet, if the traffic is thick, or the visibility is bad at a certain point in time then the sp

The advantages of abolishing speed limits on highways have rarely been noticed. Advocates of the mandatory national speed limit in 1974 not only claimed that a speed limit of 55 miles per hour would save lives but that it would also help to cut pollution 1%. It is true that when cars run faster they burn fuel quicker and end up polluting faster. However it is important to note that cars only account for 2.3% of man made green house gases. That is a miniscule amount compared to the many incinerates around the country, which contributes up to 3 times as much (Shemmens). What is more important is that people are allowed to travel faster they tend to go to more places frequently. This "traveling effect" causes an increase in business, which in turn help to boost the economy. People do not only end up buying more gas but hey end up buying more electronics, more food, more clothes etc. at the new places they visit.

Another argument about fatalities, directly relating to speed, could be made after looking at the changes of fatalities since the year 1974. In 1974 the government implemented a national speed limit on all highways of 55 miles per hour. As a result of this process government studies have shown that fatality rates had, in fact, decreased (Shemmens). The reason fatalities have decreased may not be as obvious as they seem. Strict government regulation on new safety features throughout the late seventies and early eighties was a significant source of saved lives. Also, the advances in the road structure and condition contributed greatly to a decline in deaths, not the standard low level of speed the government had implement only a decade earlier. Studies that took place over the most two recent speed changes will further disprove this theory produced by safety advocates.

eed limit would have to change continuously. But, the government can't be on the highway twenty-four hours of the day changing signs. If the government wants to set a safe speed standard then it must be much more realistic. A driver knows their ability as well as their vehicles ability under diverse conditions. If the government tries to tell society that the faster speeds they are traveling is harmful; people will not feel that the government is looking out for their safety. They will instead feel as if though they were being treated as children. Therefor the speed limit on highways should be increased, and individuals should be allowed to drive at a safe "high" speed without being held back by an unrealistic law.

Police will no longer have to spend their precious time setting up speed traps and going to court to prosecute "offenders." They will now be able to focus their time on more serious crimes such as robbery and murder. Changing the speed limit is a benefit that can be observed by all, because of such a reward, not just those behind the wheel.

In 1987 the government changed its mind and allowed states to have a speed limit of up to 65mph on rural Interstate routes. As a result of this speed increase safety advocates claim that there was a nation wide increase on fatalities. However the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found otherwise. Their reports show that there was an increase in the nation's fatalities but the states that chose to increase their speed experienced a 3.5 % less of a fatality increase. (Shemmens)

From first-hand experience, one should easily realize that the common man would feel negativity toward raising speed limits. People fall into this trap because the general public is often mislead into believing that abolishing speed limits on highways will only cause more harm than good. People often are the victims of misunderstanding and people rarely observe the advantages offere

Some common words found in the essay are:
Star Ledger, Highway Administration, Ralph Nader, Johnson People, Limits Increased, Chaser Montana, Frank Launtenberg, Mercedes-Benz People, speed limit, Montana Evolution, speed limits, United Department, limits highways, speed limits highways, safe speed, drive speed, increasing speed, speed limit highways, posted speed, fatality rate, speed increase, united department, united department transportation, increasing speed limits, people drive speed,
Approximate Word count = 2515
Approximate Pages = 10 (250 words per page double spaced)