Would You Pay $25 For The Right To Speed?

Maybe someday you’ll slam your foot on the gas pedal to see how fast that Ford Ranger can really go and you’ll catch the sirens in your rear-view mirror, only to wave off the patrol car and resume going way too fast just for the fun of it.

That’s the dream of a candidate running for the Nevada governor’s office, the Associated Press reports. Under his proposal, you’d submit your vehicle to an inspection, pay a fee, bring along a transponder that declares your right to floor it for a 24-hour period.

The AP says the Nevada Highway Patrol does not approve of this message, warning it would cause more accidents and deaths.

Would you vote for someone who promised to get this done?

Nevada candidate touts speedy fix to budget crisis [AP via Slashdot]


Edit Your Comment

  1. KyBash says:

    Is this any worse than raffled breast implants?

    • ihatephonecompanies says:

      Breast implants don’t smash other people (unless you’re at a very special party I suppose…)

  2. Michaela says:

    Would I pay to speed? Yes.

    Should it be an option (because of how many idiots are on the road)? No.

    • JixiLou says:

      This sums up my feeling perfectly. *I* think I should be allowed to drive however fast I want, because I am a good driver who can accurately access how fast is “safe”. However, everyone else on the road is an idiot and should not be allowed to speed.

      I hate having to adhere to logic. It’s so much easier not to. *sigh*

      • Michaela says:

        I didn’t mean it that I think all others drive poorly. I just fear that too many poor drivers would want to abuse the privilege. Mixing those who can’t speed with those who can is just asking for accidents anyway. Honestly, I fear those who call themselves “good drivers,” more than those who don’t, because usually the “good” drivers I encounter seem to get a bit too confident behind the wheel.

        I would like to see how fast my sports car can go though. Living in the United States gives me few opportunities to really test out the capabilities of my car, so I wouldn’t mind the day to run it down an empty high way to see its top speed.

      • bradanomics says:

        I’m not saying that I doubt your driving skills, but everyone thinks they are a good driver.

        • trentblase says:

          I think that was his point… There’s definitely a cognitive bias at work with speeders*

          *I’m talking about unsafe speeding. I am all for setting speed limits based on actual safe speeds, but my impression from seeing various studies is that they are generally set too low in order to get ticket revenue.

          • freelunch says:

            bear in mind though that will a speed limit may seem ‘slow’ in good conditions, it is likely a good or excessive maximum in stormy weather…. and folks still drive the speed limit in those less than optimal conditions…

          • JixiLou says:

            Exactly. EVERYONE thinks “I’m a great driver, everyone else is an idiot.” You cannot rely on people to judge their own ability to drive.

            (The messed up thing is that I am utterly convinced I am a great driver, despite cognitively KNOWING that everyone else thinks the same thing about themselves.)

      • PupJet says:

        okay, now we’ll add YOU with a cell phone or doing your makeup. Are you safe then? NO. I don’t think so and I personally think that thinking like that is a stupid perspective.

        Speed limits are in a place for A REASON. It’s to keep people, oh you know, this thing called SAFE!?

        Talking on the cell phone in this state and the state I am from is this thing called “illegal” and WILL impose a rather high fine (in which I wish MOST people would be caught for).

        • OnePumpChump says:

          Speed limits are in place to generate revenue.

          A 55 mile per hour speed limit on a 6 lane divided, elevated, walled highway is not for safety.

          If a speed limit is set significantly slower than most people actually travel on that road, and there is not some special circumstance which increases unpredictability (say, it’s a residential neighborhood, or a school zone) then that speed limit is not set for the purpose of safety.

    • LatherRinseRepeat says:

      I agree. Speeding pass won’t work because of all the dimwits driving 55MPH in the left lane, while talking on their cell phone. And then there are the vigilantes that purposely jump in the lane of a speeder coming from behind.

      Speeding itself doesn’t cause accidents. It’s the careless drivers that cause them. See: Autobahn.

      • andystep12 says:

        I disagree, speeding is dangerous as it increases stopping distances and blowout hazards, etc. In response to your comment, you can speed on the autobahn. Only about a quarter of it has no general speed limit. Though, you are still required to not drive faster than is safe in your car. My dad got a ticket on the autobahn for speeds that wouldn’t get you a ticket here, the problem was it was in a VW bus that he was flooring down hill. He admits it was terribly unsafe, but by no means very fast. Just some food for though.

        • edman007 says:

          Increased stopping distances does not imply it is less safe, it just means you need to adjust your driving style to incorporate that, the faster you go the more space you need around you and the more visibility you need. The biggest problem is that isn’t something you can completely control, the roads need to be designed for the speed (highways are generally pretty good) and the other drivers have to do that speed, doing 90mph when the traffic is moving at 55mph is terribly unsafe as people will tend to just not look that far behind them and pull out into your space, however if everyone is driving 120mph with giant spaces between vehicles, well I don’t really see the problem, it just isn’t that dangerous if the space in front of you is big enough that you can stop or get out of the way even if the vehicle in front of you stopped instantly.

          • kyramidx3 says:

            How could you possibly have the appropriate amount of time to “stop or get out of the way”, if you are driving at 120 mph?

            • 4thMeal says:

              One method would be pressing the brake, the other would be changing lanes. A third option would be doing both.

              The question is, do most drivers have the skills (experience, reaction time, etc) and does the vehicle have the proper brakes and suspension to handle fast deceleration?

              For instance, my car has a 60-0 in 110 ft, while something like a Honda Pilot has a 60-0 in 149 ft. 39 feet is one heck of a difference

              • Papa Midnight says:

                That is one hell of a difference…
                Personally, I’ve taken my ’99 Nissan Altima to 98mph on I-95. Never doing that again. Not the car to do so in.

                80 though? Perfectly acceptable.

                There wasn’t so much stopping, handling, or suspension problems, it’s just that a ’99 Nissan Altima is NOT a performance car and not meant to be driven near 100mp/h; The lowered risk of ticketing for speeding or reckless driving is notable as well.

              • Tankueray says:

                “One method would be pressing the brake, the other would be changing lanes. A third option would be doing both.”

                In my sports car, yes. In my SUV, Holy $@#!

      • shepd says:

        Exactly. Speed itself never kills. It’s the difference in speed that does.

    • kyramidx3 says:

      The real question, is how many other drivers are thinking the same exact thing that you are.

      This would include you in the “other drivers” category.

      Point being, no matter who you are, you are always going to believe that you are a great driver. That includes those who drive 20 over the speed limit, believing they are “skilled” enough to control their automobile.

      • Michaela says:

        I never said that I thought I was a great driver. I just said I wanted to speed. I also didn’t make the assumption that all others on the road were bad…I just recognized the fact that some very unsafe drivers have the $25 dollars needed to take part in this policy.

    • Shadowman615 says:

      A better idea would just be to encourage wannabe speeders to take their car to a racetrack or dragstrip for the day.

      Same result — pay a fee then drive as fast as you want but leave the potential innocent victims out of it. Better yet, this is already an available option.

    • myCatCracksMeUp says:

      $25 for only one day of speeding? Way too expensive for day to day, but would be nice for long trips. Our country’s speed limits are way too slow now.

    • Miss Dev (The Beer Sherpa) says:

      How is this idea any different than an autobahn license?

      • Michaela says:

        You forget that areas of the autobahn DO have speed limits, that you do not pay to speed amongst slow traffic on the autobahn, and that the quality of autobahn roads are vastly different than those of most US roads (more durable and designed for driving fast).

        I wish everyone would stop equating this policy to the autobahn. They are not similar!

  3. Bob Lu says:

    Safety concern aside, what exactly is the benefit of this? If it is for money, shouldn’t speeding tickets be more profitable?

    • captadam says:

      It might win votes from idiots.

      That’s about the extent of the benefit.

    • EmDeeEm says:

      It depends on how many people use it. if a speeding ticket is worth $150, and this costs $25, if they can get at least six times as many people to use it as a cop can pull over, then they come out ahead…

      • trentblase says:

        Plus it actually costs a lot to issue tickets… Especially if they are contested (this usually means overtime for the cop to appear plus all the other administrative overhead). Since speeding tickets (vs reckless driving) are used essentially as a tax on people who like to go fast, the proposed system may be more efficient. I assume they are allowed to go as fast as they want AND IS SAFE. But this rule would basically be admitting that it is safe to go faster than the limit (at least sometimes). Then people will start asking “if it’s safe to go faster, why isn’t the limit higher?”. No wonder highway patrol doesn’t like this.

    • Rachacha says:

      The only advantage I could see to the local government would be this:
      Lets assume that 50% of all drivers speed on a regular basis. Drivers have an option, pay $25/day for the right to exceed the speed limit or take their chances that they will not get caught. If they get caught, they are probably looking at $100 in fines plus points. If police can catch 5% of speeders (2.5% of the drivers), they will bring in $250/100 people, but if 50% of the speeders PAY to speed ( 25% of the drivers), the jurisdiction brings in $625 and they have minimal costs associated with that income. Drivers are purchasing insurance that they will be caught speeding and let go, and jurisdictions bring in extra income.

    • rav3 says:

      i guess it would be nice to be able to floor it on your newly won masserati, gallardo or Veyron at least once. Maybe get it out of your system. or as they so succinctly put it in car-addicts.com review of the veyron:

      First of all, you don’t accelerate in the Veyron Grand Sport. That is what humans do in their puny human conveyances. You evaporate, and then you reappear somewhere down the road. And if someone, like a police officer or maybe St. Peter, were to ask you what happened, all you could say is “I think I remember pushing my foot down, like this… and then… I was here…” Because you don’t remember accelerating. You can’t. It happens too quickly for you to capture any memories.

  4. Shadowfire says:

    With some extra requirements (clean driving record, some defensive driving education), hell yes I’d be all for it!

    • Akanbe says:

      exactly. I think something like this, if it goes through, should be a privilege that you have to earn. If done right, it may be a good incentive for people to drive safer (though it’s safe to say I’m probably dreamin’ there).

    • Michaela says:

      Defensive driving education?

      I had a friend complete a course in that last weekend. It consisted of watching a couple of videos on a computer and answering some questions…

      • Papa Midnight says:

        That’s pretty much exactly what it is, but like the initial written portion of the drivers test, I guarantee that there is probably a significant amount of persons who failed that test.

    • trentblase says:

      I’d add higher minimum insurance requirements.

  5. Hoot says:

    I know budgets are hurting but geez.

    Unless EVERYONE is speeding like this or the road is completely straight and very sparsely populated, it’ll be dangerous. What happens when two grannies are driving next to each other going 40 on a 2 lane highway? What about speeding on residential road when the unwatched kid runs out into the road? Sounds like bad news. And I’m a speeder, but usually less than 10 miles above the limit.

    • Hoot says:

      Well after I RTFA, I realize this is just highway. My granny example stands, though. People who are driving slow combined with these speeders will make it unsafe.

      • ajlei says:

        No granny would last on a Nevada highway in the first place. People there often go up to 85-90mph depending on the stretch.

      • barty says:

        You get the cops to pull over the grannies and ticket them for driving too slow. Seriously.

        Our current minimum speed limits are DANGEROUS. They should have been phased out along with the 55 mph limit back in the 80s. 40mph and 70mph traffic simply isn’t compatible with each other, and we need to ramp up the minimum speeds to reflect that. Just because it is legal for someone to drive that slow does not mean it is safe to do so.

        • pecan 3.14159265 says:

          When I took driver’s ed class, the instructor said the rule of thumb was to keep up with traffic at a reasonable speed because if you’re going too slow, you could cause an accident and the police can pull you over for going too slow. I still go by that.

      • OnePumpChump says:

        Those people were a hazard even without this.

        But yeah, unless there are going to be designated lanes set aside for this (and enforced), setting up different speed classes is just asking for trouble.

    • CrisA says:

      To be fair, there’s a lot of very straight and very sparsely populated roads in Nevada.

  6. JMH says:

    Wow, what an absurd concept.

    • jimmyhl says:

      I’m with you. This candidate must be a 17-year old. He should run for junior class president and try to work his way up when his brain is more fully developed.

      • JMH says:

        “If elected, I promise longer lunches, easier tests, and more parking spaces for students! SAN DIMAS HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL RULES!”

  7. Rayon Fog says:

    Have you driven across Nevada? The don’t call Highway 50 “The Loneliest Road in America” for no reason. I-80 is even lonelier, IMO.

    I’d pay the fee without hesitation. The roads outside of Nevada’s two population centers are actually pretty decent.

  8. Pax says:

    …. um. Jesus, that’s a stupid, STUPID idea.

  9. Tracer Bullet says:

    yes, and yes

  10. GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

    I bet this is the candidate who ran under the promise of “No More Homework” when he ran for School President.

  11. phonic says:

    Hell yeah. Personally, especially in certain areas, I think they should have a lane or side highway dedicated for high-speed driving. Certain requirements would have to be met, and you would need a special endorsement in order to drive on it:
    1) Your car would need to be able to handle the speeds safely.
    2) You would need to take a test to ensure you would can drive competently at high speeds.
    3) You would need to pay a fee to offset the costs involved.

    Right now in Florida (where I happen to live) the general speed limit on interstates is 70MPH. Most people go 80-90MPH with no problem, and that’s the unofficial standard speed (unless a cop is behind/beside/infront of you. This oldschool way of thinking 65-70MPH is the maximum safe speed is crazy and needs to change with the times. Cars and roads are built safer and can handle faster speeds.

    • Gulliver says:

      Unfortunately by your logic if the speed limit is 90 MPH, then the “standard speed becomes 100?
      If you live in a state with lots of animals (Florida is one of them) tell me how much the extra speed will cut down reaction time for deer, dogs, possums, or even for unexpected tire blow outs (car safety does not prevent glass or nails), or even items falling off he back of a truck.
      Traffic fatalities are caused by speed differential. Car A going 40MPH faster than car B is a recipe for death.

      • phonic says:

        If you hit a deer at 100MPH, it’s just as fucked as if you hit it at 70MPH.

        My point, as is the articles, is to have no pre-set speed limit. Then there is no ‘standard’ to exceed it.

        And to all the other reasons for concern, I’m sure those same points were raised when they set the current national average speed limit at 65. But we’re all doing fine. There are roads in Europe that have no limits, and I believe reading that the accident/death toll is far lower then the US. Of course, it requires people to drive with more skill and proper etiquette then we currently have here in the US.
        ie: none of the “I pay muh taxes, so I can drive in the passing lane 20mph below the limit if I wanna!”.

      • shepd says:

        Montana has (or had) no speed limits. Nobody has yet managed to go back in time, which is the fictitious result of driving above the speed of light/faster than infinity.

        The fact is people drive at the speed they find is safe and comfortable on the road, unless they feel obligated not to by police presence. When the police heavily enforce the rules it will either lead to accidents (such as rear-enders at red light cameras) or traffic jams. It always results in angry drivers are always bad drivers.

        If the speed limit on a highway was 200 mph, yes, one or two fools would mod their rice burners with nitrous to see what they can do, and other than that, just people with very, very, very expensive cars would be traveling it at that speed (well, that and a couple of crazy people on speed bikes). Me and my corolla would chug along at about 90 mph, tops, since that’s all it can do. And that’s only with very wide lanes, on a sunny, dry day on a very straight road, and only after I buy decent tires.

        Which reminds me, the low speed limits lead to poor car maintenance and low quality parts. I know myself that the low limits where I am mean that the bottom-of-the-barrel tires I bought are just fine. I’m sure they’d explode at anything above 80 mph.

        • phonic says:

          While I am not a Physics professor, from what I remember, the speed of light barrier is a limit AT that speed. There is no rule saying you can’t go faster if you could somehow avoid passing it. In theory, if you were going faster than the speed of light, you wouldn’t be able to go slower then light, as the same barrier would apply. And since time, outside of the observer, slows down as you approach the speed of light (fact), time would actually reverse if you somehow managed to travel faster than the speed of light. ie: the theoretical tachyon particle which travels backwards in time.

    • EarthAngel says:

      I live in Florida, too. NOBODY drives 70 mph on I-95 in either direction which could be why there almost 2 deaths for every mile of I-95 in Florida between 2004-2008.

      I’m sure the cars and the roads can handle the speed limits. It’s the drivers I’m worried about (and I got my license by learning how to drive on the autobahn.)

  12. TardCore says:

    Do I what do, buy a high end radar detector and speed away.

    • azntg says:

      As long as:

      1) Radar detectors are legal in your state
      2) Cops still use radar to track speeds. There are other speed detection methods.

      • Michaela says:

        If you are using a radar detector to illegally speed, do you really think you are going to care if detectors are legal?

        • TardCore says:

          It’s only illegal in VA. And the police have radar detector..detectors.

          • phonic says:

            Actually, they are illegal in a few other areas. DC I believe is/was. And I think Washington State too. Also, I found it amusing that while radar detectors were legal in NY and NJ, there was a sign going into the Holland tunnel saying they were illegal there…

            Also, most radar detectors have radar detector detector detectors. And they are immune to them anyway because they are passive and there is nothing for them to be detected with (outside of you slamming on the breaks when they go off!).

        • Extractor says:

          Thats why I keep it on the center console in Canada.

          • shepd says:

            Better only be doing that in BC, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. Elsewhere, seeing that on your dash may result in a $1,000 fine, confiscation and destruction of the device. If you are thought to have sold one, you may be fined $5,000 after having your inventory confiscated and destroyed.

            • Extractor says:

              Its on the console next to my lap or stuck into the dash out of site. I just make sure that I dont slam on the brakes when it goes off. Been doing this for well over 20 years.

      • Extractor says:

        Radar detector and convertible to observe for aircraft. May I suggest the Escort 8500 X50, tells you the frequency of radar and if you have several different readings simultaneously then you’re heading into a speed trap. My favorite is when radar units are used with certain signs and after awhile people ignore their detector since it always goes off in the same place but with this detector you will sometimes see a second frequency ie speed trap.

    • Sofa-King says:

      Do I what do?

  13. Ouze says:

    The point of this “proposal” was to get this guy’s name in the papers. So, mission accomplished I guess.

  14. ericschmidt says:

    what a fool, and what fools who agree with him.

    People seem to have missed the concept that the speed limit is not to stop you from having a good time or to prevent you from getting in a wreck while taking a curve at 90, but more importantly to protect *other* people and give them a chance to react when you do something stupid. Like when you come around a curve and someone happens to be stopped because of an accident or something.

    The speed limit isn’t something that you buy your way out of, it you think of it as a safety protection…

    • Rayon Fog says:

      You clearly have never driven on a highway in Nevada. Or in Germany.

      The fact is, if you’re driving 85 on large stretches of Nevada highway, you’re getting passed. I agree that this wouldn’t work in states that have curvier highways or roads with a lot of foliage that limits your vision across turns. Nevada’s highways run through the most barren land in the country. You can see for miles ahead and around, the roads are straight, they are fairly well-maintained, there are wide shoulders and safety pullouts, and there are no drastic elevation changes. They make it work in Germany, and Nevada’s roads are far more barren than those.

      • NeverLetMeDown says:

        They do make it work in Germany, but they also have much more stringent driving tests. Driving school costs well over $2k, and the failure rate is still 30-40%.

      • EarthAngel says:

        It would never work here because there are too many people bitching about their right to privacy. Part of the reason why it works in Germany is because they issue speeding tickets in the mail. And there is no police brutality law. If you refuse to do a breath test, the polizei can break your nose to get blood for the test. If you get caught driving drunk, there is no second opportunity. And they pay taxes out of the ass to have a transportation system that can handle the speed. Most of the freeways I’ve traveled on wouldn’t cut it. One major high speed accident and both directions of the interstate would be shut down because the barriers are insufficient to prevent vehicles from crossing into on coming traffic..

        • IThinkThereforeIAm says:

          Is this thing about the nosebreaking a fact that you KNOW, or something you picked up from WWII movies?
          In my experience the Polizei (and actually most of the population) is unfailingly polite at all times. Maybe they don’t have police brutality laws because they don’t need them???

    • tbax929 says:

      I think I’ve been behind you before.

    • TardCore says:

      Speed limits are random arbitrary numbers that have not kept up with road design or vehicle performance. It’s dumbing down at its finest. If you’re not in a hurry, GET OUT OF MY WAY.

  15. human_shield says:

    This is a program stupid idea. Unless you are on an open empty highway driving at a high rate of speed consistently, speeding doesn’t actually save you any valuable amount of time.

    Every day on my commute I see people pulled over for speeding. I’ve tried it countless times myself – driving (speeding) fast in the left passing lane, or just cruising in the right lane going the speed limit. On a 45 minute commute I might get there a few minutes earlier by speeding, but it’s not worth the risk of a ticket. I’m not going to throw away a days wages just so I can get home 5 minutes earlier.

    • Tim says:

      Don’t forget that said highway must be completely straight. Interstate highways were designed with 65-75 mph speed limits in mind. The curves, elevation changes, etc., would be dangerous at higher speeds.

      • Rayon Fog says:

        That’s mostly false. Highways were designed for those speeds back when vehicles had much longer stopping distances than they do now. Further, it’s been shown that raising the speed limit on interstates encourages more drivers to travel on them as opposed to rural highways, because rural highways aren’t as well maintained and generally aren’t as safe to travel on at higher speeds.

    • Rayon Fog says:

      You may be right driving on highways in densely-populated metropolitan areas. But again, we are referring to Nevada. For example, one would save over an hour driving from Reno to Wendover at 90 vs driving at the current posted speed limit. My mom drives from Winnemucca to Reno twice a week. She’s save 45 minutes each way if the speed limit was raised to 90. As it is, a majority of travelers drive 90+ on Interstate 80 as it is. It would be nice if traveling at that speed was actually on that highway.

    • webweazel says:

      Or as we like to say, cut people off, speed, pass on a hill and double yellows, just hurry up and get home as fast as possible so you can plop your ass on the couch and watch TV.

  16. Ouze says:

    I’d also like to say to all the people saying “sounds like a great idea if they take a test”, that’s an awesome idea. Because we already have a test to get a license, and since we did that, there has never been another accident of any kind where a licensed driver was at fault in some way… right?

    That teenager texting while driving 75? Passed a written test.
    That nearly blind woman? Passed a test 4 years ago.
    That completely drunk frat guy? Passed an interactive test.

    Driving at 90mph is inherently more hazardous then driving at 65mph. Any revenue generated by this ridiculous policy will be easily eaten by wrongful death litigation.

  17. Tim says:

    Wow. This guy is stupid. He’s basically saying that the state has practically no reason to enforce speed limits, so fuck it, we’ll say to hell with them and charge people a fee for it.

    To echo GetEmSteveDave, this guy must have run on the “no homework” platform for school president.

  18. kcvaliant says:

    I don’t see why everyone is against it.. Hell they need open the limit up in certain sections.. We need to learn from the autobahn..

    • pokinsmot says:

      Actually the autobahn has fewer injuries per mile driven compared to US highways. Then again to get a license in germany is much more difficult.

      • tbax929 says:

        Good point. If they made it harder to get a license here we wouldn’t have some many bad drivers out there. From what I understand, a lot of schools aren’t even teaching driver’s ed, which was a requirement for graduation at my high school.

        • Rayon Fog says:

          I totally agree that the tests should be harder. I’m not saying they should be as stringent as they are in Germany, but where Germany has it right is the age at which one can get a license (18). 16 is just too young to drive a car. This view is supported by more than a few studies as well.

    • Michaela says:

      There is a difference between everyone being allowed to drive fast, and fast drivers mixed with those required to drive slow.

    • sven.kirk says:

      Yes, I agree that the limits needs to be RAISED (not removed) in few areas.
      But please elaborate on learning from the autobahn…
      There is still a speed limit on it in areas.
      There is a higher age limit to drive.
      Dynamic/changing speed limits.

    • nicolbw says:

      I currently live in Germany thanks to the Army. The autobahn is a good concept. All roads here are different than in the US. You have to be more alert and more defensive when you drive here in general which makes the Germans better drivers. The autobahn is just like any interstate road in the US except there are parts where you can drive as fast as you want. Here is the law. If you are in an accident and you were going over 120 kph (roughly 80 mph) you will be held responsible for the accident even if you weren’t at fault. So really it’s a choice. Most autobahns have 3 lanes. There is a slow lane on the right, a fast lane in the middle and a driving-so-fast-your-a-blur lane on the left. They are fairly strict about sticking to the right unless you are passing someone. So there are absolutely no slow drivers in the left lane. If everyone in the US drove like Germans, we could have autobahns too. But unfortunately there are too many idiots on the road.

  19. DeadWriter says:

    In high school, I remember a kid promising that beer would be dispensed from the water fountains if he was elected. He was. There was no beer. I never figured out what student government was about.

    This seems the same.

  20. ttw1 says:

    And it’s going to bring in a Billion dollars a year.

  21. Trae says:

    Speed limit in my area of Indiana on a freeway: 70 mph

    Speed my 1996 Ford Escort can go without overtaxing the engine and churning through gas: 70 mph

    Number of jackasses who feel the need to tailgate me in the RIGHT LANE while the left lane is totally open and I can be easily passed: More than you could possibly imagine.

    This is what will happen: Jackasses who pay to speed will make the road a pain in the ass for those who wouldn’t pay to speed. If he gets elected, I’m not going to Nevada ever.

    • Rayon Fog says:

      Nevada is the 7th-largest state in the country by size. Indiana is the 38th-largest.

      Indiana’s population is roughly three times larger than Nevada’s, and a vast majority of Nevada’s population is concentrated to two extreme corners of the state. The middle of the state is empty – the largest city in the entire eastern 2/3 of the state is Elko, with a population of about 45,000 people. In other words, there are a lot more people fighting for a lot less space in Indiana as opposed to Nevada. You can’t compare the two.

      I’ve driven across Nevada several times, most recently 3 weeks ago. Nevada highways are legendary for being barren and lonely.

      • Trae says:

        That wasn’t my point, and you know it.

        I will spell it out to you though: I’ve been to Nevada too, and there are parts that have traffic – and as long as the rules for some are different on the SAME ROADS as rules for others, there are going to be problems.

        That’s it.

    • FixdaFernback says:

      I can certainly attest to the annoying congestion of Indiana highways. The concept of a “speed lane”(often unspoken but assumed to be the left-most lane on a multi-lane highway) seems to be lost on many people in this state. Also, I feel like I’m one of the only people who doesn’t do “Extreme tailgating”…when there are multiple other lanes OPEN. God Indiana drivers piss me off(I drive as a job so it gets old REAL quick)

  22. acasto says:

    This is an asinine idea. Why would you want to take a highly dynamic situation and inject even more unpredictability into it?

  23. veronykah says:

    After already having done this plenty of times in NV, I guess I’d pay to be able to speed.
    You really can just speed on most of the interstates there though. They are straight for miles and go through nothing with very little traffic.
    I definitely took the opportunity to “see how fast my car can go” on 1-80 before.

  24. tbax929 says:

    I’ve paid to speed many time. In fact, that’s why I don’t speed anymore.

  25. Geekybiker says:

    sweet! I’m going to nevada!

  26. diehllane says:

    The only real concern I have is with insurance.
    What happens with them?
    How can they be held responsible if you’re driving much faster than you should?

  27. The Marionette says:

    If they do it based on someone’s driving record then yes I’m all for it, but there are some who shouldn’t be driving, let alone being able to pay so they can speed.

  28. aintgotone says:

    Only in Nevada…

  29. Moosehawk says:

    This politician is taking a real gamble with this campaign.

  30. jeduardocafe says:

    Ummm, doesn’t Germany have an autobahn with sections that offer unlimited speed? I don’t know much about this, but seems to work there pretty well. I think they still enforce the laws, its just that speed isn’t one of them.

    • EarthAngel says:

      They enforce the laws and send the speeding tickets in the mail.

      That would never fly here. There are too many privacy advocates.

  31. Bodger says:

    Nevada used to be one of the “reasonable and proper” states where one could drive at virtually any speed on rural highways. Back then they managed to allow drivers do speed for free. Why should it cost extra money now?

  32. sopmodm14 says:

    i’d rather they raise the limit of the roads, or lower the limit of all cars….in the interest of safety and not revenue

  33. Big Mama Pain says:

    Oh come on; calling this guy an actual candidate for governor is a bit of an overstatement. Why even bother to report or comment on a proposal of a crack pot candidate that has no shot of winning? You could devote days and days of pouring through weirdo candidates’ bizarre platforms.

  34. TimothyT says:

    Um, just go to your nearest race track, pay a fee then make laps. Done.

    • Extractor says:

      Fastest i’ve driven on Michigan International Speedway was 95. I’m doing 110 at times each way to work on the interstates and when Im clear of those idiots that like to drive in clusters I drop it down to about 80-85 and limit around curves and interchanges.

    • Shadowman615 says:

      Exactly. No need for any legislation; this is already available everywhere.

  35. H3ion says:

    I think it was Montana who had a speed limit of “any reasonable speed” on its multi-lane highways. This was interpreted to mean as fast as your car could be driven. I recall that it applied during daylight hours only.

    Nevada, I’ve driven it at a steady 100 and never had an issue. It’s largely dependent on the car you’re driving and what else is on the road. To drive that speed in traffic you’d have to be a jackass, but on an open and empty road it seems pretty reasonable.

  36. Bystander says:

    Here’s the truth. I have been driving for over 50 years (not straight through). I have no tickets and no chargeable accidents. (The one non- chargeable I was involved in was because I had allowed for stupidity-not total ignorance; I thought I should have known better).I have taken several defensive driving courses, one of which actually involved being in a car. I spent three seasons driving stock cars at the county fairground; and I took one of those Executive Evasive Driving courses. My car is one of the most capable sedans on the American road.

    That being said, I think this is borderline dumb.If the speed limit is 70MPH, no one on the road is expecting me to come along at 160MPH. And therein lies the problem.

    It’s not what I or my car is capable of dealing with, but what the other motorists are capable of dealing with.

    • EarthAngel says:


    • Extractor says:

      I’ll be tagging along since mine can go 170. The fastest Ive had it is, you guessed it, 138, before it was modified. I was approaching traffic and had to slow. Car is now over 10 years old. And at 80+mph I get 24 mpg. Camaro SS.

  37. B says:

    That’s totally stupid. And I would so take advantage of this. Of course, I’d rent a car instead of bringing my own. Maybe one of those places that rents high end sports cars.

  38. quijote says:

    Aside from the safety issues, there’s something wrong with allowing some people to break the law because they can afford to, while those who can’t afford to remain subject to it. It’s completely unjust.
    I remember reading about some Scandinavian country which adjusted traffic fines based on the offender’s income. That makes sense to me, because the law should mean the same thing to everyone.

  39. kmw2 says:

    Moscow allows people that can afford to buy one to use a blue police light allowing them to break traffic laws, speed, etc. How fun is it to be a pedestrian in Moscow?

    Laws. They’re for everyone.

    • OmnipotentMLE says:

      Dubai and Saudi Arabia also have awful accidents. It’s a mixture of arrogance that they believe they are good drivers, and a lack of concern for the safety of others.

  40. FrugalFreak says:

    Go Gov! A common sense guv. now let me sue you.

  41. MaytagRepairman says:

    My brother-in-law works for the state of Nevada doing accident investigations. More work for him.

  42. physics2010 says:

    Don’t we already pay to speed? We speed…sometimes they catch us…sometimes we pay. $25/day is a lot of ticket money. As far as the autobahn it’s quite simple. Left lane is fast lane. If you get rear-ended it is your fault (unless all other traffic has slowed or the other person was exceed ~85mph which would lead to partial blame being assigned.)

    So here we have a highway that is 27″ thick. Maximum grade is 4 degrees.
    Vehicle weight and type limits speeds for larger/less stable vehicles.
    130km/hr max speed without partial assignment of blame in a rear collision accident.
    You must use the right lane when available.
    Passing on the right is forbidden (except during traffic jams, and only with due care)
    Vehicle inspections are not the joke they are in the U.S. Obtaining a drivers license is not the joke it is in the U.S.
    No cops sniping speeders.
    All of this means during good weather that there is good visibility without any idiots dodging in and out of traffic. Slow cars keep right, and fast cars get out of the way for faster cars and there are no traffic blocking trucks lumbering along in the left lane as they pull hills.

  43. Bladerunner says:

    The main problem here, is that a lot of people here work off the assumption that our speed limits are based on ANYTHING. Where I live, the speed limits are easily 10-25 mph slower than they should be (Major metropolitan area, with a 6 lane divided main thoroughfare with a speed limit of 35). This makes the speed limits completely unrelated to safety. They are revenue generators only. And as someone who drives emergency vehicles, I can say that despite the fact that “no one” expects or hears me barreling towards them, I slow down when I need to and speed up when I can safely.

    Enough fault needs to be found with responsible parties to prevent them from being dumb. Which will not always, but can.

    i would be in favor of a system that allows a driver to ignore the posted signs, and drive at a reasonable speed, with the cop having the ability to pull over/ticket, just have the driver actually be able to win the ticket if they can go in and say “I’m one of the specially licensed, who has taken my once yearly class/test, and I know very well what I’m doing and what’s safe, and here’s why it was safe.” The police SHOULD have to justify their logic as to why your speed was unsafe.

    I got pulled over once, and explained exactly why I was speeding, which was to get away from a vehicle that kept adjusting its speed, weaving, etc. I didn’t want to slow down, because I didn’t trust that I wouldn’t catch back up to the guy. I wanted to get away. I was lucky enough to not get ticketed. But that’s only because I was LUCKY, even though I was RIGHT.

    It’s righ tup there with the speed cameras/red light cameras, which have statistically insignificant improvements in total accidents, while sometimes increasing fatalities (as people worry less about WHAT’S SAFE and more about what avoids a ticket).

  44. Extractor says:

    Yes. I can’t drive 55 (or 70).

  45. valen says:

    One problem: Amendment 14 to the United States Constitution

    “[…] No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. […]”

    Selling the right to break the law pretty clearly violates the principal of “equal protection of the laws” and due process.

    • Bladerunner says:

      They’ll get around that with the “Driving is a privelege, not a right” argument they usually make, I’m sure.

      • LastError says:

        Yep. Driving and access to use the roads isn’t a right. It’s a privilege granted only with a proper license for the driver and a license for the vehicle.

        The fact that it’s a privilege and NOT a right is the basis for most traffic laws and things like toll roads. Otherwise they would run into equal protection problems right away.

        That you can take a car off road on property you own or control and do whatever you want, more or less, without a license is an example of how the laws about public roads are all interconnected to the licensing of the privilege. Off public roads, there’s no privilege being granted and no license needed.

  46. drburk says:

    Let’s not forget this ‘right’ may void personal auto insurance policies and be considered reckless behavior on life insurance forms. Even if it doesn’t void your auto policy I’m sure your insurer will want to dip into your pocket for the right.

  47. ThatsWhatSheSaid says:

    hell yea!

  48. Serenefengshui says:

    Sign me up!

  49. humphrmi says:

    Some of the stretches of road this guy is talking about didn’t have speed limits before the U.S. Government imposed the 55 MPH nationally. Nevada was constantly at loggerheads with the US Government about it; at one point the US said “Impose the speed limit or we’ll take away your federal funds.” To which Nevada, a state that was then flush with gambling taxes, said “Go ahead, losers.” Eventually they imposed something like a 70 MPH “recommendation” with a warning if you sped.

    This guy is just looking to make money off something everyone already does anyway.

  50. FrankReality says:

    This is absolutely insane and no, there is no way I’d vote for the candidate.

    No, I would pay $25 either.

    I have a much better idea to raise Nevada state renevues – it’s called raise the penalties for speeding and other driving violations and enforce the friggin’ law.

    “The Nevada Highway Patrol does not approve of this message, warning it would cause more accidents and deaths.” Well, duh!

  51. LastError says:

    Making sure cars can handle speed is only part of the problem. The bigger problem which affects all speeds is that people are generally clueless about HOW to drive. And all of us share the road with those people.

    Many of them haven’t looked at a driving instruction book since the day they got their first license. Many of them haven’t clue one about proper driving techniques, unless “proper” includes holding a phone in one hand and a drink in the other while the deity of their choosing does the steering. Hopefully.

    Things like pulling out into traffic without looking, following too closely, shooting across three lanes when they miss their turn, and general stupid head-up-ass behavior are most of what’s wrong on the roads now, and a transponder won’t change any of that.

    Changing how we educate and license drivers might, maybe, but no politician is ever going to mandate tougher standards and recurring and effective testing instead of rubber stamp license renewals. It would be career-ending, as they say.

  52. al says:

    Id be fine with it if they had their own roads and they would broadcast web feeds of the roads so I can watch them crash.

  53. YouDidWhatNow? says:

    If actual driving skill were a requirement to get a license, then yeah…I’d be fine with this. Or, even, if you had to prove certain levels of driving skill to get a license to drive at certain speeds.

    As it is, every utterly incompetent idiot in this country can get/has a driving license. And very large numbers of them are unsafe at any speed.

  54. nacoran says:

    That might be the stupidest idea I’ve ever seen. Of course, we already essentially have that right. If you have a fat bank account and a lawyer who will talk the points down on tickets you can speed now without any real hit to your bank account. It’s when that fine represents a larger portion of your income that it’s hard to speed. There are countries that prorate the fines based on your income so it still hurts even if your rich. It’s a lot more fair and you’ll be less likely to get passed by sports cars with drivers who don’t care about cops.

  55. kaltkalt says:

    Of course the NHP doesn’t approve – it would mean less tickets they’d be able to give and thus less revenue for the cops. Plus, to have caught a speeder and not be able to ticket him, well that defeats the purpose of becoming a cop in the first place.

  56. pyehac says:

    I’d do it, since I’ll only do it on the freeway when there’s no other cars in front of me for the next few miles. Others, might speed by schools, across crosswalks, or during traffic.

  57. Ordana says:

    This will work if there are three things in play:
    1)Outside of city limits…long stretchs of highway only
    2)Well taken care of roads. Going that fast and then hitting a pot hole can be very very bad.
    3)It becomes void in bad conditions (weather, construction, traffic)

    This is why I think that toll roads should have a higher speed limit. Maybe not an autobahn experience, but 80 or 90 wouldn’t be so bad.

    • physics2010 says:

      Well-maintained, limited access roads would be the place to put this in practice. I’m not sure about how well-maintained the Nevada roads are, but the ones being spoken about in particular are certainly llmited access (not having a bunch of on ramps and off ramps).

  58. Wei says:

    Rather this, I think we should be allowed to take a driving course similar to police training, and that certification would allow you to drive at higher speeds (you could be differentiated by the transponder, like in this story).

    Two things on this:
    1 – The reason that is always given as to why police can drive at higher speeds is that they have the training

    2 – The autobahn exists, but the licensing process is more arduous than ours. Still people regularly drive in the triple digits safely, because they know how drive, rather than just knowing how to execute a 3-point and parallel parking.

  59. Jerkamie says:

    They should combo this with the right to run red lights while speeding.

  60. MrEvil says:

    Alot of folks are using the Autobahn in Germany as an example of how speed limits are crap. The one thing they neglect to mention however, is that the licence tests in Germany are much more rigorous and the Autobahn has MANY more regulations than US Interstates. Plus only a fourth of the network has no general speed limit and there’s always an advisory speed limit in place.

    Plus, there aren’t 50 different states doing 50 different things with their driving tests. Some US states are more strict than others and some are a bit lax (When I got my Texas DL parents could teach drivers ed and sign a waiver so I didn’t have to take the road test.)

  61. The_Fuzz_53 says:

    Yes please!!

  62. SlyPhox says:

    To quote the great Jeremy Clarkson,

    ““Speed has never killed anyone, suddenly becoming stationary… That’s what gets you.”

  63. Cicadymn says:

    This article is confusing.

    Right to speed for a 24-hour period? does that mean 24/7? Just 1 day? Can you only do it once or do you have to get inspected/fee’d again whenever you want to speed again?

    If it’s just a 1 day deal it sounds impractical. If it’s a 24/7 deal it sounds dangerous.

  64. CJ SIege says:

    25 bucks a day? Ouch. Seems like that just creates a group of “haves” and a group of “have-nots.”

    I think, on multi-lane highways, the speed limit should be “reasonable and prudent.” The new government cash cow can be enforcing tailgating and aggressive driving, but I see no reason why I (an admittedly average driver) can’t go 90 down the highway. Because big brother said so? =/

  65. jdmba says:

    151 comments means I am too late to this party … the $25 is a good deal but I doubt it comes with a guaranty that you will be traffic free enough to use it. Plus, from LA to Vegas is only about 50 miles worth of Nevada. Still, probably a good insurance policy.

  66. howie_in_az says:

    I’d be for it (sort of) if people had to prove their competence on a track, but even on a track there are stupid people. This will end up causing many more accidents.

    If you want to drive fast, go to your local race track. Chances are you can join up with a local group and have a track day — I know most BMW and Porsche clubs rent tracks for a day. It’s tons of fun.

  67. TheGreySpectre says:

    I liked when Montana freeways were speed limit free. They never felt unsafe, and you could still get a ticket for reckless driving.

  68. Thumbmaster says:

    As much as I enjoy spirited driving, the thought of some asshat blasting along a residential street at 80mph *legally* really chills my blood. But then, the police does that pretty frequently already.

  69. Froggmann says:

    Yes. Especially since on some highways it’s very common to speed.

    But personally, I think a better idea would be to build a state-run track. Akin to the Nuremberg Ring, that would be the best solution.

  70. Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

    In my younger days, I’d have been campaigning for this guy ;^) I used to drive between CA and UT all the time sometimes averaging speeds of nearly 100 MPH. Heck, the semis were all going 85 MPH so that’s not much faster. As long as you come out of hyperdrive five miles before and after cities like Reno, Wendover (Bendover), and any small one-cop towns you’ll most likely be fine. Now my buddy races at the salt flats going over 350 MPH and there’s little joy in driving fast compared to that.Almost every trip I’d see the remains of a roll-over with the family’s clothes, dolls, etc. spread through the center divide where the parent had fallen asleep at the wheel on vacation. When the road is divided and is a straight line from horizon to horizon, maybe they should bump the speed limit from 75 to 95 MPH.

  71. AnthonyC says:

    When my car can drive itself (an everyone else’s can, too) I’ll say we can dispense with speed limits. Until then, human reaction speed are the limiting factor on how fast we can safely drive. There’s no magic number for any given road, but the “screw it, just go” method doesn’t instill confidence in me, considering how little you have to know to get a driver’s license.

  72. Tankueray says:

    We have stretches of highway in TX and OK that are posted at 75 and 80mph, it’s okay… It’s weird that I’ve become complacent enough to use cruise control when driving 70mph but I think that turning it on while going 80 is insane.

    And it’s been so long ago, I can’t remember if this is an urban legend: When they did the Montanabahn thing didn’t they sell coupon books that people could give the cops if they got caught speeding? Or was that just what people were saying to get the highways back up to 70mph?

    The good thing about the track is that you have documented bragging rights. I have every 1/4 and 1/8 mile slip I’ve ever run… but even the track can be very dangerous, and expensive.

  73. Crashin2416 says:

    uhhhh no. I’d live in Montana, and drive way too fast, for no extra money!!!

  74. pot_roast says:

    Up to 90mph? The speed limit on many NV highways is already 70mph or higher anyway.

  75. banmojo says:

    Why are the highway patrol against the masses ‘speeding’? Because they are the first usually to arrive at accident scenes, and they are really good at figuring out from the tire marks how fast the vehicles were going, and hey, guess what? probably 6-8 times in 10 excessive speed is linked to fatal/high morbidity accidents.

    And it’s NOT ok if YOU speed just because you’re an excellent driver. I’m sure you are, and if you are alone on a racetrack I think you should be able to drive as fast as you can handle it. But out on the public roads, we HAVE to cater to the lowest common denominator – this is the safe, civically minded thing to do.

    Do I WANT to cater to the lowest common denom? No, no no no no no. Trust me, I’m also an excellent driver, and could easily handle my car at 100-120 mph on the open highway, and would LOVE to be able to drive to neighboring cities in half the time it currently takes, but I also drive with my ‘eyes open’, and every freakin’ day I see cars being driven by people who should NOT have a licence to drive.

    What should this politician do? Well, it’s in his title, ‘politician’. He/she should do what it takes to get voted into office. (pls note the sarcasm intended here)

    What should this PUBLIC SERVANT do, once elected? Enact laws that make it much harder to get licences – make the written test something that actually tests how people think problems through, not just how well they memorize a short list of facts. Make the driving test something that actually shows whether or not the people being tested should be out on public roads, or if they need more training first. Make the TRAINING not just more rigorous, but more FREQUENT. Got a speeding ticket? 10 hours driver’s ed. Period. no way to buy out. You WILL take 10 hrs of driver’s ed. Accident? Whether at fault or NOT, driver’s ed. (yes, perhaps you could have avoided the accident caused by some other driver if you had been prepared to EXPECT them to cut you off).

    We have spent all this time/money/effort/blood/sweat/tears/LIVES, F***ING LIVES FOR GOD’S SAKE on this farce of a war in the middle east when each year we lose 10s of 1000s of lives on our public roads in AVOIDABLE ACCIDENTS.

    Stop BS’ing me about terrorists – we are our most effective terrorists. We need to focus on OUR home for the next 15 years, and leave the world to its own resources.

    Stop BS’ing me about accidental gun deaths each year – these PALE in comparison to the road deaths, and hey, guess what? same rule applies to licences to BUY GUNS (yes, it should require licences to PURCHASE guns, not just to carry them, and I AM A NRA MEMBER THANK YOU MUCH) ie. both classroom education and practical in the field education on how to store, clean, use, etc firearms – accidents happen when people do stupid, often avoidable things.

    Hey, I’m just getting warmed up, but I’m not getting paid for this, so sayanara, my peeps.

  76. Southern says:

    In Texas, the speed limit along I-10 from Kerr County to El Paso County is 80 mph (daytime) 65 mph at night.

    I thought Arizonas was higher than that (as in “Drive Safely”), but I guess not.

    Would I pay to drive faster than 70-75? Probably not. That’s generally fast enough for me. Anything faster and you’re already pushing it as far as stopping distance, or loosing control with a blowout, etc..

  77. thebaron says:

    Awesome Idea!

  78. Bojangles says:

    High speeds are only dangerous as far as there are slow vehicles on the road blocking you. If everybody is doing about the same speed, there is a smaller chance of an accident. That is why we have minimum speed limits on the freeways. Germany is doing just fine without speed limits on the Autobahn and there are no more fatalities per mile driven than here, but their drivers are also better educated, than here in Ohio, where at 18 years of age one needs to pass a written test and then a quick driving and has a license, at 16 one has at least to go thru school. In Germany whether you are 18 or 88 you have to go to the same school to get a drivers license.

  79. LucasM says:

    Not everything should be for sale… especially people’s safety. If the speed limit is slower than it needs to be for that part of the road then raise it, but the basis for any speed shouldn’t be the dollar.

    I’m also against people being able to pay to drive in the car pool lanes. This is a privilege that should be earn thru an environmentally responsible act… not because you know how to squeeze more money out of the system.