Markets in Everything: $25 to Speed for 24 Hours
CARSON CITY, Nev. — "One Nevada gubernatorial hopeful sees a speedy fix to Nevada's budget crisis. Nonpartisan candidate Eugene "Gino" DiSimone believes people would pay for the privilege to drive up to 90 mph on designated highways — and fill the state's depleted coffers.
After setting up an account, anyone in a hurry could dial in, and for $25 charged to a credit card, be free to speed for 24 hours. The Nevada Highway Patrol isn't keen on the idea, saying it would lead to increased injuries and traffic deaths."
20 Comments:
i love the idea, but i wonder how the police are supposed to know if you have paid and not pull you over.
also:
if this can be done by cell phone, can you call and buy it right when you see the flashing lights?
that might produce serious revenue issues.
If you are a first time speeder in Nevada you may pay up to a $1000.00 fine! Gino is suggesting $25 to speed up to 90 mph. Any one think that the state will adopt Gino's idea? One is better off racing around Las Vegas Motor Speedway in a Ferrai, with driving lessons, then speeding in Nevada.
To the attention of people interested: Use your money in a smart way. Book an holyday here in Portugal, rent a good German car, and drive at the speed of your liking in one of the high-ways (of which there is one the best webs in the world). You risk a fine, but that's not too unreasonable a risk. You could do the same in Germany with no fines, but the weather isn't enticing and the high-ways are crowded. Be careful, though. With your absurd enforcement of speed limitations there is a strong probability that you don't have a clue how to drive real fast and are a dangerous driver.
There has NEVER been evidence that "speeding" increases driver deaths. The failure of 55 proved that.
Let them drive however fast they can handle.
Monkeesfan,
I think you mean there's no evidence that speeding causes more accidents.
If you are going faster and have an accident, physics pretty much proves your chances of death are greater than going slower. You could always have your worst enemy or girlfriend's husband try this out for proof by driving into a concrete barrier at 10-miles-per-hour and then at 120-miles-per-hour. I suggest that order. And a hefty life insurance policy on the husband, too.
If they're that desperate for revenue, it's probably easier for them to legalize marijuana and tax it.
Seems like we're in a losing battle with drugs these days. Seems just like the failure of prohibition earlier in our country's history.
Walt G.,
It may be difficult to believe, but as the speed limit decreases the accident rate and death rate due to accident increase greatly. The proposal of the representative is creative and has statistical basis. The thinking is counter-intuitive but it is similar to concealed weapons permits: more guns/less crime.
This is also very similar to parking meter. If you pay $0.25, you get cheap parking, let that run out and you get a 200X fee for parking.
Aaron said:
"It may be difficult to believe, but as the speed limit decreases the accident rate and death rate due to accident increase greatly."
I'd love to see your statistical support for that claim. got any references?
morganovich said:
"i love the idea, but i wonder how the police are supposed to know if you have paid and not pull you over."
Perhaps through the use of a transponder in your car similar to those used to track your usage of toll roads. The officer could query your status with an expensive new attachment to his radar gun.
Although you might be able to recharge your I-Want-To-Speed (r) account by phone using a credit card, I doubt you could do it fast enough to prevent the flashing lights.
Perhaps an upgrade to your radar detector could automatically recharge your account through OnStar when that Eye of Sauron sweeps across your vehicle.
I think it's an interesting solution for budget problems, but it also begs the question: if its safe for some people to speed for a fee, why isn't the speed limit in general that high? I expect it'll be hard for a politician to generate a consistent answer to that question.
A worthy trend, of putting market prices to practices that have externality costs on others (in this case, driving too fast) but the application may prove challenging.
How about an annual fee that determines just how fast you are allowed to drive?
The fee would reflect the cost to society of the more dangerous behavior tied to speeding, plus a "profit" for the State. Of course, insurance companies would want in on the action and boost the cost of insurance for riskier behavior.
Speed would be set using an electronic algorithm built into each vehicle. The algorithm would be programmed and monitored through 3G or WiFi.
Transportation can make incredible gains using technology, including per-mile insurance billing. I've often thought about how unfair it is that a person that drives 45,000 miles per year can pay the same for insurance as someone who drives 10,000 miles. Surely with 4.5x the amount of driving, there's an increased risk to the insurance company.
"A worthy trend, of putting market prices to practices that have externality costs on others (in this case, driving too fast) but the application may prove challenging."
There's already a price in place to account for the externality cost of driving too fast. It's called a speeding ticket.
aaron,
I agree the accident incidence rate may go down when the speed limit goes up. There are statistics that show the difference in speed between vehicles is a bigger problem than the speed.
I don't agree that when an accident does occur, you chances of death are less at a higher speed. Try my experiment, and get back with me if you can.
One thing that has always puzzled me is why the authorities don't force the manufacturers to install in the motorcars electronic speed limiters. The technology exists, it is inexpensive and it has been tested (some years ago German top cars had their top speed limited electronically to 250km/h; certain trucks can't go over 90km/h; etc.). From my point of view this would be a disaster: manufacturers would stop producing faster and actively safer cars and would choose instead other alleys to compete, for instance size, comfort, passive safety, etc. But then again I am against speed limits. But that's the electronic speed limit I would stand for if, like almost everyone, I believed in legal speed limits on high-ways as beneficial.
One thing that has always puzzled me is why the authorities don't force the manufacturers to install in the motorcars electronic speed limiters. The technology exists, it is inexpensive and it has been tested (some years ago German top cars had their top speed limited electronically to 250km/h; certain trucks can't go over 90km/h; etc.). From my point of view this would be a disaster: manufacturers would stop producing faster and actively safer cars and would choose instead other alleys to compete, for instance size, comfort, passive safety, etc. But then again I am against speed limits. But that's the electronic speed limit I would stand for if, like almost everyone, I believed in legal speed limits on high-ways as beneficial.
"One thing that has always puzzled me is why the authorities don't force the manufacturers to install in the motorcars electronic speed limiters."
Please don't ask for MORE government interference in the auto market. There's more than enough already.
You should be aware that most newer cars in the US have such limiters, but are set much higher than any legal speed limits. They likely do more to protect the car from damaging itself than to protect drivers.
What speed would you recommend cars be limited to? Any speed you choose could still be a problem if conditions called for a much lower speed.
I wonder how many accidents are prevented by your example of a 250km/hr limit? My guess would be, not many. I doubt that such extreme speed is a factor in a significant number of accidents.
Ron H., if you read again my previous comment carefully and allow some tolerance for my inability to express my opinion in a language other than mine, you'll find out that I'm against speed limits on the high-ways, as explicitly said. However, people support speed limits overwhelmingly, and for being coherent they should also support electronically limited speed. That's what I meant.
to answer some questions:
1. less fatalities after the 55mph was raised to 75mph is true according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Association. The data shows fatalities are not related to speed limits.
2. How do the police know who has paid and who has not? Because the paying customers 1)register for an account online 2)get safety inspection 3)receive transponder. When they purchase the priviledge to speed, the transponder gets activated for 24hrs. When interrogated with a radar it responds to inform the patrolman this person is legal.
GinoForGovernor said...
"to answer some questions:"
Gee, gino, it sounds like to your way of thinking the only reason to have traffic laws is to provide a revenue stream for the State.
After you're elected perhaps you could expand this program to include other 'get out of jail free' permits as well. What do you suggest would be a good price for a pass on drunk driving? I'd like to park at red curbs, by hydrants, and in handicap parking spaces. How much for that permit? Maybe other privileges could be sold as well. How much for a CCW carry permit?
Hopefully the good people of Nevada will realize what a nut you are, and elect someone else.
Post a Comment
<< Home