Continuing my seemingly aoristic screed about big government, today’s post is about the scam known as “Safety Corridors.”
Well, perhaps “scam” is harsh, but these sections of highway are no doubt secretly viewed as a source of revenue for the states that utilize them.
I first discovered these mysterious Safety Corridors when driving through southern New Mexico during the last Tea Party Express Tour. Soon after entering New Mexico, we crossed into a Safety Corridor that carried double penalties for speeding fines.
As luck would have it, I was picked off for speeding in the first Safety Corridor I encountered.
I openly acknowledged I was speeding. I was clocked at 89 in a 75 zone. The officer and I had a political conversation and in the end he reduced it to 85 and didn’t double the fine.
I had questions, though, that he couldn’t seem to answer. Mainly, how relevant is speeding and higher fines to the safety of the section of the highway?
After some digging, I was able to find this is much more a federal government issue rather than state. In fact, the information I found was available through the “National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.”
The goal of New Mexico’s Safety Corridors program is to identify areas of high crash risk and take steps to correct the problem in order to reduce the number of crashes and fatalities on New Mexico’s highways and rural roads. The program’s objective is to develop a formula for effectively addressing crash problem areas by using a data-driven and collaborative planning and implementation process.
This sounds all well and good. Based on the steps taken to “correct the problem,” we would assume that speeding and low fines are the primary cause of the higher crash rate, correct?
Wrong.
Created Safety Corridors in areas based on high collision and fatality rates, whether due to terrain, weather, high volumes or truck traffic, or unlawful driving behaviors such as DWI (Driving While Intoxicated), speeding, aggressive driving, or failure to yield to pedestrians.
Yet the solution is to not reduce the speed limit at all and double the fines?
I’ll admit, I can see how having clearly posted signs signifying “safety corridors” could reduce the potential for accidents. The assertion, however, is that by pulling twice as much money out of drivers for speeding you’re making the roads safer.
100 percent decrease in fatal collisions
This is a great statistic, but they fail to provide any hard numbers on how many fatal accidents actually occurred in that small stretch of road. Was it two, three, ten… or maybe just one?
Granted, any number is too high.
I guess at the end of the day, this fits on the same shelf as construction zones that sit for months with little to no activity. The double penalties are an extraordinary convenience for government.
I’ll leave you with this highly relevant video to explain what I mean.
Eric, I stumbled across you and thought perhaps you might be a key guy with which to share this idea. I hope you consider it strongly and share it with others who may be able to “take this ball and run with it” more than I can.
We who are concerned about liberty within the United States, are obviously alarmed by the near-total disregard for the U.S. Constitution as displayed by those within Washington, D.C. However, are we overlooking a Constitutional solution to this problem as we spend too much time focusing on elections?
The BIGGEST problem in the nation is the lack of true representation in Congress, coupled by the behemoth size of the Federal government. We can all trace this development back to 1913 with the “passing” of the 16th and 17th Amendments to the U.S Constitution, which authorize the IRS and direct election of senators, respectively.
Point 1: As I understand it, the U.S. Constitution allows for States to call for a Constitutional Convention, and to alter the Supreme Law of the Land by bypassing the Congress altogether. This is under Article 5:
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments…”
However, I also understand that this provision has never been used by the states to date.
Point 2: Gov. Rick Perry has recently become the chairman of the Republican Governor’s Association, which numbers about 39 strong after the Nov. 2 election, if I remember correctly. (And most of the state legislatures have widely swung Republican this past election also.)
Gov. Perry has also appeared on Freedomwatch and other media programs to promote his new book, Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington. As I understand the book from the FW interview (not having read it yet myself) he advocates a return to Constitutional limitations on Federal power, and a return to the states of their rights under the 10th Amendment. I also understand he does NOT like the 16th and 17th Amendments, and would like to see them repealed.
KEY Question: Since we are now entering a non-election year in 2011, and the Tea Party groups have momentum, cash, and staff, why should they not redirect their efforts NOW to pushing the state legislatures to call for the FIRST ever state-initiated Constitutional Convention to REPEAL these two amendments?
Furthermore, the Tea Party groups could insist that Gov. Rick Perry “put major action to his rhetoric” through his role as leader of the RGA, by lobbying him to provoke the other Republican governors to lobby their respective state legislatures to call for a convention.
Concluding Point 1: If the 16th Amendment is repealed, the states get their money back and can fix their budgets, while taking care of their citizens. If the 17th Amendment is repealed, the states (and people) get their rights back in order to make those changes. The states then would appoint their own senators for the Senate, which in the light of the Republican majorities within most states, would CHANGE the Senate significantly. This would also eliminate many of the long-term “career” politicians within the upper chamber, while making its members responsive to the desires of the state legislatures instead of their own agendas.
Concluding Point 2: Only 33 state legislatures are needed to call for such a convention (though 38 would have to ratify Constitutional changes). Gov. Perry’s RGA has 39 governors represented therein. If only 33 out of 39 pass resolutions to form a Constitutional Convention, it would happen.
Concluding Point 3: The Liberty Movement could make history by bypassing election issues in 2011 (except to provoke state legislators to vote for a convention) and turning its attention rather towards changing the Constitution by BYPASSING Washington, D.C. completely. In fact, the convention could meet in another location, as there is no requirement for it to be in the capital (the original convention was in Philadelphia)
Concluding Point 4: This would forever change the direction of the country by limiting the Federal government once again to its Constitutional parameters. What an AMAZING change that would make, and all this BEFORE the 2012 election that everybody is working towards. Why wait for reach “change” to happen then?
It seems to me that this is an obvious alternative to endless complaining about do-nothing congresses and abuses of Federal power; and it is a way in an off-election year (2011) to ensure that constitutional guidelines are followed once again, and true state representation in the congress is once again re-established.
Thoughts?
-Rich Vermillion