Proposed markets in everything

by on September 10, 2010 at 2:23 pm in Economics, Law | Permalink

In what Mr. DiSimone called his Free Limit Plan, he would give Nevadans and nonresidents the option to drive up to 90 miles an hour on state roads. The privilege would cost $25 a day and would conservatively generate more than $1 billion a year in new state revenue, he said.

DiSimone is an independent gubernatorial candidate, which I suppose means he is unlikely to win.  The article is here and here and I thank John Thorne and Ted Craig for the pointers.

Andrew September 10, 2010 at 2:26 pm

The upside of danger (and recessions).

Dan Weber September 10, 2010 at 2:45 pm

Would a cop need to establish that someone is not one of these drivers before pulling them over if they drive 85mph?

This plan isn’t as dumb as it first sounded to me — but one big problem is that everyone must share the road. If traffic is going at 70mph, someone “legally” zooming through at 90mph is still a hazard.

Joe September 10, 2010 at 2:49 pm

Yes, because loony fringe candidates are synonymous with “Government.”

mrwiizrd September 10, 2010 at 3:05 pm

“I learned to drive in Germany where there is no speed limit.”

how do their accident rates compare to ours?

Dean September 10, 2010 at 3:20 pm

Sort of sounds like an equal protection issue, pay money to break the law. Additionally I was a fan of Montana’s former speed limit of reasonable an prudent under the circumstances.

Andrew September 10, 2010 at 3:33 pm

The speed limit is. Whether or not it is for your safety is a hypothesis.

We now know that traffic light cameras really aren’t for our safety but for revenue.

So, it’s quite possible that we already have the velocity-based revenue collection system the looney candidate suggests, it’s just that he would reduce the number of collection agents.

Michael Foody September 10, 2010 at 4:05 pm

The police would need some way to easily and remotely determine whether someone is allowed to speed on a given day. If you are always getting stopped it probably is not worth the money. If the police just assume that people who are speeding significantly are license holders then people will not purchase the license. I’d be curious what the equilibrium would end up being.

adam September 10, 2010 at 5:19 pm

Because Germany is still asleep:
There is no general speed limit on the Autobahn (comparable to the US Interstate). There is a recommended speed of 130 km/h, and there are stretches with 80/100/120/130 km/h limits, but there is no speed limit by default, i.e. when not indicated. On non-Autobahn roads, speed limits are always present.

dearieme September 10, 2010 at 6:03 pm

What sort of looney chooses 90mph rather than 100mph?

Floccina September 10, 2010 at 8:41 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#Road_traffic_safety

In 2007 German Auto Club (a major motoring organisation) concluded an autobahn speed limit was unnecessary because numerous countries with a general highway speed limit had worse safety records than Germany, for example Belgium, Austria, Slovenia, Czech Republic, and the United States.[52]

bovis September 11, 2010 at 12:16 am

A demerit for my conduct… After paying attention to the *entire* article, I have this to add.

I think my argument still holds water, that paying $25 every day would not be a positive opportunity, against a $250 fine. Getting hit with a $500 second ticket would be rough, though, even if it is only twenty days worth of tokens. Obviously he does not intend for drivers to pay for this every day. Perhaps he is bad at math.

This is extortion at its best. More police will likely be out with their radar guns, under the guise of the creation of new trooper jobs. Sadly, the higher ticket prices are aimed at nothing beyond state revenue. And they will get what they want, by tickets or by tokens. His quote – that “the data doesn’t bear.. out” the fact that increased speed will cause more vehicular deaths – only strengthens this point.

My comment about the sticker being a way to identify cars was also preemptive. The article mentions the transponder.

incredulous September 13, 2010 at 12:29 pm

What about other negative externalities created by this scheme?
Or how’s this: how happy will you be with it when someone else’s 90mph mistake takes the life of one of your loved ones? Or if not their life, then perhaps their face or merely one of their limbs? And how about those rising insurance rates, extra hospital costs, extra drain on public services to clean up the messes caused by this? So much for your windfall.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: