e very massive.However, there are those who refute the arguments of the anti-speed advocates, these individuals believe that high speeds do not kill. Advocates of higher speed limits claim that research on speed variations indicates that faster speeds are not hazardous. They believe the more important speed –related safety issue involves the proportion of vehicles traveling at very high speeds, not the portion violating the speed limit. In Maryland, which retained 55-mph limits on rural interstates until 1995, the proportion traveling faster than 70 mph remained virtually unchanged at 7 percent during 1988-93. This statistic shows that drivers will proceed at a speed that they deem safe, not what the state does.Advocates of abolishing speed limits cite other countries that successfully do not enforce speed limits. Many of these countries have lower fatality rates on their roadways than the United States. An example of this is the Germany’s autobahn, a large highway with no speed limits. Many countries instead focus on greater driver training, which leads to safer roads. In these countries citizen have a graduated license program, and only the most skilled and cautious drivers receive license. This is asserted as an option for the future of American roads.Some individuals who oppose low speed limits suggest alternative means of regulation. One such alternate mean is the regulation of momentum, which is the product of mass and velocity. “Momentum is a much more logical thing to regulate than speed. Momentum sums up the destructive potential of a moving vehicle,” says Dave Coleman. Momentum could be measured in pounds per mile per hour. In theory, this would limit larger, more destructive vehicles in their capacity to travel at high speeds, thus making the roads safe. Research from the mid-1950s and similar studies show an increase in crash likelihood among drivers traveling slower than the average s...
