Note that the above does not represent my views, but it fits the evidence as well as Tabarrok's take.
Note that the above does not represent my views, but it fits the evidence as well as Tabarrok's take.
Yes, but it isn't ethical or good for society to do so by making a law just so that people will break it and get fined. Tying police pay to enforcement actions at any level will result in overzealous enforcement instead of the objectivity we should want from our police.
You're also implying that raising the speed limit in the case being discussed would lead to a higher rate of crashes or injuries but you haven't provided any evidence for that claim. The author did provide evidence showing the opposite.
As for the other point you make, in my state (Michigan), the courts ruled that jurisdictions need to provide a good case for having the speed limit lower than the standard. As soon as that ruling went into effect, most all the streets in town raised their limit to 45mph.
When discussing traffic, why is this even brought up? It's like the point of the law goes from protecting you to finding ways to screw you. I'm not saying abolish speed limits, I'm asking why the police even have a say against traffic engineers on a matter like this. Their inability to turn revenue should be their problem to solve...not everyone else's.
Neither of these constitute even a slight approach to a justification for lowering the speed limit to give people more tickets. If someone wants to spend their money on gasoline, that's their prerogative.
Nowadays, when the supply of gas goes down a bit the price goes up and people carpool a bit more, don't drive to far away stores when there's a nearby store that's almost as good, and drive a bit more slowley. And it does really bring supply and demand into equilibrium - we didn't see huge lines outside our gas stations when Libya had its civil war.
Demand for gas is indeed fairly inelastic, but that just means that the price swings much farther due to a change in supply than, say, the price of a diamond ring does. It would have to be perfectly inelastic for no adjustment to occur.
The only question of merit here is whether or not keeping the speed limit artificially low is, in fact, dangerous or inefficient. The author contends to have presented evidence that this it is, so the reasonable response is a discussion of the engineering factors or the reliability of his sources.
But honestly, a binary choice is just no way to express political opinion: Why should my views on abortion correlated with my views on free trade?
At least getting a multi-party system would be worth a try.
Scanning your comment history, it looks like you're German?
I think you may have a rather badly skewed (or outdated) view of American politics. Unless you're considered quite far right by European standards, the current US Republican party's views are probably far removed from your own. Your comment about "internalizing the externalities" by raising gas taxes alone would get you skinned alive at Republican gatherings in most states. And if you view Democrats as "left", all I can say is they often make your center-right parties look like socialists.
eru's statement was "If I was living in the US, I'd probably vote mostly Republican". In the context of the discussion, I interpret that, quite reasonably I think, as broad agreement with what he perceived to be Republican policies.
My response was intended simply to point out to him that it is highly unlikely he truly has such broad agreement with Republicans, particularly in the context of other statements, and in the (hidden) context of other Europeans I've encountered who thought they would be Republicans in the US, and were quite surprised when they learned the modern state of the Republican party, which is far outside mainstream European politics.