[Overpaid Slacker]

KTL --
I think R&T did a great job, years ago, of putting the lie to the notion that speed limits are set (at least on interstates and major highways) based upon some inherent maximum speed. Although every road has theoretical/practical limits at which given vehicle X can "safely" travel, assuming certain conditions, visibility, weather, etc., the legal speed limit is and has been a political contrivance, as 724doorE points out. Granted, certain stretches of road (like the hairpin turn on 95 going through Providence) require lower speeds -- but what of a stretch of road that is exactly the same from one mile to the next (no construction, no additional traffic) where the speed limit goes from 65 to 50 simply because you cross some political (municipal, county, etc.) boundary? Have the laws of physics been changed or repealed in the new jurisdiction, requiring lower velocities?
I agree that there are *****bags out there that imperil others with what I will loosely call, and I use the term strictly without prejudice, their "driving," and they ought to be punished -- and punching them in the ear is totally fine with me. I agree with TimT and many others here that people ought to slow down in construction zones -- as well as when other circumstances/hazards dictate.
My issue, however, is that if the expressed goal is to get people to slow down in construction zones, there are other effective means to do so, without the cagey revenue-enhancement scams that belie a desire for more safety. If the cop is going to be out there all day anyway, have him conspicuously displayed in the cop-lookingest outfit possible, with flashing lights glinting off his shiny badge and a huge radar gun -- that'll get people to slow down.

OK, I'm setting up a straw man here, but bear with me --

Me: Do you want slower, "safer" passage through work zones or do you want revenues?
Them: Both (which is giving "them" a lot of credit for honesty, b/c we know they want revenues... really)
Me: Well, you won't have revenues if people transit work zones slowly and safely b/c there will be nobody to fine.
Them: Well then we'll settle for revenues, and wrap ourselves in the mantle of safety.
-tongue now removed from cheek

Richard used the "Union Zones" joke before I could spring it on TimT, whom I'm sure has heard it before, but he's completely right -- enlarging the region for enhanced revenues is the goal, not safety. Why do you need miles of cones for a stretch of construction that runs a couple hundred yards (or less)? Most road construction moves along at the speed of mammal evolution, so if safety is primary, you can much more compactly define the construction zone on a day-to-day basis, as needed.

I'm stretching an analogy here, but this was the point of the article I linked to yesterday -- cops/pols say that "we're just trying to make the roads safer" but safety is a distant second (at *best*) to the money -- even to the point of fraud and deceit.

Whew. Better check my voicemails and stuff.

-JP