If one would drive across the country from New York City to the Los Angeles, one would notice great variance in the maximum speed limits. The first change would come in the area deemed far enough away from the heavy city traffic. The maximum speed limits are greater there since there is less traffic. After traveling at a fifty-five mile per hour snail pace in the city, one could increase the speed to sixty-five. Cruising along, the speeds may increase or decrease depending on the roads. But, they would soon resume to their previous maximum speed limit of sixty-five. However, when one came into the state of Missouri, he/she would notice an increase in the speed limit, allowing him/her to travel as fast as seventy miles per hour. This maximum speed limit would even increase farther when out of the state of Missouri. The maximum speed limit would go up to seventy-five in Oklahoma. This process of changing the speed limits from state to state would continue for the rest of the trip, with some states maximum speed limits faster than sixty five, and a few states slower than the limit of sixty five.

The situation described in the previous paragraph is not an uncommon one, but one that has come about recently. States do have different maximum speed limits. Taking this trip just three years ago, one would have had a set maximum speed limit of sixty-five regardless of what state in which he/she was traveling. However, now states have the liberty to set their own maximum speed limits. This is a result of the repeal passed in November 1995 to the National Maximum Speed Limit passed in 1973.

Before 1973, the states had complete freedom in setting their own speed limits. Each state varied on what the maximum speed limit was, but it was not the Federal Government’s issue. However, a crisis in 1973 changed that. The incident created the necessity for the Federal Government to assume a great responsibility concerning this issue. In that year, the United States and other nations become involved in what became a serious conflict with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Because of "the 130 percent price increases and an ensuing oil embargo, lawmakers enacted a federal speed limit of fifty-five miles per hour" (Skowronek http://www.trincoll.edu). In order to avoid infringing on the states’ rights, the federal law was not entirely mandatory. "It was enforced through the power of the purse - federal highway funds were withheld from states refusing to post the new limit" (Palmaffy 11). This was seemingly an interesting way for the Federal Government to push their agenda power over the states’ power in a not-so-mandatory way.

After the crisis was over, it would be naturally assumed that the speeds would increase back to their original limits. However, that didn’t prove to be the case. A couple of factors entered in. The first factor that affected the freeze in the limit was the energy conservation move. One of the main reasons that the fifty-five speed limit was deemed necessary was that it would save gas. During the era of the slower speed limit, it was proven to everyone, not just scientists in laboratories, that driving slower speeds saves fuel. This fact, along with the smaller, more efficient automobiles, helped influence people’s opinions to be more likely in favor of the slower speed limit than before. The second big factor that swayed the public was the proof that the slower speeds saved lives. "Countless studies, surveys, and statistics have conclusively illustrated that the federal limit has reduced the number of accidents and deaths along American roads" (Skowronek http://www.trincoll.edu). Combining these two facts greatly reduced the movement for a higher maximum speed limit.

The late eighties saw the increase in availability of faster cars and faster ways of doing things, such as cooking with microwave ovens. Naturally, people wanted to be able to get places quicker. Thus, their was a move from the people to have the low speed limit of fifty-five raised to a higher speed. This legislation was passed by the House and Senate and signed into law by President Ronald Reagen in 1987.

It remained this way throughout the United States until 1995. With the new Republican majority and their "Contract with America," there was a new movement to take the Federal government’s power away and put more of it in the hands of the states. This time the conflict of state versus federal power was won by the states. The legislation, which "provided that the jurisdiction over setting legal limits be handed over to individual states" (Skowronek http://www.trincoll.edu) passed by huge margins in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In the House, the vote tallied four hundred nineteen in favor of the legislation to seven against the legislation (Palmaffy 11). The Senate passed it by a sixty-five to thirty-five vote on June 20, 1995. On November 28, 1995, President Bill Clinton signed the bill, thus handing the power to set the speed limits over to the hands of the states (Palmaffy 11).

After a long fight, the law was now in the hands of the states.

"It’s been a long, frustrating battle," says National

Motorists Association (NMA) President Jim Baxter, "but

we all believed change was inevitable. It was just a

matter of how long we would have to suffer through

this law." (Black 26)

It was now for the state legislatures to determine whether they wanted to raise the limit, lower it, or leave it as it is. Each of these options was followed by at least four states.

In many of these states, the vote to raise the limit resulted in land-side voting. For example, in Missouri, the limit was raised to seventy miles per hour by votes of one hundred twenty-two to thirty-four and twenty-eight to two in the House and Senate respectively (Palmaffy 11). Idaho also chose to raise their maximum speed limit to seventy miles per hour by votes of fifty-six to twelve and twenty-eight to seven (Palmaffy 11). In fact, the majority of the states seem to be following the same patter. "Highway speed limits have gone up in twenty seven states since the bill was passed (http://cartalk.com/Mail/Letters/09-13/3.html). In fact, some of the states are not just looking to increase the speed limit, but substantially increase it. "In twelve of the twenty-seven states, highway speed limits were raised to seventy-five miles per hour; eleven states raised them to seventy miles per hour; and three states raised limits to sixty-five miles per hour" (http://cartalk.com/Mail/Letters/09-13/3.html).

As is the case in most of politics, there appears to be a geographical trend to this issue.

Most states will stick with fifty-five miles per hour

in urban areas, and most states east of the Mississippi

are expected to keep the posted speed on rural highways

at sixty-five. But out West, where the skies are big

and travel time is measured in days, drivers will be

treated to a sight they haven’t seen for two decades:

signs proclaiming speed limits of seventy or seventy

-five miles per hour. (Kaye 71)

This prediction appears to hold true with the results so far. In large states with large amounts of area, which are also small in population, the speed limits tend to rise. These states are found mostly in the West. In the smaller and more densely populated states, most often found in the East, that is not the case. In Montana, for example, the speed limit for cars during the day has been proclaimed to be what is "reasonable and prudent" (http://sunsite.unc.edu/rdu/sl-attud/list.html). In other words, there is no speed limit during the day.

As was already alluded to, the issue of who should have the power to set the speed limits is between either the Federal Government or the individual states’ governments. This is a much more complicated issue than would be seen at face value. It is fairly easy to see that the power is in the hands of the states currently. However, this dramatic change is comes after a twenty year period dominated by the Federal Government where the speed limit was set by the government. The basic premise of this issue is that the roads are in the states, however, the inter-state highways expand to other states and are paid for with grants by the Federal Government. This is where the dilemma lies.

One argument is for the power to be in the hands of the Federal Government. It can be said that the national government grants the money to the states for the specific purpose of creating the inter-states; thus, they pay for the roads. The roads expand all across the country, so it seems reasonable that there would be a standard speed limit across the nation. European countries, though vastly smaller, have set maximum speed limits, if they have any at all, within their borders.

However, the contrary argument is that the inter-states are "intra-state" roads first. The roads lie within the individual states. It is truly the states that are responsible for getting the roads completed. The individual states are going to know their constituents and roads better than the national government and therefore could determine more accurately at what speed the roads should be traveled.

This is yet another of the state versus federal issues. Unlike other nations, the United States has a strong power basis in the hands of individual states. This originated even before the states were created, while the nation was still disjointed colonies. The way the colonies were created, by various religious sects for different purposes, caused a separation that had to be taken into account when the colonies were drawn together into the United States. Thus, more power than most other nations was given into the hands of the states.

For the particular issue of speed limits, one can look at the history of how the states have changed their own particular laws to try to determine whether the national government’s desires have always superseded the desires of the state governments’, whether the states’ desires have always superseded the desires of the national government, or whether it truly has been a mixed process.

Looking at the history of the changes, which was briefly discussed before, of individual states will help us search to find the reasons of the answer. Many states lowered their speed limits to comply with the National Maximum Speed Limit (NMSL) bill of 1973, but then increased them to the previous limit right after the passing of the 1995 bill. Alabama had a Pre-National Maximum Speed Limit speed limit on rural inter-states of seventy, lowered it to meet the 1973 standards, then raised it again to seventy after the 1995 bill. The same applied to Arizona, who saw their limit return to seventy-five after the new law. In fact, these states are not at all alone. As of the latest data, nineteen states have returned to their original speeds before the NMSL law (http://sunsite.unc.edu/rdu/sl-attud/list.html).

Many of the states have decided to stay at the national limit of sixty-five, at least for now. Some of these states include Alaska, Kentucky, and Minnesota. They are not alone in their practice. Of the fifty states, twenty-three of them have kept their speed limit at sixty-five (http://sunsite.unc.edu/rdu/sl-attud/list.html). That is forty-six percent of the states.

Some states even stayed at a lower speed of sixty, having never adopted the faster speed of sixty-five. There are four of these states that never increased their speed limits to sixty-five when the national government did in 1987. These include Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Delaware (http://sunsite.unc.edu). Once again, geography comes into play. For the most part, it is the eastern, more densely populated states that keep their maximum speed limits a little lower than the rest of the country. Even though the states have been given the power to regulate speed, twenty-seven of them, more than half have decided to leave things as they were before the law was passed.

A few states have gone to the extremes. Four states chose to raise their pre-NMSL speed limit after given control to do so in 1995. These states are western, large, and not densely populated. They include Idaho and Montana, which as previously stated has no speed limit during the day.

With the newly acquired power to regulate speed, four states have lowered their speed limits. However, one of these states is Las Vegas, which before 1973 had no speed limit. In 1996, they lowered it to seventy-five (http://sunsite.unc.edu/rdu/sl-attud/list.html). The other states have truly gone to the extremes. These include Arkansas and Iowa. Both of these states had speed limits of sixty-five before 1973, but have retracted to a speed limit of sixty since given control to do so.

We have a classic bell curve here, with the majority of the states in the middle. Many are just right of the median, staying at sixty-five; many are just left of the median, returning to the original speed; a few states are at the extreme ends of the spectrum, lowering or raising their pre-NMSL limits. This data gives an interesting perspective on the issue of whether the states or the national government have more power. Since basically half of the states have decided to keep the original speed limits of their state, one can either conclude two things. Either the national interests have prevailed convincing the states that they knew what was best for them by setting the national speed limit at fifty-five, later increasing it to sixty-five, or the states’ interest prevailed the entire time. It is interesting to note that although the speed limit began from an oil crisis in the first place and although there are faster cars now with better gas mileage, in more than half of the states, the limits are not increasing. However, "transportation experts predict forty-five states eventually will have higher speed limits to reflect how people want to drive" (http://cartalk.com/Mail/Letters/09-13/3.html).

It is of great importance to consider the reasons that people desire the increase in the speed limits. If one can look at the arguments for increases, for remaining at the status quo, and for decreasing the limit, one will be able to better understand whose interests are prevailing.

Safety is the number one concern of those who would like to lower the speed limits or keep them the same. They feel that the higher speed limits will create more fatal accidents. "’If it goes unchecked and the trend continues, I think we’re going to see more death and injury’ on U.S. highways, says Judith Stone of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety" (http://cartalk.com/Mail/Letters/09-13/3.html). They have some statistical data supporting their claim. "Safety advocates also often point to statistics that indicate fatalities rose 30 percent in 1987 on roads where the speed limit was increased to 65 miles per hour" (Palmaffy 12).

Safety is also the main consideration of those who support the increase in speed limits. They contend that driving too slow is just as bad as driving too fast, in terms of causing accidents.

Overall, six of the twenty-seven states reported

increases in highway fatalities ranging from 2.9% to

19% within a four- to seven-month period after speed

limits were raised; three states reported decreases

ranging from 4% to 28% within a five- to eight- month

period after limits were raised. Fatalities remained

relatively the same in four states.

(http://cartalk.com/Mail/Letters/09-13/3.html)

Only a few states showed an increase in highway fatalities with the increased speed. Thus, one can conclude that increasing the speed must be good for safety, or at least that it is not detrimental to safety. One of the prime examples to support this statement is found in the state of Maryland. "Maryland, which raised speed limits July 1, 1995, saw the number of fatalities on roads with new speed limits drop from twenty-three to fourteen in the first nine months after the change" (http://cartalk.com/Mail/Letters/09-13/3.html). Though the information, to this point, is scarce, it may provide some insight that accidents are not going to increase dramatically, as one might suspect. In fact, transportation officials "contend that there may be little or no effect because the speeds now may simply reflect how people have been driving all along" (http://cartalk.com/Mail/Letters/09-13/3.html).

Those who wish to increase the speeds offer an interesting plan. They claim that the speed limits should be set at the eighty-fifth percentile speed. This speed indicates that eighty-five percent of the people either drive that speed or lower, while only fifteen percent drive higher than that. "’People who drive at the eighty-fifth percentile speed are least likely to be in motor vehicle crashes,’ explains engineer Tom Hicks, of the Maryland State Highway Administration. ‘It’s the people who drive ranch slower or faster who are most at risk.’" (Palmaffy 11). This eighty-fifth percentile may be greater than, the same, or less than the current limits.

On many highways, the federally mandated fifty-five and

sixty-five miles per hour speed limits were

unreasonably low - often five or ten, and sometimes

fifteen miles per hour below the eighty-fifth

percentile speed. In Minnesota, engineers report, the

eighty-fifth percentile speeds were seventy-three miles

per hour on rural interstate highways and sixty-nine

miles per hour on urban interstate highways. In

Montana, the eighty-fifth percentile was seventy-two

miles per hour. In Oklahoma, it was seventy-five.

Drivers in essence voted for repel with their feet - by

pressing down on the accelerator. (Palmaffy 12)

The next issue to consider is who is advocating the increased speed and who is preaching for safety by keeping speeds low. Though it is clear that there will be a wide variety of people in various areas advocating each of the proposals, it appears that those most interested in seeing the speeds increase are those in the private sector. It appears that it is those who are not involved in government or law, either enforcing it or making it, who desire to see the speeds increase. On the other hand, those who want to see it either remain the same or decrease appear to be those from various government jobs, whether from the U.S. Department of Highway Safety or any other federal job. If one looks at the private as individual state citizens, one can make the general assumption that it is the states who are most in favor of advocating the change in speed, whereas the federal government would rather not see the changes. Obviously, there will be advocates in the federal government as there will be opponents in the private sector. However, for general purposes, one can make this distinction.

With the new information, one can take a slightly different look at whether it appears that the states desires or whether the federal desires appear to triumph. If those advocating the speed increases are truly the states, then one can see that the states’ interests are triumphing most prevalently now. Looking at the different time areas, one can explain the interests differently.

The first and perhaps easiest time period to look at is that of the pre-1973 era. One could clearly say that the states’ interests superseded that of the federal interests before 1973. The states set their own speed limits without threat from the federal government.

The last time period, from 1995 to the present is rather clear as well. For, during this time period, the states have the power to set their own speed limits. Thus, it can definitely be said that the states’ interests supersede that of the national interests.

The second time period, or last to be discussed, is that from 1973 to 1995. This period can be broken up into two halves. The first is from 1973 to 1987 when the national speed limit was fifty-five miles per hour. The latter half is from 1987 to 1995 when the national speed limit was raised to sixty-five miles per hour. It is clear that at first, for the good of the nation as a whole, the national interests had to and did supersede that of the states’. The change was a result of a crisis.

The end of the period, ranging from 1987 to 1995 is not as clear. Since this was still in the time period dominated by the national speed limit, it can be assumed that the national interests superseded the states’ interests. However, one would need to explain why the dramatic increase of ten miles per hour on the limit. Needless to say, in this complicated time period, one can see the umbrella of the national interests covering the states’ interests, but the states’ interests pushing up out of the umbrella in order to guide the national policies in this manner.

Thus, it can be seen from the changes in the speed limits and in which manner they were changed that it has not been either the national or state interests that have dominated. As seen from the changes in the limit and evident from those advocating such change, this issue has changed from a time in which the states’ interests dominated to a time in which the national interests superseded that of the states and finally back to the states’ interests superseding that of the national interests. It is a complex issue, but an issue of significant state-federal power struggle.

This issue has seen several changes to it, mostly because it is easily seen and affects almost all of the citizens of the United States. It is thus in the interest of the legislatures to try to appeal to their constituents. It is also a very easy topic to understand at the surface level. State Senator Ben Vidricksen, a Republican from Kansas, chairman of the Special Committee on Transportation explained, "Speed limits were the most talked-about topic when the committee held a series of meetings across the states. That’s probably the number one issue. It’s because everybody can understand it, I guess" (http://www.spub.ksu.edu/ISSUES/v100/FA/n067/ap-KS-SpeedLimits-16.3.html).

The next thing to consider is what impact does this have on the individual citizen. It seems clear that with the new changes that the states’ rights are superseding that of the national rights. Thus, at least for this issue, the states’ are influencing what is considered a right more so than the national government. Trincoll Journal staff writer Paul Skowronek feels that this is yet another case of America refusing to let go of its individualism. "While other nations sacrifice personal freedoms for less crime and national health care to name but two, America refuses to let go of it’s individualistic, rights entrenched roots" (Skowronek http://www.trincoll.edu). It is his belief that Americans are focusing too much time on a silly issue such as speed limits and should be more concerned with issues that matter in the broad scheme of things. "As pamphleteer Thomas Paine forcefully advocated the rights of all Americans over the British monarchy in 1776, Americans today seemingly look to their short history of demanding such ‘necessities’ as a higher speed limit, the right to bear arms, and a decentralized health care system" (Skowronek http://www.trincoll.edu).

To some the issue is not important simply for the fact that the law in this regard is not enforced very well, thus drivers drive over the limit anyway.

Neither raising nor lowering the speed limit had much

effect on vehicle speeds. The mean speeds and the

eighty-fifth percentile speeds did not change more than

one or two miles per hour even for speed limit changes

based on the amount the posted speed limit was altered.

The percent compliance with the posted speed limits

improved when the speed limits were raised. When the

speed limits were lowered, the compliance decreased.

(http://www.dma.org/~ganatoedp/speed.htm)

The issue revolves around a law that is not very well followed, enforced, or penalized. However, it is one of the more widely debated issues simply because it is easy to understand. Thus, for the individual citizen, they have a lot of power in regards to this issue. A group could easily lobby their state congressman and sway to get what they wanted, especially now that the states are in control.

This issue is one of great significance for the above reasons. It provides a basis for the national versus state power issue that is easy to understand, easy to plot, and with an enriched history. Everyone who drives understands that if you step on the gas peddle harder, then the result will be that you go faster. Thus, even for the most uneducated citizen, it is easy to have an opinion on such an issue. Everyone knows basically how fast they feel comfortable driving and as has been shown, for the most part, drive that fast. This issue is fairly easy to plot the different changes in which side dominated the state versus federal tug of war contest. The rich history comes from all of the debate of the issue and the quick responses on account of the states to act when given the power to do so.

This issue may provide the building block for other issues to be dominated by the states. With the Republican majority, the trend is to move the power back into the hands of the states. Thus, with one issue securely under its belt, it may open the door to other issues.