National Motorists Association
Massachusetts Page
There are several bills of interest to NMA members in the
Massachusetts legislature.
These would reduce the speed limit to 25 in "thickly settled" areas. "Thickly settled" means any place where there are at least six houses within a quarter mile of each other.
These bills came after cities complained that the Highway Department refused some requests to reduce speed limits. The Highway Department tries to consider traffic safety, as required by federal law, instead of local political concerns.
NMA strongly opposes these bills.
First, regardless of what the state legislature says, federal law prohibits the remedy the cities want. Federal Highway Administration regulations require that any posted speed limit be based on an engineering study where the 85th percentile speed of free flowing traffic is given the greatest weight. These bills will result in a forest of illegal speed limit signs.
Second, there is no safety justification for the speed limit reductions. Thirty years ago the legislature increased the speed limit from 25 to 30, recognizing that the higher speed had become safe. Reducing the speed limit will do nothing for safety. It will only generate more violations and disrespect for the law.
S 1377 Bill History
S 1385 Bill History
These bills would add additional fines for aggressive driving, but the problem is defining what constitutes "aggressive" driving. Simply traveling above a deliberately underposted speed limit is hardly a sign of aggression.
NMA opposes these bills.
H 1173 Bill History
H 1720 Bill
History
NMA supports this bill as well as Senate bill 1384, an act establishing a special commission to reform the drivers education system of the Commonwealth.
S 1276 Bill History
S 1384 Bill History
The main problem here is that a breathalyzer can easily tell you who is really drunk (who can't?), but at such small tolerances such as the difference between .07 and .08 BAC, it is almost 50% inaccurate. Furthermore, alcohol effects different people differently. With many people, there is no difference in hand/eye coordination at different small BAC levels at different times. Alcohol absorption varies with human metabolism over time. Therefore, sweeping statements such as "Everybody's driving is effected at .08 BAC " are false. And by the same token, statement "any emotional state will impair your driving abilities" is also true.
That's why NMA opposes this bill.
This bill seeks to replace the current secondary enforcement ("...stopped for a violation of the motor vehicle laws or some other offense") with primary enforcement. There are many reasons why NMA opposes this bill.
Primary enforcement is that much closer to moving violations and insurance surcharges for failure to buckle up. It'll allow for "safety check" roadblocks. There is no correlation between compliance and primary enforcement (see: speeding); there is no correlation between safety and primary seat belt laws (for instance, Iowa has had primary seat belt law since late 80's and its fatality rate is double that of Massachusetts.)
But most of all, the motivation behind the change is the promise of federal dollars, which is a wrong reason for passing a law.
Another "feel good legislation," with s dubious safety improvement record. While driving around with your headlights on at all times in Northern Canada or Scandinavia, where it's always dark 6 month of the year has it's advantages, any advantages disappear further South. What's left is daylight glare, obscured motorcycles, unlit tail lights and reduced gas milage...
NMA opposes these bills.
H 1739 Bill History
H 2490 Bill History
and last but not least: