While we did not publicly editorialize about SB 392 during the recently completed Legislative Session, our writers contemplated on multiple occasions coming out strongly against the bill. Not only did we have concerns from a public safety perspective but we were also concerned about the increased rate of energy consumption that will come with increasing the speed limit. The precedent that would also be set by continuing to raise speed limits without cause to a potentially unsafe level on rural interstates was of concern.
We don’t often side with Governor Scott here at TFS, but in this case we give him full marks. This legislation was bad for public safety and potentially harmful in increasing energy consumption at a critical time. He did what was best for the state of Florida. This was a non-partisan issue and was the closest vote this past session in the Florida House.
It is also important to single out the contributions of Rep. Irv Slosberg who has dedicated his life to this issue because of personal tragedy. His leadership and that of his family have been invaluable and today we salute him as well.
The Florida Squeeze 
Governor Scott and the RPOF thank you for your support!
Thanks for throwing the democrats who worked hard on this under the bus!
LikeLike
This is a public policy issue for us which is what we base our assessments about legislation on.
Secondly this bill saw a majority of Democrats in both houses vote one way and the majority of Republicans in both chambers vote the other.
Scott’s veto puts him in line with the Democrats.
LikeLike
Well looking at the vote I stand corrected.
LikeLike
Homework check: Senate Sponsors (Brandes-R and Clemens-D). House Sponsor (Caldwell-R)
LikeLike
Yes isn’t he also the same guy that sponsored the fracking bill? Loser! He sucked as a mayor too. How is this guy an elected official. He is embarrassing.
LikeLike
Just for the record, not all TFS writers are for this veto. I am 100% against it. But the reason I am against this is because of the policy, not Rick Scott. For years, people claim that increased speed limits kill, but that simply isn’t true. In Illinois, they have had an increase in the speed limit and deaths in the state of Illinois have gone down (which is a performance measure of their capital budget, actually). This is mostly due to increased education regarding certain aspects of driving (such as seat belt education, watching for motorcycles, etc…).
An overwhelming amount of accidents happen on rural roads and urban interstates, not on rural interstates, where the speed limits would be increased.
As much as I respect Rep. Solsberg (being one of the only few “good guys” in Tallahassee), increased speeds did not kill his daughter. She was not wearing her seat belt and was hit by a drunk driver, which means the driver was impaired. Being an impaired driver is against the law, as well as it should be (which is why I strongly oppose pot legalization). The increase in speed limits are intended for non-impaired drivers.
Let’s look at the statistics on this. In Texas, where they have 80+ MPH speed limits, only 2.3% of motor fatalities happened on rural interstates. 51.5% happened on urban interstates. In Florida, the number is also 2.3% for rural interstates, with 47% being urban interstates. Almost all states replicate this pattern. Therefore, where the increased speed limits would take place is where the least amount of motorist fatalities happen.
Yes, I am 100000% against the veto because the reasons for the veto is not based on facts, but on what people “believe” is right.
LikeLike
How amusing is it that Dave gets thumbs down votes for utilizing facts, instead of emotional conjecture, to make his argument. Now, we can all have fun with statistics, but the hard numbers are hard to argue with. I would have liked to see Kartik actually supply some for his “energy usage” claim. While I have seen studies showing that vehicles are less efficient at higher speeds, the amount of increase is definitely in question, particularly given the speeds already traveled.
Ideally, our FHP officers would be better trained in spotting reckless drivers of all speeds and ages. Unfortunately, that would grant an enormous amount of discretion to the officers, which is impossible given the fact that they are human beings prone to power trips and mistakes…and our legal system simply could not handle the strain as every lawyer and his mother took every case to court in the name of making a dollar in their practice.
If you give thumbs down, make sure you have something to back it up…
LikeLike
So basically this site should advocate bad public policy for political reasons says some?
LikeLike
[…] of red light cameras and his bill to raise the speed limit on the interstate (which passed but was vetoed by the Governor) are largely frivolous considering when considering the grave issues that this state faces, perhaps […]
LikeLike