[George Snuffleupagus]

"According to the article, they were going to the maximum speed allowed by law in all lanes."

What everyone seems to forget is that the Speed Limit is the upper limit. BY LAW anyone on the highway is bound to an upper and lower limit: usually 40-55 mph. Had these drivers been driving the lower limit of 40 mph (or 45, whatever) and driving as a cordon down the highway, then they would be impeding traffic flow.

The speed limit is set to account for everything, including emergency situations. The hypothetical driver with a wounded child is an exception, not the rule. The highways are not full of wounded passengers. In fact, most are drivers without passengers, often in non-fuel efficient vehicles. Why is it that law and order social conservatives bristle when asked to simply obey a law? It really is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

[supercat]

Why is it that law and order social conservatives bristle when asked to simply obey a law?

Because the law in question is effectively a tax. Motorists either have to pay a time tax in the form of time wasted on the roads, or else a monetary tax if they get caught trying to avoid the former.

Further, depending upon the assumptions one makes regarding reaction times, braking effectiveness, and stopping scenarios, there are some traffic conditions where lower speed limits can increase the likelihood of accidents by causing vehicles to be spaced closer together than they would be at higher speeds.

[supercat]

The speed limit is set to account for everything, including emergency situations.

BTW, posted speed limits are generally safe to drive under mildly-unfavorable conditions. In most places, under favorable conditions, a competant driver could safely travel much faster. While it is certainly useful to have signage advising drivers of the relative safe speeds of various roads, there is no reason why a road which can be safely travelled at 55mph during moderate rainfall could not be safely travelled on a clear day at a faster speed.