LET THE STATES SET SPEED LIMITS THAT MEET LOCAL NEEDS

As with many issues, the current debate about highway speed limits tends to concentrate on a lot of fringe issues without really addressing the core.

For example, when The Associated Press reported last week that the U.S. Senate had decided "to get rid of the 55 mph federal speed limit," it left the impression that the nation's motorists were suddenly traveling along the on-ramp to the Autobahn, where there is no speed limit.

That isn't the case, of course. And neither should motorists leap to the conclusion that the speed limit won't stay at 55 mph in some cases. The core issue is simple: Who should set the speed limits? The federal government or the individual states?

The federal government has, up till now, wielded a big club. States that didn't impose the federally mandated speed limits would lose federal highway funding. So states have obediently complied with the federal speed regulations, even though they don't make much sense in some instances.

The nation was used to driving 70 mph on the interstate system before the oil crisis of the 1970s put a kink in the gasoline pipeline. At first the federal government imposed a 55 mph speed limit on all highways in an attempt to reduce fuel consumption. Along the way, statisticians noted that deaths due to highway accidents were declining too.

There are good arguments to be made that the decline in automobile fatalities and injuries also was the result of improved roads and safe automobiles.

But here's the point: If there were good reasons for the federal government to make adjustments in speed limits, those same good reasons are available to each state. It would seem prudent, for example, that any state would have the common sense to impose lower speed limits in congested, high-traffic areas. Cities and counties make these decisions all the time.

But proponents of a national standard for speed limits seem to be arguing that states don't have common sense and that, without Washington making the rules, speed limits will be set dangerously high.

An argument on the other side is made effectively by operators of toll roads throughout the United States. Take the Kansas Turnpike Authority, for example, which owns and maintains a stretch of superhighway from Kansas City all the way through Wichita to the Oklahoma border. All of the expenses of the toll road are paid through the tolls collected from users of the highway without federal aid, and, as a result, the turnpike authority sets its own speed limits.

The Kansas Turnpike is a model of good maintenance and continuous upgrading to make the road safer. In recent years a solid divider of concrete has been constructed the entire 200-plus-mile length of the turnpike to prevent vehicles from crossing the median into oncoming traffic. In addition, the outside edges of the roadway are scored so that the tires of vehicles that stray out too far vibrate and alert inattentive drivers. Accidents that cause fatalities or injuries are few and far between on the turnpike as a result.

There is no reason to think state highway departments and state legislators can't use good sense to both construct safe highways and set reasonable speed limits that reflect the condition and usage of any particular stretch of highway.

The U.S. House still must consider what federal standards, if any, to apply to speed limits. If the representatives use common sense, they will go along with the Senate on this.