Reinstating "55," Are They Crazy?!
May 29th, 2008 Posted in Fuel, James Baxter, Speed Limits, Traffic Tickets
By James Baxter, NMA President
The same forces that resisted the use of fire many thousands of years ago are still with us, only now they are advocating the return of the national maximum speed limit of 55 miles per hour.
Anyone who endured the last 22 year long “experiment” with the “folly of 55” knows that this proposal goes beyond being absurd.
The only likely beneficiaries are insurance companies (ticket surcharges), local governments that live off speed traps, P.R. firms (the genius creators of public service ads like “Save Gas Save Lives, Drive 55”) and perhaps the radar detector industry. In return, the driving public is treated to aggravation, maddening traffic flow, tickets, bloated insurance premiums, and billions of hours of lost time.
As in 1973, the justification for a snail’s pace speed limit on major highways is that it will save gasoline (and now reduce global warming).
It didn’t work then and it won’t work now. The reasons are many.
For starters only two percent of the four million miles of streets, roads and highways in the US have speed limits in excess of 55 miles per hour (approximate numbers). Of those there are many that suffer congestion and construction on a regular basis such that traffic is lucky to maintain a 40 MPH pace, let alone 55 miles per hour.
It’s true that our Interstate system carries about one third of our daily traffic volume, but here too congestion, construction, and bad weather frequently limits traffic to sub 55 speeds. In many urban areas the Interstates are already posted at 55. Granted, when conditions allow the actual speeds might be 70 or 75 MPH, but clearly the speed limit is not the controlling factor.
That brings us to point #2, public compliance.
After 22 years of propaganda, millions of tickets, and billions in insurance surcharges, actual motorist compliance on Interstate type highways ranged between five and ten percent. Those in compliance were typically mechanically unable to exceed 55.
Did it save fuel? In 1984, in what started out to be a promotional “study” of the “Benefits of the 55 MPH National Maximum Speed Limit” the Transportation Research Board (Part of the National Academy of Science) determined that keeping the 55 MPH speed limit, versus allowing the states to raise the limit to 65 MPH, would result in a 0.18 percent (less than two tenths of one percent) fuel savings (Source: TRB Report, 55: A Decade of Experience; page 176)
This is not an amount that will devastate the oil economy of the Middle East. The same study did determine that the 55 MPH national speed limit was wasting approximately one billion man hours a year (page 123). This did not include state trooper man hours being burned up enforcing an arbitrary speed limit on the safest highways in the nation.
Along with misallocating enforcement resources, the federal law forced the states to play games with their highway monitoring data, gaming the numbers so it appeared that traffic was moving slower than it really was. The states were supposed to maintain 50 percent compliance with the federal limit, they couldn’t come close, at least not honestly.
Safety? Today the national and the interstate highway fatality rate is far lower than at any time during the “55 era.” In fact, the last time the fatality rate increased from year to year was in the mid 1970’s when compliance and enforcement were at their highest levels (see chart below).
High fuel costs are certainly a burden. As individuals we can drive less, use more fuel efficient vehicles, and even drive slower, if we wish. But no sane person should wish another 55 MPH speed limit on the country. We already have a dysfunctional aviation system, let’s not allow the same thing to happen to our highways.
Source: NHTSA 2006 Traffic Facts (page 16)
Other Related Articles
According to the chart above the The fatality and injury rates dropped the greatest amount while the 55mph MNSL was in effect. It appears to have dropped 33% more from 1973-1986 than it did from 1987 to 2006. Remind me again what this chart is supposedly showing us again?
And yes Randy the value of the dollar did go up some but in addition to that what is also happening is what oil industry experts were predicting for at least 2 years they were saying that the price of a barrel of oil was artificiality inflated higher than it should be because they were over estimateing how much oil China and India were going to be needing they were saying all the way back in 2005 that we could once again see $30 dollar a barrel oil and even $20 dollar a barrel oil is a possibility.
Ya right TONY RICH. What about all those government vehicles that use all of that high priced fuel? Think about many government vehicles there are that use fuel.
Just like I said before if you use all that much gas by driveing that fast then raiseing the speed limit would be a hidden tax increase and a lot more states would have raised the speed limit my state would have raised the speed limit.
So TONY RICH did the value of the dollar more than triple then since this summer?
Now that the price of gas is down, watch the politicians try to ram higher gas taxes down our throats.
You see the price of gasoline came back down without reinstating it the price of gasoline was not high because there was a shortage it was high because the dollar was not worth the paper it was printed on did I not say that if you just let the price of gasoline go up as high as the market will pay for it the bubble will burst and the price will come back down.
WARNING – This is all just sarcasm. Everything in which you are about to read is just a joke.
Wow I disagree with the NMA. I think that Speed alone does kill, 120 mph on a sunny day in an open wide smooth flat road with no people, or drive ways is so EVIL!!! 55 mph in a school zone where kids a present is very safe and if you hit a kid at that speed there will be no problems since 55 mph is slow and safe. 70 mph will cause us to run out of oil and cause the earth to end in 2012. 55 mph will save us. Wait I have a good idea lets make a 1 mph national max speed limit so we can save so much oil. Also if you crash a 1 mph there will nothing to worry about since 1 mph can’t do that much harm. All american citizens are all bad drivers and we all need nannyism and speed governors to limit vehicles to 1 mph. Guns are bad. Fast food is bad. Las vegas is bad. Haveing a fun life is bad. Suffering is noble. Being broke is spiritual.
P.S. – REMEMBER I AM JUST JOKING!!! I really did not mean what I said. PEACE!!!
The only reason I noticed is that I don’t know that area of the country very well so I was checking it out on Google Maps to get a better picture of your drive.
Yes Sherman, Evanston. Actually close to the fwy not in town. My fingers got ahead of my mind.
I’ll proof read next time.
Baja Joes,
Did you mean to say _Evanston_?
GUYS, After the election the speed limit may be a much leeser concern than than concern for our children and realtives. THERE WILL BE A NEW DRAFT! Probably within a year after the election. Women are no longer excused.
This has been admitted by both parties and I will provide links if requested. This would indicate a massive war in the future with the military taking over the job market. Prepare your children and nephews/neices. This will get serious! No Way Out!(whatreallyhappened.com)Check out the new draft proposals there with major backers.
They were not ready for the ’60’s but they are now! I know people who graduated and took jobs out of country to be safe.(Australia)They know what is happeneing.
We may owe our country help but not our LIFE!
Jeff, I’m familiar with Int.80 in WY which was similar to NV & MT in ‘68.
My friend an I crossed at Nite. We gassed at Everton and didn’t stop until Cheyenne. It was an Indian summer with a warm nite and little traffic. It was fun but with the perspective of age I wouldn’t do it again.
We were in our 20’s, young and perhaps a bit reckless but in our mind the only danger was to ourselves. It took aprox.6 hrs for the trip with NO stops. If the LAW cared they didn’t show it. I guess no one travels Sun nite in Wyoming. I am grateful it was uneventful.
Baja Joes – Prior to 1974, Nevada (and Montana) did not have a maximum speed limit. It was “reasonable and prudent” and people used to drive 100+ mph there. For some unknown reason, Nevada only allows 75mph now.
If lower speed limits saves all this gas then it would make more sense to raise speed limits the federal highway trust fund will be out of money in 2009 so if we use more gas then the government would make more tax money also how come the oil industry is not lobbying for higher speed limits it would mean more profits for them instead they have been lobbying for lower speed limits why would they throw all this money away?
Why doesn’t NMA simply ask the questions to Senators or any politician on camera and let’s see how react. Obama, Biden, Schwarzenegger et. al., many if not allot of these guys could also be very irritated with the drive 55 buffoon NSL activists. After all, our politicians enjoy trips to Europe on our tax payer dollars enjoying 75-81 speed limits but of course cruising safely at about 95 and no fear of ever getting pulled. Some if not many politicians could very well love to see speed limits in America in the European tradition. May I add that America is the laughing stock and ridicule of millions of Europeans who visit our country when they see That all American 55 sign on a majestic 3-4 lane highway highway that is big enough to land a 747.
Hey Baja Joes,
I just read the article about the 55 mph limit. USA Today interviewed that hack Tim Castleman (go back a page in this forum and you’ll see the response he sent to my letter) from drive55.org.
From the way I read it, Tim’s gushing about how much “support” his campaign is gaining. The article is buried in the online edition and I had to do a specific search to find it so that in itself makes his claim suspicious at best.
He’s no doubt embellishing quite a bit and of course USA Today being a media outlet has certainly put a spin on it so if I were you, I’d take it with a large grain of salt.
Sounds to me like he’s nothing more than an opportunistic snake oil salesman out to make himself a tidy profit.
Here’s his e-mail address:
timcastleman@gmail.com
I hear you Joe.
In regard to planes they even have a speed limit, except for Military they aren’t allowed to exceed the Sound Barrier, aprox
700 mph.
I guess we need to leave the country to have Freedom to Speed.
O.W. To Frankfurt Please!
Darryl, thanks for the heads up on this report. I wonder what Randy thinks about this?
In this most recent report, I noted that NHTSA gave law enforcement part of the credit for the lower numbers. That’s to be expected from NHTSA. This paves the way for more federal money to flow into enforcement spending, particularly on holidays. So look for you favorite holidays to be filled with enforcement further enhancing your holiday experience with complements from NHTSA. And of course the municipalities get to use this extra federal money from the public feeding trough and get to keep all the revenue from the enforcement action. What a hell’va deal.
And you can bet the focus of most of the enforcement will be the usual speeding ticket frenzy. I can assure you that speed enforcement had little or nothing to do with lowering the numbers in this latest report from NHTSA yet it remains a priority for law enforcement. Apparently fuzzy math dictates that the factor (speeding) that causes the least accidents gets the greatest enforcement focus.
TomV, you’ve got a point but the thought of a U.S. autobahn just isn’t going to happen.
I’m sorry to say will remain just a pipe dream. Higher speeds on our roadways remain a issue that to me is more of a philosophy then anything. It’s simply taboo. The “slower is better” crowd and members of the anti-destination league simply will not allow it. High speed terrestrial transportation has been talked about for years, even on trains. The reality is that air transportation will remain the high speed transportation for this country. I can assure you that if aircraft didn’t require higher speeds to remain in flight, they too wouldn’t be allowed to move so fast. So be glad that at least the laws of aerodynamics don’t allow slow flight.
There are some people in our society (I believe a minority) when it comes to the setting of or enforcement of higher speeds or speeding, it has become almost a Taliban like mentality with them. They get worked almost into a frenzy just talking about it.
Arrrgh! I spoke too soon. In todays
USA Today paper there is an article saying that the 55 NSL is trying to come back.
Also of interest is the listing of all state speed limits. I was pleasantly surprised at the number of 75mph states although they were all Midwest/Western.
Darryl, I guess they haven’t read about your latest numbers.
Sammy, start your song!
Let us hope that Everyone is grateful that
driving is becoming safer as is without any
changes.
If its not broke, it dosen’t need to be fixed
Lowest death rates in history on our highways with more motorists on the road than ever before and no national speed limit.
I just wonder what kind of spin the slower is safer crowd is going to put on it!
U.S. traffic death rate at record low
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/08/14/traffic.deaths.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch
Yes Tom it would be a challenging undertaking
If I had the wherewithal to try I think I’d
start from the California border to LasVegas
a 50 Mle swath and make it a Toll Rd. A ticket would give a disclaimer like a
Baseball ticket.
I estimate this part
could be built for the aprox price of the
BELLAGIO($1 Billion$+)in Vegas.
It would make for a great entry to SIN CITY!
Why couldn’t one state in the US have an autobahn?
Because it’s not (just) a physical thing, or a law or a lack of laws. There would have to be a confluence of needful things to make such an effort safe and successful, such as:
1. A highway encompassing all of the necessary physical features: width, grade, curve radius, sightlines, signage, drainage, ramp length and profile, runoff and breakdown areas, et cetera.
2. Destination points for the highway to serve, so it isn’t just one long dragstrip destination for thrillseekers. Maybe an I-80 to Las Vegas connector that doesn’t take the driver past every shut-down whorehouse in NV?
3. Driver training regarding etiquette and safety (keep right except to pass, be mindful of your vehicle’s condition, people flashing high beams behind you are doing you a favor, no one “owns” the road by dint of status or a given law, et cetera)
4. Drivers would have to sign a witnessed “hold harmless” affidavit so that they would be personally responsible for the outcome of their own actions. A window sticker or license plate frame could be used to display evidence of compliance, or perhaps a vinyl pocket inside a vehicle window, so a “license” could be displayed when driving the highway and then removed at other times, or transferred to to other vehicles, since it would be the driver (vs. the car) that was authorized.
5. Other steps as necessary to control the “just sue them” aspect of our culture
6. Said highway would have to be new construction (no shutting down interstates for our project,) and limited access, which pretty much precludes it from directly replacing a rural 2-lane. PR work would have to be done with the locals to ensure (again) that no one thinks they have a particular privilege due to any kind of status. Mayhem is egalitarian, but safety is not; people need to understand that safety is an individual responsibility.
Even with all of those hurdles, I would be glad to be part of the corporation that could do such a thing, or even just to pay a toll to use it. Ever driven to Reno at a reasonable speed, hoping you don’t catch an LEO having a bad day? Then there’s the whole braking-for-a-town business.
Count me in, if it’s done right.
EXCELLENT idea, Baja Joes!
I like the Nevada suggestion.
I was surfing AUTOBAHN on YOU TUBE and a
wondrous thought came to mind.
Why couldn’t ONE State in the U.S. have an
American AUTOBAHN? People go to NEVADA to do things they can’t do elsewhere so it would seem a logical possibility but almost any Western state would do. Just ONE state with ONE hwy for *X* miles with NO Limit!
I realize I’m dreaming but sometimes thats how things happen. One Man’s Dream.
Thanks John, the second link worked.
The kids in the video made some valid points. The enforcement of speed limits varies tremendously from one state to another, one county to another, even one road to another.
As mentioned, it’s often the case that the prevailing speed of traffic is about 75 mph, so a driver is unlikely to get a ticket if they are doing 75 or less, even if the highway is posted at 55. 75 then becomes the defacto limit. But, if a driver gets caught doing 80 mph, they are written up for 25 over, not 5 over.
It would clearly make a lot more sense to follow standard civil engineering practice — post roads at the 85th (or 90th) percentile speed so the limit is realistic, and then strictly enforce that posted limit. As much as possible, roads should be posted “Reasonable and Prudent” — this would work for most rural areas of the country where traffic is so light that speed variance isn’t a problem.
As it is now, it is sort of a guessing game as to what is expected or allowed. People are forced to choose between going with the flow (and breaking the law) or abiding by the posted limit and creating hazardous situations like the one shown in the video.
I know they were proving a point, but it must be mentioned that just because a road is under posted does not mean that those that wish to obey the law must spread out as they did and run mile after mile next to each other in a rolling road block 4 lanes wide. They certainly showed that just about everyone on that section of highway wanted to travel over the limit, but they are also lucky that no one was hurt. Had they kept right except to pass, traffic would have been able to flow smoothly — of course the video wouldn’t have been as effective.
Sorry, the link I posted seems to have messed up sound, so here is one that works.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3161651426860051323&ei=4H-nSM-3KYuS4wKMmPwb&q=a+meditation+on+the+speed+limit&vt=lf
Randy,
“If you have a 2 second speed difference between cars then the most cars that can pass a point on the road is one every 2 seconds. Theoretically you would not be able to pass any more cars across a specific point on the road going 100 mph as you would going 10 mph.”
While this is true it is not viewing the system as a whole and is misleading, only viewing the system at a single point in time. How many cars pass a single given point is not really a valid way to look at overall traffic efficiency.
Essentially, it can be broken down into three parts, entry, transit, and exit. To analyze how different transit speeds affect traffic, picture the following scenario. There is a highway along which cars can enter at various points. Once they enter, they will all travel the same given distance and then exit. In a 100 mph system the prevailing speed of traffic is 100 mph. In a 50 mph system the prevailing speed is 50 mph. The rate at which cars enter the highway remains constant, regardless of the prevailing speed of the system as it is an uncontrollable constant, the same for both systems. In the 50 mph system, the volume of cars on the road will always be twice that of the 100 mph system for a given entry rate since the transit time is twice as long because the cars are traveling half the speed. However, as you said, it works out when viewed from a single point in time because the cars can travel twice as close to each other, maintaining the same time interval, so a speed of 50 mph is maintained….but this system will always be behind in the amount of cars completely processed compared the 100 mph system.
By picking a given starting point and moving forward, when the lead cars in the 50 mph system are only halfway through their transit distance the lead cars in the 100 mph system have already begun exiting at a rate of say 1 every 3 seconds. Twice as much time later, when the lead cars in the 50 mph system begin exiting, 1 every 3 seconds, then the current processing rate will be the same. However, the 100 mph system will always be ahead of the 50 mph system because of the initial advantage gained. This is why you must view the system as a whole.
An important side note, every road has a critical volume that is reached in which traffic jams begin to occur that waste fuel. The higher the volume of traffic, and in turn the lower the speeds that are allowed, the more the theory you speak of breaks down. This is because as cars are required to continue to move closer together and drive a slower speed to compensate for increased volume, constant speeds cannot be maintained because of inefficiencies the theory doesn’t account for.
For one, the closer cars are together, the more efficiently their actions are transmitted through traffic. In other words, a car braking briefly in heavy traffic can trigger a flurry of other cars to do the same (sometimes this is referred to as rubber necking.), while when traffic is thinned out a brief braking by another motorist might not even trigger a reaction from others. The same applies for other actions such as merging into dense traffic. The higher the volume of traffic, the less likely it is steady speeds will be maintained.
Another issue is the fact that cars themselves take up space. Not only is space required between vehicles but cars themselves require space, and the higher the volume of traffic and the closer cars must move together, the more the ratio of the size of the car to the space between required decreases, making the size of the car itself more of a factor. In high volumes of traffic cars can no longer be viewed as just points in space that require x distance between each other at y speed. Their actual size becomes a significant factor.
You can also see how this theory breaks down in real life situations. In high volume, slow speed traffic, speed is rarely if ever constant and stop and go traffic jams ensue. There are too many factors that come into play for this theory to still be applicable.
Now back to traffic volume, when the entry rate (the same for both systems) is such that capacity is reached that can be sustained while still maintaining the system speed, say a volume of 1000 cars for a given stretch on the 100 mph system and in turn 2000 cars on the 50 mph system, the 100 mph system will always be 1000 cars ahead of the 50 mph system along that stretch in the amount of cars that have transited the system. This is why there will be 1000 MORE cars waiting for and contributing to the traffic jam in the 50 mph scenario because they didn’t drive faster and complete transit of the system when first entering the system when the opportunity existed. This causes the chain reaction effect that multiplies this initial difference as entry rate increases, such that the volume of traffic is always twice that of the 100 mph system. The 100 mph system will slow down to 50 mph and the cars move closer together WHEN IT IS REQUIRED AND EFFICIENT TO DO SO, not because of an artificially capped speed.
Now, picture rush hour comes and the rate at which cars enter both systems (the same rate for both) doubles. This will cause the volume of traffic to double, from an initial 1000 to 2000, and the speed to be halved to 50 mph to maintain interval in the 100 mph system. In the 50 mph system it is from 2000 to 4000 and down to 25 mph. Now the 100 mph system has the ability to operate at 50 mph because it has the same volume of traffic after the surge in entry rate as the 50 mph system had before the surge. The 50 mph system is now traveling at speeds of 25 mph and well on its way to reaching critical volume and traffic jams (if it has not done so already). As a result, according to the theory the 50 mph system will ALWAYS have twice the volume and half the speed of 100 mph system and ALWAYS reach critical volume first and ALWAYS have more frequent and more severe traffic jams and be less capable to accept increased entry rates.
The 100 mph system has much more speed flexibility than the slower speed system. It is simply more efficient when the design speed of the road permits to allow traffic to travel at higher speeds so that a lower volume of traffic is maintained in the event of increased entry rates. The result is the higher speed system ALWAYS being ahead of slower speed system in the amount of cars that have transited through the system. An artificially slow speed limit artificially simulates a higher entry rate and thus higher volume of cars on the road even though the entry rate for both systems is the same.
I encourage anyone who still has doubts to take a look at this video which is a real life example of this principle. Which system, the higher or lower speed one, do you think is more capable of dealing with a sudden surge in entry rate, such as rush hour, more efficiently?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5366552067462745475&ei=c2CmSILsK4ri4QKqhfAh&q=a+meditation+on+the+speed+limit
When the road approaches capacity, speeds become restricted and cars move closer together and traffic flow breaks down and the road is saturated. As traffic decreases cars speed up and move farther apart. There is no sense in under posting speed limits as you are essentially simulating road saturation before it actually occurs, which will lead to actual saturation occurring sooner as the above video illustrates.
I suggest you go to youtube and download some videos of people driving on the Autobahn to help you understand what unimpeded traffic flow really is. It only takes a few cars on the interstate to simulate traffic conditions (the packs of traffic we are all so familiar with) because people simply block the passing lane which under posted limits encourage.
There is no reason while the room and space exists, that drivers who so choose should not be able to leverage it to arrive at their destination sooner, removing themselves from the system. To not do so is wasting an opportunity to use the system to its maximum potential. That is efficiency. When traffic increases cars WILL slow down and move closer together and the road is used to the best of its ability for the traffic volume given. I have never heard of a 100 mph traffic jam. People do not stop entering the system and wait just because the resulting volume would reduce the prevailing speed.
You also mentioned weaving through traffic at 100 mph. This is never an acceptable way to drive. Why don’t you understand that there is no passing on the right and the left lanes are used for passing so faster traffic is staggered out to the left. I have never experienced any weaving in traffic on the Autobahn. It would not even be productive because the center of mass of traffic is always to the right and the left lanes are always faster and more open in free flowing traffic.
Under posted limits actually exacerbate the problem because people always block the left lane. Quite often on the interstate it is just the opposite with the center of mass of traffic to the left and the right lane is faster and more open. This is VERY dangerous because people then use the right lane as the passing lane. People do not expect faster traffic to pass on the right and the blind spot is much more awkward to check. It also makes it difficult for those entering the highway because instead of merging into the slowest lane of traffic, quite often it is the fastest.
Our interstate is much more erratic and I found it much easier to maintain cruising speed on the Autobahn than the interstate. On the interstate it is a constant speed up and slow down. From one left lane road block to the next.
I could only find an email address in the magazine.
It was very interesting to read about the Mental Preparation involved before driving those speeds. Preplaning emerg. situations.
The only American car in the group was a Corvette Z06.
I’ve posted my two entries above on the NMA forum.
The title is “Unnecessary Road Closures”.
Go to:
http://www.motorists.org/forums/list.php?2
There are other topics being discussed there as well.
That sounds great Baja Joes!
Is it or will it be available online? I get three ‘car magazines’ but Automobile isn’t one of them (at least not yet).
CORRECTION–”AUTOMOBILE” Magazine.
NOT: Automotive mag.
I HAD TO SHARE THIS! Most of us will never expeience the emotions of driving 200+MPH,
some of which was on the AUTOBAHN.
In the Sep.AUTOMOTIVE magazine a man named
GEORG KACHER describes his feelings while
driving *10* of the fastest cars over 200MPH.
If you get the chance read it as its probably
the only way to get a feeling of what those speeds are like in a car.
I got the impression that he liked the
Bugatti EB110 as the best of the lot.
I forgot to mention that with any closure (legit or not) the authorities could often do a much better job of notifying motorists.
To be fair, sometimes they do put up portable electronic signs advising drivers of the planned closure, but that seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
My post above is a good example. This rally (”America’s 9-11 Ride”) has been planned for months. It has been held every year since 2001. The authorities are not only aware of it, they participate! So why was there essentially no notice whatsoever? As I said, I had checked the Maryland SHA website (CHART) and the WTOP website just a few minutes before leaving my house. It was maybe 5 minutes after I rolled out of the driveway that I happened to hear on the radio that the exit I use was closed (except for those participating in the ride).
The number of people who are needlessly delayed by _planned_ road closures simply because of lack of notification must be staggering.
Also, as I alluded to above, being delayed is the best case scenario. What if a pregnant woman is being rushed to the hospital in a person vehicle (which is quite common)? ‘Sorry lady, you’ll have to give birth in your Camry because we’ve got a bunch of motorcycles that are more important than your medical problems’. Maybe a person has just been notified that a loved one is dying and they only have a few minutes to get to the hospital to say their last goodbyes. ‘Tough! We’ve got a big ‘ol funeral procession here for a local dignitary or police officer. You should have said your goodbyes last week!’
I don’t know about anyone else here, but I would be embarrassed if I thought that anyone was going to close highways an inconvenience hundreds or thousands of people just for my funeral, or the funeral of a friend or family member. Doing so is rude, inconsiderate, and unnecessary.
As for the large groups of motorcycles, I would suggest that they break up into smaller groups for their safety as well to show common courtesy and respect for others who they are supposed to share the road with. Several times in the last few years I’ve been trapped behind a large group (a couple hundred or more) bikes that were spread out over all available lanes, travelling under the limit, and aggressively not allowing anyone to pass. As you might imagine, this creates a huge rolling road block and the resulting road rage, tailgating, rapid lane changing, etc. It is just not necessary. Groups of 10 to 20 (say) bikes together, riding in the far right lane (except to pass) would actually be safer. I hate to think what would happen if one of the bikes in the middle of one of these huge packs went down. There is no way all of the others could avoid them. It would be a huge multi-bike collision followed by distracted idiots in cars plowing into them.
I’d like to hear others thoughts on these issues.
Once again, please keep in mind that I mean no disrespect. I have no problem with bikers, cops, or any other group that I mentioned. My concern is keeping our highways open and free-flowing and motorists getting reasonable notice when a road will be closed or drivers will be delayed for any foreseeable reason.
[I plan to start a separate thread about this issue but for now I thought I'd post this here]:
On the NMA homepage under “What We Fight For” it says, “Improved Traffic Flow”.
On the way to work today at about 2 pm (I work nights) I heard on the radio that the exit I use to enter I-70 eastbound (exit 49) was shut down. Luckily, I was still on US 40 at that point and was able to continue east to US 15 south to I-270 south. I initially thought there must have just been an accident since I had checked the Maryland SHA website (CHART) and the WTOP website just a few minutes earlier. Come to find out it was a motorcycle rally/ride heading to Leesburg, VA.
I have nothing against bikes. I used to ride myself until I decided it was just too dangerous with all the distracted and inattentive drivers in this area. What I have a problem with is any group (no matter what their stated cause) shutting down an entire Interstate highway. The _only_ reason to shut down an Interstate is for an emergency — accident, haz-mat spill, sink hole, etc. Closing a public highway for any other reason is indefensible. In this case the motorcycle ride includes police officers on bikes escorting the group. The stated purpose of the ride is to commemorate the victims of 9-11. While that is a worthy goal, it is totally beside the point. Other rides are for “Toys for Tots” or Veterans’ Day. It seems that as long as a group of riders claims their ride somehow benefits a charity or is patriotic in some way, then they get the road to themselves and everyone else can just sit and wait until they pass. Then, even after the group has passed and the ‘commoners’ are allowed back on the road, traffic is generally snarled for miles because of the large number of motorcycles occupying all available lanes and refusing to let anyone pass.
The ends do not justify the means.
The same is true of funeral processions for police officers, firefighters, and VIPs. Once again, nothing against any of the above. I appreciate the work our emergency personnel do, but what’s the point of shutting down entire multi-lane highways when in most cases surface streets could be taken? In fact, why not have people meet at the cemetery? Long processions of hundreds of vehicles may be ok in rural areas, but they cause a major inconvenience (at best) for hundreds if not thousands of people in major metro areas. I remember a couple years ago going to Baltimore and seeing the entire Inner Loop of the beltway (I-695) blocked off by SHA trucks because the funeral procession for a police officer or politician was going to travel that way. The backup was _miles_ long. Thousands of cars and trucks were trapped. Hopefully, none of those people were trying to get to the hospital or to a funeral for _their_ loved one.
What is the NMA’s position on these types of road closures?
Baja Joes that is true. The density of crude oil makes this possible. Gasoline is a lot lighter product.
I ran across some interesting info on Newsweek.com under Tire Inflation/Obama.
On Page 3 or 4 they state that out of a 42gal
Barrel of Oil they get 44-45Gal of Useable Product! That is Gasoline,Diesel,heating Oil,and Other Useable products.
So somehow during the Refining Process you end up with MORE than you Started with!
NEWSWEEK.COM (latest)
John G one thing you are forgetting. The traffic theoretically would not be any more congested.
Yes the road would hold more cars at the slower speed but they would not cause any more stop and go driving but intstead may help it and cause less. If you drive the safe distance of 3 seconds behind the driver in front of you or even 2 seconds at a riskier distance you need a lot more distance between vehicles going faster than slower. If you have a 2 second speed difference between cars then the most cars that can pass a point on the road is one every 2 seconds. Theoretically you would not be able to pass any more cars across a specific point on the road going 100 mph as you would going 10 mph.
It is just at 100 mph the road would hold a lot fewer cars and you would be backed up on the onramp. Going faster you often have to speed up and slow down because of traffic movement and it is a lot faster speeding back up to 60 mph than it is back up to 90 mph and still keep a safe distance. Going faster you have to do a lot more braking and a lot more speeding up. Now all of that is in theory.
If the road has few people on it you would be able to go faster because you could fill in the empty places in the road and do your weaving through traffic but you are just concerned with congestion and it just is not true that going faster would cause less congestion. The cars would be closer together going slower but they would still be at their safe 2 or 3 second distance and able to keep that distance better than driving at a higher speed.
Good post John!
Of course, you’re preaching to the choir with me.
Many advocacy groups conveniently ignore certain facts if they hurt their cause. It’s too bad that there isn’t some neutral source like a university.
Sorry, meant to say over 7 Billion gallons wasted by congestion and 1.1 Billion gallons savings proposed by 55 which I took at face value from Senator Warner with very little factual support.
Hey Sherman,
Glad to help. To respond to your question I would never propose taking an Autobahn-style approach without incorporating factors such as lane discipline, otherwise you’re not really taking that approach. I always propose it as a complete package of removing speed limits where applicable, setting reasonable speed limits where required, using advisory speed limits to inform motorists of factors ahead so they can make informed decisions, and focusing on traffic flow management instead of speed management (lane discipline, no passing on right, and no tailgating).
The problem with most 55 proponents is they only analyze variables that 55 will affect in a positive way and ignore any changes in variables that are negative. For example, 55 proponents say it will save gas simply by illustrating how slowing down burns less gas, but do not take into account any other effects of such a policy. The reality is while it is true that slowing down a vehicle in a closed system can save gas, there are many other inefficiencies that are increased as a result. For example, the slower traffic drives the more congestion increases because the amount of traffic a road can process per unit time decreases, the same as if you slow down the rate at which water can flow through a pipe while the size of the pipe remains constant. In other words if you take the same amount of cars that will be injected into the same size road system and each must travel from point A to point B and now they must do so at a slower speed, congestion will increase. The only way to compensate for the slower speeds is either to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to expand the size of our roads to deal with the increased capacity demands (which is totally infeasible both money wise and in many urban areas land wise), or to reduce the number of vehicles being injected into the road system everyday (this is only increasing with population). As we know, congestion wastes over 7 BILLION barrels a year of gas and this is just documented in major urban areas so the number is actually higher.
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_27.html
It also increases other inefficiencies such as countless wasted man hours and also increases pollution as cars emit more CO2 in congestion than in free flowing traffic. These negative effects are always conveniently ignored and/or presented as completely unrelated issues by 55 proponents.
Being that the fuel wasted by congestion completely dwarfs any proposed savings by slowing down (such as the mere 61 million barrels a year proposed by Senator Warner) it brings two arguments into play. First, why aren’t we tackling congestion as a means to save fuel as there is clearly far more waste due to congestion than speed and therefore potential savings, especially since expanding infrastructure provides many more benefits than just fuel savings. The second argument is that it is a completely valid hypothesis to put forward that any savings generated by slowing down could easily be outweighed by the resulting inevitable congestion caused which cannot be ignored, since congestion is so much more wasteful. In fact, the end result may very well be wasting more fuel.
Of course, 55 proponents will always try to keep speed and congestion as too completely separate issues, ignoring their invariable dependence on one another. Imagine this scenario. Assume tomorrow everyone’s car had a 55 mph governor on it. The interstate system would literally come grinding to a halt in many areas, bursting at the seams with traffic and wasted fuel. In other words, for the law to be feasible it depends on the majority of the people not following it so that our highway system can function. Sounds like the only winners are government bureaucracies and big corporate insurance bank accounts that directly benefit from ticketing, which will be more egregious than ever before in our history.
So until a proponent of 55 can present a factual study of how much congestion a 55 mile in hour limit would cause and in turn how much fuel would be wasted, and then show that waste would not outweigh any savings generated by slowing down, it’s an incomplete, bogus argument.
The same issue applies to safety as 55 proponents say that if you reduce speed you reduce the severity of accidents and save lives, end of story. The same problem occurs here as they simply ignore the effects that raising or lowering the speed limit has on other variables. For one, we’ve already established that lowering the speed of traffic reduces flow rate and increases congestion which increases accidents. It is also obvious that under posting speed limits decreases lane discipline, which increases tailgating, weaving, road rage and creates packs of traffic making traffic flow much more dynamic and less predictable for the driver. Essentially, you cannot have the benefits of the Autobahn system that has led to the much lower death rates and improved safety with under posted limits because it breaks down traffic flow. 55 proponents will never acknowledge the fact that under posting limits can actually be counter productive. They always ignore variables that are negatively affected and only focus on positives and not the overall result.
While increasing speed can increase the severity of an accident it also helps thin out traffic and reduce congestion, reduce tailgating, improve lane discipline, increase seat belt usage especially when enforcement focuses on these aspects of driving and drivers are taught these concepts in drivers ed. Speed limits are so under posted that nobody can pass anyone else legally, hence these issues will not go away without greater speed flexibility. It’s forcing drivers to drive with one hand tied behind their back on roads that are designed most often for speeds in excess of 100 mph. Many people will say the interstate is only designed for speeds of 70 to 80 mph and leave out a key operative word…MINIMUM. Rural interstates must be built with a design speed of AT LEAST 75 mph. To say the design speed is exactly 75 mph and no more is ridiculous. More money would have to be spent to purposely under build the road, making grades where there are none, hills that aren’t there, steep curves that are not required, and purposely limiting sight distances. If you want to see how design speed is determined buy the latest AASHTO publications which according to federal regulations are the design manuals for interstates.
It is also important to mention that interstate accidents are inherently more survivable than other ones because a sudden deceleration (which is what kills you) is not common. The energy is usually dissipated over a long distance, as opposed to hitting a tree with instant deceleration on a side street. I’ll take a sliding, rolling interstate accident at 100 mph over hitting a tree head on a 40 mph any day.
It has become very clear that the ability of 55 proponents to analyze the cause and effect chain beyond one step is completely lacking and they always present a partial picture simply excluding the analysis of variables that don’t fit their argument or try to separate them out as if they are not related. The overall result is then ignored, which in the end is the only thing that matters.
Randy Says:
{I have also reported that most reports are flawed. They can give you death statistics and things like that correct but as far as injuries it is hard to quantify. As an example a broken pinky finger is different than a broken neck. Most reports would not show a difference.}
I do believe that there is a small glimmer of hope for you after all, Randy!
Here are a couple of hypothetical scenarios for you to ponder:
1. I’m westbound on Colorado Interstate 70 (posted speed limit 75) 30 miles from the nearest rest area or gas station when nature really starts to call. I try to make it to the next exit but even at 75-80 mph it’s just too far away. The urge is way too strong and I have to go RIGHT NOW! So I pull onto the shoulder, park and exit the car when passing traffic allows. For modesty and privacy reasons I head down a fairly steep embankment when I take a bad step, fall and severely twist my ankle.
Alternately, I fall head first into a small boulder and smash my skull, or land within striking distance of a pair of prairie rattlesnakes engaged in a mating ritual.
2. I’m able to hold on and make it to the rest area. I’m headed back to the car after concluding business when a crackhead steps from the bushes and tells me that if I don’t hand over my wallet he’s going to kick my ass and rape my wife. Gut instinct kicks in instantaneously and I proceed to beat said crackhead into a coma and in the process badly bruise my fists and sprang a wrist. I end up in bandages and a sling and Mr. Crackhead heads off for an extended stay at the ICU Hilton.
Now think about the above for a moment:
Since these events technically took place on or near interstate 70, when annual incidents/accidents and death/injuries reports (and don’t forget about the 75 mph speed limit) are tallied into the national annual highway statistics, just think about how the above are going to figure into it.
Scenario 1: One moderate injury or fatality
Scenario 2: One serious and one critical injury.
That is exactly why we all have to take these statistics with a large grain of salt because there are simply way too many variables involved for them to be anywhere near accurate.
And don’t forget the drive55.org cronies and other like-minded safety Nazis will continue having a field day with these hopelessly erroneous numbers in the pimping of their “speed kills” campaigns!
“YOU don’t have the RIGHT to drive 75mph
even if you can afford it!”
“YOU are costing ME money if YOU speed!”
Guess WHO made those statements folks??
Joe the report that are shown in your link is very limited and almost impossible to find any conclusion from it. What do they mean by Traffic Law violated? How do they know how many were not actually caused by speeding unless it was very excessive? what it does show though that accidents caused by speeding were the most dangerous accidents there are and right up there with DUI driving. Only 5 percent of the accidents proven to be speeding caused but almost 14% of the deaths in the state. These types of reports are good for newspapers or sites like this but how accurate are the reports and how do they conclude the numbers? As far as I know very few cars have radars pointed at them during an accident. Violated a traffic law can mean many things and can partially include speeding.
Driver Information, All Types of Crashes
Driver Violated Traffic Law 94.2 64.3
Driver Violated Speed Law 5.0 13.9
Driver Drinking 7.7 17.3
Driver Physical Impairment 6.2 7.3
Tim B if you owned an insurance company would you be willing to give cheap rates to someone who drives 88 mph in a 50 mph zone and someone who drives a couple of feet behind another car? I would not give someone with stats like that any insurance if I had to pay any claims. Chances of someone like that having an accident or major accident are way too high ocmpared to the normal driver.
I can not argue with most of what Sherman said. I have also reported that most reports are flawed. They can give you death statistics and things like that correct but as far as injuries it is hard to quantify. As an example a broken pinky finger is different than a broken neck. Most reports would not show a difference. There are many different variables in accidents that you will never get a true report of why. The thing that the Iowa report shows that in a group of states that are connected to Iowa all of the states that did not raise speed limits had mostly declining fatalities and some by a bunch while the ones that increased the speed limits had a significant increase in deaths. On the surface with such numbers there would be no doubt that speed increases the death rate. Of course it is always possible that the states with lower fatality rates also had huge safety campaigns that made many things mandatory and had more enforcement of such things as seat belt laws and DUI than the states with increased limits. Thousands of hours would be needed to look at all of the variables to see what really happened. References to statistics on the Autobahn compared to US states also can not be compared because of many variances mentioned.
As far as credit scores, the insurance companies are regulated by the states and I am not sure how many have approved credit score ratings. Many on this board do not understand insurance. There are many companies in a state and if one charges more for a particular driver then that driver can and often do go to another company. The insurance companies want to evaluate each driver as close as possible to the amount of claims that they will have so that they do not lose drivers but at the same time do not want to be charging less than that type of driver has in claims. Insurance companies do more rigorous checks on statistics than you can imagine. If they find that people with poor credit scores cause more claims then they are going to charge them more unless the states say they can not. In which case they have to charge more for other drivers to make up the difference. Insurance companies do not go by what they feel like in determining rates but rather by statistics. They have thousands of times more data than many of the reports that are talked about here. They do not go by the number of deaths that occur but the actual cost of repairs and medical claims and law suits.
Sherman,
It’s not just Farmers.
All of the insurance companies now use your credit score to determine how much they charge you for coverage.It’s a shame that they’ve chosen to keep their policyholders in the dark about it.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/block/2007-06-11-ym-credit-car_N.htm
Higher speed limits meant fewer speeding tickets issued, which translated into a dramatic drop in premium increases on their policyholders who were formerly deemed “chronic speeders” which in turn equaled much lower quarterly earnings (profits) for them!
That’s the one and only reason they were vehemently opposed to the repeal of the 55 mph limit.
Insurance companies are the biggest scheisters alive. I lost my insurance because of 3 speeding tickets and one for “tailgating” One of the speeding tickets was while passing a semi on a 2 -lane road in DE on SR 16 on a straight streetch with no cars for miles ahead. Clocked at 88 in a 50 (what can I say, when passing I don’t like to dilly dally!). Said the officer: “There is never any excuse for exceeding the posted limit!”
7 days later within a few miles of the same spot coming into a little town (where one should always obey the limit because they are Nazis), I could have passed this minivan with DC tags that was poking along coming into Milton, DE. Well I decided NOT to pass because I would have to slam on my brakes to meet the in-town speed limit. Well coming into town Mr. Minivan sees a cop with a radar gun and slows to 15mph (!!!) in a 35 zone, so I end up with a ticket for tailgating! MF $%^&. My insurance went from $700 a year to $2300 a year for several years even though I haven’t had an at-fault accident in years (and that was a parking lot fender bender) and have driven over half a million miles with only 2 fender benders to my name.
The ONLY factors (prelated to the driver)that should apply to insurance premiums is how many dolalrs in claims you have had inth elast 3 years. They only track accidents and tickets. it doesn’t matter if you have a fender bender (say $500) or a wreck with faqtailties, it counts as one accident. Ridiculous! I don’t care if you are 16 or 66, male, female, single, married, divorced, etc. None of that should matter. Your claims are PROOF of how good or bad a driver you are.
And driver’s ed is a joke in the USA. Anyone with an IQ greater than their age can ge ta license. Perhaps if we had serious drivers ed like they do in Germany we could save a lot of lives!
Very interesting stats regarding the Autobahn John, thank you.
I like to mention the Autobahn whenever the topic of speed/speed limits and safety comes up. There is nothing like a real world example.
Still, playing Devil’s advocate for a moment, if I were a 55 mph proponent I might say that there are other factors involved (some of which I mentioned in a recent post). The Germans have much stricter licensing requirements, tougher DWI laws, and are very serious about lane discipline. So it could be argued that without changing anything else about our system, simply removing the hard limits and replacing them with “reasonable and prudent” would not work.
What would be your response to that?
I’m just trying to prepare a good defense of reasonable and prudent!
Your thoughts?
Joe,
It seems both sides of almost any issue can cite studies to support their position.
It would be interesting to have the NMA and the NHTSA come up with lists of their “Top 10″ favorite studies and then have an independent analysis done.
Darryl,
What an outrageous rip-off by Farmers Insurance! Determining auto insurance rates based on a customer’s credit score?!
My guess is that Farmers knows that customers with higher credit scores can more easily switch to another company.
Sherman, just a quick note to help you out on some statistics. The German death rate is not even in the ball park of ours. Ours is 65% higher. Kind of embarrassing considering all our restrictive speeds in “the land of the free”. Actually our system sounds more reminiscent of the old East Germany.
http://cemt.org/IRTAD/IRTADPublic/we2.html
“The speed limit on the GDR autobahns was 100 km/h [63 mph], however lower speed limits were frequently encountered due to the poor condition of the road surface, changing quickly in some instances. The speed limits on the GDR autobahns were rigorously enforced by the Volkspolizei, whose patrol cars were frequently encountered hiding under camouflage waiting for speeders.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn
Sound familiar?
You also wondered what would happen if Germany adopted a blanket speed limit. This actually happened once before from November 1973 to March 1974 during the embargo but was quickly lifted, as ours should have been. Death rates per 100 million VMT according to the Bundesminister für Verkehr (traffic minister) are as follows:
1972 4.51
1973 4.02
1974 3.06
1975 2.75
1976 2.24
1977 2.13
1978 2.09
1979 1.75
As you can see the death rate continued its inevitable decline before, during, and after the blanket limit to its current all time low of about 0.47.
The Autobahn-style approach represents a highway of the future that is faster, safer, and more fuel efficient than ours leading to the production of some of the best performing, safest, most fuel efficient cars in the world. Our approach is dated, based on old failed policies and under performs in all of these areas resulting in our fading auto industry.
Study: Higher Interstate Speed Limits are Safe; Purdue University study concludes raising the interstate speed limit in Indiana had no negative safety consequence. http://ww.thenewspaper.com/news/24/2442.asp
Indiana is a surrounding state to Iowa.
Virginia Traffic Fatalities Hit 17-Year High. One thousand motorists died on Virginia roads despite crack downs on motorists and massive speeding ticket fines. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/21/2148.asp
Darryl wrote;
{You enjoy being an antagonist don’t you, Randy?}
Darryl, what was your first clue? He can’t be for real. I think he’s a troll.
You enjoy being an antagonist don’t you, Randy?
I know this may go over your head but please try to comprehend that I seriously doubt any sane or rational member of the NMA or anyone that participates in these forums speaking out in support of realistic speed limits want to drive at velocities measured in warp factors on our rural interstate highways.
Like Sherman, I too believe that speed limits on most roads are actually set TOO HIGH and should be lowered, in some cases by half.
Case in point: The residential speed limits in most cities and towns in Kansas are arbitrarily set at 30 mph unless otherwise posted, and I don’t believe that any consideration whatsoever was given for street width, grading, sight lines, curvature or average population age (Most notably, children who seem to instinctively love playing in the streets on a warm summer evening, this former child included), and population density. In my opinion the speed limit should be lowered to 20, or even 15 mph in these areas, especially in the older sections of town.
It’s a whole different story on rural, multi-lane, divided, controlled access superhighways (i.e. interstate highways and highways built to interstate specifications) with their 12-15 foot wide lanes; grading is gentle to non-existent; medians that in some cases are up to 100 feet in width; curve radius’s that sometimes can be measured in miles and sight line visibility that stretches to beyond the horizon. Speed limits in these environments should be set to optimally reflect the capabilities of these superhighways.
Earlier you stated that by law insurance and guarantors have to return excessive profits to their policy holders. Hate to break it to you, but that statement is just plain wrong! Back in the late 90’s, not too long after speed control was returned to the individual states, Farmer’s Insurance summarily and for no apparent reason raised my premiums by 20%, regardless that I had not received so much as a parking ticket in the past 10 years. When I contacted my agent about the change, he stated that they were increasing premiums across the board because their profit margins were down substantially.
Obviously this wasn’t enough to boost their margins so someone came up with the wonderful idea to base how much we drivers pay on our policies based on our individual credit score. The theory being that a driver with a lower score is more likely to commit a traffic violation or be involved in an accident. Seems to me that someone with shaky credit would actually be a much more careful driver because they know that if they are involved in an accident that results in a total loss, they would have a much harder time obtaining affordable financing to replace their vehicle!
Interesting study Randy — even more so to me since I have family in Iowa.
I have no doubt the numbers are accurate — it’s how to interpret them that can be tricky.
One question I have about this study (and others) is, what were the _actual_ average speeds in every year studied? Not the posted limit, but the actual speed of traffic? Also, what about speed variance? For example, when the NMSL went into affect, there were of course drivers who continued to drive 70 to 80 mph, and others who obeyed the limit (whether they agreed with it or not). That created a hazardous situation where some people were tailgating, passing on the right, changing lanes frequently, etc. As I’ve said, I don’t expect anyone to break the law, and I certainly don’t defend reckless or aggressive driving — but the _reality_ is that if limits are set painfully, ridiculously low (e.g., well below the 85th percentile speed) there will be two groups of drivers — those who obey the limit and those who continue to drive at a comfortable or ‘reasonable and prudent’ speed. I didn’t see that taken into consideration in the study.
I’m not going to dispute that everything else being equal, higher speeds are more dangerous. If I were going to hit a bridge abutment, I’d rather be going 10 mph than 110 mph.
Of course, if our only concern were maximizing safety, we’d all stay home — or walk everywhere. If we did drive, we’d wear fire resistant racing suits, full face helmets, have roll bars and five-point harnesses in our cars, and drive 5 or 10 mph.
Everything is a trade-off.
I imagine there are some people who would advocate a 40 mph NMSL on Interstates — after all, that would save even more fuel (maybe) and be even safer than 55 mph.
Common sense tells us that higher speed = more dangerous. Yet the fatality rate on the German Autobahn is in the sane ballpark as ours (I don’t have the exact numbers at my fingertips). Of course, everything isn’t equal. The Germans are serious about driver training, DWI, proper lane discipline, and strictly enforcing what speed limits they do have. Here in America, we say driving is a ‘privilege, yet we give licenses to just about anyone. Epileptic? No problem! No sight in one eye? Here ya go! Eight DWIs? Well, ok, but it’s a restricted license (wink, wink). Old? Hearing and reflexes not what they used to be? That’s ok gramps, as long as you have the cash, we’ll hook you up!!
My point is that there are many variables. Speed is only one. Type of vehicle (late model BMW or 1971 Vega?). Ability of the driver. Driver training. Traffic. Condition of road. Weather. Glare from sun. Distractions. Etc, etc. Some of these can be addressed, others can’t. Unfortunately, although there’s no reason we couldn’t have our own “Autobahn” system here in the U.S., it will probably never happen because we don’t have the discipline that the Germans do. We’ll keep on handing out licenses to anyone with money and a pulse and set everything up for the lowest common denominator.
Speed alone does not kill. Running off the road and/or hitting other objects does. While it is important to adjust speed according to conditions and sight distance, it is misguided to concentrate on speed and ignore everything else I mentioned. There is so much we can do to make our roads safer — starting with the drivers. Better training and cracking down on ‘driving while distracted’ would go a long way toward reducing accidents. I’d much rather be travelling on an Interstate at 85 mph with drivers that are paying attention, than at 55 mph surrounded by idiots who think their vehicle is a living room/bathroom/office/kitchen on wheels. In fact, the last few times I’ve had to take evasive action to avoid being hit it was because the other driver was talking on a cell phone or otherwise not paying attention — _not_ because they were speeding.
The stats from Germany indicate that it is possible for people to drive much faster than we typically do here in this country and still have a very good safety record. Of course, that begs the question, what if the Germans drove slower? What if the maximum allowable speed on the Autobahn was 120 mph? 100 mph? How would that affect the fatality rate? It’s a good question. My guess is that the correlation between speed and accidents varies depending on conditions. IOW, if traffic is heavy and/or there are no shoulders then there’s little room for error and accidents might increase dramatically with average speeds over 55 or 60 mph (say). However, in the middle of Nevada, on an arrow-straight Interstate, with a 20 or 30 mile sight distance and no other cars anywhere nearby, any accidents are going to be single vehicle and probably due more to drugs/alcohol/fatigue than anything else. In that sort of situation the accident rate might not begin to creep up until speeds get well into triple digits.
I’ll leave it there for now. I’m interested in your thoughts about the above.
http://www.dot.state.ia.us/mvd/ods/2006speedstudy.pdf
Ok Darryl if I want to make sure I do not die on the road I will make sure I drive 130 or as fast as my car will take me. I hope it is enough.
REPOST (left out a few important pieces of information)
Uh, Randy?
Interstate 29 is in MISSOURI, not Kansas! And from the sound of it, that pile up was probably caused in part by low visibility which means that traffic was probably already moving far below the posted speed limit. My theory is somebody drove into a dense patch and panicked, didn’t move onto the shoulder before slamming on the brakes and started the domino effect.
And just what formula do you use to say that we have had a large increase of deaths on our secondary roads? Yes, the speed limit was increased 60-65 on a few two lane roads (mostly on the super twos) but for the most part, the speed limits remained unchanged.
Most all rural traffic deaths in Kansas over the past decade have been on the secondary and unpaved tertiary roads due mostly to rollovers (no seat belts and being ejected), crossing the center line into oncoming traffic, driving into ditches (again no seat belts and hitting the windshield or being thrown around the cabin), and by far the vast majority have been caused by collisions with trains at unmarked crossings at night. And in the lion’s share of these crashes the driver’s who managed to survive after killing their passengers were found to be well over the legal limit!
Also, you are only half correct in stating that there was a spike in fatal crashes after the limits were raised. This spike was temporary and occurred a few years back, and has since started to decline.
Most of the fatalities happened in a construction zone on U.S. Highway 50, between Newton and Emporia, when a total of 7 were killed on two consecutive days when semi trucks plowed into traffic that was stopped. In both cases the truckers should not even have been driving due to the fact that they both had preexisting medical problems that caused them to black out.
A few years before that, 6 people died on the Kansas Turnpike, not from excessive speeding, but from drowning when their vehicles that were parked on the shoulder washed away during a flash flood south of Emporia.
But since these tragedies happened on highways that are normally signed for 65 and 70 mph respectively, I’m sure Randy and his kind will try to twist this around and say that, “well there may not have been as many deaths occur or there may not have been any at all if the speed limits had only been left 55 at mph”.
Uh, Randy?
Interstate 29 is in MISSOURI, not Kansas! From the sound of it that pile up was probably caused in part by low visibility which means that traffic was probably already moving far below the posted speed limit. My theory is somebody drove into a dense patch and panicked, didn’t move onto the shoulder before slamming on the brakes and started the domino effect.
And just what formula do you use to say that we have had a large increase of deaths on our secondary roads? Yes, the speed limit was increased 60-65 on a few two lane roads (mostly on the super twos) but for the most part, the speed limits remained unchanged.
Most all rural traffic deaths in Kansas over the past decade have been on the secondary and unpaved tertiary roads due mostly to rollovers (no seat belts and being ejected), driving into ditches and the vast majority have been caused by collisions with trains at unmarked crossing at night.
You are only half correct in stating that there was a spike in fatal crashes after the limits were raised. This spike was temporary and occurred a few years back, and has since started to decline.
Most of the fatalities happened in a construction zone on US. 50, between Newton and Emporia, when a total of 7 were killed on two consecutive days when semi trucks plowed into traffic that was stopped.
In both cases the truck drivers should not even have been driving due to the fact that they both had had preexisting medical problems that caused them to black out.
A few years before that, 6 motorists died on the Kansas Turnpike, not from excessive speeding, but from drowning when their vehicles that were parked on the shoulder washed away during a flash flood south of Emporia.
But since these tragedies happened on highways that are normally signed for 65 and 70 mph respectively, I’m sure Randy and his kind will try to twist this around and say that, “well there may not have been as many deaths occur or there may not have been any at all if the speed limits had only been left 55 mph”.
Hi Randy,
I think what we have here are two groups of people who will never agree.
As with many subjects, this one has a very emotional component. It is also political and psychological. Therefore, it is often difficult to have a rational discussion about speed limits.
As with many advocacy groups, both the NMA and the “55 or slower” crowd have their share of fanatics. I’m sure there are members of drive55.org that delight in obstructing traffic — finding a slow moving vehicle in the right lane of a 4 lane highway and pacing it (running beside it) for mile after mile just because they can (never mind that there may be an emergency vehicle stuck in the parade, or a person desperately trying to get to the hospital). I am equally sure that there are members of the NMA who ‘fit the profile’ — tailgating, weaving in and out of traffic, cutting people off, etc.
So, these people can point the finger at each other and accuse each other of ulterior motives and anti-social behavior until the end of time, or, they can work together.
I’d like to think that most reasonable, rational people realize that they should not have any more control over others than others do over them. That “My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins”, and that as Americans, we all need to respect each others’ rights and compromise from time to time in order to make democracy work.
With regard to our public roads, this means that licensed drivers should have the right to utilize these roads in the manner in which they were intended to be used. That means being allowed to drive at a ‘reasonable and prudent’ speed and expect all drivers to practice proper lane discipline. Reasonable and prudent implies that said driver would _not_ be weaving, swerving, passing on the shoulder, etc. Reasonable and prudent might be 140 mph on a wide-open Interstate in the middle of the desert — it might also be 10 mph or less in an ice storm.
I like Tim’s idea of electronic speed limit signs. In fact, I suggested that myself several years ago and was laughed at — impossible they said, “it’ll never work, we’re all gonna die!!” In any case, I still believe that is a great idea. Pure democracy — let majority opinion rule. Take the average flow of traffic and subtract a certain percentage to establish the minimum legal speed — add a percentage to set the maximum. After all, both the ’speed freaks’ and the ’safety Nazis’ say that the majority of the public agrees with them. Great — let them vote with their right foot.
There is no reason why we can’t all co-exist. There are always going to be idiots on both sides of any issue, but I think most people are in the ‘reasonable middle’. I admit that I like to, “Follow the example set by the fine men and women of our local and state police departments” when it comes to velocity on Interstates, but I would never expect another driver to break the law to suit me. If I’m on a 2 lane road with no passing zones and I’m stuck behind someone driving the limit, oh well. That’s their right. The flip side is that if I’m driving a slow vehicle (my pickup truck with a load in it say) and someone clearly would like to pass, I do my best to allow them to. In fact, where it’s safe to do so, I will pull off onto the shoulder and wave them by. IOW, respect is a two-way street.
Oil is a non-renewable resource. We are pretty much at ‘peak oil’ right now. Any fiddling around the edges (55 mph NMSL, higher CAFE standards) will not change that fact. We need to move very quickly to alternative forms of energy.
One thought — there are many behaviors/practices that are wasteful. If we are going to mandate ridiculously slow speeds, then why not monitor the temp at which people maintain their homes? After all, excessive heating and cooling wastes a lot of energy — oil, coal, or natural gas. What about those wasteful plasma TVs? They take 3 or 4 times as much energy as LCD TVs. Maybe they should be banned. How about airplanes? Maybe we should have an “airspeed limit”. In fact, why not eliminate all holiday/pleasure travel?? After all, it’s unnecessary and wasteful. And let’s not forget RVs, motor boats, ATVs, ‘Jet Skis’, etc. Ban ‘em all!! Oh, and what about racing? HUGE waste of fuel right? We should shut down NASCAR and all other forms of motor sports. Come to think of it, all pro sports. After all, they’re always travelling all over the country, wasting jet fuel…
I’m sure you see my point. If we continue on the petroleum path, we’re in for a world of hurt. It’s past time to move on to alternatives, and stop arguing about who is most responsible for destroying the Earth. The fact is, we’re all responsible to a greater or lesser degree. Maybe a person drives a Prius and always obeys the speed limit but chooses to live 60 miles from their job. Are they morally superior to the person who drives a Hummer but bicycles to work, or has a 3 mile commute? The hypothetical examples are endless — the point is we all use petroleum in many ways, so if we are going to justify a 55 mph NMSL that way, then it is only logical to look at the other behaviors as well.
If 55 mph is safer, then what about 45? 25?
I would say that “reasonable and prudent” with proper lane discipline and (in some cases) posted absolute minimums and maximums (preferably electronic signs) is the way to go. That way, most people could drive at a speed that they felt comfortable with.
Finally, I’d like to suggest that everyone read James Baxter’s article in the latest NMA News, “A New 55″. He includes some well-reasoned talking points on this subject.
Sherman
Dec 21, 2007 in kansas
Dozens of vehicles were involved in a pileup on Interstate 29, authorities said.
The Missouri State Highway Patrol said preliminary reports were that 20 to 40 vehicles, including three semitrailers, were involved in the accident on the interstate at St. Joseph at about 1 p.m.
They must have been lucky?
Median cable barriers have performed successfully
in Missouri. An internal study determined that the
cable catches 95 percent of vehicles entering the
median and keeps the vehicles from entering the
opposing lanes (2).
On Interstate 70, the number of cross-median
fatalities had been increasing, reaching a peak of 24
motorists killed in 2002. The installation of 179
miles of median cable barrier on the freeway has
nearly eliminated cross-median roadway deaths. In
2006, only two cross-median fatalities occurred on
Interstate 70, a staggering 92 percent decrease. Missouri
DOT is completing a study of property damage
and personal injury related to vehicle crashes
into median cable barriers.
The benefits of median cable barriers in Missouri
were quickly apparent. The device has saved lives
after a short period of use on Missouri’s Interstates;
cable barriers have proved to be a valuable safety
engineering tool in reducing fatalities and serious
injuries on the state’s most heavily traveled roads.
Oh and by the way for Kansas, include all the statistics for that too. All speed limits were raised even on rural roads to 60mph. What are the statiscs on that? Last I saw was that the number of deaths increased by a large percentage right after the change and are still up there.
Darryl
Number of deaths each year: You are forgetting that we now have air bags and many side air bags in cars, more crash testing of vehicles, manditory seat belts and child restraints and children in the rear of vehicle laws and stricter DUI enforcement. This is just part of the list. And the number of deaths are still 43,000? If you are giving out facts you might as well include them all.
Tim: {More unsubstantiated nonsense. In fact, deaths are trending UP since
1992 rather than down. We seem to be stuck at about 43,000 traffic
deaths per year. That is ten times the number that died on 9/11! Every
year. I am convinced that had we stayed the course and remained
focused by this year we would be celebrating zero traffic deaths. But
we didn’t, the nascar nation has won the day and it is all about
feeding the addiction to speed – who cares if 43,000 Americans die
this year, right? That is just the price we pay because “time is
money” right?}
Tim is only partly correct in his assertions that total fatalities are at around 40,000 annually.
What he fails to mention is that allowing for population increase and nearly 3 times the vehicles on our roadways, the total miles driven have near QUINTUPLED since 1974. So actually the overall death rate has decreased dramatically.
He also doesn’t make a distinction between how many of those deaths occurred on the Interstate Highway System, as opposed to the deaths on all other roads. Or that it is a proven fact that nearly 90% of all traffic fatalities occur at speeds BELOW 40 mph.
Randy, you claim that I was wrong on most of my talking points to Tim but you have failed to elaborate which ones and why.
Before I forget:
On the rural Kansas interstates, which are all signed at 70 and have an average speed of 74, there have been a grand total of 3 fatalities in the last calendar year. 2 were attributed to drivers falling asleep and driving off the shoulder. The third was ruled due to inattentiveness because the driver rolled the vehicle while exiting and talking on the cellphone. He also wasn’t wearing a seat belt which may have very well saved his life.
TIM, I like the idea of electronic speed limit signs proportonate to driving conditions. It doesn’t seem reasonable to drive 55mph on interstates with 10-15 straight line visibility.(KS,TX,WY,MT)
If a 55mph NSL does come to pass I figure I can use the fuel I save for use at the
drag strip or road course.
“I Feel The Need, The Need For Speed”!!
Sherman I think that Tim was responding more toward things that he has read on this site more than just to Darryl. Since Darrl was coming across with the viewpoints of NMA and some of the members. The statements below pretty much sum up the viewpoints of some of the members of NMA but I am sure not all. Some here have said they have to weave around slower cars, do not want speed limits and do everything they can to get the slower drivers out of their way.
“Darryl, I suspect you are one of those weaving to get around all the
“slow pokes” that just won’t “get out of your way” – is that about
right?”
and:
“In your view, every
public road should just have no red lights and no speed limits, right?”
and:
“You want me to “get out of your
way” so you can drive as fast as you want, and if I can’t “get out of
your way” then you will ride my bumper and flashing your high beams to
try and make me.”
Left lane usage continued in response to Darryl:
I have been doing some reading on the Autobahn. People wonder why it might be safer than the interstates in the US. You made the point exactly. On the Autobahn you get a huge fine if you are caught tailgating within about 2 seconds of the vehicle in front of you. That ranks up there with one of the most serious infractions. One of the next in line with tailgating is passing on the right. Both of these things are what you said you noticed on US roads. Tailgating like you said does take a lot of fuel. Try to stay back at least 3 seconds if you can and if possible even father back and your braking will be reduced a bunch. Enough distance between cars and you may not have to hit the brakes at all if a car makes a turn off of your roadway.
Darryl: Our traffic flow is so inefficient it only takes a few cars to back things up because some people think they can drive in whatever lane they want at whatever speed and are bolstered in their belief by under posted limits. Think about it; there are always these packs of traffic moving down the highway of cars scrunched together. There is plenty of room ahead but one guy is blocking the left lane and 5, 10, even 15 or more cars are lined up behind him. If something goes wrong all these cars are packed like sardines which makes the accident that much worse. This also is the root of most road rage along with unnecessary weaving and braking to avoid collisions, which by the way wastes a lot of fuel.
Left lane usage:
I have seen many posts on this board that says the slow people stay in the left lane. In many states it is against the law and people do get pulled over for it. There is nothing more that can be done than to have a law and enforce it. If it is a law in your state go to the police and say there is a problem with people not following the law on your roadway.
WHy can’t we get elctronics speed limit signs that can be changed to reflect prevailaing conditions. During light traffic and good weather, 65-80 may be perfectly fine. During congestion, inclement weather or in the case of accident ahead or whatever, they can lower the limit to reduce the chance of traffic all piling up. Germany has such things at least near cities on what would be aour Beltways or urban/suburban interstates.
Daryl,
Thanks for posting your exchange with Tim at drive55.org.
I agree he could have done a much better job with his reply to you. I obviously do not support his position, but there is a rational argument to be made for lower speed limits (I don’t find it convincing, but that’s beside the point).
Unfortunately for his organization, he didn’t make that argument and so did nothing to advance his cause. Tim comes across as being rather emotional and overzealous in his quest to force everyone to drive 55. His answers to your statements and questions were often just ad hominem attacks, such as these classics:
“Darryl, I suspect you are one of those weaving to get around all the
“slow pokes” that just won’t “get out of your way” – is that about
right?”
and:
“In your view, every
public road should just have no red lights and no speed limits, right?”
and:
“You want me to “get out of your
way” so you can drive as fast as you want, and if I can’t “get out of
your way” then you will ride my bumper and flashing your high beams to
try and make me.”
These statements are very revealing.
Let’s admit that most of us, at least once or twice have behaved in the manner he described. My guess would be that even Tim has become frustrated and acted out in some way when trapped behind a left lane hog.
That said, it is _very_ common for people to assume the worst about anyone who advocates for rational traffic laws (including 85th or 90th percentile speed limits), and completely ignore the substance of their position. Unfortunately for us NMA members, the statements Tim made seem to be the common perception — that anyone who wants higher limits on Interstates must be a road raging maniac who routinely passes on the shoulder, tailgates, flashes their high beams and generally acts like a anti-social idiot. It is common and unfortunate stereotype that we must work to eliminate. I like to tell people that while I would love to see an American version of the German Autobahn, I drive the speed limit (25 mph) or below when driving through town or through school zones. I will drive the limit or below on any road if conditions call for it. In short, there is a time and a place for everything. Some speed limits are set too high. Here in Maryland, we have narrow twisting, hilly two lane roads with no shoulders posted at 50 and 55 mph for example. Other limits are too low, and no limit can possibly be appropriate for all conditions. Reasonable and prudent really should be the guideline, with maximums where appropriate (urban areas, school zones, construction zones, etc).
Of course, that doesn’t address Tim’s concerns about fuel consumption. All I can say is we should have been funding R&D into alternative energy and fuels for 30 or 40 years now. Driving a few mph slower is only delaying the inevitable. I saw a comic strip the other day that said a lot. It was a picture of a guy driving a Prius who smugly says, “I’m destroying the planet slower than you are!”
The bottom line is we live on a planet of fixed size with finite resources and there are too many people. Mandating higher mileage cars isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it just treats the symptoms. The U.S. uses 25% of the world’s resources and we are 5% of the population. What will happen when China and India develop fully?
Instead of arguing about whether we should drive 65 or 85 mph (or whatever) we should be looking for alternatives to oil.
Darryl an example of where you are way off is in your statement below. This is only one example of your statements but most of the others are off also.
I do not know how old you are but I know that with adjustments in inflation 1 dollar oil would be the lowest price ever in history. Where do you get ideas like that? Oil companies do not set the price of oil. There are exchanges where oil is purchased along with options. Do your research. The more supply there is compared to demand the lower the price.
Speeding cameras seem to be much more fair to me than anything else there is. They usually give at least 10 mph over before they are triggered to give tickets and in most if not all states they require signs warning they are there. As far as insurance companies the largest auto insurer is a mutual company. If profits are excessive then the money is returned to the policy holders. Also there are many insurers out there. If the one that you have raises your rates you have the option of going to another company. As far as hurting the economy, speeding uses a lot more fuel. That goes to foreign countries and hurts our economy a lot worse than anything you mentioned. As far as speed is concerned at least with my vehicles I save almost 15 percent in fuel dropping from 65 to 55 mph. Some cars I am sure have less of a drop in mpg but anything over 65 mph drops mileage by a lot.
Me: Sorry to break it to you guys but gas prices will likely never be in the sub $1.00 a gallon range again since we have proven to Big Oil we are willing to pay much more than that no matter how ridiculously low you want the speed limits set. Also don’t forget the wonderful field day that speeding tickets (shored up by new technologies such as speed cameras) and jacked up insurance rates will have taking money out of the hands of the consumer and putting it into the coffers of bureaucracies and large corporations which will only serve to reduce consumer spending and hurt the already struggling economy even more.
Randy,
Go and take your medications.
Like yourself, Tim’s “facts” are nothing more than mindless, baseless rantings conjured up in the figments of his own vividly twisted imagination, and also like you he really does needs to get a life for himself and stop trying to control the lives of everybody else!
He couldn’t come up with any intelligent or rational rebuttal to my letter so he had to resort to snide juvenile snippets and downright disrespectful insults which he tried to unsuccessfully come across with as being witty and humorous.
I suspect that people like you and him are suffering from a combination of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and a huge inferiority complex.
Maybe you guys should try dating to get out the house more often!
Darryl it sounds to me like Tim put you in your place. He had all the facts on his side. Your points were all put down and by facts. You and many others here only read things that promote your agenda. You do not read the scientific facts.
His name is Tim Castleman, actually.
Sorry about the typos and punctuation errors in the above. It was very early and I was still groggy when I was editing it! :-)
All:
The following is a very interesting response to a modified letter that I posted in this forum which I sent to Tim Hastings, HNIC (Head Nut job in Charge), over at Drive55.org.
This guy is obviously one of those “my way or the doorway” type of folks and I must have hit a few raw nerves for him to take time to personally respond. I’m going to write him back concerning his rantings later. I encourage all of you to send him some “love” as well!
I put all of his comments in brackets:
Darryl,
Since you went to so much trouble I have taken the time to reply to
your letter. My answers are inline below.
Tim
Me: Dear Sirs/Madams:
Will you please explain in detail why in the world you wish reinstate a national speed limit on our highways?
{Tim: I did, it is at http://www.drive55.org}
Me: That’s not moving forward that’s going backwards! Do you people honestly believe that in the year 2008 we should be setting speed limits that are the same as those in the 1940’s and 50’s?
Tim: {Yes.}
Me: Interstates are the arteries of our country. Slow them down and you slow the economy down. And no, it will not effect fuel prices anyway. First because of > he traffic created (it’s weaving in dense traffic that causes many accidents by the way),
Tim: {Actually, research shows that slowing traffic REDUCES congestion AND
accidents, but I agree it is speeders “weaving in dense traffic” that
causes mny accidents.}
Me: second because oil prices are rising mostly due to the severely weakened dollar and our government overprinting money, {oil prices are relatively stable > compared to gold prices; notice how they have both gone up in unison. If our dollar was as stable as gold, oil would be $30 a barrel right now} and
Tim: {How do you account for the falling prices lately then? But going
further, doesn’t it bother you that 7 out of every ten dollars you
spend on gas goes to foreign interests?}
Me: third because most people won’t follow a national 55 mph speed limit! I’m sure you say that “well if we could just get people to slow down it might work”. Well it’s not reality and never will be so stop lobbying to make laws that depend on something that will never happen!
Tim:{Congratulations, the #1 reason given, people will not do it. I have
no reply other than to say I don’t wanna hear no more whining about
the price of gas or loss of freedom we are experiencing. You are
getting what you are paying for.}
Me: We should be making laws that optimize traffic flow and restore respect for the left lanes which would thin out traffic, reduce accidents and help the economy by speeding up our internal transportation system. Overall, our speed limits are already under posted (never mind them being set for the 85th percentile, in most cases that’s not even the average speed) and combine that with cruising in left lanes and not using them as passing only lanes as they were intended, leads to cars weaving and ultimately resulting in very dangerous traffic snarls.
Tim: {Using your logic, even speeders doing 85 MPH must move over for the
speeder doing 95, right? Where does this legal bullying end then? What
nonsense this 85th percentile is. I have a question for you “no speed
limit” people, how will you compensate for the extra lost lives and
increased property damage that results from your need for speed?
Darryl, I suspect you are one of those weaving to get around all the
“slow pokes” that just won’t “get out of your way” – is that about
right?}
Me: Our traffic flow is so inefficient it only takes a few cars to back things up because some people think they can drive in whatever lane they want at whatever speed and are bolstered in their belief by under posted limits. Think about it; there are always these packs of traffic moving down the highway of cars scrunched together. There is plenty of room ahead but one guy is blocking the left lane and 5, 10, even 15 or more cars are lined up behind him. If something goes wrong all these cars are packed like sardines which makes the accident that much worse. This also is the root of most road rage along with unnecessary weaving and braking to avoid collisions, which by the way wastes a lot of fuel.
Tim: {Yep, this paragraph confirms it, you are a road rager, weaving,
speeding, always in a hurry and pissed off at the “slow pokes” in your
way. Darryl, you are THE problem – your addiction to foregin oil is
rapidly destroying America and you will go down in history as modern
day Benedict Arnold’s – traitors to this country.}
Me: The mere suggestion to implement old outdated policies that have been an absolute failure in the past will cause far more harm than good. Just like Prohibition and Jim Crow.
Tim: {Well, we got over slavery, and women can vote now, and hardly anyone
smokes cigarrettes in public if at all, so there is hope. There are a
handful of forward thinking people that don’t want to fund any more
petroleum wars and we are willing to moderate our consumption – wish
you were on our side, but you are clearly taking sides with petroleum
warlords and so have become my enemy. Beware.}
Me: You must also realize that the 55 mph speed limit was also directly responsible for the immense amount of damage inflicted upon the American auto industry, ultimately resulting in cars that were inexcusably poor products both in terms of quality, reliability, performance, safety and fuel efficiency. After all, they only had to be safe and have decent performance up to 55 mph. The answer to having safe, better built and more efficient vehicles isn’t to lower the bar so that the car of the day with it’s poor performance, safety and gas guzzling is acceptable; it’s creating the demand for a better car by raising the bar. 55 mph set our auto industry back 25 years and in the process made our cars the laughingstock of the motorized world for which the industry is still paying the price to this day because it is just now starting catch up. And no, a national 55 mph speed limit certainly is not going save us now.
Tim: {I am weary of this nonsense. You make a lot of claims but offer
nothing to back it up other than the emotional pleas typical of any
addict denied his drug of choice. Withdrawal is painful and best dealt
with sooner than later. I suggest you start walking and riding a bike
much more, it will help, really it will!}
Me: You also claim that you favor returning to the 55 mph speed limit because it was “safe” and it “saved lives” and you then attempt to make people feel guilty if they don’t support it. If driving 55 mph is supposedly safe and according to you, saved 4,000 lives a year, then can you please explain to me why traffic fatalities were running between 50-60,000 annually during the years when the 55 mph limit was most strictly enforced and only started declining to today’s record low levels only after it was repealed? Also, even with the steady decline, why then am I still 66% more likely to die on the American Interstates for a given mileage driven than the German Autobahns, over half of which has no speed limit? The answer is our traffic flow system is total and absolute a mess, thanks in part to the generation that learned to drive during the 55 mph era when driving skills plummeted along with the speed limits!
Tim: {More unsubstantiated nonsense. In fact, deaths are trending UP since
1992 rather than down. We seem to be stuck at about 43,000 traffic
deaths per year. That is ten times the number that died on 9/11! Every
year. I am convinced that had we stayed the course and remained
focused by this year we would be celebrating zero traffic deaths. But
we didn’t, the nascar nation has won the day and it is all about
feeding the addiction to speed – who cares if 43,000 Americans die
this year, right? That is just the price we pay because “time is
money” right?}
Me: If you really want to make a difference then work with reality and help to make our roads fast and safe with optimal traffic flow while moving us forward. Here’s a few suggestions:
1) Synchronize all of the urban traffic signals on the surface streets nationwide. Just imagine how many millions of barrels of oil a year that this simple measure alone would save. It would also eliminate most all of the constant stop and go driving and traffic congestion thereby greatly reducing time spent on the road. A very desirable side benefit is that smog in the larger urban areas would be greatly diminished, if not eliminated all together.
Tim: {Actually, in downtown Sacramento they are all synchronized to 27 MPH,
and have been for as long as I can remember, yet most drivers hurry
from red light to red light accelerating to 45 or 50 between each one.
Should we synchronise them for 45 or 50 then? In your view, every
public road should just have no red lights and no speed limits, right?}
Me: 2) Teach all motorists how to drive, teach them to do it well under all conditions and circumstances. Putting heavy emphasis on situational awareness, attentiveness, courtesy and lane discipline. Also implement a mandatory semi-annual safety inspection of all vehicles allowed onto our streets and highways. If both of these steps were enacted and rigorously followed, we will not only gain a nation of safe drivers, but in addition the vast majority of functionally unsafe vehicles will be removed from the roadways, both which in turn will contribute to cutting our traffic death toll to even lower levels than it is now.
Tim: {I sincerely hope you will be one of the first in line for this new training!}
Me: 3) Implement realistic but stringent fuel efficiency standards and stricter enforcement of all existing traffic laws, not just the most profitable ones. A mandatory 90 day license suspension for first time offenses such as Texting While Driving would drive the point home in a hurry.
Tim: {Wow – from advocating no laws to draconian measures that punish rather
than inform. I would have cops pulling folks over for “time out” and
soon enough folks would realize they will get where they are going
quicker by sharing the road with others.}
Me: I know that the above will not go over well with your group because first of all it makes common sense, is readily doable and really would be effective in saving lives, restoring air purity (along with healing the environment in general), lowering fuel consumption and improving the quality of life. And secondly, I suspect that you really couldn’t care less about saving lives, energy, trees, bears or anything else for that matter. I believe your motives are ulterior and underhanded at best and that your true intent is to no doubt exact a measure of control over the lives of others.
Tim: {Ah, finally, you say I want to control others. I disagree and claim it
is YOU that wants all the control. You want me to “get out of your
way” so you can drive as fast as you want, and if I can’t “get out of
your way” then you will ride my bumper and flashing your high beams to
try and make me. Who is trying to control who now?}
Me: Lastly, do you guys really believe that any of what you are trying to ram down everyone’s collective throats will stop climate change or
conserve a single drop of oil?
Tim: {YES.}
Me: Climate change is a natural occurrence and nothing we can do will stop it (If you don’t believe me, then ask the scientific community why the polar ice caps on Mars are melting…I’m pretty sure that we humans didn’t have anything to do with it). Secondly, every barrel of oil that we don’t buy goes right onto the world market and into the hands of countries that may not have as effective fuel economy or emission regulations as the United States. So in actuality if by some slim chance you did get your way, you would actually be contributing to the problem, not solving it!
Tim: {OK, so let’s see, you DON’T believe thousands of scientists with
mountains of evidence about climate change, but I bet you DO believe a
supernatural being is coming in the clouds on judgment day to rescue
you from this wicked world, right?}
Me: Sorry to break it to you guys but gas prices will likely never be in the sub $1.00 a gallon range again since we have proven to Big Oil we are willing to pay much more than that no matter how ridiculously low you want the speed limits set. Also don’t forget the wonderful field day that speeding tickets (shored up by new technologies such as speed cameras) and jacked up insurance rates will have taking money out of the hands of the consumer and putting it into the coffers of bureaucracies and large corporations which will only serve to reduce consumer spending and hurt the already struggling economy even more.
Tim: {I hope gas hits $10 gallon tomorrow. As concerns speeding cameras -
wow suddenly you are concerned about your right to privacy! You must
be terribly upset that congress has let the bush administration and
the telecom industry of the hook for illegally wiretapping your
phone! What did you do to stop that?
Lastly, if YOU really want to help America’s struggling economy, stop
funding petroleum warlords! Your need for speed is costing America
$700 Billion dollars every year – don’t take my word for it, listen to
oilman T. Boone Pickens. SEVEN HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS EVERY YEAR IS
LEAVING AMERICA to buy more oil, so you can speed to the next red
light. YOU are the one wrecking America with your selfish lack of
concern for the next generation. So sad.}
Tim
*********************************************
If all that comes to pass it seems the only way some of will
“Get Their Need For Speed” will be on the race track. Bob Bondurant’s School.
I hope that the Autobahn doesn’t change, its nice to know that there’s one place in the world that is free of limits.
I want to be safe from wild bears but I like to know they are still out there roaming free. Alaska comes to mind.
Yes Baja Joes I read a few of the links on the subject of Spain dropping speed limits. They expect to cut their foreign oil imports from 5 to 6 billion dollars. That is a lot of savings for a small country. Even the AUTOBAHN may put in limits some day to reduce fuel usage. I have heard they already have limits on part of it.
Spain is being serious on cutting back on foreign oil to reduce their trade deficit and to improve their economy. The same thing that I have been pushing for. Not at the 50 mph that they are going to but in the 65 mph range with strict enforcement. We could save 100s of billions of dollars rather than the 5 or 6 billion Spain is anticipating. The same people that blame our government for our bad economy are the same people that are spending more money on fuel by excessive speed and sending the money to foreign countries.
*
********************************************
SPAIN just lowered its Natl. Speed Limit to 80 km/hr(48 mph)!
Let us hope this is not contagious to the rest of the world.
I hope to someday drive the AUTOBAHN and experience complete freedom from speed laws!
*********************************************
You guys are waisting your time on Randy. Data doesn’t matter or does anything else. He’s (I assume Randy is a male) like a broken record. He wants everybody to drive his speeds and that’s it….period. He wants you to drive the way he wants you too. I sure hope he never gets a position where he can influence speed limits. I think all of you are going to have to agree to disagree on this subject ….with Randy.
There are those who think that speeds should be determined by the market place. E.g. if you can afford the higher fuel consumption than that’s fine. I tend to agree.
The safety argument always seems to creep into the picture because the safety Nazis are always interested in an excuse to lower the speed limit. The last survey I noted was that about 70 percent of Americans said they did NOT want a NMSL. There’s simply no doubt that lowering the speed limit will cause a significant non-compliance. This could be at the heart of this movement. Higher non-compliance equal higher revenue. I’m sure the municipalities are rubbing their hands together in glee waiting to collect. The insurance companies are doing the same thing.
Further, the fuel consumption excuse will gradually fade away. Long term as electric vehicles merge into the pix their performance will eventually exceed the performance of the current vehicles with internal combustion engines. Speed will again be an issue. It will always be an issue as long as humans drive. Speed probably rates on par or immediately under safety when it comes to travel. Speed is an essential, priority factor in transportation. That’s one of the reasons air travel has become so popular.
Why the talk of high speed rail? Why do the Germans have unlimited speed limits on some of the autobahn?
We have to identify Randy for what he really is; a member of that “slower is better” crowd. This isn’t a safety or fuel consumption issue with him, it’s a philosophy.
Randy writes:
By the way significant increase in fatal crashes means a lot more people die if you did not know.
You and everyone else on this board seems to say that increasing speed limits has no affect. The truth is you are wrong and the statistics show it. The report showed an increase of hundreds of deaths among states that increased speed limits. Of course a few hundred deaths mean nothing to most people on this board. They would rather have more deaths so the roads are less crowded so they can drive faster.
Also the main point of lowering speeds right now is to save on fuel not accident statistics.
Randy, did you even look at those numbers?
19 of 40… that’s less than half of the states that did it.
10 of 36… less than a third of participants.
6 of 31… less than a fifth.
Overwhelming statistics, those. If a person were bad at math, he might even believe that there was a strong causal relationship that would carry over into other areas of study… Of course, then that same person would have to look at those same statistics again and realize that the most overloaded roads showed the least detriment when the limit was raised.
You did see that, right? Only a fifth of the states who raised their urban interstate speed limits showed a problem serious enough for you to consider. Apparently those speed-limit-raising states had drivers who were (1) already going that speed, making the new limit moot, or (2) equipped to drive the new heart-raising speed of 65 MPH.
Which do you think it was?
Either way – common-law higher speed limits or drivers who self-evidently can handle higher speeds – your desire to make the government hold everyone’s hand while we cross the street is misguided.
I did look at the video above. It pretty much summed up what I have found. They want to decrease the limit to 65 mph and found that people use 7% to 23% more fuel for every 5 mph increase in speed. I would guess that is above 65 mph. They also talked about increasing the fines for less than 10 mph over the limit so that the decrease in limits would mean something.
I also need to say that I have driven across Kansas. Driving at 65 mph across the state would be no problem. If you think it is impossible to drive at 65 mph across the state of Kansas then you should not be driving with such a lack of concentration.
This is one report on safety that I found. It is not the whole report but is a part of the summary. By the way significant increase in fatal crashes means a lot more people die if you did not know.
19 of 40 states experienced a significant increase in fatal crashes along with the FIRST speed limit increase on rural interstates (Figure 4).
10 of 36 states experienced a significant increase in fatal crashes along with SECOND speed limit increase on rural interstates (Figure 5).
6 of 31 states experienced a significant increase in fatal crashes along with the speed limit increase on urban interstates (Figure 6).
Randy writes: {Traffic deaths are down for many reasons. Air bags started to be installed and now mandatory on all vehicles, mandatory seatbelt regulations, mandatory kids in the back of vehicles and child restraints, more vehicle crash test requirements, more enforcement of DUI and it goes on and on. It is not that speed has increased that made cars safer.}
This is complex and probably above your pay grade but listen closely. First, it is safer cars and better equipped roads that have made higher speeds accessible without any elevation of risk. I need not explain again why higher speeds generate higher productivity. However, what you miss once again is that slowing speeds below the prevailing optimal speed of travel (chosen by drivers in the absence of LE) is more dangerous than remaining at the prevailing optimal speed; therefore, when speeds are allowed to increase to the natural level, yes, that is safer because it is faster.
{Since there are a lot more accidents on two lane roads and around town the lives saved is because of the lower speeds and better safety regulations.}
Randy, pay attention. Crash-, injury-, and fatality-rates are higher on 2-lane roads than Interstate-grade roadways.
{ When you start to go over 75 mph the death rate and injuries go up on highways.}
Bullshit. Where do you come up with this bogus stuff? You’re just being dishonest as well as irritating.
{As far as going slower making people fall asleep, how would you like to have someone fall asleep on the road that you are traveling going at 100 mph? Falling asleep can happen at any speed by the way.}
The whole point of higher speeds is that to maintain risk homeostasis – remember that concept? – requires more attention. Drivers fall asleep at speeds well below their optimal, not above it.
{Lowering speeds can decrease gas prices also by using less fuel. This has been shown in the past week with less usage in the US dropping the price big time. It does not take much decrease in use to affect prices.}
Actually, the connection between decreased usage and decreasing prices is weak. Petroleum prices have responded more to manipulation by speculators and hedge-funds.
{I do not know what speed limits should be . . .}
Truer words have never been spoken.
If we had substantially higher speed limits, now the cops will concentrate on other infractions now ignored such as tailgating and keep right.
People today stay left and cop an attitude, “I’m already few miles over limit make your own lane”, because of this insane artificially set speed limits of 55 & 65, Our country’s speed limits should consistent with Europe’s.
Absolutely no lane discipline today, which is more dangerous than speed itself. tail gating someone cruising comfortably doing 80 mph in left lane in moderate traffic, ticket. Not keeping right in light traffic, ticket.
Randy, again it is you who do not get it.
Sure, safety is a multi-variable equation and the accident rate decrease with the repeal of 55 cannot be directly attributed to the higher speeds. However (ta da!) Arizona did show a marked decrease in interstate highway deaths when the limit was raised to 75. It was not the only state to experience this in the Nineties, at a time when no major advances in auto safety equipment were being rolled out: we were in between 1st- and 2nd-gen airbags, ABS was widely but not universally installed, side curtain airbags were an exceedingly rare thing.
No miracle gadget to give the credit to; simply a more driver-friendly environment. I loved the freedom to smoothly pass tractor-trailers without fear of LEO interference. Still do.
As far as falling asleep goes: I am sorry that this is so hard for you to grasp. Perhaps you’ve never driven at high speed. We could use cinema for a simile. Higher-speed driving is like an engaging movie: the mind is (duh) engaged. The senses are heightened, as we suspend disbelief in the theater and relate to the central character(s)’ situation. Try that with a boring movie, or a 55-mph Interstate highway. It doesn’t happen. One has to force oneself to stay awake if there is even the slightest temptation to nod off.
Do we want sleep-inducing freeways? Or ones that make it evident to the driver that attention is required? Obviously, attention is required even with the speed limits championed by the brain-dead among us, but should we enable a group stupor or an attentive body of persons interacting with each other and their environment?
Randy, please imagine for a moment a world beyond the U.S.’ borders. Imagine some guy, an oil buyer, in some foreign country, who just found out that America is buying less oil from all of the people that he buys it from. This guy makes money from reselling oil. Now that there is more oil available for less money (thanks USA!) he’s going to buy (A) less (B) more?
B! He buys more. No oil is saved. Less is used by the USA, ergo we punish ourselves for some perceived sin proclaimed by the Prophet Al and his servant Randy, and the environment suffers anyway.
But do we get to save money while we are saving the Earth for Al and Randy? Hmmm… Less oil in the U.S., with more people (unless Al and Randy get busy sterilizing us) and thus likely more cars, so more or at least steady demand for fuel. Higher demand for less commodity equals (drumroll please…)
HIGHER PRICES!
“I do not know what speed limits should be…”
You should have stopped at the first three words. That summed it up.
As an American history buff, I liken this speed limit reduction to the War Between the States. It’s ironically similar. We have basically 51 battles to fight. Obviously the Feds, and the fifty states. If you doubt me, refer to House Resolution 6458 and Senate Bill 3266 on Capitol Hill. Now we have http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/jul/28/kansas_energy_council_looking_65_mph_speed_limit/. The latter is (well, I can’t find a word beyond ridiculous, so I’ll use riduculous). Bottom line is we have many battles to fight. We must remain vigilant.
I suspect that any federal action on speed limits will stall until 2009, after the election. Interestingly, my feel is that there will not be a national return to 55 mph, but possibly 60 or 65. Kansas’ latest initiative is absolutely horrible public policy, and I hope the Kansas Legislature will see through this facade. Has anyone ever driven across Kansas? It is a desolate, nothing-for-miles, form of torture. 55 or 65 would literally drive those who wish to comply to a form of insanity and subsequent therapy. I was actually quite surprised that Kansas held out and refused to return to a reasonable 75 mph limit.
Like I mentioned above, we have 51 battles to fight. Two valid arguments which should “86″ this craziness is that we will probably not realize more than 5-10% compliance, combined with 10-15 mph tolerance. By the way, it will move valuable, finite law enforcement resources to the safest roads (controlled-access Interstates) and away from primary and secondary two-lanes which are the most UNSAFE roads.
Let me bottom-line this for you: this is really, really stupid public policy, both at the Kansas level and the federal level.
Why? Why are we having to endure this nonsense. The NMA needs to get someone in Topeka pronto to fight this crap.
As far as CO/2 emissions, see my compliance and enforcement issues above. Zero sum gain.
Hwyhawg
You guys do not get it.
”
If driving 55mph is supposedly safe and according to some of them, saved 4,000 lives a year, then can they please explain to me why traffic fatalities were running between 50-60,000 annually during the years when the 55mph limit was most strictly enforced and started declining to today’s record low levels only after the 55mph limit was repealed?”
Traffic deaths are down for many reasons. Air bags started to be installed and now mandatory on all vehicles, mandatory seatbelt regulations, mandatory kids in the back of vehicles and child restraints, more vehicle crash test requirements, more enforcement of DUI and it goes on and on. It is not that speed has increased that made cars safer. In the 70s and earlier many died in 30 mph crashes. That almost never happens now if you have your seatbelt on and have a newer car with all of the newer safety equipment. Since there are a lot more accidents on two lane roads and around town the lives saved is because of the lower speeds and better safety regulations. When you start to go over 75 mph the death rate and injuries go up on highways. You can not stop as fast and if you get out of control you are going to keep going hundreds of more feet without stopping unless you are the unfortunate one that hits something at that speed or greater. The lower limits are not being discussed for safety reasons though even though it is safer but more for the huge amount of fuel savings you get at lower speeds.
As far as going slower making people fall asleep, how would you like to have someone fall asleep on the road that you are traveling going at 100 mph? Falling asleep can happen at any speed by the way.
Lowering speeds can decrease gas prices also by using less fuel. This has been shown in the past week with less usage in the US dropping the price big time. It does not take much decrease in use to affect prices.
I do not know what speed limits should be but I do know that for the most part anything above 65 mph is increasing productivity very little. Driving a Semi above that speed takes a lot of fuel and pretty much the only drivers that go faster than 65 mph are not paying for the fuel out of their pockets. Automobiles also get a lot lower gas mileage for anything over 55. If I were to vote right now I would say 65 mph would be the speed limit and make it strict enforcement. If oil prices starts to go back up a lot more and becomes limited in availability I would vote for a 55 or 60 mph limit.
*********************************************
BRAVO DARYL!!! Well said!
*********************************************
Why on Earth would anybody wish reinstate a national speed limit on our highways?
That’s not moving forward that’s going backwards! Do they honestly believe that in the year 2008 we should be setting speed limits that are the same as those in the 1950’s and 60’s?
Interstates are the arteries of our country. Slow them down and you slow the economy down. And no, it will not effect fuel prices anyway. First because of the traffic created (it’s weaving in dense traffic that causes many accidents by the way), second because oil prices are rising mostly due to dollar inflation and our government overprinting money (oil prices are relatively stable compared to gold prices, notice they have both gone up in unison, if our dollar was as stable as gold oil would be $30 a barrel right now), and third because most people won’t follow a national 55mph speed limit! I’m sure you say that “well if we could just get people to slow down it might work”. Well it’s not reality and never will be so they need to stop lobbying to make laws that depend on something that will never happen!
We should be making laws that optimize traffic flow and restore respect for the left lanes which would thin out traffic, reduce accidents, and help the economy by speeding up our internal transportation system. Overall, our speed limits are already under posted (never mind being 85th percentile, they aren’t even average speed) combined with cruising in left lanes and not using them as passing only lanes leads to cars weaving and therefore causing very dangerous traffic snarls.
Our traffic flow is so inefficient it only takes a few cars to back things up because some people think they can drive in whatever lane they want at whatever speed and are bolstered in their belief by under posted limits.
Think about it, there are ALWAYS these packs of traffic moving down the highway of cars scrunched together. There is plenty of room ahead but one guy is blocking the left lane and 5, 10, or even 15 cars are lined up behind him. If something goes wrong all these cars are packed like sardines which makes the accident that much worse. This also causes lots of road rage and people weaving, not to mention wasting fuel by all of the unnecessary braking to avoid a collision.
The mere suggestion to implement old outdated policies that have been an absolute failure in the past, will cause far more harm than good, just like Prohibition and Jim Crow.
The 55mph speed limit was also directly responsible for the immense amount of damage done to the American auto industry resulting in cars that were poor products both in terms of performance safety and gas usage. After all, they only had to be safe and have decent performance at 55mph. The answer to having safer more efficient cars isn’t to lower the bar so that the car of the day with it’s poor performance, safety and gas guzzling is acceptable, it’s creating the demand for a better car by raising the bar. 55mph set our auto industry back 20 years and made our cars the laughingstock of the motorized world and the industry still paying the price to this day because we are just now starting catch up, and no 55mph speed limit is going save us now.
They also say they favor returning to the 55mph speed because it was “safe” and it “saved lives” and then attempt to make people feel guilty if they don’t support it. If driving 55mph is supposedly safe and according to some of them, saved 4,000 lives a year, then can they please explain to me why traffic fatalities were running between 50-60,000 annually during the years when the 55mph limit was most strictly enforced and started declining to today’s record low levels only after the 55mph limit was repealed? Also, even with the steady decline, why then am I still 66% more likely to die on the American Interstates for a given mileage driven than the German Autobahns, over half of which has no speed limit? The answer is our traffic flow system is total and absolute a mess, thanks in part to the generation that learned to drive during the 55mph era when driving skills plummeted along with the speed limits!
If these people really want to make a difference then work with reality and make our roads fast and safe and optimize traffic flow, moving us forward. Here’s a few suggestions:
1) Synchronize all of the urban traffic signals on the surface roads nationwide. Just imagine how many millions of barrels of oil a year that alone would save by eliminating all of the stop and go driving and urban congestion. A side benefit is that smog in the larger urban areas would be greatly diminished.
2) Teach motorists how to DRIVE, teach them to do it WELL under all conditions and circumstances. This will go a long way into cutting our highway fatalities to even lower levels than they are now.
3) Implement realistic but stringent fuel efficiency standards and stricter enforcement of ALL traffic laws, not just revenue generating speeding citations. A mandatory 30 day license suspension for first time offenses such as Texting While Driving would drive the point home in a hurry.
I know that the above will not go over well with that group because first of all it makes common sense and it is readily doable. And secondly, I suspect that they really don’t give a whit about saving energy, lives, trees, bears or anything else. I believe that their intent no doubt is to exert a measure of control over other people’s lives.
Also, do they really believe that any of what they are trying to force down everybody’s collective throats will conserve a single drop of oil or stop climate change? Climate change is a natural occurrence and nothing we can do will stop it (If you don’t believe me, then ask the scientific community why the polar ice caps on Mars are melting…I’m pretty sure that humans didn’t have anything to do with that). Secondly, every barrel of oil that we don’t buy goes right onto the world market and into the hands of countries that may not have as effective fuel economy or emission regulations as the United States so in actuality, if by some slim chance they did get their way, they would be making the problem worse, not solving it!
Sorry to break it to you guys but gas prices will likely never be in the sub $1.00 a gallon range again since we have proven to Big Oil that we are more than willing to pay more than that no matter how ridiculously low you want the speed limits set. Also, don’t forget the wonderful field day of speeding tickets (shored up by new technologies such as speed cameras) and jacked up insurance rates that will take money out of the hands of the consumer and put it in bureaucracies and large corporations which will only serve to reduce consumer spending and hurt the economy even more.
I agree with you Jim but differ slightly on the SUV end of it. I would be much more in favor of the Autobahn-style approach to intercity sections of interstate also applying to SUVs as well, just as it does on the Autobahn itself. Most SUVs are not capable of speeds much in excess of 100mph, if that, as they are electronically limited already. Even with the limiters removed they can’t go much faster.
I don’t think any car should come off the production line capable of doing a speed it is not designed to handle, which seems to be the case already. If the engine would drive the car to a speed other components are not rated to deal with then it should be limited or preferably the necessary components upgraded so that if the limiter is ever removed the vehicle will still be safe. Most cars now are limited, mostly not due to performance limitations however, as most cars built are capable of handling their own top speed.
It also brings in the question of should a Porsche Cayenne SUV, capable of top speeds over 170mph which handles way better than most sedans, also be restricted while other cars are not. I think the issue would get very complicated and lead to unnecessary differential speed on interstates. I say gear the laws towards the production of the vehicle so no vehicle is produced that is capable of speeds exceeding its own design. However, as I said before for the most part this already seems to be the case, if not because of existing law, then liability issues.
When I am driving long distances at our low speed limits I have a hard time staying awake. 55 was a killer! Late model cars are capable of safely traveling at very high speeds safely. The German autobahns can attest to that.
I went to Germany in 2006. After the long flight I finally picked up my Mercedes rental car after being awake for over 20 hours (I just can’t sleep on planes). I had a 2 hour drive, much of which was autobahn. I was wide awake and alert the whole time!
I heard or read somewhere that inattentive and sleepy drivers kill more people than drunks. I can believe it. Most drivers multi-task way too much and it is dangerous too. On the autobahn you must pay attention and when you are driving at a comfortable speed you stay alert.
I think it would be much safer to have no speed limits on certain sections of freeway to prevent falling asleep and allow us to drive versus fly more often. I think trucks and SUV’s should be limited to the current speed limits since they are not safe at higher speeds. But sports cars and sedans could easily go much faster safely and the safety aspect is more important than the fuel usage issue anyway. Actually this may help encourage more people to trade in the thirsty truck for a more efficient car and overall we would save fuel.
Take a look at the video on the site.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/drive.shtml
I just read an article on the MSNBC web site
that tells about using the exhaust heat energy of a conventional car engine to generate electricity. This would seem to be a perfect application for hybrids like the Toyota Prius or Honda Civic to recharge the battery when you are running on gasoline. The recharge time would be drastically shortened and driving range much improved.
The 1971 datsun 1200 had aprox.1200 cc and Horsepower rating of 69. It made it thru the 1/4 mile at a leisurely 19sec/68mph and would finally hit the 100mph mark after one mile. 4spd/4 seater and got 34mpg/hwy-30cty.
It was a really cute car that my wife loved to drive because it was a fastback,sporty style and was cheap($2000)NEW!
It would never be allowed today due to lack of safety equipment but it was a fun city car
George 2 you must never even read your site that you are a member. They are not talking about bringing back cars with 1500 hp. It is more like 50 to 70 hp. Not race cars that get less than 20 mpg.
Joe,
You brought up a very important subject.
Here in Maryland, there are multiple police agencies — federal, state, and local. Even my employer (Metro) has its own police force.
One night I was driving home from work, northbound on I-270, when I was lit up by what seemed to be an unmarked car. It was an older model Chrysler sedan with red and blues mounted up high behind the windshield in front of the passenger sun visor. I began pulling over and just as I was moving onto the right shoulder, the car pulled off onto an exit ramp at the last possible moment.
I called the MSP Rockville barracks and enquired about the car. The duty sergeant told me that there are so many police departments that it is literally _impossible_ for the state police to keep track of what types of vehicles they are using!
I can only assume that the driver of the car that attempted to pull me over was a ‘wanna-be’ cop just fooling around, but I’ll never know.
Apologists for the police will point out that in most states it is legal to continue to drive (at or below the limit) until you reach a well lit public area. That sounds good, but in reality most people pull over immediately out of habit when they see disco lights in their rear view mirror. Especially young women.
It is unnecessary and unsafe for police to use unmarked cars for routine traffic enforcement. I won’t say here, but there are multiple ways for the police to do traffic enforcement with marked cars that cannot be beat with radar/lidar detectors or a CB radio. It really is like shooting fish in a barrel. There is simply no need whatsoever for unmarked cars to be used for routine patrols.
I thought Oklahoma was one of the states that had outlawed the use of ‘plain wrappers’ for traffic enforcement — for public safety reasons. I guess I was misinformed.
James, you buy’em books and send’em to school (Randy) and what do get? By the way, your boys in blue here (TPD) in Tulsa are starting to endanger the public with their unmarked cop cars ….after dark. Already two impostors have struck. They did get caught but they don’t know who they may have had contact with as impostors. These were basically kids. One of these days it’s gonna be some real criminal not so easily caught and people are gonna get seriously hurt (raped or killed)….all for the almighty dollar. I’m sure I don’t need to remind you, when it comes to money the TPD don’t give a damn about public safety.
Portugal was always known for a high rate of highway deaths, typical left lane fly by speeds used to be 100-130 mph due to low enforcement.
Now i read somewhere if you get caught doing 100+ It’s $2,500 Euros fine, lap top equipped cars with credit card machines to pay the fine on the spot, you can can plead not guilty in court and money refunded if you win, but very unlikely. Car impounded if you can’t pay or at least a substantial down payment.
Now depending how fast over their 75 mph speed limit fines increase to as high as $2,500 Euros. This is what you call speeding and not like in America where one gets hijacked doing 67 on a 4 lane wide freeway big enough to land a 747 by the people that suppose to serve and protect.
Deaths there have dropped substantially and the Portuguese government has collect millions of dollars in a few months since the new traffic codes.
Oh, and you don’t need a v6 or v8 to go very fast. 4 cyl F1 cars were so fast they were banned, 1500+ horsepower.
My apologies! My age is showing. The OFFY 4 cyl was gone in ‘65 and the HONDA egines are now V8’s. Getting too old.
Baja Joes yes it does seem to be doing fine at sucking fuel. Might as well have an eight cyl.
City/Highway/Combined 18/25/21
The INDY 500 seems to have all 4 cyl cars that are doing fine.
I’ll have a HONDA S2000 PLZ!!
That car wasn’t even close to “floored” to reach 100. A much more common highway speed for me would have been 80 mph or so and it would do that in 3rd, 4th and 5th gears. In 5th, it wouldn’t even be close to redlining. Your assertions are getting dangerously delusional.
Funny James Young. They are talking about engines with half the horsepower that you are talking about. I am sure your car would be able to drive 100 mph with a 50 hp engine. Also even with a 105 hp car you would have to keep it floored to keep up to a hundred mph. How long do you think that car would last? You truely have a screw loose.
Randy writes: {Sherman I have recently read on this site that they want to bring back the low powered vehicles like the past. If that happens like what is being promoted on the NMA site then 65 will be fast if not the maximum speed you could get up to. It is a lot in the vehicle you drive in. If you drive a big V8 then 75 mph is slow because it is half throttle or less. If you instead drive one of the smaller 4 cyl cars then 65 feels fast. There will be fewer and fewer 6 cyl cars in the future and almost no 8 cyl cars. What are you going to do then. The 85 percentile will be in the 50s or 60s. Would you decrease the speed limit then?}
That is such a thoughtless response that I’m embarrassed for you. Speed does not necessarily correspond to power. I had a 1984 4-cylinder BMW 318i with (IIRC) 105 hp and it would run 100 mph for hours if need be. I drove it straight through from both Tulsa to Los Angeles and Austin to Los Angeles about 6 times. My Dodge van with 318 cu. in. V-8 was jittery over 70 mph. It is also very common for motorcycles with less than 50 hp to run well in excess of 75 mph. To seriously consider that 65 mph would be some sort of absolute limit due to diminution of engine size is absurd.
To assume that actual driving speeds will diminish because engine sizes decrease is unwarranted. I’m trying to be delicate with this because the assertion is so absurd as to be laughable.
{You also said “I drive the same way whether I am in a hurry or have plenty of time.” That pretty much means to me that you drive the same speed no matter what.}
Sweet Chocolate Jesus! Where do you come up with this sh!t? This is exactly the concept that I have been explaining to you about each driver’s optimal speed and their internal calculus of risk homeostasis. Think of it this way: as the conditions improve, speeds rise to meet that driver’s internal risk tolerance; as conditions worsen, speeds decline to keep the same risk tolerance.
Sherman I have recently read on this site that they want to bring back the low powered vehicles like the past. If that happens like what is being promoted on the NMA site then 65 will be fast if not the maximum speed you could get up to. It is a lot in the vehicle you drive in. If you drive a big V8 then 75 mph is slow because it is half throttle or less. If you instead drive one of the smaller 4 cyl cars then 65 feels fast. There will be fewer and fewer 6 cyl cars in the future and almost no 8 cyl cars. What are you going to do then. The 85 percentile will be in the 50s or 60s. Would you decrease the speed limit then?
You also said “I drive the same way whether I am in a hurry or have plenty of time.” That pretty much means to me that you drive the same speed no matter what. Maybe I did not specify that it is on the same roads and not in the middle of town and not on ice but what I meant stands as what you said.
Randy,
Please re-read my post. I never said that I, “drive the same speed no matter what.” I fact, I said just the opposite.
“Reasonable and prudent” means of course with regard to conditions — it absolutely does not mean picking a speed and blindly driving that speed no matter what (as some people who conscientiously follow posted limits do).
You’re correct that in most cases exceeding the posted limit is not “needed”. That’s beside the point. The point is that our limited access highways were designed (in the ’50s and ’60s) for 80+ mph speeds — with the cars of that time period. It is inefficient not to use anything to its potential. It is also mind-numbing to travel at 55 or 60 mph for hours on end on an arrow-straight stretch of highway the width of a landing strip.
You’re also correct about speed variance being a safety issue — that’s why engineers specify that the limit be the 85th or 90th percentile speed — NOT the 20th percentile as politicians have dictated.
I grew up in a state that didn’t have a posted limit on hwys, it was “reasonable &
prudent.” The area was rural with open spaces and 15 miles btwn towns. “Most” folks drove somewhere in the 60’s. Of course there were kids out to see how fast daddy’s car went but it was surprisingly reasonable I thought.
Cars then weren’t as good and I think we drove within the comfort zone of the car we were driving. My dad had a restored Model A and of course 30 was fast in it.
Sherman go gocart racing if you like to drive hard. To say that you drive the same speed no matter what is what I have been talking about all along. Speeding is 99.9% not needed. It is like I have been saying all along. It is a speed you have been accustomed to and that is it. As far as slower speed limits being more dangerous it is because others just like you going faster than the limit and others following the limit that is causing the most problems and like you said going faster than the limit is not needed just as you said yourself.
If the limit was increased 10 mph like most all drivers are driving now a lot of people wouuld incerease their speed 5 to 10 mph more than what they drive now unless they really felt unsafe on the road. A lot drive at the speed they think they can get by without getting a ticket and get used to that speed. I would bet a lot of people drove 65 mph when the limit was dropped to 55. Now that it is a 65 mph limit I bet they are driving 75.
Randy,
While there are of course plenty of drivers like the one you described who passed you only to save 7 seconds, the time savings (or lack of) is not the point for many of us.
We’re _drivers_. We enjoy driving and like to travel at a reasonable and prudent speed. It often has absolutely _nothing_ to do with potential time savings.
I drive the same way whether I am in a hurry or have plenty of time. As the lyrics in Golden Earring’s “Radar Love” state, “There’s a voice in my head that drives my heel.” I drive in a manner that is appropriate for conditions. If I’m in a school zone or congested urban area, I’m the guy driving the limit or slightly under with traffic piled up behind me. When I’m on an Interstate — let’s just say I follow the example set by the fine men and women of the MSP (about 10 to 30 over depending on conditions).
The speed limits on some roads are actually too high, IMO. On Interstates however, they are way to low, laughably low, and most people realize that and drive accordingly.
One other thing — I can’t speak for everyone here but I would never expect another driver to exceed the posted limit. All I ask is common courtesy — keep right except to pass.
For those of us who have a passion for driving, our speed is determined by conditions, not by an arbitrary number on a sign that was determined by some politico or bureaucrat who chose to ignore standard civil engineering practice (85th or 90th percentile speed).
NMA should take our Government to court for accessory to murder. Deaths are at an all time low at higher speed limits, 55 saves lives propaganda was a lie, thousands would be walking on this earth if our brain dead geezer politicians would learn this simple formula:
It’s called lane discipline, keep right for slow drivers and keep left for faster drivers. But no, 55 is a ridiculous, fall asleep speed and mental torch er just to get to from point A to point B in this big country.
We’ll have even safer highways with a 75 speed limit and because there is no lane compliance with 55, faster traffic is all ways pushing from behind forcing constant lane changes and weaving.
Our government is responsible for killing allot people and has nothing to do with speeding. Why is this buffoonish mentality rampant with our elected politicians that 55 is safer than 75?
I don’t think we will get out of Iraq until their oil wells are dry as popcorn.
I hope I’m wrong.
Real fuel conservation will come as it hurts more and more from high prices. As long as people are comfortable with price they have no incentive to save fuel like you do.
When the oil embargo of 73-74 hit I was fortunate that I had a ‘71 Datsun 1200 that got 34 mpg hwy. I now have a Honda Accord that gets 35mpg hwy so I meet the gov mandate for future cars.
Baja Joes you are right to worry about Iran. You can pretty much let Iraq go and forget about it because you can not change the past. You can complain about it all you like but it does not do any good. Hopefully we can get out of Iraq soon. Being so dependent on foreign oil like we are makes Iran even more of a problem. Speed and other poor driving habits does cause us to use a lot more than we should. I have shown that I can average over 30% what the epa estimate is for my vehicle by driving correctly. Too bad there is not more education on the subject.
The $3-TRILLION $$$ WAR is the title of a book by Joseph E. STIGLITZ who says it is a Conservative estimate. It lays out the combined total costs of the Iraq war. A war based on LIES!
While your saving of fuel is commendable, it means little. As long as people can pay they can use all they want. I worry much more about a war with Iran than what we pay others for oil. If that happens oil will be rationed! The present estimated cost of the Iraq war is $3 TRILLION$$. That could have paid for a lot of alternative fuels.
OIL will never be extinct!But you may not afford it!
On my way home today. On my way home today I was passed by a person on a two lane road and I was going the speed limit. I timed it when when we got in town. He was 7 seconds in front of me. That shows how uninformed people are.
Talk about reducing stress, I was driving a relaxed speed 5 seconds behind the car in front of me. I new I was not going to pass so I kept my distance and just relaxed. The person that passed me caught up to the car in front of me and kept within a couple of seconds of the car.
He put more stress into his life by passing, worrying about oncoming traffic, worrying about keeping as close a distance between him and the car in front of him and hoping the guy in front did not hit his brakes. In the mean time he used a lot more gas passing and then braking to not run into the car in front of him.
Talk about people driving faster to reduce stress is usually not true. In the mean time I kept my distance so that I never had to hit my brakes and if someone turned in front of me I did not have to hit my brakes at all unless the driver in front has to come to a complete stop waiting to turn. How many here drive that way? I would guess few. Everyone seems to want to drive like crazy to save their 7 seconds and use 25% more fuel doing it.
Baja Joes you are wrong. If oil is used at the current rate it will be extinct except for that oil that we can not get to. It will not be in my lifetime but it will happen unless changes are made with science. Shortages and rationing would happen first and that may be in my lifetime.
You blame wars for our bad economy. How many wars do you know of that take 700 Billion dollars or more each year in which is our cost for importing oil?
How do you plan on making a hundred or two hundred Billion barrels of synthetic? Do you even know how it is made? Is there even a million barrels of synthetic made now?
OIL will never be extinct! It can be controlled by price or by supply. If you know history you know it has been done in the past. If something is in short supply and unaffordable people either band together and share or do without.
I don’t/can’t drive 85 legally but if it were legally possible I would. The best I can presently do is 75! And I don’t “need to” but its legal and I enjoy it!
IF it ceases to be legal I won’t.
In my opinion the Dollar$$ is going down because of all our wasteful WARS! And there is NOTHING backing it. The U.S. is bankrupt but not because of OIL.
“It’s Not Possible To Go To The MOON!”
“It’s Not Possible To Make Billions Of Gallons Of Synthetic Oil!”
Anything Man Can Concieve Man Can Achieve!
SPEED vs FUEL ECONOMY has already been voiced by our gov’t. The have mandated the avg miles per gal as 35 for future cars. If they wanted they could have mandated no car be able to go more than 55.
Of course people would immediately modify them.
Unless fuel rationing(God forbid) happens it doesn’t matter what the speed is. Some will use more fuel then others.
In the long run it will be MPG not MPH!
Synthetic Oil has been around in large volumne since Jets started flying.
It is in every aircraft in the world!
It is the preferred method of lubrication.
*********************************************
Baja Joes
You are wrong about several of your comments. Oil will become extinct unless science comes up with something to replace it. Not in the near future for sure unless you know something everyone else does not know.
The problem with pricing is that we will be spending more and more money on foreign oil until other countries end up owning everything. It is contributing a great deal to the trade imballance and it is one of the reasons the value of the dollar is going down which makes us spend more on oil. If we have any type of shortage whether it is by a hurricane or by a country like Iran we would be in a world of hurt. You are right that price would then make us conserve. Many would not be able to drive to work let alone drive your 85 mph.
How do you plan on producing billions of gallons of synthetic oil? It is not possible.
People in NYC live in a small space where you either walk to work or take public transportation. You would have to increase public transportation a thousand fold to come close to replacing everyone’s vehicle.
You are right if it is a slow process where supplies start to diminish. People would then start to live within a mile or two from work or within public transportation. That would leave millions of homes vacant.
Other than the couple of people that say that it would increase their driving time significantly on vactions, there have been no good reasons stated why you need to drive 75 mph or 85 mph.
Randy, I agree with some of what you say about safer cars and gov’t intervention but it seems safety is occuring without a reduction in speed. Fuel conservation will occur because of price unless our country becomes Facist. OIL will never be extinct! In WW2 the Axis continued with Synthetic oil after their oil supply was cut off. I use Synthetic oil in my car because it is better.
Lots of people in NYC don’t own cars because they can’t afford them. Pricing will work!
Baja Joes most of the posters on this board blame the government for not doing anything and when they do something to improve society and make it safer and better living conditions you all complain and say I am not going to follow that. You can not have it both ways. James brought up how much safer driving is today than in the past. Well it is because of all of those government regulations you keep fighting that is making it safer.
“James Young writes ” This is also not a matter of driving skills because the drivers that currently populate our highways have produced the best safety rates in our history.”
The only reason that the safety rates have been going up is because of mandatory seat belt use, mandatory kids in the back of vehicles, mandatory air bags, many vehicles with daytime running lights, mandatory crash tests. The things that this site is promoting against for so called driver freedom have been what have increased the safety records.”
You all say that it is your freedom to drive at whatever speed you want to and use as much fuel as you see fit. When I took driver training it seems to me that they said it was a privilege to drive not a right to drive. You are using government highways when you drive and you are endangering other individuals if you drive reckless and it goes on and on. Your freedom does not mean that you have the right to jeopardize my freedom and everyone else’s.
To set speeds whatever they are to conserve energy is needed because fuel consumption is like voting. One vote does not make any difference just like one person saving 20% in fuel makes little difference. If you get many people to save 20% in fuel it makes a huge difference both to the economy and to our nation and to everyone here. Just like getting millions of people to vote would be.
I just got back in town and on my way I did more tests on what speed does to mileage. For every 10 mph over 45 mph my gas mileage according to the computer dropped 5 mpg. That was not an exact science test because of the limited miles etc. but that is pretty much what I have found during the past few months. So if I would drive 75 mph rather than 55 mph my gas mileage would drop 10 mpg which means I get about 30% better gas mileage at 55 than I would at 75. All vehicles are not the same but there is a similar difference in most cars.
Puleeeeze, people will simply downsize to a more efficient car for better gas mileage if it huts their wallet and some will not. We see home projects everyday of upscale 1 million + homes and they all sale like hot cakes, many Americans have the means to pay for high gas prices. We want driving to be a pleasure and not a chore especially in 0 tolerance police states that refuse to update to at least 65. I have been to Europe a few times and driving there is a pleasure because they have realistic speed limits. Very depressing coming back driving on 55 mph highways especially when there’s no traffic. You’re just a sitting duck ready to be stopped by the state patrol robbers. We don’t have a constitution anymore.
Randy, I would like to say you have every right to your opinion but I think you feel totally opposite from most posters on this board. If your answers to David’s questions are sincere how can you reconsile living in a free country? It seems to me those answers are more in line with a Authoritarian,Dictatorial,Socialist,Communist way of life. I am not calling you those but it seems you think that way.
David Lawrence
Randy, you said, “David I forgot to answer the rest of your questions”.
Actually you failed to answer ANY of my questions. None of the sentences ending in a question mark was really addressed. Here is a restated summary list for you to work on:
* Why should vehicles that get superior mileage be compelled to travel at the speeds that help those of lesser efficiency?
“99.9 percent of all vehicles are more efficient under 65 mph. If you can get California or another state to set aside one lane for fuel efficient vehicles to go faster then go for it. I would not be against that on interstates with many lanes.”
* Do vehicles that don’t even run on non-renewable energy sources need to be limited to the speeds of those that consume non-renewable fuels?
“Yes. What type of fuel does not matter. The fact is that fuel if not consumed by your vehicle could be used for other purposes. If you have a solar collector in your back yard maybe you can go for it.”
* What’s so special about 55 versus any other number, given that even in your clarification of recognizing that maximum efficiency varies by vehicle, you still point to speeds lower than 55 as being the best for the fuel efficiency?
I answered that above, but to further answer your question why even try to go lower than 55 because they can not even get you to drive 65. The true answer is that wind resistance becomes very noticable at 45 mph. At 65 to 75 mph it increases significantly and decreases mileage along with the wind resistance going fast up any type of hill takes a lot more fuel also so there is more than just wind resistance when talking about speed. If we have gas shortages some day(maybe not in my lifetime) you will see the speed limit down to 50 mph or lower unless some other types of fuels are going to replace oil.”
There is also the matter of completely ignoring the points made in rebuttal to your remarks about how going faster only saves a minute here or a minute there, when I have direct personal experience of significantly more time saved in my life by not having to drive 55.
“Probably over 99% of all commutes are less than 30 miles and most less than 10. It is true in those cases that speeding only saves a minute or two. That is unless you go on a long vacation tour trip every day.”
(I recognize that you have said 65 on interstates, which is again just another number for which you haven’t provided support. In fact, in that context it really isn’t clear to me anymore just what you’re arguing for here, if you’re not arguing for limits to be lowered. That is, after all, the topic of the blog post that started all this.)
“You can set any limit you want. If a limit is not enforced it does not matter what it is. I think to enforce speed limits there has to be a point system like in some states. You get so many points and you lose your license for a few months. That is the only way speed limits do any good at all. A person needs to know that if they go 3 or 4 mph over the limits they will probably get a ticket and points added. The fact is if you slow traffic down to the speed limits already out there we would save a lot of fuel. The difference between 55 mph and 75 mph in most vehicles is 15% to 30% fuel difference. The most benefit comes from decreases above 65mph. If you do not believe me do your own research. Any links I would post would not be believed anyway.”
Randy, you said, “David I forgot to answer the rest of your questions”.
Actually you failed to answer ANY of my questions. None of the sentences ending in a question mark was really addressed. Here is a restated summary list for you to work on:
* Why should vehicles that get superior mileage be compelled to travel at the speeds that help those of lesser efficiency?
* Do vehicles that don’t even run on non-renewable energy sources need to be limited to the speeds of those that consume non-renewable fuels?
* What’s so special about 55 versus any other number, given that even in your clarification of recognizing that maximum efficiency varies by vehicle, you still point to speeds lower than 55 as being the best for the fuel efficiency?
There is also the matter of completely ignoring the points made in rebuttal to your remarks about how going faster only saves a minute here or a minute there, when I have direct personal experience of significantly more time saved in my life by not having to drive 55.
(I recognize that you have said 65 on interstates, which is again just another number for which you haven’t provided support. In fact, in that context it really isn’t clear to me anymore just what you’re arguing for here, if you’re not arguing for limits to be lowered. That is, after all, the topic of the blog post that started all this.)
Instead what your supposed response to my comments got were insinuations that I was a reckless scofflaw who endangered myself and others by the way I ride my motorcycle. Unless you have some sort of evidence to support this, please try to engage in more honorable debate tactics.