By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
On the other hand, thank goodness for the "SLOW" lane. I was able to pass (easily) 25 cars on a (longer) uphill mountain pass, after following a CHP cruiser who made an illegal (to the peasantry that is) left hand U turn, from the "passing lane" (to go in the opposite direction ). Would never have passed those cars in the "PASSING" lane.
I don't know, I have been doing 75-80 on I-55 between Chicago and Joliet and had people pass me like I was standing still. That stretch of road is pretty crowded almost all the time and these idiots have to be doing at least a hundred when they pass me like that, weaving through traffic and hitting their brakes when they can't pass. So yeah you can, its just not safe or sane.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Probably have to ratchet up one's attention to be safe as possible on rurals. Got to watch every sideroad, crossroad, farmer's driveways and other driveways not to mention every oncoming vehicle. Then there are the occasional fools riding a bicycle in hilly curvy stretches. Every once in a while, we will see irresponsible drivers passing in double yellow no-passing zones. Got to be ready for them approaching every crest and coming up to each curve. Then, there are the deer at night. Know they run across interstates at times, but you have a little more lattitude to see them/avoid on an interstate vs a rural. On the plus side, motorcycle drivers seem usually behaved on rurals whereas see them going maybe 100 at times on interstates.
I know a few places along the interstate that on a dark night you will never see the deer until you hit them.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I understand my state raised the limit to 70 mph on at least part of I-85. The limit on other freeways here is still 65.
Certainly in Nevada and Utah, that was the case last December. On one stretch of US 6 east of Tonopah, NV, you could see the road 21 miles ahead (I measured it). On this same stretch we met maybe only 3 oncoming vehicles in 150 miles. (Speed limit is 70 mph, BTW.)
Of course, there are very few intersections and not many driveways -- not enough water, hard to survive there. No bicyclists or motorcyclists either in the 20-degree weather. We did see wild horses (mustangs?) well off to the side.
Ever try stopping quickly in a 4 ton SUV from 100mph?
I would like to comment also on the woman that said she calls the police in the car when a car passes her quickly. Talking on the phone without handsfree illegal, so even though the other person may be doing something illegal, you are taking your eyes off the road to get the license, then taking them off the road to call the police, even if you have handsfree, any type of phone call made in a car increases your risk of getting an accident.
Another point to consider, people on the road who smoke or smoke while driving are much more dangerous when doing the same speed limit as someone who doesn't smoke. Smokers have much slower reactions times, I always steer cleer of smokers on raod when I see them.
Thats my 2 cents!
Firstly, we get turns signposted 55, or 40, on a road which is ,say, 70. I read somewhere that they have to set a limit that pretty well anything arriving at that corner in average conditions would be able to stay on the road with, so a 30 year old Land-Rover with horsebox on tow could get round - hence the guy in the Ferrari or a nimble small car like a Mini or something won't have any problem at a lot higher speed. Otherwise people would start suing when their overloaded L-Rover fell off at 35mph because the sign implies it is safe at 35 (even though all roads can be unsafe in certain conditons).
I don't believe speed in itself is the problem in good road conditions; the problem is the relative speed compared with other road users, etc. In UK our motorways are statistically our safest roads - everybody is going the same direction, more or less at the same speed, etc, but where they are dangerous is in bad weather (esp fog, and snow because we don't get enough of it to be used to driving in it in Southern Britain) or when overcrowded, because of tailgating.
We had some debate here last year because fatalities on our roads - which are among the lowest in Europe - have stopped falling, last year or so. Apparently we have less deaths on the road now than in 1932, and it had dropped every year in between (excluding 1939-45, because of the blackout) and that is raw figures not per-capita.. ie now in Britain something like 14 or 15 people die per day on the roads and it was more like 20 or something in 1932. Now we have 25million vehicles - then less than 1 million - and they were mostly very slow. Of course, much of that is down to improved medical facilities, etc but also safer cars, seatbelts,crash helmets etc.
On a lighter note I loved the link to the traffic junction in India - it is amazing they don't have carnage, yet they are obviously used to it. At least they drive (mostly) on the proper side of the road....
Ask those stunt men in Hollywood who work in high risk situations daily. Do they feel safe? Odds are that they do just because they have taken every precaution to minimize the inherent high risk of their job, and, as a result, they feel safe. Risk is quantitative, safety is qualitative.
I am not trying to discount anything written here, just asking folks to use the correct word with distinction when posting in order to enhance the post's validity and meaning to the readers.
On the bright side, the forested medians do make unintentional crossovers very unlikely, and you can run with your high beams at night if there isn't much traffic on your side.
Interesting, "over 65 MPH" on the majority of the roads being tracked.
It doesn't list the limits for those roads.
Any other states with the guts to post what their citizens are actually up to?
Folks, you will be so much better off financially, emotionally and physically, if you would move to within walking/biking distance of your work. More sleep, less (if any) money spent on your vehicle, no traffic craziness...oh, it's well worth the move. Do it, you'll thank yourself!
Being emotionally a physically better off disappears when it is 5 below humid and the wind is whipping off the lake. Even a block long walk will freeze your bones.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Safety can be quantitative. Look at ratings of vehicles from IIHS and US Govt based on crash test data.
In dry daylight conditions on an interstate and no traffic in a person's direction, one can still have a tire or vehicle failure or human failure (heart attack) and veer across median into opposing traffic. Going 100 rather than 65 means there still will be a lot more energy left in out-of-control car when it crosses over median.
What is nature of wanting to travel at 100? Is it a thrill factor? Are there not carnival rides where one can get thrills safely and not endanger others? Is gross speeding a form of adolescence?
I do believe that it would be more than twice as much energy.
Also note that at 100 MPH your reaction time is much shorter than at 65 MPH. Sure you will be able to see that semi 2 miles ahead in plenty of time if your doing 100 MPH on a wide open interstate, but not that road buckle that just happened.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
There's no vehicle inspection process in Ga. So if a 1968 VW Beetle with a swing axle rear suspension and 4 wheel drum brakes (2 of which are working), and no crash protection to speak of can legally do 70. My 2006 A-spec suspensioned, upgraded rear sway bar, 4 wheel disc braked, fully padded interiored Acura TSX should be just as safe at 100. And probably get comparable fuel economy to boot.
100 mph is a nice round number. Again, it's within my personal margin of safety. If you don't want to go that fast, that's your prerogative. I practice lane discipline and I'm not going to ride our butt to get you out of my way. But on some SE highways I can easily cruise many stretches of road before I'd have to slow to passing speeds.
Road buckles, blowout, siezures, heart attacks??? geez!!!! Considering the cell-phone using, eating, reading, sleepy people already out there, my fully alert 100 mph is the least of your worries. And I'm much more likely to get a ticket. Funny.
I go back to safety being rated. Even at 55mph. There are different levels when all parameters are taken into consideration. I feel I'm safer in my car at 100 than someone in said Beetle or any other comparable car. Sure there is more risk at that speed. But have you seen some of the cars on the road? Would you drive those cars at ANY speed. Yet they are legally allowed to travel. Not to mention the speed limit doesn't really take into consideration the differing levels of competency. Some people shouldn't be driving 35 mph or even at all. But they are allowed to go 70 too.
I'm tired of driving by the minimum common denominator.
But I was allowed to travel of the roads as if I was just as "safe" as any other car. Yup, a 16 year old driver in a 17 year old car that was one wheel out of the junk yard in awe that his POS Beetle would still do 80 on the interstate. Safety??? Yeah right. I'm sure there are other stories just like that on the road right now.
On many of the roads listed, including all of I-495 (the Capital Beltway around DC), the speed limit is 55 mph.
Well I am in the north and while they are rare I have seen road buckles slow interstate traffic to a crawl. But here is a test, find some place that has speed bumps, go there in the middle of the night and get your car up to 100 MPH and hit one. Report back here what happens.
I have seen people lose control after hitting a pothole to fast.
100 mph is a nice round number. Again, it's within my personal margin of safety. If you don't want to go that fast, that's your prerogative.
But its not your prerogative to do at least 1/3rd over the speed limit making the section of the road you are on less safe for everyone on it.
Considering the cell-phone using....
I really can't understand using someone elses unsafe habits to justify your own unsafe habits.
I feel I'm safer in my car at 100 than someone in said Beetle or any other comparable car.
You know so do I, but guess what? I feel safer at 70 in my car than at 100 in my car.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
This last isn't overly surprising given that most crashes are the result of driver error, not mechanical failure.
100 mph is too fast, period, in today's traffic. No matter how safe the car, safety systems are well beyond their capability if you crash or roll over at that speed.
Drivers' abilities and reaction times haven't improved over the decades, either, and distractions like cell phones, nav systems, DVD players, drive-thru restaurants ad nauseum have proliferated. The sheer number of vehicles on the roads has also greatly increased, without a commensurate increase in the number or new roads or lanes built.
Drivers in the main don't check their tire pressures anywhere near as often as they should, so tire failure is a very real possibility at high speeds, especially in hot weather. I'm not confident the new tire pressure warning systems will help matters.
As xrunner pointed out, too many interstates (the safest roads overall), have medians that are too narrow without any barriers, allowing out-of-control vehicles to easily cross over into oncoming traffic (and maybe not remaining right side up).
No sir, the current 65, 70, and out west, 75 mph interstate speed limits are perfectly adequate, a reasonable compromise considering safety, convenience, and fuel economy. We'll see how Texas' experiment with 80 mph limits on about 500 miles of west Texas interstates pans out.
You have a great deal of confidence in your own abilities, but IMO most people aren't objective in rating themselves -- this is why most drivers rank themselves "above average" or better when surveyed.
I've seen some Chicago "pothole alert" potholes. They are dangerous. But again, we don't really have those here. Our holes don't just appear out of nowhere. Also that is why I said "when conditions permit".
1/3 less safe? 1/3 faster isn't 1/3 less safe for everyone. And even if we agree that it was, my car is probabaly 1/3 more capable that many others, and I drive 1/3 better. So it's thier prerogative niot to take driving training courses or drive a more capable car.
Unsafe habits are legal habits. Safety is safety. If we are purely talking safety, no point discounting other unsafe behaviours. Especially when there are more cellphone users that people driving 100 mph. Not to mention many demographics more likely to be distracted by said phone already havea bad safety record.
I also feel saf-ER in my car at 70 than 100 mph. But don't think 100 mph is UNsafe when done correctly. Heck I'm safer sitting still than at 70.
I'm not bragging. Just stating that someone can drive 100 mph and be just as "safe" as many drivers are at 70 when all parameters are taken into consideration.
Assuming you don't crash into someone but just roll side or end over end or maybe both, will TSX survive that? It would then be inconsiderate that those following on the interstate might roll over your debris. Have you ever been in a rollover or witnessed same? Know that purpose built Nascar racers with full roll cages, full driver harnesses, neck brace HANS, will let the driver survive a rollover at high speeds. Does IIHS or govt do rollover tests of production cars at 100?
Maybe we should stop driving altogether. Some road debris may hit the fuel tank and cause an explosion. Or maybe there may be a hairline fracture in my chassis and my car may break in two. If we go through lives worrying about the what-ifs that would be a sad existence. And that's coming from someone who has renal failure and depends on a dialysis machine to stay alive.
But remember at 100 MPH you won't see them soon enough, road buckles don't show up on the road as easily as a speed bump thats a different color than the road. And seeing that you are traveling at almost 150 feet per second good luck at stopping before you hit it.
1/3 less safe? 1/3 faster isn't 1/3 less safe for everyone.
I didn't say 1/3 less safe I said i/3rd over the speed limit. FWIW every study I have read makes that additional 1/3 increase in speed far more than 1/3 less safe. Going 100 MPH would increase the risk of a fatal accident by 125% over doing 75 MPH by some studies.
Unsafe habits are legal habits.
Regardless you are trying to justify your unsafe habits by the fact that others engage in unsafe actions.
But don't think 100 mph is UNsafe when done correctly.
done correctly or not it is less safe.
Heck I'm safer sitting still than at 70.
Now I think you may be getting it.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
But, 75 is almost loafing these days, and 80 sounds fine for more open parts of the country.
Heck, I drive on the NY Thruway quite often. This is 2 lanes, fairly curvy and hilly, with lots of traffic (usually). Still, the normal flow of traffic is 75 at least, and it isn't uncommen to look down and realize that you creeped into the low 80s, just going with the flow.
And, at 80, our Odyssey feels like it is just loafing along. Really no sensory difference (other than how fast the scenery is going by) than when you are doing 60.
Let's just go back to 55 on all interstates, or maybe even 45 for more urban roads, since it is safer. Not that anyone pays attention anyhow!
The inconsiderate drivers I hate are the ones that drive faster than the flow, and do it aggressively. If the road is open, and someone wants to drive 85 but is using their blinkers and maintaining safe following distances, fine by me. But when the road is crowded and the flow is 60, some idiot trying to push through traffic at 75 should be arrested.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Do those studies actually explain what would cause those fatal accidents? Of course IF you hit something it's more dangerous. But what do they say would actually cause the accident in the first place. I'd like to see the studies.
I'm not justifying. I'm sating the fact that some "unsafe habits" are legal ones. I'm sure a person distracted by a cellphone is X% more likely to have a fatal accident even at 70.
I didn't say it was less safe or even as safe. Just that I didn't feel the risk is excessive.
I'm getting what?
You can drive 100 considerately too. Like I said, you don't ride no ones behind if they want to drive at a slower speed than you do. 80 in traffic is plenty fast if that's the speed everyone is going.
I've explained this before. You are on I-16 in Central Ga. Cruising at 100 mph. You roll up on a car doing 75 mph. You slow to 80, pass it, and hit the cruise again. No harm no foul.
I have to agree about the distracted drivers and their being more of a safety hazard than someone driving 100 where they don't have to do lane changes and tailgate to force people over. I don't like the concept of being safe at 100 in any car with tight suspension, great tires, etc., but I agree that a thinking driver likely is better than lipstick-putting-on, hair-combing, call-making, slapping-the-kid-in-the-back-seat distracted driver. You seem to be a careful fast driver.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Seeing it and being able to react in time are two different animals.
Do those studies actually explain what would cause those fatal accidents?
You are missing the point, if something causes an accident while you are doing 100 MPH would it have cause the accident if you were doing 80 or 70 or less? You know that as you increase speed you reduce your ability to avoid accidents. While it may not be the cause it is the contributing factor to an accident that may have been avoided at a lower rate of speed.
You can drive 100 considerately too.
Since traffic rarely travels at that speed doing so is hardly considerate.
You may think its an acceptable risk, I don't think that doubling my risk is worth saving a few minutes.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Nothing really new here, even as if it might sound dramatic. Essentially these decisions are made every day 40,45,50.55,60,65,70 mph on up on a 65 mph roadway.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I followed a fully loaded tractor trailer on I40 E across Texas (app 1.5 hours). It was going app 90 mph. While I have to admit it would have been interesting to witness a crash, I knew (in a good way) that I would be disappointed that day.
I did witness the aftermath (I came upon the scene just literally as the dust settled) of a a fully loaded tractor (brand new Volvo tractor portion- what a waste) trailer who was going max 40/45 mph (as he fell asleep, my SWAG here as I did not stop to inquire of the near death driver)101 S/B in the central valley area CA and flipped onto the drivers side. So it should be apparent which situation converted to the statistic.
There has not been an increase in fatalities with higher speeds on interstate highways. If there is no increase in fatalities, it seems to me that the risk is largely imagined.
snakeweasel: That is due to things other than the raising of the speed limit. The question one should ask is what would the fatality rate had been if it wasn't raised? I wish I still had my spreadsheet (I may still have it somewhere) where I backed out the estimated lives saved by seat belts and safer cars from highway fatalities. Once I did that there was no reduction in traffic fatalities. In reality it seemed that lives saved by other factors were actually equal to or greater than the number that traffic fatalities went down during those periods.
Your spreadsheet had some problems, number one of which was there was no clear correlation between increases or decreases in fatalities and increases in the speed limit. I pointed that out at the time by highlighting the problem in the very example you used (i.e., your figures showed that fatalities rose in 1994, which you said could be linked to the increased in speed limits...except that the national 65 mph speed limit was not abolished until December 1995).
Plus, there are the recent fatal accidents on limited access highways in central Pennsylvania where the person killed was not wearing a safety belt...but speed was not a factor in the accident. Certainly wearing the safety belts would have improved the victim's chance of survival, but increased speed had nothing to do with the fatality.
snakeweasel: the facts do not support that.
While fatalities did drop during for the entire year the 55 mph speed limit was enacted, they actually dropped PRIOR during that portion of the year prior to the enactment of the speed limit, and then rose after it was enacted.
Here in Illinois its 55 MPH trucks and 65 MPH cars.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D