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
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
1) Cars are safer and have higher performance than before. Braking technology is better.
2) Better overall engine technology, more gears, better aerodynamics have made the the 1970's rule of 55 mph being the best speed for mpg, incorrect for many models. We see many people here post good mpg numbers at higher speeds.
The main point here is that speed limits are set such that a garbage truck with all its poor performance can typically handle the road safely. Keep the speed limit the same for trucks and buses, and post higher speed limits for the more capable cars.
If you don't want to drive 85mph on the interstate, then stay in the right-lane and drive 55 or 65mph, and let people who want to go faster get by.
As far as enforcement goes:
1) there would be less people breaking the law if speed limits are higher. I would drive my car pretty much the same, and actually be obeying the speed limits.
2) police resources could be shifted to actually preventing or solving crimes. Or concentrating on unsafe vehicles or drivers, rather than Joe Smith commuting to work.
Ah, was afraid I was going to wake up at 3 am when I remembered that it's the 85th Percentile rule I was thinking of. :shades:
I know a few roads where the majority of people drive at speeds that are truly not safe.
there would be less people breaking the law if speed limits are higher.
True and there would be less people breaking the law if armed robbery was legal.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I'm sure there are roads where that is true. However I'm talking about interstates mainly, and not the urban stretches. When you can see down the road for 1/4 + mile, and it's not bumper to bumper there is no need to drive 55mph or 65mph. People currently drive these at 75mph. And I'm sure out west people are already driving 75+mph. And there are no more accidents or fatalities based on miles driven, when the speed limits were lower years ago.
Speed limits in this country are set for the capabilities of vehicles like UPS or garbage trucks, or an 85 year old, and not for the normal person who now has a relatively high performance vehicle.
True and there would be less people breaking the law if armed robbery was legal.
Yes but most everyone dislikes armed robbery. Whereas few people obey the speed limits, and like them. Speed limits set tool low are like Prohibition. A few people think it is their duty to protect people from themselves, and try to make people follow an unpopular law. People will drink whether there is a law or not, and people will drive what speed is comfortable for them, mindful of not getting caught. Most people speed now; I'm simply stating to make what occurs now legal, state their is no "leeway" in the speed limit, and we'd have the same safety.
"Leeway" - don't have a 65mph speed limit, but then let people drive 74 or 75mph and either not stop them or give them a Warning. Make the speed limit 75mph and enforce 75mph then, or whatever number is picked. If 75mph is the limit, then people will need to stay within the 70-75 mph band. But then they'll at least feel they are legal, and not acting criminally.
Do you think it is a good mindset to have a majority of citizens trying to hide their illegal behavior? I don't think it is good. We should not promote the image of police as being out to get the typical citizen.
What you're advocating is zero tolerance, with no discretion on the part of the police officer. This essentially means that if you happen to go 76 or 77 in a 75 zone, or 36 in a 35 zone, you'll be ticketed. That, in turn, means that most people will choose to drive at least a few miles per hour under the limit, to reduce the chances that a hill, a moment of distraction, or some other factor that causes their vehicle to increase its speed a little, will result in a fine. This would increase compliance, but I'm not convinced it would reduce fatalities or reduce driver stress, which may contribute to fatigue and, ultimately, to accidents.
What you're talking about here sounds similar to what Montana once had (now knocked down by the courts) - common sense laws for the road, with no specific speed limit in the day as long as folks would exercise good judgment for the conditions.
Unfortunately, most of the drivers on America's roads don't have the good sense of a flea, and this would be bad overall for any but the most rural stretches of road. American drivers are much too poorly trained to have autobahn-style roads.
I DO support the use of having two speed limits on most freeways, one for passenger vehicles and one for trucks, but alas I find that in areas where this is already the case, trucks roundly ignore the truck speed limit, so what's the point?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Lowering the speed limit could lower fuel consumption. Higher gas prices probably have way more effect on fuel consumption than speed limits though.
Most people were going 80 on the I-80 north of Reno last week (speed limit was 75). On the 2 lane (Highway 95), many were going the speed limit, which was 55 in Oregon and 70 in NV and ID. The rest of us were going 65 in OR and 75 in NV/ID between towns. It's high desert country - tundra like (no trees). Long straight sections of road, and light traffic. No signs of deer or other road kill. When you hit the Oregon section of that road, it about kills you to burn off 10 or 15 mph of speed to stay legal. :shades:
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Not quite. I grew up in PA - a fairly crowded state, and you can drive Rt. 84, 81 and 80, 2 lane 65 mph highways for long stretches at 85-100mph with little problem, except if someone in the right lane going 65mph cuts over. Most stretches of interstate are not that crowded. And I wasn't advocating unlimited speeds, but definitely higher than 65mph. people are driving 75mph on average already, so there is no massive carnage going on. The law just needs to acknowledge what people want, and make it legal. Update the law to match the updated technology. This is not that unreasonable as speed limits were like 15mph back in the early 1900's, and they were updated over the years.
You didn't graduate Magna [non-permissible content removed] Laude, if you did graduate. You have a list of violations on your license record, if you have a license so what enables you to think you are a high performance driver?
Cockyness goes before the crash.
I really wouldn't care whether someone gets 20mpg or 30mpg by changing their speed, or what their choice of vehicle is (SUV or Subaru). That's your personal choice as to how much fuel you can afford. I put those things into the same category as "not my business". I also would not question whether you really needed to make the trip in the first place, and burn any fuel. You had the money for the fuel, and were willing to burn it, and that's your right. That's the idea behind freedom and you having $.
The rest of us were going 65 in OR and 75 in NV/ID between towns.
And if you had a high performance sedan or sports car, you would have been able to drive faster with the same safety level right? Or at least with the light to medium traffic you wouldn't increase your probability of hurting others.
When you hit the Oregon section of that road, it about kills you to burn off 10 or 15 mph of speed to stay legal.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Inherently you know the speed limit is too low, maybe being set for a U-Haul truck on a windy/rainy day. Or it's set so that a cop can write as many tickets as he wishes? And every driver then feels like some sort of scofflaw; especially when you get pulled over for doing a reasonable speed.
There's a few towns together here in new Hampshire where the police chiefs have stated in the paper, that they oppose raisning the speed limits. Why? Because the natural flow of traffic puts everyone as speeding. And the police policy in these towns is to intercept criminal types while entering the towns. So the low speed limits give the police a reason to pull over anyone they don't like the looks of - old car, bunch of kids, loud, skinhead, ...
They really aren't interested in writing a speeding ticket, as much as looking in the car for drugs or weapons, getting the driver's ID, running the plates ...
My wife and I were pulled over several times, and as soon as they see you aren't a criminal type and live local, they just say "okay, you live down the road, just take it easy", and wave.
And then we all know of towns that use speed limits for revenue.
Yet I'd be happy to just take a trip at a constant 80 mph and not deal with irresponsible self-appointed speed deputies and LLCs, without having to fly 10 hours to find a road to do so...
If 55 is about saving gas and fuel, 50 is even better, and 45 is better than that. Why not 45?
Re Oregon and their "too-low" speed limits, maybe this is another reason they are thinking of experimenting with a per mile charge on motor vehicles. Their gas tax doesn't generate enough revenue since all their citizens are driving conservatively and saving so much gas.
But would 100 mph still be a safe and prudent speed in the rain? What about in the snow? The fog? At night?
Those are the "good judgment" calls I was referring to. If you could count on people to slow down in adverse conditions, you wouldn't need speed limits at all in many places.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The speed limits currently aren't absolute, depending on conditions. If it's snowy I know for sure the speed limits are officially reduced, no matter what the sign says. And believe in the fog and rain, yes the driver is responsible for adjusting to conditions, and can be ticketed regardless of the speed limit sign. I don't see many people driving 65 mph in a blizzard! I don't think you give people much credit for being moderately intelligent.
So I think you were inferring that the speed limit is there to guide all us ignorant drivers
And we shouldn't be in the paradigm that a metal sign in the ground is the only way to post a speed limit. You make a good point that the speed limit should adjust based on conditions. This is the 21st century and it would be rather easy in many areas of the country for a "digital speed limit" to be posted or broadcast. I don't see why a local police unit could not broadcast a signal to the digital-signs, or our cars, that would change the speed limit based on conditions or time of day. I'd even pay an extra $0.01/gal tax to come up with a modern system.
The faster you drive, the less time you'll be on the road. If I'm making a 6 hour trip (@65mph) but could make it 5 hr instead (@ 75-80mph); that 6th hour would probably be my worst and most dangerous. So by removing an hour, I remove the most dangerous hour (from being tired).
As long as there are Hemi's being sold, and 6,000 people put orders in for the Dodge Challenger for the spring when they start to deliver the Challenger, then fuel is not a real issue.
farout
Most people I have seen on the road have the capabilities of an 85 year old and cannot handle high performance cars (much like the Cameo driver I once saw make a turn and fishtail into a car traveling in the opposite direction waiting to make a left turn).
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I remember in the pre-55 MPH days speed limit signs in GA having some special painting on them that showed a different speed at night with a cars headlights reflecting off of them.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Certainly all those idiots driving on bald tires and pay no attention to it. Only when they are fish tailing all over the place during that first rain do they realize they are far overdue for new tires. Ever seen how crowded America's Tires is during the day of rain or the day after?
Zero tolerance won't work for traffic tickets because the court system can't handle the number of people who would contest the citations. Anyway, they're not really concerned with enforcing laws. The entire bureaucracy is just a revolving-door game of "gotcha!"
It's all about the money.
A large percentage of traffic tickets don't meet the legal standard for issuing them, so they can't stand up to courtroom scrutiny. And a smaller percentage of tickets are simply fraudulent -- issued only to meet a quota or to maximize revenue.
I received one such citation five years ago. I had just entered the highway from a dead stop at the on-ramp traffic light. A police car roared up behind me with flashing lights and I pulled over.
The officer claimed that I was going 65 mph in a 45 mph construction zone. I protested that I wasn't, mainly because I wasn't, but also because my little 4-cylinder Ford couldn't possibly have achieved 65 mph in that distance. He ignored me, wrote out the ticket, and hurried off.
I drove back to the same on-ramp and discovered a few things. First, there were no "45 mph" signs, nor any "construction zone" signs. The only evidence that any construction ever happened in that area was a few orange signs lying flat on the ground or leaned against the retaining wall. And, of course, my little car simply couldn't make 65 mph off the ramp.
So I went home, got my video camera, and made a tape of everything: the road, the non-existent signs, the highest speed I could achieve. I brought it with me to my "court appearance date."
That "court" consisted of some office clerk offering to reduce the fine and reduce the points taken off my license if I paid it right there. When I said that I wanted to appear before a judge, she seemed irritated and informed me that I had to go to another department to schedule a court date.
I did that, and the clerk there also seemed irritated that I wouldn't just "take care of it" right there. But she reluctantly set the date, and I showed up promptly at that time.
This time, there was a court room, but no judge, only an assistant-to-the-assistant D.A. who was busy writing some legal document. He never even looked up at me. He simply read my speeding ticket, assured me that the fine would be "very big" if I lost at trial, and offered to reduce the fees and points even further than the desk clerk did.
I declined, mistakenly thinking that we would proceed to trial when the judge returned. No, no -- I had to come back a THIRD time if I wanted a trial. Keep in mind, all these appearance are in the middle of a business day, so you have to take time off from work to be there, have to fight downtown traffic, have to pay for parking .... all that.
Anyway, I showed up, video tape in hand, ready to present my case to the judge. But guess what? The officer didn't show, so it was "case dismissed, see the clerk on the way out."
I wanted the court to see my video. I wanted the cop to answer a few questions on the record regarding how he determined my speed, how he concluded I was in a construction zone, etc. I wanted some kind of justice. Instead, I got the "privelege" of keeping my money, after wasting several hours over three separate days.
Traffic courts take your money, or they take your time. But, as I said, either way, they "gotcha!" And when they get caught in a fraud, there's no "gotcha" for you. Only "go away .... we'll getcha next time."
Think about that before you advocate lower speed limits or stronger enforcement.
.
As such, not only do they not deserve autobahn-style highways, but it would be dangerous to provide them with such.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I want autobahn-style highways...
Any activity that make the driver unable to timely respond to traffic demands are likely to be fined likewise.
There was a dedicated thread (regretfully defunct) about the relevance of speed limits and we debated a lot about this. The problem is that I don't find any of those studies backed by hard and unquestionable data nor did I find serious methodology to analyse them
we all know that if we drive into a tree, the higher the speed, the worse the damage.
The 55mph bottom line is to raise cash in a politically correct way.
How about creating a second stage permit for the experienced driver with no accident record and an advanced driving test ? the potential "good "driver would be awarded higher SL allowances on specific roads excluding towns.
It is not good to set the rule to the lowest common denominator. I am driving in Europe and sometimes in Germany, and I don't accept being legally dragged down because of a frange of poor drivers (not always the swiftest ones).
otoh, if resources could be saved through less speed enforcement, maybe more energy could be directed against poor driving practice.
Just for the anecdote, one of my post was removed because I mentioned a triple digit speed I made once on the highway, whereas many other people advocate phone chatting, reading, eating behind the wheel (in a moving car) without anyone raising an eyebrow. I am pretty sure though which one of the situation was the most reckless.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
There would be no way to enforce that without pulling everyone over who is going faster than the lower limit and checking their identity and license. But that would defeat the purpose of what you are proposing.
Not to mention that those who are not qualified can always get the special license, does the name George Ryan mean anything to you?
I am pretty sure though which one of the situation was the most reckless.
Yeah the triple digit speed.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I would say eating while driving, talking on the phone while driving, text while driving and doing makeups while driving are all more reckless than driving in triple digit with a capable car.
100+ MPH is a very dangerous speed to be going. Almost impossible to turn very much, farces being excreted are very high, braking times and distances increase dramatically while the time you have to respond decreases.
Saw the results of a Vette that hit a buckle in the road at over 100 MPH. not much was left. Witness's say the brake lights never went on. My guess is that he didn't have time to get his (or her) foot to the brake pedal.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I do agree with you though, the condition has to be almost perfect in order to drive at 100 MPH safely.
No actually there are a couple of ways that could be done with relatively inexpensive technology.
1) Put an encrypted bar-code on each driver's license that would have on it the drivers' skill and training level. Put a reader in the car that the license is inserted into, it's connected to the ECU, and the ECU sets an electronic limit.
2) Just like many warehouses do, put an RFID tag on the driver's license. The police send out a signal (just like aiming a laser speed-gun) and can "read" the driver's license which again would contain the driver's rating.
I'm sure there are other methods available as these technologies are 10+ years old.
Probably. But since we as a society accept 40,000 fatalities/yr on the road with the current speed limits, and are not inclined to reduce that by reducing speeds however much needed, say to bring to that 1,000 (maybe 25 mph?), then is it so to accept that we may say going a little faster isn't that big a deal? I'm not trying to be callous, but we do know that we will have those fatalities, AND we could reduce that greatly by driving slower.
And if we really cared about safety we would ban motorcycles for the riders own good. So we can see from these 2 examples that we really don't make Safety a top priority.
So I don't see 65mph or 55mph as being some Holy Grail of driving nirvana. It is both unreasonably slow and still fairly unsafe.
Hey bro if your not doing any driving can I borrow your encrypted bar-coded drivers license?
No need to bro I have a friend that for $50 will disable that nasty little thing that limits the speed.
Just like many warehouses do, put an RFID tag on the driver's license. The police send out a signal (just like aiming a laser speed-gun) and can "read" the driver's license which again would contain the driver's rating.
But how would you know if the RFID tag is that of the drivers or a passenger or even if it belonged to anyone in the car? I can see it now somewhere in the future some teenager stealing his dads licenses so he can drive fast.
Then again for just a few bucks I am sure you can find a state employee that issues those things to do you a favor. Ever hear of someone named George Ryan?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I am not arguing for nor against it. But I do realize that faster speeds are inherently more dangerous.
It is both unreasonably slow and still fairly unsafe.
I can take you down some roads that if I were going 55 MPH you will be yelling at me to slow down. :shades:
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
You are right of course with your main points, assuming you meant forces being exerted?
I would have to add, however, in the interests of full disclosure, that I have taken every car I have owned since the 80s over 100 mph on multiple occasions, and that includes the Echo, perhaps one of the most dubious in the category of "capabilities of the car" what with those bicycle tires that thing rides on.
There was one exception - the first 4Runner I ever had (second gen) wouldn't GO 100: 90-95 was just about its limit.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I respect your honesty, and noted your "full disclosure" disclaimer, but unless I misread or misinterpreted an earlier message, I thought you expressed support for a national 55 mph limit.
There is a graph of this in my thermodynamics textbook. Interestingly, because of gearing, 35 mph is actually more efficient than 40 or 45 mph for the average vehicle. So 50-60 mph is the most efficient driving speed along with 35, and everything else is downhill from there. This may not be the case for every car, but on average for the whole nation, 55 will result in the greatest possible fuel savings. That is why the national government chose that speed.
There is zero percent chance of the federal government adapting a 55 mph limit for the near future. Why? Because people in the great state of Nevada oppose it. Nevada, the only state that never adapted 55 mph (compromising on 65 mph, the last state in the union to do so). Where 85 mph is considered more normal on interstates than 70. The state with the second-best roads in the nation (after Maine?), and home of the world land-speed record. Where distances between anywhere are vast and straight, with little in the way of scenery and even fewer cars going through it. Where the population is light, and closer to libertarian than liberal, meaning the only good law is no law. And coincidentally, the state that votes for Harry Reid, Majority Leader of the United States Senate. That was why Mrs. Clinton left more ways out of her support for 55 mph than water has from a sieve. And it is also why the US will not adapt 55 mph until ol' Harry gets tired of pork for breakfast, around the ripe age of 85.
Actually I highly oppose federal restriction of speed limits. Probably as a result of being a native of the above state, I can hardly drive slower than 80 on open freeway, and also oppose government regulation of things that should be in states' hands.
This was my first post, I happened across this forum while researching new cars. I only planned on lurking at first, but had to comment on this. :lemon: Sweet! I just made a lemon on wheels!
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)