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
Don't agree with that. Human nature being what it is, there are always those who want to go 5-10 over. So, if you set 65 on a rural, then there are many who will go 70-75.
And about being legal, just drive 50 and you will be ok if that is your concern. If you think 50 is improperly set on your roads, then appeal to highway jurisdiction controlling your roads and make your case.
Another point about rural is that the limit should be set for the lowest common denominator of driver/vehicle.
Drivers could be using cell phones, old seniors, newly licensed drivers, etc. And, another factor for common denominator is type of vehicle. Do we want people driving ponderous 5000-6000 pound suvs or big pickups with a 65 legal limit on a rural? Of course, many of these will go 5 over at 70-75. No, 50 or 55, depending on the rural (hilly, twisty, poor condition, etc) is plenty enough speed.
There is no compelling reason to have a higher posted limit just to save a little time at the price of safety and excessive fuel consumption.
That's one example for ya.
The WTC architectures also couldn't think why they need to build a building that can withstand a jumbo jet ramming into it. Now they know why they should've...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
What if there are cars besides me and I have a clear road ahead. If I am in that situation I would hit the gas first to clear EVERYBODY then get out of the way...
Things happen...
What if there is an out-of-control 18-wheeler behind you, cars beside you, a train of jet fuel jumping the tracks parallel to the road, a AC130 gunship trying to land ahead of you, and a closing tsunami triggered by an ocean-falling meteor?
Sheesh. :P
By the way, those who has driven between Las Vegas and LA before know the reason behind my example.
Sheesh.
But there are solutions. Maybe an "Emergency button" on the steering wheel that would disengage the electronic governor, just like you can disengage cruise control. So as not to make hitting the Emergency button a common occurence, maybe the override is a 1-time 15 min. disengagement. Then you have to go to an Inspection Station within 7 days, pay a fee ($50?) and file a brief report with the state and police as to the reason why. the state could keep track and take action against anyone abusing it.
I'd gladly do an electronic governor, if we could just set speed limits higher and reasonable for what we're currently driving. And we could do some sort of Emergency override system. This would be in return for eliminating police speed traps, and only keeping units for other reasons.
I say either post a low speed limit (like 60 mph) and give a lot of cushions (up to 20 mph) or post a high speed limit (like 100 mph) and enforce it strictly (like the first speeding ticket is a $500 fine and the second one your license is gone).
I think the graph may be more in line with older vehicles? I am not sure if I am right, your opinion would be appreciated.
farout
There is no proof that people always drive "5-10 mph over" the legal speed limit. What happens is that speed limits are set too low, and the majority of drivers continue to drive at their preferred speed. Which is what happened when the national speed limit was 55 mph and 65 mph.
People are more influenced by the vehicle's capabilities, its control of noise, vibration and harshness, level of traffic and road conditions than two numbers posted on a sign.
xrunner2: If you think 50 is improperly set on your roads, then appeal to highway jurisdiction controlling your roads and make your case.
When people vote with their left foot, and fatalities per 100 million miles driven keep declining, that's a pretty strong case. It's just that some people are too clueless or stubborn to pay attention, not to mention that state and local governments are addicted to revenues from traffic violations.
xrunner2: Another point about rural is that the limit should be set for the lowest common denominator of driver/vehicle.
Which is exactly the mentality that leads to some of the dreadful vehicles that are offered for sale in this country, and some of the drivers we tolerate.
xrunner2: Do we want people driving ponderous 5000-6000 pound suvs or big pickups with a 65 legal limit on a rural?
If you are talking about rural limited access highways, I would hope that 65 mph is the minimum speed at which drivers in those vehicles are travelling.
xrunner2: There is no compelling reason to have a higher posted limit just to save a little time at the price of safety and excessive fuel consumption.
There is no conclusive proof that higher posted limits on limited access highways lead to more fatatilities. If anything, studies show that drivers who are travelling faster than the flow of traffic are the better drivers. Any system that penalizes them in the name of "safety" or fuel efficiency (they can decide for themselves how much gas they want to use) is, at best, misguided, and, at worst, downright dumb.
Sort of like the Porsche 911 Turbo option. But there would have to be a limited use or else people would keep it pushed in. Not a bad idea, but I like a professional reset, to discourage use. Again, I suggested a fairly high speed limit, with lower limits for buses, large trucks, and such. So if the speed of a truck is limited to 45mph on a rural 2-lane, a car limited to 60mph would be able to pass without needing our overrides.
Exactly. Speed limits are either outdated being based on studies years ago, or set for the convenience of police who then can get revenuue, or have a reason to pull over anyone they don't like. I'm sure there are other reasons. People drive what is comfortable from a NVH perspective and what they consider safe and efficent for them.
xrunner2: Another point about rural is that the limit should be set for the lowest common denominator of driver/vehicle.
A farmer on a farm tractor? None of our roads should be set like that; that is exactly the sort of thinking that would irritate the most people and create the most "unlawfulness". Ex. If the slowest person/car goes 50mph, and a more capable car/driver can maintain the same safety level at 65mph, why would you set the speed limit for 50? Set it for 65mph, and one can drive 50mph and the other can drive 65mph when conditions permit - such as Mr. Worst-driver is home.
LA to LV is like Mad Max vs. Humungus. I've seen it all on I-15.
Also, I had a situation similar to the one you describe with the out-of-control semi roaring up behind. I was driving through New Mexico and a truck driver nearly ran over me and several other motorists. This was on a flat road, so he certainly had brakes. He just decided to go 95 mph, and damn anyone who got in his way.
I had to floor the gas pedal to get past the cars I was in the process of passing before he rear-ended me, and I only made it by a few feet.
So, power is really necessary sometimes.
.
Hey, that graph was straight from the US government, so you know it's completely accurate!
Oh yeah, you're from Missouri. :shades:
Who performed these "studies" and I don't believe you can cite or document even one.
"Studies show blah blah blah" is used too frequently in arguments. Document your statements.
In my opinion most feel they are the best driver ever.
If you are talking about rural limited access highways, I would hope that 65 mph is the minimum speed at which drivers in those vehicles are travelling.
I was referring to rural roads (US, State, county) type roads, not interstates.
A farmer on a farm tractor?
That's dumb. Might as well have given as an example a house being moved down the road.
If the slowest person/car goes 50mph, and a more capable car/driver can maintain the same safety level at 65mph, why would you set the speed limit for 50? Set it for 65mph, and one can drive 50mph and the other can drive 65mph when conditions permit
Well, the only drivers that I can think of that would drive at their capability are old seniors. Most of them truly know their limitations. Every other age and category usually think they are the best and most capable drivers and are entitled to drive at or above the limit. The only answer for public roads such as rural roads, suburban roads is to set for lowest common denominator.
One area that dual speed limits could be set is rural interstates (not rural roads). Real cars could go faster (perhaps 10 MPH) than everyone else (semis, suvs, minivans, pickups, crossovers, etc). Everything except cars would be strictly relegated to the right lane except when passing.
I partly agree about some limits being outdated. From time-to-time I see articles in local newspaper, or I encounter on roads, situations where speed limits are being "lowered" in the county I live in.
But are these studies based on 5 and 6 speed trans? Or are they dated, on 3 speed autos that were in top gear at 40mph it is important to know that. Tell us the car, trans, and gearing info.
If vehicles that are designed for US roads have 50 hp engines and weigh 1500 lbs,
While I can see that for OTHERS, my auto-goal is to get an auto more like a Transformer.
back in the 80's, cars felt shaky at 60 mph. cars nowadays are stable enough to cruise at 80 without you even feeling it.
reply to...
1) I think 45 is the most fuel efficient speed (but I think this varies with each vehicle.
2) Good in theory, but people don't follow the speed limits when it's at 65 or 75. Also, slower vehicles cause more traffic. Traffic makes cars idle, kind of kills some of your savings
3) You should not be multitasking while driving. (that would be another reason why I would honk you). Sure my 2007 car is comfy, but that doesn't mean I want to stay in it for hours at a time, my commute is already an hour, I don't need to add to it
4) This point is debatable. Constant engine speed may not be good for your vehicle. Why does the break-in period state that you should be varying speeds?
5) (refer to statement above). It can cause other people to be more irrational while driving trying to get past you. Should they be, probably not, will they, some do. Based off of real life driving and not just theories, you know people will cut you off and do stupid things.
Sometimes I wish my car was an Autobot, so when traffic gets congested it could transform and run down the median. :P
at around 62 mph, you still aren't up to a point where aerodynamic drag is the major factor. it's about 40/60 between weight and drag...about 9 hp for weight, and 15 hp for drag. at 80 mph, it's 9 hp for weight and about 50 hp for drag
It was the federal government, and the study was performed in the 1980s.
euphonium: "Studies show blah blah blah" is used too frequently in arguments. Document your statements.
As opposed to, "We slowed down during World War II when gasoline was rationed, so we should do so today, as I do in my Town Car."
Uh, World War II ended over 60 years ago; gasoline is not being rationed today and the chance it will be is quite slim; and most people drive automobiles with considerably superior capabilities to those of the Town Car.
euphonium: In my opinion most feel they are the best driver ever.
That tends to be the ones who equate "slow" with "safe," which is a bit like equating "ugly and fat" with "chaste" for women. Contrary to popular belief, those two usually do not go together. If anything, quite the opposite. :P
These are all terribly bad ideas, and here's why:
1) I don't want taxpayers including myself paying for this extra "button" to do something that is totally unnecessary if we don't have a governor in place. Now you got people paying an extra grand for each car for uselessness. Are you going to pay for these "extra" features for all Americans?
2) In an emergency situation, you don't have time to slam on the gas, then realize nothing is happening, then realize you have to push the button, go to push the button, and then BAM, your dead before you can speed up. This overrride needs to be instantaneous and not require 2 steps of inputs.
3) If your the idiot bad driver who causes me to avoid an accident by engaging the bypass feature, I'm going to write down your license plate and sue you for the ($50?) fees at that state inspection agency you suggest using to reset my override feature. I'm not taking the blame nor the $50 hit for YOUR bad driving. I just saved us both from an accident (one which would have been your fault, but also a not-at-fault on my record), and you expect me to pay the $50? No way Jose!
4) What if you run into ANOTHER emergency situation on the way to that inspection agency, only your override was already used, so now your dead before you get to the inspection office. Tow truck? more wasted $$$$
5) Too many wasted resources for governors, bypass buttons, inspection agencies, data tracking.... my oh my BIG government!
Accidents happen, but most all 99.999999999% are avoidable if you make the right manuevers and pay attention. In those cases we're an accident is "in the making," you have to have complete and utter control of your own vehicle in order to avoid them. Things happen. Why don't we just make all cars go the same speed all the time at all locations, then no one willl ever get rear ended because you can't go slower than a certain speed, and you can't go faster thana certain speed? Sounds like just as good of an insane idea as the one's suggested here.
Another example:
Car from opposite lanes of traffic suddenly veers to it's left across the center median and is headed your way for a head on collision! 1) you could STEER left and go into oncoming traffic yourself. 2) steer and veer right and then get clipped on the left side near your driver's door!
I'm going to choose option 3 which is the only one that is accident-less for me personally. With a speed governor, that would be impossible.
Then just "getting out of the way" is just simply setting yourself up for easy pickins!
Why don't you just paint a bullseye on the back of your car?
If he's coming at you head on then you may just want to swerve left then right at even highter speeds to fake him out and dodge him completely. Slow down and you just become a sitting duck.
Excuse me but in a situation when a car going the other way crosses the median and is headed your way for a head on collision wouldn't speeding up cause a worse accident?
The proper response would be to slow down and move to your right.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I don't like an electronic governor either and would rather trust people; The vast majority of people will do what's right. I'm simply pointing out that with today's technology of the ECU and digital radio broadcasts, or the bility to put a transmitter on each speed limit sign, it's feasible to put an electronic governor on each car, such that a car's speed limit would be set for that section of road. And it would not be difficult for some local official to set the speed limits based on the conditions at that time. IF we saw a need to do that.
And I proposed a way to give people an emergency override. As you said simply stepping on the accelerator is faster than pushing a buutton before. But if you ever look at industrial equipment, what do they have on them? E-Stop buttons? and yes if there is an emergency it takes a second to realize it and a second or 2 to get to the button (OSHA approved).
Remember all ideas and things have positive and negatives. Too many people here say "Nah despite the 5 good positives you mention, there are 2 negatives, so I'll never do that." Sort of like how an environmental group can always find something wrong with any sie for a windfarm, or any development.
Usually. Unless you have something really fast. We're probably talking supercar fast. Braking would typically be the first inclination, and better in a typical car, jjust because the overall meeting speed is reduced. But that is still not very good. I'd actually cut across the median too into their lane, and then it woould just be like jolly old England.
I'm really glad some of you guys don't live anywhere near me. The problem is, there probably ARE people on the roads near me that think this way...
:sick:
Check out one of those emergency driving techniques courses some time. They are offered in most areas, often at raceways. And nowhere in the curriculum does the following appear: "speed up to more than 100 or whatever speed it takes and go zigzagging through traffic to get away from the terrorist or out of control motorist"...
...such a response is just a formula for being the cause of a MASSIVE accident.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Actually, it's a spoof of an old Calvin & Hobbes cartoon. The original involved a house with a propane leak, a crashing 747, then the train, etc.
At any rate, you're supposed to slow down and steer right toward the ditch to avoid a head-on collision, according to driving school.
World War II ended over 60 years ago; gasoline is not being rationed today and the chance it will be is quite slim; you can only hope, but if the need of national defense screams for rationing of fuel many won't care because they will be drafted into the Army anyway.
You will never see another war like WWII, meaning a protracted high level war, so there will never be rationing due to the military using the fuel. Now you could see a shortage during the war, simply because of breaks in the supply, or who we go to war with. Simply put - no war with the U.S. would last long as today's weapons are too deadly, and equipment would quickly be used up. And a low-level guerilla war like Iraq or Afghanistan does not use enough fuel to hurt global supplies.
they will be drafted into the Army anyway.
More likely drafted into making replacement missiles in a factory, which is how we'd fight a non-guerilla war.
But even if there was rationing, I'd guess the black-market that always develops would be available for those who are willing to pay the $. So what does rationing have to do with driving 55mph? I'd guess if it's to maximize mpg, I'd think I'd ignore coming to a full-stop, and driving closer to 55mph even in a 30-zone so as to get highway mpg, instead of city mpg.
Yeah until they realize what they are doing and cut back then WHAM!
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Final Word: When fuel is needed to fight a war, it will be rationed. When it is rationed, the speed limit will be 55 or less. The Military has prior claim and the Military will be honored.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Well if you look at the modern fairly full-blown wars, you see they don't last long. Look at the Israeli wars, and the 2 wars with Iraq. They last for weeks. Why? Modern munitions are much more accurate hitting their targets about 100X more often. At the end of a week or 2 the majority of 1-sides weapons are eliminated, and even the victors are short on ammo. Now if you're talking an occupation or low-level war which is what Iraq is, or even a war like Vietnam, those types of war do not require rationing.
Well there's at least 1 motorcycle safety course (Motorcycle Safety Foundation) with at least 1 scenario where accelerating is suggested as a way to avoid an accident - http://www.msf-usa.org/MotorcycleChallenge/scened.html
I haven't been through all the questions and simulations, so there may be more. I'm thinking of getting a motorcycle instead of a sports-car, to save some fuel and have fun. You can get a BMW with 162hp for around $13K after rebates! That'll provide some acceleration!
One cool thing about a street bike in California is you can split lanes. You might have to slow down for a traffic jam but you will not have to play the stop and go thing.
Learning how to drive with situational awareness is even more considerate...
Many also sober up after New Year's Eve too.
Happy New Year!
Americans bought more Toyota Prius hybrids in 2007 than Ford Explorer sports utility vehicles, the top-selling SUV for more than a decade.
Toyota began selling the Prius in North America in 2000, the same year Explorer sales reached a record 445,000 units.
While Prius sales soared in 2007, demand for the Explorer was less than a third of its 2000 peak.
Americans' love for powerful gas-guzzlers remains strong, but high fuel prices are forcing buyers to lower their sights. Filling an Explorer fuel tank now costs $70.
The traditional SUV "is a dead market", an industry analyst says.
.