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
And yeah, I lump VW and Audi together.
Subaru reportedly is getting a hybrid with Prius underpinnings in 2012. Wired.
(oh yeah, there is a diesel in the works for you too).
The non negotiable fine for the first offense is $100 for each mph over the limit as determined by the arresting officer. If caught again within a year the rate doubles.
Driving is a privilege.
As late as July 27/28 1943 German U-Boats were still able to assail the East Coast of the United States. KaptainLeutnant Herbert Werner's U505 and Seigmann's U-230 proceed past the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay: "Siegmann tuned the bow of his boat into the shallow waters of the Chesapeake Bay. Surprisingly not a single enemy vessel was there to stop us as the lights of Norfolk became clearly visible on port. The American sailors must have been at a big party that night; as we passed the Naval Base, the silhouette of the illuminated city rose sharply against the dark sky." So the German's were very adept until the tide of battle changed in 1943 at attacking our shipping, irrespective of whomever was Commander of the American Eastern Seaboard Frontier.
The 55 Mph Speed limit was as effective in saving fuel/lives as Admiral Ingersol's campaign to stop U-Boat attacks against the Eastern Seaboard. I well remember when the speed limit dropped from 65 to 55 the first time round. Awful. It caused more accidents that it spared because people bunched up unnecessarily, driving at speeds they were not comfortable with. Plus the increased time-to-destination added an opportunity cost of incalcuable dimension because it took you that much longer to get where you were going. Safe driving, good driving technique, and common sense have more to do with saving lives than the initial speed at which you are driving. Flow of traffic and density is just as important as the speed at which you are traveling. Driving 10 mph slower on the interstate will actually cost more than driving 65, in lost time, increased traffic density and higher accident risk. I spent many an hour on the I-95 in frustration as operational speeds dropped to 45-50mph when traffic density got thick enough...you HAD to break the law to get anywhere!. If you did that, then you also ran the risk of a much slower driver pulling into the left-hand lane when you least expected it. Bad situation all round. I found in asking, that people who advocate 55 are not the ones most effected by it, and spend few miles on the road that frequent users. I routinely have driven 100 miles a day to get to work, so a 10-15mph slow-down on the interstate means a lost 30 minutes each way to work, more fuel consumed, and much uneeded aggrivation.
My work also took me to Europe, where I drove between Paris and Brussels. Sane traffic laws and regulation made it easy to cruise safely at 85mph on the AutoRoutes National and AutoBahnen than the same drive distance-wise in America. European's of course, pay heavily for the priveledge of driving, a licence costing $1,500 to obtain with obligatory 1 year apprentice training (in England required to have an "L" on your license plates, for "Learner"). Speed comes at a price though, they have surveylance and GATSO cameras and fines in Germany for tail-gating which we do not have here. So speed per se is not the issue: driver training and proper social etticate behind the wheel is. Nor will going slower save fuel: you'll consume more, and conversely increase the amount of CO/2 displaced into the air, because we will be behind the wheel longer to get where we are going.
We've been down this path before, it was stupid then and is stupid now. The arguments then, as now, just so much a "Paukenschlag" advocated by those least effected by it. Leave the speed limits well enough alone. Lower the limits, and some of us might end up like a lot of American shipping off the coast of America in 1942: Sunk!.
DouglasR
Sources: 'Iron Coffins', by Capt. Herbert A. Werner, Holt-Rinehardt & Winston, NY, 1969; 'Hitler's U-Boat War' Clay Blair, Random House, NY 1996)
And when you reach a certain point of congestion, cars can no longer maintain distance, and traffic jams occur.
So if you take traffic from 65mph to 55 mph, you will at least increase congestion by - 10/65 = 15.4%. It's simple that the slower you drive the longer you'll be on some section of road to your journey, and that's not the right way to go to keep congestion down.
I think if you do that on many urban highways at many times of the day, you will create traffic jams where speeds drop to 15mph, and then you really screw things up and waste fuel.
Five years of doing traffic studies has taught me a few things...;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The non-negotiable fine for an out of control government is usually (eventually) a guillotine, a noose, or a firing squad....time is ticking away.
Hey, logic has no place in this thread!
That doesn't make any sense. Your car does not use the same amount of gas per unit of time at varying speeds. While you will be in your car longer if you slow down your car will burn less gas per hour too.
Cars use gas in a miles per gallon rate, Presuming that rate is constant you will burn the same amount of gas no matter what speed you drive. So if your car gets 35 MPG and you drive 35 miles you will burn a gallon of gas, you will burn a gallon if you drive at 35 MPH at 45 MPH or at 85 MPH.
Now the thing is that cars will start a reduction in their MPG figures above a certain speed, There are few, if any, cars out there that will get the same or better mileage ar 100 MPH than they will get at 50 MPH, So if you can get better MPG at 50 MPH than at 100 MPH driving 50 you will spend more time on the road but you will use less gas.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
And when you reach a certain point of congestion, cars can no longer maintain distance, and traffic jams occur.
thats just the thing, if you maintain a higher speed cars need more space between them. Slow down traffic and less room between cars is needed hence more cars can be on the road.
So if you take traffic from 65mph to 55 mph, you will at least increase congestion by - 10/65 = 15.4%.
In reality you reduce congestion. At 65 MPH one lane of road can safely hold 47 cars safely in any one mile stretch, any more and there will be at least one car following to close. Now at 55 MPH that same mile of one lane can hold 55 cars safely (of course if weather conditions are right and the road conditions are good).
I think if you do that on many urban highways at many times of the day, you will create traffic jams where speeds drop to 15mph, and then you really screw things up and waste fuel.
You are putting th cart before the horse here. In rush hour its not a lower speed that creates the congestion its the congestion that causes the lower speed.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Yes and if you slow people down you will have more cars on the road during any particular time.
Example: If me and 20 other people in my city, drive 30 miles to your city 30 miles away and we leave at 5:00pm. And you and 100 other people in your city are getting on this same road at 5:30, then if we drive 65mph we're getting off the road before you folks get on. less congestion. If we drive @55mph the 100 of us are just getting to your city as your trying to get on, so now there's 200 cars instead of 100.
It's pretty simple that if you want to get the water in your pool, you either turn up the flow (speed of the water) or use a larger diameter hose.
If everyone drove 5mph, the roads would be impassable. Everyone can not get in their car and be on the road at the same time. To have traffic-flow requires you get a person on and off the road reasonably quickly.
If disparity in speed causes congestion, then attempting to slow people down through reducing the speed limit will increase congestion, because lower speed limits do not slow everyone down...most people continue to drive at the speed at which they feel comfortable, regardless of the speed limit. The disparity in speeds causes vehicles to "cluster" in groups.
This past weekend I drove to the Philadelphia Auto Show from Harrisburg to Valley Forge on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. The speed limit is posted at 65 mph...but virtually everyone was driving 75 mph...even soccer moms in minivans and a grandpa-grandma couple in a Buick Regal.
The "natural" speed on that road, given the condition of the road, present vehicle technology and traffic levels, is 75 mph, and everyone knows it...even the police don't bother with people driving 75 mph, as long as they weren't tailgating or weaving in and out of traffic.
The people who were driving at 65 mph were quite conspicuous, although they did at least stay in the slow lane.
We tried to "slow" everyone down before, and it failed...the only things we got out of that experiment were increased disrespect for traffic laws and the people who enforce them, a boom in CB radio sales, the invention of the radar detector and a cheesy-but-fun Burt Reynolds-Sally Field movie...we need to learn from history.
grbeck: well there's the rub, you have put your finger right on it. The least congestion will occur when the maximum number of people are conforming to a given speed ("driving with the flow"), and there is plenty of data to suggest that there will be more non-conformists the lower you reduce the speed limit. The plain and simple fact is if we lowered the speed limit to 55, and we could count on everyone going 65, we would save a lot of gas because of all the people NOT driving 75 any longer, and we would avoid increasing congestion because we would still have most people driving with the flow.
But we CAN'T count on everyone doing that. Instead, we will have a significant number of people still driving 75 (the new revenue generators for local municipalities ;-)), a bunch driving 65, and just enough going 55 to really muck things up by increasing speed disparities greatly. So we won't save a lot of gas, and we will increase congestion, because of peoples' disinclination to follow the law. :-P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Which is why attempting to save gasoline through reduced speed limits is both ineffective and ultimately counterproductive. It gives the appearance of "doing something" instead of actually...doing something (worthwhile).
The price of gas has been falling lately...this makes it a good time to increase the gasoline tax and use the additional revenue for infrastructure improvements. If people survived with $3-a-gallon in December 2007, guess what, they will still survive if it's $3-a-gallon in 2008, only now a larger percentage of that purchase price will be going for infrastructure improvements.
Plus, the $3-a-gallon level has spurred interest in real fuel sippers. Increased sales of those cars will lead to real long-term fuel savings...even Ford is gearing up to bring us a production version of the snazzy Verve, which, if it is anything like the show car, will be a stunner.
Sounds like a worthwhile trade-off to me...of course, if the goal is to pass annoying laws that do no real good, increase public cynicism, help the radar-detector industry and allow people to put off hard choices, then by all means we should support the return of the 55 mph speed limit.
"Which is why attempting to save gasoline through reduced speed limits is both ineffective and ultimately counterproductive. It gives the appearance of "doing something" instead of actually...doing something (worthwhile)."
Well, it would do something, it just wouldn't have as much impact as they would have you believe. And would have the downside of increased congestion, as mentioned.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
But then Bush and Congress would need to give us a bigger tax-rebate to compensate; so we can afford the more expensive gas.
This 55-mph idea is just one such bad idea. And the current 65-mph limit on interstates (at least here in the NE states) is a joke. Conditions permitting the speed limit should be raised 10-15 mph.
And put in tax incentives for people to buy smaller cars in the first place (e.g., either tax breaks for smaller cars or excise taxes based on car size and engine displacement).
I personally think we might have to think about the government taking control of gasoline and other fuel. This is done in Mexico and prices are stable, and if there is profit it either goes to help other government agencies or reduce taxes. It seems to me if we don't start making more areas the governments responsibility we will have a poverty level of people that will be like other third world countries. For instance, health care, Social Security, disabled Veterans, and others who are mentally challenged. Unless we make allowances and prepare to for these and other things we are sure to become a country of have and have nots.
I doubt we will ever see a national transportation system that can serve the majority of Americans. These are huge problems, and we need a government that will step up to the need and keep the middle class from becoming the third class.
farout
What does that differ from the current system? :confuse:
I propose:
85 mph for rural highways
60 mph for within metro areas
75 mph in between and for mountain highways
I'm with you. But how long and how much money do you think it would cost just for an oil company to get an approved plan? How many local, state, and federal studies would have to be done? I would guess if the oil companies could make money by building a refinery here they would. If they're not, then ask yourself, why, and then you probably come back to the problems with building and running a refinery here in the U.S. If its easier to put the refinery in Mexico, then that is where it is built, and we import the gasoline.
Poor logic because if you drive 40 MPH you wouldn't get there until after we all get off our roads.
Not only that but people don't drive in packs like that. Traffic usually has a steady stream of people entering and leaving so there is the same amount no matter what the speed is.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Ah, no. The least amount of congestion will be when the least amount of cars are on the road.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Maybe my poor logic is in the way I'm explaining it and the examples, but it is not poor logic that many of our roads are fairly congested, and that driving slower means cars are on the road longer. And having cars on the road longer, increases the traffic density.
A roadway is not much different than a factory assembly-line. If your line is running well at 6.5ft/min, and you slow it down to 5.5 ft/min you're going to get less parts thru that section. Now if you take the typical congested roadway around any major city - not one that is already stop-and-go, but one that actually flows at 65mph, and slow down 10mph, you have a problem. Why? ecause the same amount of cars want to use that road at that time.
So you're basically taking the same number of parts that you could process at 6.5ft/min, running the line at 5.5 ft/min, but still trying to put the number of parts from 6.5 ft/min into the assembly-line. Slow down the speed of the assembly-line more and the problem becomes worse, because you still have the same number of parts that want to get down the assembly line.
It's pretty simple to understand that whether you're in a line at an airport, or an amusement park, you want to keep people moving as fast as possible.
If what I've heard from other posters here that there hasn't been a new refinery built in decades here in the U.S., and knowing that gas usage has gone up several fold in those decades, I would guess that improvements at existing refineries wouldn't be able to keep up. You might guess a refinery could do 50% better but gas-demand during these decades is 300% higher.
If you want some other proof: 1) someone could see how many new refineries were built globally during those decades, or 2) find some historical data from (the DOE?) on gasoline imports into the U.S.
While many of our roads are faily congested it is not the result of a slower speed but a result of more cars on the road than the road is capable of handling at its speed limit. In other words roads are congested due to the number of cars on the road not the speed that they are going. FWIW a road with a slower speed can hold more cars more comfortably.
Now if you take the typical congested roadway around any major city - not one that is already stop-and-go, but one that actually flows at 65mph, and slow down 10mph, you have a problem. Why? because the same amount of cars want to use that road at that time.
Here in lies the problem with your logic. Lets take a mile long section of that road, lets say that there are 'X' number of cars on that road going at 'Y' speed. At that speed there are a certain number of cars entering that section of road but you have that same number of cars also leaving the road. Hence the number of cars on that section of road remains somewhat constant. Slow done the flow of traffic and the number of cars entering and leaving that section of road by the same amount leaving the number of cars on the road reaming somewhat constant.
Again I think you are putting the cart before the horse. Putting more cars on the road slows down traffic. Traffic doesn't get congested because the speed drops.
It's pretty simple to understand that whether you're in a line at an airport, or an amusement park, you want to keep people moving as fast as possible.
It doesn't work that way in the real world. The faster traffic goes the more room you need between cars so the fewer cars can be on any stretch of road. So let us say that congestion begins when the amount of cars on a stretch of road exceeds that number where all the cars can maintain a safe distance. That being the case the slower the traffic flow the more cars are needed on a particular road to cause congestion.
In other words a highway with a set speed of 60 can hold more cars than at 65.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
me: In the real world where I drive on the interstates, cars are 3 car-lengths apart whether at 65, or 75+ mph speed during peak-traffic hours. No one leaves more than that or else you'll have people cutting in front of you, which is more of a danger than leaving that amount of room. Driving 55mph and leaving 3 car-lengths apart will cause more congestion, to the point where people can't find a spot to easily get on, "push" their way on, causing lane-changes and people hitting brakes, and then you have a whole chain f people hitting their brakes.
Theoretically you're right about higher speeds requiring lower density of traffic, but it doesn't work like that on many urban highways. 3 car lengths is about the norm whatever speed traffic can flow at at that time. This experience is from MA, CT, NJ, NY, and the Phil. area .
Again that would be congested, doesn't matter what the speed is its congested.
Driving 55mph and leaving 3 car-lengths apart will cause more congestion, to the point where people can't find a spot to easily get on,
I disagree with that as it would make getting on the road and lang changes easier and safer due to the lower speed.
but it doesn't work like that on many urban highways. 3 car lengths is about the norm whatever speed traffic can flow at at that time.
But here is the thing, 3 car lengths are more palatable the slower you go. Also note that slowing down the traffic is not causing the congestion. The congestion is caused by having to many cars on the road, that is what causes the slow down.
The whole contention is that slowing down traffic causes congestion. That simply isn't true.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Again, if you have a factory assembly-line which represents a road fairly well, and you have more parts trying to be put on the line when it is already full, the way to breakup tat congestion is to speed-up the line and process the parts quicker. The amount of water you can put thru a hose also goes up with the speed of the water, and the same applies for cars on highways. (I work in a factory as an engineer, and I can tell you all about keeping product flowing, and estimating capacities).
Congestion depends on how fast cars travel and thus how long they are on the road. You decrease the number of cars on the road by getting them off faster, such that other cars that want to enter then have room.
Congestion is not dependent on how fast cars travel or how long they are on the road. Congestion is dependent on how many cars are on the road period. Once you get beyond a certain number of cars traffic gets congested. So slowing down traffic will not cause congestion, nor will speeding them up will solve congestion.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Not really on topic, but Transport Canada is testing a speed limiting device on cars owned by habitual speeders. It's basically a gizmo that combines a GPS, speed-limit map, and an undisclosed way to manually override a car’s controls.
Via satillite, every truck can be monitored by their dispatcher center and if the driver refuses to rest, the center can slow the truck down and then within 20 minutes shut it down.
As a starting point to joining the rest of the world and going metric, the US was supposed to start posting both MPH and KMH back in 1993, but Bill Clinton, with an eye to his re-election, issued and Executive Order canceling this as soon as he became President in 1992.
(Why does my present 2008 Honda' Accord's speedometer go up to an astronomically high 160 MPH? For what purpose? Maybe that's a topic for another discussion)
My car gets 16,700 furlongs to a hogshead highway and thats the way I like it.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
You called?
I only buy "engineers" tape measures.
A rod is the length of a typical tandem canoe btw (~16'). Not sure how many stones mine can carry.
100 kph does have a nicer ring to it than 62 mph. But I can't drive 88.5.
On the speedometer question, the V-6 can probably go over 140mph; so it makes sense to have a speedometer that can show the speed. Now I think you're asking why someone needs to go that fast - run from a tsunamai or tornado? rush someone to a hospital? race?
Back in the day, most cars I remember had 100 mph or 120 mph speedometers. The speedos calibrated up to 150 mph or 160 mph were reserved mostly for muscle cars or Corvettes.
If they go metric, there is always the risk they will set the speed limit at 90 kph, not 100!
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)