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
Contrast that with my trip to LA from SF this weekend. My sister, who habitually averages about 85-90 mph out there, arrived more than an hour before me. I go the speed limit (to save gas), and I will confirm that there was nothing going slower than me except the big rigs, although some folks matched pace with me. How my sister avoids having a zillion tickets, I just don't know.
But the contrast of the two got me thinking: if Congress, instead of mandating a national speed limit, mandated camera-based speed enforcement and paid part of the cost of installing it, wouldn't that be a MUCH more effective way of causing people to drive more slowly? We would save a ton of gas nationwide, I am sure. Of course, in California we would also have the PITA of trucks actually doing their mandated 55 mph limit on the interstate, probably causing gridlock in the SF to LA I-5 corridor.
On a sidenote, for the first time ever I am noticing lots of highway patrol speed enforcement on big rig drivers, who normally just cruise about 2 mph under the car speed limit (and hence more than 10 mph above the truck limit) and have seemed to be effectively exempt from being pulled over for many years now.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Swedish police displayed the results of a crash where a motorcycle going 155 mph hit a car and killed both occupants
I think if it was adopted en masse here as it is there (yes, I know they exist in a few locales, but not to the extent of England, which has the most surveillance cameras in the world), there would be lawmakers dangling from nooses where those cameras once stood.
Why mess with a good thing? Your sister drove 85-90 mph and saved time (and probably had a more enjoyable drive). That is why we built limited access highways in the first place. I'm not seeing any "problem" that needs addressing here...
Lots of us don't want to drive 55 mph on limited access highways. We like traveling at higher speeds, and we don't support nanny-state intrusion of cameras on the highway. The extra gas used is worth it. That's our decision.
Speed limits are set to help drivers unfamiliar with a stretch of road understand what is the maximum safe speed for travel. They are not to be set to save fuel. The police - either in person, or via cameras - should not worry themselves with how much gas people are using. We don't need to turn the authorities into the "fuel police."
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Yep I used to think that until I saw the airborne Vette.
Last time I drove through IN I saw about one dead deer alongside the road every 25 miles or so (don't they pick them up or are their deer just stupider).
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Running the numbers (force in Joules is weight in Kg's/2 times speed in meters per second squared) a guy in a Ninja doing 150 would hit with the same amount of force that a 3200 pound car would doing 65 MPH.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I think the cameras are getting more common that people think. My mom got tagged by a camera in Chattanooga a few months ago for speeding in a residential zone.
"More than 300 U.S. communities use automated "cop cam" systems ... cop cams can be cash cows. The big reason is that their spread is viral: When they work, violations and revenue both fall. To that, the likeliest answer is more cameras."
Unpopular cop cameras bag many more speeders (McClatchy)
I know of red light cameras here, but none for speeding. I know in Vancouver BC they had speed cameras, but the public put up such a fight against them that they were removed. These cameras are simply a way for well-connected camera company suits to win the lottery. It's all about money.
But yeah, follow the money - more will be coming here I bet.
The fact is that lighter vehicles 1) are more capable of accelerating and going faster, and 2) offer less protection for the occupants of those vehicles. Basically zero on a motorcycle.
And if you didn't know the physics it is the velocity of the vehicle which is the more important in determining the amount of kinetic energy that a vehicle would hit with in a crash - mass x velocity-squared.
But whether you're talking someone hitting you on a motorcycle at 55 mph, 65 mph, or 150 mph the result is basically the same. The same as whether you fall off a 150 ft, 200 ft, or 500 ft. cliff.
If you want increased safety, then you need to sacrifice something, maybe comfort? Check out the crashes that NASCAR or F1 drivers walk away or only receive minor injuries, and ask how?
In your replies you're focusing on motorcycles and missing the broader point. There are many cars which are "light" and fast.
You're also missing that many accidents are single vehicle. We are also discussing the safety of those people, and not who "wins" in a collision. My points are that it is more dangerous in general for lighter vehicles to be "speeding" for the occupants of those vehicles. If you were interested in improving safety on the interstates you would therefore not focus on the large passenger vehicles, based on that alone. I could see a lower speed limit for mid and large-size commercial trucks though.
My stance on this issue is that the speed limits need to be updated to what the majority of the people are driving ALREADY TODAY. I'm not advocating racing or 120mph SL's in urban areas. I'm advocating making the current 65 mph zone which everyone is ignoring by driving 75-80mph, an 80 mph zone. MAKE WHAT WE (the normal middle-aged commuter) ARE DRIVING TODAY LEGAL.
And if you want to drive 55mph do so for yourself, and enjoy it in the right-lane, and try and stay out-of-the-way of those who choose to proceed at a better-clip.
But I was merely addressing those here who think it is our duty to protect these people against themselves. Or to dumb-down the traffic laws so a 95-year old with cataracts driving a 20 year old garbage truck, can have a SL to safely guide him.
If you rear end someone you, by the facts, were following too closely. No one has to witness it - "the thing speaks for itself".
"On the other hand, if there is a collision, then you will start racking up accidents on your record and your insurance can go up, even when your found "not at fault or no-fault," "Few insurance companies, if any, will increase your insurance if it is determined that the accident is not your fault."
When you hit somone in the back if they slow or stop YOU were clearly following too closely, regardless of WHY they slowed or stopped. Period.
I could have owned a Ferrari - a guy in a 430 was in the outside lane and blocked by slower traffic. I passed him in the middle lane of our 3 lanes of a 6 lane interstate. He pulled in so close behind our 2008 Accord Sedan, all I could see in my rear view mirror was his face behind the windshield. All I would have had to do was even take my foot off the accelerator and he would have hit me. Had I even tapped the brakes he would have eaten it. And I was going 80. IDIOT. In hindsight I should have done it - would have messed up OUR new car, but he would have eaten it and wrecked his Ferrari. TOTAL MORON.
there has to be a witness, without a witness (or more correctly a complatent) there can be no proof that an accident even occurred.
When you hit someone in the back if they slow or stop YOU were clearly following too closely, regardless of WHY they slowed or stopped. Period.
That has nothing to do with what I said. I was talking about accidents where it was determined that you weren't at fault, not accidents where you are at fault.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Let's get back to the 55 mph max topic again please. On that note
"The American Trucking Associations ... supports slowing down traffic through a reinstatement of a national maximum speed limit of 65 mph for all vehicles and limiting truck speeds at the time of manufacture."
Sun Herald
Not a witness but rather a complantant. If the person you hit doesn't show up in court the case is dismissed.
Let's get back to the 55 mph max topic again please.
OK It should not be a Federal issue, states should have the say in what the max on their roads should be.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
you know the old saw, 2 wrongs don't make a right.
Gary says ,"By the very statements made by EPA personnel there is no way you could get the same results twice on the same vehicle. It is humanly impossible. One tester will stomp on the gas the next will smoothly accelerate. These are not machine tests. They are done by different humans on vehicle set up on a dyno. Was he in a hurry to get out for a smoke break. I'm sorry you guys are easy if you believe there is anything consistent about the way the EPA operates. "
Where exactly did you get that information? Especially the part about "One tester will stomp on the gas the next will smoothly accelerate." ????? Where did that come from? Is that a guess from you as to how you THINK the testing is done?
It is not located in the link you provided.
It appears to me you have a completely skewed idea of the scientific test method that goes into the EPA mpg test.
Here is the testing protocol. I had found it before but lost the info. There are no "if ands or buts" about the test. They are all done EXACTLY the same by a PROFESSIONAL driver.
"Each schedule specifies the speed the vehicle must travel during each second in the test. On the dynamometer, a professional driver runs the vehicle through a standardized driving routine, or schedule, which simulates “typical” trips in the city or on the highway. A hose is connected to the tailpipe to collect the engine exhaust. The carbon in the exhaust is measured to calculate the amount of fuel burned during the test. This is more accurate than using a fuel gauge."
Look at the "Detailed Comparison" tab on this page:
Specific Test Details here
There you will find out exactly how the test is done. It's not "hey lets get on this car and just RANDOMLY drive it and see what the MPG turns out to be."
Are you just mad because the new EPA test does not favor diesels? That seems to be part of your main problem.
Remember: they had 1 diesel car out of 615 cars to use in the testing. Don't you cut them a little slack for just not having enough cars to make sure the diesels were driven like diesels NEED to be driven to have high MPG?
"It is essential that our fuel economy estimates continue to be derived from controlled, repeatable, laboratory tests. However, the inputs to our estimates are based on data from actual real-world driving behavior and conditions.Because the test is controlled and repeatable, an EPA fuel economy test result can be used for comparison of different vehicle models and types. EPA and manufacturers test over 1,250 vehicle models annually and every test is run under identical conditions and under a precise driver’s trace, which assures that the result will be the same for an individual vehicle model no matter when and where the laboratory test is performed. Variations in temperature, road grade, driving patterns, and other variables do not impact the result of the test. While such external conditions impact fuel economy on a trip-to-trip basis, they do not change the laboratory test result. Therefore, a repeatable test provides a level playing field for all vehicles, which is essential for comparing the fuel economy of one vehicle to another. Finally, EPA must preserve the ability to confirm the values achieved by the
manufacturers’ testing, and this can only be achieved with a highly repeatable test or set of tests. No other fuel economy test program provides the level of repeatability as the EPA program.
See that Gary? There is no room for variances. The test is repeatable and will be exactly the same no matter where it is done.
My point is proven. Now, can we move on?
The following information is from the About the EPA Office of Inspector General Web page [ http://www.epa.gov/oig/about_epa_oig.htm ]:
"The Office of Inspector General is an independent office within EPA that helps the Agency protect the environment in a more efficient and cost effective manner. We consist of auditors, program analysts, investigators, and others with extensive expertise. Although we are a part of EPA, Congress provides us with our funding separate from the Agency, to ensure our independence...
We perform audits, evaluations, and investigations of EPA and its contractors, to promote economy and efficiency, and to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse. We also provide public liaison (ombudsman) and hotline services to review public complaints about EPA programs and activities. We discuss issues with EPA management and others, including Congress, and provide detailed reports. Twice a year, we provide a Semiannual Report to Congress that identifies significant EPA deficiencies and proposed corrective actions and profiles our accomplishments."
So, again, the EPA is not without watchdogs and cannot just randomly say "we hate diesels so the Jetta gets a fraudulent mpg test !!!"
The EPA link posted by Steve, states that the driver APPROXIMATES, stop and go city driving. You are trying to tell us that each driver will accelerate at exactly the same level. He will brake at exactly the same point. THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE.
Yes I am upset that the EPA admits there tests on the Jetta TDI is off by 18% and probably in reality more than 25%. This will cost each purchaser of a new Jetta TDI $hundreds of dollars in tax credit. I find that unacceptable. Especially in light of the fact they used 60 MPG City on the Prius to base that tax credit. You can believe those guys are pure as the driven snow. I think they are diesel haters as many here on Edmund's are. It is so easy with man controlled tests to FUDGE. You are dreaming if you think otherwise.
Again in another instance of VW's notorious lack of attention to detail they ignored the EPA testing parameters which are published and fully available for every vehicle maker in the world. Any vehicle maker with a dyno can replicate the specific parameters of the EPA tests. They are very clear and precise.
Either.....
VW ignored these tests and did their own tests with their own 'real world' criteria whence they acclaimed "60 MPG Highway!!!! The Prius killer". OOPS.
Or.........
They did the tests according to the EPA criteria, which aren't difficult to do, and found that they didn't like the results so they launched their publicity campaign to show that the EPA numbers are too low. Hello, the EPA numbers are too low for every vehicle on the road now. Stop whining.
Either way they don't look good. In the end the vehicle will find its market and it will probably result in an average FE number of about 38 mpg combined; very good on the Hwy and pretty good in the City. IOW about the same as the real world numbers for the Camry hybrid - a larger vehicle.
Gary. You are incorrect.
The EPA highway rating for the Jetta is 40 MPG.
The ACMI highway rating for the Jetta is 44 MPG.
That is a VERY close result, within range of each other. The difference is 9.1% off. Not 18% off.
The difference in the tax credit is probably about $300. Most people who are going to be buying the Jetta TDI make nearly that much in salary for one day. At the most two days. Big Whoop.
It has come to my attention that the Tax Credit on the 2009 VW Jetta TDI is based on the EPA estimated mileage ratings. I feel there is a real flaw in the 2008 tests. By the EPA’s own admission they say they have underestimated the diesel mileage by 18%. That has decreased the amount of the tax credit due Jetta TDI purchasers. My understanding is this program is to encourage US to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. The EPA overestimated the Prius giving that car a much higher tax credit. Is there a move in the EPA to discourage the purchase of clean diesel vehicles?
Thank you for your consideration,
Did you see my post above where the diff is only 9.1% in regard to the calculation for the tax credit, not the 18% you have been quoting?
Did you see that the "Diesel Tax Incentives" portion of the fueleconomy.gov website has a red star drawing attention to it?
You are a smart guy but this time you are not correct about the EPA's intentions.
You must have missed the link steve posted for the EPA. They admitted that the hybrids were optimistic and the diesel 18% under rated. Hate to pop that hybrid balloon. The whining is legitimate when their blatant error costs VW money. It also costs the consumer money. If the numbers were just there to take up space on a window sticker it would be no big deal. The fact is, they use poor testing and skewed the results to cut the tax credit.
Hybrids fall short by a much larger margin, 8.2%. Thus, the greater shortfall seen with hybrids appears to be more related to hybrid technology than to simply high levels of fuel economy.
With respect to the mpg-based label values, diesels still perform the best of the four types of vehicles, now exceeding their label values by 18%.
http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420r06017.pdf
The tax credit is based on CITY mileage. The difference between AMCI and EPA is 24%. The EPA estimates 29 MPG city and AMCI tested at 38 MPG City.
First of all, they never ADMITTED anything. They just stated what the data revealed.
And don't go projecting YOUR OPINION:
"they use poor testing and skewed the results to cut the tax credit."
as FACT, because it is NOT FACT but is MERELY one man's opinion.
I posted about 4 entries which directly, with facts, dispute your opinion and you never have a good direct comeback for those posts. The ones you feel like I make a good point on you just IGNORE.
Hybrids fall short by a much larger margin, 8.2%. Thus, the greater shortfall seen with hybrids appears to be more related to hybrid technology than to simply high levels of fuel economy.
With respect to the mpg-based label values, diesels still perform the best of the four types of vehicles, now exceeding their label values by 18%.
http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420r06017.pdf
Of course the EPA only admits the truth on a 179 page report that most people would not take the time to read. Sadly they get sucked into believing the hybrid hype. :shades:
My earlier posts showed that the difference in "what the EPA got" and what VW's "independent tests" got is barely nine percent.
Not enough to whine about. Like i said: most people who will plunk down $25K for a decently equipped Jetta TDI earn the difference in a couple of day's work. They were not "hurt" much by it.
Explain to me in detail what exactly they modified on the test to make the hybrids "magically" score higher on the tests please.
Was it NOT the SAME EXACT TEST that had been used since 1986?
You have evidence they made any specific modifications in the 1999-2004 time frame on the EPA test when the hybrids came around?
If you have that evidence, let's see it.
I must have missed those or they were not linked or peer reviewed. I believe your posts to be mostly opinion on the integrity of the EPA. Look at page 8 of the previous link. You will see that all but the hybrids were closer to reality with the old EPA tests. The new tests are screwed up for all vehicles with the hybrid showing the least difference. This is the EPA FACTS that you are ignoring.
We are making changes to EPA’s fuel economy test methods to bring the estimates closer to the fuel economy consumers are achieving in the real-world. We believe these estimates will provide car buyers with useful information when comparing the fuel economy of different vehicles. It is important to emphasize that fuel economy varies from driver to driver for a wide variety of reasons, such as different driving styles, climates, traffic patterns, use of accessories, loads, weather, and vehicle maintenance. Even different drivers of the same vehicle will
experience different fuel economy as these and other factors vary. Therefore, it is impossible to design a “perfect” fuel economy test that will provide accurate real-world fuel economy estimates for every consumer. With any estimate, there will always be consumers that get better or worse actual fuel economy. The EPA estimates are meant to be a general guideline for consumers, particularly to compare the relative fuel economy of one vehicle to another. Nevertheless, we do believe that today’s new fuel economy test methods will do a better job of giving consumers a more accurate estimate of the fuel economy they can achieve in the real-world.
Seems like they are making the changes with the intent to get a closer estimate. I did not see anything that said "all but the hybrids were closer to reality." It actually says that CONVENTIONAL GASOLINE VEHICLES came closest:
Conventional gasoline vehicles come very close to meeting their label, falling short by only 1.4%. Conventional vehicles with relatively high combined fuel
economy (here assumed to be 32 mpg or more, representing the top 10% of conventional vehicles in terms of fuel economy) performed only slightly worse, falling short by 1.7%. Hybrids fall short by a much larger margin, 8.2%. Thus, the greater shortfall seen with hybrids appears to be more related to hybrid technology than to simply high levels of fuel economy.
So are you wrong again? Looks like it................:)
The bottom line is the EPA is a tainted organization. They have grabbed hold of the hybrid ring and will not let go. You will not convince me with your beliefs in our Federal Government being above corruption.
Here is another one you ignored
And the last one you ignored
Those are some of my best work this morning too !!!
Nooo, this report was done in 2006 projecting the new tests for 2008. The current label in 2006 was much closer for all but the hybrids. The new test are in the next to last column called MPG-based labels. As you can see they are now off by 9.1% on gas, 11.2% on high mileage gas cars, 6.3% on hybrids and a WHOPPING 18.3% on diesel.
How about the fact that the hybrids MPG came down an average of 20% with the new tests? Don't you think it makes more sense if they were falsifying the hybrid results that the new tests would have made the hybrids look BETTER, not WORSE? Think about that for a second..........
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
And if they are so "anti-diesel" then how do you explain then that the front page of "fueleconomy.gov," which is one of the EPA's websites, having the diesel incentive link highlighted and red starred this morning?
And the fact that the EPA FLAT OUT SAID that the diesel cars performed best on the tests?
Gary says, "Why don't they give the proper tax credit based on realistic Mileage then?"
The tax credit is given on the EPA mpg test results for ALL the cars. Do you want them to use some different measure for the diesels than for the rest of the vehicles?
Do you want them to use some different measure for the diesels than for the rest of the vehicles?
I want to know the realistic mileage of the Jetta TDI. Not some test skewed to make hybrids come closer to reality. You know that is what is right. You just like arguing the other side.