Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
Fuel Economy and Oil Dependency
This discussion has been closed.
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Statistically those numbers are very low. If 90% of people speed, then if those people just got in the average number of accidents then I would suspect that 90% of the accidents and deaths could be listed as speed related. I guess that shows that that what the police reports on the accident-report is fairly supjective. If an accident occurs because a DUI was speeding, does that only get reported as speeding or only as DUI or both. You can see the issues.
But anyway, speeding as in any accident report will include 1) people driving sanely but 10mph over the SL, 2) possibly DUI, 3) teens racing, 4) criminals fleeing and 5) other nitwits.
We who are supporting raising the SL's, do not condone racing, fleeing the police, or driving recklessly. let me give you some examples of what we don't condone.
A couple of years ago I posted an article where a woman w/o a license got a friend to rent an Explorer for her. She then proceeded to put 9 or 10 people in it (a 5 passenger vehicle), drive the unfamilar vehicle at 85-90 mph thru traffic swerving into the breakdown lane to pass ... when she crashed 7 or so were killed. And you get a bunch of these then that are stuck in the "speeding" data. You also have put in that data, all the kids around the nation who take out their 300hp dad's vehicle, drive 100mph in a 35mph-zone and rap the car around the tree. These are lumped in the speeding statistics. Then every week or so you can find news of a Suburban with 15 illegal immigrants in it that crashes while being chased. I bet these also might get lumped in the accident speeding data.
This does not represent the fact that millions of people safely and sanely drive year after year on major roads, at speeds at least 10mph > the SL's.
I have driven 32 years and never really obeyed the SL's, just like everyone else. I've never caused an accident. In all my life I've only been in a car with 1 or 2 people who actually drove the SL or less. Speeding is the norm.
http://www.motorists.org/ma/s.html
If one doesn't bother to read it, yes. Here are some quotes from the study:
In Kloeden et al. (1997) all crash locations had posted speed limits of 60 km/h (38 mph), all crashes occurred during daylight and dry weather conditions, and vehicles slowing to make turning maneuvers were excluded from the sample. (emphasis added)
We are talking about limited access highways in this discussion, and those roads do not have speed limits of 38 mph. Driving conditions are completely different on these roads, as compared to the driving conditions on limited access highways.
Roads that have 38 mph speed limits are either urban streets or narrow country roads. These roads are completely different from limited access highways in traffic density, construction (smoothness, crown of the road, etc.), distractions (at-grade intersections, parking lots and driveways that enter directly on to the road) and shoulder width.
On a country road, 55 mph can be too fast (and it certainly is too fast for an urban street).
So, right off the bat, we have one big flaw in this study.
Let's read further:
Nonparametric estimates of relative crash risk were then computed for speeds ranging from 35 km/h to 85 km/h (22 mph to 53 mph), and although relative risk tended to increase as speeds increased above 60 km/h (38 mph) there was no evidence of increased risk for lower speeds. In Kloeden et al. (2001) this approach was applied to crashes occurring on rural roads, and in Kloeden et al. (2002) the original data were reanalyzed using parametric logit models. In both later studies, relative crash risk tended to increase as speed increased but no heightened risk for lower speeds was found.
The lower speeds were 22 mph. In a vehicle built since the early 1990s, a 22 mph collision is hardly a catastrophe, especially with crumple zones, seat belts and air bags.
This study tells us that one shouldn't exceed the speed limit on urban streets or two-lane country roads, but I don't see anyone saying that drivers should. The 55 mph speed limit never applied to those roads; it never will (on many of those roads, setting the speed limit at 55 mph would drastically RAISE the speed limit); so the study is really not relevant to this discussion.
In the introduction we indicated that a salient issue with regard to the role of speed in road crashes concerns the existence of a U-shaped relationship between speed crash risk. Despite extensive research, a clear resolution of this issue has yet to be achieved. (emphasis added)
The authors set out to debunk the "U-shaped relationship," and this is the strongest statement that they could conjure up???
That conclusion could charitably be described as wishy-washy.
Although the authors did say this:
One implication of this study appears to be that, as common sense tells us, high speed in and of itself is not sufficient to cause a crash. (emphasis added) For the 10 Minnesota crashes, other drivers were observed traveling the same road under the same conditions as fast or faster than the crash-involved drivers without being involved in a fatal crash.
Sorry, but this study settles nothing.
Back to the regularly scheduled discussion...
That degree of indefendability is why you deserve to pay much more for your insurance premium. Now, the non sense makes sense doesn't it?
First of all, I don't have a bunch of tickets on my record, I said I have a bunch of citations, over many years. After 3 years they disappear. Secondly, and more importantly, I said citations, not tickets on my record. A citation is just something some corrupt cop writes on a piece of paper. I always make that piece of paper stand up in court, 50% of the time in my life, I've been successful at proving the non-sense was exactly that, and had the ticket either dismissed or was found not guilty. 50% of the time the truth didn't matter to the judge and I was found guilty.
Being as I've only gotten more than one ticket in a single year once, I only currently have 1 point on my record.
If the other guy with a clean record (ticket wise) had a bunch of at fault accidents, I'd side with the bunch of tickets and no accidents driver not being at fault every time.
My insurance has been getting lower every year I age, yet the experience factor really diminshes after about 6 years of experience, the law of dimishing returns....so why are Insurance companies as corrupt and crooked as the drug dealers in South America getting bailed out by my tax dollars?
In which case speed is not that factor nor variable causing an accident, it is driver error, stupidity, and judgment. Why can't people admit most problems are caused by human error, negligence, and omission.
Maybe you spilled your supersized coke all over the floor mat, looked down to pick it up, and then traffic in front of you suddenly stopped, in this case, it wasn't your speed but your lack of attention.
A slower speed would allow more time between "events" allowing more time to correct for a brief inattentive moment before you drive into a dangerous situation. IOW be more careful with your cokes and drive more slowly.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
This paper looked at 2 different datasets which provided them with the ability to remove other factor so they could study just a speed issue. (something I posted in Msg 1222). Remember the original study which stated there was a U shaped correlation was done on 2 lane and 4 lane roads, so it is based on data on slower roads as well.
The authors didn't care what the outcome was of the paper, they were like Mythbusters, try it and see if it is plausible or busted.
The quote 'Despite extensive research, a clear resolution of this issue has yet to be achieved.' is not about their study, but about all the papers written about the U shaped correlation. I say this because in the next sentence they they say 'at least some of the current confusion may result from: 1) aggregating crashes that are caused by fundamentally different processes, and 2) failure to account for uncertainty in an analysis.'
The authors conclusion is 'Neither dataset supported the existence of a U-shaped relationship, although risk of a serious or fatal run-off-road crash clearly tended to increase as speed increased.'
A slower speed would also mean people driving to their destinations a longer time - fatigue, driving closer together (theoretically), driver boredom, and the longer time on the road equates to more time for animals and such to jump in front of the vehicle.
You have to look at both sides of the issue; and if you do you'll see the safety increase is not there - it is priobably a wash. That is backed-up by the statistics not having changed much when the 55 mph SL was eliminated.
IOW be more careful with your cokes and drive more slowly.
How about don't drink beverages, and drive slightly faster. Make your calls and drink your beverages in the Rest Stops or gas stations.
Shhh! Don't force logic and reason onto the 55 crowd. They should be able to amble down the interstate at the double nickel in their Park Avenues and Camrollas as they have a nice cup of coffee and take in the scenery.
Except that this paper did nothing to disprove that; this paper is basically worthless to the central discussion.
cdn_tch: This paper looked at 2 different datasets which provided them with the ability to remove other factor so they could study just a speed issue. (something I posted in Msg 1222). Remember the original study which stated there was a U shaped correlation was done on 2 lane and 4 lane roads, so it is based on data on slower roads as well.
The data in the studies supposedly debunking the earlier studies used speeds that were so low that, again, it was basically worthless for this discussion.
cdn_tch: The quote 'Despite extensive research, a clear resolution of this issue has yet to be achieved.' is not about their study, but about all the papers written about the U shaped correlation.
No, it also includes their study that supposedly proves incorrect the earlier studies.
Their conclusion includes this statement: Despite extensive research, a clear resolution of this issue has yet to be achieved.
If they meant to exclude their study from that verdict, they failed. Their conclusion is, at best, very vague and hardly conclusive proof. And that is reading the language that the authors used in the report. The sentence I quoted was written by them, not me.
And the authors included this statement: One implication of this study appears to be that, as common sense tells us, high speed in and of itself is not sufficient to cause a crash. (emphasis added)
Thanks for posting that article, it was a pretty good read. I do have to agree with some of the others, that it doesn't fully address the issue of speed limits on limited-access roadways, but the bigger problem I have with the article in terms of this discussion is that it only looks at the correlation between an individual vehicle's speed and that vehicle's likelihood of a crash. While I don't question that it is more likely for a faster vehicle to be involved in a crash, that's not really the central issue.
When developing traffic regulations, all the cars on the road should be considered. If car A takes an action that leads to car B crashing, then the traffic regulations should be designed to either prevent car A's action or to reduce B's exposure to A's action. To put this into an example, let's say A pulls out in front of B, B swerves to avoid A, then B loses control and crashes by itself. Traffic regulations ought to focus on either preventing A from pulling out in front of B, or to reduce the speed of B, or maybe both - there isn't a one-size-fits-all solution as there are many variables that come into play.
So, to apply this to the article and the discussion, if car A is traveling substantially slower than cars B-Z on the same road way, A's action (going too slow) is going to lead to more congestion among the rest of the cars and force them to react - whether by slowing down, changing lanes, passing, etc. Now, since the cars are bunched up and taking action to avoid A, it stands to reason that their is a greater likelihood of B and C (or D, E, F...) will crash into each other while reacting to A and each other. While A might not be involved in that crash, it did contribute to the crash.
What this boils down to is that, in laying out regulations, whether an individual car is involved in a crash is less important than whether any car is involved in a crash. The root causes of crashes need to be addressed, not just the outcome.
Anyone involved in road design and traffic engineering worth his or her salt is VERY concerned about those issues, which is why it is entirely proper to mention them in the context of this discussion. Speed limits set too low can have a negative impact on those factors, as can the ignorant drivers who camp in the left lane or drive too slowly, which is why informed drivers focus on those issues.
The paper was not about SLs. It was an evaluation of the statement that there is a U shaped correlation between speed and the risk of an accident. (Something grbeck keeps stating that there is proof of) This paper looked at that statement and went out to evaluate IF it was true or not. The conclusion of the paper is that there is not a U shaped correlation between speed and the risk of an accident, but rather that as speed increases the likelihood of a fatal accident increases.
'Longer time/fatigue/boredom' - minutes per hour, if you have such a short attention span use the rest stops.
'driving closer together' - in absolute terms yes since people should keep a 2 second gap. so at slower speeds you can have more vehicles per mile of highway driving safely.
'more time for animals and such to jump in front of the vehicle' - yes, sort of. Since the number of deer is not a function of speed of the vehicles that leaves only how long it takes for a given vehicle to pass a deer. So for the simplicity of math lets say the deer is 10' long and a vehicle traveling at 60mph traverses 88 feet/sec and a vehicle traveling at 80mph traverses 117fett/sec. then we get that at 60mph your risk is for 1/9 sec where traveling at 80 mph your risk is for 1/12 sec. While there is a time difference, it is not significant, and from personal experience I'd rather have more time to react and stop/avoid then go faster and hit it.
Except that this paper did nothing to disprove that; this paper is basically worthless to the central discussion.
I double checked the link to make sure it was the report I was quoting, and yes it does disprove your assertion that 'It's been PROVEN that faster drivers are safer'.
cdn_tch: This paper looked at 2 different datasets which provided them with the ability to remove other factor so they could study just a speed issue. (something I posted in Msg 1222). Remember the original study which stated there was a U shaped correlation was done on 2 lane and 4 lane roads, so it is based on data on slower roads as well.
The data in the studies supposedly debunking the earlier studies used speeds that were so low that, again, it was basically worthless for this discussion.
Minnesota highway data was the high speed component. Therefore a valid dataset.
cdn_tch: The quote 'Despite extensive research, a clear resolution of this issue has yet to be achieved.' is not about their study, but about all the papers written about the U shaped correlation.
No, it also includes their study that supposedly proves incorrect the earlier studies.
Their conclusion includes this statement: Despite extensive research, a clear resolution of this issue has yet to be achieved.
If they meant to exclude their study from that verdict, they failed. Their conclusion is, at best, very vague and hardly conclusive proof. And that is reading the language that the authors used in the report. The sentence I quoted was written by them, not me.
When you quoted out of context the first time I chalked it up to an oversight. Now that you ignore my correction and repeat the out of context statement I realize that you just cannot accept the possibility that one of your statements is incorrect. Here is the full statement:
"In the introduction we indicated that a salient issue with regard to the role of speed in road crashes concerns the existence of a U-shaped relationship between speed crash risk. Despite extensive research, a clear resolution of this issue has yet to be achieved. The view we have adopted is that at least some of the current confusion may result from: 1) aggregating crashes that are caused by fundamentally different processes, and 2) failure to account for uncertainty in an analysis. In this paper, we have showed how pioneering work conducted at the RARU could be combined with recent advances in computation for Bayesian statistical models in order to apply case-control methods to studies with relatively small numbers of cases. Applying the method to two case-control samples, each with 10 serious or fatal run-off-road crashes, we found that these data did not support the existence of a U-shaped relationship between speed and crash risk, although risk did tend to increase as a function of speed."
That is the FULL paragraph. Since in their paper they went to great lengths to describe how they disaggregated the data and built statistical models for the uncertainties one can only conclude that the confusion statement was about the various studies that accepted the Cirillo study as fact and built their models on top of that study.
And the authors included this statement: One implication of this study appears to be that, as common sense tells us, high speed in and of itself is not sufficient to cause a crash. (emphasis added) Nobody has said that speed is the only factor. But it is the one that people have the most control over. The other part is that the faster a vehicle is moving the less chance of a successful emergency maneuver.
I used to drive 300 - 400 miles on Fri nights after work, leaving at 6pm. Now my typical body-clock pattern was to go to sleep at 11pm. So just because I'm driving does not change that. I'm still going to get sleepy come 11pm or so. So it does in situations make a difference whether you get there at 11pm or 12:30am. Sleeping in Rest Areas for 8 hours in a car is not a very viable option. There are advantages to getting to your destination faster. if I have the option of driving 80mph while fully alert, vs. driving 55mph while sleepy, I'll take the 80mph.
so at slower speeds you can have more vehicles per mile of highway driving safely.
driving safely.
Driving safely means paying attention to the road and not the phone, kids, or drinks, having a car in good mechanical condition, adjusting speed based on weather and road conditions, and driving with the flow of traffic. Driving safely does not mean 55 mph is safer than 75 mph on the interstates.
Since our cars do not have rollcages and other racing technology, 55 mph will kill you as surely as 75mph.
Let me ask you this question - I was in Nevada last year on a 75 mph interstate, heading into Utah. The road is straight for 5 miles at a time, it's daylight, there's about 5 cars/mile; do you really think that 55 mph would have been safer than 75mph? do you think 55 mph would be safer if this caused me to be on the road longer so that it then turns dark, and I have limited visibility (to the end of my headlights) and I start getting sleepy?
No doubt that at greater speed the effects of an accident become more severe.
But,with so many incompetent drivers,and the volume of traffic, it has become more difficult to maintain the current speed limits
My experience is many times on a current 60 MPH road, you will be lucky if you can do 45, much less 55.
I can drive drive to my nearest interstate - 91 and there will be about 15 vehicles per mile during the day, and about 3/mile at 9pm, meaning you can run the 65mph SL easily anytime the weather is good. If I go to Boston it could be 10mph or 65mph.
I drove 430 miles each way from NH to PA the other weekend, and never went below a SL; except when coming to a stop, or in a construction-zone.
Which consisted of all of 10 accidents on one road in one state.
cdn_tch: When you quoted out of context the first time I chalked it up to an oversight. Now that you ignore my correction and repeat the out of context statement I realize that you just cannot accept the possibility that one of your statements is incorrect. Here is the full statement:
"In the introduction we indicated that a salient issue with regard to the role of speed in road crashes concerns the existence of a U-shaped relationship between speed crash risk. Despite extensive research, a clear resolution of this issue has yet to be achieved. The view we have adopted is that at least some of the current confusion may result from: 1) aggregating crashes that are caused by fundamentally different processes, and 2) failure to account for uncertainty in an analysis. In this paper, we have showed how pioneering work conducted at the RARU could be combined with recent advances in computation for Bayesian statistical models in order to apply case-control methods to studies with relatively small numbers of cases. Applying the method to two case-control samples, each with 10 serious or fatal run-off-road crashes, we found that these data did not support the existence of a U-shaped relationship between speed and crash risk, although risk did tend to increase as a function of speed."
That is the FULL paragraph. Since in their paper they went to great lengths to describe how they disaggregated the data and built statistical models for the uncertainties one can only conclude that the confusion statement was about the various studies that accepted the Cirillo study as fact and built their models on top of that study.
It helps to be able to distinguish between present and past tense. Note that in their conclusion, they specifically say that, Despite extensive research, a clear resolution of this issue has yet to be achieved.
One would think that, if they had resolved the issue with this report, they would have immediately said so. At the most, they added fuel to the fire, but to say that they have definitely proven the U-shaped curve incorrect, let alone settled the entire issue, represents a triumph of wishful thinking over reading comprehension.
Reading the entire report, as you suggested, the only thing that one can reasonably take from it is that "more research is needed." And given that you are the one suggesting that 65 mph is fast enough for every state (which makes it painfully obvious that you don't traveled much) and complained about faster drivers in the passing lane (which is why informed drivers understand the need for lane discipline), I would suggest that you have a long way to go to prove your case.
cdn_tch: Nobody has said that speed is the only factor. But it is the one that people have the most control over. The other part is that the faster a vehicle is moving the less chance of a successful emergency maneuver.
Perhaps, then, I was just imagining your posts where you said that the national speed limit should be set at 65 mph to reduce fatalities... sounds to me as though you are saying that posting lower numbers on a sign will, in and of itself, somehow magically lower the fatality rate.
It certainly sounds as though you are saying that reducing the speed limit is all that is needed (after all, the vehicles, driver, roads and weather will remain the same) to bring about this salient result.
"Every year, about 40,000 people die in traffic accidents in the U.S. If you are age 5 through 34, you are more likely to die this way than any other way. Ordinary things we do — or don't do — have extraordinary consequences. We know that higher gas prices cause many of us to slow down and drive less — which means fewer people die. Early research into 2006 accident data suggests that many lives have already been spared. If gas remains at $4 per gal. for a year or more, expect as many as 1,000 fewer fatalities a month, according to professor Michael Morrisey at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and associate professor David Grabowski at Harvard Medical School, who calculated that estimate for TIME. That means annual deaths could be cut by almost one-third — a public-health triumph. "
to me, it's just someone's opinion.
Did CNN consider the rise in suicide by those people whom $4 gas bankrupts? I bet when the people jumping out windows hit folks on the street below you would double the fatality rate. :sick:
But then again, the rich elitists at CNN probably don't have to worry about gas prices, they just call a car service or limo. :mad:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
There should be some reduction in accidents and deaths as people drive less, yes; but a 1,000/month sounds like a lot. I'd think that the main effect of $4/gal gas would be on teens who make a little money. Yes they'll still drive to work, and their friends, but I think when it comes to the choice of spending their Sat. night $20, they'd reduce their driving around (if I remember my teen years there was a lot of racing around).
It is the teens who mainly have the crappy cars, with the balding tires, and no experience in the snow and ice, who wrack up all the accidents. Personally - My GF's kid was driving 2 months, when he swerved "to avoid a cat" (= racing in his dad's Camry) in a 30mph zone, left 75' of skid marks and went in the woods and lightly hit a tree.
Of course if we cared much to reduce the accident fatalities we could have years ago - make people wear helmets just like many states do for bicyclists and such. But then that would mess up peoples' hair - and we couldn't have that.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/25/tennessee.crash.ap/index.html
A 55 mph SL does nothing to stop these sorts of accidents, which you can pickup almost any local paper on any weekend and see.
What you want is for people to be smart and cautious, and use seat-belts, and any other safety devices we might add.
As I said before we should go to digital SL's and electronic governors, based on your license. It does not make sense to drive a road at 55mph on a bright sunny day, and then have that 55mph limit still up for kids like this when it is dark and foggy, and they've just started to drive.
SL's should be based on your vehicle type, your driving history, and the weather and traffic conditions. With bar-coding and digital transmission (think HD radio), a system could be put in place.
Too many differing speeds by too many vehicles on the same road would be asking for trouble - taligating, passing in bad spots, road rage potential.
Electronic SL's & attached speed limiters are way too Orwellian, IMHO.
Maybe if we trained & educated our new drivers better...
Cheers!
Paul
We're talking multi-lane interstates here in the U.S. And many of those interstate miles have light traffic for the most part. The problems you mention are already with us on our 2-lane undivided highways. The most dangerous roads are these with the dashed-middle-lines, and the low SL's which some follow , but most don't want to.
I can go out on 2 or 3 interstates here and see a handful of cars even at 5pm in the afternoon. It would be no problem to drive 85-100mph most of the time.
I could see this kind of stuff coming along first and eliminating the need for speed limiters.
I can also see this kind of stuff tying in with Mr. Orwell.
"GM and Opel say its system uses "everyday" hardware -- a microprocessor, GPS receivers and wireless LAN modules -- to communicate with vehicles within a few hundred meters of one another and exchange information such as location, speed, acceleration and direction of travel. And because more vehicles are coming equipped with radar-based sensors connected to safety and convenience tech such as adaptive cruise control and blind-spot monitoring, GM/Opel claims these can be implemented with its C2C system in "a more effective and affordable way.""
GM Creates "Sixth Sense" Safety System That's Not Just for the Wealthy
I still say that extreme speed differentials are a hazard, regardless of road type. Granted, it's more of a problem on back roads vs. multi-lane interstates
My car drives better in winter than many, (Steve can attest to that
Steve: any snow yet? :shades:
Cheers!
Paul
Wha... your Dodge PowerWagon?
No snow - the base temp is 53°F! Patience my friend (oh yeah, you can't drive 55, eh?).
I think the current system is more of a problem. the SL's on many roads were set 20-30 years ago based on how fast a garbage truck, or a 1/2-blind person could handle a road safely. The problem now is that you have speed differentials now because you have a group "well that's the SL and we'll just poke along" vs. a group - including most police who "drive at a reasonable speed above the SL".
The electronic system I propose would be one that rewards the driver thru allowing a higher SL by 1) continuing years of driving w/o being the cause of a serious accident, 2) experience, 3) taking advanced driving courses like Skip Barber or factory sponsored driving schools, 4) buying a vehicle that has good brakes and handling, and such.
The system could encourage people to become educated drivers, be careful, and drive good performing cars.
All of these factors could be encoded either on a driver's license or in the car's ECU, and the combination would determine your SL. Oh, and the overhead satellite, and your GPS would know what road you were on and again adjust your SL.
Maybe you could have a temporary override for emergencies, but triggering it would alert the police, and you'd have to explain and get it reset.
Do you know how much tax payer money is completely wasted on traffic enforcement in the US? Enough to have let the BIG 3 make competitive vehicles rather than the crap they've been producing for 30 years, that's for sure.
Not too hard too imagine software/info systems that States could set up to make "conformance" to speed limits almost self-policing through imposition of fees and fines. If all vehicles hooked up to GPS overseen by State DOTs, then easy to monitor who is speeding and bill them for excess speed. So, if speed limit on an interstate is 55, any speed over that to 70 would be charged say 50 cents for each mile driven over. Anything over 70 would be say a 300 dollar fine and 10 dollars for each mile driven 70 and over. Of course, the 300 dollar fine would trigger points against your drivers license.
Revenue from fees and fines would be used by the States to upgrade and maintain the roads system.
It still boggles the mind why Americans (and many Canadians) can't handle speeds the rest of the first world can handle, why speeds seen as normal for a 1955 Chevy when new are now seen as high end for an endlessly more competent modern car.
It's also funny how conservatives who preach freedom and small government want the same government to track the perpetual movements of every single driver.
If you want to be a mere passenger, take the bus.
Well, kernick started the idea. But, a combo of kernick and the xrunner ideas would probably be welcome with the new Obama administration. He wants to bring change and also dabble with the Constitution. He also talked about conservation in his campaign. What better way to conserve than the 55.
People still are and will be free to drive wherever and whenever they want and will be given 15 mph leeway to 70 without any points being put on their license. Its a win-win for everyone. And, with 50 cents per mile travelled over 55, you know that the rich will gladly pay the extra cost for going over 55. This fits in perfectly with Obama wanting to tax the rich more. But, it wouldn't be considered a tax, just a fee that the rich could afford.
OK. Suggest another number. You want 50, 60? 60 wouldn't save as much gas as 55.
Don't know where 55 came from. If I had to guess, it may have came from 65 day, 55 night speed limits (and signs) that many states used years ago.
I don't see a digital SL system as necessarily having to track anyone. I see where it could be just like Sirius radio - where a satellite broadcasts information, blanketing the nation with info. The only thing your car does is RECEIVE the info. and then based on your driving record and vehicle you are given a SL. At no time does your car store or transmit information.
55 is a random throwback to the bad old days. It has no relevance for modern vehicles. It's funny that some are embracing speeds that are lower than what virtually everyone agreed were safe for cars that were literally prehistoric without any efficency or safety technology. Why should pretty much all of the first world be seen as able to handle higher speeds than the US? It's the pinnacle of dumbed down.
I wouldn't trust the powers that be not to be storing and recording information. The KGB mentality lovers out there would have a field day with so much data.
Arab Oil Embargo, 1973.
In response to a sudden dramatic decrease of crude oil & gasoline available, the US invoked a nation-wide 50-mph limit. Problem was that most over-the-road trucks at the time couldn't do top gear at 50 without lugging. Trucking industry & lobbyists negotiated a bump to 55, thus allowing top-gear travel, thus saving fuel. That's where 55 came from.
Cheers!
Paul
So it makes perfect sense for 2008! :shades:
IE - If you can't handle driving, DON'T!
The problem (for the most part) is not the car, bu the drivers.
What does it take to get a drivers license today? A pulse, a rough idea what the 2 pedals on the floor do and the ability to parallel park. Nowhere does it require new drivers to know how to drive.
For the majority of drivers out there, driving is a necessary chore to get from point A to point B. They don't care about the driving. They will never know what an apex is or what to do if their car should start to skid. They will claim that they are an excellent driver regardless of how many accidents they've been in.
That is who the policy makers set speed limits for. When 90%+ of the drivers have some sort of high performance training, then I will accept that the speed limits could be higher, but not until then.
All this also misses the other reason to have lower speed limits. Better fuel economy and by direct correlation less tailpipe emmisions.
--i'm confused..used to be they said "{better dead than red"..but during the last election,-and the previous two,many states were "red states"..does that make them comunist's??(hehehahahoho)??
--today's cars,with fuel injection,electronic ignition,overdrive transmissions,etc get nearly double the miles per than the 18 m.p.g my -66 dodge polaris,with a 383 got..but,when you stepped on the "gogo" pedal,the speedometer went one way,and the fuel gauge went the other!! :shades:
Policymakers set limits so revenues can be generated.
Lowest common denominator societies do not and will not succeed.
Those may be your goals, but not everyone's; so please enjoy your driving but give everyone else the same right. My transportation goal is to have the msot powerful, fastest, and safest vehicle possible - striving for things only available in science fiction right now. Implement in a fusion-powered transformer and I'll be somewhat happy. For now I'll take a powerful, fast car whatever amount of energy it uses. I have no desire to get 30 mpg instead of 26mpg, or whatever.
President-elect Obama had mentioned conservation as one of the answers to our energy problems. Would not surprise me to see him weigh in on side of 55 speed limits. And, a 55 would cut down on deaths/injuries on the highway which is more important than energy savings.
People need to stop whinning about 55. Look at any State's rules of the road book for drivers and there are many dozens, if not hundreds. of regulations that need to be conformed with. Velocity is "just another" regulation.
Near-term dinasours to be will be cars with insane amount of high HP. Except for teens and immature older drivers dragging at stop lights on public roads, there is no need for extravagently high HP.
55 is completely irrelevant to the world of 2008. It exists in no other nation. Think about that. It's completely inappropriate and idiotic.
55 would possibly have a marginal impact on consumption and casualties. 50 would have an even greater impact. 40 would have a massive impact. Why not aim for 40?
Why would someone buy something like an Acura TL and support 55? Not exactly a low hp machine. A 4cyl mileage special is all you need.