That may be the case. I'm believe, however, that those are segments that should be held to the highest level of accountability.
Alas "should" and "would" are two totally different things. Need I bring up the story of the DC judge who tried to sue a dry cleaner for several million $ because they lost a pair of his pants? In the end he lost, so justice did prevail, I guess. But it screwed over the poor dry cleaner in the process and they had to close up one of their locations.
It's says (among other things), "The speed you choose to drive will directly determine how much gas you burn, especially at highway speeds. Aerodynamic drag increases in proportion to the square of speed, so doubling speed from 40 to 80 mph results in a quadrupling — four times more — of drag. Using more typical highway cruise figures, the drag force at 85 mph is twice as high as it would be at 60 mph. Drag is not the only force acting against a vehicle, but as the vehicle gets larger and boxier (like the Tundra), the drag component becomes a more significant fuel economy factor."
On the Corvette - I've seen people comment before about what great mpg they get. But the stats don't seem to agree (14 to 24 isn't all that great imho, esp. the city number):
About the same combined number as my minivan in other words (it'll vary from 19 to 29, depending, 21.5 lifetime), and it burns regular. If it had a tall 6th gear, maybe it'd see the 30 to 33 some people report using cruise at 75. And it'll haul too. :shades:
Aerodynamic drag increases in proportion to the square of speed, so doubling speed from 40 to 80 mph results in a quadrupling — four times more — of drag. Using more typical highway cruise figures, the drag force at 85 mph is twice as high as it would be at 60 mph. Drag is not the only force acting against a vehicle, but as the vehicle gets larger and boxier (like the Tundra), the drag component becomes a more significant fuel economy factor."
Wonder what test data there might be on tire wear at different speeds. Do tires wear out 4 times faster at 80 vs 40 mph. What about wear and tear on highway surfaces such as asphalt. Does a semi cause 2-3 times wear and damage at 65 vs 40 mph. Do cars and suvs cause less wear and tear on pavements at lower speeds.
Perhaps fintail is on to something - "40 on the freeway". Look at how much petroleum would be saved/conserved in terms of fuel, tires, pavement. Of course the side benefit most important is less severe crashes, less deaths and injuries, less crashes/accidents because drivers can avoid them in the first place.
Lower speeds would also be beneficial to better health, lower blood pressure and less anxiety.
So you can find logical validations for given speed limits on American roads? Don't forget the US has, as a whole some of the lowest overall limits in the first world. Please, explain why the speed limits here are ideal. I don't have data, but I wouldn't be surprised if the US collects the most revenues via speed "enforcement" as well. That's the reason for the limits.
The idiocy theme might not succeed vs a moneysucking politico or egoistic law enforcer, but to anyone who dares to stop and think...
Of course I agree those segments should be held to the highest level of accountability. But they are not, that's a simple fact.
Don't get me wrong, I'd hate to dawdle along at 40....and I don't know if it would produce any health benefits. I believe driving behind someone who refuses to go with the flow or move over creates more health implications than anything else.
But, it would at least be justifiable from a safety standpoint. Most any decent car should be able to protect its belted occupants at that speed.
I guess we should ark Governor Corzine of NJ and the State Trooper what the posted speed limit was before their crash. It wasn't 90 MPH which was their estimated speed in a 5,500 lb. Yukon. Estimated fuel mileage before the wreck: 12 MPG!!
So you can find logical validations for given speed limits on American roads?
um . . . 85th percentile design speed traffic and engineering studies land use rural or urban controlled access or not school zones present construction accident data changes in any of these
We can argue the logic of any of those, but they are not just whimsical validations.
Edit: I also guess those validations are employed in other parts of the world. We apply them differently, not necessarily better.
Please, explain why the speed limits here are ideal.
When you are the Gov., you are immune to laws. It's not an excuse for simple citizens but I see police disobeying the posted limits every day.
ABC News' Paul Fidalgo Reports: The 2005 Chevrolet Suburban carrying Gov. Jon Corzine, D-N.J., was traveling at about 91 mph before it crashed into a guardrail on the Garden State Parkway in Galloway Township, N.J., this past Thursday.
According to a report from New Jersey State Police, the vehicle carrying Corzine made contact with the rear of a pickup truck, which itself was moving to avoid striking a mile marker on the right shoulder of the road.
The report also stated that Corzine was not wearing a safety belt, and asserts, "New Jersey traffic laws require the wearing of seatbelts for all occupants of front seats. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that all front seat occupants under the age of 18 are properly restrained by either seatbelts or child safety seats."
Corzine's vehicle had dropped in speed to about 30 mph just before impact with the guardrail. All occupants in the governor’s vehicle were injured, but "Governor Corzine sustained the most serious injuries, being thrown within the vehicle during the impact."
Corzine suffered multiple fractures in the accident, and in stable condition while recovering in Cooper Hospital in Camden, N.J. after a third surgical procedure on Monday. Until he can return to work, New Jersey Senate President Richard Codey is serving as acting governor.
So.... since there is all the enthusiasm around the fuel saving, life saving, quality of life benefits etc of 55/65, would any of you like to volunteer to have an upper limiter installed on the primary vehicle you drive - somewhere around 70 mph? Should not be a problem, since (other than me ) everyone drives the speed limit, all the time, right?
Simply slowing down and obeying posted speed limits can go a long way toward making the roads safer."
Yep. So can driver training, DUI education and enforcement, etc... all things that require we pay attention to the most important factor - the human being behind the wheel.
I just find it mind boggling that the US Interstate highway system was designed and built around safety parameters that said 75 (or so) was a reasonable speed, and now 30-40 years later, with all the safety improvements, performance improvements in vehicles, we are struggling to get back there in much of the country.
They are only worth as much as the source (or in this broken society, often the special interest group) providing them. Ideals such as 85th percentile are impossible to quantify in an objective manner - who gets to be the judge? It never ceases to amaze me that a government bureaucracy most view as incapable in so many realms is suddenly the end all be all of information when it comes to roadways.
It never ceases to amaze me that a government bureaucracy most view as incapable in so many realms is suddenly the end all be all of information when it comes to roadways.
Yeah, that always amuses me... The gov't sucks on taxation, appropriations, energy policy, social programs etc etc.... however, suddenly, the one area of genius is in precision setting of... speed limits?
Difficult to completely remove subjectivity in any situation that involves people. Most likely the best we can hope to do is minimize it. But in a given situation, saying that any percentage of the things in that situation are doing something, when in fact that percentage is, is neither a subjective nor an objective statement.
It never ceases to amaze me that a government bureaucracy most view as incapable in so many realms is suddenly the end all be all of information when it comes to roadways.
Not sure if I gave you the impression that I think this, but if I did I apologize. Government has its role. Figuring out what that role is is the fun part. Mostly I would prefer it just leave me alone.
Where I live the flow of traffic is typically about 9 miles above the posted limit. I'm guessing it would be a little higher except that seems to be the speed where you can feel pretty safe about not being pulled over by a cop. So what conclusion can be drawn from this? Either this higher speed is actually safe and reasonable, or the average motorist is totally incapable of determining a safe and reasonable speed, or the average motorist has no interest in driving a safe and reasonable speed. Amazingly during adverse weather conditions the flow of traffic can drop to speeds significantly lower than the posted limit. How can that be if motorists are incapable of determining a safe and reasonable speed or they don't care?
A speed limit is a static number. It can't possibly indicate what a safe speed is when there are so many dynamic factors that figure into that equation.
One of my cars is a 6 cylinder Honda Accord. I typically drive 75-80 when I'm on the interstate and I still get 30 mpg. Let's say slowing down to 60 would increase my mpg by 20%, up to 36 mpg, which I seriously doubt. With the way I currently drive a 75 mile trip will take me 1 hour and burn 2 1/2 gallons of gas. Slowing down to 60 will take me an hour and 15 minutes and burn 2.1 gallons of gas. So I've spent around $1.60 to save 15 minutes which comes out to $6.40/hour. Not a good deal for me since my time is worth considerable more than $6.40/hour. And on top of the time I'm saving by driving faster I'm also benefiting from the reduced boredom that would have resulted from driving 60 mph. I think driving 60 mph would actually increase my anxiety/frustration level.
If people want to slow down to save gas that's great. But they should make an effort to stay in the right lane so as not to impose their priorities on those that don't share them.
Where I live the flow of traffic is typically about 9 miles above the posted limit. I'm guessing it would be a little higher except that seems to be the speed where you can feel pretty safe about not being pulled over by a cop. So what conclusion can be drawn from this? Either this higher speed is actually safe and reasonable, or the average motorist is totally incapable of determining a safe and reasonable speed, or the average motorist has no interest in driving a safe and reasonable speed. Amazingly during adverse weather conditions the flow of traffic can drop to speeds significantly lower than the posted limit. How can that be if motorists are incapable of determining a safe and reasonable speed or they don't care?
Couple of things.... folks tell me that the limits are allegedly set based on the 85 percentile rule, which basically means that 85 % of the people are considered "reasonable," so which is it? Like you, where I am "reasonable" for many is based on understanding the enforcement threshold, so 9-13 above the posted highway limit is common. As you said, people care about getting home alive, so bad weather? Folks slow down. Bone tired? Folks slow down. Roadway a potholed mess? Folks slow down. We adapt to conditions.
One of the interesting things that happens for me is that my "sweet spot" in driving can vary depending on the car.... so the crapped out Neon feels fast at 60, terrifying at 80.
I wouldn't be surprised if the US collects the most revenues via speed "enforcement" as well.
I would simply due to the rarity of speeders I see being pulled over. From what I hear some countries very strictly enforce speed limits, here speed limit enforcement is very lacking.
That's the reason for the limits.
I seriously doubt that, if that was the case a police officer would sit some place and pull over anyone doing 1 MPH over the limit and quickly run up the revenue.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Some very good points. Motorists' time is not valued very highly by some advocates of lower speed limits. I recall my first experience with no speed limit driving. We used to drive up to Las Vegas from LA (about 280 miles) and Nevada had "resume safe speed" signs posted when leaving built up areas. Most people, myself included, tended to drive about 75 or so. In AZ/NM now where the limit is 75 on the interstate; few people go much over 80. Enforcing the 'keep right except to pass" rule would do more for highway safety than unrealistic speed limits. DQ
I seriously doubt that, if that was the case a police officer would sit some place and pull over anyone doing 1 MPH over the limit and quickly run up the revenue.
Wait a sec.... in one of your previous posts you cited the practice of "cherry picking," and that the officers have other things to do besides issuing speeding tickets.
I've been to traffic court a few times, (solely out of curiosity) and you might be surprised at the amount of plea bargaining that goes on. I've had a few prosecutors who were quite happy to offer me "guilty to a lesser charge, pay a fine, go home," when frankly, if I was doing anything all that heinous, I'd have had the book thrown at me. I mean, if the point is public safety, then hitting someone with a couple of major point violations is the quickest way to get the menace off the streets, right?
That's there, yes. I see nobody pulled over on my street, where sometimes people zoom by going 60 in a 30. But a mile away there is always a cop in the same spot with a little trap...
There are countless cases of speedtrappers who do nothing but sit there and get those going 5-10mph over. It's not about safety,it's about money.
Hey, we've all read the stories of towns where an entire revenue stream was based on transients being issued suspicious speeding tickets. I don't believe that municipalities would do all this if they were losing money on the deal.
Wait a sec.... in one of your previous posts you cited the practice of "cherry picking," and that the officers have other things to do besides issuing speeding tickets.
I believe I did use the term "cherry pick" but what I said there in no way contradicts what I am saying here. There I said that due to the rampant disregard for speed limits police are a bit more selective on who they pull over (can't pull everyone who speeds over). By that I mean that their time is better put to use in getting gross violators and dangerous ones than just anyone who is simply breaking the law.
In my last post I am questioning if speed limits are set to low to generate revenue. The simple fact that in most places you will not get pulled over for doing as much as 5 over the limit (sometimes more) tends not to support that.
I've had a few prosecutors who were quite happy to offer me "guilty to a lesser charge, pay a fine, go home,"
Wait you said "I've been to traffic court a few times, (solely out of curiosity)", if you were there solely out of curiosity why were they plea barging with you?
Plea bargaining has always been part of the way the court system works. You plea to a lesser offense no trial and everyone has less to do. Now for you why would you bargain if they didn't have a case against you?
I mean, if the point is public safety, then hitting someone with a couple of major point violations is the quickest way to get the menace off the streets, right?
Wrong the only way to get a menace off the streets is to put them in jail. To many people out there are driving on suspended licenses.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Wait you said "I've been to traffic court a few times, (solely out of curiosity)", if you were there solely out of curiosity why were they plea barging with you?
Geeze man! It was a JOKE! Of course I was there to dispute a ticket!
Plea bargaining has always been part of the way the court system works. You plea to a lesser offense no trial and everyone has less to do. Now for you why would you bargain if they didn't have a case against you?
Why would I bargain? Easy - it is pretty inconvenient for me to go to court in NY, not to mention on an out of state ticket. And as far as "having a case" against me, usually at 2 in the morning it's me, the officer, and the radar/laser gun. Case made, unless I get lucky and can "prove" that the gun was not calibrated beyond a shadow. Also, I'm usually pretty up front about it - I was probably driving above the limit. Remember, I don't go in asking for a plea deal, I go in asking for a trial.
I mean, if the point is public safety, then hitting someone with a couple of major point violations is the quickest way to get the menace off the streets, right?
Wrong the only way to get a menace off the streets is to put them in jail. To many people out there are driving on suspended licenses.
If you say so. I was referring to the basic law abiding person, who happens to have gotten a speeding ticket. And anyway, let's say I agree with your solution.... point still is no "menaces" are removed this way.
You would probably be surprised at the number of officers that have chosen to verify that a person is not DUI, has valid documentation and a decent attitude, and sent them on their way. Again, not indicative of particularly menacing behavior.
On some stretches of road, you could get pretty strict enforcement with cameras. Strict enforcement would be painful, with the fines and insurance premium increases.
But you'd most likely wind up saving money on gas. :shades:
People are missing the point. Lowering the speed limit to save fuel is not about saving time or money. It is about saving gasoline.
During WWII, the national speed limit was 35mph. A driver could get 3 gallons of gasoline a week. Ironically, this is what we will be looking at if OPEC cuts us off as they did in the 70's. We import so much more gasoline today, and there are so many more cars, that if we had to rely on domestic supply alone, each driver would get about 3 gallons a week if OPEC instituted another embargo . Before we got a single drop for personal transport, it would go to military, agricultural, industrial, cargo transport, railroads, airlines and home heating. Then, whatever was left would be rationed. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve would be gone in just a few months. Think about that.
Actually, I got a "camera ticket" once, in Washington DC. Since there was no stop, there is no way to prove that I was driving. A ticket gets issued saying that " a vehicle registered to you was photographed..." Your driver's license never enters the system
My problems with this approach are simply that the only real goal is revenue, since no one ever approaches my window... am I drunk? Stolen vehicle? Lost and scared? Also, the gap between picture and summons in the mail was about 8 weeks... long enough to make any real defense not possible, and finally, none of the "see a cop, slow down" deterrent effect.
People are missing the point. Lowering the speed limit to save fuel is not about saving time or money. It is about saving gasoline.
Scott, I don't disagree with the premise. I disagree with the clouding of the issue. Way back, when the 55 limit was imposed it was in direct response to "no mas, no gas" as a desperation measure to save gas and stretch meager supplies. It then morphed into "60, you're dead" and we've been riding that pony for a couple decades.
Where I live the flow of traffic is typically about 9 miles above the posted limit. , , , So what conclusion can be drawn from this?
That a lot of people where you live drive faster than the posted speed limit. Same thing happens where I live.
I'm guessing it would be a little higher except that seems to be the speed where you can feel pretty safe about not being pulled over by a cop.
That's probably a pretty good guess.
Either this higher speed is actually safe and reasonable, or the average motorist is totally incapable of determining a safe and reasonable speed, or the average motorist has no interest in driving a safe and reasonable speed.
Not sure how you came to these conclusions based on the data you are using. The later two sound like more guesses, or assumptions. Not that this is horrible, but I would assume that the typical driver near where you live has an interest in driving safely and reasonably, and that they are capable of determining what a safe and reasonable speed is. The first comes closer, but I think more data is needed to support that as a conclusion. If "safe and reasonable" must be a part of the conclusion, then I would conclude that the typical driver near where you live considers about 9mph above the speed limit to be safe and reasonable. Using just the data you have provided, I would further guess that there is at least the probability that the speed limit where you live is set about 9mph low.
No one has come up with a nuclear plant that can make money without subsidies. Try the Bruce Nuclear plant and the Pickering nuclear plant in Ontario. They are extremely efficient and a viable business for the Ontario governement. As a matter of fact they sell excess electricity to the US.:) Nuclear energy can work, we just have to use CANDU reactors here in the US.
Only when hydrogen is created using electricity from hydro, wind, and solar will it be worthy. Why do we have to prove it to be worthy when the oil industry already produces hydrogen for the purpose of refining the oil to remove sulphur. That cost goes into the sale of gas already. So lets just cut the process short, use the hydrogen they already produce to fuel 135 million hydrogen cell cars and call it a day.:) We need an series of alternative fuels to make the switch over from oil to many other fuel sources. I believe once the load to the electric industry comes with electric cars, electricity costs will skyrocket and make it very hard for people to afford electric cars. Hydrogen produces the electricity that drives the motor, not recharging it. If we can figure a way to make electricity production cheaper as you have suggested such as Wind/solar/hydroelectric/nuclear power plants, this will make hydrogen more viable and more environmentally friendly.
The one thing that will limit us right now is the Lithium battery life of 4 years and platinum hydrogen cell stack technology only lasting 50,000 miles. This is very costly. We may have to bite the bullet for several years either paying $4-10/ gallon of gas or paying for replacement of these parts until someone comes up with a more efficient long lasting battery and stack. I agree the hydrogen cell car is just an EV electric car using hydrogen as the fuel doubling our costs to maintain it. Electric cars take too long to recharge, a fill up at any hydrogen filling station takes minutes. But for now this is all we have unless you can take a bicycle or very efficient motobike or public transport to work everyday. An interesting phenomenon is occuring in some cities like Gas City Indiana. They legalized golf carts in the city to be driveable on the roads. Their golf carts are extremely efficient and go a max of 35mph. If tomorrow we had no oil, a switch over to golf cart like cars could be inevitable. Of course some of us would have a Tesla or ZEO sports car just to compensate for the boredom. If we got desperate enough, we could get scientists experimenting with cold fusion again??
There is a problem with this percentile thingy. tpe mentioned it. Have there been any studies done in the absence of a speed limit? Surely the presence of a speed limit affects the percentage. Wonder if Montana did any.
>An interesting phenomenon is occuring in some cities like Gas City Indiana.
That woke me up! I know where that is! A neighbor's son from my youth lives(d) there--a doctor. Isn't it ironic that Gas City doesn't have lots of extra gas.
I was listening to a test drive of a Zap by a talk show hostess in Louisville today. Sounds practical--maybe a little overpriced at $12500 or so.
I recognize this, however I was not the one who raised the 85th percentile. Personally, I believe that the average speeds would rise a bit on SOME roads if the limits were raised... some, not all.
People are missing the point. Lowering the speed limit to save fuel is not about saving time or money. It is about saving gasoline.
I suspect that a very effective way to convince someone to save gas is to show them that they save some money. Folks have been screaming "Slow down to save gas" for a long time. We only started to actually slow down when our wallets got pinched.
The US consumes close to 21 million barrels of oil per day of which around 13 million barrels is imported. Let's say we all slow down and conserve. Exactly how much do you think that will reduce our imports? In the catastrophic situation you describe I don't think there is any way we've conserved our way to a manageable situation. I don't mind sacrifice for a common, worthwhile goal but if the results of my sacrifice is that some potential crisis might be a little less extreme then I'm not all that enthused.
You do realize that the 85th percentile speed may or may not be the average speed. Average speed is probably even lower, but I'm just guessing.
You and I really don't disagree as much as you may think we do.
The 85th percentile rule is a very common basis for setting speed limits. It clearly is not applied consistently, usually the limit is set lower. My guess is that is to build in some wiggle room, and because of arbitrary statute limits, not to just generate more revenue.
It is only one factor, but it could work well in some situations.
Interesting thread. Seeing as it's O.K. to get off topic, I want to pose the following question:
Do you prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream?
There used to be a time when I would not consider anything but chocolate. I must admit, I was prejudiced against vanilla. But then I would occassionally have the ice cream from Dairy Queen or McDonalds and think, "You know, this tastes pretty good." Then I would go on a streak of having vanilla ice cream. I don't know. They are both good in their own way. Vanilla can be very tasty. And chocolate can get boring at times. Right now, I can't really decide what I want - but wait - maybe I'll go with vanilla . . .
If you stock up on ice cream when it is BOGO at the grocery store instead of driving to the ice cream shop everytime you want ice cream, you will use less gasoline in getting your ice cream fix.
I was reading today about the anti -oil speculation bills before congress, the only one I could find with any teeth was the one sponsored by John Larson D-Conn. Most of the bills dealt with increased supervision which would cost the american public and of course wouldn't work. As gagrice comments they would just change their venue. Since the Merc handles alot of the futures trades, .Here is one that would. "Finally, legislation proposed this month by Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., would prohibit anyone without the ability to actually accept delivery of crude oil from buying a futures contract on an over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives market. That could effectively eliminate speculative trading, as swaps and forward contracts would be banned for traders that buy and sell oil futures without any intention of ever handling the commodity. " This one would hit speculators hard and fast. They could eventually move trades to Dubai or elsewhere but not soon. Sadly it has the least chance of the 9 bills of passing. One more for the ironic category. We consider oil critical enough to have established a strategic petroleum reserve but not critical enough to stop gaming it's price via our commodities markets or crude being transported on VLCC's never arriving at port as their cargo get's sold, resold, and then sold again enroute with a different destination each time.
The nuke plants can't even get their sirens to work and you want more of them? Kind of makes you wonder how many coal and natural gas plants have warning sirens downwind.
Now, legalized golf cars (we call them "cars" here in Boise - don't ask me why), is an idea I can get behind. The battery tech I'm not pinning much hope on though.
And if you're slumbering through one of those awful commutes, you don't need even need 120 hp.
I'd almost pay money to zip down the shoulder of that logjam in the picture on my bike. Rush hour traffic jams make me smile...as long as I'm not in them.
I know I am off topic but if electric cars could beat the present cost of gas at $4/ gallon, then we have found an alternative cheaper form of transport. Legalized road worthy golf carts seem to be a good idea. If we can just get the batteries to last longer with perhaps Ultracapacitor technology. Ultracapacitors have the capacity to displace batteries completely, and can be made cheaper, lighter and more durable than the present Lithium ion batteries going into electric cars. Maxwell Technologies produces this innovative ultracapacitor technology. Now if we could just get it into the present electric cars being produced like golf carts we could play golf early in the morning and still make it to work on time.:)
Many of the coastal communities along the mid-Atlantic permit golf carts on public streets. They're very common in private resorts. Real estate prices are killer though.
A small town near me is considering permitting them on their streets as well.
Not sure if it's economically viable, ie Maxwell Technologies but I like the cut of your jib sir.
"Now if we could just get it into the present electric cars being produced like golf carts we could play golf early in the morning and still make it to work on time. "
unless I get lucky and can "prove" that the gun was not calibrated beyond a shadow.
They have to keep records supeona them, also get the officers operators certification. If either one is out of date at the time of the ticket then the ticket gets kicked out. Sometimes the judge will just dismiss the case if you ask fir the supeona.
If you say so. I was referring to the basic law abiding person,
The basic law abiding citizen isn't going to get into the situation where their license will be lost.
You would probably be surprised at the number of officers that have chosen to verify that a person is not DUI, has valid documentation and a decent attitude, and sent them on their way. Again, not indicative of particularly menacing behavior.
I would not be surprised, but that does not support the "revenue generating" claim.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Comments
Alas "should" and "would" are two totally different things. Need I bring up the story of the DC judge who tried to sue a dry cleaner for several million $ because they lost a pair of his pants? In the end he lost, so justice did prevail, I guess. But it screwed over the poor dry cleaner in the process and they had to close up one of their locations.
There's a We Test the Tips Part II from this past March.
It's says (among other things), "The speed you choose to drive will directly determine how much gas you burn, especially at highway speeds. Aerodynamic drag increases in proportion to the square of speed, so doubling speed from 40 to 80 mph results in a quadrupling — four times more — of drag. Using more typical highway cruise figures, the drag force at 85 mph is twice as high as it would be at 60 mph. Drag is not the only force acting against a vehicle, but as the vehicle gets larger and boxier (like the Tundra), the drag component becomes a more significant fuel economy factor."
On the Corvette - I've seen people comment before about what great mpg they get. But the stats don't seem to agree (14 to 24 isn't all that great imho, esp. the city number):
Fuel Economy.gov
About the same combined number as my minivan in other words (it'll vary from 19 to 29, depending, 21.5 lifetime), and it burns regular. If it had a tall 6th gear, maybe it'd see the 30 to 33 some people report using cruise at 75. And it'll haul too. :shades:
Wonder what test data there might be on tire wear at different speeds. Do tires wear out 4 times faster at 80 vs 40 mph. What about wear and tear on highway surfaces such as asphalt. Does a semi cause 2-3 times wear and damage at 65 vs 40 mph. Do cars and suvs cause less wear and tear on pavements at lower speeds.
Perhaps fintail is on to something - "40 on the freeway". Look at how much petroleum would be saved/conserved in terms of fuel, tires, pavement. Of course the side benefit most important is less severe crashes, less deaths and injuries, less crashes/accidents because drivers can avoid them in the first place.
Lower speeds would also be beneficial to better health, lower blood pressure and less anxiety.
The idiocy theme might not succeed vs a moneysucking politico or egoistic law enforcer, but to anyone who dares to stop and think...
Of course I agree those segments should be held to the highest level of accountability. But they are not, that's a simple fact.
But, it would at least be justifiable from a safety standpoint. Most any decent car should be able to protect its belted occupants at that speed.
Give us a break.
Regards,
OW
um . . .
85th percentile
design speed
traffic and engineering studies
land use
rural or urban
controlled access or not
school zones
present construction
accident data
changes in any of these
We can argue the logic of any of those, but they are not just whimsical validations.
Edit: I also guess those validations are employed in other parts of the world. We apply them differently, not necessarily better.
Please, explain why the speed limits here are ideal.
I don't think they are.
ABC News' Paul Fidalgo Reports: The 2005 Chevrolet Suburban carrying Gov. Jon Corzine, D-N.J., was traveling at about 91 mph before it crashed into a guardrail on the Garden State Parkway in Galloway Township, N.J., this past Thursday.
According to a report from New Jersey State Police, the vehicle carrying Corzine made contact with the rear of a pickup truck, which itself was moving to avoid striking a mile marker on the right shoulder of the road.
The report also stated that Corzine was not wearing a safety belt, and asserts, "New Jersey traffic laws require the wearing of seatbelts for all occupants of front seats. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that all front seat occupants under the age of 18 are properly restrained by either seatbelts or child safety seats."
Corzine's vehicle had dropped in speed to about 30 mph just before impact with the guardrail. All occupants in the governor’s vehicle were injured, but "Governor Corzine sustained the most serious injuries, being thrown within the vehicle during the impact."
Corzine suffered multiple fractures in the accident, and in stable condition while recovering in Cooper Hospital in Camden, N.J. after a third surgical procedure on Monday. Until he can return to work, New Jersey Senate President Richard Codey is serving as acting governor.
Regards,
OW
Yep. So can driver training, DUI education and enforcement, etc... all things that require we pay attention to the most important factor - the human being behind the wheel.
I just find it mind boggling that the US Interstate highway system was designed and built around safety parameters that said 75 (or so) was a reasonable speed, and now 30-40 years later, with all the safety improvements, performance improvements in vehicles, we are struggling to get back there in much of the country.
Turns out it is also the feature that affects fuel efficiency the most.
Yeah, that always amuses me... The gov't sucks on taxation, appropriations, energy policy, social programs etc etc.... however, suddenly, the one area of genius is in precision setting of... speed limits?
I think not.
(Or should that be "I think? NOT!")
It never ceases to amaze me that a government bureaucracy most view as incapable in so many realms is suddenly the end all be all of information when it comes to roadways.
Not sure if I gave you the impression that I think this, but if I did I apologize. Government has its role. Figuring out what that role is is the fun part. Mostly I would prefer it just leave me alone.
A speed limit is a static number. It can't possibly indicate what a safe speed is when there are so many dynamic factors that figure into that equation.
One of my cars is a 6 cylinder Honda Accord. I typically drive 75-80 when I'm on the interstate and I still get 30 mpg. Let's say slowing down to 60 would increase my mpg by 20%, up to 36 mpg, which I seriously doubt. With the way I currently drive a 75 mile trip will take me 1 hour and burn 2 1/2 gallons of gas. Slowing down to 60 will take me an hour and 15 minutes and burn 2.1 gallons of gas. So I've spent around $1.60 to save 15 minutes which comes out to $6.40/hour. Not a good deal for me since my time is worth considerable more than $6.40/hour. And on top of the time I'm saving by driving faster I'm also benefiting from the reduced boredom that would have resulted from driving 60 mph. I think driving 60 mph would actually increase my anxiety/frustration level.
If people want to slow down to save gas that's great. But they should make an effort to stay in the right lane so as not to impose their priorities on those that don't share them.
Couple of things.... folks tell me that the limits are allegedly set based on the 85 percentile rule, which basically means that 85 % of the people are considered "reasonable," so which is it? Like you, where I am "reasonable" for many is based on understanding the enforcement threshold, so 9-13 above the posted highway limit is common. As you said, people care about getting home alive, so bad weather? Folks slow down. Bone tired? Folks slow down. Roadway a potholed mess? Folks slow down. We adapt to conditions.
One of the interesting things that happens for me is that my "sweet spot" in driving can vary depending on the car.... so the crapped out Neon feels fast at 60, terrifying at 80.
I would simply due to the rarity of speeders I see being pulled over. From what I hear some countries very strictly enforce speed limits, here speed limit enforcement is very lacking.
That's the reason for the limits.
I seriously doubt that, if that was the case a police officer would sit some place and pull over anyone doing 1 MPH over the limit and quickly run up the revenue.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Enforcing the 'keep right except to pass" rule would do more for highway safety than unrealistic speed limits.
DQ
Wait a sec.... in one of your previous posts you cited the practice of "cherry picking," and that the officers have other things to do besides issuing speeding tickets.
I've been to traffic court a few times, (solely out of curiosity) and you might be surprised at the amount of plea bargaining that goes on. I've had a few prosecutors who were quite happy to offer me "guilty to a lesser charge, pay a fine, go home," when frankly, if I was doing anything all that heinous, I'd have had the book thrown at me. I mean, if the point is public safety, then hitting someone with a couple of major point violations is the quickest way to get the menace off the streets, right?
There are countless cases of speedtrappers who do nothing but sit there and get those going 5-10mph over. It's not about safety,it's about money.
I believe I did use the term "cherry pick" but what I said there in no way contradicts what I am saying here. There I said that due to the rampant disregard for speed limits police are a bit more selective on who they pull over (can't pull everyone who speeds over). By that I mean that their time is better put to use in getting gross violators and dangerous ones than just anyone who is simply breaking the law.
In my last post I am questioning if speed limits are set to low to generate revenue. The simple fact that in most places you will not get pulled over for doing as much as 5 over the limit (sometimes more) tends not to support that.
I've had a few prosecutors who were quite happy to offer me "guilty to a lesser charge, pay a fine, go home,"
Wait you said "I've been to traffic court a few times, (solely out of curiosity)", if you were there solely out of curiosity why were they plea barging with you?
Plea bargaining has always been part of the way the court system works. You plea to a lesser offense no trial and everyone has less to do. Now for you why would you bargain if they didn't have a case against you?
I mean, if the point is public safety, then hitting someone with a couple of major point violations is the quickest way to get the menace off the streets, right?
Wrong the only way to get a menace off the streets is to put them in jail. To many people out there are driving on suspended licenses.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Geeze man! It was a JOKE! Of course I was there to dispute a ticket!
Plea bargaining has always been part of the way the court system works. You plea to a lesser offense no trial and everyone has less to do. Now for you why would you bargain if they didn't have a case against you?
Why would I bargain? Easy - it is pretty inconvenient for me to go to court in NY, not to mention on an out of state ticket. And as far as "having a case" against me, usually at 2 in the morning it's me, the officer, and the radar/laser gun. Case made, unless I get lucky and can "prove" that the gun was not calibrated beyond a shadow. Also, I'm usually pretty up front about it - I was probably driving above the limit. Remember, I don't go in asking for a plea deal, I go in asking for a trial.
I mean, if the point is public safety, then hitting someone with a couple of major point violations is the quickest way to get the menace off the streets, right?
Wrong the only way to get a menace off the streets is to put them in jail. To many people out there are driving on suspended licenses.
If you say so. I was referring to the basic law abiding person, who happens to have gotten a speeding ticket. And anyway, let's say I agree with your solution.... point still is no "menaces" are removed this way.
You would probably be surprised at the number of officers that have chosen to verify that a person is not DUI, has valid documentation and a decent attitude, and sent them on their way. Again, not indicative of particularly menacing behavior.
You may claim it's not about money, but no way in hell is it about safety.
But you'd most likely wind up saving money on gas. :shades:
But yeah, pair up a crooked court with an arrogant cop, and you've got a way for some hopeless towns to make up for their shortcomings.
During WWII, the national speed limit was 35mph. A driver could get 3 gallons of gasoline a week. Ironically, this is what we will be looking at if OPEC cuts us off as they did in the 70's. We import so much more gasoline today, and there are so many more cars, that if we had to rely on domestic supply alone, each driver would get about 3 gallons a week if OPEC instituted another embargo . Before we got a single drop for personal transport, it would go to military, agricultural, industrial, cargo transport, railroads, airlines and home heating. Then, whatever was left would be rationed. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve would be gone in just a few months. Think about that.
If Israel or the US bombs Iran, it could happen.
My problems with this approach are simply that the only real goal is revenue, since no one ever approaches my window... am I drunk? Stolen vehicle? Lost and scared? Also, the gap between picture and summons in the mail was about 8 weeks... long enough to make any real defense not possible, and finally, none of the "see a cop, slow down" deterrent effect.
Scott, I don't disagree with the premise. I disagree with the clouding of the issue. Way back, when the 55 limit was imposed it was in direct response to "no mas, no gas" as a desperation measure to save gas and stretch meager supplies. It then morphed into "60, you're dead" and we've been riding that pony for a couple decades.
That a lot of people where you live drive faster than the posted speed limit. Same thing happens where I live.
I'm guessing it would be a little higher except that seems to be the speed where you can feel pretty safe about not being pulled over by a cop.
That's probably a pretty good guess.
Either this higher speed is actually safe and reasonable, or the average motorist is totally incapable of determining a safe and reasonable speed, or the average motorist has no interest in driving a safe and reasonable speed.
Not sure how you came to these conclusions based on the data you are using. The later two sound like more guesses, or assumptions. Not that this is horrible, but I would assume that the typical driver near where you live has an interest in driving safely and reasonably, and that they are capable of determining what a safe and reasonable speed is. The first comes closer, but I think more data is needed to support that as a conclusion. If "safe and reasonable" must be a part of the conclusion, then I would conclude that the typical driver near where you live considers about 9mph above the speed limit to be safe and reasonable. Using just the data you have provided, I would further guess that there is at least the probability that the speed limit where you live is set about 9mph low.
Try the Bruce Nuclear plant and the Pickering nuclear plant in Ontario. They are extremely efficient and a viable business for the Ontario governement. As a matter of fact they sell excess electricity to the US.:) Nuclear energy can work, we just have to use CANDU reactors here in the US.
Only when hydrogen is created using electricity from hydro, wind, and solar will it be worthy.
Why do we have to prove it to be worthy when the oil industry already produces hydrogen for the purpose of refining the oil to remove sulphur. That cost goes into the sale of gas already. So lets just cut the process short, use the hydrogen they already produce to fuel 135 million hydrogen cell cars and call it a day.:) We need an series of alternative fuels to make the switch over from oil to many other fuel sources. I believe once the load to the electric industry comes with electric cars, electricity costs will skyrocket and make it very hard for people to afford electric cars. Hydrogen produces the electricity that drives the motor, not recharging it.
If we can figure a way to make electricity production cheaper as you have suggested such as Wind/solar/hydroelectric/nuclear power plants, this will make hydrogen more viable and more environmentally friendly.
The one thing that will limit us right now is the Lithium battery life of 4 years and platinum hydrogen cell stack technology only lasting 50,000 miles. This is very costly. We may have to bite the bullet for several years either paying $4-10/ gallon of gas or paying for replacement of these parts until someone comes up with a more efficient long lasting battery and stack. I agree the hydrogen cell car is just an EV electric car using hydrogen as the fuel doubling our costs to maintain it. Electric cars take too long to recharge, a fill up at any hydrogen filling station takes minutes. But for now this is all we have unless you can take a bicycle or very efficient motobike or public transport to work everyday.
An interesting phenomenon is occuring in some cities like Gas City Indiana. They legalized golf carts in the city to be driveable on the roads. Their golf carts are extremely efficient and go a max of 35mph. If tomorrow we had no oil, a switch over to golf cart like cars could be inevitable. Of course some of us would have a Tesla or ZEO sports car just to compensate for the boredom.
If we got desperate enough, we could get scientists experimenting with cold fusion again??
That woke me up! I know where that is! A neighbor's son from my youth lives(d) there--a doctor. Isn't it ironic that Gas City doesn't have lots of extra gas.
I was listening to a test drive of a Zap by a talk show hostess in Louisville today. Sounds practical--maybe a little overpriced at $12500 or so.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I suspect that a very effective way to convince someone to save gas is to show them that they save some money. Folks have been screaming "Slow down to save gas" for a long time. We only started to actually slow down when our wallets got pinched.
You and I really don't disagree as much as you may think we do.
The 85th percentile rule is a very common basis for setting speed limits. It clearly is not applied consistently, usually the limit is set lower. My guess is that is to build in some wiggle room, and because of arbitrary statute limits, not to just generate more revenue.
It is only one factor, but it could work well in some situations.
Do you prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream?
There used to be a time when I would not consider anything but chocolate. I must admit, I was prejudiced against vanilla. But then I would occassionally have the ice cream from Dairy Queen or McDonalds and think, "You know, this tastes pretty good." Then I would go on a streak of having vanilla ice cream. I don't know. They are both good in their own way. Vanilla can be very tasty. And chocolate can get boring at times. Right now, I can't really decide what I want - but wait - maybe I'll go with vanilla . . .
Oh yeah??? What color am I thinking right now?
WRONG!!
LOLOL
I don't think the flavor has much effect though.
"Finally, legislation proposed this month by Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., would prohibit anyone without the ability to actually accept delivery of crude oil from buying a futures contract on an over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives market. That could effectively eliminate speculative trading, as swaps and forward contracts would be banned for traders that buy and sell oil futures without any intention of ever handling the commodity. "
This one would hit speculators hard and fast. They could eventually move trades to Dubai or elsewhere but not soon.
Sadly it has the least chance of the 9 bills of passing. One more for the ironic category. We consider oil critical enough to have established a strategic petroleum reserve but not critical enough to stop gaming it's price via our commodities markets or crude being transported on VLCC's never arriving at port as their cargo get's sold, resold, and then sold again enroute with a different destination each time.
Now, legalized golf cars (we call them "cars" here in Boise - don't ask me why), is an idea I can get behind. The battery tech I'm not pinning much hope on though.
I'd almost pay money to zip down the shoulder of that logjam in the picture on my bike. Rush hour traffic jams make me smile...as long as I'm not in them.
Legalized road worthy golf carts seem to be a good idea. If we can just get the batteries to last longer with perhaps Ultracapacitor technology.
Ultracapacitors have the capacity to displace batteries completely, and can be made cheaper, lighter and more durable than the present Lithium ion batteries going into electric cars.
Maxwell Technologies produces this innovative ultracapacitor technology.
Now if we could just get it into the present electric cars being produced like golf carts we could play golf early in the morning and still make it to work on time.:)
A small town near me is considering permitting them on their streets as well.
"Now if we could just get it into the present electric cars being produced like golf carts we could play golf early in the morning and still make it to work on time. "
They have to keep records supeona them, also get the officers operators certification. If either one is out of date at the time of the ticket then the ticket gets kicked out. Sometimes the judge will just dismiss the case if you ask fir the supeona.
If you say so. I was referring to the basic law abiding person,
The basic law abiding citizen isn't going to get into the situation where their license will be lost.
You would probably be surprised at the number of officers that have chosen to verify that a person is not DUI, has valid documentation and a decent attitude, and sent them on their way. Again, not indicative of particularly menacing behavior.
I would not be surprised, but that does not support the "revenue generating" claim.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D