Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
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
(one of these days I'm going to have to visit that little bitty Mexican state of HiAk down there).
from: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2726.asp
Photo Enforcement Banned in Mississippi
Mississippi governor signs comprehensive ban on red light cameras and speed cameras into law.
As of last Friday, no jurisdiction had the authority to enter into a contract with a private company to operate either a red light cameras or speed camera system in the state of Mississippi. With a stroke of his pen, Governor Haley Barbour (R) had quietly signed into law one of the most comprehensive bans on photo enforcement in the country after the state legislature put the proposal on his desk with overwhelming bipartisan support.
The final tally in favor of House Bill 1568 was 111-9 in the state House and 42-9 in the state Senate, both veto-proof margins. As a result of the proposal becoming law, McComb, Natchez, Southaven and Tupelo must immediately stop their planned efforts to install automated ticketing machines. Columbus and Jackson have until October 1 to pull the plug on their operational devices. The Columbus City Council has already taken action to remove the city's lone camera at 14th Avenue and Waterworks Road.
Mississippi is not alone in moving to ban photo ticketing. A number of independent studies have shown that red light cameras actually increase the number of collisions at intersections where they are used (view studies). This fact has driven states around the country to turn against the use of photo ticketing. The Montana state Senate Highways and Transportation Committee yesterday held a hearing to consider a ban on traffic cameras that the House had passed in February (view bill).
In 2006, the West Virginia state legislature by overwhelming margins passed a photo ticketing ban into law. Alaska, Arkansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, Utah and Wisconsin have also banned automated citations through judicial or legislative action.
Article Excerpt:
MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE
2009 Regular Session
By: Representatives Blackmon, DuVall
House Bill 1568 (As Sent to Governor)
AN ACT TO PROHIBIT THE GOVERNING AUTHORITY OF ANY COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY FROM ENACTING OR ENFORCING ORDINANCES AUTHORIZING THE USE OF AUTOMATED RECORDING EQUIPMENT OR SYSTEMS TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH OR TO IMPOSE OR COLLECT ANY FINE, FEE OR PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF ANY TRAFFIC LAWS, RULES OR REGULATIONS ON ANY PUBLIC STREET, ROAD OR HIGHWAY WITHIN THIS STATE; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI:
SECTION 1. (1) (a) Neither the board of supervisors of any county nor the governing authority of any municipality shall adopt, enact or enforce any ordinance authorizing the use of automated recording equipment or system to enforce compliance with traffic signals, traffic speeds or other traffic laws, rules or regulations on any public street, road or highway within this state or to impose or collect any civil or criminal fine, fee or penalty for any such violation.
(b) Any county or municipality using automated recording equipment or system shall remove the equipment or system before October 1, 2009.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the term "automated recording equipment or system" means a camera or optical device installed to work in conjunction with a traffic control signal or radar speed detection equipment or both and designed to record images that depict the license plate attached to the rear of a motor vehicle that is not operated in compliance with instructions of the traffic control signal or the posted speed limit.
SECTION 2. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage.
I want to go to HIAK too, but I can't find a road that goes south from Texas that will take me there.
The map is neat though. Can anyone guess which states will NEVER get my tourist revenue as long as photo enforcement is present?
from: http://nevercoldcall.typepad.com/scottsdale_sucks/2008/07/photo-radars-ne.html
Photo Radar's Negative Impact On Tourism
Dean Kennedy posted this insightful comment, and my response follows:
I wonder if Supreme Soviet Napolitano considered the tourism consequences when she unleashed this nauseating money grab. Think about it... a tourist from back east comes out in January to pay a few hundred a night to stay at a hotel and a hundred or two to play golf each day, and when he gets home he gets a thank you from the state of Arizona with a few hundred bucks worth of speeding tickets. Think he's coming back? The sad part is that the idiot politicians will be in denial for a few years before they figure it out. So they will have to rescind the Big Brother cameras and spend $50 million or so more of taxpayer money begging people to come back to the new, somewhat less Soviet like state of Arizona. Maybe Comrade Napolitano will end up as Comrade Obama's running mate. If it sounds desperate, it is. I can dream, can't I?
My response:
There is DEFINITELY a tourism hit coming from the speed cameras. Here's a true story to demonstrate:
Last fall my girlfriend's relatives in North Scottsdale had family from all over the country come out for Thanksgiving. They came from New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Los Angeles, and Orange County.
They were all immediately shocked, outraged, and disgusted at the presence of speed cameras everywhere. One was pulled over "on suspicion of DUI" even though she hadn't had a drink at all that day. The reason? She turned on her headlights about a second after she put the car into gear. This was "just cause" for a DUI stop, complete with two cop cars and a breathalyzer.
Luckily for her the breathalyzer came in at .00, which makes a conviction tough even in arrest-happy Scottsdale. So she got away that time.
The point here is that everyone in attendance swore never to return to Scottsdale. Not only were they unimpressed by the town itself - everyone thought it was bland, barren, and boring - but the presence of the Soviet-style cameras was a huge turnoff.
To top it all, one of the cousins from LA was greeted at home by three photo tickets in the mailbox. You see, in So Cal, you can drive up to 85 mph on the freeways with no fear of cops. Scottsdale seemingly capitalizes on this by speed-trapping visitors from states were you can actually drive without Big Brother watching you every single minute.
F*ck Scottsdale. Writing this has gotten me pissed off all over again. Oh yeah, we're one of the many visitors from that weekend who swore never to return again. We may go visit friends in Phoenix but will not set foot, nor give one cent in sales tax revenue, to the corrupt and despicable City of Scottsdale.
To sum it up:
- Scottsdale is experiencing a crash in property tax revenue, with a record 48% of property tax bills going unpaid this year, and more to come.
- Scottsdale has publicly discussed the sales tax crisis, thanks to a complete standstill in auto sales now that the Scottsdale phonies are ruined and can no longer get credit to buy/lease cars.
- Scottsdale tourism is way down, per the AZ Republic this week, and hotel/sales tax revenues are crashing.
- And now to top it all, they're strongly discouraging visitors with their Soviet speed cameras and abusive DUI procedures.
Nice going. The "leadership" of the City of Scottsdale is a perfect example of why you should NEVER raise children in Scottsdale or let them go to Scottsdale schools. The brain damage is lifelong and irreversible.
Here is the key statement:
"and when he gets home he gets a thank you from the state of Arizona with a few hundred bucks worth of speeding tickets"
You know what?
He could visit Scottsdale and have all that fun and spend all that money any time, and DRIVE THE D*MN SPEED LIMIT, and not get one single ticket.
Lesson:
Don't speed wildly when on vacation/
But, there's nothing wrong with voting with one's wallet if they don't wish to be a part of the Orwellian Redflex society.
But not for idiotic reasons.
Not because you want to speed unimpeded.
If you speed in real life, in your normal life, as a matter of course, just make an adult decision to "not speed while I'm on vacation because I'd rather spend my hard-earned money on vacation fun and not paying a ticket."
How hard is that?
from: http://www.motorists.org/blog/the-traveling-public-can-go-elsewhere/
The Traveling Public Can Go Elsewhere
July 3rd, 2008 Posted in James Baxter, Speed Traps, Traffic Tickets
By James Baxter, NMA President
According to public opinion, there are 57,000 speed traps in the United States. That’s how many speed traps have been listed by individuals on SpeedTrap.org, a website sponsored by the NMA. That averages out to 1140 speed traps per state.
Of course some states lead the charge, like California with 5399 speed traps. On the other end of the spectrum is Alaska with “only” 51 speed traps. These are not numbers you’re likely to find published in state tourism brochures. However, they are numbers you might want to consider when planning your next vacation.
Speed traps are an economic phenomenon; they are a source of revenue for state and local governments, local court systems and police departments. Adding extra juice to the financial pie are federal funds targeted on speed enforcement. This is a double dipping extravaganza where police departments not only bag the fines but also get federal funds for manpower, equipment, and related expenses.
We the people get to pay for this on both ends, through our taxes and then the ticket fines and insurance surcharges.
The chart at the bottom of this post lists the number of speed traps in each state. You might want to write a letter to the governor and/or tourism agency in one or more of these states, perhaps a state you were planning on visiting, and let them know that while you’re happy to spend money on goods and services you are not keen on being milked by the state patrol or a small town ticket mill. Consequently, you are reconsidering your travel plans.
You will probably receive a condescending bureaucratic reply saying something like “if you abide by our traffic laws you should have no occasion to be stopped and cited by one of our fine police officers.” This, of course, is nonsense and they know it.
But, bottom line, they’ll get the message “if you’re going to screw the traveling public, the traveling public can go elsewhere.”
I can drive through EVERY ONE of those 57,000 speed traps and never get ONE TICKET !!!
It's only targeting those among the traveling public who cannot make "driving the speed limit" a part of their life !!!!
Lawbreakers: Quit crying about getting caught and just drive the speed limit !!
"Not debatable" is another personal value judgment. "Indefensible" is likewise.
Re: my lack of maturity...maybe you are just interpreting me wrong :shades:
Arbitrary numbers aid those causes more than any others.
Let me guess, you also like to restrict traffic flow in the left lane...
His/Her desire to speed excessively has nothing to do with me.
So now there is plain old speeding and excessive speeding? Sounds like more subjectivity.
Many actions have degrees of awfulness which are not subjective at all.
So what defines excessive, and who defines it?
Why should a public sector that has done virtually nothing properly in at least 70 years be trusted to this?
Let me help you identify it:
When (using your driving habits as an example, not my own to make it easier for you) you are driving along 10-15 mph over the limit, and a dude comes zooming up behind you wanting to pass or for you to get out of the way?
That guy. Excessive speeding.
It might not have a simple definition, but we ALL know it when we see it.
" with an underlying bedrock of truth. "
And fantasy, too, apparently?
It was what came to mind when I wanted to point out a simple example of an action that has varying degrees of awfulness.
Was not comparing murder to speeding at all.
Although many speeders have gone to jail for vehicular manslaughter, so maybe there is more of a connection than you thought?
Seeing as at any given time the majority of vehicles on the road seem to be exceeding the limit by at least 1mph, and with hundreds of millions of vehicles on the road...that's a lot of manslaughter if "many" are being sent to jail. I do know that quite a few souls are locked up in the American justice system, which gets to own both some of the highest crime rates and highest incarceration rates in the developed world (nothing broken there for sure), but still...
On local highways outside of urban areas, a substantial amount of traffic, possibly even the majority, moves along at that 10-15 over the obsolete and incompetently set limit. The slowpokes keep right, the rest keep left, and it's no problem. If not, it's no skin off my back to pass on the right.
So 10 over is the "excessive" standard now? Is that per Redflex or per micromanaging little suburbs that need money and need it now?
MODERATOR
Need help getting around? claires@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Tell everyone about your buying experience: Write a Dealer Review
from: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/20/2095878.htm
Govt defends speed limits, despite road and economic toll
Posted Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:37pm AEDT
Updated Tue Nov 20, 2007 2:46pm AEDT
An Australian car testing company spokesman says Alice Springs has lost business to remote areas of Spain and Africa because speed testing is no longer allowed in Central Australia.
Doug Gould says he believes car testing previously generated between $6 million and $9 million a year in revenue for hotels and other businesses in Alice Springs.
But since speed limits were introduced on remote roads, he says international car manufacturers are looking elsewhere to test their vehicles.
"Any major brand name you can think of in the world, you name that brand and they have done testing in Alice Springs ... Apart from the Australian companies for whom Alice is close and relatively cheap, I think all the rest will stop."
Mr Gould says car manufacturers are usually getting ready to test their vehicles over the next few months, when conditions are hot in Central Australia. But he says he hasn't been approached by any international car manufacturers since speed limits were introduced.
"We've certainly had no inquiries from European companies at all this year which would be the first year ... in four or five years that we have had no inquiries."
The comments were made a day after the Territory Government came out in defence of its decision to introduce speed limits on the Territory's open roads.
The CLP Opposition has criticised the new laws, saying 45 people have been killed on Territory roads since the speed limit was introduced in January, six more than at this time last year. The fact more people have died on Territory roads this year shows the speed limits are pointless, the Opposition says.
But Transport Minister Delia Lawrie says it will take years for the new laws to have any real effect.
"Right around Australia, in every single state and territory where they have really tried to address their road toll by bringing in a raft of road safety changes, they've all taken years to actually see the reduction in the tolls start to happen."
Her comments were backed up by a car safety expert, Professor Jack McLean from Adelaide University's Centre for Automotive Safety Research.
"I would think it would take more than 10 years before you'd be able to see anything convincing in a statistical sense just simply because the actual number of fatalities are fortunately very small," he said.
When money talks, politicians do listen
excerpt from: http://www.abd.org.uk/motorwayspeedlimit.htm
This paper assesses the consequences of raising the motorway speed limit to 80 mph or removing it altogether. It looks at the likely effects on actual speeds, safety, the environment and the economy.
The measure of speed generally used when setting speed limits is the 85th percentile speed. This is the speed at or below which 85% of vehicles travel. On motorways in the UK, the 85th percentile speed for cars is approximately 85 mph, i.e. 15 mph above the current limit. An increase in the speed limit to 80 mph would be expected to lead to a rise in the 85th percentile speed of around 2.5 mph, to 87.5 mph. This would mean a greatly reduced percentage of drivers exceeding the speed limit and the majority would be below the Association of Chief Police Officers' guideline level for prosecution. Removal of the speed limit altogether would be expected to lead to an increase in the 85th percentile speed to no more than 95 mph (10 mph more than today), which is the current level on those autobahns in Germany that are unrestricted.
The impact on safety is the most obvious area of concern and there will be those who find it hard to accept that raising the speed limit would not have a detrimental effect. International comparisons, however, show no correlation between motorway speed limits and accident rates. Evidence from the United States indicates that overall accident rates and insurance claims fell when freeway speed limits were raised, contrary to the predictions of many. There is no reason to believe, therefore, that an increase in the motorway speed limit in the UK would result in a higher accident rate and it is possible that it could reduce. The most cautious estimate is that an increased motorway speed limit would be neutral in safety terms.
The impact of a raised motorway speed limit on the environment has been assessed in terms of the emissions of toxic pollutants, carbon dioxide and noise.
Most of the toxic emissions covered by the National Air Quality Strategy (NAQS) are within their target levels or are set to meet them, as emission controls improve. The increases arising from small changes in actual speeds would be insignificant. Levels of only two pollutants, nitrogen dioxide and particulates, are forecast to exceed their NAQS targets under any foreseeable circumstances. In the case of nitrogen dioxide, the target is likely to be exceeded only in the centres of the largest cities. There will not be a problem along sections of motorway where traffic is flowing freely enough to permit a higher speed limit to be exploited.
Transport contributes only a quarter of airborne particulates and most of that comes from the large diesel engines of buses and heavy goods vehicles, which would not be affected by a change in speed limit.
The ABD does not accept that global climate change is caused by human activity and emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the burning of fossil fuels. Nevertheless, even if the gas were accepted to be a 'pollutant', an increase in the motorway speed limit would have a negligible effect on its concentration in the atmosphere. It is calculated that removal of the motorway speed limit altogether would increase man-made emissions in the UK by only 0.4% and all CO2 emissions by just 0.016%.
Higher speeds would have a small effect on the frequency of traffic noise, most of which is generated between a vehicle's tyres and the road surface. The high proportion of heavy goods vehicles on motorways contributes significantly to overall noise levels and will largely mask any change in the component from cars and other light vehicles. Any increases in noise will be much less than the reductions to be achieved from the Government's programme for resurfacing the motorway and trunk road network.
Increasing the motorway speed limit would result in significant economic benefits from time savings and these would greatly outweigh the additional costs of resources consumed, even assuming the high, pre-tax fuel prices which prevailed in 2000. It is estimated that an increase to 80 mph would lead to net savings of around £50 million per year. If the limit were removed altogether, the savings would increase to around £130 million per year. In addition, there would be a significant increase in tax revenue to the Treasury due to increased fuel consumption. This could be as much as £840 million per year if the speed limit were removed altogether.
The ABD recommends, therefore, that there should be an immediate increase in the motorway speed limit to 80 mph. After a suitable period of acclimatisation to a higher speed limit, possibly three years, consideration should be given to a further increase or removal of the limit altogether. Training and testing of drivers must be improved in motorway driving skills, particularly judgment of speed and distance in conditions of restricted visibility. The anomaly under which exceeding the speed limit on motorways is punished more severely than on other roads should be removed.
APPENDIX 1
VALUE OF TIME SAVED FROM AN INCREASE IN SPEED LIMIT
Vehicle-kilometres travelled on motorways in 1999:
Cars 63.3 billion
Light vans 8.5 billion
Assuming 60% are undertaken in free-flow conditions and 1 km = 0.621 miles, total vehicle-miles per year spent travelling on motorways in free flow:
Cars 63.3 x 0.6 x 0.621 = 23.59 billion
Light vans 8.5 x 0.6 x 0.621 = 3.17 billion
Assuming average speed with current speed limit for cars and light vans is 72mph, time spent travelling per year on motorways in free flow:
Cars (23.59 x 109) ÷ 72.0 = 327,638,888.9 hours
Light vans (3.17 x 109) ÷ 72.0 = 44,027,777.8 hours
a) Speed limit raised to 80 mph
If the speed limit were raised to 80 mph, the average speed for cars and light vans is assumed to increase to 74.5 mph. The time spent travelling on motorways per year in free flow would then be:
Cars (23.59 x 109) ÷ 74.5 = 316,644,295.3 hours
Light vans (3.17 x 109) ÷ 74.5 = 42,550,335.6 hours
Thus the time saved per year from an increase in the motorway speed limit to 80mph would be:
Cars 10,994,593.6 hours
Light vans 1,477,442.2 hours
The all-week average values of time for an average vehicle (1998 prices) are:
Cars £9.23 per hour
Light vans £8.58 per hour
The value of time saved per year would then be:
Cars 10,994,593.6 x 9.23 = £101,480,099
Light vans 1,477,442.2 x 8.58 = £12,676,454
Total £114,156,553
b) No speed limit
If the speed limit were removed, the average speed for cars and light vans is assumed to increase to 82 mph. The time spent travelling on motorways per year in free flow would then be:
Cars (23.59 x 109) ÷ 82.0 = 287,682,926.8 hours
Light vans (3.17 x 109) ÷ 82.0 = 38,658,536.6 hours
Thus the time saved per year from removal of the motorway speed limit would be:
Cars 39,955,962.1 hours
Light vans 5,369,241.2 hours
The value of time saved per year would then be:
Cars 39,955,962.1 x 9.23 = £368,793,530
Light vans 5,369,241.2 x 8.58 = £46,068,090
Total £414,861,620
APPENDIX 2
CHANGES IN VEHICLE OPERATING COSTS
Vehicle-kilometres travelled on motorways in 1999:
Cars 63.3 billion
Light vans 8.5 billion
Assuming 60% are undertaken in free-flow conditions, total vehicle-kilometres affected by an increase in the motorway speed limit:
Cars 63.3 x 0.6 = 37.98 billion
Light vans 8.5 x 0.6 = 5.10 billion
Fuel Costs
The relationship between average speed and fuel use is given by the equation:
Cars L = 0.1689 - 0.00282(V) + 0.00001910(V2)
Light vans L = 0.2026 - 0.00328(V) + 0.00002630(V2)
Where: L = fuel consumption (litres per kilometre), V = speed (kilometres per hour)
For the current average speed of 72 mph (115.85 kph), fuel consumption is:
Cars L = 0.1689 - 0.326697 + 0.256345 = 0.098548 l/km
Light vans L = 0.2026 - 0.379988 + 0.352978 = 0.175590 l/km
a) Speed limit raised to 80 mph
If the speed limit were raised to 80 mph, the average speed for cars and light vans is assumed to increase to 74.5 mph (119.87 kph), so fuel consumption would be:
Cars L = 0.1689 - 0.338033 + 0.274444 = 0.105311 l/km
Light vansL = 0.2026 - 0.393174 + 0.377900 = 0.187326 l/km
The increase in annual fuel consumption would be:
Cars (0.105311 - 0.098548) x (37.98 x 109) = 256,858,740 l
Light vans (0.187326 - 0.175590) x (5.1 x 109) = 59,853,600 l
Total 316,712,340 l
The resource cost of fuel and the total tax on fuel (Excise Duty plus VAT) in 1998 and 2000 were:
1998 2000
Resource cost 12.1 p/litre 20.0 p/litre
Tax element 55.3 p/litre 58.5 p/litre
The increase in resource costs per year would be:
At 1998 Prices 316,712,340 x 0.121 = £38,322,193
At 2000 Prices 316,712,340 x 0.200 = £63,342,468
The increase in tax revenue per year would be:
At 1998 Prices 316,712,340 x 0.553 = £175,141,924
At 2000 Prices 316,712,340 x 0.585 = £185,276,189
b) No speed limit
If the speed limit were removed, the average speed for cars and light vans is assumed to increase to 82.0 mph (131.94 kph), so fuel consumption would be:
Cars L = 0.1689 - 0.372071 + 0.332496 = 0.129325 l/km
Light vans L = 0.2026 - 0.432763 + 0.457835 = 0.227672 l/km
The increase in annual fuel consumption would be:
Cars (0.129325 - 0.098548) x (37.98 x 109) = 1,168,910,460 l
Light vans (0.227672 - 0.175590) x (5.1 x 109) = 265,618,200 l
Total 1,434,528,660 l
The increase in resource costs per year would be:
At 1998 Prices 1,434,528,660 x 0.121 = £173,577,968
At 2000 Prices 1,434,528,660 x 0.200 = £286,905,732
The increase in tax revenue per year would be:
At 1998 Prices 1,434,528,660 x 0.553 = £793,294,349
At 2000 Prices 1,434,528,660 x 0.585 = £839,199,266
Non-Fuel Costs
Non-fuel costs are calculated from the formula: C = a1 + (b1 ÷ V)
Where: C = cost (pence per kilometre), V = speed (kilometres per hour), a1 and b1 are constants for each vehicle type.
Cars C = 3.040 + (15.54 ÷ V)
Light vans C = 4.336 + (38.28 ÷ V)
For the current average speed of 72 mph (115.85 kph), non-fuel costs are:
Cars C = 3.040 + 0.13414 = 3.17414 p/km
Light vans C = 4.336 + 0.33043 = 4.66643 p/km
a) Speed limit raised to 80 mph
If the speed limit were raised to 80 mph, the average speed for cars and light vans is assumed to increase to 74.5 mph (119.87 kph), so non-fuel costs would be:
Cars C = 3.040 + 0.12964 = 3.16964 p/km
Light vans C = 4.336 + 0.31935 = 4.65535 p/km
The decrease in annual non-fuel costs would be:
Cars (0.0317414 - 0.0316964) x (37.98 x 109) = £1,709,100
Light vans (0.0466643 - 0.0465535) x (5.1 x 109) = £565,080
Total £2,274,180
b) No speed limit
If the speed limit were removed, the average speed for cars and light vans is assumed to increase to 82.0 mph (131.94 kph), so non-fuel costs would be:
Cars C = 3.040 + 0.11778 = 3.15778 p/km
Light vans C = 4.336 + 0.29013 = 4.62613 p/km
The decrease in annual non-fuel costs would be:
Cars (0.0317414 - 0.0315778) x (37.98 x 109) = £6,213,528
Light vans (0.0466643 - 0.0462613) x (5.1 x 109) = £2,055,300
Total £8,268,828
from: http://www.lafayette-online.com/purdue-news/2008/06/70-safe-for-indiana/
Lafayette Online | Community News, Purdue News
Higher interstate speed limit proves safe for Indiana
By Staff Reports, Purdue University News Service
Posted June 23, 2008 (552 views)
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. — Researchers at Purdue University have determined that raising the speed limit from 65 to 70 on Interstate 65 in Indiana has not increased the probability of fatalities or severe injuries.
“These findings are important because the influence of speed limits on roadway safety has been a subject of continuous debate in the state of Indiana and nationwide,” said Fred Mannering, a professor of civil engineering. “Indiana highway-related accidents result in about 900 fatalities and 40,000 injuries annually and place an incredible social and economic burden on the state.”
The findings add new fuel to an ongoing debate, with some studies indicating that the benefits of raising the speed limit outweigh potential safety hazards while others suggest just the opposite.
“The safety of raising the speed limit has been a matter of considerable concern in Indiana since the state raised its speed limits on rural interstates and selected multilane highways on July 1, 2005,” Mannering said. “Everybody expects that when you increase the speed limit, injuries and the severity of injuries are going to increase, but that hasn’t happened on the interstate highway system in Indiana.”
Findings are detailed in a research paper presented earlier this year at a meeting of the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies of science and engineering. The paper, appearing in an upcoming issue of the Transportation Research Record, was written by Mannering and research assistant Nataliya V. Malyshkina.
The researchers used a series of mathematical equations in “multinomial logit models” to calculate accident probabilities based on motor vehicle accident data from 2004 and 2006, before and after the speed limit increased. The models showed that the increased speed limit did not affect the probability of suffering a severe injury in an accident.
Understanding the magnitude of the safety impact of increasing speed limits, or whether safety is improved or compromised, remains a contentious subject, Mannering said.
That’s because research has not been able to convincingly unravel the effects of speed limit changes from factors such as speed enforcement; vehicle miles traveled; vehicle occupancy; seat belt usage; alcohol use; proportions of passenger cars, minivans, pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles; and vehicle safety features, including air bags and antilock brakes.
The models used in the research calculate “estimated probabilities” based on accident data. Of the 204,382 accidents on state highways in 2004, 21 percent resulted in injuries and about 0.4 percent were fatal. The same percentages were seen in the 182,922 accidents in 2006. Comparing only highways where the speed limit rose to 70 showed virtually no change from 2004 to 2006.
The speed-limit increase made Indiana the 30th state to raise interstate speed limits up to 70 mph on rural interstates.
Findings by other researchers suggest even higher speed limits on interstate highways might also result in no rise in the probability of severe injuries.
“If going from 65 to 70 doesn’t have a significant effect on the severity of accidents, you have to ask yourself, what about 70 to 75?” Mannering said. “At what point does it begin to impact safety?”
The change has highlighted the tradeoff between speed and safety, a debate that began more than three decades ago since passage of the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act in 1974, which mandated a 55 mph national maximum speed limit on interstate highways in the United States, Mannering said.
State and federal speed-limit policy changes have been driven by various research findings and subsequent legislation, including the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995, which gave states freedom to set interstate speed limits.
Most research efforts have concluded that the 1974-mandated 55 mph interstate speed limit saved lives, a conclusion that has been confirmed by some studies looking at recent speed limit increases on interstates.
“For example, one study found that a speed limit increase from 55 to 65 resulted in roughly a 3 percent increase in the accident rate and a 24 percent increase in the probability of a fatality once an accident occurred,” Mannering said. “But then other studies have contended that legislation-enabled speed-limit increases have actually saved lives. One study argued that increasing from 55 to 65 saved lives because of shifts in law enforcement resources, the ability of higher speed limit interstates to attract riskier drivers away from inherently more dangerous non-interstate highways and reducing how often drivers speed up and slow down.”
The state also increased the speed limit from 55 to 60 on non-interstate multilane roads, but findings were inconclusive regarding the impact on those roadways, Mannering said.
However, the researchers cautioned that future speed limit increases should be carefully assessed for those roads on a case-by-case basis. The potential for accidents is higher on such roadways because of factors including stop-and-go traffic and vehicles entering the road from various businesses and residential areas.
His/Her desire to speed excessively has nothing to do with me.
Most drivers are driving at 75-80 mph on limited access highways. So virtually everyone is "speeding excessively" by your defintion. Yet the roads are safer than ever before...
Informed drivers realize that blocking the flow of traffic on a limited access highway does nothing to improve safety, and is actually counterproductive to that effort.
It's not 1949 anymore...the typical speed on limited access highways is 75 mph. It's perfectly safe, and informed drivers know it.
People who go to jail for vehicular manslaughter aren't there because they had an accident while driving 75-80 mph in the 65 mph zone of a limited access highway.
They were driving under the influence, or drag racing on a public road, and caused a fatal accident. Huge difference.
Next time you get stopped, use that opportunity to explain how unfair you think the speed limit laws are. It'll give him a good story for the donut shop.
When those cops obey the law, let me know. Until then, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
larsb: Next time you get stopped, use that opportunity to explain how unfair you think the speed limit laws are. It'll give him a good story for the donut shop.
I don't worry about being stopped. I just follow the police car driving 75-80 mph. It's nice to have a police escort to my destination...
For those times when there is no police escort - that is why people use radar detectors and CB radios.
Try that excuse next time you are in court with a traffic ticket !!! Then the judge and the whole courtroom can laugh at you !!!
Vehicle owner is responsible for paying the fine. This makes sense in that vehicle owner is responsible for who they might authorize to use vehicle if not themselves driving it.
Impeached Democrat Governor Blagoyovich had wanted speed cameras on Illinois intersatates.
What I mean by that is IL cares about safety!
from: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/24/2496.asp
Illinois Plans $50 Million in Statewide Speed Camera Profit
Illinois governor unveils proposal to line every freeway in the state with speed cameras, generating $50 million in annual revenue.
Illinois Governor Rod R. Blagojevich (D) held a news conference yesterday announcing his plan to expand dramatically the state's existing freeway speed camera program. Since May 2006, photo ticketing vans operated by Affiliated Computer Services (ACS) have mailed photo tickets from highway construction zones. These tickets carry points, automatic license suspensions and fines of $375 and $1000 for the first and second offense, respectively. Blagojevich wants to start with at least one hundred new cameras spread out on every interstate highway outside the work zones so that the system can raise $50 million in annual profit.
"This initiative to have speed enforcement cameras is predicated on a two-prong reality," Blagojevich explained. "We want to make our highways safer and then from the revenue we generate from this to hire more police officers, more state troopers."
The state legislature would have to approve Blagojevich's proposal for $100 freeway photo ticket that do not carry points or require photographs of the driver. These changes would boost both the volume of citations issued and the net revenue, allowing the state to hire 500 new Illinois State Police troopers who, in turn, would issue even more speeding tickets. Ten new state police "elite tactical teams" would focus, among other things, on "traffic activity."
In the past few years, Illinois has steadily increased its dependence on photo enforcement revenue. Chicago, for example, has generated $72 million in revenue since 2003 from 69 red light cameras. The city recently announced a plan to boost the number to 290. Likewise, at least 83 local communities rushed to install or land a contract to install automated ticketing machines after the legislature granted permission to certain regions of the state.
Now that he's history, is his plan going through, will the sheeple of IL be fooled like the sheeple of AZ?
I would be laughing too if the whole thing wasn't so serious and such a travesty.
If law officers want to speed, that DOES NOT give EVERYONE ELSE the automatic right to speed legally.
Just like if you work in a bakery, you are usually free to sample the goods on occasion. That does not make it OK for Joe Public to walk into the kitchen and start chowing down.
And Speed DOES Kill, and anyone that thinks otherwise is not seeing reality.
Start telling all your friends to try that tactic next time they are in speed court.
Judge: "So you were ticketed 79 in a 65 mph zone, sir, is that correct?"
LawBreaker: "Yes, your honor."
Judge: "And you have a valid reason for your excessive speed?"
LawBreaker: "Yes sir. About five minutes before I got stopped, I was driving beside a Sheriff's car and that car was going the same speed. So from that, I LOGICALLY DEDUCED that driving that fast MUST be OK."
Judge: "Fine is $180, pay the clerk on your way out. Next case please."
I was in a 55 mph construction zone. A large SUV went ripping by (I was going 65) at 70+. Had an FOP tag. Guess who wouldn't get stopped.
Ohio also is considering putting the money maker kickback cameras in construction zones. Those camera companies are making more money than Obama before innauguration day.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Still does not make it right.
Still does not mean that driving faster is safer.