Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The National Maximum Speed Law

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Bluesplayer Donating Member (660 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 01:30 PM
Original message
The National Maximum Speed Law
The National Maximum Speed Law (in the United States) was a provision of the 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act<1> that capped all speed limits at 55 mph (90 km/h). This cap was intended to conserve gasoline in response to the 1973 oil crisis. This law was modified in the late 1980s to allow 65 mph (105 km/h) limits. In 1995 it was repealed, returning the power of setting speed limits to the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law

I can't drive 55, but would this help conserve? Especially in semi-s? Current data on fuel economy/speed?


How about:

75 MPH for cars that get >35 MPG
65 MPH for >20 but <35
55 MPH for <20 MPG and all trucks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jakem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
1. 95 for motorcycles with riders > 30
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #1
20. .

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tunkamerica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
2. good luck with that
enforcement would be impossible without some sort of engine modification. That or cops would have to know the fuel consumption of all makes and models. And I can only imagine the traffic courts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pokerfan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #2
74. 45 mph for all single occupant vehicles
55 for two occupants. 65 for three. 90+ for four or more! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
3. Um.... an idea so stupid in so many ways...


A) So now police officers would need to know the fuel efficiency of the vehicles they are tracking?

B) What makes speeding dangerous is that everyone is not driving the same speed. If all cars are driving 75 MPH, that is infinitely safer than if half are driving 75 and half are driving 55. Accidents occur because of the discrepancy between speed....the non-uniformity. The driver who is driving too slow on the freeway is just as dangerous, and in many ways MORE so, than the driver who is going too fast.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. Um...we're talking about fuel consumption, not accidents....
And, guess what? When the speed limit was 55, the accident rate was drastically reduced. And, fuel consumption was drastically reduced, as well.

I, for one, wouldn't mind going back to the 55 mph speed limit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. That wasn't the OP's idea... the OP wanted different speed limits for different vehicles...

Which would be a DISASTER.... figuratively as well as literally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigDaddy44 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #12
30. Then feel free to drive 55
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #30
35. I do. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZ Criminal JD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. So you are the one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. Your post reminds me of a song.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QueenOfCalifornia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #38
47. Your post reminds me
of another song by Denis Leary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #47
54. Have we lost our sense of humor?
:rofl: (Good one.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dogtown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #36
56. Good 1, bamalib!
He walked right into that ambush; you did a fine job of not rustling the branches!

:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QueenOfCalifornia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #35
44. Please stay off my local
freeways.

You are the person who is going to get us all killed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #44
55. No. It's the person driving 85/90 when everyone else is driving 70
that's going to get us all killed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindPilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #55
60. Um, no. Consider the senario...
You are happily cruising along at whatever speed you and everyone else feel comfortable with. Somebody passes you going 90. How did that affect you? That car was most likely two or three lanes over and there for only a few seconds.

Exactly how did that driver endanger you with their speed?

The answer is that they didn't. They didn't interfere with your travel in any way.

On the other hand, the person going slower than the traffic flow is not only interfering with every one behind them, but also setting up a very dangerous situation as drivers now have to deal with a suddenly reduced speed and maneuver around an obstacle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #60
64. But it's NOT comfortable for that person.
Look, I have a beef with someone doing BELOW the minimum speed on the interstate (which is 45, btw), but if someone is doing above that, you have to deal with it.

That's why they make slow, middle and passing lanes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #60
67. Have you ever driven the North Dallas Forty?
6 lanes of traffic, at quitting time, most driving a few miles per hour UNDER the speed limit because of the heavy traffic, and then some asshole who thinks he owns the road weaving in and out of traffic at high speed? People around them hitting brakes everywhere in close to bumper to bumper traffic.

It's lane changes that cause most accidents on freeways. I agree with you that people need to drive the prevailing speed, and ought to limit their lane changes, and do. Most of the time I drive in the right hand lane where the big trucks are SUPPOSED to be because they are supposed to be the SLOWER TRAFFIC. I very rarely have to change lanes, and most of the other drivers who are passing are already in the left two or three lanes.

Tailgaters, and weavers who feel they have to drive faster than the prevailing speed are much more dangerous than those driving the speed limit in the right, non-passing lane.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindPilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. You just proved my point for me. Tailgating and weaving -- not speeding
The driver you describe is not speeding, he's being careless, reckless, overly aggressive, or however the cops in your state describe it. If traffic is going 30 and some jerk wants to weave in and out of lanes at 40, he's not speeding. He is being an asshole and a dangerous one, but he's not exceeding the speed limit.

But if the speed limit is 65, traffic is moving 75-80 (my typical commute) and somebody plants himself in the #2 lane at 65 -- that driver is a hazard.

Again, if you are in the right lane at or near the limit and that flash you just saw was me going by you in the left lane at 140, how did I endanger you? :hyperbole: (but we don't have an icon for that)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoGOPZone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. That 'hazardous' driver isn't violating the law traveling at the speed limit
Those that exceed the limit are violating the law. Any driver exceeding the limit that can't handle traffic going at the legal speed lacks the skills to be driving at the higher speed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindPilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #69
70. Huh?
The whole point is that some one can still be a danger without breaking the law. And driving the limit when everyone else is going faster is dangerous. Not illegal, dangerous. That's why speed limits=safety is such a specious idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoGOPZone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. I got it now.
A person should break the law because other drivers are breaking the law. For his or her own safety, of course.

Like I said, if a driver going over the limit can't avoid drivers at the limit, than that first driver shouldn't be at that speed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XOKCowboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #71
75. If you are causing the flow of traffic to pass you on the right, you're in the WRONG lane
You can do the speed limit but please just do it in the far right lane. It's courteous and it does help with the flow of traffic. If you're driving the speed limit then 80+% of traffic is going faster than you anyway. Just let them go by and don't take it personally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindPilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #71
77. Sad comment that drivers are forced to make that choice.
And a perfect example of why safety and speed limits frequently have little and nothing to do with each other.

As for your second comment, I really don't see the point. Are you saying the sky is blue, or that water is wet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoGOPZone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #77
80. I thought the point was obvious
I don't see the driver going the speed limit as being the hazard. I see the hazard as being the driver exceeding the limit who can't handle slower traffic. I don't link a cop, judge or insurance company would see it your way.

"Yes officer, I was exceeding the speed limit, but so was everyone else, except that one driver. (The cop replies) No officer, I wouldn't jump off a cliff if everyone else did. But that's different. That other driver should have gone faster FOR HIS OWN SAFETY."

I'm not going to be the one to put this argument to the test. If you do, let me know how you make out.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JustABozoOnThisBus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #67
81. Only 6 lanes?
In San Antonio, the traffic lanes are available, as well as the right and left shoulders. More passing lanes, even if some litter or gravel gets flung into the air.

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #12
63. Then dive that anyway.
I drive 60 in my SPORTSCAR. I don't need to prove I can do 100 - I know I can, but I'd rather save my mileage and my life by staying in the slow lane and doing the freakin' speed limit (the speed limit through most cities is 55, even though it increases outside the city limits).

Since I do most of my driving on the interstate in the metro area, I can maintain that speed limit. If someone behind me doesn't like it, tough shit. They can go around me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #3
25. you know that your neighbor Ohio had dual speed limits, don't you
when I drove through there in 1999 it was 55 for semi trucks and 65 for cars. Most of the trucks were going about 60 and most of the cars were going about 80. Then there were big bottlenecks when slowpokes like me, going 65, would pass a truck going about 62.

The funniest part was when I was getting close to Erie. I was slowly catching up to a semi, then all of the sudden it just pulled away from me. I figure he must have hit the Pennsylvania border and dropped the hammer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #25
33. Yes.... and it was a DUMB idea there...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosey Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
4. I don't think you could enforce that.
We could all go back to 55. That might help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DailyGrind51 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. The 55 mph limit yielded fewer traffic fatlities as well as
conserved fuel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosey Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. That makes sense.
I am in California, and freeway speeds can get scarily high. It's the disparity between people going the speed limit and people going way above the speed limit that causes those accidents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
5. It'll compromise highway safety
The safest speed to travel at is the one everybody else is going. Cranking down the limit will mean either a) everybody breaks the law, reducing public respect for laws and government in general, b)some will and some won't, increasing traffic accidents as people try do deal with traffic with a very broad range of speeds.

When the the maximum speed people are driving is 30 mph above the minimums, we're going to have problems. Keep a tight tolerence, and traffic flows better and there are fewer accidents. This "Limit 70 Minimum 40" stuff is bullshit. You want to do 40, take a side road. "Limit 70 Minimum 60" is much better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
curlyred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. If the point is to conserve gasoline...
wrapping the engine at around 2000 rpm is the most efficient use of fuel...for most cars, that's around 55 MPH. That said, I don't know whether it's bad enough yet for people to slow down. The 55 MPH speed limit did had the effect of reducing highway deaths as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DailyGrind51 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #7
40. It did reduce both fuel comsumption and highway fatalities, but
was opposed by the trucking lobby, who complained about the time it took to complete routes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
A HERETIC I AM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. Any evidence to support that contention?
but was opposed by the trucking lobby, who complained about the time it took to complete routes.


It was opposed by anyone with a brain. 55 MPH gave a false sense of safety. Sure it saved fuel, but keep in mind we are talking 1970's vintage vehicles which were, for the most part, much heavier than the average passenger car of today.

Regardless of the speed limit in the various states traveling across I80, for example, a tractor trailer will still only average 60 mph or less, regardless of how fast the driver pushes the truck on certain stretches. 10 minutes of driving in 15 MPH traffic can remove a large portion of the time advantage gained by hundreds of miles driven at 70.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DailyGrind51 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #43
62. Here it is!
"Interstate truckers feel that the speed limit drives up the cost of transporting goods. Drivers in the plains states who travel vast distances on almost empty roads feel that it causes needless and costly delays unwarranted and ill-advised intrusion by the federal government into an area traditionally reserved to the states remains federal law-despite the fact that its original purpose no longer needs eking." Heritage Foundation

"...Also, the ability of a trucker to earn a living is restricted by the split speed limit. In a ten-hour workday at 55 mph, a trucker can ideally drive 550 miles. If he/she is paid at the rate of $0.33 cents per mile (a decent salary by truck standards), that driver can earn up to $181.50 in a day. If instead that same driver could travel at 65mph, he or she could drive 650 miles in that same 10-hour work day. That translates into a days work of $214.50. This means that the state of Oregon is denying that driver $33 every day to provide for their family. Working five days a week, fifty weeks out of the year, the state has now denied that driver $8,250!"

http://www.petitiononline.com/33690/petition.html

Here is a contrary view, also:

"The US could immediately reduce oil consumption by an estimated 4% by rolling back highway speed limits to 55 mph (90 kph), a policy originally enacted by Richard Nixon in the wake of the 1973 Saudi Oil Embargo. This would reduce more oil consumption than the current flow through the Alaska Pipeline and would not require any technological innovations, merely psychological acceptance of the need for conservation. (statistic source: "Saving Oil in a Hurry: Oil Demand Restraint in Transport," by International Energy Agency, Workshop: Managing Oil Demand in Transport, Paris, 7-8 March, 2005)

http://www.oilempire.us/55mph.html

Cars "back in the day" were heavier and less fuel-efficient, but there are many more cars on the road today, more than negating any vehicle by vehicle comparison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
heidler1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
18. Semi Truck and anyone pulling a trailer speed limit in CA is 55 mph
Most interstates are 70 mph for cars & light trucks in CA. I doubt if the accident rate is higher there than states with faster speed limits for Semi's. Yeah the slower Semi's do slow down all traffic, but over all I believe its safer. All they would have to do to slow down traffic is to make it legal to cruise in all lanes at 55 mph and 45 mph in the right hand lane. In lots of areas there is no secondary road to take so min. speed limits cause trouble and are nearly none existent in the right hand lane of interstates.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullwinkle428 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #5
37. But do you honestly come across people going under
50, or even 55 mph on an interstate-type (divided, with no intersections) highway on a regular basis?

I travel on I-80 every day, and the speed limit in my state is 70, with a minimum of 40. I'll typically cruise in the right lane at around 65 to improve fuel economy (it works), and I get passed by around 99 vehicles for every vehicle I pass. I agree that speed differences between vehicles are the biggest danger out there, but there really needs to be a stronger crackdown on the extreme speeders (15+ mph over the speed limit)...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The2ndWheel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
9. So you're allowed to waste more gas with better efficiency?
Where is the conservation part? If you actually wanted to conserve, the better your efficiency, the slower you'd have to drive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DS1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
10. epic face-palm
no really, this is a joke, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
11. There should only be a minimum speed limit on the Interstate Highway System.
I am quite comfortable driving at 150 mph. :)




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindPilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. That, my friend, is a REAL automobile.
Sure don't build 'em like they used to. (Which in some ways is a good thing.)

I actually think there should be a high performance driver's license. Once you've been through Bondurant, take a test and there you go, drive like you mean it. :speed:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #19
26. MOPAR rules!
:D




EVERYONE should have to pass a "high performance driver's license," like in Germany, like my cousins in Mnchen, who had to take rigorous driving classes in high school (Gymnasium).

When on the Autobahn, I cruise at 200 kph in the slow lane. :)



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindPilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #26
32. *drool*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QueenOfCalifornia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #11
46. I love your car
It's dreamy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #11
73. Yours?
Edited on Wed Jun-25-08 06:26 PM by greyhound1966
You bastard!
:hi:

426?
May you burn in hell!
:rofl:

In case you missed it, I'm really jealous.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cobalt1999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
13. It was SO popular last time they tried it.
Few politicians are going to go for that again.

I'd look at where people use a bulk of their energy. Home heating/cooling. You want to save real energy, turn off that A/C, flip on the ceiling fans.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
14. Thirty miles per hour with auto pilots.
Pull onto the freeway, engage the auto-pilot, turn on the television, read, make out with your lover, sleep, or just kick back and watch the world go by.

It would be great.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indenturedebtor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Or just build trains for that matter ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindPilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
16. A few facts
There is only about 2% of the roads and highways in the nation that have speed limits above 55 mph. On many of those, congestion is so pervasive that speeds above 55 are impossible anyway.

Cars are much more efficient now than they were in the 70's plus pretty much everyone ignored the 55 mph limit anyway. So any fuel savings derived from the limit is minuscule at best.

As far as safety goes, the safest speed is the one everyone else is going. The traffic fatality rate had been trending down since the sixties; it continues to trend down long after the 55 mph limit was lifted. No causal relationship has been shown that reduced highway speed limits translate into a reduced fatality rate. In fact the opposite may be true.

The safety nazis seem to have this idea that people will turn into devil-may-care speed freaks without a sign to tell them how fast to drive. Not true; people act in their own best interest--no one *wants* to crash--therefore they drive at a speed at which they feel comfortable.

If the feds REALLY want to save some gas, they should work toward reducing congestion. A vehicle in stop and go traffic uses far more fuel than it would covering the same distance at road speed.

And if you are one of those people who think the double nickle is a good deal, then no one is stopping you; get over in the right lane and cruise 55!

All this info is available at the National Motorists Association website
www.motorists.org
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #16
28. even I ignored it, driving 60 most of the time
However, the b.s. that people would no longer speed when the speed limits were raised has been punctured too. Many people set their speed as speed limit + 10. When the speed limit goes up, so does the average driving speed.

I don't think cars are that much more efficient. My 1973 Nova got about 20 MPG on the highway. I often see new cars getting in the mid twenties. My 1989 Olds Calais got about 30-35 IIRC, and most of the cars I look at get worse mileage and my rental cars rarely hit 30 MPG.

I also dispute that traffic on the interstates is congested. That certainly is not true where I have driven - Utah, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri. Admittedly though, the traffic on those highways is not nearly that of San-San or Bos-Wash in terms of volume. One of my favorite things to do when driving in the middle of the night was to straddle both lanes. Why not? I am the only car on the road for miles. I own the road. Ha ha ha.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindPilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. You found the last uncongested highways in the country!!
"However, the b.s. that people would no longer speed when the speed limits were raised has been punctured too. Many people set their speed as speed limit + 10. When the speed limit goes up, so does the average driving speed."

It's like marijuana research, how can you do a real test when it's illegal? Raising a limit from 55 to 65 isn't going to tell you anything except 65 is still too slow. For a while Minnesota--IIRC--had what they called R&P limit on the freeways. No set limit, just reasonable and prudent; in other words drive for conditions. They found that people didn't go nuts, they all settled in around 80 - 90 mph. That is also the speed you will find on pretty much any freeway that is not plugged up or littered with speed traps. Put the speed limit at 110, and most drivers will never get comfortable at that speed.

An '89 would fit in my definaiton of a newer car. And efficiency is not just mpg, but most newer cars do more with a gallon of gas than their predecessors from 20 years ago.

Yeah, I agree that those long wide-open Interstates out west just beg for a triple-digit cruising and they are just a very tiny part of the millions of roads in America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
A HERETIC I AM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #29
45. "Reasonable & Prudent " was Montana.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindPilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-24-08 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #45
50. Thanks for the correction -- I was writing that off the top of my head
And didn't have timne to go look it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XOKCowboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-24-08 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #50
53. I got to try the "reasonable and prudent" speed laws once...
A buddy and I were on sport touring motorcycles on a long road trip. When we got on the interstate in Butte it was empty as far as the eye could see so we twisted our wrists. In an instant we were going over 120 mph, hugging the gas tank and I'll tell you now it was a huge rush and physically draining. At that speed on a motorcycle all of your senses are at their peak state. Every body movement and wind change elicits a huge response from the bike. It was the only time I ever took a vehicle to it's limits legally. We kept it up for about 25 miles then let off and with huge smiles behind our helmets sat up and settled into a 70-75 mph pace for the 3 hr ride to Billings.

The point is that we could have made the trip in under 2 hrs but at a clearly dangerous and strenuous pace. Given the choice we ended up at what is now the national speed limit which got us to our destination over an hour later but we arrived alive and in a more relaxed state of mind and body. Even with an unlimited speed limit the majority of drivers will drive within their comfort zone. There will always be the crazies who have no business driving a tricycle who get in the majority of the wrecks and ruin it for us all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XOKCowboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #16
42. Wow real logic. Very refreshing!
The safest speed is the one everyone else is going. How true.

Even the Co. Dept. of Transportation UPPED the speed limit from 55 to 60 and 65 on I-25 through Denver to keep the flow of traffic moving.

The best rule of all is if someone is coming up on you from behind, move to the right and let them pass. Don't take it personally. If you want to go slower than the speed limit get over in the right lane and have at it. Just don't slow the flow of traffic. That's when people get hurt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindPilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-24-08 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #42
51. Thanks for that!
I used to live in Denver and yeah there is a city that could use some serious congestion relief. Do they still call it "the Mousetrap"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XOKCowboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #51
72. Oh the Mousetrap was rebuilt...
but almost immediately was up to capacity and is still is a mess during rush hour. Then they started T-Rex which was widening I-25 south from Broadway to the Tech Center. Oh what a mess that was but now that it's done we have light rail all the way down to Lincoln, a nice new 3-4 lane highway that doesn't flood (much) and a higher speed limit. BTW they upped the speed limit from Broadway to Colorado Blvd to 60 and from there all the way through the Tech Center to 65. I don't know how Greenwood Village will survive without all of the ticket revenue they've been robbed of. :)

Oh and now... They're finally going to update the elevated portion of I-70! I'm not saying it doesn't need it but man that'll be fun to deal with for the next few years!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madinmaryland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
21. Rather than providing job security for the state highway patrol and
enriching the government coffers with additional fine revenue, why don't we talk about driving less and improving our national mass transit infrastructure.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
22. How about a minimum speed law ...... like something over 200 mph
Of course, it should only apply to trains.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindPilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
23. Could I drive a Tesla Roadster as fast as it will go?
Not using any gas... :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. I want one!!!
:loveya:






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
24. Never screw with the speed people drive...
Never screw with the speed people drive-- everyone's time is too important to leave ten minutes earlier. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindPilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #24
31. Leaving ten minutes earlier just gives me ten more minutes to drive fast
Varooom!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
34. Every 16 year old in a Civic gets the Autobahn treatment. Brilliant.
Wait, that unmaintained early 80's VW Rabbit Diesel. Yessss, they should be going 80.

If conservation is the goal, then let's just make the speed limit whatever your car idles at.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueJazz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
39. I would make the law....
Edited on Mon Jun-23-08 05:37 PM by BlueJazz
All Semi's 70 mph
Other Cars and Trucks

over 35 mpg 75 mph
25-30 mpg 65 mph
20-25 mpg 60 mph
15-20 mpg 55 mph
under 15 50 mph

Autos getting under 15 mpg would not be allowed on Freeways
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XOKCowboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
41. I live out west and I hate to sound selfish but..
I have to drive to Utah next week. 500 miles one way. I can leave at 6AM and drive 75 mph or I can leave at 3:40AM driving 55mph and get there at the same time. Many times I have to drive across country and a 55 mph speed limit will cost me (actually my employer) an extra day driving. That includes another day rate and an extra night's lodging. The gas savings comes nowhere near making up for that even in a 24' box truck.

The 55 mph speed limit made much more money for police agencies (everyone was a criminal because everyone broke the speed limit) than it ever did in fuel savings.

It makes more sense to spend the money on more fuel efficient/alternative energy vehicles and renewable energy sources than to keep sucking on the Oil Pipe for one more hit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindPilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-24-08 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #41
52. You are absolutely right. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eek MD Donating Member (249 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #41
76. Thank you!
The people who are "pontificating" aren't forced to drive long distances regularly for their career. Whereas it might add only about 5 or 10mins to their daily commute....there are many days when it will add HOURS to my commute, depending where I have to go. (and FYI, more hours driven means a higher chance of getting in an accident as well) Meanwhile, Hummers and Escalades are A-ok, as long as you can afford the gas. Why not focus the fuel conservation on eliminating the behemoths instead? :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
48. i cant drive 55 and my suspicion is there was more accidents BECAUSE the speed limit so low
and lulling people to sleep or less aware. i know in that time calif was talking about putting up bulletin boards along the more barren roads to allow attention to be grabbed of motorists to keep them awake and alive while driving the very slllllllooooooooow 55
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
carlyhippy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
49. we went on a short trip in my xterra and experimented
going the 90 miles I drove 70, the speed limit. I got 17 mpg, coming back I drove 55 (to my husband's rolling eyes and constant grunting all the way back), and I got 19 mpg, not much of a difference, but for the better. In town I get 19-20 mpg, believe it or not, because I don't think I get over 20 mph, used to have a lead foot and now I drive like a granny, it's all good.

Carly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madville Donating Member (743 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #49
57. I have experimented with different speeds as well
I drive about 46 miles roundtrip everyday to work on a rural highway with almost zero traffic so I can go about whatever speed I want to safely. In my Toyota Tacoma 4wd 4cyl pickup I get:

20 mpg at 75 mph
21 mpg at 70 mph
22 mpg at 65 mph
25 mpg at 55 mph
28 mpg at 45 mph

I'm roughly getting a 33% increase in gas mileage by slowing down. I used to normally drive 70 everywhere, but have slowed down latey. I now drive everywhere between 45-50 mph(rarely get on the interstate). It works out to a cost savings of around $900 a year driving 20,000 miles with $4 gallon gas. Sure it adds 10 minutes one-way to my commute, or about 20 minutes a day but that doesn't bother me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoGOPZone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. No surprise there
Most vehicles are going to get their best fuel mileage between 40 and 60. You seem to be at max at the lower end of that range, which I would suspect is not uncommon.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindPilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. That would make sense becuse it is a light truck
Not being the most aerodynamic vehicle, a truck would see a more pronounced fuel savings than say a Corvette.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
conscious evolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
61. Why is it even legal to build
a car that can exceed the speed limit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindPilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #61
66. Did you forget your little sarcasm thingy? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
conscious evolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 06:47 AM
Response to Reply #66
79. No I did not
Not being sarcastic at all.
There is no good reason to have vehicles that can do 100+ mph.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SmileyRose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
65. Weird I know but my Freestyle gets better MPGs at 70 than 55
My cruise at 70 averages 32-38 with pure regular unleaded gas - though with the new ethanol blend all over the place my mileage is dropping like a rock - I think it will come in at 27-29 tops next trip. Cruise at 55 on pure regular gas I got 27-29 on that same trip as the 70mph was measured. I expect that will go down too with ethanol blend.

Oh, did I mention ethanol stinks bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
78. Americans who let the Bush Administration's Constitution torture slide...
...would take to the streets as one to fight a national speed limit, hollering about their rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Oct 21st 2014, 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC