Change Speed Limit?

[bikin' Ed]

For those not in the know, Chicago has different driving rules.
1) Any space greater than my vehicle plus 6 inches is big enough. People don't cut you off they are just using the space. You will also find that Chicagoans are very good at paralel parking.
2) Posted speed limits are suggestions or averages. If I was moving at 30 under the limit last time, (during rush-hour) I can go 30 over today.
3) Passing on the right is OK, especially if it is an out of state driver that doesn't know the rules.

I learned to drive in Chicago, and people used to think I was aggressive. If they could see me now....

[bikin' Ed]

OK, now my serious reply. The way you have the poll stated, I could answere yes to both. The speed limit should be lowered and it would cause much public outcry.

I have believed for a long time that with a normal state drivers license you should be allowed only basic privledges--perhaps speeds up to 55mph. If you take an advanced driving course, and can pass written and driving tests for same you would be allowed to drive .....say 75mph. The cost of the advanced course would have to be paid by the driver, as would renewal, and a large rear window sticker saying that you are an advanced driver. Fines for breaking "advanced driving" rules should be very hefty, including loss of advanced privledges.

I don't think that 75 vs 55 is really going to yeild much of a difference in # of crashes or fatalities. We all really know that it is bad drivers and poor judgement that causes most collisions. If driving became more of a "privledge" and less of a "right", most safety concerns would take care of themselves.

[whitevette]

Originally Posted by FX Flyboy

IMHO lowering the speed limit is not the solution. Speed limits are for safety, and low fuel consumption should be a technical matter.

One of these days, Uncle Sugar is gonna wake up and see MPG is also lower emissions per mile. As soon as we start to find it difficult to breathe, some bureaucrat in Washington will discover less speed means more MPG, which means less gasoline burned, less emissions per mile out of the tailpipe(s).

When we finally close this barn door the air quality can be blamed on the Chinese and the Indians (note the capital "I"). Then we can lament the horse long gone.... Until then, technology cannot save us from ourselves. "Ourselves" are getting more & more numerous.

[Whoops]

I don't want any more of big brother making laws to protect the people from themselves. I don't think big brother is wise enough, smart enough to do for people, what people choose not to do for themselves.

On a mileage perspective, the impact on mileage, in my car is low enough that I can't consistently say that it is more than 1-3%. I would far rather people choose to drive more cost effective vehicles, instead. Unfortunately, SUV's and Pickup's are back in vogue, since gas prices are down 20% compared to a month ago.

People sure have short term memories and adaptation intervals.

[tasdrouille]

Originally Posted by Whoops

I don't want any more of big brother making laws to protect the people from themselves. I don't think big brother is wise enough, smart enough to do for people, what people choose not to do for themselves.

I don't think it's about protecting people from themselves, but more about protecting people from other people. What people choose not to do for themselves may very well be what could cause my son to develop respiratory problems, or what kills my whole family in a crash.

On a mileage perspective, the impact on mileage, in my car is low enough that I can't consistently say that it is more than 1-3%. I would far rather people choose to drive more cost effective vehicles, instead. Unfortunately, SUV's and Pickup's are back in vogue, since gas prices are down 20% compared to a month ago.

People sure have short term memories and adaptation intervals.

Your car might be an exception. There is a significant reduction in fuel consumption in most vehicles when going from 60+ to 55 mph.

Speed is only a part of the equation, but I think it's an important one.

[superchow]

Originally Posted by bikin' Ed

If driving became more of a "privledge" and less of a "right", most safety concerns would take care of themselves.

"Privilege" is the key word here. Too often do we take for granted the simple, but fundamental privileges. Driving is one of them. Freedom of speech is another. Many people I know think it is their "right" to pollute the environment and ruin the earth. I try to remember that really we humans do not matter. In one billion years (or less) we may not even leave a trace of our existence. The planet will keep revolving around the sun, and life will continue somehow.

The question is - do we want our children to have a planet that is better off or worse off than it is for us now? Some choose the selfish view, some are less narrow-minded. (FYI: I am a little undecided on the matter, since nobody today cares that dinosaurs are extinct. Their effects on the planet are really quite negligible when you look at an infinite timespan.)

Who knew that philosophy is so pervasive in such discussions?

[RH77]

I was indeed a passenger during the "55" era, and it took a while to go 800 miles between parents -- especially in an '80 Caprice Classic coupe with the anemic 265-cid V-8 and no cruise control. $88 Braniff flights saved the day.

I've noticed a few things in this discussion -- the assumption that 55 is the target speed, and that efficiency decreases in Urban settings. What if we all went back to just 65 to start?

Just an observation -- I routinely drive in urban rush-hour slowdowns that force an average speed of 50mph. It isn't stop-n-go, but density increases. I get great FE during these periods due to slower speeds. Hills are harder to keep momentum, but entering/exiting traffic keep 2 of 3 lanes flowing smoothly.

Have others experienced this type of traffic flow?

RH77

[ohmycivic]

I personally think that there shouldn't be speed limits. Given, I don't personally speed unless the only thing within 50 miles is wildlife (and yes I have been late in situations where I could have sped and been on time), but I think people should have the choice as to how fast they need to travel.

Perhaps the most ideal situation would be a one-strike-you're-out mentality: You can drive as fast as you want, but if you're found at fault in any accident you lose your license for two years or so and have to undergo intense driver's education. Driving without a license is punishable by HUGE incarceration terms, like 10 years in prison. Seems strict, and I'd already be off the road for a following too close incident (my ONLY driving infraction in 11 years of driving btw), but it'd keep bad drivers off the road and place an emphasis on being a skillful driver. Speed limits would regulate themselves in such a system.

[cfg83]

RH77 -

Originally Posted by RH77

...

Just an observation -- I routinely drive in urban rush-hour slowdowns that force an average speed of 50mph. It isn't stop-n-go, but density increases. I get great FE during these periods due to slower speeds. Hills are harder to keep momentum, but entering/exiting traffic keep 2 of 3 lanes flowing smoothly.

Have others experienced this type of traffic flow?

RH77

Yes. There is a "sweet spot" in LA traffic where the density forces the cars to slow down but not stop. This creates a lower average MPH. All my best runs have been when my average MPH is below 50.

Here's my scangauge readings for my best run :

My SW2's (home to work) trip log for 2008-04-25

SCANGAUGE "CURRENT" READINGS :
61.2 MPG,
0.4 Gallons,
200 Water Temp Max,
27.5 Miles,
2135 RPM Max,
0.6 Hours,
58 MPH Max,
45 MPH AVG
HYPOTHESIS : Nice hot dry LA weather and a few glorious turtles to follow. Following one super-slow truck helped me on the 105 West, where I typically start falling below 60 MPG on my best runs.

As lovemysan has stated in other posts, I *know* that my best run would be at an average speed of around 40 MPH. However, until the Eco-Gamera appears before me on my way to work, that ain't gonna happen.

Somewhere in my urban transportation planning notes there is a description of the original LA transportation plan. The idea was to have freeways, but also "parkways" that would be at lower speeds, say 45 MPH. The parkways would have been wide streets like Venice, and intersections would have been bridged so that cars could keep moving. The corners of intersections would have been given up to make right-turn merge lanes. There would be no left turns (three rights make a left). This would have meant giving up the corner lots on these "sub-arteries", but I think it would have gone a long way to relieving the congestion we are experiencing right now.

CarloSW2

[trikkonceptz]

I voted no ... here's why;

I feel that highway driving is not the biggest coulprit to wasting fuel, city driving is. And until drive thrus and bank tellers are abolished along with properly managed and timed traffic intersections, there is no point to try and curve highway speeds.

Next, as it has been said, as newer cars hit the road they are capable of higher speeds at greater efficiency. Also it is still our choice as to how we drive these automobiles, until you break the law and are told otherwise.

Perhaps a signage system that indicates fuel savings per speed may encourage some to read and slow down, but that is as far as I am willing to conceed. The signs could post 70mph Speed limit, then underneath say 65 gain 10%FE, 60 gain 20%FE, 55 gain 30% FE.

I love driving 55mph now and hate it when three or four others are doing 55 or 54.5 or unsteady 55-57, which makes it impossible to drive, or set cruise control to those driving slowly.