Change Speed Limit?
 

For my business ethics class I'm writing a persuasive essay, the topic:
"Should the speed limit on highways and interstates be reduced to save fuel? If so, to what speed?"

Right now I'm researching articles on the topic, but haven't had too much luck finding detailed magazine, newspaper or scholarly articles.

Do any of you have favorite articles or know where I could find some? Any help and or links are appreicated and I'll be sure to post the paper up when it is completed! TIA :thumbup:

Below are two that I've found so far:

http://proxy.mul.missouri.edu:2595/c...=hitlist&num=3

http://proxy.mul.missouri.edu:2228/u...=11063&docNo=1

Unfortunately, I regretfully say that I voted no... simply because I (and you all probably do too) have those days where you are running late, and you NEED that 70 mph speed limit... when fuel efficiency drops to the #2 concern, behind getting to school or work on time.

I don't.

well, I do admit that I suck at time management.

Curious- how far is your trip and how much time difference is there between doing it at 55 vs 70?

Absolutely not. Conserving is a choice. If people want to drive fast it should be their right. I'd rather see $10 a gallon than have more control pushed on me.

I voted Yes.

Currently, it's essentially up to each state to determine their own limits. I've driven in some states with a 75 mph limit. That translates to 81 mph (6-over rule) as a comfortable max speed vs. a ticket. This just sucks down the fuel.

If it were to be implemented, it would have to be phased-in, using 5-mph increments. 75 to 70. 70 to 65. The ideal max, IMO, would likely be 60.

Then you have to ramp-up enforcement -- some States are running thin on funding in this department. Most of the public would be outraged, but like most laws, it's for the good of the people.

Refer to the gas crunch of the 70's as a guide, and the resulting 55mph limit. I chose 60 because of a higher average Cd of the driving fleet in this era. It's the simple Physics of aerodynamics at high speeds and fuel consumption. Then employ a Patriotic campaign.

Then, either loosen the taxes on diesel, or keep big-rigs at the same limit. Cheaper fuel = 5 mph less than passenger cars.

Then realize that it won't happen any time soon. Big Oil and other lobbies won't let it happen. The public outcry would be tremendous.

Sammy Hagar would record albums again...

RH77

Sure in combination with a no drive through service law to stop useless idling (side effects? 88% of the country saves more money and loses weight which also drops are medical expenses.) Gee it's a toughy

IMHO lowering the speed limit is not the solution. Speed limits are for safety, and low fuel consumption should be a technical matter. More fuel is wasted in gridlocks at the entrance of cities than on open roads. Cars are generally more efficient on cross country than in the city, therefore it is the technological advancement, electric car perhaps, that is the long term solution. Not another restrain.

I voted No also, not because I want to see people speeding down the highway, but because the government has enough control over us already. Why give them more power? Sure you save a TON of fuel, but there are idiots that won't follow the newly enacted limit and they'll kill the hypermiler in the slow lane by rear ending him.

I voted NO for one reason only -
Enforcement...

if we cannot enforce the limits as they are now - would lowering the speed limit really save anything? we would still have individuals speeding for what ever reason and you would have those "paying attention" wanting to save fuel.

the Risk is now there is a bigger delta in speed between the Speeders ( still doing 81 mph) and the people who follow the law.Could result in MORE accidents and MORE gas consumed in "gridlock"

I know you should NOT argue that we should make the law fit the people who are breaking it - but if we are NOT enforcing the limits consistantly now - would reducing it be benifitial?

It's clear that reducing the speed limits would not gain acceptance in the general public, even though it have benefits. After all, you're here asking the people most likely to vote yes, but it's still a close call.

I voted no, but I think they should post a minimum speed limit of 55 to remind people they have the option to drive slow or to go the max of 65 (or 75 for interstate). I'd rather that people are given a choice so the ones that do choose to go 55 will not be harassed for deciding to go slower.

I think it would be better to give a one time tax break to buyers that purchase a car with much higher than mandated highway economy. That would #1 turn more profit for the automakers who set out to make more fuel efficient cars. #2 the car buyer would see the benefit of buying a more aerodynamic car and make non-purchasers aware of the improvements that can be had by improving aero. It would suck if we fixed the problem rather than just tell people we can't drive 55.

How about rather than changing the speed limit, we actually enforce the ones we have. Putting up a different sign makes no change unless people choose to slow down. If we started actually stopping people for speeding (as opposed to going under the limit as I have seen some on here) it would make more sense....

Jim

I think that if they dropped it again that alot of people would be unhappy.

Our modern vehicles are more efficent at high speed than the old cars from the 70's
Back then the average engine was a carbeurated V-8. My '69 continental sounded like it was running at about 3,500 RPMs at 75 mph.
Yet how many cars now days are close to IDLE at highway speeds? Not all of them but there are some companys that are puting in some tall final gears that drop engine speeds alot at highways speeds.

People here only go 5-10 over, anything over that, and they're too scared to get a ticket..

Wouldn't changing the limit to 55 scare people (atleast everyone around here) to max out at 65? I know in big cities no one would care cause theres no cops that really pull over anyone, but alteast a couple thousand would slow down a little bit. every bit counts.

I voted yes, but I believe speed 'limits' should be replaced with speed 'recommendations' on highways. Limits are essentially unenforceable on highways anyway.

Has anyone driven on I-285 around Atlanta?

Speed limit = 55 MPH :cool:
My speed = 55-60 MPH :cool: :turtle:
Speed of everyone else = 65-75+ :eek:

:confused:

Kinda a weird "No option". Maybe there should be the no you have, plus a flat-out no. I voted no, but not because it would make people unhappy.

| :mad: (me-->) :turtle: |
| :mad: |
| |
| :mad: |
| :mad: |

LOL, that's supposed to be a road...

How about putting some thought into the poll answers? Or if you did think about them, how about answers that aren't so obviously loaded?

"No" is a good option. "No because..." is bad, when there's only one choice of because. In this case, I'd vote no, but not because the public would be unhappy. It's because A) It was tried before, and didn't work; and B) It ignores the real problem. The way to save significant amounts of isn't to drive oversized gas-guzzlers a bit slower, it's to drive cars that get decent fuel economy - 75 mpg at 75 mph! - or which don't even use oil as their primary "fuel" source.

I voted yes, but only because I'm a firm believer that most people can't think for themselves and require someone else to do it for them. I'm all for less government control over me, and for more government control on stupid people. Driving is a privilege that should come with logic, reasoning, and IQ tests to go along with the "can you mostly memorize this sheet" test.

Statistics do show that there are more deadly accidents with a 75mph speed limit vs 55mph. The reason for that? Look at how much faster you are driving when you go over the 75 mph limit. When you drive on a 55mph highway people pass you going 65 to maybe about 80ish.
On our trip to Colorado we took I-80 and the speed limit is 75. We drove 80 and we were being passed by people going 85 to 100+.
If some one changes lanes infront of you with out looking and you hit them you're better off at 65 vs. 100.

If the states were to step up enforcement there would be no budget issues.

If I were a state senator...I would push this as the speeding ticket law. I've never was happy with the speeding tickets I got when I was younger but this is an area that people really push the law especialy with highway speeds and DUI.

Fines
Residential areas or busy buisness areas
5 over $250
6-25 over $500
26-50 over $1,500 Lose lisence for 2 years
50+ over $5,000 Lose lisence for 10 years 5 years in jail

(Highways)
5 over is the freebie
6-25 over $500
26-1mph shy of double the speed limit $1,500 Lose lisence for 2 years.
Double the speed limit $5,000 Lose lisence for 10 years 2 years in jail.
Over 100MPH $15,000 Lose Lisence forever 5-7 years in jail.

Cause an accident because your speeding and lose control and some one you hit dies $55,000 Fine Lose lisence forever 30 years in jail.

DUI $50,000 Fine for first offence Lose lisence forever 30 years in jail.

I am not voting because a lot of people are "Sign Blind" they don't even care what it is as long as they are about 15-20 mph above the speed.

The stats show no such thing. States that adopted the 75 MPH limit have death rates have an 10-year annual death average (1996 - 2006) that is LOWER than the previous 10-year average (1985 - 1995). This number is NOT adjusted for miles travelled.

The nationwide average of deaths per 100 million miles traveled has continued to drop every year.

The biggest killer in auto deaths is not wearing your seatbelt. Depending on the year, unrestrained deaths account for between 56% and 70% of total deaths nationwide.

If you factor in the adoption of seatbelts and other vehicle safety improvements though, it should be obvious that slower is safer. It's basic physics dude.

For example, ask yourself if would you rather get hit with a casual lob or a 95mph bean ball? What is the difference between those two examples? It is the speed involved.

But if you want to compare apples to apples, then lets lower the limit and find out :)

There is no safer road in America than a limited access divided highway. The vast majority of fatalities occur on roads with posted speed limits between 35 and 50 MPH. 2-way traffic, intersections, limited shoulder space, limited passing zones, blind corners; these are the main areas where road deaths happen.

You can tell me slower is safer, but you can't point to a real world stat that backs you up. Otherwise, why stop at 55? Why not 45 or 35? Aren't those speeds even safer, based on physics?

The Impact of Speed Limit Increases on Fatal Interstate Crashes



"We can see the significance of the speed limit increases graphically with the following code:

We can summarize the findings as follows:

• 19 of 40 states experienced a significant increase in fatal crashes along with the FIRST speed limit increase on rural interstates (Figure 4).
• 10 of 36 states experienced a significant increase in fatal crashes along with SECOND speed limit increase on rural interstates (Figure 5).
• 6 of 31 states experienced a significant increase in fatal crashes along with the speed limit increase on urban interstates (Figure 6)."

Please don't infer this to mean that I advocate going 0 mph because that is the safest speed. People need to get places in a "reasonable" amount of time.

I voted Yes. I do not see that lowering the speed limit is increasing government control. They have the same control over how you drive if the limit is 75, 55, or 25, just by virtue of having a speed limit. If they have a speed limit they have, good or bad, the same level of control.

I agree that the real problem is bad FE vehicles, but people have a right to buy what they want. The only way to increase FE is to convince people that they are the right thing to buy. I am sorry to say that it is rare now days to find people willing to put the earth, or anything else ahead of themselves. The biggest concern of most "Americans" these days is their own pocketbooks and bank accounts.

This trend must be stopped. I think it will be a combo of public awareness and rising oil prices.

What difference does it make? It would not be enforced, any more than current speed limits are. Likely less so.

I used to be in favor but voted no. This is a good thread on the subject which changed my point of view. There are a couple more floating around the site if you do a search.

What I don't get is how large cities don't pull people over.

You go any speed over 5 over here... you get a ticket and its always over 100 bucks.

Population of largest city in the county: 8000
Population of my village in the county: 550

I do get why people don't get pulled over on highways like Indy or St. Louis... 1 thing.. No place for cops to hide

theres no place for a cop to park his car to scan people because when you have a concrete devider on one side and another on the other side, its kinda hard to catch people off guard with the radar gun.

Here, every half mile there's a country road for a cop to sit and hide behind the trees to get people's speeds. You don't have that in big city highways.

My cousin got pulled over for doing 67 in a 55. which comparing to large cities no where near as fast as they travel

Safety here with speeds isn't an issue, you have a greater chance of hitting a deer than another car.

Its just the cops trying to meet their stations expectations, not that you were endangering other drivers.

The biggest traffic jam we have is when I'm driving 45 in a 55, and when its clear for other drivers to pass, I just use the rear wiper to signal its clear. I Think its catching on :thumbup:

Of course, it doesn't really matter what the limit is if there is no enforcement.

Strict enforcement? Not a problem around here. :mad:

I say no because more good would be done by actually enforcing the laws we have. Here they have been raising speed limits. This summer they raised the minimum speed on the freeway from 45 to 55, and the trucker speed from 55 to 60. Ive seen no new speed restrictions, but several on odd strecthes of road that have increased. Theyre proposing for a few more to go up, I read in the paper today. Their claim is that speed limits are not set by safety (in the good old days it used to set by safety based on the immediate area) but lately they say its based on the way 85% of the people drive. Well 85% of people around here drive like a bat out of hell so I guess thats whats going to become legal here.

From what Ive seen and heard about Ohio, Id rather drive there anyday. When I was there a couple years ago it seemed like a cop for every 50 cars, and everybody drove sensibly. I could drive the speed limit and be left alone. My friend calls it Slow-hio. I also noticed gas was lower there. I wonder if it could be because of the decreased consumption from going slower.

Its all so screwed up here. Everything is based on trying to encourage the almighty tourist dollar. They rule the roads and everything else and they know the cops wont touch them no matter what. It gets worse and worse every year. Ive lost track of all the people Ive seen get run off the road by these jerks as they charge down the road and into oncoming traffic like wild animals. Im also seeing a lot more people with Illinois plates, which are some of the worst I see. If the cops actually were to protect and to serve, tourist dollars would go down. But if they let the tourists be as rude, careless, brutal, and wasteful as possible, they spend more and tourist dollars go up.

Awhile back a guy from Illinois crossed 2 lanes of traffic and hit a motorcyclist head on and put him in intensive care, no citation issued. Another guy from Illinois tried to pass my aunt on the right while she was turning left and totaled her van, cop said "lets just say nothing happened". 2 downstaters, one in a Corvette, another in an Audi, going well over 100mph in a road race, blew past me on the freeway, past a state cop a mile up the road who was sitting in the median watching cars with a radar gun, they didnt slow down and he did absolutely nothing. A guy from Detroit, driving without insurance, slammed into my 6000 wagon earlier this year, no citation issued according to the police report. Couple downstaters with a snowmobile trailer pulled out in front of me and I clipped the trailer, police said it was my fault. Out of stater with a huge boat pulled right in front of me, I laid on the horn with 4 wheel disk locked hoping theyd at least stop, I missed him but the cop who was watching the intersection came after ME with blue lights and said "next time use your head". An out of stater with a boat pulled right in front of my coworkers motorcycle last summer and put him in the hospital, no citation issued.

Anyway thats my soapbox. Lowering speed limits wont do any good. Enforcing the laws we have would do more good than anything, both for reduced oil consumption and safety. And heck, maybe it would force Michigan to build a real economic base instead of relying on tourist dollars.

I voted no - I stand divided on the issue to some degree, here's why:

1. Anyone who has travelled at 60 mph through southern Idaho, or Montana or eastern Wyoming or North Dakota for hours on end is probably the most excruciating thing I have ever experienced. The mind-numbingness of such an undertaking was in the interest of better fuel economy, but arriving many hours later at your destination does not offset the savings. In fact I figured that 60 minutes longer at work paid for the gas I would have saved.

2. Cars these days are much safer than decades ago when 100 mph was actually unsafe - even on a straight road. Modern cars can go faster, and the driver often feels like the car could and should go faster.

However! These arguments only apply to cross-country drives with low traffic density. Once you want to go 100 mph on, say Seattle freeways, then the sheer volume of traffic makes this just plain dangerous. Instead, urban freeways should have lower speed limits to discourage the illusion of "high-speed interconnects" between your home and work via automobile. Would you like to commute to work if you knew you'd be breaking the law if you went faster than 40 mph on the freeway? (The fast that with congestion sometimes the average speeds are quite close to that is subject to another thread...)

Have low speeds in cities and urban areas where trains whiz by at twice your speed, and high speeds links starting many miles outside of the city limits to enable quick transit between urban areas.

Who knows, here in the western USA this could turn the spark of the idea of "Park and Ride" into a real blazing boom!

So a national blanket speed limit, IMHO, is too simple. Lower the speeds in cities to encourage public transport and reduce accidents, and increase the limit (or get rid of it - Germany FTW) to enable high speed personal transportation between far away urban areas. (Really, I'm just thinking of the USA/Canada here.)

superchow -

I voted yes but I like your ideas. I agree that urban areas are better off with lower speed limits.

CarloSW2

Absolutely not. Many of you are too young to remember how bad it sucked to drive accross country when the national limit was 55MPH, but you may have heard the song inspiried by that speed limit "I can't Drive 55" by Sammy Hagar. The 55MPH limit sucked, and I do not support lowering the limit.

Later,

Allan Greenblazer

Yep, thats northern Illinois drivers for ya heheh.

Good thing I live in Southern IL. Much nicer down here. No chicago drivers. :thumbup:

I don't get why it's not enforced to a point that people don't speed because they know they'll get caught and get a hefty fine if they do. Around here, speed tickets are a significant source of revenue for the government and I don't see why a government would leave that money on the table.

I used to drive "fast", my tdi fuel log is there to prove it. At first I found it really hard driving 55 mph or less. It took a couple of weeks but I got used to it. Now 55 mph just feels normal and 75 mph feels like I'm driving really fast. Not so long ago I drove 8 hours at 40 mph on rural roads. I could cross Canada at 55 mph no problem now. It's all a matter of perspective and getting used to it.

It is my opinion that when addictive elements are involved (speed, oil, drugs...) people need to have a very strong external incentive to quit. Gradual price increases (frog in raising temp water analogy) or personal health and safety are usually not strong enough to get people to quit until it's too late.

More efficient cars or the lack of enforcement are no excuses to drive fast. You are wasting energy versus driving slower. IF it becomes a society choice to reduce energy consumption, sacrifices should be made accordingly at an individual level and infractions should be repressed.