EcoModder.com

EcoModder.com (https://ecomodder.com/forum/)
-   The Lounge (https://ecomodder.com/forum/lounge.html)
-   -   Higher speed causes fewer deaths? They clearly don't care about F/E (https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/higher-speed-causes-fewer-deaths-they-clearly-dont-10894.html)

Chalupa102 11-06-2009 10:10 PM

Higher speed causes fewer deaths? They clearly don't care about F/E
 
Sorry if this is a repost.

Utah: Increasing Speed Limits Doesn't Kill

Stuff like this makes me mad. I know some of this has been talked here on the forum before. I definitely do not agree that higher speed won't cause more deaths. If u lose control of ur car at 80+ MPH, most likely ur gonna die. I'm not saying that people don't die at slower speeds, but i don't see anyone walking away from an 80+ MPH wreck. I'm glad i don't live in Utah. These people definitely don't care about fuel economy at all :mad:.

eco_generator 11-14-2009 02:09 PM

Unfortunately there are many many many factors that determine whether a collision will kill someone. Speed is only one. Don't be too upset, the more people on the highway means less deaths on the surface streets. Which also keeps the traffic down so eco-minded drivers can enjoy them with less intrusion. :)

gone-ot 11-14-2009 07:52 PM

...I've heard it slightly differently: "...HIGHER speeds cause fewer INJURIES, because they're ALL DEAD."

tjts1 11-14-2009 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chalupa102 (Post 138269)
Stuff like this makes me mad.

Are you serious? You're unhappy because speed doesn't kill? Face it "speed kills" is BS. I think higher speeds keep drivers more awake. Driving at 80 or 90mph and seeing the FE hit that SUV owners are taking might force some to switch to smaller more fuel efficient cars. Win win on all sides. Look at the Germans.

Chalupa102 11-14-2009 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjts1 (Post 139573)
Are you serious? You're unhappy because speed doesn't kill? Face it "speed kills" is BS. I think higher speeds keep drivers more awake. Driving at 80 or 90mph and seeing the FE hit that SUV owners are taking might force some to switch to smaller more fuel efficient cars. Win win on all sides. Look at the Germans.

No, not at all. I know that's how it came out, but what i'm really mad about and what i meant about the higher speed is the hurt to f/e and it producing more emissions. Let's face it, u can't get even close to the higher f/e at 80 that u would at speeds from about 50-65 MPH.

pstrbrc 11-14-2009 11:26 PM

I'd just like to point out a couple of things.
#1. Utah is (last I checked) in the Good Ol' U. S. of A., where (at least for a short time longer) "personal freedom" is considered a primary national virtue. Now, I have to admit that when a fully loaded F-350 Crew Cab with ladders and other paraphernalia strapped to a top rack barrels past me going at least 10 mph faster than my 70 mph (at which I'm getting 37mpg, which, with my wife in the car, calculates out to 72person-mpg), I wonder. I presume he knows what kind of mileage he's getting, and he's run a cost/benefit analysis in his head, and he's comfortable with the cost. The fact that I'm a cheap Scotsman and he's the Prodigal Son is an individual choice for each of us.
#2. Last I heard, cows produce more "greenhouse gas" than just about anything else on the earth except volcanoes. I'm still eating beef. I guess somebody who chooses to burn petroleum faster than me isn't any more evil.
#3. Everybody going 70 on a metropolitan interstate is more dangerous than everybody going 60. however, raising the speed limit on said metropolitan interstate to 70 won't make everybody go 70, 'cause that's just too fast for some people (and some cars!) so the danger level increases. BUT... Utah is not known for its densely populated metro areas. It's known for long straight empty stretches of highway. When 55 was the "national" speed limit, those of us who drive those long empty straight highways almost died of boredom. 65 was survivable, and 75 is pretty darn nice. And, no, it's not remotely "dangerous". Now, somebody living in western Massachusetts might not get this, but a 300 mile trip one way is fairly common out here on the Plains, and there is no other choice but the car. For me, the difference between 60mph and 70 mph is 2.2 gallons versus 1.5 hours. And when that 600 mile round trip has to be done in one day, that hour and a half less driving is very much a big safety factor.
so, in a nut shell, until you've driven a week in my car, get over yourself.

dcb 11-15-2009 01:00 AM

lol, folks do like to jump to conclusions. A story about a story about a story and all of a sudden 80mph is safe everywhere, hilarious.

"UDOT carefully selected the areas that it believed would best handle the increased limit."

tjts1 11-15-2009 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dcb (Post 139606)
lol, folks do like to jump to conclusions. A story about a story about a story and all of a sudden 80mph is safe everywhere, hilarious.

"UDOT carefully selected the areas that it believed would best handle the increased limit."

Seeing how successful the 80mph experiment has been, you can bet they'll be expanding it in the future.
I think higher speed limits will encourage people to buy smaller, more fuel efficient cars. So what if you burn more fuel at 80mph than 55mph? The majority of driving is still done in cities, stuck in traffic, etc. The maximum speed anybody happens to reach over a year's worth of driving is essentially irrelevant when you consider the other 90% of driving that is limited by traffic, etc.

pstrbrc 11-15-2009 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjts1 (Post 139619)
Seeing how successful the 80mph experiment has been, you can bet they'll be expanding it in the future.
I think higher speed limits will encourage people to buy smaller, more fuel efficient cars. So what if you burn more fuel at 80mph than 55mph? The majority of driving is still done in cities, stuck in traffic, etc.

And that is probably true for most of you. But when the national gov't (yes, the NATIONAL gov't. We really DON't have a "federal" gov't anymore, regardless of the US Constitution) imposes laws upon ALL, even when said laws are mind-numbingly STUPID for many of us who live in those "fly-over" states, we resent it. And when we regain control over our own laws, people like the OP get upset. Sheesh!

Quote:

The maximum speed anybody happens to reach over a year's worth of driving is essentially irrelevant when you consider the other 90% of driving that is limited by traffic, etc.
And not to rag you, but you clearly make a jump from "the majority" to "anybody". I drive ~35k miles a year, 90% of which is on two-lane or limited-access highways. With what most of you would consider "light traffic." So we can impress upon our state gov'ts the appropriateness of higher speed limits "in select areas" when it would seem to be impossible to do so with many of you who spend "90% of driving ... limited by traffic". So, butt out of Utah's state rights. And any other state that you clearly have no idea what it's like to live in.

dcb 11-15-2009 10:40 AM

It's hard for me to understand being willfully wasteful when our sons and daughters are overseas sacrificing everything.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com