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:.

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. :)

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

My car gets better mileage at 80 than 70, and better at 60 than 70. 70's a compromise pick that works for neither extreme.

That is a most dubious claim

1996 BMW 318
http://www.randomuseless.info/318ti/mphmpg.png

faster takes more energy, period. any car can be crippled to merely look better at a higher speed while actually being more wasteful.

Huh? What dillusional parallel universe do you pretend to dwell in? OK, I see that you live on "3rd rock", which isn't really why they put that "where are you?" thing on the control panel. They put it there so that somehow we might understand where you're coming from, or perhaps understand why can't figure out where you're coming from, and likewise back. So I wonder if you're one of those "I am a citizen of the world" goofballs, as if living in the US of A wasn't specTACularly better than, say, Botswana because of who our predecessors have willed us to be. Which includes, incidentally, being a land of plenty. So our sons and daughters are sacrificing so that we might live free. Including the right to, I don't know, do things that others might, well, disapprove of. So, I'm a minimalist. By American standards, of course. I live in a house that has, heck, 10 times the number of rooms I and my family absolutely need. Yeah, it's a 10 room house. Not counting the 2 bathrooms. And I live on something like 2200-2500 calories a day. And I have several changes of clothes. And I buy a new toothbrush every year.
Now, if your complaint is based on the shortage of petroleum, we (the US of A) sit on larger known reserves than anybody can comprehend, and technology advances make it clear that there are even more reserves than we know so far. But we can't drill because of some damn intellectual elitist treehuggers who are convinced that (contrary to real scientific data) we are "destroying the planet!" Were you there when the Cuyahoga River caught on fire? Have you seen it lately? The part of the world that lies within the bounds of the US of A is so much incredibly cleaner than it was 40 years ago! America is good for the environment. We invented clean technology. Not Europe. Not Japan. Definitely not the Arab world or China. Why? So we can continue to bloody well be Americans. THAT's why my baby daughter served her tour in Iraq during the bloodiest years. THAT's why she found it noble to serve, why she was willing to put up with the sexist abuse of the Iraqi men she was risking her life for. Because she thinks that living in the land of plenty, the home of the free and the brave, was worth risking her ass for. So that her sister and her brothers would have the oportunity to live out the American dream, to make the most out of their life, to raise their kids in a land of blessing. NOT so that we could all live like they live in, say, Somalia. You have the audacity to call somebody driving 80mph "wasteful". And to imply that being "wasteful" is disrespectful of our soldiers. Crawl out from under "3rd rock" and sniff reality. Assuming you live in America (and that's not only a continent, it also defines a country) you might notice that you live in a great country because we are meant to be free from pathetic narrowminded prudish nanny-ism.

Year and a half driving the same exact route, same time of day, roughly even the same traffic load. I get 31mpg highway at 60mph, 30mpg at 70, and 31mpg again at 80. It's repeatable, at least in my car.

pstrbrc, I am free, free to point out your personal attacks are taken as a sign that I have struck a nerve. Do you think personal sacrifice and responsibility is someone elses job? Too much talk about personal rights and nothing of personal responsibility, but without the latter the former is untenable, IMHO. I don't like nannys any more than ignoramuses. But most would agree we use/consume way more than we need already (except those with something to sell to consumers or stock in said same).

If I think an activity is ultimately wasteful (in resources and human lives) am I not free to say that without being attacked personally? Am I not free to appreciate the efforts of our current and past armed forces and pressure my peers to think about something other than themselves?

Casey, my point is that it takes more energy to go faster, basic physics. This fact can be obscured by technical implementation details of a particular car, but with a properly sized engine and gearing lower mph = better mpg. A 318 can cruise at above 40mpg on the hiway, if there aren't loudmouth jerks trying to run you off the road complaining about how you are violating their right to speed wherever and whenever they want.

...I'm surprised no one yet has: (A) directed comment to the HP-vs-MPH graphing tool posted here, or (B) pulled up and displayed the MPG-vs-MPH curve for the Z06 Corvette, or (C) gotten the DOE chart showing FATALITY rate vs MPH crash data, etc.

...facts don't silence criticism, but they DO tend to make them mumble more. :rolleyes:

I agree that i did jump to conclusions when i first posted this. U make a lot of good points in this post. It's been a long, long time since i've been to Utah, but from what i remember, exactly like u said: miles and miles and miles of nothing. I can understand why people would want to go 80 MPH there.

Now i don't believe states with closer cities and more traffic like MA should raised there pls to 80, but it would make some sense with states like Utah.

I personally wouldn't want to go that fast now, but i have driven around 75 back in the day when i used to travel from NC to MA, before i started really hypermiling. Granted, my f/e wasn't all that great but all i wanted to do was get home, so i can see where ur coming from.

It's been a while since i've driven that fast, and i plan to keep it that way so i can see better f/e. I'll stick to the right lane and let the guys who wanna go faster use the other lanes.

Just two questions:

...which COSTS you more: TIME or GASOLINE?

...which is a CONSUMABLE item and which isn't?

...somewhere in-between is a common "null" point, we just have to find and agree on it.

I just got it, it was an article promoting herd mentality http://forum.ecomodder.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

"As a herd, we will find ways"

Old Tele man -

I remember a thread way back where the fellow argued that his time was worth more than the cost of gas. He looked at his time in terms of his hourly wage, and then added up the minutes over the course of a year. From his POV, time was always more important.

CarloSW2

I guess a lot of things depend on why people hypermile; to save money at the pump, for the environment, both, or other reasons. I did a quick search but i couldn't find anything saying why people here hypermile. It would be kinda interesting to see.

I can't speak for anyone else, but i do it mainly for the environment. I typically don't really pay attention to gas prices. Heck, my favorite gas station is Shell, which tends to be more expensive than others. What i really care about is my f/e and how much i gas i actually saved. It is nice, though to know that i'm paying less than a lot of other vehicles on the road. I also try to save water and conserve electricity, and i don't even pay the bill at my house.

What is really funny is these arguments go on within a site dedicated to people getting good gas mileage.

No one thing or person is perfect. You have to be wasteful somewhere, even if it ends up being your time. So I don't see how people can make such definite judgments of other people.

And arguments cannot be so simple. Speed kills is not something that can be proven by itself. Just like going slower will always yield better gas mileage. There are checks and balances to all of it.

When it comes to speed limits, research & just plain common sense shows that highways are much safer places to drive than surface streets. They carry much more traffic with a lot less mortalities per vehicle than anywhere else. Higher speed limits lead to more people on the highway, artificially low speed limits on interstates lead to a lot more people going faster on surface streets like 2 lane highways = many many more deaths at intersections, blind crests, hills, etc. So, in this particular instance, I say go with what is overall safer: higher speed limits on highways.

What is a speed limit?
 

What is a speed limit?

It seems to be much like a lot of laws. Something to charge you with when the authorities see you do something they don't like.

I don't think the police/politicians really care what speed is traveled. If they did they would travel at that speed themselves.

Who, for that matter really cares what arbitrary limit is set for speed? Don't we all do some kind of math when we see a limit sign? Or drive with traffic or what feels right.

The 55 mph speed limit was introduced to help save energy and resources. Most cars will lose efficiency before that point, look at some graphs already
Speed kills: testing MPH vs. MPG in top gear - MetroMPG.com

Now I don't think the herd really cares about safety all that much, they wouldn't get anywhere near a vehicle or do a lot of other stupid everyday things if it were really true. But real studies over many years and in many countries validate the physics that faster is less safe. Again, not being a nanny, just pointing out the flaws in this little experiment. If something sounds too good to be true (i.e. faster = safer and/or more efficient) then it probably isnt.

Q&As: Speed and speed limits
As for freedom, last I heard driving was a privileged (sorry, U.S.A. assumed here).

If you read the speed limit sign properly, it says (ex). 70 Max speed limit or whatever. It doesn't mean you have to drive 70, so by all means, keep on doing your 55 and wave and smile when they race by you honking their horns.
:)
I look at speed as the way I look at guns!
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Speed doesn't kill people, it's the person behind the wheel who makes the judgement if they are capable of driving at that speed. That's where the problem is.
Some just can't drive!!

If you read the speed limit sign properly, it says (ex). 70 Max speed limit or whatever. It doesn't mean you have to drive 70, so by all means, keep on doing your 55 and wave and smile when they race by you honking their horns.

I look at speed as the way I look at guns!
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Speed doesn't kill people, it's the person behind the wheel who makes the judgement if they are capable of driving at that speed. That's where the problem is.
Some just can't drive!!

X2

There is always one study out there that will prove a point, but that is completely irrelevant, it's the concensus among studies that counts. You can always deny that speed kills, but you're still wrong.

Just wait and see. The total number of crashes will go up marginally, not much, but the % increase of fatal crashes where the cause is determined to be the loss of control will be higher than the total crashes increase.

The increase is only 5 mph. It should be noted that the average traffic speed will increase by less than 5mph, probably around 3 mph. The same relation has been observed when speed limits are reduced.

This is what a hundred studies have proven.