News: Utah Considers Joining 80 MPH Speed Limit Club
 

Utah Considers Joining 80 MPH Speed Limit Club

Apparently engineers don't consider increased fuel consumption & higher emissions in their studies.

I'm trying to figure out why every state keeps raising the speed limits even when our political heros say we need to cut our dependence on oil. Is this a way to crush the hybrids and electric cars before they make it to the market or is it that much of a time is money thing?

History repeats it self. The death rates were sure higher when the speed limit departed from 55 mph. *Shrug*

The problem is most people don't obey the lower speed limits anyway. This is probably a bad thing because as I go 55 in the slow lane now people will think they can go even faster with the higher limits.

Good! I hope this trend keeps up.
Maybe because they realize that speed limit on the highway are unenforceable and at best simply serve to line the pockets of local authorities.
Theres a lot of evidence out there showing that "Drive 55" cost a lot of innocent lives.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...02/MN65128.DTL

http://www.roadsideamerica.com/tnews...ip_AttrId=5056
As long as you stick to the slow lane, it shouldn't be a problem.


If politicians really wanted to reduce our dependence on oil, we would have a la law limiting vehicles of more than 4000lb to the right lane. Don't enforce a different speed limit on SUVs and trucks, just nab them when they get into the fast lane. Call it a safety issue ;)

We could legalize murder too - plenty of people do that despite laws against it o.0 But ya, I stick to the slow lane - even higher differential speeds doesn't make me happy - but perhaps a little aero assist?

? My father got two speeding tickets in Texas about 6 months ago... Hardly unenforceable :rolleyes: Funny part is, they were within 20 minutes of each other... After that, he stuck to the posted limit...

Ok great. So they got one guy. Everybody else still speeds. Most people might get a ticket or a warning every few years, slow down for a while and then forget about again. Thats hardly an effective deterrent. I've been pulled over for speeding about 3 or 4 times in my life and I was always able to talk my way out of it. Cops realize the 65 and 70mph speed limit around here is rediculous. They use it as an excuse to check on drivers but they'll rarely hand out tickets unless you were doing something really egregious like passing on the right, blocking traffic, weaving between cars or going over 90mph.
Austria has an extremely effective enforcement system. Every 2 km theres a speed camera. The speed limit is 110km. 10km over and you get a ticket in the mail. Anything more and they pull you over next time a cop car sees you. I doubt Utah or any other state wants to waste tax payer money for such a draconian system. But it works. Everybody drives 110.

We had a speed limit enforcement day on I95 in NH during some holiday weekend (July 4th?) and it slowed down traffic considerably. They pulled over anyone doing 80+ (in a 65 MPH zone) and ticketed them. I believe it was about eight cars involved all day being fed the people to watch for from what appeared to be a disabled van they passed earlier. The state made thousands off of the Massachusetts drivers that couldn't respect our roads, everyone slowed down and saved gas, reduced emissions, and was safer. We all won :)

Anyways, we really do need to keep the speed limits low for the environments sake. If you don't like it, then I hope my state gets to collect from you so our road taxes remain cheap.

The all or nothing attitude results in the latter ;)

UK has a similar speed camera system (GATSO IIRC - but I think they're upgrading).

80mph is fast. Some small cars get a bit shaky at those speeds.

I have never had a speeding ticket since I started caring about mpg.

If the point is that people are always going to speed, isn't it then the case that people will just go 90 when the limit is 80 instead of 80 when it is 70? Saying that everyone will speed anyway seems like a good reason to have a lower speed limit so even the speeders aren't going 100 mph.

Thats exactly my point. If you are going to have speed limits on the highway you need strict enforcement for everyone's safety. Most states are unwilling to unable to afford the technology and manpower. So they set the speed limit too low and hope that even speeders will drive at some kind of reasonable speed for fear of not being pulled over. Its a dangerous enforcement strategy to a victimless crime.

The upside to higher speed limits or even no speed limit at all is the law of diminishing return. Eventually people pick their own reasonable speed limit. If you combine this with better driver's training, education about right of way and slower traffic keep right, you will get safer highways, fewer accident, less traffic jams and (OMG!) better fleet wide fuel economy because we won't be stuck in stop and go traffic all the time. Higher speeds are also a cheap way of increasing the capacity of existing freeways without having to add more lanes of traffic, something nobody wants to talk about.
I encourage anyone to look up the accident and mortality rate on unrestricted stretches of the German autobahn.


Thinks are not always as they seem.

The parts I'm having trouble with are "too low," "dangerous enforcement strategy" and "victimless crime."

Unfortunately for the US the autobahn isn't safer because everyone is driving as fast as they want, it's safer because German driving standards are much higher, licenses or more difficult to get, penalties are stiffer, and taxes can pay for roads that are safe to drive on at 150 MPH. Do you want to be the state paying all the lawsuits when some driving 100MPH hits a pothole and dies? Even forgetting how bad US drivers are, is it worth the money to build a huge interstate network where people could actually drive as fast as they want with a reasonable assurance of decent road conditions, minimal bends, stronger median walls and side barriers? If you wanna talk about the government padding it's wallet with speeding tickets I wouldn't even want to guess how much that would cost.

Point taken, but speed limits are not part of "higher driving standards" so I don't see what the big fuss is about when Utah wants to raise its speed limit to 80mph. I think its a step in the right direction that other states should follow. When the speed limit goes up, drivers will demand safer highways, better road surfaces, barriers, road signs etc. But at 55, 65 or 70mph theres really no need to improve the quality of the roads.

The German autobahn with all its safety features, driver's training, road quality and the car industry it spawned didn't happen over night. It developed over time as a necesary response to higher speeds.

Many of the interstates I've driven on have large potholes. Hell, in MO they don't even have on ramps for a lot of the roads and it's much harder to pull on or cross them (I'm assuming they just don't have the budget).

But anyway, the issue isn't so much that the road surface matters too much for safety between 55 and 65, but when you get up near 80 I think that and the driver's skill (especially attentiveness) become very important. That's the main difference between the US and places in Europe with high speed limits.

But when it comes down to it, I'm a fan of trains and living near work, which eliminates a lot of these annoying problems.

If you increase the average speed on the highways Americans will become a lot more like the Europeans you describe.
I also completely agree with you about the need for more mass transit in the form of trains and pedestrian friendly cities.

I haven't looked into this a lot, but I've read a few things arguing that german auto safety is a product of the fact that it's much harder to get and keep a license in germany than other countries, not necessarily because germans love being careful, but Iono. I won't argue that point since I don't know.

Here's another study from 1992 that agrees with what tjts1 has been saying. Very intersresting. People just drive as fast as they want regardless of posted speeds.

So I guess fuel economy and emissions are something that we don't need to worry about since no one will try to conserve fuel if the DOT is correct in the report.:(

Maybe higher speeds will encourage people into smaller more fuel efficient cars. An interesting study on speed vs FE.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006...onsumptio.html
Golf TDI at 95mph has the same FE as Mercedes C180k at 50mph. It all goes to hell at about 100mph.
http://bioage.typepad.com/photos/unc.../autobild1.png
In the end I think the real solution is to get people out of car.

This is patently false. The highway has a limit to how many cars it can hold at once, not how many that can move across it, and this causes a small number of the traffic jams. Making them move across it faster will NOT solve this. However, if you have ever taken classes on traffic jams (I have not) or standing wave theories which apply directly to traffic jams (I have) then you will be well aware that the issues actually develop from lane shifting to exit the highway and lower speeds entering the highway. Advancing the speed limit will exacerbate the speed differential causing the same traffic jams quicker. To solve most traffic jams you need fewer exits and entrances and allow traffic to enter the flow at the same speed. Changing a speed limit will not do this.

So you don't think speed limits cause traffic jams?
http://www.campusmoviefest.com/cgi-b...ie?movieID=978

That's not a traffic jam, that is congestion. Speed differentials and sudden braking especially cause standing waves which lead to traffic jams. This is modeled by a compressional wave. Regardless of the initial velocity there will be points of no movement in a compressional wave. As your link clearly illustrates maintaining a herd at a constant pace alleviates any chance of traffic jams.

Anyways, if everyone were driving the speed limit, things would have been fine. In fact, the view from the bridge shows the side abiding by the posted limit is about as congested as the side speeding!

I though I81
 

through Tennessee had a speed limit of 80mph.

Personally, I would prefer seperate speed limits per lane, if we can't enforce "pass on left only". Where I live (off I-270 in MD), running 15-20 mph over the "speed limit" is typical. The one thing that stands out in my mind is a recent flyby by someone doing 120+ in the right lane while I was getting ready to merge. I can't see any means of "enforce 55" that would have stopped him from easily killing me, but other ways might have a chance.

The other thing to remember is just how wildly popular 55 was, and how badly it gets blown by to this day. I think we need to think in terms of getting a few lanes for our own turtle crawl, rather than try to steal the time of others lives.

That idea makes a lot of sense but it would take a lot of political will power and education in order to get something like that enacted into law.

I've seen that more then once in my area. Speed doesn't cause traffic jams, people getting irritated, like that white van in the video, at people like us that go the speed limit (saving our gas) and doing stupid things like passing in the median and tailgating/heavy braking which causes the wave effect. I will admit that driving the speed limit on the highway in with any decent amount of congestion is dangerous, however, I do stay in the far right lane at all times and if someone has a problem with it they can pass me. There is a reason why there is more then one lane in each direction on the highway, it's so that those going faster can go around those going slower to avoid exactly what happened in that video. Looking at it in that way, I'll be the traffic would have been worse had they left the left lane open...

That doesn't seem to make sense...

The faster you go, the more space you need to maintain a safe following distance. If you increase speeds, and drivers increase the gaps between cars, you end up with less capacity.

If you increase speed without increasing following distances, you end up with a much less safe road and more catastrophic crashes when they happen.

A good read on the subject.
http://www.usroads.com/journals/aruj/9709/ru970901.htm

And another one.
http://www.azdot.gov/highways/traffic/Speed.asp

How the Germans deal with speed limits.
http://www.gettingaroundgermany.info...tm#speedlimits

That seems to confirm that lowering the limit increases capacity...

From second link
While it doesn't specifically say capacity increases with lower speeds (it just says lower speeds are used when volume is high) - its last point doesn't link carrying capacity with speed.

And in the third link - limits are set in areas of heavy congestion....

This is actually rather interesting - I wonder if there's a Bernoulli like model for this.

..... researching......

So it looks like Metro was right...
http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm96.htm

Vehicle density and vehicle flow (vehicles per hour per lane) increase in a nonlinear fashion as speed reduces. That is, maximum traffic volume (capacity) is higher for slower moving traffic.

Not really. If you read the article carefully, they never link limit to capacity, wrather traffic self regulates the speed at any given point based on congestion. So to infer that a speed limit would increase capacity is wrong. You can cherry pick from these articles to support any point of view you want. I just thought the first article was an interesting study, the second article pointed out the process by which the 85% rule is applied and the completely different approach in Germany. If anything the study shows that the arbitrary speed limit is completely irrelevant to most drivers.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3088/...55d0be01_o.jpg

fwiw when i lived in Florida I drove 90+ everyday, never got pulled over (i even drove 65 in a 45 with a police officer literally right next to me didn't get a second, much less a first glance from the officer) anyhow, point being that law enforcement on average is pretty week when it comes to speeding in SOME areas. as for fuel economy, difference between 65 mph and 90 mph was minimal, but then again the car is engineered a little different then most.. now as for my jeeps, they never go over 65 and they love the right lane, different vehicle different driving habits, I know that my jeeps fuel economy drops quickly over 55ish.
/end rant
john

Contrast & compare: Switzerland cutting speed limits to reduce emissions

I would hate to see Utah pass that. Its because they all ready do that or more on a consistent bases. Utah drivers are poor to say the least (wouldn't last 10 min in Phoenix,Seattle or LA),I take my life in my hands every time I have to venture into UT to hit a major Airport. So I really hope they don't raise it to 80!

Funny thing about the Movie the GA students did..
By going the speed limit in all lanes - by NOT passing in the passing lane or yielding to cars behind them - they created a roadblock - which is illegal and they were Ticketed for creating a rolling roadblock.


If you change the thought around - it gets kinda scarry...."It is illegal to not get out of speeders way".

Steve

I have not read the majority of this thread; but I have an AWESOME Idea (at least in my head)

Cafe standards would vary from state to state (with a national ##), highway MPG would be calculated with steady state speed, level road, 72 deg, etc etc at the highway speed limit.

Would make auto manufactures much more in tune with aero!

I live in one of the worse states for speed limit setting and enforcement. In Ohio, the speed limit is way low (sometimes illegal for the road to be defined as an interstate) and there is massive enforcement. You see cops everywhere sitting in the middle of the road, idling, waiting to catch a random speeder.

There are some major problems with keeping the highway limit too low: First, interstates are much better able to handle large amounts of traffic. That can't be denied. Very large radius turns and very long sight-distances with many other measures to handle large volume and to be able to see far in advance what is going on. Second, most people will always try to find the fastest way to get somewhere. Now here comes the big issue. Lowering the limit on the highway (like they did with the 55 mess) pushes a large volume of traffic onto secondary and county roads. It's very easy to do 55-60 on a lot of lonely stretches of county & township roads. Except they don't become so lonely anymore. The death rate soars on these side roads people use to try and beat the highway. Very rarely will you see that listed in statistics. Advocates for lower speeds tend to focus on just the highway death rate even though the overall deaths/mile is increasing. Which makes complete sense, because you want the largest volume on the safer highways.

Here in Ohio, trucks are still limited to 55 mph. Whereas car traffic can go up to 65. We will stay away from why that is so silly to increase car to truck interaction with the speed differential... but this phenomenon was still happening with the trucks! They were jumping off the highway and trying to fly through small towns. These trucks were slamming into minivans and killing people left and right. They finally relented and let trucks do 65 only on the turnpike, state highway patrol (speed increases biggest opponent in Ohio) was coming out with reports of fractional increases in total accidents on the turnpike within weeks. Of course with nothing stated about how many involved trucks.

I can understand why many people on here think everyone should just go slow, unfortunately its not going to happen en masse anytime soon. But in the meantime I think the safety factor should also be considered in setting speed limits, too. I can't imagine justifying people dying for FE reasons. Let the people live and educate them on why they should drive slower. :) I know I am enjoying the learning.

My truck won't sustain those speeds without damage. The gearing isn't there; she revs too high and starts to overheat if I go a long time over 75.

I've seen folks get ticketed for going too slowly. If they raise the limit so high that my old but otherwise perfectly serviceable vehicle can't stay within 10mph of the limit, does that mean I get a ticket for unsafe vehicle operation, even though before the change I wasn't a hazard? That's unacceptable, to be trapped by a changed standard - legal one day, but not the next.

If your vehicle can't keep up with the flow of traffic, it is a hazard to all other road users and you deserve to be ticketed. Stay off the highway and use local roads. You wouldn't want somebody in a golf cart using the freeway either.

Utah has the worse drivers I have ever seen. Why did I move back here:confused:

UDOT says drivers going slower in 80 mph zones
 

Interesting, tjts.

I actually like the 75mph interstates in Indiana. There's something relaxing about going the speed you want, without passing or being passed much, and without breaking the law.

I've also driven 74mph on urban expressways (55 posted) through Buffalo. It works, but passing people who are going 60 isn't pleasant.

If they were to open an Autobahn in America, I'd have to make sure to use 110mph-worthy fasteners on the Insight's coroplast, and get ready for 40mpg in an Insight.

I wish NYS would make the speed limit on the rural interstates 70 or 75 during April-October and 65 during the winter months. Many folks do 70 or faster during the summer. Slowing down during the winter makes sense because of all the snow and ice NY experiences.

It's both hilarious and maddening to be doing 65 on I-90 and watch the "conga line" of folks whipping by me suddenly slam on their brakes when they spot a state trooper. They drop to 60, which suddenly makes me the lawbreaker for passing on the right...:mad: