"National speed limit pushed as gas saver"

Discussion in 'Legislation' started by Steve_O, Jul 4, 2008.

  1. JLrsx

    JLrsx JLrsx

    Lowering the speed limit is a good move period. Yes people speed all the time, and yes the will keep doing it. But they will only do it to a certain point. 20 MPH over is reckless driving, so you see alot of people going 80-85 where the speed limit is 70. How many go whizzing by at 120? Not many because there is a point where it is enforced and quite harshly. So if you lower it to 55 or lets say 60...people may still speed but they will go maybe 70 instead of 80 and it will still reduce fuel comsumption.

    Saying that drilling for more domestic oil wont lower prices is ignorant. Alot of flucuation in the market is due to speculation. 2 weeks ago crude prices had dropped $6 dollars then Iran tested new rockets. Increasing speculation that war with Iran could happen. Crude prices went right back up. About a week ago GWB removed the executive ban on drilling and crude oil prices have dropped 16 dollars a barrel since. Just the feeling that there will be more future oil supplies is enough to drop prices. It may take 5-10 years to drill but if the market knows more oil is coming they dont have to increase prices to slow demand.

    If you want to speed, do it. But saying that slowing down an entire nation (the nation with more vehicles than any at that) of vehicles wont help fuel prices, is...well...retarded to put it bluntly.
     
  2. infoweightion

    infoweightion Member

    Is anybody a cop here? They tend to have a code among themselves to let each other off when they are speeding off duty. I used to work with a woman who would tell the police officer that her husband was on the force (not the Jedi thing) and she would be let off doing 10-15 over and she bragged about this all the time. Years later, her husband, running radar, was on front page news about speed traps on the freeway and what the city would do with the windfall of $100,000 revenue generated from the tickets. Noone knew where the money went. I rode with my friend who was pulled over for doing 18 over and was about to be given a ticket until the police officer asked for ID and was flashed a law enforcement ID, my friend is a deputy sherriff. He said that he's been let off for doing as fast as 130 mph. They can't enforce the law among themselves. This is probably why everyone sees someone flying at 10-20 mph over the speed limit, they work in police, sherriff, US marshal, or state trooper/highway patrol, and are off duty. That is why I see trouble with enforcement of 55 mph speed limit.
     
  3. A024523

    A024523 Currently in Training

    I have heard about that. Very interesting, so many cops probably would feel like hypocits for handing out sppeding tickets to folks. That might explain the leniency of generally not ticketing for those speeding within 10 MPH of the psl .
     
  4. Dan

    Dan KiloTanked in post 153451

    I remember driving back in 80's before MADD went into full force. Saturday night driving in the Country was a crap shoot at best. Seemed like at least 1/3 of all drivers in that hour after the bars closed were 3-sheets-to-the-wind. Then something changed in Texas. Repeated DWI convictions became a felony. Didn't change at first, but after a few guys spent a few months / years in the state pen, that curbed the behavior quickly. If you recall back in the 70's driving drunk was considered as victimless as speeding or street racing. Views change and if people really considered how many innocent motorists are killed or injured by people who's reaction time was to slow for their speed, things might change. Something like a felony conviction for serious injury to another as a result of speeding might do it.
    Logical point and counter point:

    Premise: If the majority does it than it's right.
    Correlary: If only a minority of people do it, than it's wrong.

    Point: The majority of people speed, so speeding is OK, and speeding laws should be repealed.

    Counter Point: The majority of people don't participate in the election process in the US, so elections should no longer be held.

    See the flaw? If only one person votes in an election, it's still that persons right to participate and its wrong for others (even a sweeping majority of others) to take that right away. So... If I (as a licensed motorist) choose to travel the US motorways at a velocity BETWEEN the posted minimum and maximum speeds, it is my right to do so. If others (even a sweeping majority of others) disagree with my choice of speeds, it is still wrong of them to force me, through action or suggestion (ie tailgating), to travel at a velocity outside the legal limits (both above or below).

    11011011
     
  5. Shiba3420

    Shiba3420 Well-Known Member

    Another good reason for automated systems....they don't care who does the speeding...they just issue the ticket. Even when a human gets involved during the review/data entry portion, they just keep writing the tickets out. I wonder where these things are used, has anyone come across themselves speeding & not issued the ticket? I wonder if there is an internal review process where they might catch someone doing that?


    And of corse the government is supposed to uphold what is morally right no matter how popular an idea is. Everyone is down on Mr X, so we because eveyone hates & wants to hurt them, the goverment should allow it....obviously not.
     
  6. WriConsult

    WriConsult Super Moderator

    So Sen. Warner asked what is the optimal speed for fuel economy? I'll tell him: probably about 45 mph, on average. If FE is the sole reason for choosing a speed limit, then it's time for a national 45 mph limit. There are very few cars whose FE will increase significantly at speeds higher than this (I see lots of claims to the contrary from people with low post counts, but very little real evidence -- mostly people believing what they want to believe IMO). And even those few cars will still get better mpg at lower speeds if P&G is used.

    Setting speeds exclusively based on driver behavior would be even more ludicrous. Sure, people tailgate and speed because they "feel" it's safe. That's just proof that people aren't good judges of their own safety, let alone that of others. How many many times have you run into someone who's afraid to fly -- even though flying has proven many times safer than driving the same distance? I've run into plenty of newbie drivers who are scared of the freeway even though it's dramatically safer than the backroads. And I can't tell you how many people have expressed concern for my safety (or that of my son in the trailer) as a bicyclist, even though cycling is just as safe as driving on a per-mile basis and 3 times safer on a per-hour basis. You can't feel safety. If people were such good judges of their own safety, we wouldn't have 10,000 people brutally killed in bloody mayhem on our roads every year. I'm learning in my signal timing class that the measure of 85th percentile speed can be very useful for traffic planning and optimization purposes, but that doesn't mean it should be the basis for our speed limits!

    Setting speed limits needs to be a compromise between based on either crash severity and fuel efficiency on the one hand vs. expediency (and possibly a reduced rate of solo crashes from drowsy driving) on the other hand. Again, I think it's silly that this arbitrary 55 number keeps coming up. 55 is neither optimal for safety nor fuel economy, and was a compromise when it was first imposed. The question is not "should we impose a national speed limit of 55 mph?" it is "if we imposed a national speed limit, what would the limit be?" Personally, I still think 60 is the best compromise. It will get much better compliance, will still save a ton of fuel and lives, allows those of us who want to drive 55-60 to do that safely while allowing breathing room for P&Ging and coasting down hills.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2008
  7. fixedintime

    fixedintime Well-Known Member

    Montgomery County, MD had a real stink a few months back when the cops in cop cars driving on their own time (not on duty, and something they were allowed to do) got caught with the speed camera. A number of them felt they should not pay the fines - "the county owns the car" - even got pictures of them giving the camera the one finger salute. The county and the head of the police department felt otherwise.
     
  8. hobbit

    hobbit He who posts articles

    Try 40,000, not 10,000. That's from the NHTSA stats I found
    while researching the hack-speech thing.
    .
    _H*
     
  9. WriConsult

    WriConsult Super Moderator

    Ooops, you're right. I realized that was wrong after I typed it. I was getting that mixed up with a different statistic.
     
  10. laurieaw

    laurieaw Sorceress of the North

    AMEN. you said it as well as i have ever heard it said.
     
  11. jcp123

    jcp123 Caliente!

    I know 55 helps my non-overdrive Mustang out a lot (17,7mpg vs. 15,5mpg at 65 and 14mpg at 70, a full 25% improvement), but would it really be as effective with overdrive as on non-overdrivers? Of course it'll help some out (although as I've said before, my conversion van seemed to have an FE sweet spot at 70), but would it then be worth the b!tching and moaning you'd hear everyone doing?

    Make no mistake, I'd favour a 55mph speed limit myself, but my libertarian side says no...
     
  12. melinuxfool

    melinuxfool Well-Known Member

    Well, if saving gas were the only reason for a speed limit, then there should not be any speed limits at all going down hills, so you wouldn't have to use brakes.

    I say let the states choose their own speed limits appropriate for the people who live there based on sound engineering principles. After all, limit is the key word. Your speed can be less than or equal to that speed, but must never exceed it. That is my take on the meaning of the word "limit." For example, 45 or 55 on the interstate would be fine for states like Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, and other small states. But bigger states, where cities are further apart might want 65 or 70.

    I think the real key is getting drivers to have respect for the law. Set the speed limit at the true maximum safe speed for which the highway was designed (yes, that might even be as high as 80 mph on some roads), but make the penalties for exceeding those speed limits very severe, such as fines in the thousands, or even jail-time. The problems we have on our roadways now come from it being considered commonplace and acceptable to be a scofflaw on the roadways.
     

Share This Page