do you support an 85 mph speed limit?
Poll
 | 16 votes (45.71%) | ||
| | 7 votes (20%) | ||
| | 10 votes (28.57%) | ||
| | 2 votes (5.71%) |
35 members have voted
April 14th, 2011 at 11:19:32 PM
permalink
The Texas House of Representatives passed a a new bill that would allow the state to raise speed limits on some highways to 85 miles per hour during the day. The Texas Senate is considering a similar bill. (Texas already has more than 520 miles of highway with an 80 mph speed limit.) Proponents say that the 85 mph limit would apply only to new roads in rural areas that have been engineered to accomodate high speed traffic. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which opposes the increase, says its studies have shown that deaths on rural interstates increased 25-30 percent when states began increasing speed limits from 55 to 65 mph in 1987.
Is it a good idea to raise the speed limit to 85 mph?
Is it a good idea to raise the speed limit to 85 mph?
April 14th, 2011 at 11:23:06 PM
permalink
I had the pleasure of driving on I-90 back in 1997. Unlimited speed limit: "Reasonable and Proper" Had the wife take a pic of me first sign I saw. Ahh memories.
When a rock is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yells the loudest is the one who got hit.
April 14th, 2011 at 11:28:59 PM
permalink
I support the German unlimited Autobahn system, actually. "Unlimited" doesn't mean you drive as fast as possible, it means people who want to drive fast, drive as fast as they can reasonably fit into the traffic flow.
And Germany has almost twice lower road fatality rate than US. And German Autobahns, specifically, have substantially lower accident and fatality rates than US highways. In fact, they have a 3 times lower fatality rate than non-Autobahns.
Yes, there are people who prefer to drive slow and there are cars that can only go slow. They have the outermost lane, and they can have designated slowpoke roads. For the rest of us, going faster in fact reduces road congestion, because you need less time to get where you're going and so spend less time clogging the road. Time-division multiple access.
And Germany has almost twice lower road fatality rate than US. And German Autobahns, specifically, have substantially lower accident and fatality rates than US highways. In fact, they have a 3 times lower fatality rate than non-Autobahns.
Yes, there are people who prefer to drive slow and there are cars that can only go slow. They have the outermost lane, and they can have designated slowpoke roads. For the rest of us, going faster in fact reduces road congestion, because you need less time to get where you're going and so spend less time clogging the road. Time-division multiple access.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
April 15th, 2011 at 6:01:40 AM
permalink
I support it on roads that can handle it. I do not buy the "speed kills" thing. Deaths might have increased but what else changed? In my experience the slow car traveling in the interstate is what causes the accident. You are going 65-70 and come up on someone doing 50-55 and you have to slow down, it causes a chain reaction. I also know when I am going 70-75 I am far less likely to be distracted as the higher speed causes me to pay more attention.
On high speed limits, they need to be decided by the states. Back here in PA I have talked to people who said we should have 75 mph limits here. I said, "no way" and my reasoning is when you get to the plains you can see miles down the road. Here that is rarely the case. I have been on roads in NM/AZ where there is a posted limit of 75, flowing with traffic, wondering why the car got so noisy. Look down and doing 90+! And people passing me!
Todays cars are very safe, 85 should be little problem on roads that can handle it. To save lives, instead of lowering limits we shouold HEAVILY fine people who hang in the left lane for miles, cruise control set at the speed limit.
On high speed limits, they need to be decided by the states. Back here in PA I have talked to people who said we should have 75 mph limits here. I said, "no way" and my reasoning is when you get to the plains you can see miles down the road. Here that is rarely the case. I have been on roads in NM/AZ where there is a posted limit of 75, flowing with traffic, wondering why the car got so noisy. Look down and doing 90+! And people passing me!
Todays cars are very safe, 85 should be little problem on roads that can handle it. To save lives, instead of lowering limits we shouold HEAVILY fine people who hang in the left lane for miles, cruise control set at the speed limit.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
April 15th, 2011 at 6:36:42 AM
permalink
85 is fine. Given that we're allowed up to 10 over here in PA, that puts me right in the range I'm most comfortable. If I want to save gas I can go slower, if traffic is heavy I can go slower, if I have an open road I don't have to worry about paying a speed tax.
A falling knife has no handle.
April 15th, 2011 at 6:44:25 AM
permalink
Y'all are nuts. I guess a speed limit of around 80 is okay for pretty much empty roads, but it seems way too high if these roads have decent volume on them.
If I were in charge I'd go with 60 mph for roads with pretty heavy use. 70 mph for the rural stretches between the roads with heavy use. 80 mph for the roads that are pretty much in the middle of nowhere.
My reasoning is that people pretty much are always going to go 7-10 mph over the speed limit, and I don't trust people on the interstate going faster than 80.
If I were in charge I'd go with 60 mph for roads with pretty heavy use. 70 mph for the rural stretches between the roads with heavy use. 80 mph for the roads that are pretty much in the middle of nowhere.
My reasoning is that people pretty much are always going to go 7-10 mph over the speed limit, and I don't trust people on the interstate going faster than 80.
April 15th, 2011 at 7:06:01 AM
permalink
We are not nuts. You need to get out more often.
When a rock is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yells the loudest is the one who got hit.
April 15th, 2011 at 7:23:40 AM
permalink
Quote: FinsRuleY'all are nuts. I guess a speed limit of around 80 is okay for pretty much empty roads, but it seems way too high if these roads have decent volume on them.
Modern cars have gone a long way from what they used to be. A 997 is as safe at 120 as the original VW was at 40. You have fat tires, ABS, TC, PSM, everything. And then if you still manage to crash you have crumple zones, high-strength center cages, airbags all around. Cutting the speed is not a solution.
Optimally, we just need separate roads for cars (100+mph, <4,000 lbs) and trucks or antiques (<70 mph, any weight). They don't have to be entirely separate, can be just more separation on the same multilane. Removing trucks from fast roads will get rid of the danger they present in collisions, and increasing the speeds will keep the roads clearer.
That and some rush hour suppression measures such as promoting staggered work hours will do wonders for keeping the roads safe and comfortable.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
April 15th, 2011 at 7:27:21 AM
permalink
Given the size of Texas, 85 seems low....
I recall driving from Laredo to Houston at a 55 mph limit. They even had some signs near the border indicating the max speed as 90 kph. Talk about slow. At the time there was no direct flight from Monterrey to Houston.
I recall driving from Laredo to Houston at a 55 mph limit. They even had some signs near the border indicating the max speed as 90 kph. Talk about slow. At the time there was no direct flight from Monterrey to Houston.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
April 15th, 2011 at 7:57:58 AM
permalink
Quote: P90... Removing trucks from fast roads will get rid of the danger they present in collisions, and increasing the speeds will keep the roads clearer. ...
I suspect the original edition of JerryLogan would have blasted this comment. The latest incarnation seems to be trying to avoid being outed/banned, but the bad attitude still shows through.
April 15th, 2011 at 9:11:54 AM
permalink
Quote: P90I support the German unlimited Autobahn system, actually. "Unlimited" doesn't mean you drive as fast as possible, it means people who want to drive fast, drive as fast as they can reasonably fit into the traffic flow.
And Germany has almost twice lower road fatality rate than US. And German Autobahns, specifically, have substantially lower accident and fatality rates than US highways. In fact, they have a 3 times lower fatality rate than non-Autobahns.
Yes, there are people who prefer to drive slow and there are cars that can only go slow. They have the outermost lane, and they can have designated slowpoke roads. For the rest of us, going faster in fact reduces road congestion, because you need less time to get where you're going and so spend less time clogging the road. Time-division multiple access.
But most people in Germany don't drive nearly as much as Americans. Gas has been so expensive they have adjusted. Lots of train use, as well. 85 will enhance oil import dependence if that is what you are willing to accept.
April 15th, 2011 at 9:21:15 AM
permalink
Quote: dmBut most people in Germany don't drive nearly as much as Americans.
It's per mile traveled.
Quote: dm85 will enhance oil import dependence if that is what you are willing to accept.
A modern car consumes only barely more gas at 80 than it does at 60. A good modern car consumes less gas at 100 than a clunker at 50.
Plus, if trucks are forced off fast roads, you'll actually have less gas consumption as they'll have to stick to big rig and granny speed limits, and their poor aerodynamics and excess weight do make their gas consumption substantially affected by speed.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
April 15th, 2011 at 9:30:54 AM
permalink
So, we need to have a high speed limit for modern cars, low limit for clunkers and trucks. I hope "only barely more" is not that much,
but it might sound convincing to some.
but it might sound convincing to some.
April 15th, 2011 at 10:03:00 AM
permalink
Quote:A modern car consumes only barely more gas at 80 than it does at 60.
If you consider 23%ish reduced MPG "barely more", then yeah.
I have lived in the LA and San Diego areas for all my life, so I know a lot about freeways (and more to the point, how traffic works in my area). I am not sure how it works in other cities, but in LA, the traffic slams to 0mph on a dime. It is quite amazing to see, but it has happened to me quite a few times times. You will be cruising along at 75mph and then BAM you see a wall of cars stopped ahead of you. This is not something you can avoid, your can't just "look ahead" because it happens so suddenly. I know for certain accidents will rise if people are going 85 when that happeneds.
I think in major cities, 65-70mph is what it has to be, due to irratic traffic. On the outskirts of cities, 75 is more acceptable (cops will let you get away with 80ish), due to less traffic concerns. In more rural areas where you dont see many cars, 80 is fine (cops will let you get away with 85ish). All of which is assuming the roads are rated for those speeds.
I do not doubt that cars can handle it. What I doubt is the ability of people to handle higher speeds, especially in high traffic areas. God forbid if it rains and the speed limit is 85. People in LA freak the hell out when it rains and think its ok to do 80 when the freeway is soaked. Bad idea, just check LA accident reports on rainy days.
April 15th, 2011 at 10:03:31 AM
permalink
Quote: P90A modern car consumes only barely more gas at 80 than it does at 60.
I was curious about that so I did a little digging. Google had a lot of hits using "gas mileage by speed" that said there was a significant decrease over 55, and http://www.mpgforspeed.com/ was one of the more comprehensive ones:
Quote:According to studies backed by the department of energy, the average car will be at its advertised MPG at 55 mph. But as the speed increases:
- 3% less efficient at 60 mph
- 8% less efficient at 65 mph
- 17% less efficient at 70 mph
- 23% less efficient at 75 mph
- 28% less efficient at 80 mph
The also have a nifty "MPG For Speed Calculator" that you can input your data on your own driving habits to see how speed relates to your own situation.
April 15th, 2011 at 10:30:47 AM
permalink
I drive at between 55-60 MPH and I find that I get the best mileage at these speeds. If there is no traffic, say in the middle of the night, I will go 50-55 MPH. To paraphrase Tom Cruise, "I DON'T feel the need for speed!"Quote: PaulEWogI was curious about that so I did a little digging. Google had a lot of hits using "gas mileage by speed" that said there was a significant decrease over 55, and http://www.mpgforspeed.com/ was one of the more comprehensive ones:
Helps to have a sucky car, too.
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
April 15th, 2011 at 10:34:21 AM
permalink
Quote: ssjdraQuote:A modern car consumes only barely more gas at 80 than it does at 60.
If you consider 23%ish reduced MPG "barely more", then yeah.
I have lived in the LA and San Diego areas for all my life, so I know a lot about freeways (and more to the point, how traffic works in my area). I am not sure how it works in other cities, but in LA, the traffic slams to 0mph on a dime. It is quite amazing to see, but it has happened to me quite a few times times. You will be cruising along at 75mph and then BAM you see a wall of cars stopped ahead of you. This is not something you can avoid, your can't just "look ahead" because it happens so suddenly. I know for certain accidents will rise if people are going 85 when that happeneds.
I think in major cities, 65-70mph is what it has to be, due to irratic traffic. On the outskirts of cities, 75 is more acceptable (cops will let you get away with 80ish), due to less traffic concerns. In more rural areas where you dont see many cars, 80 is fine (cops will let you get away with 85ish). All of which is assuming the roads are rated for those speeds.
I do not doubt that cars can handle it. What I doubt is the ability of people to handle higher speeds, especially in high traffic areas. God forbid if it rains and the speed limit is 85. People in LA freak the hell out when it rains and think its ok to do 80 when the freeway is soaked. Bad idea, just check LA accident reports on rainy days.
Wow, I think you're missing the point. Texas isn't gonna make it 85 smack in the middle of Houston (drivers do that already if I recall). Much of Texas is flat and wiiiiide open so 85 on I-35 between Austin and Waco is no big deal.
The situation is nothing like LA/San Diego at all.
"Poker sure is an easy game to beat if you have the roll to keep rebuying."
April 15th, 2011 at 11:13:34 AM
permalink
Quote: zippyboyWow, I think you're missing the point. Texas isn't gonna make it 85 smack in the middle of Houston (drivers do that already if I recall). Much of Texas is flat and wiiiiide open so 85 on I-35 between Austin and Waco is no big deal.
The situation is nothing like LA/San Diego at all.
It's true they're not going to make it 85 in the middle of Houston (and also true that drivers do that already), they won't do it on 35 between Austin and Waco, either. 35 is heavily traveled all the way from the OK border to San Antonio ... although it's *possible* it could go 85 on the way to Laredo. But mostly it's a parking lot, esp. on Fri-Sun. It needs about 2 more lanes each way between Dallas and San Antonio.
The rule is meant for those long stretches in west Texas that are flat and remote. I'm guessing you won't see it on 35, 45, any spur/loop, or on any stretches between DFW/HOU/SA/Austin. I'd guess you'll see it on 10, 20, 30, and 40 west of those cities, and slowing back down as it approaches El Paso/Amarillo/etc.
April 15th, 2011 at 1:44:27 PM
permalink
If the speed limits increase, I would want to be sure that the cars on the road are mechanically sound. Some states do thorough vehicle inspections others do none. Massachusetts for example does a very comprehensive inspection. The checklist is quite long and includes just about everything on the car. A car will not pass if there is one light out , a small windshield crack , or minor floorboard rust. Each vehicle is jacked up and the ball joints are checked.
Connecticut sticks an emissions probe up the tailpipe and sends you on your way. The car can be literally falling apart, but if it passes emissions you're good to go.
I know that I could drive safely at 85 mph, but isn't that what everyone says?
Connecticut sticks an emissions probe up the tailpipe and sends you on your way. The car can be literally falling apart, but if it passes emissions you're good to go.
I know that I could drive safely at 85 mph, but isn't that what everyone says?
April 15th, 2011 at 2:10:46 PM
permalink
Apparently, gamblers like speed! Here are 3 points for y'all to debunk:
1) The insurance industry is lobbying hard to prevent the Texas legislature from raising the speed limit. Why are they so biased? Why do insurance companies hate our freedom? They're biased because accidents at faster speeds tend to be more serious than accidents at slower speeds, and insurance companies have a financial motive to prevent more serious accidents. (By the way, when their costs go up, insurance companies won't eat the difference. They'll pass the costs on to all Texas drivers.)
2) Are faster speed limits more dangerous for police? Cops tend to tolerate drivers who speed only 5 miles above the limit. So to get a cop's attention in a 85 mph zone, some lunatic will need to be going 95 or 100. And for the cop to catch the lunatic, he'll need to go 105 or 110.
3) The law is intended for unpopulated areas where there aren't many cars around. There aren't many hospitals around, either.
1) The insurance industry is lobbying hard to prevent the Texas legislature from raising the speed limit. Why are they so biased? Why do insurance companies hate our freedom? They're biased because accidents at faster speeds tend to be more serious than accidents at slower speeds, and insurance companies have a financial motive to prevent more serious accidents. (By the way, when their costs go up, insurance companies won't eat the difference. They'll pass the costs on to all Texas drivers.)
2) Are faster speed limits more dangerous for police? Cops tend to tolerate drivers who speed only 5 miles above the limit. So to get a cop's attention in a 85 mph zone, some lunatic will need to be going 95 or 100. And for the cop to catch the lunatic, he'll need to go 105 or 110.
3) The law is intended for unpopulated areas where there aren't many cars around. There aren't many hospitals around, either.
April 15th, 2011 at 2:43:08 PM
permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer 35 is heavily traveled all the way from the OK border to San Antonio ... although it's *possible* it could go 85 on the way to Laredo. But mostly it's a parking lot, esp. on Fri-Sun. It needs about 2 more lanes each way between Dallas and San Antonio.
The rule is meant for those long stretches in west Texas that are flat and remote. I'm guessing you won't see it on 35, 45, any spur/loop, or on any stretches between DFW/HOU/SA/Austin. I'd guess you'll see it on 10, 20, 30, and 40 west of those cities, and slowing back down as it approaches El Paso/Amarillo/etc.
[/q
Remember this is a Texas action and would apply to freeways with "marginal" traffic. I agree that a blanket 85 isn't reasonable on urban freeways anywhere. But as ICS says there are many stretches of road in Texas where 85 (+) is reasonable. Going from San Antonio to El Paso on 10 or to Laredo on 35 are examples. The Texas DOT has built good freeways (wish I could find a cite on the maximum speed/design), seems the banking is appropriate for > than the current 75mph. Texas does have annual car inspections, I'd guess they're as good as any other state - sometime they check if your brakes work.
April 15th, 2011 at 2:51:45 PM
permalink
Many of the areas that would seem safe at 85 are heavily populated with deer. If you want instant sausage, 85 will do it.
April 15th, 2011 at 2:51:52 PM
permalink
I always have and probably always will support going faster. I just can't help myself.
Of course an increase in speed limit shouldn't mean across the board. In heavily populated areas the limit should be reduced due to merging and congestion, but when in the sticks we should be able to have at it. On the I-90 in NY you only have Rochester and Syracuse to worry about, the rest is just one long, hilly, stretch of nothing. Let us open it up. Same with I-86 in PA. Yeah, in some parts it gets a little sketchy due to geography, simply lower it back to normal for those parts.
I know the stats masters will show the terrible inefficiency of higher speeds. I say 'Bah!'. I used to have a Dodge Ram quad cab hemi that got 16.9 mpg at 60mph, the same truck with the same load got 16.3 mpg at 105mph. That small of a difference wouldn't concern me for the few times I hop on the interstate. Also, aren't cars designed with current speed limits in mind? It wouldn't totally erase the lessened fuel efficiency, but I would think if the limits were suddenly raised 20mph across the board, the gearing would likewise be changed to accomodate the new driving habits. Instead of turning 4k rpm at 100, my truck might be in the mid 2k's with the new gearing, therefore offsetting the loss. Just a thought.
I also think cars should be 'classed'. A new ZR1 with all it's driving assists and crash technology shouldn't be lumped in with a '65 Yugo, nor a GSXR litre bike be lumped with a Mack dump truck. If it's not the cars but the people, hell, I'd gladly pay for a go-fast license. I get permission to go fast, NYS gets much needed revenue, win-win baby! All we'd need is an FDR/Eisenhower type to build a transcontinental autobahn type highway, and I could cancel my trip to Nurburgring.
Of course an increase in speed limit shouldn't mean across the board. In heavily populated areas the limit should be reduced due to merging and congestion, but when in the sticks we should be able to have at it. On the I-90 in NY you only have Rochester and Syracuse to worry about, the rest is just one long, hilly, stretch of nothing. Let us open it up. Same with I-86 in PA. Yeah, in some parts it gets a little sketchy due to geography, simply lower it back to normal for those parts.
I know the stats masters will show the terrible inefficiency of higher speeds. I say 'Bah!'. I used to have a Dodge Ram quad cab hemi that got 16.9 mpg at 60mph, the same truck with the same load got 16.3 mpg at 105mph. That small of a difference wouldn't concern me for the few times I hop on the interstate. Also, aren't cars designed with current speed limits in mind? It wouldn't totally erase the lessened fuel efficiency, but I would think if the limits were suddenly raised 20mph across the board, the gearing would likewise be changed to accomodate the new driving habits. Instead of turning 4k rpm at 100, my truck might be in the mid 2k's with the new gearing, therefore offsetting the loss. Just a thought.
I also think cars should be 'classed'. A new ZR1 with all it's driving assists and crash technology shouldn't be lumped in with a '65 Yugo, nor a GSXR litre bike be lumped with a Mack dump truck. If it's not the cars but the people, hell, I'd gladly pay for a go-fast license. I get permission to go fast, NYS gets much needed revenue, win-win baby! All we'd need is an FDR/Eisenhower type to build a transcontinental autobahn type highway, and I could cancel my trip to Nurburgring.
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
April 15th, 2011 at 5:46:38 PM
permalink
Quote: ssjdraIf you consider 23%ish reduced MPG "barely more", then yeah.
23% for what? The "average modern car", which includes Hummers and pickup trucks?
Here is some actual data, as recorded for Prius. Note how the fuel consumption doesn't even begin to increase until it's over 70mph.
Slowpoke advocacy sites (which have "reset national speed limit to 55 please" written all over) are hardly unbiased and comprehensive resources, and just use fuel economy as an excuse to justify being tired of guys overtaking their clunker.
Note that the graph is for Prius, which isn't exactly new and isn't exactly built for speed. The optimum speed has been steadily increasing over the years. In 1973 best fuel economy was achieved at 30-40mph, in 1984 at 40-50mph, in 1997 at 55-60mph. That's peak, for an average car. For properly made cars, as you can see even in the Mercedes graph on that site, it's always been higher.
As we are putting more powerful engines into our cars - which we are doing anyway, regardless of the speed limit - they need higher power output to operate efficiently. An engine idling around at 3% its power is wasting a lot of fuel just overcoming its resistance, pumping fluids, driving appliances, and outright pumping air in and out. Fuel can be much better spent running it a bit more power, but for shorter time.
These graphs are also from clean tests. Add air conditioning into the mix, and the optimum speed will be pushed further up, as aircon's power draw is constant per unit time.
Another well raised points is that cars are designed for certain optimum speed. Currently, due to speed limits, it's around 60mph. One of the simplest performance and economy changes that can be made to a car is gearing - a long 6th gear has substantial effect on fuel economy. A Porsche 997 with long 6th gear easily pushes most cars out of the way in terms of highway fuel economy (over 40mpg), because that engine needs somewhere to put its torque that is otherwise wasted. In fact, the limit on fuel economy becomes how low a speed the engine can still run at.
We have improved vehicle aerodynamics greatly since 1990s, traditional saloons are now mostly a relic of the past, replaced by fastbacks, cars have more streamlined fronts, even unibody design has almost gained mainstream acceptance. We have improved the engines, making them more efficient and more powerful, but they need to work at higher output to utilize these improvements. We have improved safety, so cars can now withstand higher energy impacts without harming the occupant. It's about time we take the next logical step and put all of the above to good use - raise the speed limit to where it should, in historic context, already be by now.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
April 15th, 2011 at 6:07:28 PM
permalink
What is the point of having speed limit in the first place?
If it is safety, 85 is way too high. I mean, it is definitely not always safe to drive 85 mph, in any road, traffic and weather conditions. In other words, we have to rely on the ability of the drivers to chose the "proper and reasonable" speed according to the current driving conditions, right? But if we do trust that the drivers will do that, then why have speed limit? Does everybody suddenly go stupid as the speed approaches 85? Probably not. If we trust that the drivers are capable of selecting the correct speed, we don't need the speed limit. If we do not trust them, then 85 is too high.
Perhaps, the point of having speed limit is not really safety then? Traffic tickets can make a good contribution to the state's budget. But in that case, the higher the limit, the lower the number of tickets that can be issued, the lower the revenue. So, from the revenue standpoint, 85 is way too high too - there will be fewer violations.
I don't see any logical reason for the speed limit at 85 mph.
If it is safety, 85 is way too high. I mean, it is definitely not always safe to drive 85 mph, in any road, traffic and weather conditions. In other words, we have to rely on the ability of the drivers to chose the "proper and reasonable" speed according to the current driving conditions, right? But if we do trust that the drivers will do that, then why have speed limit? Does everybody suddenly go stupid as the speed approaches 85? Probably not. If we trust that the drivers are capable of selecting the correct speed, we don't need the speed limit. If we do not trust them, then 85 is too high.
Perhaps, the point of having speed limit is not really safety then? Traffic tickets can make a good contribution to the state's budget. But in that case, the higher the limit, the lower the number of tickets that can be issued, the lower the revenue. So, from the revenue standpoint, 85 is way too high too - there will be fewer violations.
I don't see any logical reason for the speed limit at 85 mph.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
April 15th, 2011 at 6:07:46 PM
permalink
Quote: dmMany of the areas that would seem safe at 85 are heavily populated with deer. If you want instant sausage, 85 will do it.
If you hit a deer doing 85, you'd probably be as bad off as the deer. I've hit a deer going 40 on a hill country rural road; sometimes they just jump out at you and you can't do anything. Not onyl did it do a lot of damage to my car and deployed the airbag, it unfortunately didn't kill the deer.
I had to call highway patrol, who had to euthanize it by putting two in its head. VERY sad. I couldn't look.
April 15th, 2011 at 6:30:54 PM
permalink
I wouldn't support a 75 mph speed limit on I-90 in the Buffalo to Albany corridor. There's too much traffic on the road and there are too many turns through the hills and the road is not the smoothest in some places. Trucks are an issue. So are deer at the side of the road in the bushes. For the tolls that are paid on that road, it should be three lanes all of the way. Then I could see a 75mph limit between Exit 50 and the I-87 freeway (with an reduction in Syracuse).
For rural roads, I don't have a problem with 85 provided that the road is engineered with that limit and the road has great visibility with not alot of forest at the side of the road or houses.
For rural roads, I don't have a problem with 85 provided that the road is engineered with that limit and the road has great visibility with not alot of forest at the side of the road or houses.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
April 15th, 2011 at 7:32:56 PM
permalink
The whole higher the speed limit the more accidents occur is such a stupid argument. It is true of course because I am sure that the speed vs accidents graph has a continuous rise. So to take the lower speed limit reasoning to it's limit we have 0 accidents at 0 miles per hour. I have never seen a cost analysis on an optimum speed limit showing time saved and investment in highway infrastructure (since more vehicles get from place A to B in the same time) versus the cost of accidents and injuries. That is what we should be looking at when evaluating speed limits.
Be careful when you follow the masses, the M is sometimes silent.
April 15th, 2011 at 7:44:15 PM
permalink
While I'd appreciate the higher limit if I was driving on a highway under that rule, I don't trust the other drivers enough to want the higher speed limit. I've seen too many idiots & just plain bad drivers out there.
"Bite my Glorious Golden Ass!" - Bender Bending Rodriguez
April 15th, 2011 at 8:10:21 PM
permalink
I don't trust you either. Nor do I trust anyone who doesn't have a manual, or has never driven a RWD vehicle, or any car not built in Germany, Japan or US.
But I'm willing to compromise: I extend the benefit of the doubt to you, you extend it to me, we both win.
But I'm willing to compromise: I extend the benefit of the doubt to you, you extend it to me, we both win.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
April 15th, 2011 at 11:58:00 PM
permalink
90 would be better.
"I can't drive ... 85!"
(with apologies to Sammy Hagar)
"I can't drive ... 85!"
(with apologies to Sammy Hagar)
"What, me worry?"
April 16th, 2011 at 1:14:43 AM
permalink
Quote: boymimboI wouldn't support a 75 mph speed limit on I-90 in the Buffalo to Albany corridor. There's too much traffic on the road and there are too many turns through the hills and the road is not the smoothest in some places. Trucks are an issue. So are deer at the side of the road in the bushes. For the tolls that are paid on that road, it should be three lanes all of the way. Then I could see a 75mph limit between Exit 50 and the I-87 freeway (with an reduction in Syracuse).
For rural roads, I don't have a problem with 85 provided that the road is engineered with that limit and the road has great visibility with not alot of forest at the side of the road or houses.
Huh, I have a totally opposite opinion. Other than the I-390 merge in Rochester, I find the 90 to be mostly barren. Certainly not as high volume as, say, the I-95 south of the Mason-Dixon line. Deer or your local equivilent will be an issue on each and every road, yet I don't think they alone would be the deciding factor. I hit one at 60mph and it only broke the headlight (95 GMC Jimmy). I hit one doing 75mph on my rocket and it only cost me a pair of soggy drawers.
Deer to me, incorrect as this may be, are what I consider to be immeasurable variables. Yeah, at 80mph a hit will hurt worse than 40mph. But who's to say the added engine and wind noise of 80 wouldn't scare them off before you're too close? Or that by going faster you'll have missed the time when they were crossing? Yeah, I realize it works in reverse too, but =P on that. I've never hit a deer I saw coming (the GMC I was digging for CD's, the rocket I was messing with my Ipod) which brings me to my next point...
Speed makes you pay attention. In the great number of driving schools I was forced to attend by NYS, they always bring up the fact that the average driver only spends 8-10% of their time behind the wheel focused on driving. The other 90% is used messing with the radio, in conversation, or straight up day dreaming. I've spent a lot of time 'cruising' at 90+ and it's not something you'll just get used to and begin your day dreaming habits again. More of your time driving will actually be spent driving, which may well end up decreasing the number of accidents.
And as for hills, curves, etc, mostly it's hooey. Yes, in PA, especially in West Virginia, and I imagine in the Rockies, there are Interstates where 80mph, or even 60mph is pushing it. But most Interstates are made a straight as can be. Other than metro areas, there's not one spot in the whole NY based stretch of I-90 where I wouldn't do 85mph in the snow. I-86 in the southern tier is far worse in both curves and conditions, and that handled me going 170mph on a number of occasions. Sure I almost wrecked and died, but if it can handle 170, half that would be no problem. For the roads I'm familiar with (entire NY I-90, NY I-86 from PA border to Watkins Glen, PA I-80 from Dubois to State College, I-95 from WV to Florida) I can't think of a single area in any of them where 85 would be a problem save the metro areas. I say raise em and let's see what happens.
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
April 16th, 2011 at 3:41:40 AM
permalink
Quote: FaceHuh, I have a totally opposite opinion. Other than the I-390 merge in Rochester, I find the 90 to be mostly barren. Certainly not as high volume as, say, the I-95 south of the Mason-Dixon line. Deer or your local equivilent will be an issue on each and every road, yet I don't think they alone would be the deciding factor. I hit one at 60mph and it only broke the headlight (95 GMC Jimmy). I hit one doing 75mph on my rocket and it only cost me a pair of soggy drawers.
Deer to me, incorrect as this may be, are what I consider to be immeasurable variables. Yeah, at 80mph a hit will hurt worse than 40mph. But who's to say the added engine and wind noise of 80 wouldn't scare them off before you're too close? Or that by going faster you'll have missed the time when they were crossing? Yeah, I realize it works in reverse too, but =P on that. I've never hit a deer I saw coming (the GMC I was digging for CD's, the rocket I was messing with my Ipod) which brings me to my next point...
Speed makes you pay attention. In the great number of driving schools I was forced to attend by NYS, they always bring up the fact that the average driver only spends 8-10% of their time behind the wheel focused on driving. The other 90% is used messing with the radio, in conversation, or straight up day dreaming. I've spent a lot of time 'cruising' at 90+ and it's not something you'll just get used to and begin your day dreaming habits again. More of your time driving will actually be spent driving, which may well end up decreasing the number of accidents.
And as for hills, curves, etc, mostly it's hooey. Yes, in PA, especially in West Virginia, and I imagine in the Rockies, there are Interstates where 80mph, or even 60mph is pushing it. But most Interstates are made a straight as can be. Other than metro areas, there's not one spot in the whole NY based stretch of I-90 where I wouldn't do 85mph in the snow. I-86 in the southern tier is far worse in both curves and conditions, and that handled me going 170mph on a number of occasions. Sure I almost wrecked and died, but if it can handle 170, half that would be no problem. For the roads I'm familiar with (entire NY I-90, NY I-86 from PA border to Watkins Glen, PA I-80 from Dubois to State College, I-95 from WV to Florida) I can't think of a single area in any of them where 85 would be a problem save the metro areas. I say raise em and let's see what happens.
Ah the young and the reckless! Are you trying to pull our legs? I thought 170mph was a misprint until you referred to 85 as half of that. I've driven in snow my entire life and 85mph doesn't seem possible to me other than short bursts of acceleration. It's got nothing to do with driving skills and more to do with physics. The cars just can't handle it.
Please elaborate on those occasions where you drove 170mph. Was it a car, a bike or is that one souped up 95 Jimmy you have?
I can't wait for the new Sammy Hagar tune-can't drive 1-6-5.
April 16th, 2011 at 5:51:19 AM
permalink
Quote: FaceHuh, I have a totally opposite opinion. Other than the I-390 merge in Rochester, I find the 90 to be mostly barren. Certainly not as high volume as, say, the I-95 south of the Mason-Dixon line. Deer or your local equivilent will be an issue on each and every road, yet I don't think they alone would be the deciding factor..
Having driven NYS Thruaway end to end more times than I care to remember I just have to weigh in.
Niagra section (Buffalo to Erie.) 70 mph would be fine, 75 pushing it due to sightlines and very high wind/severe weather
Buffalo-Pembroke: Needs to be 65, too much congestion near Buffalo but it thins out
Pembroke-Syracuse: 70 is fine, Rochester is nowhere near the Thruway and not a factor
Syracuse Metro: 60-65. Exits fly up on you here, lots of on-and-off traffic.
Syracuse-Albany: 70 is fine. Needs to slow to 65 near Albany, the busiest exit on the Thruway
Albany-Westchester County: 70 is fine.
Due to short sightlines I would not make it 75 ANYWHERE on that road, and if you did I would say you need a lower "night limit" of 65. Also winter or severe weather limit. Again, having driven out west and back east I can say there is a huge difference in conditions in both areas.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
April 16th, 2011 at 8:54:46 AM
permalink
Not sure what you have been driving Ben but most real vehicles will hand 80+ no problem. I haven't owned a vehicle for 30 years that doesn't handle just fine at that speed including the plain Jane minivan I drive as a work vehicle right now. Even 35 years ago I made a memorable trip in a Ford extended econoline van at 100 MPH for a 500 mile trip only slowing through the urban areas.
I also totally agree with the comments about driving much better at higher speeds that several posters have made. When you are driving faster you need to be looking further down the road for possible problems. You need to actually set up for corners which is always a good idea but often not done at slower speeds.
We also have many deer on the highway here and 100's are killed every year in collisions. Locals do not try very hard to miss them thanks to the rules of our car insurance monopoly ICBC. Since so many people were using deer avoidance as an excuse for driving off the highway it is no longer allowed. If you don't have a dead deer or blood and hair on your vehicle then it is an at fault accident.
Moose are a much scarrier issue but thankfully not near as common a problem. If you are unlucky enough to hit a moose they are tall enough to slide over the hood of most vehicles and end up coming through the windshield and onto your lap. Not a fun result to say the least.
I also totally agree with the comments about driving much better at higher speeds that several posters have made. When you are driving faster you need to be looking further down the road for possible problems. You need to actually set up for corners which is always a good idea but often not done at slower speeds.
We also have many deer on the highway here and 100's are killed every year in collisions. Locals do not try very hard to miss them thanks to the rules of our car insurance monopoly ICBC. Since so many people were using deer avoidance as an excuse for driving off the highway it is no longer allowed. If you don't have a dead deer or blood and hair on your vehicle then it is an at fault accident.
Moose are a much scarrier issue but thankfully not near as common a problem. If you are unlucky enough to hit a moose they are tall enough to slide over the hood of most vehicles and end up coming through the windshield and onto your lap. Not a fun result to say the least.
Be careful when you follow the masses, the M is sometimes silent.
April 16th, 2011 at 9:10:44 AM
permalink
Quote: P90I don't trust you either. Nor do I trust anyone who doesn't have a manual, or has never driven a RWD vehicle, or any car not built in Germany, Japan or US.
But I'm willing to compromise: I extend the benefit of the doubt to you, you extend it to me, we both win.
Or both lose.
April 16th, 2011 at 9:15:54 AM
permalink
So, driving at 70 the driver is practically asleep, but at 85 his attention is glued to the road? How ridiculous. It is very easy when driving without speed control to realize that you are suddenly driving 10 or 15 mph above your intended speed. You notice it by glancing at the speedometer, not by realizing that you have started driving with greatly increased awareness.
April 16th, 2011 at 9:19:47 AM
permalink
Quote: dmSo, driving at 70 the driver is practically asleep, but at 85 his attention is glued to the road? How ridiculous. It is very easy when driving without speed control to realize that you are suddenly driving 10 or 15 mph above your intended speed. You notice it by glancing at the speedometer, not by realizing that you have started driving with greatly increased awareness.
That simply makes point. The vehicles and roads hande the additional speed so easily that you are not even aware you are going faster. The drive better with speed kicks in when you do notice and have to be actively driving to keep the vehicle safe and on the road.
Be careful when you follow the masses, the M is sometimes silent.
April 16th, 2011 at 9:27:08 AM
permalink
But the drive better mode will quickly fade because it doesn't seem like you are going very fast. You will go back to sleep. I can't believe this topic has generated so much interest and expert? commentary.
April 16th, 2011 at 9:42:14 AM
permalink
Quote: dmBut the drive better mode will quickly fade because it doesn't seem like you are going very fast. You will go back to sleep. I can't believe this topic has generated so much interest and expert? commentary.
Can't speak for others who may find it wears off but the adrenaline keeps me going for hours. I have found this effect has worked for the over 40 years I have been driving with no decrease in attention while driving fast. When I drive at the speed limit it is a constant fight to stay awake on a longer drive.
Be careful when you follow the masses, the M is sometimes silent.
April 16th, 2011 at 10:27:51 AM
permalink
Quote: kenarmanNot sure what you have been driving Ben but most real vehicles will hand 80+ no problem. I haven't owned a vehicle for 30 years that doesn't handle just fine at that speed including the plain Jane minivan I drive as a work vehicle right now. Even 35 years ago I made a memorable trip in a Ford extended econoline van at 100 MPH for a 500 mile trip only slowing through the urban areas.
I also totally agree with the comments about driving much better at higher speeds that several posters have made. When you are driving faster you need to be looking further down the road for possible problems. You need to actually set up for corners which is always a good idea but often not done at slower speeds.
We also have many deer on the highway here and 100's are killed every year in collisions. Locals do not try very hard to miss them thanks to the rules of our car insurance monopoly ICBC. Since so many people were using deer avoidance as an excuse for driving off the highway it is no longer allowed. If you don't have a dead deer or blood and hair on your vehicle then it is an at fault accident.
Moose are a much scarrier issue but thankfully not near as common a problem. If you are unlucky enough to hit a moose they are tall enough to slide over the hood of most vehicles and end up coming through the windshield and onto your lap. Not a fun result to say the least.
I've driven a wide variety of vehicles and have driven well over a million miles without a chargeable accident. What you may have missed was the fact that I was responding to the claim of driving 85 mph in the SNOW. I myself drive fast when I can do so without endangering anyone's safety and I agree that 80 mph is nothing on the open road.
If you think that it's ok to drive 85 mph in the snow, you're probably in the minority. Why do you think the speed limit on those interstates is reduced to 40 mph with even a light coating of snow? If anyone's going to drive that fast in the snow, I'd appreciate a heads up so I can get off the road.
Doesn't anyone have a comment on the claim of doing 170 mph on I-86?
April 16th, 2011 at 10:45:48 AM
permalink
Quote: benbakdoff
Doesn't anyone have a comment on the claim of doing 170 mph on I-86?
Anyone who tries it will watch their car fall apart the second they hit the Indian Reservation. No joking I don't notice the "Welcome" sign, I know I am on the reservation because road maintainence ends and it is pothole city.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
April 16th, 2011 at 11:18:57 AM
permalink
I did miss the snow part. I agree 85 is a little extreme for snow. My personal max is about 75 for an empty straight highway if there is anything on the road.
Be careful when you follow the masses, the M is sometimes silent.
April 16th, 2011 at 11:33:45 AM
permalink
AIUI, the speed limit still is "reasonable and prudent", but in all cases no more than the statutory limit. Realistically it's uncommon, but still possible to get fined despite being below the posted limit. The posted limit is supposed to be for an empty road on a clear day.
Of course, since it hasn't been increasing on par with the needs or the technology, it has come to be regarded differently, but that's what it was supposed to be initially, the highest speed that is reasonable in the best of vehicles under the best of circumstances.
If defined traditionally, it should be, I think, around 125. Even despite driving a car that can do 170 and more, over realistic distance and without going into the last gear, I still don't see that speed as being reasonable for actual road driving. Competition, recreation, but not getting from here to there. Though I'd like there to be a clear road exemption to speed limits, just like they go down in unsafe conditions, they have to go up in exceptionally safe circumstances.
Of course, since it hasn't been increasing on par with the needs or the technology, it has come to be regarded differently, but that's what it was supposed to be initially, the highest speed that is reasonable in the best of vehicles under the best of circumstances.
If defined traditionally, it should be, I think, around 125. Even despite driving a car that can do 170 and more, over realistic distance and without going into the last gear, I still don't see that speed as being reasonable for actual road driving. Competition, recreation, but not getting from here to there. Though I'd like there to be a clear road exemption to speed limits, just like they go down in unsafe conditions, they have to go up in exceptionally safe circumstances.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
April 16th, 2011 at 5:24:53 PM
permalink
Sorry for the delay, I was asleep. The 170 was on a bike, specifically a GSXR600, done on I-86 (Old Rt 17) in Cattaraugus Cty, NY between the on ramp at Seneca Allegany Casino west to the town of Steamburg. This was back when fugitive Bucky Williams was on the run and all of WNY was free and clear of law enforcement presence on the roads. Many of our Sunday rides turned into 140mph+ jaunts over many of the rural roads and interstates in the area. I'm not saying it was smart, or that I-86 is fit for autobahn type laws, I was just saying that if 170mph was possible (albeit just barely) that 85 should be no sweat. And AZ is right, that road is a mess. It wasn't the potholes but the ripples, that bip-bip, bip-bip thing where the sections of highway join that almost did me in. Everytime I hit em the tires lost traction, and on the corner every bip sent me wider and wider. I almost ended up in the Oh:iyo (Allegany River).
I think a lot of this discussion is 'to each his own'. I, as some have agreed, just don't get distracted / tired / daydreamy when going fast. Do I think it's possible? Absolutely. I used to think falling asleep doing something as involved as driving was absurd, until I did and wrapped my Subaru around a telephone pole. I even dozed off on that bike. But all of the naysaying that speed is dangerous no matter what is as untrue as me stating that speed equals awareness across the board.
As for the snow, again, to each his own. I don't travel the interstate in my commute, so no, I dont go 85. But I do travel some sketchy, no vis, winding, hilly backroads where I'm usually on it before the plows. A lot of the times I do it at 45, but only because there is literally so much snow I cant get traction to accelerate through the drifts. But if it's clear enough to get up to 70, I travel it at 70. I don't have a death wish, nor am I totally ignorant of physics. My abilities and confidence are simply higher than average due to the studying and practice I have done in motorsports. I don't mean to come across as one of those ignorant young jackoffs that think they're special so they put other peoples lives in danger, because in almost every instance of this type of driving is done all by me onesies, alone in my truck, alone on the road. And when I see headlights or taillights, I do slow down to proper speed. But I've been driving like this my whole life and have never lost control when simply driving, and havent lost control while messing around since 1997. It just works for me. 85 on a highway in the snow wouldn't phase me, so long as I could see. I'm NOT saying 85mph is proper highway speed in a NY blizzard, but since it is possible, 85 on a clear sunny day should be no sweat. And the condemnation of my habits should start right...about......
I think a lot of this discussion is 'to each his own'. I, as some have agreed, just don't get distracted / tired / daydreamy when going fast. Do I think it's possible? Absolutely. I used to think falling asleep doing something as involved as driving was absurd, until I did and wrapped my Subaru around a telephone pole. I even dozed off on that bike. But all of the naysaying that speed is dangerous no matter what is as untrue as me stating that speed equals awareness across the board.
As for the snow, again, to each his own. I don't travel the interstate in my commute, so no, I dont go 85. But I do travel some sketchy, no vis, winding, hilly backroads where I'm usually on it before the plows. A lot of the times I do it at 45, but only because there is literally so much snow I cant get traction to accelerate through the drifts. But if it's clear enough to get up to 70, I travel it at 70. I don't have a death wish, nor am I totally ignorant of physics. My abilities and confidence are simply higher than average due to the studying and practice I have done in motorsports. I don't mean to come across as one of those ignorant young jackoffs that think they're special so they put other peoples lives in danger, because in almost every instance of this type of driving is done all by me onesies, alone in my truck, alone on the road. And when I see headlights or taillights, I do slow down to proper speed. But I've been driving like this my whole life and have never lost control when simply driving, and havent lost control while messing around since 1997. It just works for me. 85 on a highway in the snow wouldn't phase me, so long as I could see. I'm NOT saying 85mph is proper highway speed in a NY blizzard, but since it is possible, 85 on a clear sunny day should be no sweat. And the condemnation of my habits should start right...about......
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
April 17th, 2011 at 3:35:42 AM
permalink
We should raise it to 88 mph. And allow Walgreens and CVS to sell plutonium.
April 17th, 2011 at 5:08:21 AM
permalink
Quote: 7outlineawayWe should raise it to 88 mph. And allow Walgreens and CVS to sell plutonium.
Screw that, we are less than 4 years from 2015, Mr Fusion should be ready for final UL testing soon.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
April 17th, 2011 at 5:39:34 AM
permalink
Quote: AZDuffmanScrew that, we are less than 4 years from 2015, Mr Fusion should be ready for final UL testing soon.
I'm looking forward to the Chicago Cubs winning the World Series.
April 17th, 2011 at 12:57:27 PM
permalink
Quote: 7outlineawayI'm looking forward to the Chicago Cubs winning the World Series.
OK, you have me convinced. Let's make it 95 to help thin down the social security roll.
April 17th, 2011 at 4:37:37 PM
permalink
I'm surprised there's so much conflict. Is 85 really that absurd? I can clearly remember traveling the QEW north of the Falls and in NYC just after the Tappanzee bridge where doing 75 would have earned you an 18 wheeler in your backseat. Many highways are already 65-70mph, with people taking the extra 10 anyways. Why not make legal what everyones doing regardless?
P.S. the original DeLorean struggled to make it 85, let alone 88 in a short mall parking lot. You'd think Dr Emmitt Brown would've picked something a little sportier ;)
P.S. the original DeLorean struggled to make it 85, let alone 88 in a short mall parking lot. You'd think Dr Emmitt Brown would've picked something a little sportier ;)
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
