U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-04-2013, 09:58 AM
 
2,890 posts, read 2,965,592 times
Reputation: 1419

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tetto View Post
Nevertheless, the result will be increased fuel consumption, opposite what we should be shooting for!

And the other half of the article- I think the police should be held to the same standards as the rest of us. Those guys are the worst cell phone users I've ever seen!
Not entirely true... There are many cars that are geared for optimal fuel economy mileage above speeds of 55mph. It's not universal true-ism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-04-2013, 10:05 AM
 
Location: Connecticut
24,600 posts, read 40,168,569 times
Reputation: 6961
I am not sure this proposed law will be able to go anywhere. I believe the Federal government limits maximum speeds on interstate highways to 65 now. It use to be 55 which was the STUPIDEST law ever since modern highways are designed for speeds of 70 miles per hour minimum (there are exceptions made though in urban areas). That is why so many people are driving above the speed limit. I never understood why we had a law (55 MPH) that like 90% of the people ignored and that even the enforcers (State Police) ignored. IT basically meant that something like 90% of the traveling public were breaking the law. That to me means that it was just a bad law. And do not give me the crap about saving fuel. How much fuel did it really save since so many people ignored the limit anyway.

All this said, I think speed limits should be set by the states and based on the design of the highway. There is a defined engineering methodology for doing that and it should be applied everywhere. JMHO, Jay
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 10:07 AM
 
Location: Coastal Northeast
15,742 posts, read 22,008,066 times
Reputation: 5278
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT View Post
IAll this said, I think speed limits should be set by the states and based on the design of the highway. There is a defined engineering methodology for doing that and it should be applied everywhere. JMHO, Jay
Well said, and I agree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 10:24 AM
 
Location: W Hartford, CT
1,787 posts, read 3,445,507 times
Reputation: 1189
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidyankee764 View Post
Technically, according to what I learned in a training course recently, the majority of accidents on CT interstates are caused by 2 things: slow drivers, and impatient drivers making risky maneuvers to get around those slow drivers. So technically, that driver going 60-65 is a hazard. Whether it's right to speed or not, it is what it is.
But that was sort of my point. We have enough bad and irresponsible drivers out there, acting impatiently and causing accidents. Why empower them further and perpetuate this further?

I totally agree with you that it's frustrating when people are on the other end of that spectrum and drive too slow - especially in the fast lane - and this doesn't help atall. Believe me, we see it up here, too. But I have no interest in empowering drivers further when they're acting recklessly to begin with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 10:27 AM
 
Location: Central, CT
841 posts, read 1,653,050 times
Reputation: 322
If there's a Federal restriction then that new stretch in Texas and the other in (az?) the southwest that are at 80 wouldn't have passed. I think 70 would be fine for i95 but people already can't negotiate the left hand exits and turns on i84 (hence the stupid "campers") or the narrowness and entering vehicles on the Merritt. I've always been surprised mass didn't do it for i90 since the cruising speed is easily 75 and left hand lane at 80.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 10:28 AM
 
Location: Live in NY State, work in CT
8,834 posts, read 14,245,795 times
Reputation: 3250
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT View Post
I am not sure this proposed law will be able to go anywhere. I believe the Federal government limits maximum speeds on interstate highways to 65 now. It use to be 55 which was the STUPIDEST law ever since modern highways are designed for speeds of 70 miles per hour minimum (there are exceptions made though in urban areas). That is why so many people are driving above the speed limit. I never understood why we had a law (55 MPH) that like 90% of the people ignored and that even the enforcers (State Police) ignored. IT basically meant that something like 90% of the traveling public were breaking the law. That to me means that it was just a bad law. And do not give me the crap about saving fuel. How much fuel did it really save since so many people ignored the limit anyway.

All this said, I think speed limits should be set by the states and based on the design of the highway. There is a defined engineering methodology for doing that and it should be applied everywhere. JMHO, Jay
Actually, the Federal gov't did away with the 65 national restriction and gave the power to set speed limits to the states way back in 1995. You probably just didn't notice because until a few years ago no state east of the Mississippi raised the limits any higher.

I noticed in that Wikipedia link I noted earlier that before the "55" was put into law in 1974 CT was one of the few Northeast states (I think Maine was the only other one) with a speed limit of 70. Interesting......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 10:33 AM
 
13 posts, read 17,664 times
Reputation: 10
I don't see how anyone can get above 65 anyway because your highways in CT are extremely busy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 10:47 AM
 
9,396 posts, read 8,456,222 times
Reputation: 5549
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidyankee764 View Post
The bill would boost maximum speed limits on "multiple lane, limited access highway" to 75 miles per hour while increasing fines by 15 percent. Speeds greater than 90 miles per hour would constitute reckless driving.

A legislative committee will hold a hearing Monday on two button topics for drivers: texting and speeding. - Courant.com


I think it's a great idea. It's actually kind of funny that some stretches of our highways are still at 55 mph. Might as well alter the law so we're not making criminals out of 95% of the population.
I am for it ONLY if the 75 MPH rule is strictly enforced. As we know a 75 speed limit will mean 85 is the upper echelon and that is downright dangerous on our roads here. But yes, a cruising speed of 70-75 is effective and viable. But if you break 75-80 expect a big fine. No exceptions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 10:51 AM
 
Location: Coastal Northeast
15,742 posts, read 22,008,066 times
Reputation: 5278
Quote:
Originally Posted by jp03 View Post
I am for it ONLY if the 75 MPH rule is strictly enforced. As we know a 75 speed limit will mean 85 is the upper echelon and that is downright dangerous on our roads here. But yes, a cruising speed of 70-75 is effective and viable. But if you break 80 expect a big fine. No exceptions.
I agree and I was waiting for someone to suggest this after the comment was made about raising the minimum speed. I think if you break 80, it should be considered reckless and you will face hefty consequences.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 11:00 AM
 
338 posts, read 450,477 times
Reputation: 661
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidyankee764 View Post
I agree and I was waiting for someone to suggest this after the comment was made about raising the minimum speed. I think if you break 80, it should be considered reckless and you will face hefty consequences.
75 is legal and 80 is reckless?

Essentially you are admitting that 75 must be too dangerous if 80 is reckless
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top