75 mph up north, the world didn't end (law, vs.)

[beltrams]

Originally Posted by forest beekeeper

It starts in Central Maine, before you go up into Northern Maine. Mile 193 is the first 75mph sign.

From 193 on up to 305 is is 75mph all the way.

Adding.....the higher limit sign is several hundred yards just past the last Exit 193 ramp that merges onto the highway. Then there are more speed limit signs just past every other exit merge.

[maureenb]

Originally Posted by elston

Life is good and life is short and I intend to enjoy the ride and take it all in.

Elston, oh wise one, your words deserve a bump...

[Pammyd]

Originally Posted by CoastalMaineiac

I just drove up to Presque Isle a few weeks ago. I figured the 10 mph difference saves about 15 minutes of driving time.

Perhaps the time has come now to allow 75 mph on the rest of 95.

I use to live up that way..Smyrna/Houlton area and I thought they were all driving 75mph on the interstate already? There is no one in that area anyhow so the 75 mph speed limit should be ok, no? I am in Ct and the speed limit on 691 is only 65 but folks push it to 75 or even 80 sometimes. The State Troopers down here will snag you for sure if you push speed limits like that but that far North..Naaah...no one there!

[elston]

Originally Posted by maureenb

Elston, oh wise one, your words deserve a bump...

Thank You very kindly, maureen.

[maine4.us]

With the additional cost of a Prius, and the number of miles I drive, it isn't economical, or particularly green for me to drive one.

The newer plug in models are not going to be green at all. With the cost of electricity in Maine, I doubt a completely electric auto would be cost effective. I try to be green when possible, but I also need to keep some green in my wallet.

As far as putt putting on the interstate system, you can get away with it in most of Maine, but you are a major traffic hazard in most of the country. Where I moved from, you will get blasted by horns, waved at by middle fingers, and are likely to arouse "road rage" if you get out on the super slab. My advice, if all you want to do is 55-60, stay OFF the interstates, and take state and federal highways.

Example, if you tried that on I-81, all you would see would be semi truck grills in your rear view mirror. I know, I made the trip pulling a Uhaul, and can tell you the make and year of most any semi on the road today---only by looking at the grill and front bumper.

The interstate highways were originally designed for 70-75mph. Until the gas shortage in the early 70's, many states adhered to the design speed for their limits. At one time, Montana had, "Reasonable and Proper" as a speed limit on the open roads. I never quite thought I knew what that was!

[beltrams]

Design standards have and always have been subjective.

It all comes down to how many accidents people are willing to tolerate.

Years ago with lighter traffic, but less crash-worthy cars, less guardrails, and so on, we tolerated many more deaths per vehicle mile than we do nowadays.

The same is true of all types of transport. Take rail for example. In the late 1800s, if a brakeman lost an arm or a life, going between the freight cars to couple them (because automatic couplers hadn't yet been invented), that was accepted. Back when, if a commuter rail road had a few derails a month, that was accepted. Now, if a commuter rail, such as Boston's MBTA has *any* accident with passengers on board, it's major news and a major investigation is called. Years ago, trains sometimes derailed on hot days when the tracks buckled ever so slightly in the heat. Nowadays, in hot weather, CSX and other railroads put speed limits on some of their major lines, during hot parts of hot days, when the weather calls for it.

Yes, the highways were designed with 70 mph in mind, but the standards used then were much different then today. Of course, roads and cars are actually much safer now than back then, owing to many improvements made in both by years of experience. But our tolerance for road deaths is much lower than back then as well.

But yes, I still drive the full speed limit, including 75 up north, when I can.

[Submariner]

On occasion I see older cars that are barely able to hold 60mph on the interstate.

I have a Willy that can not get over 45mph so I would never consider going near the interstate with it.

I can see where it could be an issue if your normal commuter could not cruise at 75mph.

[Coaster]

Originally Posted by maine4.us

With the additional cost of a Prius, and the number of miles I drive, it isn't economical, or particularly green for me to drive one.

The newer plug in models are not going to be green at all. With the cost of electricity in Maine, I doubt a completely electric auto would be cost effective. I try to be green when possible, but I also need to keep some green in my wallet.

I share your skepticism about the plug-in cars that are coming out. I want to see some actual real-world usage numbers before even considering buying one.

Our '09 Prius cost about $2,000 more than a VW Jetta, which was one of the other cars we considered and was very comparable to the Prius at the time. The "official" combined city/highway mpg for the '09 Jetta was 24, which we all know tends to be ... optimistic in the real world. We've since put 60,000+ miles on the Prius at an average of 47 mpg, which equals 1,277 gallons of gas. The Jetta would have used 2,500 gallons at the official 24 mpg.

That's a savings of 1,223 gallons over the Jetta, or $4,280.50 with gas at $3.50 a gallon. So all in all I think the Prius has been a moneysaver for us. That might not be true for people who drive much fewer miles in a year, especially for owners who routinely trade in their cars for a new one every two or three years. We plan to keep the Prius until it or we rot.

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by Coaster

I share your skepticism about the plug-in cars that are coming out. I want to see some actual real-world usage numbers before even considering buying one.

Our '09 Prius cost about $2,000 more than a VW Jetta, which was one of the other cars we considered and was very comparable to the Prius at the time. The "official" combined city/highway mpg for the '09 Jetta was 24, which we all know tends to be ... optimistic in the real world. We've since put 60,000+ miles on the Prius at an average of 47 mpg, which equals 1,277 gallons of gas. The Jetta would have used 2,500 gallons at the official 24 mpg.

That's a savings of 1,223 gallons over the Jetta, or $4,280.50 with gas at $3.50 a gallon. So all in all I think the Prius has been a moneysaver for us. That might not be true for people who drive much fewer miles in a year, especially for owners who routinely trade in their cars for a new one every two or three years. We plan to keep the Prius until it or we rot.

As compared to getting an updated version of my Dw's previous commuter, her prius is more expensive to buy. Though so far it has been much cheaper to operate.

Time will tell as to how long it actually takes for break even point.

[ram2]

Originally Posted by forest beekeeper

Has there been any actual increase in traffic fatalities since the speed limit went up?

Why should there be? The traffic fatality rate has been declining since the 55mph speed limit was abolished in the 90s. The "speed kills" nonsense has been perpetuated by the insurance companies because they were profiting off of speeding tickets based on underposted speed limits.

Maine had 70mph freeway speed limits before the 55 limit. Why is raising speed limits back to where they should be even an issue? If you don't want to drive 75+, stay in the right lane.