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.
Utah recently increased some speed limits to 80mph after a trial 'test' period. If found the following article on the subject quite interesting:
Studies found that average speeds there increased only by 2 mph — from 83 to 85 mph. Accidents actually decreased in one test zone by 11 percent, and by 20 percent in the other. No speed-related fatalities have occurred in either area during the test.
"There also was a 20 percent reduction in drivers exceeding the speed limit," UDOT Deputy Director Carlos Braceras told the Legislature’s Transportation Interim Committee. He said the higher limit essentially just legalized how fast drivers were already traveling.
I think that there is a reality that the vast majority of drivers are not that comfortable driving at over 85mph and that might explain why increasing the limit had a minimal effect on average speeds. I thought it was also interesting that accidents decreased. Perhaps drivers were more attentive to the road and spent less time looking for speed traps.
In my experience, most people like to drive around 65-75 mph regardless of what kind of a highway they're on. I drive five over, period. I never get pulled over but folks who pass me sometimes do and I have driven hundreds of thousands of miles in many states. I get passed (often illegally) like I am an old fogey when I do 60 in a 55 mph two-lane shoulder-less windy goat paths in the lower Midwest but fly past nearly everybody when I do 80 in a 75 zone on pancake-flat arrow-straight interstates in the Plains. I'd gladly go faster as my vehicle does 80 mph as easily as it does 60 mph, given that it has about a 140 mph top speed. BTW, TX has some segments of state road they limited at 85 mph which is even faster than Utah's limits.
I personally think we should go back to the "reasonable and prudent" speed limits on rural interstates that MT had in the 1990s. Penalties for driving recklessly (weaving, tailgating, failure to signal, DWI/DUID, texting while driving, etc.) should be penalized heavily. The interstates were designed for 100+ mph travel and can easily and safely handle that with modern cars in non-congested areas, so why not allow for it? If I can safely drive 130 mph on a desolate interstate, why should the cops care if it really is about safety?
They had reasonable and prudent speed limits, which means you can drive as fast as traffic and weather conditions permit. R&P does not mean you can drive as fast as you want anytime.
My point was that it allowed people to drive legally on many different types of roads at considerably higher speeds (as long as it was reasonable and prudent), then is currently allowed today.
... and if you can't keep your car in your own lane on wide sweeping curves, then your speed is not "reasonable and prudent." Chumbolones like this is a major reason why Montana resorted to implementing speed limits.
... and if you can't keep your car in your own lane on wide sweeping curves, then your speed is not "reasonable and prudent." Chumbolones like this is a major reason why Montana resorted to implementing speed limits.
He wasn't having a problem keeping his car in his own lane. He was keeping away from the wildlife on the sides of the road. When the oncoming car came, he had no problem moving to the right of the center line.
Anyone who's ever driven from anywhere in California to anywhere else undoubtedly breathes a big sigh of relief when he or she crosses the state line into another state to escape California's absurd 70 MPH speed limit, which is among the lowest in the nation, and certainly among western states.
If traffic as a whole increases its speed, it obviates the 85mph driver's need to weave from lane lane, reducing the opportunities for accidents.
You honestly can't believe that do you? This was the logic when NJ increased the speed limit from 55 mph to 65 mph. The logic being drivers are going 65 MPH anyway, why not make it legal. Well after the speed limit was increased to 65 mph, drivers now typically drive 75 mph to 80 mph. So what will happen if you get your wish, a 85 mph speed limit, drivers will take it as a signal to drive even faster, hell 100 MPH will become the norm, all with only a few car lengths between cars.
Personally I think the speed limit should be lowered to 45 MPH, maybe then drivers will drive at a reasonable 55 MPH speed limit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kettlepot
Besides my discomfort, as I was traveling at 100 mph I could see my gas gauge visibly diminish.
Wind resistance increases 4 fold when you increase you speed from 55 to 70. Cars may be more fuel efficient than a few years ago, but there been no improvements to get around the wind increased resistance at higher speeds. Higher speeds might get you there faster, but it's not going to be cheap.
Last edited by TechGromit; 09-19-2013 at 08:41 PM..
Anyone who's ever driven from anywhere in California to anywhere else undoubtedly breathes a big sigh of relief when he or she crosses the state line into another state to escape California's absurd 70 MPH speed limit, which is among the lowest in the nation, and certainly among western states.
Oregon is 65, unfortunately. Washington is also 70. I don't know what is with the West Coast and crazy low speed limits.
You honestly can't believe that do you? This was the logic when NJ increased the speed limit from 55 mph to 65 mph. The logic being drivers are going 65 MPH anyway, why not make it legal. Well after the speed limit was increased to 65 mph, drivers now typically drive 75 mph to 80 mph. So what will happen if you get your wish, a 85 mph speed limit, drivers will take it as a signal to drive even faster, hell 100 MPH will become the norm, all with only a few car lengths between cars.
Personally I think the speed limit should be lowered to 45 MPH, maybe then drivers will drive at a reasonable 55 MPH speed limit.
Lets just say, that the speed limit was raised to 120 mph. Do you really believe that people would automatically start driving 130 mph? I don't think so. Most drivers would still be driving 85, because that is the speed that most people feel comfortable with.
He wasn't having a problem keeping his car in his own lane. He was keeping away from the wildlife on the sides of the road. When the oncoming car came, he had no problem moving to the right of the center line.
Did you pay any kind of attention to the video? At all? The jackass was wandering all over the damn road. That is not "reasonable and prudent."
Did you pay any kind of attention to the video? At all? The jackass was wandering all over the damn road. That is not "reasonable and prudent."
Yes, I paid better attention to it, then you did. He was in violation of driving over the center line. Lots of people in Montana do that to avoid collisions with animals along the side of the road. He had no problem getting back to the right side of the line, when he saw the approaching vehicle. If he had been pulled over for his actions, the only ticket he could have received was for driving on the wrong side of the road. That does not mean that he was not driving a reasonable and prudent speed.
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.
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.
