Posted on 07/08/2008 6:53:44 AM PDT by xzins
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind., June 24 (UPI) -- Higher interstate speed limits on an Indiana highway haven't resulted in additional deaths or serious injuries, a study has determined.
Purdue University researchers found that an increase from 65 to 70 mph on Interstate 65 was still safe, a result that adds to mix of research results nationwide since passage of the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995, which gave states freedom to set interstate speed limits. Study authors acknowledged the ongoing debate in a Purdue University news release.
"These findings are important because the influence of speed limits on roadway safety has been a subject of continuous debate in the state of Indiana and nationwide," said Fred Mannering, a professor of civil engineering.
(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...
Sen. Warner was just on Fox News strongly suggesting a return to the federal nanny-state mandate of 55 mph, so that "poor families" don't have to choose between food and fuel.
The last 55 mph limit was a joke, and there's considerable disagreement that it saves anything. It boils down to a debate between the value of saved gasoline versus the cost of lost time. Every hour at 55 equals 15 minutes lost when at 70 mph.
And that doesn't even address the issue of freedom from a nanny-state forcing us to eat oatmeal, wear helmets and body armor in our cars, or avoid char-grilled foods....all for our "health."
How odd that poor people can’t drive 55, unless it is a law.
And in fact, the poor won’t drive 55 even if the limit were lowered (they never did). They’ll just waste more money on traffic tickets, and needlessly increased insurance premiums.
So that fast you're on the back side of the curve. Which is okay if you can justify it yourself. Personally, I'm at 120km/h (about 75mph) on the highway. You'll pretty well get run over here under 110. What we need to do is make more aerodynamic vehicles. Drag increases with the square of speed, so if we can lower the coefficient of drag we can save fuel. But styling and aerodynamics don't ALWAYS go hand in hand.
Looks like they should also ban all speed limits lower than 30 mph....after all it’s an issue of starving the poor.
/sarc.
Leave me alone.
Hah.
There are different mechanisms at play on each side of the curve. On the front side of the curve, you’re fighting friction and rolling resistance as well as your own inertia, not to mention the low efficiency of IC engines at low RPMs. On the back side of the curve you’re fighting drag.
Warner has become such a wuss. He’s an embarrassment.
Looks like 62 is about the best compromise... is that chart an average for many vehicles or for a specific line, brand, engine/body type, etc?
Let’s just pass it for high density (Blue) states.
Can you say “State decision”?
Poor people can’t do anything without the help and permission from big brother. You are right on!
Based on your chart, and if my math is right, on a 55 mile constant speed trip segment, the rate of fuel burn is about 1.83 gallons driving a 55 mile stretch at 55mph(30mpg) but only burn 1.72 gallons over 55 miles at 70mph(25mpg).
As to fuel economy, modern cars are going to get their best mileage at the point at which valve timing becomes efficient in top gear before aerodynamic drag becomes a major factor which is usually going to be 65 - 70 and not 55. Forced to run at 55, many cars with 5-speed transmissions will get better mileage in fourth gear.
Actually 16.36 minutes. At the one hour point you are 15 miles behind the guy going 70 mph, which will take the guy going 55 mph 16.36 minutes to travel.
And liberals are always screaming at conservatives for trying to “turn the clock back!!!!”
It really depends on the car. Charts will be different for different cars. Some cars will operate more efficiently at 55 others won't.
Hmm. I have a six speed manual transmission and a fuel efficiency gauge on my dash. When driving around town, I typically shift from 3rd or 4th directly to 6th. Cruising at 40 mph, I get around 15 mpg in fourth gear. When I shift to sixth, my mileage increases to 35.
Nothing teaches those two things like a speed limit that's so low that the public blows it off as ridiculous. Those of us who were driving in the 1970's remember well how much fun it was to get into a "pack" going 70 mph and zoom right past a hapless radar cop. In fact, that's how I learned to respect the law. Those of us in California were especially blessed because it was us and the cops against the government. The CHP decided early on that 65 it had been, and 65 it would remain. |
Senator, please just do us a favor and stay out of the left lane. OK?
But the 55 mph limit give law enforcement a necessary tool to save lives < /sarcasm>
“It really depends on the car. Charts will be different for different cars. Some cars will operate more efficiently at 55 others won’t.”
Yeah, my last car had a 6-speed. At 65 in 6th, it was sipping gas. My point was that depending on that mpg drop-off, it can be more efficient to drive faster to get somewhere sooner because less time is spent burning gas. By decreasing the interstate speed limit, we would actually use more gas.
Most cars with five or six speed gearboxes couldn’t even run in top gear at 40.
I'm in the (cough) 'Chicago Metro Area' and 55mph never left. Not until you get past Joliet, IL on I-55 does it go up to 65 MPH, the max in IL. This is from the IL State Police website:
The maximum speed limit is 65 miles per hour on rural interstates, 55 miles per hour on interstate highways near or in major cities and on other highways, and 30 miles per hour in an urban area unless some other speed restriction is established. The maximum speed limit outside an urban district for a house car, camper, private living coach, vehicle licensed as a recreational vehicle, any vehicle towing any other vehicle, and vehicles of the second division designed or used for the carrying of a gross weight of 8,001 pounds or more, is 55 miles per hour.If I could, I'd move to Montana today.
Upshifting at the earliest possible time will usually bring good mileage. Upshifting too soon for the engine torque/drive train strength/road incline will usually result in damage to the vehicle.
As others have said, it’s different for each vehicle, but the shape is typical and that’s what’s important.
L98: Are you on Pennock’s Fiero Forum?
I was. I’m still a member but haven’t posted in a while.
First—I was there when they had 55 MPH limit—No one drove at 55—they did 65 on the freeways. Now we have 65 posted and no one drives that so—the average is more like 75 MPH. I believe we should put in the 55 MPH so people will drive 10 MPH slower. (save in some areas) It did save lives—that is a fact. A little more time on the road isn’t a sin. If time is so freaking important why not turn the major roads into German autobahns with no speed limits? Why not post 100 MPH speed limits so we can all be NASCAR drivers? In World War two the max speed limit was 35 MPH! If it saves gas and lives its good. Rest assured—no one will really go 55 unless a cop is following them.
You're wrong; it COST lives. Look at the numbers. To make the math easy let's assume that there are 125 million drivers in the USA that drive 10,000 miles on the expressway every year. The amount of time added by going 55 rather than 70 is 39 hours per person per year. for 125 million people this is 4 billion 857 million extra hours per year. Now if we chose the average human life span in the US as 75 years this works out to 675 thousand hours that you live. divide 675k into 4857 million and get the number of lives wasted by the 55 MPH limit a little over 7200 lives wasted every year by the absurdly low speed limit.
Secondly, alarmists were crying and wringing their hands about increasing deaths on the highways when the odious 55 was dropped. didn't happen; the fatal accidents continued to decline as they had in the years before the 55 was inflicted on the populace.
Ok, by your logic we should raise the Speed limit to 85 MPH. Why that would save more time! Or maybe 100 MPH would be even better! or maybe 120 Miles per hour would get us where we need to go in even less time. The cars can go that fast so why not? The time argument doesn’t wash.
Nice try, but no soap. to use your logic we should lower the speed limit to 5 mph. We have an existing 70 mph in many places and 55 was shown to be counter productive. Please stick to reality not absurd strawmen.
I was in the USAF there from '77 to '79. Daytime speeding tickets only cost $5 and they did not go on your record. Just had the police officer $5 and continue on you way.
So was I, out here in the southwest a 100 miles is a trip around the corner. A hundred mile trip is almost two hours at 55 and a hour and half at 70. Driving at 55 through the desert is boring at 55 and leads to inattention at wheel. I have lived in New York also, where a hundred mile trip is considered an all day affair.
One size does not fit all.
Besides what does this have to do poor being unable to drive 55 without it being a law?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
That's the trouble with America today: there isn't enough crime. In order to get crime back up, we need to teach the next generation that breaking the law is for sure OK if everyone is doing it, and it's probably OK all of the time because the odds of getting caught are so low.