Slashdot Mirror
Texas Opens Fastest US Highway With 85 MPH Limit
Hugh Pickens writes "Most highways in the U.S. top out at 75 mph, while some highways in rural West Texas and Utah have 80 mph speed limits. All that is about to change as Texas opens a stretch of highway with the highest speed limit in the country, giving eager drivers a chance to rip through a trip between two of the state's largest metropolitan areas at 85 mph for a 41-mile toll road between Austin and San Antonio. While some drivers will want to test their horsepower and radar detectors, others are asking if safety is taking a backseat. A 2009 report in the American Journal of Public Health found that more than 12,500 deaths were attributable to increases in speed limits on all kinds of roads and that rural highways showed a 9.1 percent increase in fatalities on roads where speed limits were raised. 'If you're looking at an 85 mph speed limit, we could possibly see drivers going 95 up to 100 miles per hour,' says Sandra Helin, president of the Southwestern Insurance Information Service. 'When you get to those speeds, your accidents are going to be a lot worse. You're going to have a lot more fatalities.'"
It's in texas.
So. There's that.
"We could possibly see drivers going 95 up to 100 miles per hour."
Hate to break it to Sandra, but that's the usual speed in many parts of Texas.
Well, that's 136km/h - that's what our recommended travelling speed (130) on the "Autobahn" is in Germany.
It has proven to be an excellent balance between emission (gears and cars are tuned to that speed), moving forward, but not braking too much due to other people's influences.
Once again I have deep mis-respect for you "best country in the world" guys.
I used to drive from Houston to San Antonio (and back) a lot. Most of the time the speed limit is 70 mph, but that never stopped people from going 95 to 100 mph. If anything, raising the speed limit to 85 will put most people closer to the speed that the maniacs drive at. The real problem will be the Sunday drivers who decide to drive at 65 mph in the left lane while everyone is trying to whiz around them.
I do that already on the highways. While the article was short on pictures, wouldn't making the highway divided be safer then keeping the speed limit low?
Don't like the higher speed limit? Don't drive on it.
Doesn't get any simpler than that.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Parts of I-15 in southern Utah are 80 MPH. It really makes sense to bring that up to 85 MPH too. I've driven that stretch and I don't see much reason to artificially limit the rest of it to something lower. Most people go 85-90 anyway through the parts with lower speed limits, but I really think 85 makes sense.
I don't think the actual speed would increase all that much. A few of the speed-limit-abiding citizens might increase their speed now, but on the whole I don't think people will speed much more than that. Everyone tends to find a safe cruising speed, and the Utah sections would probably end up being right about 85 MPH.
Good for Texas for doing this.
yeehaw!
And the "think of the accidents" crowd can fuck off. If increasing the limit from 75 to 85 causes $x deaths, then leaving the speed limit at 75 also causes $y deaths vs 65. In fact, if you follow their logic, the speed limit would be 5 mph, if that. But only while wearing a flame retardent balloon suit and crash helmet.
just let Darwin do his work!
With a speed limit of 10mph, you can virtually eliminate car related deaths on highways!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What are the percent increases in fatalities? Twelve thousand is a small portion if a million people use the highway per year. I guess for most people the risk of an accident does not jump up enough to warrant slowing down.
"Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
Aldous Huxley
That is only 3 MPH fro time travel!
The sad fact is that its not speed that kills, its differential speed. Unfortunately our drivers training here is not really up to the standards it should be with modern machines. If you look at Germany they take drivers ed a lot more seriously, as well as licencing, with 6 month courses costing thousands of dollars being the norm. As well the rules of the Autobahn are strictly enforced, if you're going slow in the left lane you WILL be pulled over, just as quick if not quicker than you would for "speeding". Same with sudden lane changes, and just general bad driving. Speed doesnt kill, dumb drivers do.
People drive this fast now.... :) IF not faster!
>'When you get to those speeds, your accidents are going to be a lot worse. You're going to have a lot more fatalities.'
The lethality of crashes plateaus at a whopping 45 miles per hour.
The only people against higher speed limits are the Police and Local Cities/Counties that don't want to lose out on revenue.
Even the insurance companies aren't really against it, they just got a gift wrapped excuse for rate hikes for a whole state.
I am sure there are slower and non-toll ways to get from Austin to San Antonio. Let Texans be Texans, Yeee Haaa! lol.
We need that on Rt. 95 all the way from ME to FL.
The German Autobahn's have no speed limits in rural areas. I have driven at 160 Kph (i.e., 100 mph) and been routinely passed by faster vehicles. In fact, if you are in the left lane at that speed, they may get pretty annoyed with you if you don't get over immediately.
My understanding is that the German Auto Club serves a function much like the US NRA. Touch the speed limit, and your political career will be limited.
This is entirely in keeping with my home state of Texas. It's fitting that they did it in Austin, I'm sure all those drunk Texas good ole boys in the legislature enjoy the idea of driving their F150 pickups and Cadillacs at 95mph up the new highway. It's in the same league as the Molly Ivins story about the representative who got a rest area approved on a highway outside his home district so that he could change his patent leather shoes before arriving home. Couldn't let his constituents see him in his fancy duds. They know this means more highway deaths. You can also have a concealed hand as you drive 85 up the new highway. TEXAS!
I think its side by side. Of course with a speed increase, you would expect the accident rate to go up slightly. I welcome higher posted limits, only because im smart enough to put aside minor distractions for the chance to get from point A to point B faster without incident. The thing is, most of America is not so smart. Im sure Germans on the Autobahn arent texting at 100-200mph. I'd bet someone said "Wow this is pretty fast, I should keep my eyes and focus on the road". They still have idiots on the road, same as everyone else. The limiting factor seems to be the amount of stupidity per square mile. Its concentrated here in the states. I'd also point out that people have a disability by becoming "too comfortable" with something, and letting their guards down. Just my 2 cents for what its worth.
Doesn't the autobahn have a lower death rate per mile than the US highway system?
That happens anytime you raise the speed limit. from 55 to 65. from 45 to 55. from 10 to 20. We've already had this argument brought up multiple times, and you lost. Take that argument and go away.
Statistically speaking anyway, once you're hurtling down the road at 65 mph or faster, you're already well over the curve for speed-to-lethality tradeoff. Dropping your odds of survival from 2% to 1.8% really doesn't impress me that much.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Everyone already goes 85 or faster on SH 130 anyway. I've been passed going 90 on it. There's nothing new here other than them making the higher speed official since they acknowledge that everyone is doing it anyway.
More organ donations - assuming anything is left of the occupants after a 160km/h crash.
Just stay out of the left lane when not passing and driving will be much safer for everyone.
If it's a toll road and you have to some to a complete stop or at least slow down dramatically to pay with coins or read your transponder every few miles, you're net actual speed may not be that much higher than a 70mph road with no obstructions (depending on number and wait times at toll booths)
I think a nice drive to Seguin in November sounds like great fun! I'd love to legally open it up and go 85.
We should have just stuck with a horse and buggy.
and takes some of the stupid out of the gene pool.
I've actually driven on this toll road many times while driving back and forth to my parents house in Georgetown. Yeah I costs a little bit more but there is never anyone on it. It's a million times better than driving through Austin's traffic!
I've seen Autobahn drivers - they're mostly courtious, follow the rules, and usually don't do anything stupid.
Here we're talking about Americans - specifically Texans. Expect to see many many shoot outs, accidents, law suits and fatalities.
Just to put this in perspective, I've done at least 120Mph on every interstate I've been on in this country, primarily up and down the eastern seaboard (quite a few times with several other cars accompanying me) - so 85 is rather yawn inducing. And this is in an 2001 F150 and a 1991 Dodge Daytona - nothing special.
Not to mention that there are several places where there simply isn't a speed limit restriction in the U.S..
Drive safe out there.
With a headline like that I feel like I'm back in 80's when the government was busy telling everyone that driving over 55 would result in catastrophic death across the nation. This was of course the most widely disregarded law in the country and simply led to people questioning the government on other thing safety claims that it made. Figures such as those above have largely been debunked time and time again (do your own damn Google research - I'm busy).
There is nothing inherently dangerous about speed, Germany has proven that for decades. The thing that is most dangerous of all is variance in speed. That being said, I'll be the first to step up and say that Germany also has tougher standards for their drivers tests. Sounds like a fair deal to me, higher speed limits and higher standards to get a drivers license? What's not to love?
Based on my experience driving in different European countries, the max speed experienced on Highways with light traffic is about 80-90mph, regardless of the speed limits. For instance, in Norway where I drive on highways every day, the max speed limit is 100km/h (about 60mph) but cruising in 120 is common. In countries where the speed limit is for instance 130km/h, cruising at 20 above is a lot less common. People very seldom drive below the speed limits, but there are always some that cruise at higher speed. 85 mph feels "fast enough" for more people than 60mph does.
Less differential in speed between drivers causes less accidents. An instant (and I really mean instant, as in your body instantly stops moving) stop over 40mph *will* kill you, the sudden stop will dislocate your organs. If you crash into a wall at 85mph, driving at 65mph wouldn't have saved you.
It's not news to anyone that highway speed limits are violated en masse on a daily basis. Here in Mass, for instance, it's not unusual to see the whole traffic go at about 90mph on the Pike where the limit is 65mph. Because 65mph for modern cars and a wide road is very low. But what it does allow is for cops to ticket folks when the feel like. Good for police budgets (who, on the Pike, I think get 50% cut), and cops who need an excuse to stop a suspicious vehicle. Bad for everyone else.
Some view freedom as a teenager: I can do anything I want, damn the consequences.
Some view freedom as an adult: I can do anything I want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.
When you speed, you put other lives at risk, not just your own.
Freedom does not mean freedom from responsibility. In fact, in a land of people who don't act with responsibility, real freedom pretty much doesn't exist either.
You can see these same problems in the debate on drug use, on healthcare, etc. Some people are just immature and believe freedom means the consequences of their actions don't figure into their conception of freedom.
"Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins"
-Oliver Wendell Holmes
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
what's "tech" about raising the speed limit? why is this on /. anyway?
why don't we just directly set up a feed from the Daily Mail
Then you really dont have to worry about anything. of course when traveling back and forth in time i could always collide with another vehicle. Oh and i also need lightning.
I put it on wikispeedia.org. Perhaps someone can improve where I placed the sign...
Wikispeedia.org
Differential speed is what kills. Study after study has shown that those at greatest risk of injury or death are the SLOWEST 10% of drivers not the fastest 10%
I live in Italy. The highway speed limit here is 130 km/h (81 mph), 90 km/h (56 mph) on normal roads and 50 km/h (31 mph) inside the cities, with some 30 km/h areas. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate (OECD data) there are 8.7 road fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants per year and 12 per 100,000 motor vehicles. The corresponding figures for the U.S.A. are 12.3 and 15. That's 41% and 25% more respectively. It hints that speed limits don't necessarily have a direct correlation with deaths. Cars, road conditions and (most important of all) driver behavior make the difference. Keep your eyes on the road is the first recommendation I can't think about (btw, there are 1.47 mobile phones per person in Italy vs 1.039 in the USA - found on wikipedia - so it's not texting or calling that accounts for the difference - many people do that while driving here). That said, I welcome raising speed limits a little: it's good for Americans that will get home earlier and good for European tourists that won't fall asleep driving on straight roads at 55 mph anymore :-)
For those of us who don't know mph, here's some conversions to km/h:
https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+85+mph+in+kph (etc)
100mph =~ 160.934km/h (by definition)
95mph =~ 152.9
90mph =~ 144.8km/h
85mph = ~136.8km/h (motorways in Italy, among other countries, have speed limits of 130km/h)
80mph =~ 128.7km/h
75mph =~ 128.7km/h
74.5mph =~ 120km/h (this is the motorway speed limit in Ireland)
70mph =~ 112.65 km/h (this is the motorway speed limit in the UK)
Why is no one talking about the cost to fuel economy? Modern cars hit their sweet spot around 60-65 MPH (although if you've ever had to drive at 40-55 MPH on a freeway, you'd be amazed at what happens*) and take a pretty big hit over 70. When we're trying to cut consumption, this seems rather silly.
Or is this Texas' way of saying "Fuck you!" to the new government mandate of 54.5 MPG that will take effect in a number of years.
*Had to do this with a U-Haul trailer once. My Envoy, which got only about 18-19 MPG on the highway, made over 26 on that trip.
My ideas about maximum speeds have changed. I used to live in The Netherlands with max speeds around 80, and live in Finland (~75), but when I started hitch-hiking I've occasionally had drivers who would drive at as much as 150 mph (240kph) and I didn't start feeling uncomfortable (and only slightly so) when an old man passed 125 mph at night.
I think the other comments about the driver's ed system in the States are right on the money.
If they're worried about safety, they should get rid of speedbumps.
Because speedbumps slow down important shit (like ambulances and firetrucks), they actually kill THIRTY TIMES as many people as they save.
Also, apropos of nothing, the German word for 'speedbump' is 'sleeping policeman', which says something about their culture.
I drive a pretty nice 2000 300+HP car. I also drive a 1980 180HP truck. There is no way I'd drive my truck like I do my sports car. It doesn't have crash impact standards, no air bags, no ABS, rear drums, steering gear. I'm happy a 65mph in that thing.
Now get in my 300HP car with traction control, airbags, a super suspension, 4 disc brakes, rack & pinion steering. I am happy at 80mph. Newer versions of my car are happy at 100mph. I was positively horrified when I got stuck doing just the speed limit the other day. It was _so_slow. 5mph difference at 40mph is a huge percentage (12.5%) whereas at 80, it's 6% of the speed limit
Over the years, we get better at making things safer. Better rubber, suspensions, steering, aerodynamics. It should be true that we can drive faster on the same roads given overall equipment improvement.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Do we understand how to dive on a road with a higher speed limit? I think that the rule of stay right, pass left is much more important with speeds like this. Another question I have is, are the on and off ramps long enough to allow drivers to get to a speed where merging would be safe? I hate it when drivers try to merge on to a road with 70 MPH limit only going 50.
ANOTHER SPURS GAME :)
On many highways with 65 or 70mph speed limit, I've seen a separate 55mph limit for trucks and cars towing trailers.
If this is the same on this highway, then cars will be driving at 90mph (drivers always seem to add 5mph), and closing in on 55mph trucks at a 35mph speed differential.
On highways, I always thought that speed doesn't kill as much as speed differential does. If everyone drove at the same speed, there'd be fewer opportunities for accidents.
I've been to the North-East US and understand that most roads in Europe look the same, so here's what's to know about this road:
- This road is where there is a lot of flat land. Even at 85 you can see where you will be in a few minutes (and virtually not take a turn until you get there). You can also see any animals that may enter this road, but it's mostly a bridge anyway which avoids that.
- There's nothing to see on this road. No billboards or distractions. No gas stations, restaurants, few farm houses. Few exits.
- The road has heavy steel guard rails that would stop most anything driving along it. These rails are after over a car lane of margin. A few places don't where it's just flatland for 1000s of feet.
- The state-standard noisy edge-of-the-road keeps drivers from hitting the road's guard rails.
- If I drove you on it blindfolded (in a car whose engine noise doesn't give away the speed like mine does), you'd think we were driving - Very light traffic. No old cars
- The biggest risk was just getting bored, & speed helps this.
Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
And some people believe that having children or getting old (or both) entitles them to tell other people what to do because there might be an outside chance that their baby might get run over by a Camero.
That's true on your typical suburban road or city street. It is drastically less true on a highway where you don't have intersections, stop signs, or left turns. The biggest danger on a highway is not speed but speed differential, e.g. somebody going 40 when everyone else is going 65 or (more often) somebody going 65 when everyone else is going 75-80, aka 'usual interstate behavior.'
I live in Austin. This road is in the middle of nowhere and it's the sort of road where people are going to drive 80mph anyway.
I don't get it
AccountKiller
Tolls defeat the purpose of highways, and especially government highways.
1. You might as well put a fucking stop light on the highway. I've sat in toll lines for literally half an hour, when clearly, the purpose of a highway is to save time, not waste it.
2. What in the hell do I pay taxes for if I still have to pay fees for government services? This tells me that the purpose of government roads is not "infrastructure", but profit. If we have to deal with tolls, then it might as well be privately owned and operated.
Driving 41 miles at 85 mph vs 75 mph saves a whole 4 minutes.
Seems kinda pointless.
Bring it on! Anything to reduce the number of electoral votes Texas owns!
Kidding, kidding.
Sort of.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
'If you're looking at an 85 mph speed limit, we could possibly see drivers going 95 up to 100 miles per hour,'
I see this on the 60/70/75 Highways between Houston/Dallas all the time.
When you have a giant expansion of nothing but...nothing for miles and miles, you wonder why you can't just speed up.
20 years ago when speedometers topped out at 100, that speed limit was well and good
But now, when 100 is only the halfway point on my car? I'd rather pass through that large expansion of nothing quicker.
Can someone explain to me how an accident is going to be “a lot worse” for the human bodies involved at 100 mph as opposed to 75 mph?
There is nothing unsafe about driving very fast on roads designed for driving very fast. You are FAR safer driving on a restricted-access divided highway at 100 MPH than you are driving on a 45 MPH city street with cross traffic, or a country road. Especially now that many states are putting up those cables in the median that prevent cars from getting across into oncoming traffic.
Even the article summary has to grasp for straws in trying to provide a "balanced" summary.... this 85 MPH divided highway is apparently unsafe because.... driving fast on country roads increases fatalities!
But a divided highway is not a country road.
Accidents between two cars going in the same direction at relatively the same speed (+/- 10-15 mph) are rare. It's the car going 35 MPH+ one way that encounters another car going 35 MPH+ in a different direction (hed-on or cross traffic) that kills people. Divided highway fatalities are usually coming up on stopped traffic in fog or at night, or falling asleep and leaving the highway.
One more point to note ... if you're going to get in a single-car accident at 65 MPH and hit a pylon or something, you're dead. If you do it at 85 or 90 MPH, you're just REALLY dead. Same difference.
paintball
BRB, moving to texas.
What I would like to know is what is the fuel consumption going from say 70MPH to 85MPH and what the differential is. Remember, most oil companies have headquarters in Texas. This has nothing to do with giving drivers what they want but oil companies what they want. More oil/gas consumption.
The current prices do not reflect accurate supply/demand for gas as we are not producing at capacity but below it.
And as far as the Autobahn is concerned, it was designed from the beginning to be "high-speed" while American highways were not.
It's general things like this going wrong that could be a major problem with these speeds. If it's raining on the highway, if past experiences are any indication, people will not show any respect for changing road conditions which can lead to very severe accidents, especially at such high speeds. Remember, the faster you go, your braking distance increases at a quite dramatic rate.
I have an idea. They could make it illegal to go that fast.
There are so many alarmist statements in the article where to start? Best to lower all the speed limits to zero and take the train. How about we test removing speed limits all together? They are arbitrary anyways based on best road conditions, and for the majority of vehicles and vehicle types that use the road. How would a limitless road work? Instead of fining for speed we fine for hitting other vehicles (Rule 1: don't hit things), being a douchbag (Rule 2: be courteous and respect rules of the road, like not driving in the left lane from trip start to finish, merging properly and allowing vehicles to merge), driving too fast for conditions - which would include driving way to fast down a crowded city street, if you have no chance to react to pedestrians or bikers or whatever, you are going to fast. (for extra credit: for all you that think driving 55mph/90kph should be the maxium because of fuel economy, think of the lives that are lost because drivers fall asleep because they are bored, or start texting because they are bored. Driving faster increases excitement and the involvement of the driver. Lord forbid we actually have some fun.)
I think, for most modern cars, around about 40HP is enough to get to 85.
Not really going to test your car's horsepower, is it.
Texans have been going faster than the speed limit (WAY faster) for decades. This just makes it legal. :)
"When you get to those speeds, your accidents are going to be a lot worse. You're going to have a lot more fatalities."
They are not accidents they are collisions, and they are caused by distracted / inexperienced drivers or poorly maintained vehicles.
Captcha - Shrapnel (created from collisions?)
Years ago when we finally got rid of the double nickle speed limit there were people predicting carnage on the nations highways. I tried to run the numbers and came up with inconsistent results. Here's a couple of stats I remember from that era:
AAA reported that over eighty percent of injury accidents occur at speeds under forty miles per hour and within a few miles of home. This was in their monthly magazine.
At the same time it was widely reported that half of all traffic fatalities were the result of intoxicated drivers. (Alcohol, drugs.)
Those two stats leave very little room for accidents on high speed freeways where speed is the sole factor in the accident.
It's not just safety that is taking a back seat, but evidently fuel efficiency must not be too important, either. People may argue at what speed point fuel efficiency drops off, but it is definitely well below 85mph. Then also, just as money must not be an issue for Texans, neither is it for the state. Road repairs are significantly higher the higher the speed limit.
So, let's see, pay to use the road, pay higher insurance because higher speeds lead to more accidents, pay more at the pump because you are burning more gas and pay more in taxes because the pavement wears out sooner. Yeah, that sounds like a really good decision. Then again, Texas is a red state.
I hope more states do this! I still remember driving across nevada on I80 where "speed is monitored by air vehicle" I kept a constant 120MPH...made great time.
The design ideal for a speed limit is to set it at the 85th percentile of the speeds typical drivers drive in average conditions. That means that 15 percent of drivers will likely exceed the empirical design speed limit.
The typical speeder drives 5-15 mph over the speed limit because they would otherwise be within the top 15 percent, and because it does not make them so obtrusive that they are likely to get caught.
Ms. Helin and her ilk (every speed limit change or recommendation brings one crawling out of the woodwork) would have the speed limit set so that the people otherwise traveling at 5-15mph over the speed limit (otherwise within the 15 percent) are traveling at what would approximately be the 85th percentile speed, effectively compressing the high tail of the statistical distribution due to the aforementioned effect of law enforcement.
This means (following their proscription) that the actual speed limit must be set well below the 85th percentile speed, such as... let's pick the 50th percentile because it makes for very easy reference and math later on... are the 35 percent, otherwise in the 50th-85th percentile speed range, from a design perspective only, unreasonably dangerous for traveling at their preferred speed? Of course, from a legal perspective they are 'lawbreakers.'
Most importantly, the difference between the 50th percentile and the 85th percentile, if you have a gaussian distribution of speeds, is 1 standard deviation. The difference between the 85th and 95th percentile is another whole standard deviation.
The difference between the 95th percentile and the 99th percentile is yet another standard deviation.
Who is your 15 mph speeder? Are they traveling at the 95th percentile speed... the 99th percentile speed?
Very roughtly, since the distribution shape will of course change and not be gaussian with speed enforcement, if it ever was to begin with:
To restrain that second standard deviation -- 10 percent -- by artifically lowering the speed limit, are you willing to make 35 percent of people drive below their preferred speed?
To restrain that third standard deviation -- 14 percent in total -- by artificially lowering the speed limit, are you willing to make b>70 percent of people drive below their preferred speed?
Of course this all depends upon how those 5-15mph speeders fit within the tail of the distribution. But in general, the insurance instrustry says "Yes!." And this is why you (with varying but non-trivial probability) are a lawbreaker.
Every resident of Finney county should be given a 80 in a 65 speeding ticket once a year, just to approximate the average behaviour of the cars passing me with 'FI' on the tag.
An interesting way for Governor Perry's road building buddies to market their product: "Hey all you pickup truck driving drugstore cowboys with more horsepower than sense. Quien es mas macho? Find out and the highway patrol and your nearest county hospital will clean up the mess, all at public expense." Privatize the roads/socialize the costs: that sadly is Texas today.
"We could possibly see drivers going 95 up to 100 miles per hour."
Hate to break it to Sandra, but that's the usual speed in many parts of Texas.
100mph ~ 160km/h, correct? ... You american sissies, that's not fast.
220km/h - that's fast. Sometimes.
Jokes aside:
If only the americans were so prissy about guns as they are about speeding and germans would be as prissy about speeding as they are about guns, the western world would be a much, much safer place. The western world really needs US speed limits in Germany and German gun laws in the US. Seriously, that would really solve a lot of our everyday problems, both in the US and in Germany. And unnatural deaths would plummet.
My 2 cents.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
You want the speed rating of your tire.
I am really dubious you cannot get a tire with a speed rating of R or higher.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
in the PASSING lane?
The EPA should set up emissions testing along this stretch. IIRC, trees along the Autobahn in the unlimited speed areas are quite a bit sicker or outright dead due to the above average emissions. The risk is though, folks working for the EPA run a good chance of getting got by 'sovereign' Texans.
To drive out of Texas, Austin is still inconveniently situated. The interstates were designed to go from Austin to other cities in Texas. So if one want to drive from Austin towards the East Coast or West Coast, one still has to take funny shortcuts on two-lane country highways with traffic signals at every town.
Basically, Austin was designed to be a small town in the center of Texas, but it grew way beyond original intentions. Business (especially high-tech) is busiest near political centers, despite libertarian pretensions to the contrary.
That happens anytime you raise the speed limit. from 55 to 65.
Accident rates in Colorado lowered when they raised the speed limit from 65 to 75.
One good reason you are not accounting for is that no matter what the speed limit is, drivers drive at a speed they consider comfortable on a highway. That means that people like you imperil everyone else by sticking close to an old and arbitrary speed limit. Once you raise the limits there is a much greater equalization of people driving around the same speed, making the whole road safer.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Just forget about the speeds and hand out tickets for passing on the right (except in heavy traffic).
I should add, it would be great with such rules AND drivers who follow them. Pull up some speed run vids from the Autobahn on YouTube. You'll notice drivers actually getting out of the way when you approach them from behind in the fast lane.
For the love of God, if they did this in California I'd be stuck going 80 mph behind two cars running side-by-side. I fucking hate that. It was never that bad in Northern Virginia, where people are just assholes. That I can deal with, but the "log jamming" on California freeways just sucks. I mean, literally a quarter mile of road in front of you guys, and you wont' let me get at it? You'd rather be nice and close to the other piece of hurtling metal than have a safe following distance? Oh, and get off the damn phone, stop texting, and look at the road.
Well, that brings me back to my point. Enforcement isn't going to help. There has to be a culture of good driving. Germany has it. I don't know about Texas; but California doesn't have it.
In germany there is no maximum speedlimit on highways and it works too :-)
Before Montana lowered it's speed limit in 1999, or there about, it had a lower fatality rate, than after it brought in the 75 mph limit.
http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm
Please read, and make up your mind from there.
Deaths did go up when speeds went up. They always do.
Wrong. In Colorado traffic fatalities decreased when the speed limit was raised from 65 to 75 back in the day.
The reason is that reducing speed differentials is a much larger benefit than a slightly worse collision because of a 10MPH increase in speed. And the reality is that when people are already going 10MPH over there is no change in accident speed even raising the speed limit, which is also why accidents are no worse.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I actually live and work within 10 miles of the southern end of SH-130. I'm not concerned about the higher speeds on the highway, because I've traveled on the Autobahn in Germany many times, and as long as you watch the traffic and don't be a jerk about how you travel, I will be extremely glad when this road opens. It will make getting up to Austin considerably quicker (it can take 2 hours sometimes to get to a place in Austin from here), and if it reduces the parking lot known as I-35 in Austin, I for one will gladly travel on SH-130
I'm going to drive backwards at 100mph and bring people back from the dead.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
rural highways showed a 9.1 percent increase in fatalities
I wonder what they consider a "rural highway?" There's a big difference between doing 70 to 80mph out on the [divided] highway (everpresent semis nothwithstanding!) and going 40mph down a windy, 2-lane road.
As usual, statistics paint a misleading picture...
Hate to break it to Sandra, but that's the usual speed in many parts of Texas
Not only that, but the particular road in question is a Toll Road between Austin and San Antonio, with a fairly high toll too. The cars on it you'll see going 95-100 will be rich assholes in their Lexus or Audi that's plenty capable of safely driving at "Autobahn" speeds.
If California is on par with the rest of the states wrt drivers tests, then yeah, having an autobahn (which I have driven on during a vacation) would be a very, very bad idea in the states. Driving is a privilege not a right, you should have to work hard to get it (learn to drive and be tested accordingly).
Be glad you're in California, it's actually got one of the better driver training & licensing programs in the country. In the Midwest the program seems to be, "let's assume you've been driving your Father's tractor since 8 years old and call that equivalent experience". Out East I've had natives in New Jersey honk at me for not turning left across traffic at a red light; what lack of training is needed to think that is acceptable should be criminal. California may not have the most courteous drivers, but it could be a lot worse...
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
but I don't have a problem with more dead Texans.
False. Speed (a.k.a. driving quickly) doesn't kill people; not driving alertly, improper following distances, not driving the appropriate speed for the lane you are in (e.g. using the left lane as a driving lane or the middle lane as the "slow" lane) and lack of/poor signaling kills people. In short people kill people. There are numerous places on the Autobahn where there is no speed limit and there aren't a significantly greater number of "speed related" deaths.
Congratulations on owning a car that can accelerate much faster than my car. You weren't there when I started passing that old lady in the subaru, so give me 5 FUCKING SECONDS to complete the pass before you ride my ass and flash your lights you fucking moron.
...if they'd just build a bullet train.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Let God sort em out
Nothing says fact like eHow~
Learn the difference betweem Kph and Mph. Most traffice is 120 Kph. (93MPH)
" The speed-limitless highway"
False. Some parts of it dn't have a speed limit, but most of it does.
In fact, for some types of vehicles it does have a max speed..
The parts with no speed limit, SOME cars will go to 300Kph(186 mph). HOWEVER with the exception of a few top end sports cars, German cars have a limiter at 150kph. granted it can be removed.
Tires must be regulated for the speed, and there are strict anti coercion laws.
During the last 15 years, the autobahn has more speed limits, and stricter safety rules and the fatalities have been cut by 2/3rds.
At the very least, go to wikepedia. It's almost always more accurate then ehow, and there will be several citation there you can follow up on.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If you drive that fast on I-696 in Detroit, your going to piss off a lot of people who are driving at LEAST 20mph faster than that. It's not uncommon to be forced into the slow lane at 100mph. Then again, if you break down there is a good chance you'll get jacked. :)
-------- -1 for SUCK IT!
The most dangerous offenses on the roads are simply not enforced. Politics pressures officers not to cite people for the worst offenses because they are often the ones that people will fight in court and bitch about. Ask anyone who is on the job how popular they would be if they cited people for the following.
Failure to yield to overtaking traffic (keep right except to pass or speeding up to block a pass)
Obstructing the flow of traffic (people doing 10+mph below the posted limits)
Failure to maintain lane discipline (going over the yellow lines into oncoming lanes or violating adjoining lanes)
Failure to display traffic signals
Re-evaluation of license for being too old/feeble or generally incompetent at controlling a vehicle.
All of these are far worse than "speeding" and the politics is not in the favor of an officer who regularly enforces these statutes.
With well over a hundred thousand miles of driving in most of the lower 48, the mid-west highways seem to be the best as far as people driving with common sense. As you approach any city center or the coasts, this all goes to hell fast.
My local area, the damned towns have dropped almost any road that was a 45 limit to 25 now and it is so slow for the road conditions that it just encourages people to text and use the phone and fiddle with the DVD players. It's made things far worse. The limits are so slow that the drivers have even lower awareness for what they are doing...which is supposed to be driving their car.
Speed for the few, revenue enhancement agencies for the masses.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
That speed change happened in June.
Funny part is its between jurisdictions so you rarely see cops.
Unless its a state trooper, your not getting a ticket even if you get pulled over.
speed differential is important, yes. but outright absolute speed is still important. just ask an armadillo
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Many folks don't understand just how damn BIG Texas is.
I can hop in the car right now and, assuming no weather or traffic problems, start driving West towards El Paso.
ELEVEN to TWELVE HOURS from now, if I'm lucky, I will reach it. It's roughly a thirteen hour trek across
the State. Assuming no stops or breaks. Factor those in along with gas stops to figure out your total drive time.
Much of it is interstate in the middle of nowhere.
Take the idiot variable out of the equation and we could really raise the speed limits.
( Phones, reading, eating, everything else that isn't driving )
As long as there is a minimum speed enforced ( so we don't have relative differences of 30+ mph ) this is a non-issue.
You throw grandma out there running 25mph and yeah, problems will surface quickly.
My only complaint would be the fact this is only allowed on the TOLL ROAD. Effectively meaning if you can afford it,
you get to drive faster than those who can't. Since higher speeds & less congestion = more money ( toll road remember ),
there is little incentive or motivation to fix / repair the existing highway infrastructure.
IMO, anything designated as Interstate should have a higher speed limit anyway once outside of the metro areas.
You don't think road crews in America check to make sure the highways they build are level? You don't know what you're talking about.
We don't trade very many casualties for the benefits of highway travel, so I won't get my Speedos in a twist over higher speed limits.
Everybody dies. Life is full of little tradeoffs.
If you are afraid to live, stay in the basement (but check for radon, mold, asbestos, construction material outgassing, and ensure your Cheetos aren't past their expiration date).
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
A couple of years ago I had to take a driver re-education class because I got 3 speeding tickets over a 3 year period. This was after years of having no tickets. My state ditched the points system years earlier. So if you get 3 moving violations in that period of time you're sent to a class and pay $60. When you get 4 speeding tickets within that period, however, you're automatically subject to license suspension. This is regardless of the severity of the infraction.
In the class I attended there were people who had been there nearly 10 times. For some people it's turned into a minor inconvenience. The reason why they didn't get a suspended license, however, was because their violations were for things like going through red lights, not stopping at stop signs and the like. Essentially, anything other than speeding.
That irked me because I'd argue that some of the things these people had done is far more dangerous than speeding. But as the instructor argued, speeding is the biggest factor in accidents by an overwhelming margin. And I'm convinced that the statistics are incredibly misleading. Excessive speed can be considered a factor in almost every accident, but that doesn't make it a contributing factor.
For example, let's take an accident where a driver pulls into the passing lane in front of much faster traffic and gets rear-ended. American law enforcement would automatically fault the faster driver, the argument being that if they hadn't been going so fast they could have avoided the accident. But really, the fault belongs to the driver who didn't have good situational awareness and didn't use his mirrors prior to the lane change.
Americans seem to get caught up in what ifs. And that was what my instructor was obsessed about. If you drive more slowly you have more distance to react. But if relative speed is consistent and suitable for the road then actual speed is largely irrelevant. A far bigger problem in my mind is inadequate driver training, flagrant disregard for the rules, and aggressive driving. But all that is harder to enforce. Speeding is the low hanging fruit and so it gets all the attention. That's why people get their panties in a bunch about 85mph speed limits. If the road allows for it, why not?
Fuel economy is another story altogether. But I've always found it ironic that Europeans will drive around in cars with tiny displacement engines then take to the highways and drive with engines maxed out. Which means these cars are getting crap fuel economy. Of course, a big distinction between the US and Europe is that Europeans take the rules more seriously. They don't hog the passing lane. And they're more attentive to things around them. Also, vehicle inspections are far more stringent than they are in the US. All that contributes to safer highways even if the speeds are higher. That said, statistics show many American states compare favorably almost any European nation in terms of driver fatalities.
IF a special license is required for it. Most car drivers out there cant handle a car at 70 let alone 120. It takes skill (that most of you DO NOT have) to drive at speeds above 80mph in traffic. There should be a separate license for driving on the highway compared to cities, and then another tier above that for no speed limits on interstates.
But one caveat.... IF you get in ANY accident where you hit another car, you are automatically at fault. IF you drive going 50mph faster than the other traffic you have to drive with all your senses set to 11. Any dipshit driving at 120 and texting should be executed on the side of the road by the state trooper.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
It's 80 MPH right now. It's wide, flat, straight, and a well divided highway. Think wide open Texas road with big shoulders. Most people were doing 70-75 on it. I don't see a big deal about 85 MPH. Don't knock it 'till you drive it.
It's not crowded either. It's a toll road that'll cost something like $10-$15 bucks to travel the whole thing. So your average Joe won't be on it.
But it beats the HELL out of driving I35 through Austin!!!! Austin traffic blows.
Nobody's going to have more fatalities. To each man, woman, and child is just one allotted.
I spend 80% of my time in the right lane. When I encounter a vehicle in front of me, I move to the left lane, pass them, and move back to the right. Consequentially, I pass more people while in the right lane than the left lane.
In Canada, from coast to coast, I believe, we only have basically 4 speed limits.
In increasing speed they are: School area, Town/City area (50 K), Rural (70 K, I think), Highway (80K).
In some special instances you might see some differences but night is never a factor and Highways are always 80K.
It seems like the most dangerous thing you could do is have a different speed for night driving, because different people will have different opinions of when night starts.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
the vaster you go, the more likely variable outside your control will severally impact your day.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Actually, I really don't fucking care. You see, I'm already going the speed limit. Thus, there's no reason I shouldn't be in the left lane, as no one should be going faster than I am. So you can just fucking wait until I'm done passing slower car to my right. The passing lane wasn't invented to allow speeders to easily pass those who are going the speed limit. It was invented to allow traffic going at less than the speed limit to be more easily passed. ...but, no, fuck me because I'm using the passing lane for its intended purpose. Instead I'm supposed to get the fuck out of the way so as not to interrupt you on your quest to make driving just a little more dangerous for everyone. Grow the fuck up.
It's about balance. I know, it's not exactly what you think you deserve; therefore it's wrong.
"driving too fast for conditions"
most people aren't trained to know what is too fast for conditions.
The number 1 cause of accidents is not paying attention, and human drivers are NEVER paying attention n to everything all the time, and it gets worse the longer the travel at a consistent speed down ad familiar road.
"think of the lives that are lost because drivers fall asleep because they are bored"
A) people get bored at any speed
B) 55 means more reaction time when an event happens.
" Lord forbid we actually have some fun"
yes, driving an a road at a high rate of speed subject to more variables and putting other people lives at risk is you right to fun.
You want to drive fast? Go to a speed way.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I lived in northern Nevada, and I saw the statistics when they increased the speed limits. Interestingly, while the number of fatalities went up, the number of accidents went down. That seems odd until you look at the most common type of accident: single-car rollover caused by driver inattention. In other words, the driver fell asleep at the wheel and ran off the road. The faster you're going, the more likely that kind of accident is to kill you. OTOH, the faster you drive the less time you spend on the road, the less tired you get and the less chance you have to fall asleep in the first place. So, fewer accidents but when one happens it's more severe.
And, should we care about these accidents? They don't involve other cars, the only person injured or killed was the cause of the accident. I can't get nearly as worked up about someone getting killed because of their own stupidity as about say a family getting killed because someone else T-boned their car. And remember, these high-speed stretches aren't surface streets, or even urban freeways. They're rural freeways. In Nevada we're talking roads where you can go 10-20 miles between bends in the road, and where you may see another car every hour or so. On 300-400 mile trips that extra speed cuts significant time off the trip (for a 300-mile no-need-to-stop stretch 75mph vs. 55mph means 4 hours vs. 5.4, or close to an hour and a half less time at the faster speed limit) which again means you spend less time driving tired.
You must be one of those idiots that doesn't pick up on sarcasm.
Yeah so if we raise the speed "limit" to 85, people will go 95 or 100? That's hardly what I would call a limit.
People have been going about 75 - 85 mph on california freeways since I have been driving. It is a speed that feels safe to people. Raising the speed limit to 150 would not cause people to drive 165. I think we should raise the speed limit to the limit of what is safe. It is perfectly safe to drive just under 85 mph, and treat it as an *actual* limit. This means giving out tickets for going over 85 mph. This whole business of implied allowances to go 10 mph over the speed limit is stupid.
I got a ticket for going 70 in a 65 zone in stop and go traffic not changing any lanes. Having an unspoken rule that the speed limit is not really the speed limit (the sped above which you will get a ticket) simply turns us all into potential criminals and gives too much discretion to law enforcement about who they will actually cite. If everyone drives above the speed limit, then cops can cite the guy in the red sports car, or the woman with the opposing political party bumper sticker, or the suspicious looking minority person. If we had realistic speed limits that were treated as actual limits, traffic violations would become more fair.
My first car couldn't even go that fast.
My personal experience is that people follow the speed limit if the speed limit is closer to the actual safe speed on the road. For example, the highways through Providence, RI are all posted 45-55 MPH. People routinely drive 75+, often 85+. That's 30 MPH over the limit!
In nearby areas, where the speed limit is 65, people drive 75-85. That's 20 MPH over the limit.
In the few areas I have seen with 75 MPH speed limits, people drive 75MPH. They will drive 80MPH in a 65, then SLOW DOWN to 75 when the speed limit is posted 75.
I am not sure why this is the case, but it is my repeated observation. If the speed limit is raised to the ACTUAL maximum safe speed, people seem to follow it!
cej102937
The speed limit is 85 because the state gets more money from the toll operator at the higher speed.
http://houston.cbslocal.com/2012/09/07/texas-approves-highest-speed-limit-in-country-at-85-mph/
"The state contract with the toll operator allows the state to collect a $67 million up-front cash payment or a percentage of the toll profits in the future if the speed limit is 80 mph or lower. At 85 mph, the cash payment balloons to $100 million or a higher percentage of toll revenues."
They drive that from Phoenix To California and have for years.
There are two lanes a fast one on the left I stay out of except to pass like the laws says and a slow one on the right my car is older and so am i I drive 70
65 at night. not even one person has had a hard time to pass me.
At what speed does it no longer matter...... your dead if you crach?
You guys don't like Texans?
IMO, there should be an implied minimum speed of 5 under the posted limit with very few exceptions.
I bet you will be happy to know that commercial vehicles already conform to your standard when the county bothers to post the signs.
Sure... increase in speed = increase in velocity = more potential for fiery death... simple physics. That does not mean that it is completely unsafe to drive at speeds of 100+ MPH. Driving - at any speed - comes with risk!!! The major variables and risk reducers for the aforementioned proof are never added to these stories or thought processes. If the law actually enforced some of the basic rules that every American driver has had to (hopefully read and) test on in order to receive a license, the risk for driving at increased speed is drastically reduced. Here are some simple ones that, if enforced, would radically change the driving habits of Americans (myself included!), decrease risk of accidents and make for a generally safer driving experience for all, at any speed: Pass only on the left (left lane is not for driving, it's for passing only), Do not follow to closely and Use proper signalling. Enforcing these rules with tickets would force drivers to pay more attention to their surroundings and think about what they are doing (driving) instead of mindlessly making their way down the road while ______ (fill in the blank). Also, if driving makes you scared, then you probably should not be driving - I am convinced that scared drivers cause more accidents than aggressive drivers - I wish there was a study on this so if you find or know of one please point me to it.
Accident rates go up with speed differentials, but it's not because of grandma being poky in the fast lane. It's because of red lights. It's because of on-ramps, off-ramps. It's because of traffic jams. (Also, _fatality_ rates always go up with speed, exponentially so once you pass the mean traffic speed).
Most the arguments about driving in this thread are examples of "motivated thinking". People are rationalizing what they want.
Look, I like to drive fast, too. I get pissed at other drivers, too. But I'm not going to ignore the facts and ignore the numbers just so I can feel a sense of righteous indignation at other people. When I drive fast, I know that I'm statistically increasing the _fatality_ rate (as opposed to _accident_ rate). I'm not going to excuse it.
I don't understand people's needs to rationalize their behavior so that it's correct. We're all irrational most of the time. Embrace it, and stop sullying science and facts to suit yourself.
Attention Science Textbook Publishers:
There will be a hearing to receive input from textbook publishers who want to include material supporting Darwinian Evolution in future editions.
To get to the hearing in our offices in Austin, please try out our new toll roads on which you can enjoy driving at 85MPH without getting pulled over for speeding.
No one in their right mind (which excludes many Germans) would go 150+ Kilo/hour on any Autobaun. These highways are filled with trucks from the former Soviet zone that are going 90-110 KPH. You can't get around them fast enough before some Schmuck (German='jewel'; Yiddish='truly stupid asshole') plows into the back of your 100 horsepower economy car with his Mercedes or BMW because he thought that 'on our glorious Autobaun, there are no speed limits'.
Then there is a huge crash and the autobaun is closed due to stalled traffic for 20 kilometers in both directions while the authorities make accident measurements for an hour.
It's not 1965 anymore.
It depends on the road and the location.
Have a motorway/freeway without a speed limit (like the German Autobahns) can make sense. But having a road with no speed limit through a housing estate where lots of kids live would be a recipe for disaster. People already drive too fast on such roads, and debatably the speed limit on these roads is too high (50km/h here, which is ~31mph).
Again, though, some roads here have stupid speed limits: http://www.aanewsletter.ie/edition/9/img/IMG_1325_10p.jpg
So, yes, given a good quality straight wide road with wide lanes, a speed limit shouldn't be required. Other roads should have a speed limit appropriate to the road, the width, surface, location, etc.
How many speeding tickets have you received? How many following too close? The former is fairly easy to enforce, but really is "Safety theater." Your car is just as safe at 85mph as 25mph. You cover more ground at 85mph, and order to have a good reaction time, you need distance from the cars in front of you.
So is 85mph a good idea? Probably not, considering Cities and Counties are more concerned with revenue from speed fines than actual safety measures like braking distance. If safe following distances were actually enforced, you could have 150mph with no problems.
It's worth noting that the new Formula One racetrack that's just about to open to the east of Austin lies right on the end of that tollway.
Coincidence?
Nah. This is clearly a way to attract car nuts to take that road before/after going to the racetrack...and it's going to work.
-- Steve
When you're piddling along in the left lane, and you see a car coming up on you fast, flashing their lights...
Well, legally only the police can flash their lights at other drivers. Braking is a normal response when being pulled over.
Aside from that I think you could use some anger management training.
People don't care about car fatalities. If they did, the TSA would drive your car for you because it is too dangerous for you to be trusted to drive it yourself.
There should be an advanced driver test available at 21 that exempts you from most speed limits and you get a sticker with a serial number on your car. Some people are good drivers and want to go 100mph.
Nuff said
41 miles at 85 MPH = 30 minutes
41 miles at 65 MPH = 37.85 minutes
How much are you willing to pay to free up 7.85 minutes per trip for something you find more productive or enjoyable than driving?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
In many jurisdictions, speed limits are set based on "typical" traffic.
Yes, you are right that they don't take into account an individual vehicle's maximum safe speed, but they do take into account the safety of typical vehicles found on a particular road.
Unfortunately, setting different speeds for different types of vehicles is fraught with its own problems.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
It's the Inertia, and sudden deceleration that does the damage! IOW, "It isn't the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop!"
When they can install inertial dampeners on vehicles, then the death tools can be lowered! ;^)
If you're allowed to scale things down to make comparisons, consider scaling the earth (12.7e6 m diameter) to the size of an apple (~7.5e-3 m).
At that scale, the earth's crust is about as thick as the apple's skin, and sea-level to the top of mount everest is only 20% of the thickness of the apple's skin, and the bottom of the Mariana trench to the top of Everest is less than half of the apple's skin.
That's a lot flatter than a pancake. And it also perfectly illustrates how silly it is to scale things down to make a comparison of flatness.
Goes as the square of velocity
If they are worried about safety then jam cell phones and for God's sake KEEP THEY OLD SLOW DRIVERS OFF the highway.
There was once a rule used when determining speed limits. It was basically, set the speed to one that 85% of drivers would be comfortable driving at, and adjust it from time-to-time to what 85% of drivers were actually doing. That was the reasoning behind raising the speeds in Texas and Utah to 80 a few years ago. Unfortunately, politicians got in the way and started using the speed limits to make money, as well was using dubious studies linking speed to accidents. Over they years the quality of the roadways have also dropped (thanks to engineers working with a 55MPH national limit) making it dangerous in many instances to raise the speed limits. However there a large swaths of Interstate Highway in the US (and Canada) where there is minimal traffic, well designed exits, well spaced, where I could easily see higher limits being uses. The is no logical reason why rural Washington is 70, rural Oregon is 65 (70 by law, but 65 because ODOT refuses to put up new signs), or why Montana, Wyoming, The Dakotas, or most of Minnesota aren't 80+. It is all down to false studies, and lawmakers wanting to make money on tickets. If they really wanted to make money, the US would setup an MOT like system (as in the UK) for vehicle inspections to make sure the vehicles could handle the higher speeds, then allow higher speed limits in the rural areas, or go so far as to eliminate speed limits on certain roads in certain sections (I'm looking at you I-90 from Butte to Billings).
Milo: I understand that my opponent supports the 55 M.P.H. speed limit. ... Saving 30,000 lives a year.
Opus: Saves 500 lives a year! I fully support saving lives.
Milo: Then he'd support the saving of another 10,000 lives by lowering the limit to 40 M.P.H.
Opus: 40?
Milo: Or to 20
Opus: Gee... 20 is pretty slow.
Milo: Apparently my opponent would send 30,000 men, women, and children to fiery, mangled deaths just so he can zoom along to his manicurist at 55.
Opus: I DON'T HAVE A MANICURIST!
Milo: He probably doesn't. Most mass murderers don't. Hitler didn't.
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Hi speed highways do not cause more accidents. There are many studies that show that. Another poster was quite correct.
Why is it that whenever people are advocating lower speed limits, they always seem to bring up the idea that "oh, well if the speed limit is x, people will be driving at x+xy+z" or some such presumption of speeding.
While it may be perfectly true that people will break the speed limit, regardless of what it is, it is highly unfair to penalise law-abiding drivers by lowering the speed limit in order to trick people who break the speed limit into driving closer to the original speed limit (while speeding in relation to the new limit). The speed limit should be, at a minimum, set at the maximum safe speed for the road. It should not be lowered in order to play psychological games with motorists. That only encourages more people to ignore it.
beast
Just wondering if this will make driving a pickup cost $200 a week for fuel instead of $100.
Anyone know where fuel efficiency caps out?
Germany has roads without speed limits, and cars fully capable of doing whatever speed they want, yet seem to be successful. I have an idea, let's ask them how they do it?
Parent is not a troll, mods. Sounds like some city dwellers got butt-hurt over his comment, but I feel the exact same way reading comments from clueless city dwellers who don't have a car and GODDAMNIT why can't us stupid country bumpkins get along without one too? These are the same dumb asses you hear talking about "renting a truck" any time they have to take some of some small task. They are poor, helpless, and PROUD of it, and don't get why retards like me would want to live out in the country where it's quiet and peaceful and I can do things like DRIVE for miles without seeing another car.
85 mph or even 100 is not fast or dangerous. Here in Germany, about 30% of all car traffic is Autobahn traffic but only 7% of all accidents happen there (according to you-get-laughed-at-if-you-quote-it Wikipedia), and a large part of the Autobahn is completely unrestricted. Even driving for an hour or two at speeds of up to 150+ mph is safe and totally unspectacular, if you are used to it and have a car which has been designed with such speeds in mind. It's actually kind of funny to read these articles which compare speeds of 100mph to hurricanes, as if people would instantly die if they drive that fast :-) Not even my mother is scared when we go visit my uncle who lives an hour away and I hit 150 mph or so in my Golf GTI.
41 miles at 85 MPH = 30 minutes
41 miles at 65 MPH = 37.85 minutes
How much are you willing to pay to free up 7.85 minutes per trip for something you find more productive or enjoyable than driving?
Yeah, you pretty quickly get to questions that can't be answered; do we really want to measure everything in time and money? Are you on vacation, thinking while driving, headed home to wonderful family, awful family, alone for dinner, or surfing the Internet at home or at work? How much time do you lose waiting for higher-speed accidents to clear, allow more time if you're in one. Is that $5.60/trip for gas (41 miles, $4/gal gas, 30 mpg car) a better trade-off than paying 20% more, or $6.72 per trip? $1.12 doesn't sound like much. That's just for 1 trip though. How about the commuters over a year.
Starting with time:
41 miles/ 65 mph = 38 minutes
41 miles / 85 mph = 29 minutes
38 - 29 = 9 minutes/trip
0:09/trip * 2 trips/day * 5 days/week * 50 weeks/year = 75 hours/year
Over 3 days extra driving every year, yikes.
Now for the money, presuming 20% worse mileage for higher speeds (YMMV):
30 mpg * 80% = 24 mpg
4 $/gal * 41 miles / 30 mpg * 500 trips/yr = $2733/yr
4 $/gal * 41 miles / 24 mpg * 500 trips/yr = $3417/yr
We should probably include the toll, which I'm guessing will be around $1/trip, or $500/year.
$3417 + $500 = $3917/yr
So how much is this 85 mph instead of 65 costing per hour?
$3917 - $2733 = $1184/yr difference
$1184/75 hours = $16/hour
Plus extra wear and tear on your engine and tires.
So what does that all mean? I don't know, it's up to the individual. I presume the rich will pay without noticing, while regular people will lose 3 days or give up a few days of their vacation.
Higher *enforced* speed limits are much better than lower but commonly disregarded ones.
A highway where everyone is traveling at 85mph is safe under normal driving conditions. It's much more hazardous to have a highway where a third of traffic is staying within a few mph of a 65mph speed limit, half of traffic is going the usual 10mph over the limit or thereabouts, and the last sixth is split between those trying to go considerably over 80 and a handful of people going less than 60.
Even beyond the safety considerations, having any laws that people expect to almost always get away with flagrantly violating is bad for society. Speed limits should be high but *tightly-enforced*. If people would be outraged if a speed limit were tightly enforced, either the limit needs to be raised or (much harder) societal expectations have to be fundamentally changed.
I know everybody complains about traffic enforcement cameras, but traffic violations are too frequent and too hard to catch to have effective enforcement without them; instead of complaining about the law actually being enforced, change the law.
When you're only enforcing the law a tiny fraction of the time, that's not only ineffective but also unfair and arbitrary. Making people pay an exorbitant fine the 0.01% of the time they get caught is not an effective deterrent; such fines may raise revenue for some municipalities but they're awful public policy.
When I drive fast, I know that I'm statistically increasing the _fatality_ rate (as opposed to _accident_ rate).
Sigh....you don't understand statistics.
How are you increasing the fatality rate if you don't cause an accident? That doesn't make any sense at all.
Worth watching: Student video - all lanes driving the speed limit.
Fast forward to 3:25 for the best image...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B-Ox0ZmVIU
You're raising speeds without raising the capabilities of the cars. Faster speeds need better tires, better wheels, better suspensions. Also, good brakes and good handling during hard braking from a high speed.
Access to a higher speed limit should be on a per-vehicle basis. Vehicles should be inspected and certified by the state and then given the approval for higher speed limits. Those lacking the cert should be confined to the lower limit.
most people aren't trained to know what is too fast for conditions.
Sure they are; it's called having a fucking brain. I know most people in school aren't "trained" to think, but don't project your own limitations on others.
I am an expert driver. Trying to limit me to the lowest common denominator is stupid and wrong.
The number 1 cause of accidents is not paying attention, and human drivers are NEVER paying attention n to everything all the time, and it gets worse the longer the travel at a consistent speed down ad familiar road.
What's your point?
A) people get bored at any speed
B) 55 means more reaction time when an event happens.
Yeah, and it's even better at 30. And at 20. If you used your brain, you might see why this line of argumentation is beyond retarded.
yes, driving an a road at a high rate of speed subject to more variables and putting other people lives at risk is you right to fun.
Is "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" just a meaningless phrase to you?
You want to drive fast? Go to a speed way.
You want to drive slow? Fuck off, because I'm driving fast anyway, and there isn't shit you can do about. Fucking fascist bitch.
From TFA: "The state contract with the toll operator allows the state to collect a $67 million up-front cash payment or a percentage of the toll profits in the future if the speed limit is 80 mph or lower. At 85 mph, the cash payment balloons to $100 million or a higher percentage of toll revenues."
Emphasis mine.
So... was there some "death panel" that placed the value of the additional lives lost on this highway due to the excessive speed at $32 millon?
When you speed, you put other lives at risk, not just your own.
When you drive the speed limit, you put other lives at risk, not just your own.
Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
The safety freaks will say people will start going 95-105mph if you raise the speed limit to 85, and people listen to them.
However it is a modern toll road so there is an easy solution: time the entry and exit. If this is faster than allowed by the speed limit then you have a hefty fine added to the toll. Some roads, such as the A14 in the UK, even have average speed limit cameras. They read your number plate as you pass the cameras and, if you exceed the speed limit on average between them, you get a ticket. It really works - I've never seen a road so full of drivers carefully following the speed limit!
i'm surprised that none of the posts so far has considered the drastic drop off in fuel economy at higher speeds:
http://www.mpgforspeed.com
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml
http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2009/09/tested-speed-vs-fuel-economy.html
So, if your tires have a "C" temperature rating, they have been tested at speeds up to 85 mph? The tire manufacturers apply a safety factor of ?
Doesn't matter here:
In Los Angeles, traffic typically moves at 80mph on the 101 in Hollywood... IF THERE'S NO TRAFFIC.
In NYC, traffic typically moves at 80mph on the BQE... IF THERE'S NO TRAFFIC.
In DC, traffic typically moves at 80-85mph on I95 (north side of the beltway)... IF THERE'S NO TRAFFIC.
Between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, traffic typically moves at 90-95mph... IF THERE'S NO TRAFFIC (yes, there are 5 miles backups in the DESERT).
Granted, the 1st 3 streches are usually 10miles, where as the last stretch is 265miles. And note the I-15, LA - Vegas corridor is the most dangerous highway in the US though...
Why is it only the fast drivers that are rationalizing? When the slow drivers argue that everyone should drive at the speed they feel comfortable at it is a rational argument, but when fast drivers argue the same it is a rationalization? There are rational arguments for forcing everyone to drive slow, for forcing everyone to drive fast, or for just letting people do what they want. All have rational arguments behind them. Although the fact that 'slow' and 'fast' are completely relative and mean different things to different people doesn't help matters. I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that people on either side are rationalizing, unless of course you are just projecting.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Did Southwestern Insurance Information Service just say it was okay to speed?
More importantly the way the autobahn was built, with there being a divide to separate any chance of a head on collision. If the US was so interested in your safety they would have done the same, regardless of speed limits. All thanks to the idiots who built the US highways for not building highways with the same safety that Germany did!! The US use moronic ideas like "jersey barriers" which actually will launch a car into the air, up over the barriers, these barriers would make sense if they were used upside down, and then there's the cheap crappy metal barriers that actually, really nothing considering they only put the posts a couple feet into the ground and too far apart, and the barrier is not high enough, and this happen at 25-35 mph speeds, let alone higher speeds. And of course the idiot insurance companies that want to stay rich without having to pay out.
you'll never know the "wtf" of overtaking somebody on a german highway (already driving 150 kph, so faster than it's allowed in my home country) and being _obliterated_ by some dude on the third lane, like you are standing still :D
Accident rates are directly related to the speed limit; that's pretty much indisputable. If the speed limit on a road goes up, accidents (and fatalities) on that road go up. Limits go down, accidents go down.
If that's accepted as sufficient argument on its own, though, the only logical conclusion is to ban vehicles altogether - because you can always reduce the number of accidents by setting the limit even lower, and enforcing it. Whereas the truth is that, worldwide (and whether or not we admit it), we accept a certain level of road incidents and fatalities as an acceptable cost of having a road infrastructure (and, as individuals, a certain probability of our being one of those fatalities ourselves, as an acceptable cost of using that network). The REAL discussion for any society should be about what the acceptable numbers actually ARE - only then do we have anything meaningful against which to evaluate the impact of a change such as this.
Leave it to Texas to figure out a way for people to pay for their own executions :)
Given this is slashdot, I'm surprised that there isn't a discussion of some basic high school physics of the kinematics involved.
Kinetic Energy of a body with mass M moving at a given velocity V is:
KE=1/2MV^2
Now doubling your speed 30mph to 60mph or km/h will QUADRUPLE your energy, also quadrupling the energy needed to stop you (increase braking distance about 4x as well.)
Increasing speeds from 65 to 75 (a 15% increase) increases the KE by a 33%.
Here are some basic numbers. (sorry for the formatting)
V % increase V^2 % increase
30 900
60 100.00% 3600 300.00%
65 8.33% 4225 17.36%
75 15.38% 5625 33.14%
85 13.33% 7225 28.44%
95 11.76% 9025 24.91%
105 10.53% 11025 22.16%
Regardless of driving culture/habits/training etc, there is clearly a greater risk the faster you go if things go wrong. Simple math. Calculating people's ignorance, arrogance, poor judgement, etc. is a bit more tricky. But it's better to err on the side of safety since our driving standards are so low, unlike in some other countries.
From -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koenigsegg
PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:
---
"During its review of the CCX, BBC television program Top Gear reported that the Koenigsegg CCR holds the fastest speeding ticket in the United States, which was supposedly for 242 mph (389 km/h) in a 75 mph (121 km/h) zone.[12] This allegedly occurred in May 2003 in west Texas on the San Francisco to Miami Gumball 3000 Rally.[13] The Koenigsegg CCXR holds the power-to-weight ratio record for production cars, with a power-to-weight ratio of 2.9 lb (1.3 kg)/hp. In 2008, the German magazine sport auto conducted a 0â"300â"0 km/h (0â"190â"0 mph) test for production cars, with the CCX winning the event in a total time of 29.2 s.[14] In September 2011 the Koenigsegg Agera R broke the Guinness World Record - 0-300-0 km/h with a time of just 21.19 seconds."
---
* And, thus? There you go... Mod me down ALL YOU LIKE? I was on-topic, & this proves it!
APK
P.S.=> Texas, Tickets, & the Koenigsegg...
... apk
When you speed, you put other lives at risk, not just your own.
Prove it, without using any logic where your statement could be replaced with "When you drive, you put other lives at risk, not just your own."
I'm always interested to hear the logic behind such statements.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Some view freedom as a teenager: I can do anything I want, damn the consequences.
Some view freedom as an adult: I can do anything I want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.
When you speed, you put other lives at risk, not just your own.
Every time you walk by someone, you might stir some particle of dust, that can enter their nose, cause them to sneeze, which might cause a tiny vein in their brain to rupture, and they might die.
Contrary to your belief, I believe a rational and moral person (I don't care if it is a teenager or an adult) actually thinks about the consequences of their actions and weighs the risks against the rewards/comforts/rights/needs/wants for/of himself/herself.
To just say that you won't hurt anybody else is absolutely unrealistic and impossible. You have to measure the parameters of each situation and calculate (or unconsciously guesstimate) the probability of hurting or harming.
In the case of highway speed limits, that means sometimes going below or sometimes going above the speed limit.
Note: I know that this assumes sane and rational (even superrational) people. I don't know if there is such a thing as a sane and rational population.
I fully agree that higher speeds may mean higher fatalities. Driving at 25 mph on a 35 mph limit road may well be safer than driving at 45 mpg on that same road, but driving at 25 mph on a 70 or 75 mph road is an invitation to disaster unless you happen to be preceded by an advance and a rear vehicle with flashing lights signaling danger. Increases in speed on a state's roads always have a price, not least the added cost of special measures taken to make driving at 85 MPH safer. A sequence of vehicles which all drive at the same speed is like a pod in a tube. As long as none of the units in the pod vary their speed and distance from each other significantly, they will be safe. Adequate distance apart is most important in order to allow safe exit and entry to the pod, the higher the speed the greater the distance. Per se, 85 MPH is not inherently more dangerous than driving at 75 MPH. Other civilised countries such as Germany, France and Italy allow speeds higher than 85 MPH (140 KPH) but rigorously enforce the overall speed law even on Autobahnen, autoroutes and autostrade which have no speed limit at all. None of these European unlimited speed tollways allow unlimited speed throughout their length. There are frequent stretches (e.g. transitions between interlaced tollways, entry and exit ramps for petrol stations and restaurants, tunnels and occasional tight curves) where the speed is reduced and highway patrolmen watch for offenders. A motorcyclist driving his souped up Ducati at 250 KPH on an unlimited speed stretch where the average speed of other users is 160 KPH will be stopped and fined on the spot I would not expect the Texas 85 MPH stretch to be any different. The question is not whether we should not build ultrahigh speed tollways for the gratification of speed demons but whether we must balance added safety related construction cost against the benefits of accelerated communications of goods and services. Once that goal is achieved, any eventual added cost in loss of life or limb must be minimised by appropriate construction improvements, vehicle qualifications and vigilant speed control enforcement. When those three conditions are satisfied, it matters little whether the speed limit is 85 MPH or the speed of sound (e.g. bullet trains and tubular travel). Fuel economy is an entirely separate issue which exceeds by far the limits of tollway traffic.
I'm into Darwinism. I think that they ought to remove all speed limits everywhere, but especially in Texas. Of course, we'd need to have prepaid tickets on the corpses for their burial... otherwise the buzzards could handle the recycling. It would be up to the individual. I see no reason why government should intevene if people want to kill themselves and those around them.
VOTE TEA PARTY!
3more mph and I'm game!
It really doesn't matter what the posted speed limit is people are going to drive as fast as they want to an hope they don't get caught. I live in San Diego Ca and our posted limit is 65 and no one drives below 75 anyway.
I am an expert driver. Trying to limit me to the lowest common denominator is stupid and wrong.
Look at that. Just look at how wrong you are.
Even if you were right (which you are not, with a >99.9% certainty), let's say you can handle driving with no speed limits. Your car is in perfect condition, you run high-performance tires, you're wide awake, alert and focused, and you refuse to be distracted by your cellphone etc. while driving.
So hypothetically, you and your car can handle the speed. How about the guy behind you? He's stressed, about to be late for a meeting, and he's just had a set of brand new $50 tires put on his car.
Let's say you can handle an upcoming sweeping corner at 85mph, but the guy behind you doesn't know much about cars, so he's thinking "I'll just follow that guy in front of me". Suddenly, he's upside down in a ditch, wondering what went wrong. I don't trust 99.9% of drivers to react correctly in an emergency, such as entering a corner at a too high rate of speed.
Being a good driver is not about how fast you can drive, even if immature idiots think so. It's about knowing which speed is appropriate for a given road. Said speed can be much slower than the posted speed limit, depending on conditions and traffic.
Are you pissed because someone is in front of you while you're wanting to go faster than traffic? Well fuck you. You can wait until they complete their pass, or until the road opens up into enough lanes that you can safely overtake. Different people have different speeds they're comfortable at, and terrorizing people because they want to drive slower than you do is dickery of the highest order.
Take a chill pill, dude.
Eat the rich.
Texas actually doing something RIGHT for once? Whoa!
Gotta put this on my calendar!
How many trucks coming up from Mexico? Are big rigs allowed? Formula race cars going to the Austin track??
To Sandra Helm: If you don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen. If you don't like an 85mph highway, then don't drive on it. But don't try and make the decision for others.
That's the difference between Germany and America, Germans can actually drive a car instead of just pointing it in the right direction and hoping nothing goes wrong.
pretty sure that the accident damage rises with speed, and the damage you can do when you hit someone at 0mph is ... minimal. The reasonable question is whether there is a knee in the curve.
When you speed, you put other lives at risk, not just your own.
That depends on the definition of "speeding".
If it means "driving faster than is safe for the combination of { road condition, traffic conditions, vehicle condition, driver condition } then I fully agree with your assertion.
However, if you take it to mean "driving faster than an arbitrarily set number" then you're spouting a fallacy.
This is similar to the "Evolution is just a theory" argument.
"Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins"
True, but that takes into account the length of your nose.
As far as I know, the state has not mandated that all noses shall begin at a set distance from their owners' faces.
I don't believe that speed in an appropriate environment is the cause of accidents, you just make more of a mess when you get it wrong so there is an emotional response from the public.
Emotional Response = Potential for huge revenue generation (speed cameras).
The REAL causes:
- Yapping on mobile phones and not paying attention to the road.
- Driving with eyes closed.
- Driving when brain-dead.
- Ignoring mirrors.
- Failing to indicate.
- Driving beyond ones limits.
- Driving beyond the vehicles limits.
- Anger behind the wheel.
I believe that turning all the revenue generating speed camera's into 'Stupid Driving' cameras would take all of the a-holes off the roads and reduce the statistics to almost nothing, what's more if revenue is the only 'driver', I'm sure they could find some slimy way to make money out of stupid drivers instead of speeding drivers.
Only 60% of drivers really deserve to have a driving licence, the other 40% should have them removed permanently.
And some people believe that having children or getting old (or both) entitles them to tell other people what to do because there might be an outside chance that their baby might get run over by a Camero.
I know that people on sladhsot love to ridicule the "just think of the children" mentality, but in this case you are talking absolute bollocks in bringing it up.
In residential areas where there are children, old people, pedestrians, cyclists and so on, you should indeed have a low speed limit because high speed cars are not the only people using that space. It is an evil socialist thing, your freedom to be a cunt does not trump anyone else's right to cross the street reasonably safely.
Fast highways are an entirely different matter. Speed limits are there because the average driver needs to be protected. Most people are not fucking racing drivers, do not use roads as racetracks, and should not be expected to have to deal with dickheads overtaking them at 150 mph in a 70 limit..
It's simple. I do not care if you have a Lamborghini that can do 200 mph, I just want to get to work or to the supermarket. You can go and play somewhere private.
If you have a system like the German Autobahns, that's different, as people there know the rules. You're not going to get grannies in Nissan Micras using them to pop down to the local shops.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I want to be Libertarian about this: I believe that the flow of traffic ought to determine the speeds. Kinda of a free market mentality to our highways.
Utah has had an 85mph speed limit on a stretch of I-15 for several years. Most of the traffic on the 75 mph sections are already running 85+ anyway. Today's cars can easily handle the speed. This should be the norm on the less congested freeways everywhere.