Slashdot Mirror
Montana Lawmakers Propose 85 Mph Speed Limit On Interstates
HughPickens.com writes AP reports that Montana lawmakers are drafting bills that would raise the daytime speed limit on Montana interstate highways from 75 to 80 and possibly as high as 85 mph. "I just think our roads are engineered well, and technology is such we can drive those roads safely," says Art Wittich. He notes that Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho have raised their speed limits above 75, and they haven't had any problems. Drivers on German autobahns average about 84 mph. State Senator Scott Sales says he spent seven months working in the Bakken oil patch, driving back and forth to Bozeman regularly. "If I could drive 85 mph on the interstate, it would save an hour," says Sales. "Eighty-five would be fine with me."
A few years ago Texas opened a 40 mile stretch on part of a toll road called the Pickle Parkway between Austin and San Antonio. The tolled bypass was supposed to help relieve the bottleneck around Austin but the highway was built so far to the east that practically nobody used it. In desperation, the state raised the toll road speed limit to 85 mph, the fastest in the nation. "The idea was that drivers could drop the top, drop the hammer, crank the music and fly right past Austin," says Wade Goodyn. "It's a beautiful, wide-open highway — but it's empty, and the builders are nearly bankrupt."
Is Montana prepared to go without any federal highway funding? That's the usual string attached that scuttles these plans. Or has the US DOT had a change in policy?
Back in the 90's Montana didn't have a speed limit on the Interstates. "Reasonable and prudent" speed for the conditions was the rule. I do remember there being a night-time speed limit of 65 or 70, though.
'our roads are engineered wel' that's possible. But humans are still a bunch of idiots.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
...if they raised the speed limit to eighty-eight, scott could save *years*...
Montana used to have no speed limit during the daytime but that was overturned for being too "vague" by the Montana Supreme Court. People actually drove reasonably well and there weren't any major issues with it. The major issue was the Susie safety nuts who felt that without telling people how fast was reasonable that it would confuse people, the court agreed.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
There is a huge difference in driving culture in the states and Germany. Stick with the lower speed limit.
Have you compared the average car in Germany with the ones in the USA? Furthermore, in Germany there are mandatory periodic technical inspections, and these are no joke. Half the cars I see in the USA would never pass these inspections. Also, getting a driver license in Germany is HARD, and the average Autobahn driver is very well disciplined compared to his USA counterpart (exceptions exist, I know I know...)
int main(void) {while(1) fork(); return 0;}
IL tollway needs to be 70 or more and most people are doing that right now and the cops let it go as well.
Does Montana have wildlife fencing along it's interstate? This would be my main concern, not other drivers. It doesn't matter how "well engineered" your roadway is if a deer can leap out into it and you have no time to react since you are going 85mph... this can be disastrous not only for you but other motorists as your car goes out of control .
The speed limit on highways varies from 50MPH to 65MPH. And the actual speed people do on the highway, 70MPH to 85MPH. Seriously.
And of course they just repaved part of I-95 as you get south out of Providence. It's a beautiful stretch on which to do ludicrous speed!
I recall back in the late 1960's the original speed limit on I-95 even in Providence was 70MPH. Then the gas crunch came around and to save gas they implemented 55MPH. Then the focus changed from saving gas to safety which of course is bovine effluvia.
The national maximum speed limit was repealed under Bill Clinton so federal funding is not an issue.
Safety is an issue. Crashes on highways are no more frequent at higher speeds so long as they are designed for it, they are however more deadly. In Germany you have two additional things that make it possible to have high or no speed limit on intercity highways. First, the driver training is of much higher quality, you will never see anyone changing lanes without signalling on the autobahn. Second, there is generally a parallel slower road. If an 85 mph road is the only option then you will have people who are little tired or had a glass of wine with dinner on it. Not a recipe for success.
The problem isn't that no one knows HOW to drive a car at 85mph it's that no one pays enough attention. People pretty much drive like they're learning to drive in a parking lot now. They act randomly and you never know what they might do. Could be going 50 in a parking lot, could be pulling out blindly into 4 lanes of traffic, could be making a right turn from the far left lane, could be stopping randomly for no reason, or going 35 on the highway, could be blasting through a 5 way intersection or stopping at a traffic circle waiting for an imaginary stoplight. Wait for the first person to t-bone some farm equipment that just pulled out into the road w/o looking.
The German Autobahns are unrestricted. You can literally go as fast as you want on them (your insurance may blame you in an accident if you're the only one doing over 100mph, but it's not "illegal").
Strict lane control is the saviour. You can be arrested for dawdling in the inner lanes (the "fast" - actually "overtaking" - lanes) unnecessarily. It works well because the old grannies do get too scared to be in anything but the first lane, so they actually stick to it, rather than hog the middle lane as they do in my country (the UK).
I see no problem with a rise in speed limits (and would vastly prefer that to people campaigning to scrap speed cameras etc.), but basic driving etiquette must be enforced. In Germany, I believe it's actually written on the road signs and road markings - this lane below 55, these lane over 55 ONLY.
Enforce that strictly, it becomes much safer.
Since US and German driving were compared, German police is really tough on tailgating. You will see cameras on motorways, they don't measure speed but the distance between cars. The correct distance is speed in km/h, divided by 2, as meters. Less than half that can get you a ticket (25 mtrs and 100 km/h = 62mph). Even less distance gives serious fines and can be a criminal offence.
Either the senator is bad at math or it would mean that he lived 8.5 hours away from his place of work. Perhaps as a European my perception of the amount of time commuting is supposed to take is somewhat skewed, but that seems excessive.
Had relaxed limits for years, at the most, you got pulled over for doing over 85 , this was considered wasting a natural resource,yes gasoline is a resource!
The upper western states have straight roads that go forever, unfortunately they sometimes have a 4 way stop at some point, this is where the court decision came limiting the speed to 80'ish after a few accidents at these crossroads.
It's Montana. What are they going to hit, an elk? It's not like there are any people there.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
I drove a semi and I can tell you most companies have theirs throttled to 70 or lower like JB Hunt which are 62mph. A 23mph approach rate is not good.
Its 70 but if your driving less than 10 mph over the speed limit, the state troopers wont bother. I think 75 is fast enough on the east coast. In Montana where there is noone for miles I can see 85. My grand marquis would cruise nicely at 80 whether the speed limit is 75 or 85.
Sure he would save an hour, and he would probably also burn a lot more gas. Engines are optimized to get maximum efficiency at certain speeds. Even if you optimized them for higher speeds, there's still the problem of air resistance which goes up as a function of the cube of the speed.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Let me tell you. When I was stationed in Germany from 1991 to 1993, you were correct. Then the EU and open borders and the Eurozone and all that stuff happened. I've been back to Germany several times (no longer as poor soldier) in the 2000's, and I can say that there are a lot of foreigners on them there Autobahns (nouns are cap'd in German), and the rules ain't that strictly followed. (Not sure why I'm writing in that tone of voice.)
There's still pretty good discipline in the leftmost lane. But out of five or six lanes, it's not quite good enough. And of course in cities and urban areas there have always been speed limits. In fact the speed limits in these areas are programmed based on traffic flow and peak times.
Intercity is where the safe and prudent really works in Germany, especially because the left-most lane (not all lanes!) discipline works fairly well. Note that as early as 1991, though, there is certain liability for causing an accident in the left lane, even if there's a slow driver.
I guess my point is, Germany isn't the speed-limitless-wonderland that so many people think it is.
--Jim (me)
Idaho changed the major interstates, outside of major towns, to 80MPH already this summer. It definitely helps.
Truck speed limit is 70. Some cars/trucks still go 65. No major problems I'm aware of, and in these more sparsely populated states, I think a valid change.
For my pickup, my MPG goes way down if I go above 70MPH, so I usually stay around 68-69MPH.
Don't steal. The government hates competition.
To those two also add rather strict rules on testing and what's allowed to be mounted on / modified etc...
The Autobahns are also built to higher standards in terms of thicker roadbeds, better maintenance, and more gradual curves that are designed to be used at higher speeds. Admittedly you can restrict speed limits for just parts of a highway where curves are more common and raise limits on straight stretches of the road, but the smaller roadbed is a major concern and something that needs to be considered.
The reason for the lower standards on the American Interstate Highways is in part due to the huge scale of the whole project being a continent spanning system as opposed to something that simply runs through a much smaller country. Distances are huge in America and the higher standards used for the Autobahn would have been prohibitive in terms of how much it cost to build those highways... especially in rural America.
Interstate Highways are not the Autobahn, even though there are some superficial common features. If Interstate Highways had their construction standards raised and roadbeds rebuilt to those higher standards to accommodate these higher speeds, I would be more inclined to support some higher speeds.
What are they going to hit, an elk?
Or a cow. In spite of fences and other attempts to keep wildlife off of major roads, it still is a major problem. Avoiding wildlife while traveling at 55 mph is much easier to do than at 80 mph.
Yes, and at 85mph, hitting that elk is a) far more likely to occur and b) far more likely to be fatal.
As far as hitting wandering creatures goes, there is no real-world difference (in either chance or damages caused) between driving 60mph and 85mph.
That accident occured in Belgium. Their drivers are known all over Europe to be... Belgians. That really says it all.
The average fuel consumption will go higher, as the air drag increases square to the speed, the fuel consumption on those "high-speed" highways will be higher, with higher CO2 emissions, increasing air pollution from common pollutants (NOx,particulate matter), damaging the communities that such highway crosses; I would rather leave the limit as it is.
Try some general aviation. 150+ mph is faster than 85 mph. And no fucking cops, either.
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
Somewhat true, but the Germans are much better trained than US drivers, including basic medical training and required safety equipment, should anything go wrong, and so on. Their vehicles are also more highly maintained. Also, let's not forget that the Autobahns are usually engineered to a very high standard.
I live in Germany, and so I might have seen a bit more of the Autobahn than you have in recent years, and I've not had the impression of dangerous foreigners driving all over the place. I'm not saying you're wrong, but the problem doesn't seem as bad as your post painted it.
I shudder to think what would happen if US drivers were let loose on roads such as the Autobahn in their cars, with their proficiency, and their respect for the rules of the road - it'd make some great TV :)
State Senator Scott Sales says he spent seven months working in the Bakken oil patch, driving back and forth to Bozeman regularly. "If I could drive 85 mph on the interstate, it would save an hour," says Sales. "Eighty-five would be fine with me."
Apparently you don't need to know math to become a Senator. Montana isn't big enough to save you "an hour" by going an extra 10mph end to end, let alone Bakken to Bozeman.
Solving Unix problems since 1989...
I'm a German living in Germany, so let me add a few things about the Autobahn that law makers seem to ignore. They think changing the law is all there is to it. But they forget that the reason the Autobahn works is that it is designed and built for this exact purpose.
The german Autobahn is like the US highways in LA or other big cities, but it is like this everywhere, even in the slowest, darkest corner of the most remote countryside. The Autobahn has mid dividers everywhere, at least 2 lanes everywhere, never, ever any traffic lights or crossings, all the roads are kept in good condition permanently and all curves are smooth and wide enough to be used at high speed. These and other details create an environment where you can simply assume a larger number of things. I've driven 290 km/h (180 mph) on the Autobahn and felt perfectly safe. I would never, ever, ever drive that speed on any of the US highways I've seen.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I believe the poster was talking about the B-roads which generally run in similar routes to the A-roads (the Autobahns). The B-roads are for slower traffic, and offer a respite for people not wishing to share the road with people thundering past.
No, the problem will be the people going 105 mph.
The German Autobahns are unrestricted.
That is incorrect. There are only certain stretches of various autobahns that have unrestricted speed laws. When you're driving through busy areas they have speed limits as low as 90 km/h. They also have electronic signs that can vary the speed limit based on traffic. My cousins who are from Germany say that, in some areas, they have sensors in the road that will detect when you are speeding and take a photo of you and they mail you a citation. I know that I was hit with a speed camera on the autobahn near Hannover, but the rental company never billed me for the speeding ticket.
I just think our roads are engineered well
Umm... American's infrastructure is not in good shape.
I don't see why not. SH130 (the toll road from San Antonio to Waco) and I-10 from Kerville to about Fort Stockton both have 85mph speed limits (I10 might be 80), but either way as long as the road is designed for it and generally is a straight run there are no issues from it. That and when you're that far out in the middle of nowhere it's a real blessing.
------
"And may your days be long upon the earth."
When there are zero incidents of v=65 accidents with elk on highways in Montana, that "little two above the v" makes no difference to the severity of accidents. You want to say different? Come up with the stats in Montana highways.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
> I shudder to think what would happen if US drivers were let loose on roads such as the Autobahn in their cars, with their proficiency, and their respect for the rules of the road - it'd make some great TV :)
Really, I guess it depends on *how many* Americans (and which Americans) are released. If it's the same as the non-German percentage on the Autobahns, maybe the effect is negligible. A typical American isn't much different than the typical French (i.e., some of them won't get the hell out of the left lane).
Overall, though, I cede you the point. I used to be proud of my fellow Michiganders for example, but in the last 15 years, they're as stupid as Ohioans. Granted we have some stupid left-side exits and entrances, but gee, you don't need eight miles to prepare for them.
--Jim (me)
I clumsily meant if, over night, the speed limits on US roads were raised to those of the Autobahn, with nothing else done. So the answer would be "all of them" (and "all of them"), and result in incredible TV.
They were not created by Hitler. That's a common claim, but simply untrue.
French interstates work quite well in that respect. Everyone does about 130kph (that's 81mph), and this speed limit is strictly enforced. Relaxed driving, really.
The other thing to take into account is driver training. The kind of tail-gating I'm seeing here in the states rarely happens in Germany. Yes, you get the angry BMW driver flashing his lights at you when you're in "his" lane (road rage is universal), but that's typically over in a few seconds. Drivers wisely keep their distance.
Hahahaha.
This might be pleasant. With so many cars in the body shop the following days, the highways might be fun!
--Jim (me)
The distances between cities in MT and WY make all electric cars impractical for high speed interstate travel at their current ranges, regardless of speed of travel.
I have driven that stretch in eastern Montana many times, and I have also driven that stretch of road in Texas. One thing the article doesn't mention about that toll road in Texas is that it was very expensive -- over $5 if I remember correctly. I tried it once not knowing the cost, and it was a lot of fun to drive on. But for that price, I can see why so few people use it, especially since you have to go out of your way. I was on my way from San Antonio to Dallas, so I didn't mind skipping Austin.
As for eastern Montana, the countryside is very open with gently rolling hills and long stretches of mostly straight sections of Interstate. Very often, you will not be able to see a vehicle in either direction (and just as often, no more than one or two buildings either), so the temptation to cruise is very high. Any wildlife can be seen from miles away, and there are very few trees. My only concern would be raising the speed limit on the western side of the state where there are more mountains and forests. There are some highways with 70 mph limits with limited visibility (both on the road and in the underbrush around) that makes for dangerous driving. As long as they take these things into account, it makes perfect sense. Montana already takes over a day's driving. just to get across.
I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!
Even for states as relatively small as New York, a higher speed limit would be great. Putting aside downstate, we have long stretches of nothing between a handful of major cities. We also have deer, fog, and bad weather, which would require that raised speed limits be restricted to high-visibility daytime conditions.
If you raise the limit to 85, people will be driving 100. They'd be better off leaving it at 70 and not pulling anyone over until they were going 90.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
This is only likely to reduce the number of speeding tickets.
I live in kansas where the speed limit is 75mph on the open highway but where the trafic is sparse, the road is straight, and flat many drivers already do 85mph. I would imagine Montana is the same way, I know Nebraska is I just drove through there.
Then there are the people with economy cars and cross overs with small engines that end up doing 65-70mph because they have trouble maintaining 75mph if there are any hills. {I used to have an older ford taurus with a 4 cylinder engine that was one of those cars}
It looks like this
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
"The reason for the lower standards on the American Interstate Highways is in part due to the huge scale of the whole project being a continent spanning system as opposed to something that simply runs through a much smaller country."
Good argument, except basically all the EU shares the same standards regarding highway engineering so you end up comparing apples to apples.
European Route E90, for instance, covers 4770Km (almost 3000 miles) from Portugal to Turkey, which happens to be a bit longer than Los Angeles to New York.
Technically speaking, the Authobahns are indeed unrestricted except when the road signs state otherwise.
Such restrictions are pretty common though: areas with heavy traffic, bad roads, slightly sharper curves etc.
Right in line with my sig, I guess. How far do you have to drive to "save an hour" by going 85 mph instead of 75 mph? I get 637.5 miles (8.5 hours at 75, 7.5 at 85). That's about the distance from Helena (Montana's capital) to Bismarck, ND, purely on interstate highways. Bozeman is less than a hundred miles from Helena; that's over three round-trips a day to save an hour.
Perhaps two quotes got conflated, though; a round-trip out to the northeast of the state, where there might be Bakken shale work sites, could save an hour. Of course, that means you drove all day just to get back to Helena. No wonder we need that frackin' shale oil so badly.
You save only 59 seconds over 8 miles by going 75 instead of 65. Do you really have to pass that guy? Do the Math!
It would be good if the USA banned passing on the right as on the Autobahn. Then it would be safe for me to go 45 mph in the right lane, a speed that will give me 60+ mpg and reduce my fuel costs. If states are serious about reducing their carbon emissions, this should be part of their strategy.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
And easier still at 20mph
Yes, and at 85mph, hitting that elk is a) far more likely to occur and b) far more likely to be fatal.
As far as hitting wandering creatures goes, there is no real-world difference (in either chance or damages caused) between driving 60mph and 85mph.
Wrong: 85^2 is roughly 2*60^2
The US is a big place, laws and training differ from state to state... I would imagine Texas doesn't cover snow safety very much since it's a rare thing but if you go farther north into states like Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas It's an everyday part of life for 3-5 months of the year. It really depends on which state they are from... because of my location I see drivers from every state and they are not equal.
The problem is, cars have optimum fuel consumption per distance travelled at ~90km/h (~56mph).
Perhaps your car does. Mine isn't even supposed to be in high gear at 56 mph.
Have gnu, will travel.
I shudder to think what would happen if US drivers were let loose on roads such as the Autobahn in their cars, with their proficiency, and their respect for the rules of the road - it'd make some great TV :)
I give you Death Race 2000
Time to offend someone
There are often minimum speed limits when on US highways.
Time to offend someone
Should be much easier again if you just ride the cow.
If you're truly in the right lane doing 45, how are you being passed on the right? They blowing past you on the shoulder? That's already illegal.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Because tyrrany is like an elephant. You don't eat it all at once.
Indeed, from 60 to 85 you more than double the kinetic energy - meaning your brakes have to work twice as long at maximum to stop you, or alternately that there's twice as much energy involved in the collision.
On the other hand, I've heard advice that, if you're unavoidably going to hit an elk at highway speeds, you should slam on the accelerator to improve the odds that they'll bounce over the car rather than come in through the windshield. Not sure I buy it, but...
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
A large portion of Americans are already driving around 85 mph on the highway, this would just make it legal (for those in Montana).
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Not if one is so bored that you're falling asleep while cruising across the prairie.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Too many US drivers have multiple ongoing distractions to even be allowed on the roads at all.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see 75mph+ speed limits. I just know the freeways are full of folks who consider driving as a secondary activity to talking, texting, watching the game, rubbernecking anything on the side of the road, etc. These people make driving at any speed stressful, annoying, and dangerous.
When we get self-drive cars deployed as the majority of vehicular traffic on the roads, go for it. Crank it up to whatever the auto-drive systems can handle. However, as long as we have to account for the Idiot Variable ( The Human Driver ), we probably shouldn't get too crazy with the upper limits. ( and should enforce minimum ones while we're at it )
Here in MA the max is still 65 but, simple speeding of 10 mph is hardly ever enforced. (seriously, you can pass a cop doing 5 over and he wont even stop sipping his coffee, I know thats not true in some states at all). Result? If there is not too much congestion lowering the speeds with jams, then the traffic speed is right about 75 and seems to be about where most drivers are comfortable driving.
Our problem is that we only just recently instituted "left lane for passing", so we have people who just saunter along like rolling road blocks in the left and middle lanes causing periodic backups as 8 cars out of 10 are trying to squeeze around the other two who are skipping down the road hand in hand at 55, and don't even feel like they should be over to the right.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
That was an idiot driver in Belgium moving into a lane where he had no visibility.
and judging by the fact that the video was taken from a lorry and the vehicle in front was a lorry and the car wasn't travelling much faster, it is unlikely that anybody was doing much more than 65mph
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Apart from long stretches with explicit speed limit signs, there's also the fact that if you are involved in an accident at over 80mph, it is assumed that it was your fault unless you can prove that the accident would have happened at lower speed as well. And there is the general rule that you mustn't drive faster than road condition.
I live in Alaska. It snows quite a bit. It is not at all obvious that the average driver has any more training or skill in slick road driving than, say, someone from South Florida. We just have more four wheel drive pickups with bald tires. Which makes for generic entertainment, especially around moose.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Your obviously not American. There's that thing on the right, typically referred to as a 'shoulder'. Handy for many uses. Picnics, passing, whatever.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
That is like here fines don't start until you are going more than 5 over and they rarely stop anyone for 5-10mph over. The idiots doing 55 side by side taking up all the lanes and slowing down traffic are common here too, only they are doing 60-65. Using right lane unless passing for a long time has only been a suggestion that was marked on road signs and in the drivers book but it wasn't enforced until recently and there is a small fine.
As an American who spent six years driving the autobahns, I'll agree with your points on drivers training and signalling. I don't recall the parallel roads you mention, but one solid point that you missed is that slower traffic keeps to the right. You don't sit in the left lane, and you don't have the daydreamers, newspaper readers, cellphone users, and makeup applicants we see here.
Just another day in Paradise
NOTHING can protect you from idiot drivers. Except maybe that with a hint of luck and hopefully this one eliminated itself successfully from the gene pool without putting anyone else to serious bodily harm.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"People actually drove reasonably well and there weren't any major issues with it. "
Except for leading the nation in deaths per highway mile...yeah, I suppose?
Funny how the only person I know to be killed in a traffic collision was, in fact, killed by a drunk driver in Montana.
People don't drive "reasonably well" - ever. People have poorly maintained vehicles, especially in a by-and-large poor state like Montana with very little vehicle inspection. People stare at their cell phones, don't keep their windshields clean, don't use sunglasses, drink, spend too much time fiddling with the radio, get distracted by passengers. Our nation devotes virtually zero resources to any enforcement of traffic laws except speeding. Unless Montana starts doing roadside spot vehicle inspections when they are caught breaking some other law...
Guess who picks up the tab for the millions of dollars in medical care when Joe Cowboy slams his pickup truck into a family of four because he was doing 90mph and his bald tires couldn't stop him in time? The federal government, aka You and Me.
Please help metamoderate.
Allow me to rephrase that for the original poster: It's no difference between a speed limit of 65 and 85 when everyone's driving 85 anyway.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Germany has better traffic laws than here in the US. Someone in the left lane slams their brakes on to make a left and they get rear-ended... it is their fault. A car going slow in the left lane? Citable offense. Running out of fuel? A ticket. Someone swooping in too narrow a gap and causing a rear-ender, fault isn't automatically the person behind.
The fact that it is a law that vehicles have first aid kits and blankets is a good thing as well.
It's a Darwinist thing. Bad discipline in the leftmost lane is surefire suicide on a German Autobahn, so all those who didn't ... well, survival of the fittest and that...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The E-numbered roads aren't motorways for their whole length, especially at the edges (i.e. Scotland, Ireland, northern Sweden etc.)
Looks like I departed about the time you arrived, spending most of the 80s (three x two year trips) there. When the Wall came down, and Autobahns had an influx of east Germans, you suddenly had to watch out for the uninitiated driver in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.... There were 120kph limits in a few areas, but they were the exception. I made a two week visit again in '12, and the primary difference I noted was many more speed limited zones.
Just another day in Paradise
Making it illegal to pass on the right like on the Autobahn would separate traffic by speed with the fastest traffic always in the far left lane and the slowest traffic always in the far right lane. Separating traffic by speed makes roads safer even with a high difference in speed between the fastest cars and the slowest ones.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Let's agree on "unrestricted unless necessitated by traffic safety or road work"?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I would prefer to see more people ticketed for failure to use the turn signal than for speeding. Communication is key. Unfortunately, it's a bit harder to catch the former than the latter.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Except for leading the nation in deaths per highway mile...yeah, I suppose?
Since Montana still leads that figure after years of having a speed limit, the real question is - when do you admit you didn't think about how that correlated to high speed limits?
Funny how the only person I know to be killed in a traffic collision was, in fact, killed by a drunk driver in Montana.
What's even funnier: being drunk is unrelated to speed.
People don't drive "reasonably well" - ever. People have poorly maintained vehicles, especially in a by-and-large poor state like Montana with very little vehicle inspection
They drive better at a speed they are not bored at. They drive better when they reach somewhere before they get sleepy.
Guess who picks up the tab for the millions of dollars in medical care when Joe Cowboy
Bigoted much?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You can check the road safety statistics to see just how dangerous it is on US roads compared to German ones.
Except the accident rates for the U.S. were often worse when the speed limit was lower (before it used to be 55). One pretty obvious reason for that is that some people would drive very fast anyway, so you had a greater discrepancy between speed of drivers on the road - after a lot of driving experience I'd say that's probably the biggest reason accidents happen, a slow driver does something suddenly and a fast driver cannot respond quickly enough.
In Germany things works out because multiple lanes are much more separate and slow drivers actually move right.
Comparing German accident rates to U.S. rates with very different driving situations makes no sense when arguing a speed limit should be raised or not, because it says nothing about how accident rates for U.S. drivers change at different speed limits.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
We're talking about the US and your environmental concern is car gas usage? Seriously? C'mon...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
After moving to Belgium, I took drivers-lessons, just to be sure I caught the main differences (legal etc) between back home and Belgium.
By the 2nd session, I was getting nervous because of the comments made by the instructors (there were 2, alternating) about how I was doing things in traffic, that they completely had forgotten, like checking blind spots before turning...
Yeah, even their instructors are incompetent, no wonder the drivers are dangerous.
They blowing past you on the shoulder? That's already illegal.
Not in texas, and I think in other states.
If someone where going 45 in a 75MPH zone, I'd pass them on the shoulder... but then they should really be the ones driving there at that speed.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yes, and at 85mph, hitting that elk is a) far more likely to occur
Let's say you have to drive 60 miles (not unusual in Montana). Going 85 vs. 65 means you are on the road for less time, meaning a random encounter with an elk is LESS likely, because you are simply not on the road as long.
You also ignore the fact that many deer/elk accidents occur because a deer is startled and leaps in front of the car. Well if you are going fast enough the animal is either not going to have enough time to get in front of you, or leap to hit you at all... but going faster increases the chance an animal coming from the side will run into the side of the car instead of your front, which is much better for both of you.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I live near a military base and see drivers from all over, it's a craps shoot some states take it seriously and other not so much... I had a neighbor that was in his 30s that grew up and lived in southern Texas, he had never seen snow before except on TV. He didn't want leave the house let alone drive come January with 2 feet of snow and a wind chill in the negative.
Yes, I thought the guys from alaska would have been better on the snow but I've seen a few get owned by Kansas snow storms that hardly effected the locals.
The elephant in the room is that German, and European drivers in general, are better and more skilled that American drivers, and thus better prepared to drive at such speeds. A good percentage of American drivers are dangerous at 65 and the danger goes up by the square of the speed...
Or perhaps we should just have animals do driver's-ed and drive to their destination instead of wandering all over the road.
There is if you're risk averse and would prefer to be driving 85 but only drive 72 because some cops will start ticketing at 73. Then you're plugging up the road and you know it, but won't drive faster.
Also, if you get the ticket you might see the change as a real change. ;)
On straight, flat ground 20 and 55 are going to be about the same for something large and slow like a cow. 80 gets into different territory because most people don't have good enough distance vision, so by the time the supposed shrubbery resolves into a cow, there isn't enough stopping distance left.
My State is doing a big tailgating enforcement thing right now, it is very popular.
I don't know Montana, but that Texas tollway described in the original post has feral hogs.
On the other hand, I've heard advice that, if you're unavoidably going to hit an elk at highway speeds, you should slam on the accelerator to improve the odds that they'll bounce over the car rather than come in through the windshield. Not sure I buy it, but...
Myth busted
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
The elk issue is dealt with in
Montana Traffic Safety Problem Identification
FFY 2011
2009 Data
http://www.mdt.mt.gov/publicat...
P. 103 (PDF p. 113), "Collisions with Animals"
4 fatalities in 2009.
Also of interest, from the executive summary:
SINGLE VEHICLE, RUN-OFF-THE-ROAD CRASHES
Single vehicle, run-off-the-road crashes accounted for 28.9% of all crashes in Montana and accounted for 59.1% of all fatal crashes.
This extra energy will have 2 effects. It makes it more likely that (1) you overcome the road barriers and drive off the road and (2) you roll over, and keep rolling over. The most common dangerous accidents is a rollover. The more times you roll over, the more likely it is that the roof will collapse, and it's pretty unlikely to survive a roof collapse, even if you are wearing seat belts.
You can spend many happy hours reading
Montana Traffic Safety Problem Identification
FFY 2011 (2009 Data)
http://www.mdt.mt.gov/publicat...
"Single vehicle, run-off-the-road crashes accounted for 28.9% of all crashes in Montana and accounted for 59.1% of all fatal crashes."
Give me a break. This sounds exactly like a political meeting I went to (and I won't name which party) where they spent 30 minutes adding a "to do" item being reducing the speed limits on all roads (interstates, etc.) to a max of 45 miles/hour. Not 55, 45. The main assertions is that vehicles get their best MPG at 35, and if one person is saved, the slower time for everyone is worth it
I find this hard to believe. I've never heard anybody seriously suggest reducing the speed to 45mph on interstates. I hope you won't be offended if I ask you for a citation.
Not sure a moose myth-busting is necessarily applicable - a moose averages 2-3x the mass of an elk after all. And as the saying goes, quantity has a quality all its own.
Then again they apparently used a 650lb rubber moose, which is a lot closer to elk mass than moose. However, I'm not at all convinced that the physics involved in a rubber moose collision is going to be terribly similar to a meat and bone one - the elasticity coefficients are going to be all different for starters, and any physics student can tell you that will radically alter the energy transference. In other words, as is so often the case with Mythbusters, their experiment largely fails to actually address the myth in question.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
You want to say different? Come up with the stats in Montana highways.
Montana Traffic Safety Problem Identification
FFY 2011
2009 Data
http://www.mdt.mt.gov/publicat...
P. 103 (PDF p. 113), "Collisions with Animals"
4 fatalities in 2009.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Interstate Highways are much older than even the European Union although they were designed after concepts introduced in Germany with the Autobahn. I should point out that the E-roads that you are talking about were originally conceived as emulating the Interstate Highway system (at least that is what the wiki claims) and was something instituted in the 1970's.... about when construction of the Interstate Highway system was wrapping up.
It should also be pointed out that the E-90 road that you are talking about also happens to cross over a major part of the Mediterranean Sea (I presume that is by ferry) on its route.
If you want at least one source of information on the difference between the Autobahn vs. Interstate Highways, at least read this article:
http://gizmodo.com/5857416/why-american-roads-are-so-bad
I would hope that Europe didn't follow everything that happened on the Interstate Highway System, as there were definitely some corners that were cut on the 40,000 mile system as it was being built. U.S. highways definitely don't follow Autobahn standards, even though at this point I feel that any repaving/rebuilding of interstate highways likely should be following those standards when practical.
Driving faster is more dangerous unless you bend the laws of physics.
The laws of physics also state that the greater the relative speeds between two cars, the less time one car has to react to the other changing relative velocity.
Avoiding accidents involves way more than simply braking. For instance, one time I was at a dead stop waiting to turn left - I could someone going too fast come the opposite way around a snowy corner.
I could tell that wasn't going to work out well so I accelerated, to move my car off the road to the side. Seconds later the car, spinning like a top, glided through the space where I had been.
Similarly, I've avoided about three rear-end collisions by accelerating, not braking. That was possible in part because I was going the same relative speed as traffic with a good buffer, which allowed me leeway as to how to move my car - leeway that vanishes if someone in front of you is going a lot slower than you are.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Belgium ?
Where average speed limits are among the lowest in Europe, where speed camera's are EVERYWHERE and where police make it their first priority to deal out fines for driving 60 kph in a (inappropriate and clumsily signalled) 50 zone over dealing with a severe and country-wide burglary wave. Yet accident rates remain among the highest in Europe.
Belgians and Flemish in particular not being too different from Germans, it's proof that treating drivers like children results in drivers behaving like children.
Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
Safety, of course, is obvious: accidents at high speed causes higher fatality. But the reason for the national speed limit had nothing to do with safety... it was about conserving fuel. Over 55mph, and you have diminishing fuel economy due to friction. Did we solve the energy crisis? Awesome.
The Admin and the Engineer
Not in Montana. I've driven there, and from the time some road obstacle appears as a speck in the distance, you have about 20 minutes to decide how to avoid it.
Actually, I was thinking the same thing... how much of Montana has enforced speed limits? I've driven at "high speeds" on MT interstates. And I know many others that have as well. Yes, the roads are good, and there are rather few other drivers on them. (no, I'm not driving 90mph on snow/ice covered roads. 'tho I have driven ~100 at night, in the rain, at VIR :-))
I lived in Montana during their infamous 'Safe and Reasonable' speed limit era. For those who don't know what that is; for a period during the 90's Montana's speed limit on the Interstate Highways was, in theory, unlimited during the day, and 85mph at night. The posted speed at the borders was "Safe and Reasonable. Night 85mph" This lasted for a number of years, until finally they capped it back down (apparently to 70). The story I heard most often that the reason for the change was due to accidents, generally involving out of state drivers. The locals knew the roads and conditions, and would self regulate for most part, but travelers from out of state (some probably seeking the 'no speed limit' thrill) would exceed the conditions, resulting in accidents. Now, because i've lived there, I can tell you, almost everywhere it is safe to drive 85mph on the Interstate, there is an alternative 'frontage' road that would be a 65/70mph road. I can't say I care one way or another if they change it back to 85mph, but I think the same problem will persist, of out of staters(and the occasional natural born idiot) exceeding the capabilities of their skill/vehicle/road conditions and wrecking.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
Actually, the terrain varies enough across Montana that you don't tend to get road hypnosis and fall asleep. Now western Texas? the land of boredom and flatness? Best have a fog horn and a lot of caffeine in the car.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
Texas covers snow safety precisely "not enough." let me explain to you how snow works in Texas. They flipped a sand truck (for sanding the roads in bad weather) in my county once, with about 1/4th an inch of snow on the ground. If it snows, everyone freaks out, and then goes out and drives around and gets in wrecks.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
Seriously. While we're at it can we please ticket more people for obstructing traffic? If you aren't traveling faster than the cars in the lane to your right, then MERGE RIGHT. I mean, for goodness sake, we built an ENTIRE EXTRA LANE at great expense just for you slow movers and we even named it THE SLOW LANE so you'd know what it's for.
I had a few friends from Corpus Christi that claimed it never snowed there except maybe once every 20 years.
Chuckle.
:| Can't possibly be all the petro-chemical plants or the high humidity or wind patterns here . . . no no. . . it's the cars ! lol )
Yeah, the speed limit for I-45 North or South bound out of Houston is pretty much 65mph. ( Thank the local lobbyists who convinced our less than intelligent legislature that high speed traffic is the big reason for Houston Area's air pollution problem. Is why speed limit jumps the moment you are two counties outside of Harris County
Doesn't matter though, no one drives 65. In fact, if you're doing less than 75 you're probably being subject to all sorts of fun road rage behaviors. ( Tailgating, folks will swerve to cut you off, jump in front of you and slam on their brakes, various gestures, folks wave guns and occasionally shoot at each other, etc. etc. ) Police have people pulled over constantly. They'll no sooner finish up one ticket, kick the radar on and be chasing down the next less than a minute later.
I can only hope self drive cars become a reality before I retire. Oy.
It is actually all about the time it takes the human body to react to stimuli.
Which is why it is so vital all cars are going similar speeds, because accidents USUALLY happen between cars going the same way on the road, not with stationary objects.
The simple fact is MOST people will ignore limits that re too low and drive faster than the limit. That leaves you with a number of drivers that are trying to obey the limit and creating an abundance of artificially slow traffic, where a faster (or slower!) driver has much less time to react to cars from the "other group" making mistakes.
This again is why accident rates in most states lowered when the national speed limit was raised from 55 to 65 in the U.S., because traffic speed was more equalized.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That seems like a good reason to keep vegetation clear of the highways. You'll never mistake a nonexistent bush for a cow. I've never seen a 65 MPH (or faster) road without at least a twenty or thirty foot exclusion zone on both sides of the road. Most normal cows can run at about five or six miles per hour—about the speed of a person walking fast. So in the worst case, it will take about four seconds for the animal to get out onto the road. So at a maximum run, the cow will get there about a half second before you're fully stopped. You might hit it, but you'll hit it at maybe 15–20 MPH.
Now moose are a different story....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Does Scott Sales provide the route he took between the "Brakken oil patch" and Bozeman? Because Billings, MT to Bozeman, MT is only 142 miles apart according to Google Maps, which lists the travel time as 2 hr 11 min.
He'd have to drive 637 miles before he'd "save an hour" going 85 instead of 70.
Oops. That should be 397 miles, I originally calculated going from 75 to 85, not from 70 to 85. Maybe he means he'd save one hour on the round trip time, 1/2 hour each way.
Their vehicles are also more highly maintained.
I don't live in Germany, but my closest friend since about the age of 18 does, and I can say with absolute certainty, based upon the pictures she sends me of there, and her own personal vehicle, that my anecdote would not match yours.
My guess is that's more a function of affluence, which is in fact one of the few metrics we do win in.
Apples to apples regarding the parent post's argument.
He told you can't compare Germany to USA because Germany is much smaller.
I replied that the whole EU is not shorter than USA and all their highways are built to the same standard, so comparing EU highways to USA highways should be a fair comparation, and still EU highways seem to be better than those from USA: no less than two 3.5m wide lanes each way, about 1000 meter radius on curves, gradients not higher than 4%, intersections always at different levels, etc.
See a graphic of this network: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
Really good but still not was requested (which almost certainly doesn't exist): statistics on animal collisions where v=65mph.
The document itself states that animal collisions are merely reported as the authorities do not compile stats on accidents implicating animals, nor do they have _any_ stats on the speed at which accidents occur.
Again, no verifiable stats on the existing speed limit being a problem so claiming that 80mph will be a major problem in animal collisions is overblown. People claiming otherwise need to come up with the stats...
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
You'll have to file a freedom of information request for that.
Nope, not me. Someone who believes that such a document exists would.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Well, just for the record, that doesn't change what I said. I stand by it.
A well-tended roadside will still have various objects on it. There will be roadside objects, and most of them will be stationary. They will include shrubberies, even when well-tended. A large number of people with vision within the range accepted by the DMV for driving will be unable to distinguish cows and stationary roadside objects at 80mph until they are inside the stopping distance.
BTW the top speed for a cow is 25mph, not 5mph. If cows could only run at human walking speed, cowboys wouldn't need to ride horses. Kinda sucks to be that far off with your basic facts, and then to do the math anyways. If you make up the fact, why not just make up the conclusion, why bother with fake math? BTW, the average human top speed is only 22mph. A horse with rider and saddle can do 27mph. Usain Bolt can do ~ 28mpg at the top speed between 60m and 80m marks on a 100m race. Almost nobody else in the world can outrun a cow charge.
But even if it took 4 seconds for the cow to get into the road, now subtract the 1.5 seconds it takes for an attentive human to respond, and they have 2.5 seconds of braking. ~ 15fps braking is normal, so you'll hit the cow at 54mph. Now, starting from 60mph you'd hit that cow at 35mph; just slow enough for your airbags to save you.
The real problem is that you can't assume you'll have 4 seconds, and that isn't because of the cow running out in the road. The problem is that at 80mph it will take 7.8 seconds to stop, which is over 900ft. So you have to not only see that there is an object near the road, but decide it is dangerous and slam on the brakes when you're almost 1000ft away. On wide open roads the visibility is often less than that right on the road just from various optical illusions. At 60mph you only need 515ft to stop; that is a lot more realistic to make decisions about stopping at that distance.
With a moose, if you stop that might be just the beginning of your troubles.
Let us not forget that Ze Germans are a very organised and fastidious people. Breaking a road rule is unconscionable to most Germans so they tend to drive in a more consistent and predictable manner (and being consistent and predictable is the key to safe driving and low accident rates). When I was in Germany I received death stares when I crossed the road whilst the red man was flashing despite there being zero traffic. Germans are great people, but sticklers for the rules.
However what a lot of people forget about Germany when talking about speed limits is that their urban speed limits are very low compared to American or ever Australian standards. A lot of streets that would be a 60 KPH (37 MPH) or 70 KPH (43 KPH) in Australia would be 50 KPH (30 MPH) in Germany. Low urban speed limits help reduce fatalities a bit more than low highway speed limits... However I dont think that would fly in the US or Australia.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Yeah, that's what I get for taking a number from skimming the first Google hit. :-)
Except you don't. For one thing, at 85 MPH, the total stopping distance is only about 532 feet. You forgot to factor in the fact that your speed isn't 85 MPH for that entire 7.8 seconds. :-) For another, you don't have to stop. You just have to get slow enough to either avoid hitting the animal or scare the animal out of the lane. And even if you were unable to avoid it, and even if you only had half the stopping distance, the difference between hitting it at 45 MPH and 85 MPH makes a huge difference in terms of how much damage you take. :-)
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I think it would take care of itself in a few months. Might be a bit of a bill for replacing the guardrails and cleaning up the car parts for a little while, though.
If you're expecting cows to jump out of your way, you're not going to survive a rural highway in cattle country. Seriously, you have to slow way down for corners, and you have to keep an eye out for dust in the distance and slow down when you see it. You can't drive 85 and wait to see the cow. And you'll probably find out that the accident will be your fault, and you just bought a whole cow.
Sheep will try to run, but don't count on them being smart enough to succeed.
Goats might stand in the lane and make you stop, then bite the valve stem off your tire. Accelerate as soon as the goat clears the bumper, don't give it any time for mischief.
To the third power actually.
Someone didn't take thermodynamics.
I've been tracking the data myself with torque. Fuel consumption per unit time increases with the square of speed because after 65mph drag does.
But since you get there faster it's just linear increase in consumption per unit distance.
Personally, I discovered my AFR drops from 14.1 to as low as 11.5 any time the engine produces over 400 grams CO2/mile for more than about 3 seconds. On a completely flat road this works out to about 85mph or so, I can do slight inclines at 80, and if I don't ever want to have to touch the cruise control, 75-76mph.
at 55mph I get 34mpg, at 70 I get 32, at 75 I get 29.5 and at 80 I get about 27.
If I want to get there I go 75.
If I kinda want to get there I go 65.
If I don't really care or I'm feeling cheap I go 55.
I have never had a car not able to maintain a steady 80-85 mph, hill or no hill, even my first car, a 1983 Ford Escort with something like 65hp...
And I've been on the road for 22 years, with 14 different cars. 90% of these cars had small 4cyl engines.
I think the problem is most drivers can't be bothered to maintain their speed on hills, I'm often overtaken by cars going faster than me, and then I pass them on a hill, to be overtaken by them again after the hill, while I'm on cruise control and maintaining my speed +-1mph.
Try it! Library of Babel
German drivers do stick to the right-most lane, pay attention to faster traffic approaching from behind, and will even go as far as to slow down or even break a little to stay in their lane when they can keep the fast lane free for faster cars. Compare this to dutch drivers who drive anywhere in any lane because they paid road tax for all the lanes, and feel it is a constistutionary right to correct speeding cars by throwing their cars in the left lane with just 2 km/h faster than the truck they want to pass.
If there are no roadworks, and if you are not near a city that has a 100 km/h corridor around it, the german Autobahn can be as smooth a ride as listening to Kraftwerk's song "Autobahn" https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Even doing around 160 km/h or 200 km/h. Thank you german drivers!
They should have tried using your mom, like everyone else who wants to experiment with a large beast. (Sorry)
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
It's not about the gearing.
It's about the volumetric efficiency of an internal combustion engine. Which swamps the effects of drag at these speeds. Or were all those automotive engineers wrong about adding overdrive and more gears to transmissions?
Bicycles are an extreme (and bad) example of air resistance. The coefficient of drag and cross sectional area of an upright cyclist is abysmal. Its like running a drag race with your parachute out.
Have gnu, will travel.
Montana used to have a speed limit of "reasonable and proper." Why not again?
But the seconds before you hit, the difference is huge. Anyone care to do the math? That little two above the v kills...
It might matter, but in reality there are a lot of places in Montana where nothing is going to sneak up on you. Once you get up on the high altitude plateau, you can see for miles. That, coupled with the lack of incidents currently make it unlikely that it will get worse at 85mph.
I drove in Montana back when there was no speed limit. There were times where you would drive 90 and times when 65 was in order. The nice thing was that you did not have to watch your speedometer as much and could instead focus on what felt safe at the current time. There are a lot of places around the world where speed limits might aid in safety, but there are places (like vast expanses of Montana) where there is little need for such limits.
As far as hitting wandering creatures goes, there is no real-world difference (in either chance or damages caused) between driving 60mph and 85mph
That statement goes against common sense and needs to be backed up with something.
I think you're projecting there son. Eat your veggies and get plenty of exercise so your kids don't have to suffer through "your dad" jokes.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
I find it not only hard to believe, but it's bullshit to start with. Vehicles definitely won't get best MPG at 35mph, because the torque converter is not usually locked out at such speeds and the fuel economy is easily 5-10mpg worse than when you hit 45mph. Then, at 45mph your RPMs might well be a bit too low and maintaining any power output at such speed will happen in the most inefficient operating regime for the engine, unless the transmission downshifts. For most cars the sweet spot will be around 50-55mph I'd think.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
I disagree. In states where people drive like Maniacs, people are used to going high speed and understand the reaction times.
In states were people putter along, it's entirely different.
In South East Michigan, many of the Interstates rival the autobahn. If you're going slower than 80 you're a danger to yourself and others. In Ohio, it's an entirely different story, the speed limit is 65, the enforcement is really strong. Funny thing, the majority of the accidents you see near the borders are Ohioans in Michigan, and Michganders in Ohio.
Which brings me to the main point. The Federal One Size Fits All speed limit does not work.
When I learned to drive - in Roswell, New Mexico - I was taught that "The highest number of the speedometer is the speed the car was meant to go" - No kidding. In town we all drove around at 20 mph, Once outside the city limits you floored the car and let it run. There was practically nothing between Roswell and Albuquerque, and one turn. It's 300 miles! If you saw a cop, he waved at you, no matter what speed you were going. If you had Texas plates, you'd be thrown in jail for going 71.
That's the reality. I am sure in Montana every body is going 85 already.... and they are laughing at the commenters here. Just sayin...
Murphy was an optimist
Please take a trip to the Western US and spend two weeks driving around. Places like New Mexico, Nevada, Utah... Or come to South East Michigan, where if you're going less than 80 you're an impediment to traffic. Sure, in the NE corridor you're lucky to get to 55...
Murphy was an optimist
The reason is because someone (a local, actually) got speeding tickets based on an officer's judgment of reasonable and safe, and the courts found the prohibition unconstitutionally vague.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/12...
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Anyone who has driven U.S. Highway 2 in Montana will easily take note of the abundance of roadside memorial crosses set by families and friends of persons who have died on that road. Montana highways are built with a "burrow pit" feature beside them. A burrow pit is a channel usually about 4 feet deep and about 5 feet wide to channel rainwater and snow melt from the highways and adjacent land. A driver who drives into one of these at speeds above 25 mph or so is unlikely to survive the experience due to severe injury and the usual remoteness of the accident sites from emergency medical response aid. Most of these accidents happen in the wee hours of the morning, after bars have closed and their inhabitants are driving home. The people in the vicinity of Montana's U.S. Highway 2 have an unusually high rate of alcoholism, and are thus more likely to drive while drunk. Montana, being a mostly rural state, has a huge problem with alcoholism, and so many drivers are found in these "burrow pits."
Motorways aren't E roads, they are M roads. Scotland and Ireland don't have any E numbered roads.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Motorways aren't E roads, they are M roads. Scotland and Ireland don't have any E numbered roads.
Ireland and Scotland have E-numbered roads, but in Scotland there aren't road signs with the numbers on (the UK doesn't sign E roads).
See http://commons.wikimedia.org/w... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... for more information.
Give me a break. This sounds exactly like a political meeting I went to (and I won't name which party) where they spent 30 minutes adding a "to do" item being reducing the speed limits on all roads (interstates, etc.) to a max of 45 miles/hour. Not 55, 45. The main assertions is that vehicles get their best MPG at 35, and if one person is saved, the slower time for everyone is worth it
I find this hard to believe. I've never heard anybody seriously suggest reducing the speed to 45mph on interstates. I hope you won't be offended if I ask you for a citation.
South Carolina, about 1969 I think, when the first big Oil Shortage hit and the Federal government started the 55 MPH speed limit. Before the Federal 55 limit, the South Carolina legislature voted to drop the speed limits to 45 MPH and changed all of the highway speed signs (Interstate and local). A few weeks later the Feds made the change to 55 MPH and South Carolina had to change all of the speed signs -again-, at a cost of lots of dollars!
I was there. 8-)
Making it illegal to pass on the right like on the Autobahn would separate traffic by speed with the fastest traffic always in the far left lane and the slowest traffic always in the far right lane. Separating traffic by speed makes roads safer even with a high difference in speed between the fastest cars and the slowest ones.
Um ... No.
That law (as stated here) would not force the slow driver to move to the right. It only prevents the fast driver from passing them. Traffic jam due to one car.
The way it should be stated is that the slow driver must move to the right. I have seen signs that say "Slower traffic keep right", that seemed to help. 8-)