Grassroots Motorsports

Subscribe get a full year for only $23.95 Sample Free Test Drive—no strings attached

Login to post Forums » Grassroots Motorsports » Higher speed limits = less speeding 1 2 3

• 

  Oct. 28, 2009 9:43 a.m. vladha New Reader

  Maybe I'm behind the loop on this, but here's a few things I consider. 1) It's too damn easy for anyone to get a license, and I don't like the idea of these morons driving any faster than they already are. 2) Back in the mid '70's they lowered the speed limit to 55 as a way to conserve gas... doesn't that apply now, lower speeds conserve gas? 3) I'd really hate to see some the craptacular vehicles I've seen on the road going any faster... especially when these pieces of sheet really need to be parked. Preferably in a salvage yard.

  As for the idiots driving slower when it rains, good for them. I used to work in an emergency room... we all hated it when it started to rain. The volume of patients increased dramatically, especially from auto related accidents, i.e. driving too fast under the conditions. That doesn't mean going the posted speed limit when the roads are wet and vision is impaired. Maybe you have Superman reflexes, but your car/tires do not, nor do the idiots who are trying to share the road with you.

  I could drive my car at 90+ all day. Problem is, at 70 and in 5th, I'm hitting 4200 rpm. The difference between driving 65 and 90, for me, is about 5-7 mpg. When gas was $4 per, that was an incentive to drive slower.

  Mark

• 

  Oct. 28, 2009 10:55 a.m. fiat22turbo UltraDork

  Driving slower does not always equal better fuel economy, especially with the more aerodynamic cars today.

  Unfortunately, you have to do some testing on your own particular car to determine fuel economy at certain speeds.

• 

  Oct. 28, 2009 11:23 a.m. wbjones Reader

  Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

  Drewsifer wrote: Obvious 90mph is out

  I guess that depends on where and what you drive. I routinely maintain 95+ on my way to work and I can often do it w/o seeing more than 1 or 2 cars for almost the whole stretch. I don't have to slow down until I get just north of the city - when there is some traffic to be considerate of.

  the only problem w/ that is I hate to be the fastest on "my" stretch of hiway...just begging for a ticket... traveling between Asheville and Charlotte / Knoxville / Bristol / Danville ( most of my trips) I generally run ~ 80... some of the limits are 70 some are as low as 55.... when it is on the low side I just try not to be the one noticed ... i.e. weaving in and out.... seems to work ok

  of course the Valentine 1 helps a little

• 

  Oct. 28, 2009 12:12 p.m. Jay Dork

  Gearheadotaku wrote:

  if only more people could read reports like this, maybe we'd get those rural speed limits back up to 80 or so nationwide. Here in Michigan, we finally got 70mph in some of the more urban freeway sections. 55 sucks, 65 isn't much better.

  I've driven in Michigan loads of times. Trying to go eighty on Michigan highways would probably mean you'd have to sweep up what's left of the car with a broom at the end of the trip.

• 

  Oct. 28, 2009 12:33 p.m. Gearheadotaku Reader

  In reply to Jay: yes, our roads do suck. Thats why Detroit made floatmobile suspensions for so long.

• 

  Oct. 28, 2009 2:31 p.m. Jay Dork

  Heh, okay, on rereading this thread it seems my witty and amazingly awesome comments could be read as fairly negative and pointless, so I offer this anecdotal story from Ontario.

  Back in the late '90s/early '00s, speed limits on the major "400" highways throughout the province were set at an absurd 100 km/h, but everyone constantly drove 130-150. It was fine, you could just float along and keep pace with traffic. For the most part big trucks couldn't go that fast and tended to keep right. There were always a few nincompoops bobbing and weaving between lanes but as their speed differential wasn't that much higher than normal drivers you could predict and avoid them easily. There was a serious proposal from the goobermint to raise the speed limits to 140 (90 MPH!) outside of urban areas.

  Of course the "think of the children!" crowd had a fit and that proposal sank hard. A couple years later after some high-profile accidents (which were ~95% becuase of disrespect for other drivers and 5% because of speed), the default, unthinking solution of quadruple cops, police aircraft, $10 000 speeding fines (seriously!), car crushing, etc. was enacted with great fanfare. The speed limits stayed firmly planted at 100. This is around the time that I left for Europe, my utter disgust with local politics making the move that much easier...

  Well, now when I go back to visit, the same 400-series highways that used to be fairly comfortable are ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE to drive on. People are completely traumatized by fear. The average speed seems to have dropped to around 120 but the drivers are nervous, skittish, and are constantly watching their instruments instead of the road. All three lanes go exactly the same speed and trucks now drive all over the road. When some to-hell-with-the-consequences numbskull does want to push it they now spaghetti their way through tense crowds at a speed differential of 50 km/h or more. Not to mention police cruisers come tearing off the berm into traffic to pull people over seemingly at random. On the 200 km London-Toronto run it used to be rare to see a speed trap at all, now three or four along the way is common. It's a NIGHTMARE.

  All you who booed the speed limit raise, you got your wish. I hope you're happy. Me, I'll stick to the country roads when I'm over there.

• 

  Oct. 28, 2009 2:57 p.m. ReverendDexter HalfDork

  Regarding the speed vs fuel economy, my Cobra gets better fuel economy at 75 than 55 (55mph is too fast for 4th and too slow for 5th).

  My '84 Corolla got significantly better fuel mileage at 55-60 than it did at 65-70. (It'd drop from 30+ to 26 or so)

  It really depends on the powerband of the motor and the gearing of the drivetrain.

• 

  Oct. 28, 2009 11:59 p.m. 4eyes Reader

  I like the way you say 100mph, like it's fast

• 

  Oct. 29, 2009 12:25 a.m. Luke SuperDork

  Jay, that sounds exactly like Melbourne, Australia.

• 

  Feb. 22, 2010 3:27 p.m. carguy123 SuperDork

  Some recent experiences caused me to resurrect an old thread. Having recently gone cross country and back I found that the higher speed limits seemed to match pretty closely what I'd drive anyway. 80 mph in west Texas and 75 most everywhere else had me automatically cruising at speeds that probably wouldn't have gotten me busted.

  My truck just seemed to naturally want to go about 78-80. Maybe there IS something to the premise that higher speed limits cause less speeding. I'd always thought I'd want to push whatever the speed limit was by 5-10 mph, but I find that on longer runs it's easier just to settle into a routine. The looking over your shoulder all the time makes a long drive less enjoyable and more tiring.

• 

  Feb. 22, 2010 3:43 p.m. BoxheadTim HalfDork

  Jay wrote:

  Kia_racer wrote:

  Speed doesn' kill - The nut that holds the wheel kills.

  In Germany most wrecks are single cars. They are very strict on distance between cars and maintaining your lane. You can get a major ticket for changing lanes w/o using your signal. When was the last time you heard about that happening in the states?

  That's news to me - pushy, aggressive driving is par for the course over here. People tailgate constantly and always want to be going faster than you are no matter what the speed limit (if there is one.) It's gotten to the point where I hate driving out of town at night because there's always some wanker in a Mercedes 5ft from my arse with his high-beams on. I wouldn't say the standard of driving in these parts is significantly better than the U.S. or Canada. Maybe it's an East/West thing (like everything else in this country.)

  It's not an East/West thing - the only time I'm not getting shiny happy people tailgating and flashing their headlights on the Autobahn is when I'm in my 911. For some reason that tends to get people to back off and even get out of the way occasionally. Heck, there are places in Bavaria (like around Landsberg, west of Munich) where it's not always advisable to slow down even in thick fog because someone will crash into you if you do.

  Getting a license in Germany is harder than in other parts of Europe but the main difference this seems to have made is that younger people don't get motorcycle licenses anymore because getting both is prohibitively expensive these days. I can't remember exactly how much my car license cost in '86 but it was somewhere around DM 1600 - call it $700-$800 in 1986 money. Anyway, all the restrictions don't seem to have had much of a positive impact on people.

  Mind you, don't get me started on the Brits and their driving...

• 

  Feb. 22, 2010 4:28 p.m. Keith PowerDork

  I'm going to back up Jay on the Ontario thing. It used to be almost a pleasure to drive the 401, people had some lane discipline. Traffic ran at 130 kmh and people could deal with varying closing speeds - unlike the 1 mph races caused by cruise control on the US interstates. Alas, it seems to be no more.

  Around here in Western Colorado, the limits are 75. The funny thing is that people seem happy there, heading west. I think it's a combination of reduced engine power from the altitude and the fact that nobody commutes on the highway. You can feel your car working harder, so you unconsciously say "that's enough". Heading east you have (had) the oil field workers all hopped up on meth and speed trying to get to work, so you had to watch for big white F250s with the pedal to the metal. Otherwise, though, everyone seemed to settle right around the limit. In other words, it's pretty well judged.

  In my old 1986 Subaru, I'd just get on the interstate and floor it. The car would peak at about 75 on the flat, although with the help of a big hill I once crested 100. Then I had to climb up the other side. Climbing the Vail pass, I'd have to watch my rear view mirror for big rigs. But I never had to worry about a speeding ticket! This is irrelevant.

• 

  Feb. 22, 2010 4:59 p.m. zomby woof HalfDork

  Jay/Keith, I still live in it, and currently do greater than 60k a year.

  Sure we have too many rules, and far too many cops, but the population continues to increase dramatically in the GTA. Places that were little towns, have become big cities (have either of you seen Milton lately?). That's what's killing the highways, the amount of traffic.

  The 401 is the busiest highway in North America, but it's not always like that. Hit it at the right times, and it's steady cruising like it used to be.

• 

  Feb. 22, 2010 5:58 p.m. GregTivo HalfDork

  In reply to carguy123:

  West Texas was really bad for me. Going 95+ was still mind numbingly boring. My goal is never to drive that stretch of road ever again.

• 

  Feb. 22, 2010 7:09 p.m. Chris_V SuperDork

  Kia_racer wrote:

  In Germany most wrecks are single cars. They are very strict on distance between cars and maintaining your lane.

  Yeah, until there's a 250 car pileup on the autobahn. Again.

  story

  And from the sound of recent reports in Europe, Europeans in general aren't getting any better. And let's not even talk about parking by braille in cities like Paris.

• 

  Feb. 22, 2010 9:00 p.m. irish44j Reader

  you guys must all live in areas where the driving stress is lower and people aren't in a rush. In this retarded area (D.C.) I commute on I-95/495 every day (speed limit 55) and I typically am doing about 75 if there's no backup. And at 75 I get passed constantly.

  Everyone here is in such a rush to get everywhere...I'd love a higher limit, but suspect that people here who go 70 in a 55 now, would go 80 in a 65.

  Plus people here are the worst, rudest, most inattentive drivers ever (and I'm saying that having lived in NYC and Italy, for pete's sake!)....

  ANd that's coming from someone who is fairly "assertive" in terms of speed....

• 

  Feb. 22, 2010 10:07 p.m. GI_Drewsifer Reader

  irish44j wrote:

  you guys must all live in areas where the driving stress is lower and people aren't in a rush. In this retarded area (D.C.) I commute on I-95/495 every day (speed limit 55) and I typically am doing about 75 if there's no backup. And at 75 I get passed constantly.

  Everyone here is in such a rush to get everywhere...I'd love a higher limit, but suspect that people here who go 70 in a 55 now, would go 80 in a 65.

  Plus people here are the worst, rudest, most inattentive drivers ever (and I'm saying that having lived in NYC and Italy, for pete's sake!)....

  ANd that's coming from someone who is fairly "assertive" in terms of speed....

  D.C suffers from what I call IMFV (It's my berkeleying vacation). The people who are visiting D.C. drive like idiots to maximize their time at the Mall. I generally try to avoid the D.C. area as much as possible.

• 

  Feb. 22, 2010 10:36 p.m. nderwater Reader

  raising the speed limits reduces the opportunity for fine revenue. my guess is that we will never see limits raised very high, or for very long.

• 

  Feb. 22, 2010 10:47 p.m. carguy123 SuperDork

  Short bursts on the freeway are way different than long stretches at speed. It's hard to maintain the vigilance that it takes to maintain speed on the road for long periods of time.

• 

  Feb. 23, 2010 7:19 a.m. NOHOME Reader

  We all have to keep in mind that the speed limit was never put in effect as a safety measure. It was first and foremost a tax grab for the government dictated by the insurance lobby. Have a look at the amount of money that is generated by traffic fines and you realize how parasitic this is. The whole scam has been branded as "Safety " and due to our sheep like mentality, has been allowed to survive since we started driving.

  If the government and the insurance companies had any REAL concern for our safety, they would have been pushing for driver skill training a long time ago. And by training I do not mean getting Johny to drive around the block and avoid rolling stops or cell phone calls. I mean "How do I get this car back under control?" training. Read this month's Grassroots editorial for a broader idea of what I am getting at.

  If I had my way, there would be a law against a speedometer in a moving vehicle. The instrument serves no function whatsoever as far as improving safety. Drivers spend too much time looking at the stupid thing in fear of getting a ticket. Would it not be safer to look at the road?

  Myself, I have a simple and foolproof way of knowing if I am speeding without looking at the speedometer...The car is moving

• 

  Feb. 23, 2010 1:20 p.m. pilotbraden New Reader

  The less time spent on the road is less time to be involved in a wreck. Therefore drive fast, spend less time on the road. It is safer.

• 

  Feb. 23, 2010 1:46 p.m. Vigo Reader

  The less time spent on the road is less time to be involved in a wreck. Therefore drive fast, spend less time on the road. It is safer.

  Not to mention the obvious benefits of reducing congestion.

  If i drive 15% faster there is 15% less of me in everyones way over the long run.

  Im lucky to live in a rural area where a 2 lane country road is basically treated as a highway and has a 60mph speed limit. I naturally do ~70mph on it. It is by no means as safe as doing 70 on the interstate freeway, but it does have a decent runoff area on both sides, ~30 feet. So if i go off going mostly straight i can shed some speed before i hit the trees.

  Back where i lived only 2 years ago the same road would NEVER have a speed limit over 45. I am loathe to consider moving back to areas like that. But, most of those roads also arent cut back to make any runoff and have a 3-4ft shoulder before you are into the fence/trees.

• 

  Feb. 23, 2010 1:55 p.m. CivicSiRacer Reader

  I thought I would chime in too. I also believe it's too easy to get a driver's license here in the US. I hear from my friends who have lived in Europe and it's crazy what you have to do just to drive and expensive ($2000+). Our driving tests are ridiculous and getting a license is like pulling the toy out of a cereal box.

  I bet if it were harder to get your license here AND more expensive people would most definitely care more about driving defensively than we do now. I've found if you give people free things they abuse it. Start charging and they take care of it better. For instance when I was giving out TaeKwon-Do manuals for free people were losing them all the time, which I had to make more (out of my pocket) and give them another one. When I finally started charging $10 (now $15) for the manuals 15 years ago only one person has lost his book because they moved into a new house.

  Same thing goes for your car. You have to spend $$$ on your car of course most of us take care of our cars (unless mommy or daddy gave it to you - in which the above usually holds true).

  I wish some states would institute more cell phone laws too. It's amazing how close I've come to getting run over crossing the street or nudged off the highway by a cell phone user. Here in PA people actually text and play games while driving. That's insane.

• 

  Feb. 23, 2010 2:56 p.m. Samurai07SS New Reader

  I definitely concur that it is TOO easy to get a drivers' license in the United States. In Europe, if you road test in an automatic transmission equipped car, that's what you drive. If you test on a manual, you have your choice. Here in the US, it seems that standard shifts are no long standard. You have to almost ORDER a manual transmission now. That contributes to many of our traffic problems. Instead of shifting and keeping up on what their cars are doing, they're stuffing face, gabbing on the cellphone, texting, just goofing off behind the wheel. Where I live, Interstate 87 between Albany NY and the Canadian Border was designed to be traveled at over 80mph. The speed limit is a ridiculous 65. This road traverses not quite 200 miles of NOTHING, going through two small cities (glens falls and plattsburgh) before terminating at Autoroute 15 in Quebec. New York state employs a ridiculous amount of speed enforcement on this road. In fact, if you googled Speedtraps and NY Northway, there would be horror story after horror story... speed limits are NOT about safety. Speed limits are about state revenue enhancement. Period.

• 

  Feb. 23, 2010 3:39 p.m. Martyr_of_Mayhem New Reader

  This just proves what I've been saying for years. People will always drive at the speed they feel comfortable with on a road. If you take a major highway and lower the speed limit the 60km/h people will aways end up creeping up to 100km/h. The reverse is also true, if you take a residential road that feels like you should be driving at 40km/h and they boost the speed limit up to 80km/h, people will still drive at 40km/h. There's a great program here in my city to control the speed limit by modifying roads. The're not adding speed bumps or speed cameras everywhere they're just changing the feel of the roads so people slow down. And you know what, it's working. If they want to control the speed why don't the city planners take the "feel" of the road into account when they build them instead of building a road and being unreasonable dictators about the posted speed limits.

You'll need to log in to post.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Jump to
• Top
• Grassroots Motorsports
• Off-Topic
• Sprockets
• $200X Classifieds
• Classic Motorsports