I dont think speed contributes to accidents on the highways, like someone said above it is the variability and change in speed that does that most damage. If people in this country could just 'drive right' and pass on the left then that would take care of most of the problem. Instead we have too many people who will drive at or 5 mph below the speed limit in the left 2 lanes on a 4 lane highway. Oh and from what ive personally seen people do while driving a car: texting, calling, reading a book, reading the newspaper, shaving, putting on makeup, painting your nails, along with god only knows what else probably has a lot more to do with accidents than strictly the speed of the car.

 

I agree, and I've also seen people watching TV or a movie while driving!  Add to the list of dangerous activities tailing too close, especially at high speeds.  I've also seen a lot of people using the police U-turns lately on freeways and getting pretty bold about pulling out into the left lane and taking their good old time to get up to speed, causing a lot of brake-slamming for people approaching them.  And then there's one of the most ironic things I've seen that makes people drive unnatural and unsafe, the presence of a policeman, especially one driving in the right lane under the speed limit.  All of a sudden traffic bunches up across all 4 lanes behind/to the side of the police car, and it becomes impossible to get out of the cluster of cars and switch lanes.

Over the past week, where I've logged over 1,000 miles, I noted:

 

25 people texting on their mobile phones,

5 people reading text,

1 person driving with one hand, holding a bible out of the window with his other hand, and yelling,

5 applying makeup,

1 shaving, and

3 driving with headphones.

 

I wish people would drive and not try to multi-task.

 

Someone earlier mentioned variable speed limit signs, similar to the variable message boards. They are a good idea in theory, but are difficult to implement and maintain. Communication wires break down over the years and require frequent maintenance and replacement (they last on average 5 years).

 

The New Jersey Turnpike was one of the first modern highways to implement this, in conjunction with their travel advisory boards (see below). It works fine, but requires operators to be ready to change the signage from a remote terminal. The West Virginia Turnpike used variable speed limit signs for about 10 years, from 1985 to 1995, before removing them -- citing the cost of maintaining the signs and the continued break downs.

 

 

I've been an advocate of strict drivers licensing programs, similar to Germany. You pay for the privilege to drive, and would be required to complete much more strict programming to be eligible for a license that would need to be renewed every two years.

Over the past week, where I've logged over 1,000 miles, I noted:

 

25 people texting on their mobile phones,

5 people reading text,

1 person driving with one hand, holding a bible out of the window with his other hand, and yelling,

5 applying makeup,

1 shaving, and

3 driving with headphones.

 

I wish people would drive and not try to multi-task.

 

Over the past week, I noted one person tallying in a notebook while driving. :P

Over the past week, where I've logged over 1,000 miles, I noted:

 

25 people texting on their mobile phones,

5 people reading text,

1 person driving with one hand, holding a bible out of the window with his other hand, and yelling,

5 applying makeup,

1 shaving, and

3 driving with headphones.

 

I wish people would drive and not try to multi-task.

 

Over the past week, I noted one person tallying in a notebook while driving. :P

 

Were you biking? If so, double wag of my finger to you since you have to empty passenger to stash your notepab while not in use! Riding a bike WITH a notepad and pen, shame shame i know your name!

While Ohio has a lot of the issues, I'd add the use of unmarked police cars. Ohio is at least reliable in terms of where cops sit and they have to be in plain view. Not so much in other states.

 

A marked cop car sitting in one place does the job of slowing everyone down, if only for 1/2 a mile or so.  An unmarked car does nothing but make money for the state, by randomly taxing (as Sherman put it) one of the hundreds of drivers speeding by.  Unmarked cars on traffic patrol are nothing but money-makers, while marked cars get the job done.

Ramp meters may be on this month

By Katie Hull • [email protected] • June 12, 2009

http://communitypress.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/C2/20090612/NEWS/906120372/

 

It's been a year and the lights still are not on.

 

The ramp meter system on eastbound Interstate 74, a project that the Ohio Department of Transportation began over a year ago, still remains incomplete.

 

I-74 cameras may help during rush hour

By Katie Hull • [email protected] • June 20, 2009

http://communitypress.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/C2/20090620/NEWS/906200322/

 

Drivers will have an ally on their way into work - new cameras and dynamic message signs along Interstate 74.

 

The ARTIMIS traffic system began expanding coverage in July 2008. Nine new cameras are being installed along Interstate 74, between Montana Avenue and Rybolt/Harrison Avenue exits. Before this expansion, the ARTIMIS cameras did not monitor traffic west of Montana Avenue.

That would be nice...they look like junk right now with the bags over the lights and all.

Apparently it is still "early summer" in ODOT-land.

I have a feeling this is going to end badly.

News  Release

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DIVISION OF COMMUNICATIONS - 1980 W. Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43223

http://www.dot.state.oh.us

 

 

Change in Interstate Speed Limit for Trucks to take effect Wednesday

ODOT Crews “White Out” Signs to Save Time and Money

 

COLUMBUS (Tuesday, June 30, 2009) - As a change in state law to allow most trucks to go 65 miles-per-hour on many of Ohio’s interstates takes effect July 1, crews with the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) will be saving time and money in their efforts to update hundreds of speed limit signs across the state.

 

To see more, click link

For more information, contact Nancy Burton, Central Office Communications, at (614) 728-8915

or your local ODOT District Communications Office.

 

Good.  I like this change.

I think 60mph for all vehicles would be safer and fuel efficient.  Many motorists cannot control their automobiles at 65mph and higher speeds.

I think 60mph for all vehicles would be safer and fuel efficient. Many motorists cannot control their automobiles at 65mph and higher speeds.

 

Then get these people off the roads!  Wow.  These are the ones we need to build trains for.  I agree about fuel efficiency though.  I would, however, weigh gains in fuel efficiency against 50 miles of additional work for each truck per day.  It is also inefficient to forego that much commerce when you have vehicles perfectly capable of doing it. 

How about we weigh the gains in efficiency from getting as much long-haul freight as possible off the highways and onto rails? Save two-thirds of the fuel and reduce the wear and tear on roads and bridges by putting those trailers on spine cars for the long-distance parts of their routes, or putting their cargo in road-railers for intermodal shipment.

 

Very many drivers are unsafe at the de facto interstate speeds, and a traffic stream that's moving at speeds higher than justified by the skill levels of a lot of the drivers puts me at risk.

 

Further, I don't accept the notion that just because I'm an older driver, I should be excluded from using part of the highway system that my taxes pay for. The function of traffic laws should be to provide a safe driving environment for taxpayers of widely-varied skill levels, and the laws should be enforced with that end in sight, not adjusted to appease the most aggressive highway users.

as far as i know most speed limits are set at a rate which most drivers find acceptable...like, if 75% of drivers will travel at 70 mph then that's where they set the speed limit.  I think this is a practical solution to this matter...at least, that's how i think they do it on surface streets, i'm not positive on the freeway.

 

I'm against the trucks going 65 only because trucks take a lot longer to stop. many already travel this fast and may now go faster without allowing more space between the traffic ahead and it could lead to a lot more fatalities.  Isn't this why they dropped the speed down in the first place?

 

Besides, i always like a truck going nice and slow so i know that there will be a break in traffic ahead of it so i can pass easier.  I think more trucks will get cut off because of this.

 

Safety is a big concern Mr. Pence, and minimum speed limits must be adhered to.  Freeways are not inaccessible to older drivers with more limited skills...as long as they stay to the right and travel within the posted limits. 

 

Now, i may drive a bit faster, but i'm from Michigan, so i think it's expected.

Ohio always had differential speed. It used to be 45 when we followed the oppressive double-nickel regime.

It seems if trucks and cars go the same speed you'd have a smoother flow of traffic, rather than having to pass trucks all the time?

 

 

It's weird watching a truck weave through traffic like i saw yesterday on 71 heading into Cincinnati. It took me a moment to realize why the sight was so uncommon. Aggressive trucks are scary when they're allowed to drive as fast as everyone else.

 

Diaspora, it's often said that roads have a 75% level where most people drive but this is irrelevant to the speed limit and is not used to set it. Speed limits are generally determined by the type and location of the roadway but politics often help set them as well.

My experience with that was up in Michigan where i know they set the speed limits (at least on surface streets) based on the speed at which traffic flows.  There are times when communities campaign to get them lowered because it makes them feel safer (i can think of one instance where a prominent family crusaded against upping a speed limit on a busy road because some 30 years before their young son was killed there).

 

Jeffery,

smoother flow is one thing, but stopping a loaded truck that is now going faster than before is more important.  The trucks on 75 are quite aggressive and already travel at 65 mph.  They don't leave enough distance between the cars in front of them.

 

Didn't a bunch of highway safety experts come out and say that when this happens highway fatalities go up?

AAA (funded by the IIHS), yes.

 

Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) (funded by researchers and transportation experts), no.

 

Raising the speed limits (SL) on interstate highways and four-lane roads to the 85th percentile showed no measurable increase in accident rates on those facilities. In fact, for Kentucky and West Virginia -- it's actually declined even while the traffic counts have increased. West Virginia has had higher SL's for years (65 increasing to 70 MPH for interstates, and 55 increasing to 65 MPH for four-lane highways) and it has proven that their traffic fatalities and accidents have decreased while their traffic counts have increased.

 

AAA continues to dispute this, but the facts and statements from WVDOH (West Virginia DOT), TTI and other reliable sources continues to outweigh any opinion that the AAA may hold.

 

Kind of like when Nixon ordered that the maximum SL in the U.S. be set to 55 MPH. Accidents didn't go down -- they increased. So did the coffers of many state highway police posts and cities that targeted interstate highways (like what Blue Ash did for years on Interstate 71 illegally). And most importantly, it did nothing for fuel consumption but increase it (because more people drove).

Accident casualty and death rates have been decreasing due to new standards for side impact protection, better brakes, better headlights, and more responsive handling in modern automobiles.

 

Casualty and death rates are probably better because 2000 pound subcompacts have been supplanted by 2600 pound small cars.  You can now buy a car that weighs 2600 pounds and gets over 30 mpg on the highway.

Thanks Sherman, that's interesting stuff.

Speed limits, seat belts, etc... none of it has much to do with safety, and as reported above, some of it actually reduces safety.  Mixed speed limits increase the number of maneuvers performed by the average car or truck on a given stretch of highway.  Each maneuver is an opportunity for a collision, at any speed, while cruising along without changing positions tends to keep everyone safer... at any speed.  Compare the Ohio Turnpike (placid like a meadow) with I-71 from Cbus to Cincy (NASCAR with semis).

Also limits at the 85% percentile force slow drivers to drive faster - closer to the speed the rest of us feel comfortable going.

 

Now, there is a good argument to be made that urban expressways shouldn't be designed for as high speed a travel as we currently drive on them. Some traffic calming there would benefit us all, but in rural areas - the autobahn is the way to go.

Germany imposes strict driving examinations, which factors into their reduced fatality and accident rate. People pay for the privilege to drive (I think it is $2,000 per two years?) and to take a rigorous driving examination and road skills course. In the United States, people consider it a right, whereas the fee is absurdly low and our testing laughable.

Germany imposes strict driving examinations, which factors into their reduced fatality and accident rate. People pay for the privilege to drive (I think it is $2,000 per two years?) and to take a rigorous driving examination and road skills course. In the United States, people consider it a right, whereas the fee is absurdly low and our testing laughable.

 

I don't know about other states, but Indiana won't even administer a driving test in bad weather, darkness, or dense, fast arterial or interstate traffic. Examiners direct subjects around some side-street blocks and maybe through the CBD outside rush-hour traffic, and in the small towns, there's nothing in the test more challenging than being able to make a left turn at a signal without an arrow or dedicated lane and parallel park.

 

Driving tests should include a simulator that puts drivers in challenging situations, like cruising along on a good highway on a sunny winter day with dry pavement, and then coming around a curve and encountering a sheet of ice in the shadow of a woodlot. The test should include a dose of fast, dense interstate highway traffic and night driving in an unfamiliar place.

 

Licenses should convey graduated levels of permission based on test performance; some drivers are capable of driving to and from work or the supermarket or dropping off/picking up the kids at day care or school, but should never venture onto the expressway.

Many truck drivers are not the 'good buddies' of courtesy they used to be. I have driven thousands of miles for work for many years as a field sales person. And from these experiences I have found that most of the time, trucks are either going too damn slow riding neck and neck with their brethren clogging other traffic and both lanes on purpose.

 

ORRR.. they are driving maniac style and way tooo fast. I think if you leave the speed limits alone, BUT offer a tolerance of them to go 65, this would be better. Why? Because there is a psychological thing going on here: if you post 55, most will go 65 or higher already...in which case, just leave them alone.. NOW, if you post 65, they'll go a consistent 75 and 80 or higher...  which is getting too fast. Ever have one of these, in the slower lane, ride your tail and bully you on the road?

 

If I could help it, I would get all coast to coast...and whatever other direction, long distance shipping back on trains. One train can pull a 100 trucks. This means our rest areas won't be clogged with trucks at night spewing fumes all night long while idling...  Less accidents, less fuel consumption, better roads, less money spending maintaining roads that get a pounding from such traffic. Our roads were never built to manage the types and amounts of truck traffic that has increased steadily over the years. This is why we have three lanes in many places of so called rural areas---to accommodate all this extra traffic. How costly it has been to funnel so much money toward this...but nothing towards promoting any other method of transport.

 

The extra lane is basically for all the trucks. Ever see I-71 when it looks like one big train of trucks? I remember when the truck traffic was at least some 60% lighter. I shudder to think how fast they'll go on the PA Turnpike or on I-80 west through PA if they increased speeds! OMG! Fright flight in the making. 

Remember a lot of trucks have limiters on them. Some of the national companies had put 62mph. limiters on last year as a way to save money.

Ohio always had differential speed. It used to be 45 when we followed the oppressive double-nickel regime.

 

I'm not so sure about that.  I recall seeing speed limit signs on I-271 North in the late 70s that said:  Speed Limit 55  Trucks 55 Buses 55.  The minimum speed was 40 or 45 mph. 

Many truck drivers are not the 'good buddies' of courtesy they used to be.

 

I've had several people tell me over the years that truckers USED to be the most courteous drivers on the road. 

 

I have driven thousands of miles for work for many years as a field sales person. And from these experiences I have found that most of the time, trucks are either going too damn slow riding neck and neck with their brethren clogging other traffic and both lanes on purpose.

 

ORRR.. they are driving maniac style and way tooo fast. I think if you leave the speed limits alone, BUT offer a tolerance of them to go 65, this would be better. Why? Because there is a psychological

thing going on here: if you post 55, most will go 65 or higher already.

 

The Ohio Highway Patrol has routinely enforced the 55 mph speed limit for trucks pretty strictly.  When I used to listen to a CB while driving Ohio's interstates, it was a routine complaint that the OHP didn't give the trucks any breaks (i.e. let them get away with a few mph) like other states.  My experience has been that most (not all, obviously)trucks observe the 55 mph limit. 

 

This differential speed limit that we've had for so long I've always found to be a real pain.  It makes driving more stressful because you can't use your cruise control and you're always jockeying to get into the left lane to pass a truck.  And often there is a truck going 56 mph that's passing a truck going 55 mph holding everything up.

 

I've always felt safer driving in states where the speed limit is set the same for everyone.  It was particularly noticeable on the Turnpike a few years ago when state let truckers go 65.  It's much nicer driving the turnpike now.  I can set my cruise at 65, stay in the right or middle lane, and rarely have to pass.  I almost never need to enter the left lane now.  It's much less stressful and much more enjoyable. 

 

I do agree with whoever said that perhaps the speed limit should be set to 60 mph for everyone for fuel saving purposes. 

It was proven that the 55 MPH SL did nothing to save fuel, so it goes to assume that 60 MPH would do nothing either. My Honda Civic (4-cyl, 4-auto) is most efficient at 68 MPH, not 60 MPH on flat, open terrain. My Toyota RAV4 (4-cyl, 4-auto) is most efficient at 70 MPH. That is to say, I make a trade off between MPG and distance at that point. Most of the time, I'd rather get to my 600-mile destination an hour earlier than drive an artificial SL that isn't set to an engineer's design criteria.

 

If we let engineers, not politicans, set our SL and have our police do real police work, we would have some of the safest highways in the Western Hemisphere.

I must be viewing something really different because when I drive, which for traveling has been a lot, I see many trucks going well over 65. I just hope that when it is officially posted they can go a certain speed, that they're not going 15 miles over the posted limit...as I still see many doing now. I still maintain that there are simply too many trucks on these highways. Trains, not trucks. (for coast to coast and long distance shippings.) Would love to see it someday again.

[ ... ]

 

ORRR.. they are driving maniac style and way tooo fast. I think if you leave the speed limits alone, BUT offer a tolerance of them to go 65, this would be better. Why? Because there is a psychological thing going on here: if you post 55, most will go 65 or higher already...in which case, just leave them alone.. NOW, if you post 65, they'll go a consistent 75 and 80 or higher...  which is getting too fast. Ever have one of these, in the slower lane, ride your tail and bully you on the road?

 

[ ... ]

 

 

I've experience the bullying often when driving a small vehicle, formerly a Chevy S-10 and now a Focus wagon. I can be driving the speed limit where it's 5mph higher for cars than for trucks, and truckers will get right on my back bumper and ride there when there's nothing to keep them from passing. That never happened when I drove my 8,000 pound camper, even if I was running on the low side of the limit. Probably the camper being tall enough they couldn't see over it had something to do with it.

 

Yesterday I was on I-69 (love that designation) around Fort Wayne, where the posted limit is 65/60. I was running a steady 65, and every truck I saw was passing me. Most were going quite a lot faster than I was, I'd guess close to 75mph. That's on an urban interstate with interchanges sometimes less than a mile apart, and it makes for some interesting weaving across lanes by both cars and trucks.

 

Mostly I avoid interstates and other highways that carry fast long-distance traffic. I just don't enjoy traveling that way, and unless I have to do it because of time constraints or because there's no other simple, safe way to transit some urban areas (Chicago/NW Indiana, for instance) I stay on local roads and take a break for sightseeing whenever I feel like it.

 

[ ... ]

 

If I could help it, I would get all coast to coast...and whatever other direction, long distance shipping back on trains. One train can pull a 100 trucks. This means our rest areas won't be clogged with trucks at night spewing fumes all night long while idling...  Less accidents, less fuel consumption, better roads, less money spending maintaining roads that get a pounding from such traffic. Our roads were never built to manage the types and amounts of truck traffic that has increased steadily over the years. This is why we have three lanes in many places of so called rural areas---to accommodate all this extra traffic. How costly it has been to funnel so much money toward this...but nothing towards promoting any other method of transport.

 

[ ... ]

 

I agree. The extension of I-69 from Indianapolis to the Southwestern US is an ill-conceived notion whose time has passed, and even though Indiana's governor is pushing ahead with it, rising fuel prices and other economic factors may leave it dead at the state line, with a trail of environmental destruction and wasted money and no payback. Most, if not all, of the proposed route already is duplicated by freight railroads, and capacity investment there would yield a better return over the long run.

It was proven that the 55 MPH SL did nothing to save fuel,

 

Proven by whom? 

 

Every vehicle I've ever driven has gotten better mileage at 60 or below 60 than above 60.  That includes the several different styles of trucks and cars that have been in my employer's motorpool over the years. 

 

I must be viewing something really different because when I drive, which for traveling has been a lot, I see many trucks going well over 65. I just hope that when it is officially posted they can go a certain speed, that they're not going 15 miles over the posted limit...as I still see many doing now. I still maintain that there are simply too many trucks on these highways. Trains, not trucks. (for coast to coast and long distance shippings.) Would love to see it someday again.

 

I thought about this after I posted:  Over the past several months, I've noticed more and more trucks going over 60 (perhaps the OHP has backed off a bit?), but there are still a lot sticking to 55.  We just took a trip to from Cleveland to Middletown a couple of weeks ago.  We stuck to 65 and passed an awful lot of trucks, but there were some who were passing us.  Ditto for my 6 work trips so far this year between Cleveland and Columbus. 

http://www.heritage.org/research/smartgrowth/bg532.cfm

Please excuse the recopied text, it contains numerous typographical errors.

"At current oil prices (around $13 per barrel), the value of the fuel allegedly saved by the NMSL would be just under $350 million. By contrast, according to a just-released study of the National Research Council, a panel operating under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences, the NMSL costs the,pation about one billion man-hours per year in added driving time minimum wage of $3.65 per hour, this amounts to $3.65 billion--more than ten times' the value of the fuel saved at current prices, and more than three times the value of the savings when the price of oil peaked. This figure does not include the estimated $200 million spent by states annually to enforce the measure the 55 mph limit..."

 

The Heritage Foundation also found that the savings were minimal, if any --

http://www.freeople.com/article/your-carbon-tire-print-at-55-mph/575

"The notion that the 55 mile per hour speed limit helps conserve fuel has worked its way into the conventional wisdom so thoroughly that few drivers even question it. Yet the evidence shows that the benefits of the limit are minimal. As early as 1978, Dr. John Eberhart of the Department of Transportation's Office of Driver Research found that the limit at best reduces fuel consumption one percent. This would equal 73,000 barrels of oil daily. Yet his findings did not stop the Department of Transportation from continuing to claim that the NMSL could save up to 400,000 barrels of oil per day. Independent studies, meanwhile, indicate that the actual savings, if any, would be even lower than Eberhart estimated. These studies project fuel savings of one-half of one percent."

 

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008621

"Jim Baxter, president of the National Motorists Association, says that by the early 1990s "compliance with the 55 mph law was only about 5%--in other words, about 95% of drivers were exceeding the speed limit." Now motorists can coast at these faster speeds without being on the constant lookout for radar guns, speed traps and state troopers. Americans have also arrived at their destinations sooner, worth an estimated $30 billion a year in time saved, according to the Cato study."

 

Business Week stated it best: allow the market the function --

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_18/b4082000518114.htm

"Traffic levels are trending downward nationwide. Preliminary figures from the Federal Highway Administration show it falling 1.4% last year. Now, with nationwide gasoline prices having passed the inflation-adjusted record of $3.40 a gallon set back in 1981, the U.S. Energy Information Administration is predicting that gasoline consumption will actually fall 0.3% this year. That would be the first annual decline since 1991. Others believe the falloff in consumption is steeper than the government's numbers show. "Our canaries out there tell us they are seeing demand drop much more considerably than the fraction the EIA is talking about," says Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at Oil Price Information Service, a Gaithersburg (Md.) market research firm."

 

Motorists puts it bluntly --

"Doing 70 on a modern Interstate will certainly burn more fuel than doing 55. But doing 55 on an Interstate designed for speeds of 70-75 mph can actually be unsafe."

 

An interstate highway is not designed for 55 MPH, and is not engineered for such speeds. Yes, you can go that slow, but compliance with the NMSL was small at best; the vast majority were "speeding" at a speed that was considered safe and prudent. The rise in gasoline prices (a market reaction) led to a decrease in automobile accidents -- the same pattern that occurred when gasoline prices peaked at $4 and accidents subsequently decreased.

 

"The authorities can post all the artificially low, dumbed-down speed limits they like; people will ignore them — and drive at more realistic speeds. That is precisely what happened during the Drive 55 era. We all knew that it didn’t suddenly become unsafe to drive 70 mph on Thursday because on Wednesday evening the law changed — and the posted limit had been dropped to 55."

 

In "Effect of repeal of the national maximum speed limit law on occurrence of crashes, injury crashes, and fatal crashes on Utah highways" by Donald D. Vernon, Lawrence J. Cook, Katharine J. Peterson and J. Michael Dean (University of Utah, Intermountain Injury Control Research Center, and Southwestern Department of Pediatrics), a study conducted in Utah noted no appreciable increase in overall accidents after the NMSL was repealed in that state.

The Heritage Foundation isn't exactly a credible source of information.  They often cherry pick their data and ignore data that differs from the conclusions they want.  But, at least they don't deny that driving slower saves some amount fuel. 

"Doing 70 on a modern Interstate will certainly burn more fuel than doing 55. But doing 55 on an Interstate designed for speeds of 70-75 mph can actually be unsafe."

 

There is no explanation provided as to why it "can actually be unsafe", but that's not what we're talking about here anyway.  We're talking about whether or not driving slower saves fuel. 

 

What I see here in what you provided is that no one is denying that driving slower saves fuel.  That's because they can't deny it because there are laws of physics at work here (as to why your Rav4 gets better mileage at 70 in light of the laws of physics, I can only guess that perhaps it has to do with the gearing Toyota designed for the vehicle). 

 

Anyway, what they are arguing is that people are going to go faster than the posted speed.  When the speed limit was 55 the vast majority of people drove 60-65 (The OHP, for example enforced the 55 mph speed limit, but they would give you 7-10 mph before pulling you over-- just like they do now).  So, yes, many people were ignoring the speed limit, but the vast majority weren't driving 70-75 mph, they were driving 60-65.  But when it was raised to 65, people started driving 70-75 again.  I say, so what?  People were still driving ~10 mph slower and thus saving fuel. 

 

I don't deny that reducing the speed limit saves less oil than other methods such as reducing driving altogether and to properly pricing gasoline and driving so that it reflects its true costs.  That would shift the market to less driving and more efficient vehicles.  But, since there is no political will to do this, and even though there is a bit of slack in oil supplies due to the economy, there is still depletion ticking away in the background, so saving a bit by reducing highway speeds is not a dumb proposition.

 

On a separate note, people don't choose to speed because they somehow intrinsically know that it's more realistic to drive faster or that they think the roads are engineered for faster speeds.  Human behavior isn't that rational.  They drive faster because they have a perceived need to be in a hurry and they know they can get away with some amount of speeding before they get a ticket.  I know a few people who like to drive 75-80 on the interstates.  Their reasoning is that "they just don't like to drive slow". 

 

I used to drive 71 mph all the time because I knew I could get away with that (when the speed limit was 55, I drove 60) until it dawned on me that I wasn't saving that much time and that it was creating more driving stress than it was worth, and I could get a couple mpg fuel savings. 

 

As for the example of Utah and the difference in traffic accidents between the 55 mph national speed limit and when it was lifted, there are a couple of things that have to be taken into consideration:  How strictly did the state enforce the 55 mph limit in the first place? Ohio and Pennsylvania, for example, enforced 55 mph relatively strictly.  Some southern and western states did not.  So, what were the real average speeds before and after the repeal of 55?  Pennsylvania was one of the last hold-outs to lift 55 mph because they maintained it reduced traffic deaths-- but they also enforced 55 pretty strictly.  And, how much traffic is there on Utah (for example) interstates to begin with?  Insurance companies will set rates, in part, on the traffic density in the region where you live.  Less overall traffic, lower rate, because the more traffic, the greater the chances of accidents (I was told this by an insurance agent regarding my policy when I moved from Bowling Green to Columbus). 

 

I disagree about the psychology behind speeding.  I think most people are rational enough to realize that flow is safer than slow.  I also think most drivers, car or truck, understand the way their vehicle handles at different speeds.  They will naturally go the highest speed that is safe, accounting for the speed of others around them.  Why do they aim for the highest safe speed?  It is rational to get where you're going.  That's the only reason you're on the freeway to begin with.  The situation is inherently unsafe.  And the longer you're there, the more that could go awry.  And when commerce is involved, it goes against the realities of capitalism to move freight slower than you could.  Rail shipping is too rigid to be useful in modern industry the way it once was.  We need a new way to power trucks but we definitely need trucks. 

 

Public safety suffers when an entire state police force is confined to enforcing irrational "highway safety" laws instead of protecting that state's multiple distressed population centers.  This is not how it is everywhere, and it's part of Ohio's unhealthy fixation on highways.  Also important here is that our government should not be hiding the ball as to what's a revenue stream and what isn't, or as to what's crime and what isn't. 

gildone, using your logic given above, you would find the AAA to be a credible source of information because its studies are funded entirely by automobile insurance agencies. The TTI (Texas Transportation Institute), a non-partisan, non-biased source has even reported that the NMSL was a failure (Evaluation of Rural 55 Mph National Maximum Speed Limit (Nmsl) Enforcement Activities).

 

I suppose you are correct -- it did save gas as I noted, but 1% and less is not anything significant. Driving less and combining trips saves more fuel than an arbitrary number that allows the police to continue to rape the wallets and purses of innocent motorists.

 

Here is another good example of speed limits gone bad: Steubenville, Ohio. The town installed speed cameras and red-light cameras illegally along Ohio Route 7, and tampered with the traffic light timings so that more motorists would run the traffic light (they shorten the yellow period significantly).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steubenville,_Ohio#Speed_cameras

I wrote the above piece and cited it. Disgusting, but the revenues they pilfered from innocent motorists were used to build a nice, new four-story police station for a city of <19,000. Amazing.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steubenville,_Ohio#Political_corruption

It was also the second city in the nation to sign a consent decree with the federal government due to an excessive number of civil rights lawsuits. Another gem I wrote and cited.

 

And then there is New Rome, Ohio...

You mean there WAS New Rome, Ohio.  It was forcibly dissolved by Franklin County for being so aggressive.  It reverted to township land and its records are held by the county... including the one where they handcuffed me to a church pew in the trailer they were using for a courthouse.  For a traffic violation. 

...so aggressive? They were running an illegal operation that the DOJ and the state got involved in.

 

1 and 2. They had illegally rigged state-operated traffic signals to maintain a steady red phase so they could run plates. Running plates without a cause is illegal.

3. They operated a corrupt mayor's court system where all of the fines were pocketed by the police and the cronies. Their city hall was a trailer; their jail was literally a room. Their court was really nothing more than a glorified church (as you stated).

4. They had absurdly lowered their speed limit to an artificial "safe" speed through their town. There were no posted speed limit reduction signs as required by law, so you were forced with a 20-30 MPH speed limit change in a matter of a few feet. They would instantly ticket you as soon as you crossed into their town (or even before) for speeding. That's against the law.

 

Even 20/20 ran a segment on this. It was pathetic and another black eye.

 

Anyone remember the old Blue Ash (suburb of Cincinnati)? They have no direct connection to Interstate 71, but they would hop onto the Ronald Regan to get on Interstate 71 and run a radar trap for the <2 miles that the interstate bisects Blue Ash, continuously looping around and around. The state finally declared that illegal. IIRC, it's illegal for anybody other than a state highway patrol to pull over a motorist for speeding on an interstate highway.

 

What about Hanging Rock? The SL is 55 MPH for a highway with interchanges -- even though it is 65 MPH to the west. Ohio Route 32, which is similarly designed, is 60 MPH. In West Virginia, the route would be 65 MPH. It's a constant speed trap, and the town of 300 has TEN police officers. The only highway that goes through their town, other than a short segment of Ohio Route 650, is US 52.

They ran my plate without cause.  I'm not sure that's illegal though.  In a law enforcement context, your driving record is not private.  I think it's a waste of taxpayer money to have cops scan plates but I think they're technically allowed to.

Interesting, after looking up the statues, this is what I came up with (summarized): an officer can run your plates if your vehicle is not violating any traffic law, and if there is no probable cause or suspicion, given that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Running a plate does not intrude on the legitimate privacy interests of the driver and/or owner of the vehicle. Found some interesting facts about New Rome --

 

* 60 person village had 14 police officers for three blocks of West Broad (US 40).

* $400,000 was collected in an average year for speeding alone. Much more was collected for "dusty taillights" and for "tinted windows."

* The officers ventured into other cities and villages to arrest those who failed to pay their traffic citations, and to run radar traps.

* The lower SL (35 MPH) was illegally posted and signed without ODOT's consent, and ODOT therefore raised the SL to 45 MPH.

* Officials misused public monies and racked up thousands upon thousands of dollars in debt. Money also simply disappeared.

* In 2003, their access to a State Highway Patrol driver identification database was revoked because of misuse against the political rival of a council member.

* Election misconducts.

Tinted windows, that's what happened to me.  $700 fine for tinted windows even though my windows had no tint.

All Mayor's Courts should technically be completely illegal, because they combine the Executive and Judicial Branches.

Did you pay? What happened in the end?

 

I remember going through one of the speed trap towns (in eastern Ohio, I forget now), and my tints -- which were 50% and clearly legal, were declared "illegal". He had no gauge to measure the tint, but I had the paperwork to validate the tint level.

 

He took the paperwork and tore it up and gave me a $300 fine. Thankfully, I had backup copies in reserve. When it was my turn to defend myself in the system, I had my lawyer and the threat of a huge lawsuit. I told them that it'd be another "New Rome" case, and they quickly dismissed the case.

There's more to the story I'm not sharing (no DanB, I didn't spit in the cop's face) but yes I paid the $700.  More precisely, I eventually paid it back to my mom.  The whole experience was surreal.

 

I hope the example of New Rome will teach these other towns you can't bully people in Ohio.  I also hope the court system is looking out for this sort of thing and plans to dissolve more of these robber fiefdoms.

I suppose you are correct -- it did save gas as I noted, but 1% and less is not anything significant. Driving less and combining trips saves more fuel than an arbitrary number that allows the police to continue to rape the wallets and purses of innocent motorists.

 

I guess I'm a little unclear of what numbers they are comparing to get 1%.  Are they comparing what most people were actually driving when the speed limit was 55-- which would be 60-65-- with the posted speed limit now, which is 65 in many states or were they comparing 60-65 mph with what people actually drive when the posted speed limit is 65 mph which is 70-75?   

 

At:  http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml, they are saying that, based upon an average gas price of $2.44 per gallon, that every 5 mph you drive over 60 is like paying 24 cents per gallon more for gas.  If you do the math, that puts it in the ball park of the 7% to 23% improvement in fuel economy that they indicate. 

 

Long story short, if they compared what people actually drove when the speed limit was 55, which was somewhere between 60 and 65 in states where it was enforced to that level-- I can see where they can come up with their low figure.  But, if they compare it with what people are driving now (70-75) with a posted speed limit of 65 (in many states), I can see where the figure is off. 

 

I guess I want to understand how they arrived at their numbers. 

 

you would find the AAA to be a credible source of information because its studies are funded entirely by automobile insurance agencies. The TTI (Texas Transportation Institute), a non-partisan, non-biased source has even reported that the NMSL was a failure (Evaluation of Rural 55 Mph National Maximum Speed Limit (Nmsl) Enforcement Activities).

 

AAA-yes.  If there is one thing the insurance industry wants, it's accurate data on which to base their rates, but I would also want to understand what they were actually comparing when they arrived at their numbers.  The TTI would be credible too, but again, I would still want want to understand how they came up with the numbers.    However, I didn't see anything from AAA or TTI in your original post, and none of the links you provided (I looked through them) referenced either of these two sources.

 

I admit, I dismiss the Heritage Foundation and Cato (I initially didn't catch the reference to Cato in the WSJ article) because I've looked through various "studies" of theirs over the years and seen how they manipulate and/or conveniently omit data.   

 

The AAA doesn't? They cherry pick data to suit their needs of reporting to the public. They still claim that higher SL's in West Virginia increased the accident rate, which is blatantly misleading and false.

 

SL's on interstates and four-lane highways were raised, but accidents on those facilities went down while traffic counts overall went up. Accidents on two-lane roads, where speed limits remained the same, went up while traffic counts went up.

 

Misleading? Nah. They do the same thing in Kentucky.

 

The 1% I was referring to was the amount of fuel saved per year during the NMSL. Because people didn't drive 55 MPH -- they drove at a speed they were comfortable at.

The AAA doesn't? They cherry pick data to suit their needs of reporting to the public. They still claim that higher SL's in West Virginia increased the accident rate, which is blatantly misleading and false.

 

SL's on interstates and four-lane highways were raised, but accidents on those facilities went down while traffic counts overall went up. Accidents on two-lane roads, where speed limits remained the same, went up while traffic counts went up.

 

Misleading? Nah. They do the same thing in Kentucky.

 

The 1% I was referring to was the amount of fuel saved per year during the NMSL. Because people didn't drive 55 MPH -- they drove at a speed they were comfortable at.

 

AAA is not as bad as Heritage and Cato, even if I disagree with their stance on highway funding vs. alternative transportation, etc.  Besides, I also added that I would want to see how they arrived at their answers.  And, blatantly misleading and false compared to what study(ies)?  I'm asking because I'd like to know so I understand the information better.

 

Ditto for how the 1% figure was arrived at.  What was the average speed people were "comfortable at" and what are they comparing it to in order to arrive at 1%??  That's a legitimate question that I would like to see an answer to-- again, so I understand the information. 

I didn't see it, but one of the Cincinnati TV stations had another "exposé" about the ramp meters, which are still not functional.