Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / July 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Casey Jones You Better Watch Your Speed

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
CoreyWhite@gmail.com - 18 Jul 2006 05:33 GMT
Work = Force X Distance. So obviously it takes more force to drive
faster in a car, and the same distance is traveled regardless of how
fast you are going. So if we reduce the speed limits we will save money
and gas!!!!
Don Bruder - 18 Jul 2006 21:02 GMT
> Work = Force X Distance. So obviously it takes more force to drive
> faster in a car, and the same distance is traveled regardless of how
> fast you are going. So if we reduce the speed limits we will save money
> and gas!!!!

Wow... deja vu all over again...

Dude, weren't you "here" for the first go-round of that concept?

Signature

Don Bruder - dakidd@sonic.net - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info

TeGGeR® - 22 Jul 2006 20:29 GMT
>> Work = Force X Distance. So obviously it takes more force to drive
>> faster in a car, and the same distance is traveled regardless of how
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Dude, weren't you "here" for the first go-round of that concept?

LOL

What happened last time they tried that?
1) Nobody listened, setting the stage for...
2) Fuzzbusters
3) Smokey and the Bandit

Signature

TeGGeR®

marks542004@yahoo.com - 18 Jul 2006 22:51 GMT
> Work = Force X Distance. So obviously it takes more force to drive
> faster in a car, and the same distance is traveled regardless of how
> fast you are going. So if we reduce the speed limits we will save money
> and gas!!!!

It takes more energy to accelerate a mass to a higher speed.
Air friction may require more energy to maintain that speed.
Faster speed = shorter time for same distance.

shorter time = fuel saved

so go real real fast and save gas.

* there is a flaw in this argument *
Don Stauffer - 19 Jul 2006 14:59 GMT
> It takes more energy to accelerate a mass to a higher speed.
> Air friction may require more energy to maintain that speed.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> * there is a flaw in this argument *

Unfdortunately, the speed only changes specific fuel consumption
(gallons per hour) by first power of speed.  Driving twice as fast
changes time spend only in half.  Horsepower required, and hence fuel
consumption per unit time, goes up as CUBE of speed.  Therefore, fuel
consumption on a miles traveled basis goes up as square of speed.
Simple algebra.  Drive twice as fast to go somewhere and fuel
consumption due to air resistance doubles.  Of course, the NET milage
does not double because there ARE first power type frictions, there is
the amount needed to generate kinetic energy, etc.

So one must use calculus to compute INCREMENTAL change. In general, on a
per mile basis, i.e, mpg, it takes about 17% higher fuel consumption in
average car to drive 70 vs 60.
CoreyWhite@gmail.com - 20 Jul 2006 23:27 GMT
States Boost Speed Limits On Major Highways
Moves Come Despite Concerns Over Safety, High Gas Prices; 80 Miles Per
Hour in Texas

By STEPHANIE CHEN, The Wall Street Journal

With gasoline prices approaching an average of $3 a gallon and Middle
East strife escalating, it might seem like a bad time to encourage
drivers to burn even more fuel. But speed limits on stretches of
freeways around the country are rising -- just in time for summer road
trips.

States around the country, including Texas and Michigan, have recently
increased speed limits on hundreds of miles of interstate highways and
freeways. Other states are expected to follow soon.

Near Detroit, drivers long confronted by signs telling them to go no
more than 55 miles per hour or 65 mph are seeing new signs with 70 mph
speed limits. By November, cruising at 70 mph will be allowed on nearly
200 miles of road, including parts of Interstate 75 and M-59, a major
suburban route. Texas has begun erecting 80 mph signs along 521 miles
of I-10 and I-20 in 10 rural western counties, giving them the highest
speed limit in the U.S. In September, Virginia is likely to boost the
speed limit on I-85 near the North Carolina border to 70 mph from 65
mph. Driving faster may get people to their destinations more quickly,
but it can also add to the rising cost of owning a car. The Department
of Energy estimates that every five miles per hour a person drives
above 60 mph costs an extra 20 cents a gallon, for a fuel-efficiency
loss of 7% to 23%, depending on the type of car and gas. That's because
higher speeds increase aerodynamic drag on a car, requiring more
horsepower. Over a year, it costs roughly an additional $180 in gas to
drive 75 mph instead of 60 mph, according to the Environmental and
Energy Study Institute, which promotes energy efficiency and renewable
energy.

Bruce Jones, director of the Minnesota Center for Automotive Research
at Minnesota State University in Mankato, calculates from federal data
that driving 75 mph, rather than 65, would increase gas expenses by
about $121 a year for a 2006 Pontiac G6 sedan and $217 for a Hummer.

But lawmakers in Texas, Michigan and other states say that raising
speed limits will make roads safer by restoring credibility to
speed-limit signs and making driving speeds more uniform. While
transportation engineers acknowledge that raising speed limits hurts
fuel efficiency, they contend that careful studies of traffic flow and
driver behavior show that many speed limits are actually too low. Most
drivers who exceed these low speed limits are doing it safely. "In
Texas, they are already going [80 mph] anyway," says Carlos Lopez,
director of traffic operations at the Texas Department of
Transportation. "People are driving where they feel comfortable."

John Stinson, a home remodeler who lives in Mount Clemens, Mich., says
the new 70 mph speed limit on the Van Dyke Expressway gives him an
extra "cushion" during his commutes of as much as 200 miles throughout
southeastern Michigan. "There won't be the slow people holding everyone
up and the fast people weaving in and out," he says.

It has long been thought that higher speed limits lead to more road
fatalities. But the link has been disputed. Many modern roads are built
to accommodate vehicles moving at faster speeds, and many drivers are
now protected by front and side airbags.

In 2005, the number of injuries per mile on the U.S. interstate-highway
system fell to the lowest level since it was established by President
Eisenhower in 1956, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. But Russ Retting, a senior transportation engineer at
the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a research group funded by
auto insurers, says fatality rates were 17% higher in states that
raised speed limits from 1995 to 1999 than in states that didn't.

"It's difficult to generalize information out of all the noise," says
Karl Zimmerman, an assistant research engineer at Texas Transportation
Institute, part of Texas A&M University, adding that many crashes are
caused by weather, driver inattentiveness and road conditions that
aren't connected to speed limits.

Recent speed-limit increases in Indiana, Iowa, Michigan and Texas are
the latest in a string of jumps dating back to the 1995 repeal of the
nationwide 55 mph speed limit, mandated by Congress in 1974. More than
a dozen states quickly gave drivers the freedom to push the pedal
closer to the metal, especially in Western and Midwestern states with
less congestion, scattered populations and wide, straight interstates.
A total of 31 states now have a maximum speed limit of at least 70 mph,
according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Shaunee Lynch, spokeswoman for the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet,
says the state agency hopes that lawmakers will agree early next year
to raise the speed limit to 70 mph from the current 65 mph to keep up
with surrounding states that already let drivers go that fast. Drivers
aren't happy when signs at the border warn them to slow down, she says.
In Louisiana, state Sen. Joe McPherson says he plans to revive his
unsuccessful bill that would have raised the speed limit on Louisiana
interstates to 75 mph from 70 mph and on limited-access freeways to 70
mph from 65 mph. "If 35 mph is more fuel-efficient than 55 mph, then
why don't we all just drive 35 mph?" he says in response to
fuel-efficiency critics.

State lawmakers typically set statewide speed limits, with
transportation officials determining which stretches of roads can
safely handle faster-moving traffic. It isn't clear if the urge to
increase speed limits on interstates will trickle down to smaller roads
and streets, usually controlled by local officials.

Speed limits for cars and trucks can vary, with Illinois restricting
truck drivers to no more than 55 mph -- or 10 mph slower than the
maximum interstate-highway speed for cars. A bid to increase the speed
limit for trucks to 65 mph was vetoed by the Illinois governor in 2004.
In Michigan, the speed limit for trucks will be raised to 65 mph by
November -- but that still keeps them slower than cars.

It is too soon to tell whether some speed demons will see rising speed
limits as an excuse to go even faster. But Michigan transportation
officials are encouraged by the results of boosting the speed limit on
Interstate 69 near Flint to 70 mph last August. When the speed limit
was 55 mph, about 1.8% of all vehicles zipped along at more than 80
mph. That fell to 1% after the change.

July 20, 2006
Paul Hovnanian P.E. - 21 Jul 2006 01:13 GMT
> > It takes more energy to accelerate a mass to a higher speed.
> > Air friction may require more energy to maintain that speed.
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> per mile basis, i.e, mpg, it takes about 17% higher fuel consumption in
> average car to drive 70 vs 60.

Someone else calculated the cost of their gasoline consumption per hour.
It came to something like $9.00 per hour. If one's billing rate is more
then an order of magnitude higher than this, it still pays to go faster.

Signature

Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Faust, die Jung.

AZ Nomad - 21 Jul 2006 01:36 GMT
>> > It takes more energy to accelerate a mass to a higher speed.
>> > Air friction may require more energy to maintain that speed.
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>> per mile basis, i.e, mpg, it takes about 17% higher fuel consumption in
>> average car to drive 70 vs 60.

>Someone else calculated the cost of their gasoline consumption per hour.
>It came to something like $9.00 per hour. If one's billing rate is more
>then an order of magnitude higher than this, it still pays to go faster.

That's only true if you have 168 billable hours per week to do.
Paul Hovnanian P.E. - 21 Jul 2006 04:07 GMT
[snip]

> >Someone else calculated the cost of their gasoline consumption per hour.
> >It came to something like $9.00 per hour. If one's billing rate is more
> >then an order of magnitude higher than this, it still pays to go faster.
>
> That's only true if you have 168 billable hours per week to do.

Huh? Where'd you get that figure?

Its the difference between the time saved and the fuel burned. If I
spend 5 hours a week commuting but cut that in half by driving twice as
fast, I might double my fuel cost. That's $45 more. But if I save 2.5
hours at $200 per hour, I'm still money ahead.

Someone would have to make $18 an hour to break even with the above
example. Poor people should drive slowly, rich people fast. Please keep
right as I pass.

Signature

Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Real programmers don't draw flowcharts.  Flowcharts are, after all, the
illiterate's form of documentation.  Cavemen drew flowcharts; look how
much good it did them.

AZ Nomad - 21 Jul 2006 05:04 GMT
>[snip]
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>
>> That's only true if you have 168 billable hours per week to do.

>Huh? Where'd you get that figure?

Most people work 40 hours a week.  If they spend 6 hours driving or
5, they get paid the same.
Paul Hovnanian P.E. - 21 Jul 2006 19:05 GMT
> >[snip]
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Most people work 40 hours a week.  If they spend 6 hours driving or
> 5, they get paid the same.

Time over 40 hours per week usually goes for 1.5 times the standard
rate.

At any rate, why does society feel it can take my property or my time
without compensating me? If they want me to slow down, show me the
money!

Signature

Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sleep is for wimps. Happy, healthy, well-rested wimps, but wimps
nonetheless.

jim - 21 Jul 2006 20:38 GMT
> At any rate, why does society feel it can take my property or my time
> without compensating me? If they want me to slow down, show me the
> money!

Because it's not your property or time. If you want it to be - buy some
land and build a race track on it. Then you can go as fast as you want
for as long as you want.
    If society were to except your twisted logic then the poor should be
allowed to drive as fast as they want the rich should be limited to 35
mph maximum. The rich can afford to dawdle along. And driving for
pleasure would be against the law (speed limit 0 mph) as there is no
monetary value in that at all.

-jim
Paul Hovnanian P.E. - 22 Jul 2006 03:06 GMT
> > At any rate, why does society feel it can take my property or my time
> > without compensating me? If they want me to slow down, show me the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> land and build a race track on it. Then you can go as fast as you want
> for as long as you want.

If its not your time, then you won't object to the police stopping by
your house and throwing you in jail for 90 days or so. After all, its
not your time.

>         If society were to except your twisted logic then the poor should be
> allowed to drive as fast as they want the rich should be limited to 35
> mph maximum. The rich can afford to dawdle along.

From each according to their abilities, to each according to their
needs. Right? Where did that originate? And how has that economic system
been doing lately?

Signature

Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, but you're taking the universe out of context.

jim - 22 Jul 2006 12:30 GMT
> > > At any rate, why does society feel it can take my property or my time
> > > without compensating me? If they want me to slow down, show me the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> your house and throwing you in jail for 90 days or so. After all, its
> not your time.

You seem to have some trouble with the concept of public and private and
consequently your arguments fail to be on point.  As I said if you want
to build your own private road go ahead.

    Your original point was that you should be entitled to drive faster
the higher your billing rate. Makes no sense at all - if some one is
actually paying for your travel time then the longer it takes the more
you make. And if no one is paying you then this "billing rate" your
talking about is just a fantasy (one that a pauper could have too). And
just who exactly do you expect is going to pay  your  "compensation" for
this fantasy billing?

    What the government should be doing is giving the public an incentive
to drive slower not faster. A 5 or 10 dollar a gallon tax on gasoline
(cf. cigarettes) would be appropriate. The money could be used to pay
off the national debt. It's about time we started acting responsibly and
paying are own bills instead expecting future generations who won't have
the benefits of cheap oil to pay them.

> >         If society were to except your twisted logic then the poor should be
> > allowed to drive as fast as they want the rich should be limited to 35
> > mph maximum. The rich can afford to dawdle along.
>
> From each according to their abilities, to each according to their
> needs. Right? Where did that originate?

Yep that's pretty much how all public systems are supposed to work. And
this particular public policy originated with -> once upon a time roads
were privately held (you would have probably loved the middle ages).

>And how has that economic system
> been doing lately?

It looks to me like the highway system is doing OK, but then I wasn't
the one whining for some sort of ill conceived public entitlement.

-jim
Paul Hovnanian P.E. - 23 Jul 2006 02:02 GMT
> > > > At any rate, why does society feel it can take my property or my time
> > > > without compensating me? If they want me to slow down, show me the
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>          Your original point was that you should be entitled to drive faster
> the higher your billing rate. Makes no sense at all -

Yes it does. I pay more taxes.

Signature

Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
                              -- Etaoin Shrdlu

AZ Nomad - 23 Jul 2006 05:48 GMT
>> > > > At any rate, why does society feel it can take my property or my time
>> > > > without compensating me? If they want me to slow down, show me the
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>>          Your original point was that you should be entitled to drive faster
>> the higher your billing rate. Makes no sense at all -

>Yes it does. I pay more taxes.

Irrelevent.  You don't have the freedom to endanger those with whom you share the
road.  This is really basic stuff.  Your freedom ends where it infringes
the freedom of somebody else.
Paul Hovnanian P.E. - 24 Jul 2006 02:56 GMT
> >> > > > At any rate, why does society feel it can take my property or my time
> >> > > > without compensating me? If they want me to slow down, show me the
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> road.  This is really basic stuff.  Your freedom ends where it infringes
> the freedom of somebody else.

Better to keep all the wrecks that poor people drive off the road than
pick on the rich.

Insurance companies have known for quite some time that the best
indicator of driver risk is credit rating. The wealthy have a better
sense of how fast is too fast (or how drunk is too drunk).

Signature

Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
All men are mortal.  Socrates was mortal.  Therefore, all men are
Socrates.
               -- Woody Allen

Kevin - 24 Jul 2006 04:03 GMT
>> >> > > > At any rate, why does society feel it can take my property or my
>> >> > > > time
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
> indicator of driver risk is credit rating. The wealthy have a better
> sense of how fast is too fast (or how drunk is too drunk).

Excuse me Paul, The statistics related to rating insurance policies higher
for poor credit ratings is due to the higher incidence of insurance fraud,
and has nothing to do with wealthy people being more careful drivers. Where
in the world did you come up with that?
Signature

Kevin Mouton
Automotive Technology Instructor
"If women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy"
Red Green

Paul Hovnanian P.E. - 24 Jul 2006 04:43 GMT
[snip]

> Excuse me Paul, The statistics related to rating insurance policies higher
> for poor credit ratings is due to the higher incidence of insurance fraud,
> and has nothing to do with wealthy people being more careful drivers. Where
> in the world did you come up with that?

Auto insurance companies.

It was a major controversy about a decade ago, when many state insurance
commissions moved to prohibit the use of credit history as a metric,
citing its discriminatory bias against the poor.

Signature

Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
"There's something vewy scwewy going on awound here." -- Elmer Fudd

John S. - 23 Jul 2006 22:12 GMT
> Work = Force X Distance. So obviously it takes more force to drive
> faster in a car, and the same distance is traveled regardless of how
> fast you are going. So if we reduce the speed limits we will save money
> and gas!!!!

Makes sense to me.  And we will be safer IF we vigorously enforce the
speed limit.
Nate Nagel - 24 Jul 2006 02:10 GMT
>>Work = Force X Distance. So obviously it takes more force to drive
>>faster in a car, and the same distance is traveled regardless of how
>>fast you are going. So if we reduce the speed limits we will save money
>>and gas!!!!
>
> Makes sense to me.

yes, it does make sense, but it's only "mostly" true.  Depends on the
BSFC "sweet spot" of the engine, gearing, aerodynamics, etc...

> And we will be safer IF we vigorously enforce the
> speed limit.

Got cites?  Any REPUTABLE study of speed limits recommends the 85th
percentile method unless there are factors detrimental to safety present
that would not be obvious to the average motorist.  If you're going to
argue for strict enforcement in the name of safety, you'd better be
arguing for properly set speed limits too.

nate

Signature

replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

jim - 24 Jul 2006 03:23 GMT
> Got cites?  
Federal Highway Administration and HTHSA keep statistics.

When the national maximum speed limit was set to 55 back in '74 the
immediate result was 8000 fewer highway deaths per year a 16% decline.
When the law was repealed in the 80's and states started to introduce
higher speed limits the reverse happened. Typically when the speed limit
was raised from 55 to 65 these locales saw a 15%-20% increase in highway
deaths. Of course volumes have been written about how these statistics
are just coincidences.

-jim

>Any REPUTABLE study of speed limits recommends the 85th
> percentile method unless there are factors detrimental to safety present
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
> http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
Kevin - 24 Jul 2006 04:10 GMT
>> Got cites?
> Federal Highway Administration and HTHSA keep statistics.
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
> =----

Statistics can be manipulated to prove almost any point. I am reminded of a
high school math teacher that gave our class an example of how statistics
can be tricky. He stated:
Statistics indicated that 40% of all traffic fatalities involve dunk
drivers.
This means that 60% of all traffic fatalities are caused by sober drivers.
According to the logic of statistics, because more accidents are caused by
sober drivers, we would be better off if everyone drove drunk.
Signature

Kevin Mouton
Automotive Technology Instructor
"If women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy"
Red Green

Nate Nagel - 24 Jul 2006 10:47 GMT
>>Got cites?  
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> deaths. Of course volumes have been written about how these statistics
> are just coincidences.

It's not so much a coincidence as part of an ongoing trend.  There's
really nothing to glean from fatality stats that proves anything at all
about speed limits - they've been steadily declining since the stats
were first kept, no matter what we did with the speed limit.  Above and
beyond that, the way the fatalitiy stats were kept was changed just
about the same time as the NMSL - now supposedly the stats kept
previously were adjusted to normalize them with the new method, but I
would be hesitant to draw any conclusions based on directly comparing
pre- and post-1974 stats.

nate

>>Any REPUTABLE study of speed limits recommends the 85th
>>percentile method unless there are factors detrimental to safety present
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Signature

replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

John S. - 24 Jul 2006 14:11 GMT
> >>Work = Force X Distance. So obviously it takes more force to drive
> >>faster in a car, and the same distance is traveled regardless of how
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> yes, it does make sense, but it's only "mostly" true.  Depends on the
> BSFC "sweet spot" of the engine, gearing, aerodynamics, etc...

It is a reasonable speed level that will improve milage for most cars.
Vettes and the like maybe not.

> > And we will be safer IF we vigorously enforce the
> > speed limit.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> argue for strict enforcement in the name of safety, you'd better be
> arguing for properly set speed limits too.

If you are a traffic guy that ones to set limits that will require a
minimum amount of enforcement then go the the 85th percentile.  But if
you want to minimize both the burning of gasoline and the number of
accidents then set a reasonably low limit and enforce it.  Miscreants
will get the message soon enough.

> nate
>
> --
> replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
> http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
N8N - 24 Jul 2006 15:44 GMT
> > >>Work = Force X Distance. So obviously it takes more force to drive
> > >>faster in a car, and the same distance is traveled regardless of how
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> It is a reasonable speed level that will improve milage for most cars.
> Vettes and the like maybe not.

Perhaps.  All I can say in response to that is "it depends."

> > > And we will be safer IF we vigorously enforce the
> > > speed limit.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> accidents then set a reasonably low limit and enforce it.  Miscreants
> will get the message soon enough.

Not true.  the 85th percentile has been shown to smooth traffic flow
and reduce "accidents."

Now if you want to talk about conservation, I have a feeling that a gas
tax would be far more effective than Draconian speed enforcement.

nate
John S. - 24 Jul 2006 17:17 GMT
> > > >>Work = Force X Distance. So obviously it takes more force to drive
> > > >>faster in a car, and the same distance is traveled regardless of how
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> Now if you want to talk about conservation, I have a feeling that a gas
> tax would be far more effective than Draconian speed enforcement.

Speeed enforcement doesn;t have to be draconian, indeed it rarely is.
Just make the rules know to all and make enforcement consistent.
That's hardly draconian.  Some of those who feel they have an
entitlement to drive fast may feel they are being forced to drive too
slow.  But, they will get over it.  Or their wallets will become
incrementally lighter.

> nate
N8N - 24 Jul 2006 21:25 GMT
> > > > >>Work = Force X Distance. So obviously it takes more force to drive
> > > > >>faster in a car, and the same distance is traveled regardless of how
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
> slow.  But, they will get over it.  Or their wallets will become
> incrementally lighter.

It would actually take pretty Draconian enforcement to get anything
resembling reasonable compliance in the metro DC area, as well as other
areas in which I've lived (notably metro Detroit.)  We're saddled here
with 55 MPH speed limit on six- and eight-lane Interstate highways and
if you think anyone drives that slowly outside of rush hour, you're
sorely mistaken.  I have repeatedly seen speed traps, esp. on US-50
between Bowie and Annapolis, but they don't accomplish much in the way
of speed reduction - the main flow of traffic is right back up to 70+
as soon as they are out of the line of sight.

It would literally take a speed trap every half mile or so in many
areas to accomplish a meaningful speed reduction through enforcement,
and even then it probably wouldn't be very effective as there's simply
too many fish in a very large barrel.  The general public obviously
believes that the speed limits are set too low, there unfortunately
just isn't enough legislative traction for the concept of setting them
correctly to begin with.

I personally would welcome higher speed limits not so much because it
would make normal travel speeds legal (the odds of getting a ticket are
very slim, unless you do something stupid or otherwise attract the
attention of a police officer) but because I think that speed limits
that the general public regards as invalid also foster disrespect for
other traffic laws, and I can certainly say that drivers in this area
do completely disregard quite a few traffic laws other than speeding.

nate
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.