Speed Limits

[StrangeSox]

Artificially/ arbitrarily/ retarded low speed limits + cameras = giant revenue stream.

 

It's only a matter of time. I'd really like for the people that set speed limits to explain why the speed limits on three- or four-lane interstates is the same as a one-lane (each way) non-divided road. Or why people in Michigan and Indiana can drive 65 or 70, but we're apparently incapable of that around Chicago.

[Texsox]

Tough to argue against lower limits. Saves energy, saves lives. Not saying people will not try to argue, just saving that's a pretty solid argument on the other side. And the density of traffic and population is a big factor in determining speed limits. A two lane rural highway with four cars and three houses per mile is much different then a Chicago highway with thousands of residents and hundreds of cars per mile.

[StrangeSox]

Tough to argue against lower limits. Saves energy, saves lives. Not saying people will not try to argue, just saving that's a pretty solid argument on the other side.

 

Energy, maybe (depends on where each car is most efficient -- some cars will get slightly higher MPH at a little higher speed due to gearing). Lives, no. Artificially low speed limits cause greater speed differentials on the highway since some people will drive at or near the limit and others will still go 10-15 MPH over. That creates a much more dangerous situation than everyone just cruising along at 70 MPH or so.

 

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/24/2442.asp

http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2008-06/american-autobahn

 

We could lower them all the way to 40 MPH because some people say it "saves energy, saves lives." But its still an arbitrary limit and a nice, fat revenue stream for the police.

 

And the density of traffic and population is a big factor in determining speed limits. A two lane rural highway with four cars and three houses per mile is much different then a Chicago highway with thousands of residents and hundreds of cars per mile.

 

I'm not talking about a rural highway. I'm talking about streets in the suburbs which are full of shops/ homes and see thousands of cars a day. They have the same speed limit as 3-lane, divided-by-concrete-barriers Interstates around Chicago.

 

[Texsox]

Energy, maybe (depends on where each car is most efficient -- some cars will get slightly higher MPH at a little higher speed due to gearing). Lives, no. Artificially low speed limits cause greater speed differentials on the highway since some people will drive at or near the limit and others will still go 10-15 MPH over. That creates a much more dangerous situation than everyone just cruising along at 70 MPH or so.

 

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/24/2442.asp

http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2008-06/american-autobahn

 

We could lower them all the way to 40 MPH because some people say it "saves energy, saves lives." But its still an arbitrary limit and a nice, fat revenue stream for the police.

 

 

 

I'm not talking about a rural highway. I'm talking about streets in the suburbs which are full of shops/ homes and see thousands of cars a day. They have the same speed limit as 3-lane, divided-by-concrete-barriers Interstates around Chicago.

 

Changing laws because some people ignore them is an interesting concept. Are you suggesting that as soon as you raise limits people will stop speeding? I'd love to see some data on that. I think you raise the limit to 70 and some people will drive 75 or 80.

Sounds like some of the those suburban roads have too high a speed limit.

It's a nice fat revenue stream because people break the law. They chose to make that payment.

How is a higher limit not arbitrary?

[StrangeSox]

Changing laws because some people ignore them is an interesting concept.

 

No, the concept is to change a law because it is ineffective, inefficient, and does not benefit the public.

 

 

Are you suggesting that as soon as you raise limits people will stop speeding? I'd love to see some data on that. I think you raise the limit to 70 and some people will drive 75 or 80.

 

Some might, sure. When people are given high or no limits, they tend to settle on a speed in the 65-80 MPH range. Its not like everyone drives with their foot to the floor on the unrestricted parts of the Autobahn in Germany.

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...751C1A963958260

 

They just built a nice new extension for I-355. At night, you might not see another car for a few miles. Yet the limit is 55. Tell me on what world that makes sense.

 

Sounds like some of the those suburban roads have too high a speed limit.

 

Why? There's no an inordinate amount of accidents and the accidents occur for the same reasons as on any other road - not paying attention, blowing red lights, drunks, etc.

 

It's a nice fat revenue stream because people break the law. They chose to make that payment.

 

It's a nice fat revenue stream because they made bad laws and collect money instead of doing actual police work.

How is a higher limit not arbitrary?

 

Set it based on realistic traffic studies based on what speed the majority of drivers would choose to drive. That's how its supposed to be done, but rarely is.

 

[bmags]

I'm fairly certain that when the national speed limit was 55 mph, they saw a dropoff in highway fatalities while a negligible decline in gas.

[StrangeSox]

I'm fairly certain that when the national speed limit was 55 mph, they saw a dropoff in highway fatalities while a negligible decline in gas.

 

First year only. After that, it was back to normal. And, when the national limit was repealed and 33 states increased their limit, fatalities went to record lows.

 

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1205

 

Fuel savings were .5% to 1%.

 

http://www.heritage.org/Research/SmartGrowth/bg532.cfm

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law

 

Look at the non-compliance section and tell me that these speed limits were safe and well-thought out. When well over half of people are driving faster, I really don't think you can say that the limits were set based on solid traffic flow studies instead of just arbitrary limits.

Edited August 8, 2008 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

First year only. After that, it was back to normal. And, when the national limit was repealed and 33 states increased their limit, fatalities went to record lows.

But, that's being superimposed on a nationwide trend of fewer automobile fatalities stretching back decades as safety standards on automobiles have tightened up and other laws (DUI's, seatbelts) have been more stringently enforced.

[NorthSideSox72]

But, that's being superimposed on a nationwide trend of fewer automobile fatalities stretching back decades as safety standards on automobiles have tightened up and other laws (DUI's, seatbelts) have been more stringently enforced.

Yeah, those numbers scream polluting factors to me.

 

Its pretty clear that if cars are going faster, if all else is equal, there will be more fatalities and injuries. Its just physics.

 

[StrangeSox]

But, that's being superimposed on a nationwide trend of fewer automobile fatalities stretching back decades as safety standards on automobiles have tightened up and other laws (DUI's, seatbelts) have been more stringently enforced.

It was '95 (during 55 MPH) vs. '97 (post-55 MPH), not decades-long trends.

[StrangeSox]

Yeah, those numbers scream polluting factors to me.

 

Its pretty clear that if cars are going faster, if all else is equal, there will be more fatalities and injuries. Its just physics.

 

Unless there's less accidents because the flow of traffic is more uniform, which is exactly what happens.

 

Also, the Purdue study says otherwise. This article references it.

http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2008-06/american-autobahn

 

Speed differentials cause problems, not speed. Again, look at the autobahn. People don't drive with their foot to the floor. They drive at a "comfortable" speed, which, for most people, tends to be in the 70's or 80's. The traffic flows smoothly, everyone passes on the left, and there aren't huge issues.

Edited August 8, 2008 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

Unless there's less accidents because the flow of traffic is more uniform, which is exactly what happens.

 

Speed differentials cause problems, not speed. Again, look at the autobahn. People don't drive with their foot to the floor. They drive at a "comfortable" speed, which, for most people, tends to be in the 70's or 80's. The traffic flows smoothly, everyone passes on the left, and there aren't huge issues.

I think that argument is hollow. The face fact, that speed differentials cause problems, is certainly true. But to use that as an excuse to raise the speed limit makes no sense - people's "comfort" is based on habit. If people obeyed the speed limits for a while, they'd get comfortable with it.

 

And in Germany, the reason for fewer fatalities isn't because of the speed. I've spent time in Germany. Two things I noted... one, drivers there are focused on driving - they take it seriously. That means they are paying close attention to what they are doing (not their phones, drinks, crackberries, whatever), but it also means you have less jackasses taking chances because they know how serious their machines are. Two, the penalties for breaking driving laws in Germany (serious ones, like DUI, reckless, etc.) are MUCH more severe than they are here.

 

[StrangeSox]

I think that argument is hollow. The face fact, that speed differentials cause problems, is certainly true. But to use that as an excuse to raise the speed limit makes no sense - people's "comfort" is based on habit. If people obeyed the speed limits for a while, they'd get comfortable with it.

]

 

Based on the evidence for everywhere that has had unrestricted or high speed limits, that simply is not true. People drive 70-75 in a 55 around Chicago because they want to go 75, not 20 MPH faster than the limit. Raise the limit to 65 and they wont' start going 80-85 or 90.

 

Please explain how arbitrary limits set at 55 MPH save any lives or prevent any accidents. There are plenty of studies to the contrary. Just to be clear, I'm not advocating 70+ around Chicago, or no speed limits in rural areas. I don't drive very fast myself (60-65 in a 55) and don't have any tickets. I just want limits that make sense. 55MPH on the south part of the enw 355 extension makes zero sense. There's just no traffic and few exits/ entrances down there.

 

Here's Purdue's:

http://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2008a/080623ManneringSpeed.html

 

And in Germany, the reason for fewer fatalities isn't because of the speed. I've spent time in Germany. Two things I noted... one, drivers there are focused on driving - they take it seriously. That means they are paying close attention to what they are doing (not their phones, drinks, crackberries, whatever), but it also means you have less jackasses taking chances because they know how serious their machines are. Two, the penalties for breaking driving laws in Germany (serious ones, like DUI, reckless, etc.) are MUCH more severe than they are here.

 

I'd agree that German driving laws and training are about thousand times better than over here. Still, it shows that higher speed limits don't cause more accidents.

Edited August 8, 2008 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

]

 

Based on the evidence for everywhere that has had unrestricted or high speed limits, that simply is not true. People drive 70-75 in a 55 around Chicago because they want to go 75, not 20 MPH faster than the limit. Raise the limit to 65 and they wont' start going 80-85 or 90.

 

Please explain how arbitrary limits set at 55 MPH save any lives or prevent any accidents. There are plenty of studies to the contrary. Just to be clear, I'm not advocating 70+ around Chicago, or no speed limits in rural areas. Just limits that make sense. 55MPH on the south part of the enw 355 extension makes zero sense. There's just no traffic and few exits/ entrances down there.

 

Here's Purdue's:

http://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2008a/080623ManneringSpeed.html

 

 

 

I'd agree that German driving laws and training are about thousand times better than over here. Still, it shows that higher speed limits don't cause more accidents.

 

I think you are missing part of my point here. What people "want" to drive should be irrelevant. A speed limit isn't arbitrary, its based on road factors. Just because people want to drive 70, doesn't mean they should. This is what I mean when I say the argument is hollow.

 

You are basically saying that, because some people want to speed, the laws should change. I disagree. I think speed limits should be based on conditions, and if people speed, they should be penalized. That would change behavior, and eventually, most people would be "comfortable" at the lower speed.

 

That all said, I do think that Illinois staying at 55 or 65 on open, rural highways is arbitrary, so I agree in that case the speed limits should change. On the open road, 75 seems very reasonable.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

I think you are missing part of my point here. What people "want" to drive should be irrelevant. A speed limit isn't arbitrary, its based on road factors. Just because people want to drive 70, doesn't mean they should. This is what I mean when I say the argument is hollow.

 

You are basically saying that, because some people want to speed, the laws should change. I disagree. I think speed limits should be based on conditions, and if people speed, they should be penalized. That would change behavior, and eventually, most people would be "comfortable" at the lower speed.

 

That all said, I do think that Illinois staying at 55 or 65 on open, rural highways is arbitrary, so I agree in that case the speed limits should change. On the open road, 75 seems very reasonable.

 

 

You're right, I wasn't exactly clear. Road conditions (another major difference between US highways and the Autobahn!) definitely should be a major consideration. So also should the natural flow of traffic. If road conditions support 75 and traffic naturally wants to flow that high, there's no reason for limits to not be that high. I just wish that they'd actually complete and follow the traffic surveys they're supposed to do before setting arbitrary limits.

 

I really took this thread on a tangent, so maybe it'd be better to move these posts into a separate thread? Edit: thanks. You can also re-title the thread "SS's crazy rants" if you want

Edited August 8, 2008 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

You're right, I wasn't exactly clear. Road conditions (another major difference between US highways and the Autobahn!) definitely should be a major consideration. So also should the natural flow of traffic. If road conditions support 75 and traffic naturally wants to flow that high, there's no reason for limits to not be that high. I just wish that they'd actually complete and follow the traffic surveys they're supposed to do before setting arbitrary limits.

 

I really took this thread on a tangent, so maybe it'd be better to move these posts into a separate thread? Edit: thanks. You can also re-title the thread "SS's crazy rants" if you want

Its not a crazy rant, its a good topic.

 

[DrunkBomber]

Speed limits on 290 are completely irrelevant. That doesnt mean people are all driving like lunatics, it means everyone pretty much stays with the flow of traffic. Speeding, however is a crime that should only be enforceable in person. I guess the absolutely ridiculous in Cook County arent enough, now Blowjobavich needs more money to fund his criminal activities from more places. Anybody that thinks this is a good time in our countries history for the government to be taking more money from the people so they can decide how to spend it (Blowjobavich taking charter jets to Springfield for 7k a pop instead of staying in the governors mansion or flying commercial) is a communist.

 

This is big brother and its ridiculous. Anyone who is for s*** like this is gonna keep thinking all this stuff is great until it starts effecting them. You may want the government to know where you are (Ipass) how fast you got there, what intersections you didnt stop at long enough, what web sites you go to, where you shop, etc but I dont. Where do we draw the lines? The government is so ridiculously corrupt and they can do anything they want even when it comes to our money and people dont seem to care.

 

Do you not see police officers speeding constantly or going through red lights? Is that Ok? Are they gonna get tickets or suspended from their jobs? I want to be held to the same standards as these ass bags.

[santo=dorf]

from Texsox's home state;

http://www.leftlanenews.com/texas-to-raise...ver-habits.html

“If people begin to think that the number on the sign is unreasonable, then they won’t respect it,” Lopez said. “Just putting up a lower number on the highway isn’t going to slow down traffic.”

[Texsox]

Instead of an arbitrary number based on years of highway data, physics, road construction, traffic levels, and road design. Let's use a number based on how fast people want to drive and to accomodate the people who break the law. ah sure.

 

Once people are comfortable with 70, some will go 75 or 80. Still others may not be comfortable at those speeds and will continue to drive 55 or 60.

[DrunkBomber]

Instead of an arbitrary number based on years of highway data, physics, road construction, traffic levels, and road design. Let's use a number based on how fast people want to drive and to accomodate the people who break the law. ah sure.

 

Once people are comfortable with 70, some will go 75 or 80. Still others may not be comfortable at those speeds and will continue to drive 55 or 60.

Well, since youre an expert on the years of highway data, physics, construction, traffic levels and road design Id like to hear the genius behind having the exits for Harlem and Austin on the left side of 290. Im not talking about Texas so to cop and use excuses like this doesnt prove anything. Illinois has enough problems with corruption and taking money out of the peoples hands to give to the government is bulls***. Unless you operate every aspect of your life crime free, and I mean everything, jaywalking, speeding, not using turn signals etc youre a hypocrite for defending this. Now, since youre such an advocate for ILLEGAL immigrants maybe you should take a page from your own book, if they didnt break the law there would be no problem, even though you disagree with the law.

[Texsox]

Well, since youre an expert on the years of highway data, physics, construction, traffic levels and road design Id like to hear the genius behind having the exits for Harlem and Austin on the left side of 290. Im not talking about Texas so to cop and use excuses like this doesnt prove anything. Illinois has enough problems with corruption and taking money out of the peoples hands to give to the government is bulls***. Unless you operate every aspect of your life crime free, and I mean everything, jaywalking, speeding, not using turn signals etc youre a hypocrite for defending this. Now, since youre such an advocate for ILLEGAL immigrants maybe you should take a page from your own book, if they didnt break the law there would be no problem, even though you disagree with the law.

 

Well then based on your logic, we have no one that can defend any laws since everyone breaks a law once in a while. For the record, I advocate for a guest worker law that will allow immigrants to come to the US and work legally based on available jobs.

 

So what qualifications do you have that allows you to have an opinion on speed limits? Since you break the law, you can advocate getting rid of the law?

 

Break the law, pay a fine. Don't break the law, don't pay a fine. But I guess some people in Illinois can't help themselves, they have to break the law and then the evil, corrupt government you elected there capitalizes on your weakness. It's not myyyyyyyyyyyyy fault, the government made me do it and now they are taking my money

[DrunkBomber]

Well then based on your logic, we have no one that can defend any laws since everyone breaks a law once in a while. For the record, I advocate for a guest worker law that will allow immigrants to come to the US and work legally based on available jobs.

 

So what qualifications do you have that allows you to have an opinion on speed limits? Since you break the law, you can advocate getting rid of the law?

 

Break the law, pay a fine. Don't break the law, don't pay a fine. But I guess some people in Illinois can't help themselves, they have to break the law and then the evil, corrupt government you elected there capitalizes on your weakness. It's not myyyyyyyyyyyyy fault, the government made me do it and now they are taking my money

Not you specifically, liberals in general. For the record, I havent received one of these tickets or plan on getting one, I just know when things are going too far.

 

So based on your theories, all ILLEGAL immigrants should be prosecuted by any means necessary right? When terrified idealist liberals have enough confidence in themselves where they dont need to hind behind the government to "equal" everything out is when people should be content.

[DrunkBomber]

Seriously, I would like some more of a liberal telling me about being accountable for my own actions. This stuff is gold.

[NorthSideSox72]

Seriously, I would like some more of a liberal telling me about being accountable for my own actions. This stuff is gold.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

[DrunkBomber]

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Educate me then.

 

Also, Tex, remember your stance on that lady that leased a car that she couldnt afford and there were discussion of a government bailout and you cried saying it wasnt her fault, the salesmen tricked her. You sleigh me.