America Raises Speed Limit to 80mph...

[csv8]

America Raises Speed Limit to 80mph.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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."

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_...720094909990006

Isn't that the opposite to the BS we get here ????

[LethalLeigh]

America has realised that certain roads are designed for certain speeds. Around Adelaide we have quite a few arterial roads with the limits reduced despite the fact they have been safely engineered to cope with these speeds.

[XRchic]

Originally Posted by LethalLeigh

America has realised that certain roads are designed for certain speeds. Around Adelaide we have quite a few arterial roads with the limits reduced despite the fact they have been safely engineered to cope with these speeds.

Anzac Highway would be one of them.

Imagine though, the common sense approach being applied here! Nah, thats just way to sensible for Australia. Besides, Bracksy likes all the revenue from the cameras just the way they are, thanks. :P

[Fairlane]

Well thats the opposite of Australia. The way its going here the RTA will have us at walking pace. All the speed limits on my local roads have been dropped roads that used to be 90/100 are now 70 whilst others have gone from 80 to 60.

Well hopefully some common sense trickles down from the US and we get some better speed limits.

[spoonage]

Originally Posted by XRchic

Anzac Highway would be one of them.

Imagine though, the common sense approach being applied here! Nah, thats just way to sensible for Australia. Besides, Bracksy likes all the revenue from the cameras just the way they are, thanks. :P

The revenue really is tiny compared to state budget, it's not even a blip on the radar.

I remember in the UK, kings of speed cameras, Topgear interviewed the Transport Minister, and they said to him 'The 25 million pounds made from last years speed cameras is obvious ripping off', but then he came back quickly and said 'Simon Cowel paid more then 25 million in taxes last year.'

So think about that, the revenue raised is less then taxes of some people. So Kerry Packer dying would've had more effect on the economy then raising revenue from speed cameras.

[csv8]

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
July 20, 2006; Page D1

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.

CAST YOUR VOTE



What should the top nationwide speed limit be? Cast your vote in the Question of the Day.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.

[BJ]

Do we really care.

[XRchic]

Originally Posted by spoonage

The revenue really is tiny compared to state budget, it's not even a blip on the radar.

I remember in the UK, kings of speed cameras, Topgear interviewed the Transport Minister, and they said to him 'The 25 million pounds made from last years speed cameras is obvious ripping off', but then he came back quickly and said 'Simon Cowel paid more then 25 million in taxes last year.'

So think about that, the revenue raised is less then taxes of some people. So Kerry Packer dying would've had more effect on the economy then raising revenue from speed cameras.

Does anyone have the revenue raised in Victoria from speed cameras in the last financial year?

Income tax revenue is a federal tax. It goes into the national budget. The speed camera revenue is a state "tax" and goes into the state budget.

The UK dont have even a similar system of government to ours as far as economy or division of power goes - they dont have separate states, only a federal government and taxes, which are all uniform and evenly spread.

The states dont get any of the income tax revenue and they dont get that much of anything, which puts any of Victoria's speed camera revenue into a very different context than that of the UK.

Kerry Packer dying would have had minimal impact on the federal budget and economy, but who knows what impact on the state govt???

[XR Martin]

I doubt there are many rich people paying 25million pounds of tax a year either, not if they can help it.

[LTDHO]

Bring on the higher speed.

However no one alive now will live to see it as it will never happen.

[thefargo]

Originally Posted by XRchic

Anzac Highway would be one of them.

Imagine though, the common sense approach being applied here! Nah, thats just way to sensible for Australia. Besides, Bracksy likes all the revenue from the cameras just the way they are, thanks. :P

the expressway here in south au.
2 and 3 lanes all going the same way, concretre walls on both sides of you. no homes, merging lanes or side streets. and it's got a speed limit of 80 in some sections!

common sense is not so common

[nitroman]

It would be a very good thing.. on the right roads. In europe the autobahns are unlimited but the roads with speed limits are heavily policed. Because the lawmakers give the people the ability to judge their own safe speed when unlimited, they respect the speed limits when they are imposed due to built up areas, bad roads etc.
Sounds much more sensible than our rules doesen't it?

[DanielXR8]

Originally Posted by BJ

Do we really care.

Given how often we follow US trends, yes there is reason to.

Dan

[OzJavelin]

Originally Posted by BJ

Do we really care.

Considering the Yanks originally lowered the speed limit max to 55mph because of the first "gas crisis", it wouldn't surprise me in that they might backflip and LOWER speed limits again soon in a lame attempt to conserve fuel at a national level. If they LOWER speeds I'm sure the Australian govt will sit up and take notice then ..

BTW: 80mph is what most American drive at on freeways anyway .. they are just raising the limit to match the "average" speed ..

[DRU842]

I'm sure I've seen a A$550 million figure for the Victorian budget on speed cameras a few years back; scary thing is it was listed as its own item!

[ltd]

Some roads in texas already have 85mph limits on them. I know because I was in texas last year sitting on 100mph on the interstate. I went past a state trooper parked in the median and guess what..........
He did nothing.
That's because in the USA they don't pull you over unless you're doing something dangerous like undertaking or tailgating. Simply, they don't demonise speeding as though it is a battle of life and death.

Anyway, we'll never get it here because as others have mentioned, the states love that Scam-era revenue.

That, and the fact that we could have had the guy who organised the NY police force and brought in zero tolerance reducing crime by up to 90%, but the rock spider carr got a bumbling british bastard instead who only prosecuted line officers and entrenched a bunch of egotistical managerial jag offs who were neck deep in corruption. (Yes I realise that it is over the top but for goodness sake, speak to any NSW policeman who has been a cop for more then 5 years - 3 years longer than when most new recruits quit).

Anyway, instead of getting who would be good for the state we got the opposite and suffer as a result. In britain they have lowerered speed limits as they have put a whole bunch of speed cameras everywhere and the local government is again addicted to the revenue it provides. I'm betting that the decision makers who sign off on Scam-era installations think it is a victimless crime to put Scam-eras in, and that it doesn't really hurt anyone.
I just hope that come election day people do remember, and vote accordingly (State election not federal as the states are responsible for the roads - just to help those who don't know the difference).

BTW, is it just me or is Steve Bracks evil.

[Doogstar]

I don't believe we should increase speed limits, instead I believe we should have speed guides rather than speed limits. We should be able to travel 10-15 kph over the posted limit without penality. The vast majority of traffic travel 10kph over the limit anyway.

It should depend on the braking,acceleration and safety features (ABS, TC etc) of the vehicle you are driving. If you have a high performance car that can safely stop a lot quicker and handle better than a low performance vehicle, why should you need to travel at the same speed?

I think signposted speed limits are worked out for the highest possible safety in average road conditions and the average performance & safety of the vehicles that will travel on them. But the average level of performance and safety in modern cars has increased, why aren't the speeds flexible?

[cwhast]

Does anyone know why the F3 near Brooklyn has dropped from 110 to 90? Is it to stop people accelerating hard up that big hill?

[Falcon Freak]

The Hume Highway should have a 130km/hr limit for most of it's length from Melbourne to Albury/Wodonga. That road could handle that speed easily.

FF

[aimzes]

i read (a while back) that newer cars get better fuel economy sitting at around 125km/h. has anyone else heard this? 80mph is roughly 130km/h...

what i read could be bs though lol.

[OzJavelin]

Originally Posted by aimzes

i read (a while back) that newer cars get better fuel economy sitting at around 125km/h. has anyone else heard this? 80mph is roughly 130km/h...

what i read could be bs though lol.

I've always thought it about 90km/h that more average cars were at maximium fuel efficiency?

[VSSII]

Maximum fuel economy and efficiency (most energy gained from burnt fuel) is generally around 90kph these days. The biggest problems we have in NSW regarding increasing the speed limit are
1. Most cars are at least 10 years or older
2. People like L and P platers are allowed on freeways and they are speed restricted. I hate 'em on the freeways. Moving chicanes gumming up free flowing traffic
3. Anyone can drive on our roads. If you come from Korea (voted worlds worst drivers) for instance and you are on a 10 year visa. You don't need a NSW licence until that visa or your Korean licence expires. We therefore have a declining standard of road users.

These are just a few of the dramas you do not come across in places like Germany, wis de Autobahns and de fast mercedes! As I've mentioned previously. It's an offence to run out of fuel on the Autobahn.

Oh and don't forget the truly atrocious conditions of our roads.

[Big Mike]

A few years ago, I was most surprised when I bought my (ancient) BMW 750i-L lwb german V12 limo, at how well it soaked up some of the bad roads. Driving all different brand new cars daily for several years, thinking I'd pretty much experienced everything, I find a poor, undulating, 100km/h road (which was 110km/h at the time) was acceptable at that speed in my older cars, quite comfortable at that speed in modern Aussie-sold cars; yet my (ancient) BMW can cruise CASUALLY and LEISURELY in excess of 200 km/h along the same stretch of Main North Road (for the SA locals - Smithfield to Gawler).

Ok, so in 1988 my old german tank cost $260,000 - when Falcons and Commodores were hardly one tenth of that. I can't fathom those numbers - its worth $15,000 at best now; but how much better could the squillion dollar European cars be now, relative to their cheaper counterparts and locally produced items?

More to MY POINT: Are the autobahns actually that much better of a road? Or do they simply drive a higher percentage of far superior vehicles? I mean, there's no VN Commodores bump-steering all over the road, foot to the floor, on a German Autobahn. My QUESTION is what's their roads REALLY like? Are ours actually much worse?

While pondering that, also remember a section of the Autobahn was given a speedlimit at some time, and for the six-month trial period had MORE fatal accidents, than all the years it was unlimited combined. This CONCLUDES that done correctly, open speed can be a safer option. PERHAPS it is that people have the freedom to explore their cars abilities, and their own abilities, and LEARN HOW TO DRIVE at speed. Perhaps, the fact other vehicles are also all going at reasonable speeds. Perhaps, and this is more to my liking, people know how long it takes to get to work, you know you're all moving along, and thus don't feel that sense of urgency you get when you worry you're not making adequate progress. There's lots of literal reasons - and lots of theoretical and psychological reasons; direct and inderect; that make traffic flow as a whole (not just a particular road) much much safer under more OPEN, less restrictive conditions; where things that are ACTUALLY DANGEROUS get policed, not merely the policing of adherance to reccomendations and guidlines.

Oh and my other point was about fuel consumption - my XB (5L V8) is most comfortable around the 90km/h mark - the BMW (5L V12 with instant fuel consumption display) is most comfortable, and efficient, at 140 km/h. So it depends alot on your aerodynamics and gearing - therefore what revs at what speed, etc.

And in agreeance with "VSSII" - where I refer to policing stuff that is actually dangerous - I feel the foreigners who can come here, and not sit any tests or even a review of our rules and signs - is indeed one example of the rediculous disarray of our current system.

[aimzes]

Maximum fuel economy and efficiency (most energy gained from burnt fuel) is generally around 90kph these days.

lol well i forget where i read the figures but they were way off.

[T_Terror]

Jut to add to the discussion, ive been to germany and been a passenger driving across the autobahn.

Its not THAT much better than Australian roads. Rds like the Geelong Fwy and HUME have pretty good road surface and could easily sustain 150kmh and more.
Its the attitude and responsibilty that allows Germans (and americnas now) to drive at sensible speeds, and lack of the former that limits us Aussies here.

Anyway, the of the main benefits of Germanys system is the accident quick response unit which has a helicopter for a certain stretch of rd, and also the licencing system which is an advanced driver training course in itself.

[LethalLeigh]

Originally Posted by T_Terror

Jut to add to the discussion, ive been to germany and been a passenger driving across the autobahn.

Its not THAT much better than Australian roads. Rds like the Geelong Fwy and HUME have pretty good road surface and could easily sustain 150kmh and more.
Its the attitude and responsibilty that allows Germans (and americnas now) to drive at sensible speeds, and lack of the former that limits us Aussies here.

Anyway, the of the main benefits of Germanys system is the accident quick response unit which has a helicopter for a certain stretch of rd, and also the licencing system which is an advanced driver training course in itself.

That's a very valid point. Given how cursory our licencing system is (particularly in SA), should we have raised or unlimited limits like the Germans? As much as I believe there is a safe speed level for each and every road that is typically higher than the actual limit, is our driver training sufficient? I think not.

[PepeLePew]

Tis interesting to note how quickly you can actually get around say Melbourne. While they're big on cameras the ring roads etc, and even such as Nepean Hwy at LEAST arent 60km/h. Put them in Adelaide, and I'll betchya a $1 they'd slow em down.

We have ridiculously low limits set on many roads here, not a quick place to get around...

As for the U.S at least those guys have have radar detectors to back them up....shows the completely different attitude to speeding. Wonder what their accident stats are even at the blanket 55 limit?

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by PepeLePew

Tis interesting to note how quickly you can actually get around say Melbourne. While they're big on cameras the ring roads etc, and even such as Nepean Hwy at LEAST arent 60km/h. Put them in Adelaide, and I'll betchya a $1 they'd slow em down.

We have ridiculously low limits set on many roads here, not a quick place to get around...

As for the U.S at least those guys have have radar detectors to back them up....shows the completely different attitude to speeding. Wonder what their accident stats are even at the blanket 55 limit?

Half of Nepean is 60!

[PepeLePew]

Originally Posted by LTDHO

Half of Nepean is 60!

heheheh, sorry bad example then or Im just mixing it up with another road heading down that way (I commute from the A/P to our office quite often but its almost a robotic action now) I doubt if I've driven it all, probably just the 'right bits', but seriously guys, my point is if you want something to complain about with inappropiate limits, come sample this draconian state

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by spoonage

So think about that, the revenue raised is less then taxes of some people. So Kerry Packer dying would've had more effect on the economy then raising revenue from speed cameras.

Kerry Packer paid less in tax than it would cost to fill your Falcon with fuel.
That’s why he paid good accountants. Rich people and tax in the same sentence usually goes with the words: avoid or minimise.

Do you remember the year he went to court against the ATO and the judge imposed a $30 tax bill for the whole of PBL?