Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JREwing78]

While reading over this thread, I checked out the Wikipedia page on I-95 in Maine, and found someone had posted this:

Bill would boost speed limit to 75 mph on northern highway
http://new.bangordailynews.com/2011/05/12/politics/bill-would-boost-speed-limit-to-75-mph-on-northern-highway/

Drivers who make the long, straight and often solitary 100-or-so-mile haul between Old Town and Houlton may be able to set the cruise control at 75 without fear of seeing blue lights under a bill that took a first step toward passage on Thursday.

A legislative committee voted unanimously to endorse a measure, LD 1557, that would allow the state’s transportation commissioner to bump up the speed limit on Maine’s northernmost stretch of Interstate 95 from 65 mph to 75 mph.


A related editorial:

Raising speed limit may make sense, but won’t save money
http://new.bangordailynews.com/2011/05/19/opinion/raising-speed-limit-makes-sense-but-should-be-weighed/?ref=relatedBox


Not a bad idea. Certainly, though, they can extend that speed limit at least down to Augusta.

[Duke87]

The department calculates that for each 5 mph over 60 mph, there is an additional cost equivalent to 24 cents per gallon of gas. An increase from 65 to 75, therefore, would cost a driver an additional 50 cents per gallon; 85 mph would push the cost to almost an extra dollar per gallon of gas.

Uh... what? Yes, driving faster costs more, but it's because you burn more gas, not because the price of gas increases. Where the hell are they pulling these numbers from?

[yakra]

Not their arses - heads are too tightly up there to prevent anything from escaping.
(A comparison sticking to figures of reduced MPG would be much more understandable & realistic, and not unnecessarily cloud the issue IMO...)

The article also appears to presume that as a result of a maximum being raised, that all motorists will necessarily as a result increase their speeds with it. Can we not freely choose whether we meet, exceed, or stay under the speed limit?

[agentsteel53]

The department calculates that for each 5 mph over 60 mph, there is an additional cost equivalent to 24 cents per gallon of gas. An increase from 65 to 75, therefore, would cost a driver an additional 50 cents per gallon; 85 mph would push the cost to almost an extra dollar per gallon of gas.

and if I want to pay the 24 cents because my time is more valuable than that, I should have that option.

[1995hoo]

The department calculates that for each 5 mph over 60 mph, there is an additional cost equivalent to 24 cents per gallon of gas. An increase from 65 to 75, therefore, would cost a driver an additional 50 cents per gallon; 85 mph would push the cost to almost an extra dollar per gallon of gas.

and if I want to pay the 24 cents because my time is more valuable than that, I should have that option.

This is, to their credit, what officials in Texas said when they posted the 80-mph limit.

For once I'd like to hear officials say, "Nobody is required to drive at the speed limit. If we post 75 and you prefer 65, you are entitled to drive 65 mph as long as you stay out of the left lane."

[papaT10932]

and if I want to pay the 24 cents because my time is more valuable than that, I should have that option.

It's always refreshing to see right wing libertarian nonsense being applied to speed limits. If that's the case, why have speed limits at all? The founding fathers wanted us to drive 150 mph and any thing less is an infringement on our liberties!
Puh-lease 

[Alex]

This is, to their credit, what officials in Texas said when they posted the 80-mph limit.

For once I'd like to hear officials say, "Nobody is required to drive at the speed limit. If we post 75 and you prefer 65, you are entitled to drive 65 mph as long as you stay out of the left lane."

Well said. When I drove Interstate 10 in West Texas when speed limits were 75 mph, I set my cruise control for 72.

[agentsteel53]

If that's the case, why have speed limits at all?

good question.  a lot of rural places could go without them.

[vdeane]

Can we not freely choose whether we meet, exceed, or stay under the speed limit?

According to the speed nazis, no.

[formulanone]

and if I want to pay the 24 cents because my time is more valuable than that, I should have that option.

It's always refreshing to see right wing libertarian nonsense being applied to speed limits. If that's the case, why have speed limits at all? The founding fathers wanted us to drive 150 mph and any thing less is an infringement on our liberties!
Puh-lease 

I agree with some speed latitude (nobody seriously would travel that quickly for very long, even if only 1% of vehicles on the road could do it), and I'm more of a left-leaning libertarian.

When your state allows adults to pump your own gasoline into a horseless carriage, then maybe they'll entrust you to go 66 mph.

[1995hoo]

and if I want to pay the 24 cents because my time is more valuable than that, I should have that option.

It's always refreshing to see right wing libertarian nonsense being applied to speed limits. If that's the case, why have speed limits at all? The founding fathers wanted us to drive 150 mph and any thing less is an infringement on our liberties!
Puh-lease 

I don't see the point of stupid political discussion that doesn't belong here (we get too much of that here in the DC area as it is), but if you want to start throwing insults of the sort in your first sentence, it bears remembering that elections do indeed matter on this sort of issue—had the Republicans not taken control of Congress after the 1994 election, the odious National Speed Limit would not have been repealed in 1995, as the Democrats were generally against the repeal (and Clinton expressed displeasure with it but felt that the highway funding in the bill was too important to sacrifice with a veto because of the speed limit issue).

[Kacie Jane]

The department calculates that for each 5 mph over 60 mph, there is an additional cost equivalent to 24 cents per gallon of gas. An increase from 65 to 75, therefore, would cost a driver an additional 50 cents per gallon; 85 mph would push the cost to almost an extra dollar per gallon of gas.

Uh... what? Yes, driving faster costs more, but it's because you burn more gas, not because the price of gas increases. Where the hell are they pulling these numbers from?

It says equivalent to, meaning it's an estimate on how much more $$$ it would take you to get from point A to point B.  As 1995hoo said, it would have made more sense - or at least been less esoteric - to keep it on the level of MPG, it is possible to calculate such an estimate, and by putting it in terms of higher gas prices, they have an effective tool for scaring the voting public.

(Although as was discussed on the NMSL thread, even the MPG argument is a tad wonky, since different cars behave differently.)

[yakra]

For once I'd like to hear officials say, "Nobody is required to drive at the speed limit. If we post 75 and you prefer 65, you are entitled to drive 65 mph as long as you stay out of the left lane."

Maine currently has a KRETP law on the books, in effect where the speed limit is >= 65 MPH. It's posted regularly on sections of the interstate system where it applies, white regulatory sign about the size & shape of a speed limit. I'd never seen it enforced. Have daydreamed about it many times.
For once I'd like to...

[yakra]

Why speed limits are rising

    * Longer stopping distances. Exact calculations of braking time and distance vary depending on a multitude of factors, but it's hard to deny basic physics: The faster you go, the longer it takes to stop.
    * Less time to respond. If it takes one second to recognize an emergency, and another second to take action, in those two seconds a car going 85 mph will have traveled 249 feet before the driver reacts, or about 16 car lengths. At 65 mph the distance drops to 190 feet, or about 12 car lengths.

One word: m00se.

[agentsteel53]

One word: m00se.

which is why one shouldn't do 85 in the dead of night in places like Maine, Texas, Nevada, etc.  (those latter two don't have moose, but they have cows, which are similarly destructive)

but if one wants to be an idiot, let 'em.

[yakra]

"similarly destructive?" Pfft!

Maybe it's population control. Ask Uncle Chuck...

[SidS1045]

According to the revenue nazis, no.

Fixed.

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

It's always refreshing to see right wing libertarian nonsense being applied to speed limits.

It's not nonsense any more than most rural highway speed limits themselves are...

[mhallack]

Believe me, having the speed limit 75 between those two towns would be a good idea, even trees get boring after a while. Also hitting a moose at either 65 or 75mph is still gonna do a lot of damage!!

[relaxok]

Drivers who make the long, straight and often solitary 100-or-so-mile haul between Old Town and Houlton may be able to set the cruise control at 75 without fear of seeing blue lights under a bill that took a first step toward passage on Thursday.

I laughed at that.. Because everyone drives the speed limit!

Everybody knows cruise control is limit + 9.

Seeing Houlton reminded me of this 'extremes' bit from the Interstate Highway System wiki:

"Least traveled: 1,800 vehicles per day: I-95 just north of Houlton, Maine to the Canadian border"

So this is talking about near to and including the least traveled segment of the ENTIRE interstate system - if anywhere deserves to be 75, it's there.

[1995hoo]

The comments "relaxok" made amuse me a bit after I drove home from Jacksonville to the DC area yesterday via I-95 (and Virginia's I-295). Back when those roads were posted at 65 mph I generally set the cruise control at 75 mph unless there was enough traffic going faster to mean that I wouldn't stand out going faster. Now the majority of the route is posted at 70 mph, but I still had the cruise control set at 75 mph for most of the trip (again, some portions at higher speeds when there was more traffic). I commented to my wife that the advantage of the higher speed limit is that I didn't give a damn whether I saw a cop (except in Ridgeland, South Carolina, where I had it set spot-on 70 mph....sure enough, cop standing on an overpass running radar and using a walkie-talkie to three cop cars further up the road). Unless a cop is a total dick, or you're in a speedtrap town, 75 in a 70 zone isn't likely to get you a ticket. 75 in a 65 may. It was simply far more relaxing not to have to care.

The media want us to believe that everyone automatically goes speed limit plus nine, but I don't necessarily think that's true. I think more people just go what they think is a reasonable speed regardless of the number on the sign. I haven't found that traffic in Virginia is all that much faster since the expanded 70-mph limit took effect last year (indeed late last night on I-95 between I-295 and Fredericksburg I was one of the faster cars on the road, and I had the cruise control set at the speed limit at the time).

[NJRoadfan]

The media want us to believe that everyone automatically goes speed limit plus nine, but I don't necessarily think that's true. I think more people just go what they think is a reasonable speed regardless of the number on the sign. I haven't found that traffic in Virginia is all that much faster since the expanded 70-mph limit took effect last year (indeed late last night on I-95 between I-295 and Fredericksburg I was one of the faster cars on the road, and I had the cruise control set at the speed limit at the time).

My general observation of patrols in VA 70mph zones is that they are looking for easy "reckless driving" pullovers. Keep it below 80mph and they likely won't bother you. Of course its pretty ridiculous when one sees SEVEN patrol cars in the median of I-85 on a 10 mile stretch of roadway at 6am in a Sunday morning doing radar.

[1995hoo]

The media want us to believe that everyone automatically goes speed limit plus nine, but I don't necessarily think that's true. I think more people just go what they think is a reasonable speed regardless of the number on the sign. I haven't found that traffic in Virginia is all that much faster since the expanded 70-mph limit took effect last year (indeed late last night on I-95 between I-295 and Fredericksburg I was one of the faster cars on the road, and I had the cruise control set at the speed limit at the time).

My general observation of patrols in VA 70mph zones is that they are looking for easy "reckless driving" pullovers. Keep it below 80mph and they likely won't bother you. Of course its pretty ridiculous when one sees SEVEN patrol cars in the median of I-85 on a 10 mile stretch of roadway at 6am in a Sunday morning doing radar.

I think that sounds about right and the fact that they did not revise the reckless driving statute certainly factors into my decision as to what constitutes a good speed in Virginia's 70-mph zones. I know several other people who have said the same thing. There are quite a few people in Virginia who don't know about the "or in excess of 80 mph" part of that statute, though, and who think it's merely 20 mph over the limit.

I used to drive on I-85 all the time in the 1990s going back and forth to Duke when I was in law school there and I seldom saw any cops, but I haven't used that road in a long time now. Haven't had reason to go in that direction recently.

[vdeane]

Makes me think the whole point of the 70mph limit was to make for more reckless driving tickets.  We should have known; a limit over 65 in this part of the country is just too good to be true.

[Ian]

Sorry for the bump, but I heard the speed limit 75 signs went up last week. Is this true? Any photos of the signs?