Ready for NMSL v2?

[vdeane]

Looks like lobbyists are looking to roll back speed limits to 65.  It would appear that truckers complaining about difference in speed if the speed limiter regulation is adopted backfired.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/tripping/wp/2016/10/07/new-data-on-highway-deaths-suggest-that-congress-needs-to-revisit-speed-limits-advocates-say/

[jeffandnicole]

Headline: "New data on highway deaths suggest that Congress needs to revisit speed limits, advocates say"

2/3rds of the way down: "There is conflicting data on the impact of speed on overall fatality rates."

Um....

And the most laughable quote in the article: "nearly half of all drivers see speeding as a problem, and one in five admitted doing it."  Really...20% of people said they have sped?  If that was the case, we wouldn't be talking about the issue.  Actual data shows on many highways well over 90% of the people are speeding.

[Revive 755]

I certainly hope if this does start looking more likely, there is a lot more defiance from the states this time.

I also question this big safety push - they are likely to make getting around a lot more miserable, and still have a good number of fatalities.  Dropping the speed limit does nothing to prevent a fatal crash from someone improperly passing and hitting an opposing vehicle head on.

[wanderer2575]

This exchange from The Gumball Rally says it all:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UPQDW6ZOpA

[cl94]

I doubt it'll happen for several reasons, one of which being the widely varied conditions in different states. Recent data has shown that most accidents nowadays are caused by distracted driving. Lowering the speed limit won't help that. In fact, it might increase it because people may spend more time using their devices while driving. A better law would be a national ban on texting while driving

[corco]

One of the few good things about today's political climate of that this will never happen- even if you buy the arguments, it's a high risk-low reward proposition, which means it won't even make it to the bill drafting stage.

[pumpkineater2]

I doubt this will happen, but if it did, you can bet your @$$ I'll still set the cruise control at 80+ out on the open interstate. There's nothing wrong with that as long as you stay 100% focused on the road, It's really not that hard. Put down the damn burger, put down the damn phone and have some respect for your life and the lives of others. To truly eliminate the possibility of a speed related crash, everyone would have to drive at 20 mph all the time. These people fail to realize that speed is far from being the only factor in crashes.The reason there are so many fatalities on the highways is because people in this country do not take driving seriously, and they don't respect the potential they have to kill themselves and others. They think they can multitask between driving a vehicle and eating a burger or putting on makeup or using a cell phone. The answer is not reducing speed limits. The answer is changing American driving culture so that people realize and respect what they become capable of doing when they get behind the wheel. To me driving is an activity in itself, and when people drive, they should focus on that and only that until they reach their destination. Anything that doesn't have to do with the operation of a vehicle has absolutely no place in the attention span of a person while driving.

It's probably obvious that I feel very strongly about this; I just can't stand it when speed/high speed limits are always the first things attacked whenever road safety is attempted to be improved. The problem is much, much more complicated than just how quickly you move across the ground.

[1995hoo]

Part of what's frustrating is that the media, and the lower speed limits crowd, always try to cite raw fatality numbers instead of the fatality rate. The latter is a more meaningful statistic in most cases. Other thing is, they refuse to recognize that sometimes where an accident report notes one driver was "speeding" it's really the other driver's action that caused the crash (say, the other driver, who is doing the speed limit, recklessly passes a school bus on a blind hill over a double yellow line when the road isn't clear).

[hbelkins]

Not gonna happen. If this gets proposed, there will be such a backlash from the grassroots that representatives and senators won't dare defy their constituents on this one. People don't care about the truly important issues, but they get all up in arms over stuff like this.

[kphoger]

Part of what's frustrating is that the media, and the lower speed limits crowd, always try to cite raw fatality numbers instead of the fatality rate. The latter is a more meaningful statistic in most cases. Other thing is, they refuse to recognize that sometimes where an accident report notes one driver was "speeding" it's really the other driver's action that caused the crash (say, the other driver, who is doing the speed limit, recklessly passes a school bus on a blind hill over a double yellow line when the road isn't clear).

The fact that speeding-related accidents due to weather (faster than safe for conditions) and speeding-related accidents due to absolute speed (over the speed limit) aren't differentiated in the data doesn't help either.  If you're going 65 mph in a 70 mph zone during a downpour and hydroplane your way into an accident, then your accident is classified as a speeding-related accident and that statistic will be used to claim the speed limit is too high.

[cl94]

Part of what's frustrating is that the media, and the lower speed limits crowd, always try to cite raw fatality numbers instead of the fatality rate. The latter is a more meaningful statistic in most cases. Other thing is, they refuse to recognize that sometimes where an accident report notes one driver was "speeding" it's really the other driver's action that caused the crash (say, the other driver, who is doing the speed limit, recklessly passes a school bus on a blind hill over a double yellow line when the road isn't clear).

The fact that speeding-related accidents due to weather (faster than safe for conditions) and speeding-related accidents due to absolute speed (over the speed limit) aren't differentiated in the data doesn't help either.  If you're going 65 mph in a 70 mph zone during a downpour and hydroplane your way into an accident, then your accident is classified as a speeding-related accident and that statistic will be used to claim the speed limit is too high.

Of course, stuff like that is why the Interstate system should have widespread variable speed limits. Decrease the speed limit during heavy rain or snow.

[jeffandnicole]

Part of what's frustrating is that the media, and the lower speed limits crowd, always try to cite raw fatality numbers instead of the fatality rate. The latter is a more meaningful statistic in most cases. Other thing is, they refuse to recognize that sometimes where an accident report notes one driver was "speeding" it's really the other driver's action that caused the crash (say, the other driver, who is doing the speed limit, recklessly passes a school bus on a blind hill over a double yellow line when the road isn't clear).

The fact that speeding-related accidents due to weather (faster than safe for conditions) and speeding-related accidents due to absolute speed (over the speed limit) aren't differentiated in the data doesn't help either.  If you're going 65 mph in a 70 mph zone during a downpour and hydroplane your way into an accident, then your accident is classified as a speeding-related accident and that statistic will be used to claim the speed limit is too high.

And they never site where the speeding related accidents occur.  If 100 fatals were recorded, and 99 of them were on local roadways with 45 mph limits, reducing the limit from 75 to 65 on the interstate ain't doing to do a damn bit of good.

[vdeane]

One of the arguments now seems to be that the speed limit needs to be lower BECAUSE of distracted driving, under the argument that it's less safe now than it was and therefore the limit must be reduced.  Never mind that increasing safety is actually the REASON why distracted driving is on the rise; make driving too easy and boring, and people will try to occupy their minds another way.  If you want to stop distracted driving, IMO it would be better to jack speed limits way up and ban anything other than a stick shift.

The fact that speeding-related accidents due to weather (faster than safe for conditions) and speeding-related accidents due to absolute speed (over the speed limit) aren't differentiated in the data doesn't help either.  If you're going 65 mph in a 70 mph zone during a downpour and hydroplane your way into an accident, then your accident is classified as a speeding-related accident and that statistic will be used to claim the speed limit is too high.

Of course, stuff like that is why the Interstate system should have widespread variable speed limits. Decrease the speed limit during heavy rain or snow.

IMO it is the responsibility of the driver to know when they need to go slower.  If they can't judge it properly, tear their licence into confetti.  Who's going to judge when to lower the speed?  Is I-81 going to have a speed limit of 20 much of the winter because Cuomo likes to make a show of "doing something" even if it won't start snowing for a few hours?

[slorydn1]

Part of what's frustrating is that the media, and the lower speed limits crowd, always try to cite raw fatality numbers instead of the fatality rate. The latter is a more meaningful statistic in most cases. Other thing is, they refuse to recognize that sometimes where an accident report notes one driver was "speeding" it's really the other driver's action that caused the crash (say, the other driver, who is doing the speed limit, recklessly passes a school bus on a blind hill over a double yellow line when the road isn't clear).

The fact that speeding-related accidents due to weather (faster than safe for conditions) and speeding-related accidents due to absolute speed (over the speed limit) aren't differentiated in the data doesn't help either.  If you're going 65 mph in a 70 mph zone during a downpour and hydroplane your way into an accident, then your accident is classified as a speeding-related accident and that statistic will be used to claim the speed limit is too high.

Of course, stuff like that is why the Interstate system should have widespread variable speed limits. Decrease the speed limit during heavy rain or snow.

IMO it is the responsibility of the driver to know when they need to go slower.  If they can't judge it properly, tear their licence into confetti.  Who's going to judge when to lower the speed?  Is I-81 going to have a speed limit of 20 much of the winter because Cuomo likes to make a show of "doing something" even if it won't start snowing for a few hours?

I agree with vdeane 100%.

In fact, this why, here in NC at least, once can still be charged with driving too fast for conditions even if going below the speed limit. I will admit that this can be very subjective on the part of the charging officer and as such is usually only charged when a crash has taken place.

If an officer sees something that is above and beyond stupid, he may choose to charge a driver with Careless and Reckless driving, at which point the speed # in and of itself is actually irrelevant-all the officer would need to do is prove the driver was operating his vehicle "upon a highway or any public vehicular area carelessly and heedlessly in willful or wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others" (NCGS §20-140(a))

So, lowering the maximum speed limit is really not necessary unless the only thing the government is after is widening the base for their random taxation patrols.

[jeffandnicole]

So, lowering the maximum speed limit is really not necessary unless the only thing the government is after is widening the base for their random taxation patrols.

In reality, cops aren't pulling people over in very heavy rain and snow.  It's really too dangerous to do so.

[kphoger]

That's true.

Light rain or light snow, however, might mean a lower speed limit but still-safe driving conditions.

[slorydn1]

So, lowering the maximum speed limit is really not necessary unless the only thing the government is after is widening the base for their random taxation patrols.

In reality, cops aren't pulling people over in very heavy rain and snow.  It's really too dangerous to do so.

Oh I dunno, I work with a few who....ahh never mind it only snows here once every 2 years or so. I meant to add the "tongue sticking out smiley" to my previous comment but I keep getting interrupted, ironically enough, by units calling in traffic stops, LOL. 

[Brandon]

That's true.

Light rain or light snow, however, might mean a lower speed limit but still-safe driving conditions.

It depends.  Light snow in Georgia might cause everyone to freak out and stay home.  Light snow in Michigan's UP is a daily occurrence and is anything less than an inch or two, and no one slows for that.

[kphoger]

That's true.

Light rain or light snow, however, might mean a lower speed limit but still-safe driving conditions.

It depends.  Light snow in Georgia might cause everyone to freak out and stay home.  Light snow in Michigan's UP is a daily occurrence and is anything less than an inch or two, and no one slows for that.

Imagine if the speed limit for the E-W Tollway dropped to 45 mph due to light snow, yet normal traffic volumes were naturally keeping the roadway clear of any accumulation.  Now imagine being ticketed for speeding at 55 mph.

I realize, of course, that my specific example is fantasy-land, because nobody really even patrols that highway for speeders and they don't stop them for anything within 15 or 20 over the limit.  I just wanted something in your area.

[kkt]

I doubt this will happen, but if it did, you can bet your @$$ I'll still set the cruise control at 80+ out on the open interstate. There's nothing wrong with that as long as you stay 100% focused on the road, It's really not that hard. Put down the damn burger, put down the damn phone and have some respect for your life and the lives of others. To truly eliminate the possibility of a speed related crash, everyone would have to drive at 20 mph all the time. These people fail to realize that speed is far from being the only factor in crashes.The reason there are so many fatalities on the highways is because people in this country do not take driving seriously, and they don't respect the potential they have to kill themselves and others. They think they can multitask between driving a vehicle and eating a burger or putting on makeup or using a cell phone. The answer is not reducing speed limits. The answer is changing American driving culture so that people realize and respect what they become capable of doing when they get behind the wheel. To me driving is an activity in itself, and when people drive, they should focus on that and only that until they reach their destination. Anything that doesn't have to do with the operation of a vehicle has absolutely no place in the attention span of a person while driving.

It's probably obvious that I feel very strongly about this; I just can't stand it when speed/high speed limits are always the first things attacked whenever road safety is attempted to be improved. The problem is much, much more complicated than just how quickly you move across the ground.

Yes, exactly.  The person talking on their cell phone at 35 mph is more dangerous than the focused driver at 70.

[kphoger]

Yes, exactly.  The person talking on their cell phone at 35 mph is more dangerous than the focused driver at 70.

That kind of speed differential is a recipe for disaster.  Especially if it's only one lane in that direction.

[kkt]

Yes, exactly.  The person talking on their cell phone at 35 mph is more dangerous than the focused driver at 70.

That kind of speed differential is a recipe for disaster.  Especially if it's only one lane in that direction.

Yes, so what can we do to get people to put the damn phones down and drive?

[Brandon]

Yes, exactly.  The person talking on their cell phone at 35 mph is more dangerous than the focused driver at 70.

That kind of speed differential is a recipe for disaster.  Especially if it's only one lane in that direction.

Yes, so what can we do to get people to put the damn phones down and drive?

The rack, draw and quarter them, Chinese water torture?

[hotdogPi]

Yes, exactly.  The person talking on their cell phone at 35 mph is more dangerous than the focused driver at 70.

That kind of speed differential is a recipe for disaster.  Especially if it's only one lane in that direction.

Yes, so what can we do to get people to put the damn phones down and drive?

The rack, draw and quarter them, Chinese water torture?

Have phones automatically disable interacting with them when traveling at 30 mph or more, with the exception of calling 911. (Except for incoming calls and texts, the display will still update; using the phone as a GPS will still work, as will showing the time or battery percentage.)

[Brandon]

Yes, exactly.  The person talking on their cell phone at 35 mph is more dangerous than the focused driver at 70.

That kind of speed differential is a recipe for disaster.  Especially if it's only one lane in that direction.

Yes, so what can we do to get people to put the damn phones down and drive?

The rack, draw and quarter them, Chinese water torture?

Have phones automatically disable interacting with them when traveling at 30 mph or more, with the exception of calling 911. (Except for incoming calls and texts, the display will still update; using the phone as a GPS will still work, as will showing the time or battery percentage.)

That won't work.  You still have passengers who should be able to use their phones to their heart's content.  Also, disabling them that way will stop them from using them on trains or buses.