States Boost Speed Limits On Major Highways

Your flaw is ignoring safe following distance. You can have more cars
safely on the same stretch of road with a lower speed limit, within reason.
You can only have more throughput with 75 mph roads if you throw out a
reasonable margin of safety. At 75 mph you need to be looking at a 3 second
following distances. The extra distance reduces throughput. Otherwise you
have a NASCAR type race with a high-speed traffic jam just waiting for a
multi-car pile up.

Magnulus > writes:

> Bingo. When you drive fast you are ****ing away fuel to save
> a little time.

Whether it's a reasonable trade-off for someone else isn't your
call to make. Just stay out from underfoot, and we'll all get
along fine.


> The speed limit is the maximum allowed rate of travel, not a
> minimum.

It should be _treated_ as the minimum if there's anyone behind
you, out of consideration for your fellow road users.

If I come up behind a slower-moving car, don't necessarily expect
the driver to break the speed limit out of deference to me. But
if we're on, say, a two-lane road with limited opportunities for
passing, I certainly _do_ expect him to maintain the maximun legal
speed, at least until such time as he can safely pull over and let
me by.


> If I want to drive the minimum legal speed on an expressway or
> interstate, that's my right. As long as you keep right except
> when passing, it's not a problem.

Only up to a point. I've been in a lot of situations where even
though it was a multilane road, the volume of traffic was such
that a major slowdown was created by somebody doing the minimum
speed in the right lane. People moved out of the right lane to
get out from behind the 'poke, which caused a domino effect as
people in the next lane moved to _their_ left, slowing traffic
in the left lane, and the whole mess causing a slowdown.

(Speaking of rights, perhaps it'd be instructive for you to
concentrate on your responsibilities to the other motorists
with whom you share the road, and put your rights onto the
intellectual back burner.)


> Oh wait, the average stupid American driver doesn't even know
> what a two second following distance is. Let alone the 3 seconds
> needed on an expressway.

Well, the stupid American drivers here in Silicon Valley and similar
places with lots of traffic and a fast pace of life understand all
too well that trying to maintain a textbook following distance is
futile, because within a few moments somebody from an adjacent lane
will jump in front of you and plug that hole. Like keeping right
except to pass, it sounds good on paper, but at some point the sheer
volume of traffic makes it impracticable.

And so the objective changes from maintaining a safe following distance
to preventing other drivers from cutting you off -- which people will
do if they see an open space equivalent to one carlength plus an inch.
Which leads to following distances that are much shorter than optimal.
However, since my reflexes are a known quantity and those of a stranger
are not, it's by far the lesser of the evils.

Besides, we're used to it. That's why stop-and-go traffic, Silicon
Valley style, is often a matter of drivers alternately flooring their
accelerators and standing on their brakes.


> Roads don't belong just to car drivers, they belong to everybody
> else too, pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, etc.

Bicycles don't belong on the portion of the street that's used by
motorized traffic. I don't care what the law says; bikes mixing
it up with cars is not only inconsiderate given their relative
speed and acceleration capabilities, it's just plain dumb. People
understood that instinctively up until the '80s, when cycling caught
on among adults and a lot of these people started copping a 'tude.

The only parts of the road that belonmg to pedestrians are cross-
walks -- and at controlled intersections, only when they have a
"Walk" signal. Again, challenging that is just plain dumb.


> Driving fast is not a human right.

Neither is impeding others. Don't slow me down, and I won't roar
up alongside you, bellowing obscenities out the open passenger-side
window and brandishing a half-empty bottle of Jack, and run you off
the road. It all comes back to the Golden Rule, doesn't it?

Have a nice day.



Geoff

--
"Some have argued that Israel's response is disproportionate,
which is actually correct: It wasn't nearly strong enough.
I know this because there are parts of South Lebanon still
standing." -- Ann Coulter

In article >, Magnulus wrote:

> Whats worse is that many drivers, when they hop off an interstate, take a
> while to adjust back to "city" driving. Keeping speed limits low, for that
> reason alone, is good enough. Roads don't belong just to car drivers, they
> belong to everybody else too, pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, etc.
> Driving fast is not a human right.

As a bicyclist I find underposted roads are of no benefit and often a
drawback. The problem with underposted roads is it gives justification
to people to sit in the left lane at the underposted limit. Of course
there are drivers who want to drive the speed of the road. Now as
bicyclist, I am generally in the right lane. Passing traffic also will
now use the right lane. The resulting flow chaos leads to conflicts that
wouldn't occur in a keep-right-except-to-pass environment. Thusly, I
prefer a road be properly posted with a higher speed limit than a lower
one in a misguided effort to keep me safe.

Geoff Miller wrote:
> Magnulus > writes:
>
> > Bingo. When you drive fast you are ****ing away fuel to save
> > a little time.
>
> Whether it's a reasonable trade-off for someone else isn't your
> call to make. Just stay out from underfoot, and we'll all get
> along fine.
>
>
> > The speed limit is the maximum allowed rate of travel, not a
> > minimum.
>
> It should be _treated_ as the minimum if there's anyone behind
> you, out of consideration for your fellow road users.
>
> If I come up behind a slower-moving car, don't necessarily expect
> the driver to break the speed limit out of deference to me. But
> if we're on, say, a two-lane road with limited opportunities for
> passing, I certainly _do_ expect him to maintain the maximun legal
> speed, at least until such time as he can safely pull over and let
> me by.

Well... we all have our expectations and disappointments. I assume you
drive as you damn well please and are most interested in yourself and
your travel. Expecting anything different from other drivers would
waste a perfectly good handful of expectations.

>
>
> > If I want to drive the minimum legal speed on an expressway or
> > interstate, that's my right. As long as you keep right except
> > when passing, it's not a problem.
>
> Only up to a point. I've been in a lot of situations where even
> though it was a multilane road, the volume of traffic was such
> that a major slowdown was created by somebody doing the minimum
> speed in the right lane. People moved out of the right lane to
> get out from behind the 'poke, which caused a domino effect as
> people in the next lane moved to _their_ left, slowing traffic
> in the left lane, and the whole mess causing a slowdown.

Too bad, so sad, Your Dad. You can't blame the slower driver for the
actions of the other drivers. If they exercise a little patience for a
few seconds they'll slide on by.

>
> (Speaking of rights, perhaps it'd be instructive for you to
> concentrate on your responsibilities to the other motorists
> with whom you share the road, and put your rights onto the
> intellectual back burner.)

What about the responsibilities of the other drivers? Don't they have
the responsibility to look far enough ahead of their vehicle to spot
slower traffic in time to make a safe move *early*... and accept a
little responsibility for avoiding those whom they dislike to be
delayed by?

>
>
> > Oh wait, the average stupid American driver doesn't even know
> > what a two second following distance is. Let alone the 3 seconds
> > needed on an expressway.
>
> Well, the stupid American drivers here in Silicon Valley and similar
> places with lots of traffic and a fast pace of life understand all
> too well that trying to maintain a textbook following distance is
> futile, because within a few moments somebody from an adjacent lane
> will jump in front of you and plug that hole. Like keeping right
> except to pass, it sounds good on paper, but at some point the sheer
> volume of traffic makes it impracticable.

Nah. If you drive just a little slower than the flow in the R lane you
can usually keep between 2-3 seconds empty in front of you. Faster
traffic that fills the gap keeps pulling away if you do it right.

>
> And so the objective changes from maintaining a safe following distance
> to preventing other drivers from cutting you off -- which people will
> do if they see an open space equivalent to one carlength plus an inch.

Sometimes. But if you maintain your following distance fewer people
cut you off and if you're 2-3 mph slower than the flow they just keep
pulling away.

> Which leads to following distances that are much shorter than optimal.
> However, since my reflexes are a known quantity and those of a stranger
> are not, it's by far the lesser of the evils.

Good reflexes fail to be enough sometimes. Good judgement and practice
is safer, and just a little slower.

> Besides, we're used to it. That's why stop-and-go traffic, Silicon
> Valley style, is often a matter of drivers alternately flooring their
> accelerators and standing on their brakes.

I think Californians in general drive that way because they're stupid.
How would one "get used to" driving like that otherwise? Californians
seem to measure their travel in feet and seconds. That's pretty stupid
in a state so jam packed with traffic most of the time.

> > Roads don't belong just to car drivers, they belong to everybody
> > else too, pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, etc.
>
> Bicycles don't belong on the portion of the street that's used by
> motorized traffic. I don't care what the law says;bikes mixing
> it up with cars is not only inconsiderate given their relative
> speed and acceleration capabilities, it's just plain dumb.

How is it inconsiderate? Because they don't seem to be concerned with
your desires? They're exactly as concerned with what you want as you
are with what they want. That seems fair to me.

> People
> understood that instinctively up until the '80s, when cycling caught
> on among adults and a lot of these people started copping a 'tude.

I take it you weren't driving in the '70's...

> The only parts of the road that belonmg to pedestrians are cross-
> walks -- and at controlled intersections, only when they have a
> "Walk" signal. Again, challenging that is just plain dumb.
>
>
> > Driving fast is not a human right.
>
> Neither is impeding others.

I'm afraid it is, within the limits of the law.

> Don't slow me down, and I won't roar
> up alongside you, bellowing obscenities out the open passenger-side
> window and brandishing a half-empty bottle of Jack, and run you off
> the road. It all comes back to the Golden Rule, doesn't it?

Ahhh... a religious take on the "**** you, get out of my way and I
won't kill you" perspective. That's sweet, though not unique.
-----

- gpsman

On 20 Jul 2006 07:53:06 -0700, "gpsman" >
wrote:

>The Wall Street Journal
>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.
>
>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. http://tinyurl.com/fpx2r
> -----
>
>- gpsman

Total insanity. Here we are invading defenseless countries and killing
thousands of innocent people over oil and the govt encourages people
to drive faster and thus waste more oil.

--
I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I
wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and
guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill,
KILL, KILL.

A Guthrie
"laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE" > wrote in message
...
> On 20 Jul 2006 07:53:06 -0700, "gpsman" >
> wrote:
>
>>The Wall Street Journal
>>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.
>>
>>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. http://tinyurl.com/fpx2r
>> -----
>>
>>- gpsman
>
> Total insanity. Here we are invading defenseless countries and killing
> thousands of innocent people over oil and the govt encourages people
> to drive faster and thus waste more oil.
>

What are you going to do whit all those cars going so fast. You might want
to take the bus so you don't scare yourself

Loco laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE proud graduate of the South Hampton
Institute of Technology spewed forth this bull**** in rec.autos.driving:

> Total insanity. Here we are invading defenseless countries and killing
> thousands of innocent people over oil and the govt encourages people
> to drive faster and thus waste more oil.

BBWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! !!

I'll bet that really burns you up, just like our profit margins do!!!!!

Now go and buy some of the new and improved $4.009/gallon gas (new and
improved for our profit line, that is... )and prepare for
assimilation!!!!!

--
Sincerely,

The New World Order.

>
> Total insanity. Here we are invading defenseless countries and killing
> thousands of innocent people over oil and the govt encourages people
> to drive faster and thus waste more oil.
>
Oh, Boo Hoo, I'm so upset over the oil use. If every liberal wacko and
tree hugger would sell their car for scrap, there would be plenty of oil
for those of us who like to drive.

Hi. This is the meow-send program at usenet. I'm afraid I wasn't able
to deliver any clue to the following address: "I am a Moron"
>
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.


>
>
>--
>I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I
>wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and
>guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill,
>KILL, KILL.
>
>A Guthrie
>"laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On 20 Jul 2006 07:53:06 -0700, "gpsman" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The Wall Street Journal
>>>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.
>>>
>>>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. http://tinyurl.com/fpx2r
>>> -----
>>>
>>>- gpsman
>>
>> Total insanity. Here we are invading defenseless countries and killing
>> thousands of innocent people over oil and the govt encourages people
>> to drive faster and thus waste more oil.
>>
>
>What are you going to do whit all those cars going so fast. You might want
>to take the bus so you don't scare yourself
>

It's real interesting how your retarded hypocritical ass avoided
commenting on the poster's nym, which reflects an issue that happened
over 40 years ago.

Can you say "personal credibility?" I didn't think so, moron.

By the way, do see that you respond properly this time, **** for
brains.


---

"Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?" ~ Senator Ted Kennedy, 1973

--

El Pollo Loco (Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend) demonstrates it's complete gullibility, stupidity, and state of delusion when it falls for an April Fool's joke, hook, line, and sinker:

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...6999983?hl=en&

Ragnar wrote:
> Gods, you're dumb. Its a rather obvious April Fool's joke. And you're
> the Fool.

This is no joke.

In article et>, necromancer wrote:
> Loco laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE proud graduate of the South Hampton
> Institute of Technology spewed forth this bull**** in rec.autos.driving:
>
>> Total insanity. Here we are invading defenseless countries and killing
>> thousands of innocent people over oil and the govt encourages people
>> to drive faster and thus waste more oil.
>
> BBWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! !!
>
> I'll bet that really burns you up, just like our profit margins do!!!!!
>
> Now go and buy some of the new and improved $4.009/gallon gas (new and
> improved for our profit line, that is... )and prepare for
> assimilation!!!!!
>
> --
> Sincerely,
> The New World Order.

That's more true than funny....

Remember, when Hussain was pumping oil like crazy, the price was roughly
US$19 a barrel and gasoline was a $1 a gallon. Now that oil is completely
off the market thanks to the US military.