GPS Study Shows Drivers Will Slow Down, At A Cost

As evidenced by the fatality statistics.

But we can easily drill into the statistics. NY state had a 4% compliance with the 55 mph speed limit on rural highways before the speed limit was raised. That means 96% were speeding. Traffic safety engineers like a 85% compliance. Low compliance means that there is a big spread in speeds which causes more accidents. There is no way to tell what fatalities would have been if everyone complied, but we can estimate they would be lower. But how do you do that, and should you try to make 96% of the drivers criminals? When the speed limits were raised, fatalities kept falling, like those that believed they would. The IIHS was completely wrong on its increase of fatalities, but the raised limits reduced the percent of speeders. A more appropriate level allows for lower number of officers enforcing the law, and fewer breaking the law. States instead of the federal government have the power to set the speed limits.

Think of it this way. If we enforced with tattlers a 10mph speed limit traffic fatalities would drastically fall, but the great majority would have their rights removed. There should be a happy medium of enforceable speed limits that people follow. 55 was completely arbitrary.

 

any drop in fatality statistics i would not apply to everyone driving the same speed on the freeway. cars are simply built safer PERIOD. enforce the posted speed limits and you wont have the issue of widely varying speeds on the freeways, PERIOD. or enforce speed limits per lanes of travel which is something that is done on a temporary basis all over the area (mostly due to inclement weather)

but why write a law and ignore it? sure there are archaic laws on the books that pertain to horses and times long past, but speed limits are not one of them. the huge outcry over highway deaths concerning alcohol may have taken several decades to gain traction but it actually worked. we simply declined to slow down and instead put the onus on auto manufacturers to "idiot-proof" the cars at a cost that is shared amongst everyone including the ones who do not speed. i thank you speeders for boosting my car insurance since my rates i pay have more to do with how badly my neighbors drive than how well i drive

 

That is not a good idea. When you ask the cop that question you are just inviting him to be sure to write you up for something that will stick in court, whether you did it or not. Once you get stopped, always save your negotiations for court.

 

Where would you expect more fatalities per passenger mile - the german autobahn with no speed limit, or an american highway in a stretch that is 55 mph.

I remember taking family trips with my dad looking at his radar detector, and a book of notes scrawed on a trip tik where his sales guys had found speed traps. It sounds like you were around, why didn't all the enforcement money work? I have a guess that its the same reason the war on drugs isn't working.

We do know that a higher average speed with low variance is safer than a lower average speed with high variance. The repeal of the law did not raise the speed limit, it simply gave the power to the states, and texas wants 80mph on vast stretches of emptyness, and I see nothing wrong with that. We also have 55mph on I35 through the city of Austin for safety reasons.

seems pretty stupid to me. That was the problem with the 55mph speed limit, why long for those days of failure.

Washington State is perfectly allowed to set a 55mph speed limit and enforce it. If the experiment works well other states will follow. What I don't want is an arbitrary low limit that everyone ignores. That just has the government create law breakers. If everyone is breaking the law its a bad law.

 

That is exactly what my first ticket was for; going over the speed limit to pass another vehicle. So I guess the state trooper who gave me that ticket disagrees with you. I can't believe the pretzel logic you people will resort to, in order to try and justify your illegal behavior. It is simply breathtaking.

 

i was around and many states unofficially (since any other stance would cause them to lose highway funds) did not enforce the 55 limit. they put up the signs but the unwritten rule was still 65. so it was a law that never had support which is the reason for the high rate of non compliance. there was no reason for drivers to comply

 

Ah but you are in NY, and I am in Texas, and we have different laws.

 

I believe the national 55mph speed limit was implemented with the 70's OPEC oil embargo and a national security need to drastically curb oil consumption rather than any safety objectives.

 

Hey, I can only look at statistics and articles. It did make congressman issa a great deal of money selling radar detectors, and the insurance companies loved it as they could raise rates on speeding tickets. There must have been some enforcement, as police forces grew. We do know that there was a large amount of non-compliance. The place for you to start is your own state, which seems to already have some of the strictest laws - an embrace or 1mph over is reckless. If it works there, I'm sure it will spread to some other states, but not mine.

About half of the fatalities linked to speeding are on roads that are 50 mph and below. That is where the intrusive aspect comes in on enforcement of the speeding laws. It would require some type of gps to enforce. I don't trust the state or insurance company with tracking our every move. The accident that I was in the passenger seat in, that involved speeding was on a 35mph road. The speeder was not at fault, but if she wasn't going about 45, it would not have been as severe. I really doubt lowering 65 mph roads to 55 would save many lives, it just doesn't follow the statistics.

 

True.

I also have no problem with states setting higher speed limits in areas and on roads where it is safe to travel at said speeds. Contrary to what people might think, I am not inflexible. Speed traps aside I do feel that most jurisdictions are thinking about what is safe when they set speed limits. Though I may not agree with the people flying past me on the expressways I don't try to impede them. Enforcement is up to the police. My biggest beef comes when folks seem to think that because of some perceived superiority that speeding is a right. Well I also have a right, it is the right to obey the law if I wish to, and I wish to. So don’t curse at me as I travel the speed limit, I am doing nothing wrong. As I said in an earlier post you won’t find me in the left lane trying to get in peoples way, but I still wish that people would slow down for safeties’ sake and that means their own not just mine. I also wish people would slow down and use less fuel so the gas price would come down for everybody not just me.

 

That's a no brainer, as those are the speed limits set in urban and suburban areas with lots of stop and go traffic and pedestrians. Go figure.

Let’s see; you were in a traffic accident, and you admit that if the person driving the car you were in was going the speed limit, the accident would have been less severe. You just made my whole point. Besides, how do you know that if she had not been speeding she might have been able to avoid the accident all together?

This is why we are taught "defensive driving," not "offensive driving". By following the rules and paying attention to what is happening around us, the thought is that we can make up for at least some of the mistakes that other drivers make.

 

Red herring. We are not discussing two lane roads here. We were discussing multi-lane freeways and whether a driver would be ticketed for going the speed limit in the left lane if doing so "impeded" the traffic in the left lane.

Considering that it's legal to pass on the right in CA, I can't see how the traffic would be impeded in any case. Unless the lane(s) to the right are going slower or at the speed limit. But then I think it would be very difficult to prove that going faster than the flow of traffic did not violate the basic law. And I think it would be very easy to prove, if one were ticketed for such, that going the speed limit did not violate any law.

This is the basic law:

22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.​

​

And these are violations:

22351. (a) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway not in excess of the limits specified in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is lawful unless clearly proved to be in violation of the basic speed law.​

(b) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is prima facie unlawful unless the defendant establishes by competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and under the conditions then existing.​

 

No, its doubtful, the accident just won't be as severe. I'll give you full details if it will help. My gf at the time was driving, 'cause I was drinking after playing some music at a club with friends. She was in conversation with me and turned left when the light turned green, without yielding to the on coming car. From the skid I was sure the woman that t-boned us was speeding, and slower speed might not have totaled the cars. But we were totally at fault, and it was distracted driving, not cell phones or speeding just good old fashion not paying attention.

duh. but you can't really stop all the accidents can you. Everyone knew who was at fault, and no we were not breaking the law on purpose.

Every year we have the ROT rally. Every year we know some motorcycle riders will get drunk and die. This year it was 3. Drunk with excessive speed always gets counted in both stats. Drinking is ok, driving is ok, drinking and driving on a bike and people always die. I stay out of the way that weekend.

 

Just call the California DMV and ask them. Stop playing lawyer ball.

 

Pot, meet kettle.

 

Only in California could it be legal to break the law No wonder you guys are in such bad shape.

 

Sorry its the law, its bad practice.

There is no excuse to go slow in the left lane.

But if you don't believe me call the dmv, or talk to a california highway patrol man.

 

And I will continue to assert that the speed limit is not "slow." You can call them.

 

As I said I lived there, I asked. But I don't expect you to believe me, and don't feel like arguing. If you want to know call them up. Ask if you can stay in the left lane at the speed limit while traffic backs up.

 

I was not suggesting that all accidents could be avoided, notice I said "some".

Accidents happen, unfortunately, not all can be avoided. The hope is that by keeping speed and other behavior under control, less damage and loss of life will occur.