10 years after the 55 mph speed limit was repealed, the data shows that fatality rate, injuries, crashes, and pedestrian deaths are all down by at least 16%.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110008621


Personally I think people going to slow are more of a danger, than people going to fast.

It's probably all Bush's fault anyways.

 

Actually, it is the differential in speed. If all vehicles are going the same speed, it is safer regardless of the speed. That is why Arizona has just one speed. Unlike several states that require commercial vehicles and vehicles towing trailers to drive slower. That is a problem.

But most will agree, the 55 mph speed limit was way to slow and boring on highways that were designed for 70 mph in vehicles that were not nearly as safe as what we have now.

I just glad it got changed. When in the military, I made the trip from CA to TX when the speed limit was at 55. What a nightmare!

 

You dont think injuries and fatalities are down due to safer cars and trucks huh ?

Not that I'd appose a 85mph speed limit

 

Or the fact that most states now require seat belts to be worn. That plus air bags.

Don't get me wrong. I do not want to drive 55, but statistics can be very misleading.

 

I think the point the article was making was that all the so called "experts" predicted a HUGE increase in traffic fatalities if the speed limit was raised. Obviously that has not happened.

Do you really think that cars 10 years ago were death traps compared to cars today? If anything cars keep getting lighter and smaller.

 

No I don't think cars were death traps 10 years ago, but seat belt use is up because of the laws and 10 years ago you would be lucky to find a driver side air bag let alone passenger and side curtains. Also things like 4 wheel abs, etc. Those things alone will reduce deaths in accidents quite a lot.

 

I wonder what the ratio is with regard to the number of vehicles driving in congested metro areas vs the rest of everyone driving on the open highways.

If you start thinking in terms of the number of vehicles driving, how it's X number more than what we used to have vs back when the limit was 55, what percentage of the increase is accounted for in metro areas . . . well, regardless of how high the posted speed limit is, it doesn't mean that's what cars are driving at.

In Lost Angeles, the Max posted limit is 65. But we have eleventy-kabillion cars here and the freeways are congested more times than not. The signs may say 65 but on average you're doing 5 miles an hours. So they can say "Ever since we raised the limit to 65 traffic deaths have declined". So what. At five miles an hours it's pretty hard to die in an accident unless your bumpers are made of plastic explosives coated in nitro glycerin.

The article only cites:

" The nearby table shows that the death, injury and crash rates have fallen sharply since 1995. Per mile traveled, there were about 5,000 fewer deaths and almost one million fewer injuries in 2005 than in the mid-1990s. "

but it does not mention if driving speed have actually increased or if, overall they have actually decreased due to the fact that maybe most of us drive in congested cities.

I would be interested to see if that assumption is true, that the larger percentage of driving happens in ever slowing congested cities. They could make the speed limit 150 but if most of us are stuck in traffic all the time, so what.

 

Man wouldn't that be sweet to at least just see a legal speed limit sign of 150mph...

 

Also the Insurance institutes crash testing has made a Drastic change to the way cars perform during accidents. Also SUV rollover rates have been decreased. So yes By in Large cars today are MUCH safer for the occupants than 10 years ago


If you cant see that then I dunno what to tell ya

 

I agree one hundred percent. Seat belts have done wonders. Frontal impact airbags don't help much in a rollover, but the vehicles with side "curtains", are great. Even when wearing a seat belt, a person in a vehicle involved in a rollover on the interstate will most likely have some sort of head injury, depending on their size and place in the vehicle.

I don't think the experts took into account that the vehicles are safer, and the increased use of seat belts and car seats. It is a fact, the higher the speed the more damage at impact or rollover. So I can see why they would have that assumption. But, driving on the open Interstate at 55 caused alot more sleepy drivers to wreck. At least with the higher speeds, you get where you are going faster and spend less time on the road.

Take a look at some of the "smaller" cars of 10-15 years ago, and you will find that most are actually bigger and heavier today. Most automakers may have a really small car in their lineup, but for the most part, the Toyota's and Nissan's have gotten bigger. The trucks are bigger, and even the mini'vans are bigger than they were 15 years ago.

I like to think that those of us in America had some influence on that.

I look at my 72 Ford F250 next to my 05 F150 and it looks small. My 1982 Ford F150 only weighed about 2800 pounds empty. The new F150 is over 5000 pounds.

I think that on rural Interstate roads, even 85 mph is safe, providing the driver is not an idiot that never checks the air pressure in his tires, or is driving under the influence. Or that you have other drivers on the road doing 55 mph pulling a 5th wheel trailer.

Just my .02.

 

Oh brother.

Don't you remember when they raised the speed limits. You had all these talking heads on TV screaming bloody murder. They claimed all these people were gonna die, this was irresponsible, blah blah blah. For a while Montana didn't even have a speed limit during the daytime.

I've driven in San Diego at 5:30 pm. That was insane, 8 lanes both ways, other freeways constantly merging on or off. However I think you are a bit sheltered in your thinking. I think there's alot more driving going on in the rural parts of the road system. People tend to think about the major population centers on the east and west coast and forget about everyone else (i.e. the majority of the population).

Look the main point I was trying to make was just because we're driving at 75 or 80 instead of 55 doesn't mean there are going to be more traffic fatalities. It's what people are doing when they are driving that usually causes the accident.

Talking on a cellphone, reading, weather, shaving, eating, putting on makeup, messing with the radio/cd, talking, dozing off, trying to control kids, alchohol, just plain not paying attention to driving, these are the things that cause alot of accidents, not the speed.

Actually 40% of the 42-43,000 traffic deaths per year are caused by alcohol. That's about 17,000 people every year or around 7 times the number of soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen that have died in Iraq in 3 years. Just some numbers to put it all into perspective. I don't see people marching in the streets protesting drunk drivers and alcohol companies.

 

Right on!

I've lived in San Diego, driven the beltway in DC when I lived in Maryland, driven in LA, Houston, Dallas, San Anton, and everything in between. It still amazes me when I meet someone who has never driven between San Antonio and El Paso on I-10, or the open roads of Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and everything out west. Someone who grew up in a big city and never driven cross country and seen first hand just how big this country is. Unfortuantly, some of those same people make decisions that effect those of us that only drive on rural highways. I will agree that a 75 mph speed limit in LA county is pretty insane. But the same speed limit on I-8 between San Diego and Tucson can be boring.

 

The experts used a simple formula of increased speed and all other things being equal.

If the cars that were on the road 10 years ago were the only cars on the road today and no legislative move had been made in regard to seatbelts then, they would have been right and fatalities would be up dramatically.

It's just common sense that if the speed limit is up across the board, there will be more carnage.

If we will follow your logic, we should make the speed limit 120 mph because faster is safer, no?

 

That was why I said I was making an assumption and was also curious which was which.

I don't know what percentage of vehicles are in the city in congested areas where you rarely ever are able to reach the posted speed limit vs. the number of vehicles outside of that.

I would be interested to know which is more. Are 70% (using a random number here for demonstration/question purposes) of vehicles in metro areas, sitting in traffic barely moving therefore resulting in what appears to be less fatalities because a disproportionate number are indeed vehicles sitting in traffic? - or - are there more vehicles outside of the gridlocked metro areas? Beats me. Anyone got any real numbers to demonstrate where the majority of the driving takes place . . . city or country?

 

Or maybe from a psychological view, 55 was just wrong.

55 is slow enough to make you feel safe but still more than fast enough to kill you. (I'm guilty, 55 is 10x's as likely to put me to sleep)

At 70 Drivers tend to not be so relaxed; there for as a direct result, more aware of what is going on.

I've seen it in myself and others. Some how even though your only going 15 mph faster. It suddenly seems so much more dangerous to the human psychy. or maybe even sub-consious, even though both will kill you. It's all about perception and how you mind percives things.

Vehicles of 15 years ago....

15 years ago today I would have been drivng a 1990 S-10.
Only differences between it and the F150 as far as saftey is this F150 has Drivers and Passenger side air bags. The S-10 had ABS "that worked". (not compalining, if it bothered me I'd have fix it on the F150.) And probably some engineering as in added and/or moved crinkle points in the frame, etc.