[Titanium3er]

Originally Posted by justinnum1

No. It increases the chance of accidents for regular motorists.

Well that's a very simple response to a complicated question.

I take it you didn't look at the studies?

[justinnum1]

Originally Posted by Titanium3er

Well that's a very simple response to a complicated question.

I take it you didn't look at the studies?

I have seen studies that say speeding increases the chances of an accident. Unless it is an isolated lane, I think no speed limits is to dangerous.

[manutdas11]

Originally Posted by MediaArtist

When people still don't understand how to use a passing lane, move over for faster traffic, or keep 3 seconds behind someone on the freeway when you're traveling 80mph, you know we're not ready for an Autobahn styled experience.

THIS.

[jaco]

i would be afraid of all the shit boxes out on the highways with a blowout ready to happen at any moment.

If i fly by at 120 and that happens... I am toast.

[Templar]

Pretty much what everyone else said. Without tougher drivers ed and requirements to get the license, it would be a mess.

After living in Germany for a while, I know they are doing it right...

[NemesisX]

I'd caution against reading too much into a study by CATO, as they have a vested interest in promoting a "hands-off" policy for philosophical reasons (CATO is a libertarian think tank). I know I might get some flack for trying to hold a study like this to the standards of scientific rigor, but shedding bias and encouraging peer review are feasible standards to strive for even at this level. And moreover, the second link Titanium3er posted actually contained a variety of miniature case studies with different results. A small case study in Michigan showed that increasing speed limits doesn't increase fatalities. A case study elsewhere showed that increasing speed limits does increase fatalities, albeit slightly.

In principle though I'm all for legally increasing speed limits. I have no problem with speeding in and of itself. What usually worried me was speed differential, though not in the absolute naive sense of the phrase (i.e. car 1 travels at 75 in a 70, car 2 travels at 90 in a 70, and I'm worried about 90-75 = 15 MPH). When I say "speed differential," I mean the following -

Car 1 travels at 75 in a 70
Car 2 (coming up from behind) is traveling at 95 in a 70
Car 1 expects car 2 (and all other cars, in fact) to drive within +/- 10 MPH of the posted speed limit.

It's the differential between the speed at which the average driver expects fellow drivers to be driving at and the actual speed they are driving at that worries me. And, I think the importance of paying attention to this difference is magnified on highly interconnected road networks with slower speed limits. People approach a T intersection and are trying to take a right turn and merge onto a 45 MPH street (for example). There's an expectation that fellow drivers around that blind curve aren't flying down at 70 or 80.

[Titanium3er]

Originally Posted by NemesisX

I'd caution against reading too much into a study by CATO, as they have a vested interest in promoting a "hands-off" policy for philosophical reasons (CATO is a libertarian think tank). I know I might get some flack for trying to hold a study like this to the standards of scientific rigor, but shedding bias and encouraging peer review are feasible standards to strive for even at this level. And moreover, the second link Titanium3er posted actually contained a variety of miniature case studies with different results. A small case study in Michigan showed that increasing speed limits doesn't increase fatalities. A case study elsewhere showed that increasing speed limits does increase fatalities, albeit slightly.

In principle though I'm all for legally increasing speed limits. I have no problem with speeding in and of itself. What usually worried me was speed differential, though not in the absolute naive sense of the phrase (i.e. car 1 travels at 75 in a 70, car 2 travels at 90 in a 70, and I'm worried about 90-75 = 15 MPH). When I say "speed differential," I mean the following -

Car 1 travels at 75 in a 70
Car 2 (coming up from behind) is traveling at 95 in a 70
Car 1 expects car 2 (and all other cars, in fact) to drive within +/- 10 MPH of the posted speed limit.

It's the differential between the speed at which the average driver expects fellow drivers to be driving at and the actual speed they are driving at that worries me. And, I think the importance of paying attention to this difference is magnified on highly interconnected road networks with slower speed limits. People approach a T intersection and are trying to take a right turn and merge onto a 45 MPH street (for example). There's an expectation that fellow drivers around that blind curve aren't flying down at 70 or 80.

I don't think the fact that this study was done by CATO alone disproves it. If you had issues with the data they used or their methodology, that would be a different story. I actually find their positions in general to be pretty convincing. I'm sure this isn't the case for someone who disagrees with their libertarian philosophies.

Regardless of your feelings on CATO, it's widely accepted that the fatality rate decreased when the federal government allowed states to raise their speed limits to 65 mph in the late 80's. Whether or not this would remain true for an increase to 80 or 90 could be debated endlessly. Here is a study performed by UC Irvine under a grant from a much less controversial organization, AAA. They conclude that the decrease in fatality rates in states that enacted 65 mph limits was between 3.4 and 5.1 percent:

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/65-lives.html

I think that your point regarding speed variance and its correlation to safety is a valid one. Coincidentally, the UC Irvine study posits that the decrease in speed variance is one of the three possible contributors which led to our roads becoming safer.

It would be interesting to look at current speed variances in different parts of the country. Where I currently reside, a majority of people speed on the interstate. I know this because I find it amusing to set my cruise control to the speed limit (in the right lane of course and accounting for BMW's speedo skew) and watch as people fly by. I've done this in about 10 states on the east coast with relatively consistent results. If my admittedly unscientific observations are true, there is still more to be done in reducing speed variance. I'd guess that this could be achieved by increasing the limit between 5 and 15 mph depending on the road.

What the average driver expects the speed of others to be shouldn't be an issue. As it stands currently, emergency vehicles routinely exceed posted speed limits by 20 - 30 mph in order to get where they need to go quickly. Perhaps the lights and sirens would alert these drivers, but if you're talking about the same drivers I am, I wouldn't count on it.

The average American driver needs to put down the cell phone and Big Gulp and concentrate on the road. In my mind they are a much bigger danger than speeders paying attention.

[NemesisX]

Originally Posted by Titanium3er

...

The average American driver needs to put down the cell phone and Big Gulp and concentrate on the road. In my mind they are a much bigger danger than speeders paying attention.

Yeah I'll agree with that. I think tailgating is probably more of potential traffic hazard than absolute speeding. Distracted driving as you mentioned is another huge problem. Texting and/or talking on a cell phone while driving, or even engaging a passenger in the car and turning your head towards them while driving always makes me a little nervous.

[donovan]

...yes we need an autobahn, no doubt. Especially in areas away from the city and schools.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by NemesisX

I'd caution against reading too much into a study by CATO, as they have a vested interest in promoting a "hands-off" policy for philosophical reasons (CATO is a libertarian think tank). I know I might get some flack for trying to hold a study like this to the standards of scientific rigor, but shedding bias and encouraging peer review are feasible standards to strive for even at this level. And moreover, the second link Titanium3er posted actually contained a variety of miniature case studies with different results. A small case study in Michigan showed that increasing speed limits doesn't increase fatalities. A case study elsewhere showed that increasing speed limits does increase fatalities, albeit slightly.

In principle though I'm all for legally increasing speed limits. I have no problem with speeding in and of itself. What usually worried me was speed differential, though not in the absolute naive sense of the phrase (i.e. car 1 travels at 75 in a 70, car 2 travels at 90 in a 70, and I'm worried about 90-75 = 15 MPH). When I say "speed differential," I mean the following -

Car 1 travels at 75 in a 70
Car 2 (coming up from behind) is traveling at 95 in a 70
Car 1 expects car 2 (and all other cars, in fact) to drive within +/- 10 MPH of the posted speed limit.

It's the differential between the speed at which the average driver expects fellow drivers to be driving at and the actual speed they are driving at that worries me. And, I think the importance of paying attention to this difference is magnified on highly interconnected road networks with slower speed limits. People approach a T intersection and are trying to take a right turn and merge onto a 45 MPH street (for example). There's an expectation that fellow drivers around that blind curve aren't flying down at 70 or 80.

Thread title says for interstate speed limits. You don't really have to worry about merging with 45mph cars at a T intersection on interstates. Of course the portions of interstates such as the 275s of I75 will have limits. Heck for half the day you can't go faster than 65 anyway.

Seems simple enough to me to have electronic speed limit signs that monitor the amount of traffic on the road and adjust the speed limit from there. If the monitors sense less than 30% of the roads capacity speed limits are bumped up to say 90mph. If they sense only 5% of the road's capacity, speed limit might be 120mph.

Of course the speed limit signs would have to talk to each other and you would have to have a sign/monitor every mile in more congested areas and maybe every 3 miles in more rural areas. As long as the capacity is under a certain amount for 3 consecutive monitors the limit is bumped up. As traffic builds the speed limits drop down to what they are today.

[UncleWede]

Tiered licensing sounds like a good idea, but I think there would be huge issues with proper enforcement. You think people like to complain now about "da man hasslin me" wait until there is a different rule set.
Patrol officer sees a car flash by at well above the normal limit. How does he know the driver has a top tier license? Short of pulling him over and checking?

Myself, I'm still hoping for the teleportation technology to arrive . . .

[bjayfan]

Originally Posted by Titanium3er

If the governmentS devoted some serious effort to driver education, road maintenance, and vehicle inspections I think we could get there (but likely never will).

Plural, the states set speed limits, the fed just gives or holds back money depending on what the states do.

[bjayfan]

At one point we had some business interests in Montana. The longish drive from Billings to Great Falls had sections with no speed limits, most drove within their capabilities.

It would only work in sparsely populated areas.

[Titanium3er]

Originally Posted by bjayfan

Plural, the states set speed limits, the fed just gives or holds back money depending on what the states do.

I was writing in general terms, but your correction is noted.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by Templar

Pretty much what everyone else said. Without tougher drivers ed and requirements to get the license, it would be a mess.

After living in Germany for a while, I know they are doing it right...

This, so it's possible. It's just going to take effort. Even though absolute unrestricted speed sections are dwindling, it's still possible.

[bjayfan]

Originally Posted by Titanium3er

I was writing in general terms, but your correction is noted.

I'll tend to overreact when anyone suggests, insinuates, or otherwise leads me to believe that having the (or any) government fix something is a good idea. Sorry if I offended.

[Titanium3er]

Originally Posted by bjayfan

I'll tend to overreact when anyone suggests, insinuates, or otherwise leads me to believe that having the (or any) government fix something is a good idea. Sorry if I offended.

No offense taken.

I agree that most of what they touch turns to sh*t, but my belief is that transportation is one of the few things government needs to be responsible for. Even if that responsibility is collecting taxes to fund it and coordinating private industries involvement.

[Dodo]

I think that an important point that has so far been missing from this discussion is the necessity for an effective and far reaching public transport system if you want to make it much more difficult to get a license.

Doesn't seem feasable in the US due to geography (outside of major metro areas), but I think it is a requirement for a system like that in Germany...

$.02

[Bakeme521]

I agree with others above, it is way to easy to get a license in this country. Until that changes I wouldn't feel comfortable with it. Too many people cause accidents on our current speed limits bc they are oblivious of how to actually drive.

Although if they did decide to implement some sort of autobahn my 335 will be getting a full cage and six point harnesses.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by Bakeme521

I agree with others above, it is way to easy to get a license in this country. Until that changes I wouldn't feel comfortable with it. Too many people cause accidents on our current speed limits bc they are oblivious of how to actually drive.

Although if they did decide to implement some sort of autobahn my 335 will be getting a full cage and six point harnesses.

Cause you're in good shape when crashing at 80mph?

The way i see it is that our traffic patterns and speed limits have turned driving into this annoying thing people have to do in order to go somewhere. With most annoying things, people tend to find something to do during the monotony.

All accidents and close calls i've been in happened when i was just strolling along with traffic doing what all the other sheeple were doing. It's like the herd of stupid wildebeests crossing the croc infested river. Just following the herd into deadly situation.

[TimZ]

I would love to have overall speed limits reviewed and increased. As far as no speed limit zones go, those will have to go further out in rural areas. In sorry, I just don't see any road near the NYC area capable of safely traveling at 100+
But places about 30 minutes out of the city can sure use these speed limit free zones. New driving tests are a must as well as keeping up with infrastructure.