(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.usatoday.net%2Fcommunitymanager%2F_photos%2Fdrive-on%2F2011%2F04%2F09%2Fhagarx-inset-community.jpg&hash=f01f00ec432474d30d29021713191301ae507aae)
Quote
Texas considers highest speed limit in nation
By Chris Woodyard, USA TODAY
As lead singer of Van Halen, Sammy Hagar once crooned, "I can't drive 55." To show how far things have come, now some Texans aren't happy about only driving 80 miles per hour. The Legislature is considering raising the maximum speed limit to 85 mph, highest in the country.
The Texas House of Representatives has approved a bill that would raise the speed limit to 85 mph on some highways. The bill now goes to the state Senate, the Austin Statesman reports.
We suspect Sammy, shown in the photo at right back in 1995 when California raised its speed limit from 55 mph to 65 mph, (and previous Van Halen lead singer David Lee Roth) would be pleased.
Texas currently has more than 520 miles of interstate highways where the speed limit is 80 mph, according to the Associated Press. The bill would allow the Texas Department of Transportation to raise the speed limit on certain roads or lanes after engineering and traffic studies are conducted. The 85-mph maximum would likely be permitted on rural roads with long sightlines.
Some car insurers, however, oppose the bill:
According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, high speeds were a factor in about one-third of all fatal crashes in 2009. The faster you're traveling, the greater the distance needed to bring your vehicle to a complete stop and the longer it takes a driver to react to emergency situations, according to IIHS. If an accident does occur at a higher speed, there is a strong likelihood that the crash impact will exceed the protection available to vehicle occupants.
On top of safety concerns, speeding increases fuel consumption. Every 5 mph you drive over 60 mph is like paying an additional $0.24 per gallon for gas, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
In the mid-1990s, the federal government deregulated national highway speed-limit standards, allowing states to set their own speed limits. Before the reform, all states had adopted a 55-mph speed limit by 1974 to keep federal highway funding, with some rural areas able to travel up to 65 mph since 1987.
Since then, 33 states have raised speed limits to 70 mph or higher on some portions of their roads. Texas and Utah have the highest speed limits of 80 mph on specified segments of rural interstates, according to IIHS.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/04/texas-considers-highest-speed-limit-in-nation/1
Hell yeah. :cool:
But you have to be in Texas :(
That's about 135kph for you foreigners.
The high speed limit is necessary. Texas = HUGE.
I wonder what the fuel mileage is for an SUV is at 85 MPH.
And no, it's not necessary. There's jack shit in West Texas. Everything of importance is in the DFW-Houston-San Antonio triangle.
Quote from: Fate on April 11, 2011, 02:12:36 PM
I wonder what the fuel mileage is for an SUV is at 85 MPH.
And no, it's not necessary.
Roughly 4-5km/L according to my estimate. Granted, I'm in a pickup, not a SUV. It has worked marvelous wonders to keep my foot off the accelerator, making the switch to this vehicle. :(
Quote from: Fate on April 11, 2011, 02:12:36 PM
And no, it's not necessary.
Agreed. Driving in Texas is easily avoidable.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 11, 2011, 02:16:21 PM
Quote from: Fate on April 11, 2011, 02:12:36 PM
And no, it's not necessary.
Agreed. Driving in Texas is easily avoidable.
Unfortunately I'm stuck here for the next three and a half years. :mad:
Quote from: Fate on April 11, 2011, 02:20:37 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 11, 2011, 02:16:21 PM
Quote from: Fate on April 11, 2011, 02:12:36 PM
And no, it's not necessary.
Agreed. Driving in Texas is easily avoidable.
Unfortunately I'm stuck here for the next three and a half years. :mad:
What did you do?
Quote from: Fate on April 11, 2011, 02:12:36 PM
I wonder what the fuel mileage is for an SUV is at 85 MPH.
Driving 200+ kph in a Mercedes M class SUV needs a lot of fuel, probably something like 20 l/100 km ~ 11 mpg - and that's a diesel. I don't know the exact figure because it's a company car and I don't really care, but you certainly have to go to the gas station a lot.
Germany mocks these pathetic texican speed limits.
It's only fair that Texas should make it easy for people to pass through/get out as quickly as possible.
Quote from: Viking on April 11, 2011, 02:40:19 PM
Germay mocks these pathetic texan speed limits.
http://seniortravel.about.com/b/2008/04/10/speed-limits-on-the-german-autobahn.htm :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on April 11, 2011, 02:41:23 PM
It's only fair that Texas should make it easy for people to pass through/get out as quickly as possible.
In my experience, it's about 14 hours from Beaumont to El Paso. There's just too much of Texas.
This is one of the few times when insurance industry gets it badly wrong, IMO.
In practice, speed limit legislations are not a matter of safety. They're about keeping up with the de facto situation on the ground. If speed limits are not credible, then you're breeding contempt for law, and open the door for selective prosecution. You're also devaluing them as a tool of keeping the traffic flowing safely.
Insurers seem to assume that cars go at the speed of the limit, or that they break it by a fixed "overage". They don't seem to realize that speed limits mostly just determine how much the average law-abiding citizen is speeding.
Either Montana or Wyoming had no posted speed limit on some sections of highway. Did they stop that?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2011, 05:02:35 PM
Either Montana or Wyoming had no posted speed limit on some sections of highway. Did they stop that?
Montana.
I think the Feds stopped that a number of years ago - they threatened to cut off Montana's funding for roads/interstates unless they imposed a speed limit.
Although wiki says they stopped it because a state court found "reasonable and prudent" to be so vague as to be unconstitutional. But another source confirmed me on the federal funding.
with his own hand.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 11, 2011, 05:21:29 PM
with his own hand.
Have you been sent to: spread the message?
Quote from: DGuller on April 11, 2011, 03:50:20 PM
This is one of the few times when insurance industry gets it badly wrong, IMO.
In practice, speed limit legislations are not a matter of safety. They're about keeping up with the de facto situation on the ground. If speed limits are not credible, then you're breeding contempt for law, and open the door for selective prosecution. You're also devaluing them as a tool of keeping the traffic flowing safely.
Insurers seem to assume that cars go at the speed of the limit, or that they break it by a fixed "overage". They don't seem to realize that speed limits mostly just determine how much the average law-abiding citizen is speeding.
On that note, I saw an article somewhere that said there's plans to reduce the speed limit on parts of I-95 to 55. Parts of it are already marked 55, which is completely ignored by most drivers.
The big problem is when traffic is flowing at 80+, and you have old people poking along at 50 in the middle lane.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on April 11, 2011, 05:47:44 PM
On that note, I saw an article somewhere that said there's plans to reduce the speed limit on parts of I-95 to 55. Parts of it are already marked 55, which is completely ignored by most drivers.
The big problem is when traffic is flowing at 80+, and you have old people poking along at 50 in the middle lane.
What gets me is the very basic fact that laws are passed without the expectation of them being followed. What kind of an idiot thinks that 55 mph speed limit would be respected on I-95? As someone with civil libertarian inclinations, I find that by itself highly offensive, even without getting to the utilitarian concerns of safety.
good thing. It will prove once and for all that speed that not cause accidents on highway. I wish we weren't governed by morons here. One day, one day, I swear, we will get rid of these idiots who think driving above 50mph is dangerous.
Quote from: Martinus on April 11, 2011, 02:41:23 PM
It's only fair that Texas should make it easy for people to pass through/get out as quickly as possible.
Pass through on their way to where? Arkansas?
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2011, 12:50:05 PM
Pass through on their way to where? Arkansas?
Why wouldn't marti love Arkansas? Less steers, more queers* :contract:
*Might not actually be true.
Good.
Quote from: viper37 on April 12, 2011, 12:44:39 PM
good thing. It will prove once and for all that speed that not cause accidents on highway. I wish we weren't governed by morons here. One day, one day, I swear, we will get rid of these idiots who think driving above 50mph is dangerous.
Speeding is always a hot topic here in Norway and the agreed narrative is that speed kills.
Of course, since they rebuilt a stretch of the heavily trafficed E18 which was cursed by an unusual amount of traffic accidents and deaths, from 2 lanes to 4 divided, and incidentally also raised the limit from 80 to 100 (km, not miles, which everyone was sure would be catastrophic, you can after all die from simply travelling at those speeds since the human body is not built for it) the end result was that there have been no deaths on that stretch and the number of accidents has completely imploded. Who could've guessed.
Lucky SOBs. While here some place have gone from 50km/h to 40. Gawd damn it, people.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 12, 2011, 01:38:38 PM
Lucky SOBs. While here some place have gone from 50km/h to 40. Gawd damn it, people.
Residential areas? 25 mph is pretty common.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 12, 2011, 01:45:12 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 12, 2011, 01:38:38 PM
Lucky SOBs. While here some place have gone from 50km/h to 40. Gawd damn it, people.
Residential areas? 25 mph is pretty common.
Yes but here it's a trend, first residential areas then boulevards next highways. In 10 years, it'll be 10mph everywhere.
Quote from: Slargos on April 12, 2011, 01:38:23 PM
Quote from: viper37 on April 12, 2011, 12:44:39 PM
good thing. It will prove once and for all that speed that not cause accidents on highway. I wish we weren't governed by morons here. One day, one day, I swear, we will get rid of these idiots who think driving above 50mph is dangerous.
Speeding is always a hot topic here in Norway and the agreed narrative is that speed kills.
Of course, since they rebuilt a stretch of the heavily trafficed E18 which was cursed by an unusual amount of traffic accidents and deaths, from 2 lanes to 4 divided, and incidentally also raised the limit from 80 to 100 (km, not miles, which everyone was sure would be catastrophic, you can after all die from simply travelling at those speeds since the human body is not built for it) the end result was that there have been no deaths on that stretch and the number of accidents has completely imploded. Who could've guessed.
Divided is the key. Undivided highways are way more deadly than divided highways.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 12, 2011, 01:45:12 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 12, 2011, 01:38:38 PM
Lucky SOBs. While here some place have gone from 50km/h to 40. Gawd damn it, people.
Residential areas? 25 mph is pretty common.
Agreed, and it should stay that way, IMO. Once pedestrians are in the mix, the speed should go way down. Anything above 25 mph is extremely deadly to the pedestrians.
Quote from: DGuller on April 12, 2011, 01:51:55 PM
Quote from: Slargos on April 12, 2011, 01:38:23 PM
Quote from: viper37 on April 12, 2011, 12:44:39 PM
good thing. It will prove once and for all that speed that not cause accidents on highway. I wish we weren't governed by morons here. One day, one day, I swear, we will get rid of these idiots who think driving above 50mph is dangerous.
Speeding is always a hot topic here in Norway and the agreed narrative is that speed kills.
Of course, since they rebuilt a stretch of the heavily trafficed E18 which was cursed by an unusual amount of traffic accidents and deaths, from 2 lanes to 4 divided, and incidentally also raised the limit from 80 to 100 (km, not miles, which everyone was sure would be catastrophic, you can after all die from simply travelling at those speeds since the human body is not built for it) the end result was that there have been no deaths on that stretch and the number of accidents has completely imploded. Who could've guessed.
Divided is the key. Undivided highways are way more deadly than divided highways.
Of course. You know that. I know that.
The Norwegian department of transportation? It's like they're from some other planet. It's too expensive to build divided roads, even taking into account the cheaper alternatives such as wire-railings.
Newspapers have been focusing on road building lately, and it's been one astonishing revelation after the other.
That newly built highway? Destroyed by frost after one year. Will need to be completely rebuilt with new drainage. Politicians are "shocked".
E6 north from Oslo? Built on the expectation that daily traffic would be 11 000 vehicles per day by 2020. Traffic today? 16000 vehicles. Kicker? They already knew that they were working with the wrong numbers, but it was cheaper that way. Politicians are "shocked".
Norwegians love saying they're "shocked".
F16s actually used to fire on Libyan tanks? Shocking.
Norwegian troops in Afghanistan involved in shooting episodes? Shocking.
There's something fundamentally wrong with these people.
Quote from: viper37 on April 12, 2011, 12:44:39 PM
good thing. It will prove once and for all that speed that not cause accidents on highway. I wish we weren't governed by morons here. One day, one day, I swear, we will get rid of these idiots who think driving above 50mph is dangerous.
It is dangerous in Quebec, at least in the winter.
Anything that will likely result in fewer Texans is fine by me.
Nuking Missouri would likely kill a few Texans from the radiation. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 12, 2011, 08:04:33 PM
Nuking Missouri would likely kill a few Texans from the radiation. :hmm:
Not likely. Prevailing winds would push it away from Texas.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 12, 2011, 07:28:48 PM
Anything that will likely result in fewer Texans is fine by me.
Higher speed limits will also mean reduced travel times and people get to spend more time at their destination rather than on the road. It is easy to speculate that this will lead to increased levels of fraternization, and subsequently fucking, which will inevitably lead to an increase in birth numbers. This may not be so cut and dry as you assume. :hmm:
actually, slargos, if the highways lead to the outback west, then won't that mean white women will have quicker access to the virile mexicans in el paso? we may see an increase of good texans, the brown kind :)
Quote from: LaCroix on April 13, 2011, 01:09:17 AM
actually, slargos, if the highways lead to the outback west, then won't that mean white women will have quicker access to the virile mexicans in el paso? we may see an increase of good texans, the brown kind :)
I don't see where that changes anything. Unless you mean that brown Texans aren't really Texans.
See, whereas I am race-neutral, you are obviously a fucking racist.