Monday, April 11, 2011

Speed Thrills

In 1974, responding to high oil and gas prices, Congress passed the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act, which set 55 mph as the maximum speed allowed around the nation.  The emergency lasted until 1995 when Congress repealed federal limits.  Since then, different states have adopted different rules, with the Northeast going for 65 on their interstates, the Southeast 70, and much of the wide open west 75.  (Though you gotta watch out, since certain cities in the west have the limit drop to 65, then 55, and sometimes even lower as you approach--indeed, this seems to be a main source of revenue at these places.) Then there's Texas, where certain areas have a maximum of 80 mph.

When the limits were removed, a lot of people said it would lead to thousands of extra deaths. I don't know if that happened, but I don't hear these people so much any more, so maybe things didn't turn out like they expected.  Of course, 55 mph was an oppressive joke, since almost no one followed it, but it allowed police to give out a lot of tickets.  I know I was glad I could drive 70--I've driven across the country more than once and a 55 mph limit would add an extra day to get from Los Angeles to New York. (It's also probably dangerous for me, since it would likely keep me on the road longer, and I'd get more tired.)

Anyway, Texas is now considering a rise to 85.  Seems to be getting pretty high, but I know if it were there I'd take advantage of it.  Texas is a damn long state to get through no matter how fast you go.  I remember for a few years Montana had no official limit--the law was you had to drive at a "reasonable and prudent" speed. I drove through Montana once while this law was in effect (in fact, I drove through Montana because this law was in effect) and I couldn't resist--for a short period, when I was all alone on the interstate, I opened it up to 100. I had to see how it felt.  Somehow, if I'd passed a cop, I don't think he would have found it reasonable or prudent.

After that, 85 doesn't seem so bad.  The main trouble is I'm sure a lot of Texans are already driving 85.  If the limit is raised, I suppose they'll have to go faster.

10 Comments:

Blogger QueensGuy said...

I got pulled over for doing 105mph in Montana a while back. The cop told me that she wouldn't have had a problem with how I was driving except my dog had her head out the window.

Cheyenne was a rather adventurous dog, and as I went faster and faster she just pulled closer into the slipstream of the side of the car until her cheek was pressed against the B pillar. Her eyelids were flapping up and down, as was her outboard ear, but she was clearly having more fun than ever before in her life.

The cop said she was pulling me over because a bug at that speed would go right through my dog's eye and blind her. Hadn't thought of that and was suitably contrite. She wrote me a $15 "energy violation" ticket that I paid on the spot.

8:00 AM, April 11, 2011  
Anonymous Denver Guy said...

Here's a 2005 study.

"While limits ranged from 75 mph to 55 and back again, no significant increase in fatalities per mile driven are evident.

In fact, from 1968 to 1991, the fatality rate per 100 million miles declined by 63.2 percent."

http://www.livescience.com/3870-higher-speed-limits-deaths-study-finds.html

8:14 AM, April 11, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A uniformed PETA terrorist no doubt, QG.
Your $15 went to more black helicopters, dupe.

Code word was a cause and effect conjunction "alenut" and inspired my prose

8:14 AM, April 11, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whenever experts are outright wrong in their predictions, their apology should be comparable to how much contempt they showed earlier to anyone who disagreed with them.

9:13 AM, April 11, 2011  
Blogger LAGuy said...

Denver Guy, I checked your URL, and it didn't give me the info I wanted, which is rather simple: what happened to fatality rates right after the 55 mph limit was put in place, and what happened to fatality rates after it was removed.

9:31 AM, April 11, 2011  
Blogger QueensGuy said...

I can extract that from an editorial in Car & Driver this month that has a lovely graph outlining the decline fatalities per mile driven from the 1950s to 2009.

9:34 AM, April 11, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's a graph showing something pretty funny: Steep declines in fatalities all the way through from 1970 to the present day--except for about a six year period after the lower speed limit was enacted, when there was a plateau.

What would the safety planners say? "Good thing we enacted that law. Think how high it might have risen without it."


code word: sumbd. I want sumbd to luv

2:18 PM, April 11, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=3775

cw: gonatin

I think it's Austrian for testicles.

2:21 PM, April 11, 2011  
Blogger QueensGuy said...

"sumbd" anon is correct. Fatalities per 100MM VMT in '74 was 3.5, down steeply from just over 4 in '73. Other than a few years where fatalities were flat to very slightly up ('76, '77, '78, '79, '80, '86, and '05) there have been steady decreases every year, irrespective of the federal speed limit. In 2009 it fell to 1.13, by far the lowest in history and over 6 times fewer than in 1950.

p.s. code word is "chamo" which is what rednecks wear to cancer treatment.

4:00 PM, April 11, 2011  
Blogger QueensGuy said...

Sorry, still didn't answer your exact question, LAGuy:

1995 was flat or slightly down from '94 (approx. 1.7).
From 1996 through 2004, each year showed a slight decline from the preceding year.

4:05 PM, April 11, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home

web page hit counter