55mph Club

[TylerDurden]

If I recall correctly, that boat takes over 250ft to stop from 80mph.

That's if you actually use the brakes. :lol:

Grand AM: 3000lbs + 2 passengers = 3300lbs

VW Westfalia camper: 5200lbs + driver + tools + trailer + Citicar (sans lead) = 6850lbs

Boom, baby.

 

[Malcolm]

Knew I'd seen that vehicle before. Just hope Scotty can work his magic on it.

 

[TylerDurden]

http://drive55.org/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/

Speed Limits: How Should They be Determined?
Professor Patricia F. Waller, Ph.D., (Emerita)
Dept. of Social and Behavioral Analysis, University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute

The primary purpose of our highway system is mobility, not safety. If it were the latter, we would set speed limits much lower. A 20 mph speed limit, with governors o­n all motor vehicles to prevent exceeding that speed, would certainly lower highway casualties. Of course, no o­ne would consider such a measure, Clearly, we tacitly agree to accept a certain level of carnage in order to use the highways in ways we value. At the present time in the US, this tacit agreement says that it is acceptable to sacrifice between 40,000 and 42,000 lives annually.

In seeking an acceptable balance between mobility and safety, speed limits are a critical factor. To what extent is speed a factor in the likelihood of a crash occurring in the first place? An early and widely cited study (Solomon, 1964) found that as speed deviated from the average speed of the traffic stream, crash probability increased. He reported that speeds significantly below that of the traffic stream were at least as likely to cause crashes as those above the average speed. Solomon's data were from the 1950s and were based o­n rural roads, most of which were 2-lane. Much has changed since then, and, not surprisingly, more recent studies report somewhat different findings.

In a review of speed and crash probability, Shinar (1999) cites extensive evidence that speed variance increases crash probability. Yet in 2000, 55 percent of fatal crashes in the US were single vehicle. Almost o­nefourth of these involved a pedestrian or bicyclist, where speed could have been a factor, but 42 percent of all fatal crashes involved o­nly o­ne vehicle, with no pedestrian or cyclist (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2001). In these crashes, speed variance per se is less likely to be a factor. Shinar reports that, while there is some evidence that o­n a given road, crash involvement rates for individual vehicles rise with their travel speed there is no convincing evidence that across all road types, crash rates increase with overall average speed. Of course, overall average speed is highly correlated with road design, and higher speed limits are found o­n roadways with safer design. While the role of speed deviation per se may not be settled, there is unequivocal evidence that probability of injury and fatality increases with increasing speed. Shinar concludes that: "The overall cost of speedrelated crashes is much greater than the relationship between speed and crash probability indicates. This is because highspeed crashes are associated with greater injury levels than are lowspeed crashes." (p 271)

The 55 mph National Maximum Speed Limit

In 1973 the US experienced a fuel crisis that had repercussions throughout the economy. Congress enacted legislation establishing a National Maximum Speed Limit (NMSL) of 55 mph. Although enacted for purposes of fuel economy, it resulted in a reduction in highway fatalities of over 9000 in the first year. When the immediate fuel crisis had passed, and cars were no longed lined up at the gasoline stations, an effort was made to retain the NMSL for safety reasons. There was strong opposition. Congress requested an independent review of the evidence, and in 1984 the Transportation Research Board issued their report (Committee for the Study of the Benefits and Costs of the 55 mph National Maximum Speed Limit, 1984), making the following points:

Fuel Economy. The legislation was initially enacted for purposes of fuel economy. Gasoline consumption declined in 1974, for a savings of about 255,000 barrels per day (BPD) of petroleum, and it was estimated that in 1983, the lower speed limits accounted for savings of about 167.000 BPD. Although additional oil reserves have been discovered since 1974, there has been no absolute increase in the total amount of fossil fuel o­n the planet Earth. Consequently, the longterm importance of conserving fuel has not diminished.

Safety. The review concluded that the unprecedented decrease in highway fatalities, over 9000 lives, immediately following the enactment of the NMSL resulted from many factors including reduced exposure and reduced discretionary driving. However, taking into account other variables that may have contributed to the safety benefits, the report concluded that the NMSL continued to save lives. They estimated that, in the early years of the 55 mph NMSL the lower speeds saved about 3000 to 5000 lives annually. In 1984, there continued to be between 2000 and 4000 fewer fatalities, between 2500 and 4500 serious, severe, and critical injuries, and between 34,000 and 61,000 fewer minor and moderate injuries as a result of the lower speed limits (pp 16667).

At a change in velocity of 50 mph, the probability of the driver being killed is twice what it is at 40 mph. Incremental increases in speed add disproportionately to the probability of serious or fatal injury,

Motor Vehicle Injury Costs. In the US, injury, both intentional and unintentional, is the leading cause of death from age 1 to age 45. Because it so disproportionately strikes the young, it is also the leading cause of lost years of life prior to age 75, more than either cancer or heart disease. Motor vehicle injury is the largest single component of these losses (Committee o­n Injury Prevention and Control, 1999). A driver license from o­ne state enables o­ne to drive in other states, and emergency care and medical services must be provided wherever an injury occurs Even if o­ne is not injured, the costs incurred through taxes and health and auto insurance premiums reflect any increases in injuryassociated costs, The cost of motor vehicle injuries crosses state lines - it is a national problem, not just a state or local o­ne.

Time Savings. The 55 NMSL increased travel time, and it is this issue that generated the greatest opposition. Interestingly, the report found that, "On the basis of average trip lengths and average speeds, most personal vehicle travel slowed down by the 55 mph speed limit involved time losses of less than 3 minute? (p. 115). o­ne committee member noted that, "Over a year's time it may amount to about a day and a half for me, but if my day were broken up into 2 and 3minute pieces, 1 don't think I could get much done." Small units of time do not combine to create useable time segments.

It was further found that it cost "roughly 40 years of driving per life saved and serious injury averted." However, "the average life expectancy of motor vehicle accident victims in 1982 was about 41 year” (p 120). This comparison does not take into consideration the enormous time costs incurred by family and friends of the killed and seriously injured, or the time costs associated with the many more injuries that are less serious, or crashes involving property damage o­nly. Furthermore, crashes are the primary cause of traffic delays, creating enormous time costs to travellers. Thus, when all time costs are considered, the total societal time costs are less at 55 mph than they are at higher speeds.

Equity. There is also the issue of how time costs are distributed across the population At the lower speed limit whatever time costs are incurred are distributed fairly evenly across the entire travelling public. At the higher speed limits, time costs are borne disproportionately by those who are involved in crashes, especially those who are seriously or fatally injured. Because for most trips, at the lower speed the additional time involved is three minutes or less, the tradeoff between arriving at a destination a few minutes later versus sacrificing a young life is not o­ne that should be difficult to choose.

Other issues either not covered or touched o­n o­nly briefly in the report include commercial trucking, composition of the vehicle fleet, consumer expenditures, national security, balance of payments, environmental impact, and our changing demographics. Each of these is discussed below.

Commercial Trucking. In response to the enactment of the 55 mph NMSL the trucking industry requested, and received, increases in allowable truck size and weight. It was argued that additional cargo was needed to offset the lower speeds, It was found, however, that the lower speeds led to savings in fuel, maintenance, and safety, offsetting the time costs incurred. Most of the trucking industry (excepting the independent operators) supported the 55 mph NMSL. It should also be noted that as speeds have increased, there have been no corresponding decreases in truck size and weight limits.

Vehicle Fleet. o­ne argument for increasing speed limits o­n some highways is that they were designed for higher speeds. There is some truth to this, but the design standards were for a vehicle fleet different from what we have today. Passenger cars averaged around 4000 pounds and trucks were smaller and lighter. In response to the fuel crisis, car size was reduced, and trucks got larger and heavier. Although passenger vehicles are much safer today than they were 30 or 40 years ago, the safety gains realized are compromised by the higher speeds.

Consumer Costs. Even though, in the US, fuel prices are low compared to the rest of the industrial world, in 1999 the average household spent over $1000 o­n gasoline (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2001). With today's higher prices, it would be considerably more. Lower speeds translate into greater fuel economy. They also reduce costs of vehicle maintenance and repair.

National Security. Reduced fuel consumption reduces our dependence o­n foreign oil supplies. In 1973, in the US, our net imports of foreign oil comprised 35 percent of petroleum consumption. In 2000 this share had increased to over 50 percent and is expected to reach 64 percent by 2020 (US Department of Energy, 2001a). In 1972, 43.5 percent of our net imported petroleum came from OPEC countries. In 1999, it was 46 percent (US Department of Energy, 2001b). The costs of the Persian Gulf War were directly attributable to our dependence o­n petroleum imports from that region, and we continue to maintain a strong military presence there, as well as provide substantial support to allies in that part of the world.

Balance of Payments. Our dependence o­n foreign oil is a major source of our negative balance of payments. In 1974, imported petroleum exceeded exported petroleum by almost $24 billion. In 2000, the excess came to almost $109 billion and accounted for 28 percent of our balance of payments deficit (US Department of Energy, 2001 c; US Department of Commerce, 2001). Reducing fuel consumption would reduce this deficit.

Environmental Impacts. Motor vehicle fuel consumption is a major contributor to environmental pollution, including global warming. In the US, of fuel consumed in transportation of all kinds, passenger vehicles and small trucks account for the largest single component. Transportation was also the largest single source of carbon dioxide emissions in the US in 1999, and motor gasoline was the largest contributor to these emissions. Petroleum spills continue to be a source of water pollution, and traffic is an increasing source of noise pollution in neighbourhoods (Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2001).

Changing Demographics. Perhaps the most significant issue in setting speed limits, as well as the o­ne most often overlooked, is the changing demographics of our population. Global life expectancy has grown more in the last 50 years than in the previous 5000. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, people aged 65 and over accounted for no more than 2 or 3 percent of the population in the developed world. Today they account for about 14 percent, and are estimated to reach 25 percent by 2030 (Peterson, 1999). In the US, Florida presently has the highest proportion of older citizens, about 19%. However, by 2025, 39 of our 50 states will have similar proportions (Committee for Economic Development, 1999). Italy will achieve this status in 2003; Japan and Germany in 2005 and 2006, respectively; and France and Britain by 2016. Canada will be there in 2023 (Peterson, 1999).

These changes in our population are not simply the result of greater longevity. In the developed nations, fertility rates have fallen far below replacement level (Commission o­n Global Aging, 2000). The younger population is decreasing in proportion, and, in many countries, in absolute numbers as well. The US is somewhat better off than most other industrialised nations because of our high immigration.

This increase in life expectancy, with a corresponding decrease in birth rate, heralds a much larger elderly population driving and using our roadways. Older people are by far the fastest growing segment of our driving population. They are increasing their numbers and proportions in the licensed population, and both their trips and their total mileage are increasing. Unfortunately, age takes its toll and there is some loss of driving proficiency with increasing age. While some of this loss is undoubtedly attributable to medical conditions that occur with increasing frequency with increasing age, some of the loss accompanies "normal" aging. For most people, vision changes occur by the mid40s and continue thereafter, and divided attention becomes more difficult with increasing age.

Overall, there is an increase in crash risk per mile driven, beginning in the late 50s and early 60s, with more marked and accelerating increases in the 70s and older (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2000; Peck and Romanowicz, 1993/94). This increase occurs even though everything we know about older drivers tells us that, as a group, they try very hard to limit their driving to the safest times and places. Older drivers are underrepresented in crashes involving speed, alcohol, or reckless driving. Because age is also correlated with increasing vulnerability to injury, older people are more likely to be seriously or fatally injured in a crash of specified dimension (Evans, 1991).

What are the implications of these changing demographics for speed and speed limits? First, we are seeing an increasing number of older drivers o­n our roads. Second, there is no question that, as a group, their driving proficiency decreases with increasing age. Third, their transportation needs do not decrease simply because they can no longer drive. Data from the Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey show that, for all ages, workrelated trips account for fewer than o­nethird of trips taken. Up until the mid80s, older people take about as many, if not more, nonworkrelated trips as those aged 16 to 64 (Rosenbloorn, in press). Fourth, there will be fewer younger drivers available to meet the transportation needs of these older people. There is clearly a need to enable older drivers to continue to meet their own transportation needs for as long as possible.

There is currently considerable effort to do just that. Federal Highway Administration is seriously addressing modifications in the highway system to assist older drivers, and hence everyone else who is not functioning at optimum level (Staplin, Lococo, and Byington, 1998). Other work continues o­n facilitating the driving task, with a focus o­n older drivers (Schieber, in press., Staplin, in press), including how intelligent transportation systems may be of assistance (Caird, in press). In the private sector, vehicle manufacturers are at last addressing the needs of older drivers (Pike, in press).

There is also considerable attention being paid to licensing, original and renewal, of older drivers, but here the problems are much more challenging. In some states, the laws specifically forbid any special requirements for licensure based o­n increasing age. Thirty states have no safety-related provisions whatsoever for renewal licensure of older drivers. Some "special provisions" for older persons are designed to make it easier for the older applicant, e.g., in Tennessee, licences issued to people aged 65 and older do not expire, and in North Carolina, applicants aged 60 and older are exempt from parallel parking o­n the road test. The most common special provision is a shortened renewal cycle or a requirement for inperson renewal (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2001). There is some evidence that vision testing of older drivers is effective in reducing crashes (Shipp, 1998), and that more sophisticated vision testing may possibly be more effective (Owsley, in press). However, o­n the whole, measures currently used in driver licensing renewal have shown little or no relationship to prior or subsequent driving performance as indicated in driver records. Although there is considerable research being conducted in this area, and from time to time, we hear that someone has discovered the “magic bullet," we still do not know how to identify those older drivers who are more likely to have future crashes.

We do know, however, that as drivers age and become less proficient, they respond as other drivers do when the task becomes more complex - they reduce their speed. Older drivers are increasing their presence o­n our roadways, and many of them cannot drive safely at the higher speeds. To ban them from the interstate or other high speed roadways means excluding them from the safest roads in existence. In 1995, our Congress saw fit to remove the federal requirement that states retain the 55 mph speed limit o­n rural interstates. In those states that raised the speed limit, highway fatalities increased o­n interstates, an average of 15 percent, and fatality rates increased 17 percent (Farmer, Retting and Lurid, 1999).

Conclusion

Higher speeds reduce time to respond to emergency situations, increase stopping distance, and increase both crash risk and crash severity. o­n virtually every dimension considered, including fuel economy, safety, consumer and societal costs, environmental pollution, national security, and time costs, the lower speed limits make more sense. Most importantly, they make more sense in light of the unprecedented changes occurring in our population and the increasing presence of older drivers o­n our highways. It is to everyone's advantage to enable these drivers to continue to meet their own transportation needs without posing undue hazard to themselves or other road users. If we are fortunate, eventually we will all be the beneficiaries of such a policy.

References

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2001 Consumer Expenditures in 1999. Accessed June 27, 2001. http://stats.bls.gov/pdf/csx.ann99.pdf

Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2001. Tics 2000. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation

Caird X. In press. InVehicle Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and Older Drivers' Safety and Mobility In Transportation in an Aging Society. A Decade of Experience. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.

Commission o­n Global Aging, The. 2000. Global Aging: The Challenge of the New Millennium. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Committee for Economic Development. 1999. New Opportunities for Older Workers. Research and Policy Committee of the Committee for Economic Development. HD6280.P76, New York. Committee for Economic Development, 1999.

Committee for the Study of the Benefits and Costs of the 55 MPH National Maximum Speed Limit. 1984. 55: A Decade of Experience Transportation Research Board Special Report 204, Washington, DC. National Research Council.

Committee o­n Injury Prevention and Control. 1999, Reducing the Burden of Injury. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Evans L. 1991. Traffic Safety and the Driver. New York.. Van Nostrand Reinhold

Farmer CM Retting RA, Lurid AK. 1999. Changes in motor vehicle occupant fatalities after repeal of the national maximum speed limit. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 31: 53743.

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. 2001. Accessed June 28, 2001.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2000. Traffic Safety Facts 1999. Older Population. DOT HS 809 091. Washington, DC. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2001. Accessed June 10, 2001,

Owsley C. In press Driver capabilities. In Transportation in an Aging Society: A Decade of Experience. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.

Peck R, Romanowicz P. 1993/1994. Teen and senior drivers. Research Notes, Winter 1993194, Sacramento, CA: California Department of Motor Vehicles, 36.

Peterson PG 1999. Gray Dawn. The Global Aging Crisis. Foreign Affairs, January/February, 42

Pike JA In press. Protecting the Older Driver Vehicle Concepts In Transportation in an Aging Society. A Decade of Experience. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

Rosenbloom S. In press. The mobility of the elderly: There's good news and bad news. In Transportation in an Aging Society. A Decade of Experience, Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board

Schieber F. In press. Highway research to enhance the safety and mobility of older users. In Transportation in an Aging Society. A Decade of Experience. Washington, DC. Transportation Research Board.

Shinar D. 1998. Speed and crashes. A controversial topic and an elusive relationship. In Managing Speed. Review of Current Practice for Setting and Enforcing Speed Limits. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 221276.

Shipp, MD. 1998. Potential human and economic costsavings attributable to vision testing policies for driver license renewal, 19891991. Optometry and Vision Science, 75(2): 103118.

Solomon D. 1964. Accidents o­n Main Rural Highways Related to Speed, Driver, and Vehicle. Bureau of Public Roads, US Department of Commerce.

Staplin L. In press Highway enhancements to improve the safety and mobility of older road users: Practical applications. In Transportation in an Aging Society A Decade of Experience, Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.

Staplin L, Lococo K, Byington S. 1998. Older Driver Highway Design Handbook RD 9713 5. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.

US Department of Commerce. 2001.

US Department of Energy 2001 a. Energy Price Impacts o­n the US Economy. Accessed June 19, 2001.

US Department of Energy. 2001 b. Petroleum Imports by Country of Origin, 19601999. Accessed June 12, 2001.

US Department of Energy. 2001c. Merchandise Trade Value. Accessed June 19,2001.

 

[TylerDurden]

Yep, I'm still driving 55 (roughly) on the highway. I dragged the latest tandem to Wilmington, DE and collected another C-Car. Brought it back over the Allegheny Mountains. Slow is beyond an understatement... but we got back in one piece. (Aside: The prior owner is converting a Vortex three-wheel megabike to EV, and a Fire-Aero also. )

Driving slow is different, to say the least... I have become very familiar with the different makes of semi-trailers: Wabash, Utility, Manac, Great Dane, etc., etc... I'm also depressed by just how trashed the country is. Garbage everywhere. You see a lot of stuff while crawling up hills at 35mph. i.e.: Michigan is replacing all the galvanized I-beam sign posts with treated lumber that has been drilled at the bottom... they snap-off when hit and don't leave bent punjii-beams to skewer the next victim(s).

Another thing... while I am still the slowest rig on the road, I do see many more people driving slower. Just like drivers going fast provide a de-facto excuse/permission for others to go fast too... going slow has a similar effect: people slow down when they see someone else going slow. Go figure.

For those "mpg-weenies" out there, here's my brag: I get over 21mpg even when towing a trailer and citicar. Try that in a Prius.



Here's a news item for the thread.

Truckers slowing down to save fuel
By JAMES MacPHERSON, Associated Press Writer
Sat Mar 22, 12:50 PM ET

BISMARCK, N.D. - Coast-to-coast trucker Lorraine Dawson says fellow drivers used to call her "Lead Foot Lorraine." But with diesel fuel around $4 a gallon, she and other big-rig drivers have backed off their accelerators to conserve fuel.

"I used to be a speed demon, but no more," said Dawson, based at Tacoma, Wash. "Most drivers have cut their speed considerably."

Dawson said she's cut her speed by five to 10 miles per hour to save money for her company. Many independent owner-operators have slowed even more, she said.

"My fiance is an owner-operator and he's been crying a lot about the price of fuel," Dawson said. "He's been slowing way down."

Truckers and industry officials say slowing a tractor-trailer rig from 75 mph to 65 mph increases fuel mileage by more than a mile a gallon, a significant bump for machines that get less than 10 miles per gallon hauling thousands of pounds of freight. Even sitting still with the engine idling, a rig gulps about a gallon of diesel every hour.

"We just can't afford it," Dawson said of diesel as she was topping off her fuel tanks at a Bismarck truck stop.

When she started driving trucks in 1997, diesel was about $1.97 a gallon, $2 a gallon cheaper than what she paid Wednesday in Bismarck. Rigs like hers have two fuel tanks, typically holding 300 gallons each.

The nationwide average for a gallon of diesel on Thursday was $4.03, up from $2.74 one year earlier, AAA North Dakota spokesman Gene LaDoucer said. The average in North Dakota on Thursday was $3.98, up from $2.82 a year ago, he said.

"Twenty-four states are paying $4 or higher," LaDoucer said Thursday.

The climb is blamed on record crude oil prices and global demand, LaDoucer said.

"Diesel is the predominate fuel used in foreign countries, and there is a lot more demand for it globally and that helps bid up the price that we are paying here," LaDoucer said.

Fuel accounts for about a quarter of carriers' operating costs, and now is surpassing labor as the biggest expense for some carriers, said Tiffany Wlazlowski, a spokeswoman for the Arlington, Va.-based American Trucking Associations.

"And rising fuel costs do increase the cost of consumer goods," she said.

Trucks haul 70 percent of all freight tonnage in the U.S., according to the American Trucking Associations.

State troopers have noticed the decline in truckers' speeds, said North Dakota Highway Patrol Capt. Eric Pederson.

"We see it when we're out patrolling," Pederson said. "In talking to the drivers, a lot of the large companies are setting policies that give the drivers a little more leeway on the time on their loads — just to save on the fuel."

Wlazlowski said the U.S trucking industry expects to spend $135 billion on diesel this year, up from $112 billion in 2007. There are 3.5 million truck drivers in this country, she said.

"For every one-penny increase in the price of diesel, it costs our industry $391 million," she said. "In the last month, it's gone up 50 cents."

Wlazlowski said the trucking industry does "anything that will help them save fuel." She said that includes outfitting trucks with aerodynamic fairings and special tires to improve mileage. Drivers also are using more efficient routes and reducing idling times.

Trucking company Con-way Inc. of Ann Arbor, Mich., announced this month that it adjusted speed governors on the engines of the 8,400 semis in its less-than-truckload division, Con-way Freight.

Truckload carriers usually dedicate a shipment to a single customer, and move freight directly from the shipper to the receiver. Less-than-truckload carriers are filled with shipments from multiple customers, and may redistribute it at terminals along routes.

Con-way spokesman Gary Frantz said the maximum speed of the trucks has been cut from 65 mph to 62, a move that should cut fuel consumption by 3.2 million gallons a year.

"It's a significant savings," Frantz said.

The company said the move also would eliminate 72 million pounds of carbon emissions annually, or the equivalent to removing nearly 7,300 automobiles from U.S. highways.

Frantz said the company should have the governors on the 3,000 rigs in its truckload fleet adjusted next month.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080322/ap_on_re_us/slower_truckers

 

[PJD]

Tyler,

Between location,location on Lake Erie and Wilmington, DE, I presume you spent most of your time in Pennsylvania. They are the most conservative drivers in the US, and courteous to a fault - especially in the western parts - that helps.

Where are you finding all these Citicars? - They are a blast from the past when the country was moving in a semblance of the right direction. I want one.

 

[TylerDurden]

I presume you spent most of your time in Pennsylvania. They are the most conservative drivers in the US, and courteous to a fault - especially in the western parts - that helps.

Where are you finding all these Citicars? - They are a blast from the past when the country was moving in a semblance of the right direction. I want one.

Pennsylvania belongs out west... it's that big. The trip to DE is nice, much better than I-80 to/from NYC: BORRRRINGGGG (except the Pocos)

As for Citicars... easy. google: [ "electric car" -franchise -cooler -child -children -kid site:craigslist.org ]

8)

 

[Link]

I'm still having trouble working out why exactly they wanted this thing to look like a piece of cheese. :?

 

[ngocthach1130]

maybe early aerodynamic theory? At the time they might believe a wedge like shape will plow through the wind better? Or maybe it's weight reduction. Most of us don't sit lurch forward so they probably think the slop will cut down on needless space and weight. We know now shape like a tear drop is streamlining. But be serious. Does any of you sit with all bulk of the body in front and the limb in the rear? Your body somewhat a triangle when you sit down

 

[TylerDurden]

Their earlier cars were way uglier.

After the citicar, they made the Tropica:

 

[Link]

ZOMG! It looks like a normal car !

 

[esldude]

Hello All,

My first post here.

I am for letting folks drive what speed they want to for the most part.

55 mph as a live saving issue is probably somewhat suspect. For one thing the last year of 70 mph
injuries resulting in death from an auto accident had to occur within 30 days of the accident or it
was attributed to another cause. In the first year of 55 mph, injuries contributing to death for up
to one year would count as an auto accident death. That according to some studies of the problem
accounting for most of the difference in the two years. Most of the rest due to less mileage driven.

Then 55 mph gets credit for saving lives for the next number of years. Should it? Mandatory seat
belt laws, cars with better belts, cars almost universally having disc brakes, and many other advances
in safe design were making up more and more of the cars on the road during these years. Yet it is
55 mph that gets the credit. It may be so, yet I wonder if it is.

There is no doubt crashing slower is less deadly. But where do you make the trade off. Cars can
be designed that will almost never cause death up to 30 mph. If safety is all important then we
should have the national 30 mph limit. If we agree to speed limits above that, then we necessarily
are talking trade offs from maximum safety against other factors. I for one don't want them to go
back to 55 mph as I don't like the trade offs. Lower limits on local roads is one thing, but larger
highways I don't think benefit from it much.

When global warming, peak oil, and other developing problems begin effecting daily life more it
might not matter. You sure could design some highly, highly efficient cars if they never had to
do more than 30 mph. Electrics become quite practical in that situation.

 

[PJD]

55 mph as a live saving issue is probably somewhat suspect.

Recall that the kinetic energy of the vehicle is a function of square of the speed, so I'd be surprised if it doesn't have a significant life preserving effect. All things being equal, the energy expended on a human body in a crash at 75 mph is nearly twice that at 55 mph.

Also, to correct one of your points, most US state mandatory seat belt laws weren't instituted until after the 1974-1987, 55 mph US national speed limit - most going in place in 1988-92.

Us old timers also remember the seat belt interlock safety standard for cars built in 1974 - the front seat belts had to be buckled before the car would start - it included weight sensors to detect if the seat was occupied - so you also had to buckle up a heavy bag of groceries. The law didn't last a year because of protest - and was ineffective at encouraging seat belt use.

 

[TylerDurden]

I've been hit in local fender-benders, up to highway-speed wrecks... there is a profound difference in crash dynamics as speed increases.

 

[esldude]

My comments were taken out of context. The idea that a 55 mph speed limit saved lives because the number of traffic fatalities went down is suspect because the rules changed at that same time. That isn't the same as saying slower crashes are not actually less deadly as they clearly are. Further a little research into the idea will indicate that despite lower limits, actual speeds of travel probably changed little. And without more intense law enforcement lowering speed limits now will do little to change speeds of travel.

And again, if you believe that is a good thing, drop your speeds to 30 mph or be unveiled as safety pretenders. Otherwise, how do you decide how slow is worth it for the lives saved?

For what it is worth, further research will indicate, if in a crash, note if in a crash, your chances of
being a fatality increase 11% for each 2 mph increase when the crash is above 40 mph. The question
as always one of trade offs. Will it make sense to limit all travel to 40 mph or 30 mph to get down
to nearly no lost lives in traffic accidents? Or is some answer above those speeds acceptable? Despite
claims that one life saved is enough, economics indicate that is rarely the case in the real world. Many activities that could be made almost 100% completely safe are not due to economic considerations.

 

[Parker]

This is an great thread! While I don't own a car I do borrow them. My experiences with my electric bike and reading this forum have dramatically changed the way that I drive. It's really made me understand what takes a lot of power. I almost never speed up going up hills. I drive slower and accelerate slower.

It's hearting to read about the slowing ships. I hear that the faster speed greatly increases collions with right whales off
the east coast but the government was unwilling to change because of pressure from the shipping industry.

Slower speed will probably save a lot more wildlife than that. I see all manner of roadkill when I'm riding, from monarchs to robins, owls, fox, raccoon, squirrels(lots), turtles, snakes, deer and many others.

Education is needed. I think most people have no idea how steep the curve is. If there was a significant minority of people that drove slower it would be more expected and normal on the highways.

 

[TylerDurden]

Many activities that could be made almost 100% completely safe are not due to economic considerations.

Ja, I may have misunderstood your point.

That said, economics are a portion of the arena of risk-management. There is also the relative assessment of the other risks people & property are exposed to. So, driving a modern car @ Xmph might be as risky as cooking in the kitchen or rollerblading... they all get pumped into some black-box of dollar conversion at some point, but there is some pre-categorization as to damage, debilitation and death.

:?

 

[esldude]

Speed isn't the only cause of crashes.

 

[TylerDurden]

^^^ :lol: :lol: :lol: ^^^


I actually have seen two pedestrians (guys) crash smack into each other in a NYC crosswalk for a similar reason... I couldn't breathe, I was laughing so hard.

 

[Toshi]

Excellent thread, TD. For my part I've reduced my 63 mph-on-cruise-in-the-right-lane habits down to an even indicated 60 mph on the freeway. Given that speedos, especially on sports cars such as my Mazda RX-8 , invariably overestimate speed* I'm probably doing close to the original post's 55 mph suggestion.

I also agree with the sentiment expressed a few pages back in the thread that humans in general are ugly, overweight, none too smart, and act irresponsibly. I blame natural selection having been artificially suspended for too many generations. When cheap energy runs out the playing field will be leveled once again, and ingenuity and other desirable traits may have a chance at making a comeback over evolutionary time.

* I recall a test of top speed in a mainstream American car magazine about 15 years ago. In it they calculated how much speedometers overestimated actual speed near the cars' top speed. iirc, the Corvette ZR1 was actually a tad bit conservative, and the worst offender was a Porsche 911 Turbo, which read a solid 10% too high (indicated 200 mph, actual 180). Makes you wonder about intention.

 

[esldude]

So Toshi,

Why not find out the speed at which you get maximum MPG and only drive at that speed? It probably isn't far from 55 mph for your RX8. Then again, why not get something else that gets more mpg anyway?

Humans are overweight, ugly, irresponsible and none too smart according to you. Then you mention cheap energy. Yet you drive a car with an engine not as efficient as normal engines which might not be as wasteful as SUV's, but isn't the choice of a highly responsible smart human perhaps.

So what is the point of your comments?

 

[Toshi]

The RX-8's for sale, thank you very much. I bought it as a rational choice: I used to car race (autocross) and that model was its class champion at Nationals the last three years running. The metrics people use to make their choices may not necessarily be those you use...

 

[Mathurin]

My Corolla gave ~5.2l/100 at ~80km/h with lights off, windows shut, f/r tire pressure at 45/35psi, 4AF motor w/manual transmission. That's ~45mpg @ ~49mph. At ~115km/h it got ~8l/100, ~29mpg @ ~71mph. That's >50% more fuel consumption for the same distance.

 

[TylerDurden]

Drove 120mi in a 2003 Ford Focus wagon yesterday, @55mph. (four adults, AC, sidewinds, 60mi out - 60mi return):

30mpg.

20% improvement in fuel economy, compared to 25mpg for the same trip @70mph w/ 2 adults, no AC (last week).

It is much easier to drive 55mph with cruise-control.

 

[vanilla ice]

Paid $5.05 for diesel last weeks fill up. Thats almost got in the club...

 

[Toshi]

I sold the RX-8 a week or two ago and it was finally shipped off last Friday. I'm now officially carless by choice.

8)

However, the girl still has a car, and we took a 840 mile (roundtrip) roadtrip in her trusty, frugal 2001 Toyota Corolla 5-speed. Rated at 28/37 mpg per the EPA's 2008 figures, iirc. Through sticking from 0-5 mph above the 50-70 mph speed limit on the highway stretches on cruise control with sparing use of A/C we averaged 45, 41, and 42 mpg over the three partial tanks of gas we used. In short, we rock. :x

(In her 70% 50+ mph speed limit daily commute she averages ~36 mpg. 28 mpg is unheard of.)