I am for both.
Police light bar effectiveness
- Thread starter Jonny Z
- Start date
- Status
I think permitting right on red saved more gas than the 55MPH mandatory speed limit ever did.
I also think that coordinating traffic signals will save more gas than a 55MPH speed limit.
I think that "traffic calming" measures create congestion and waste gas (with the exception of roundabouts when used to replace a 4-way stop).
I also think that coordinating traffic signals will save more gas than a 55MPH speed limit.
I think that "traffic calming" measures create congestion and waste gas (with the exception of roundabouts when used to replace a 4-way stop).
Ha you live in Norther VA. If you have to commute your life is miserable. No laws or lack of them will alleviate your over crowded miserable living conditions on the roads. I would just drive a PRius there and get some good ausio books. You must spend 2 months a year sitting on or near I95(hahah I escaped)
Last edited:
Actually, my commute is 15 miles one-way and is, at worst, 45 minutes, and at best, 20 minutes. On average I'd say it's around 30 minutes.
In fact, they just opened a new interchange on the highway I use to get to work (which is nowhere near I95) and my commute home yesterday was the best it'd been in a while. Left work at 17:59 and got home at 18:20. Normally I'd have to leave about an hour later to get home that quick.
A Prius won't help, there are no HOV lanes on the highway I use to get to work (which is the only reason anyone around here buys one of the things, and in fact I'm pretty sure the hybrid HOV exemption is due to be history soon if it isn't already).
I was also just at a public hearing about some intersection improvements that should help my commute..which involve coordinating two traffic signals so traffic doesn't block the highway. I'm told this coordination project is part of a wider project with VDOT. There is already a coordination agreement with VDOT, but it is time-based and these signal controller clocks do drift over time, which means that over time (weeks or months, depending on how much drift there is), unless the clock is manually reset, the coordination is lost. The signals are supposed to be interconnected which means they will stay in sync.
If it were up to me, I'd put a dialup phone line to all of the signal controllers with a modem connected to the controller's serial port and set up a Linux box running Network Time Protocol to dial in at least once a day to each controller and sync it's clock to an accurate NTP source. Cheap and effective.
In fact, they just opened a new interchange on the highway I use to get to work (which is nowhere near I95) and my commute home yesterday was the best it'd been in a while. Left work at 17:59 and got home at 18:20. Normally I'd have to leave about an hour later to get home that quick.
A Prius won't help, there are no HOV lanes on the highway I use to get to work (which is the only reason anyone around here buys one of the things, and in fact I'm pretty sure the hybrid HOV exemption is due to be history soon if it isn't already).
I was also just at a public hearing about some intersection improvements that should help my commute..which involve coordinating two traffic signals so traffic doesn't block the highway. I'm told this coordination project is part of a wider project with VDOT. There is already a coordination agreement with VDOT, but it is time-based and these signal controller clocks do drift over time, which means that over time (weeks or months, depending on how much drift there is), unless the clock is manually reset, the coordination is lost. The signals are supposed to be interconnected which means they will stay in sync.
If it were up to me, I'd put a dialup phone line to all of the signal controllers with a modem connected to the controller's serial port and set up a Linux box running Network Time Protocol to dial in at least once a day to each controller and sync it's clock to an accurate NTP source. Cheap and effective.
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: labman
What we really need are fewer controlling people wanting to make everybody drive as slow as they do.
No, we need fewer maniacs driving 80-90+ in a 55-65 zone, weaving in and out of traffic, almost killing people, and driving like they are on crack all the while they are yacking on their cell phones.
If people would slow down not only would the roads be safer but we would use a ton less fuel. Time for the return of the 55 MPH speed limit and STRICT and unyielding enforcement of it.
Speed limts go over 55? Not in Illinois. Sure we drive 75 MPH because other states do but the signs still say 55. I'm going to move to Nebraska. 75MPH right through that long [censored] state.
Originally Posted By: labman
What we really need are fewer controlling people wanting to make everybody drive as slow as they do.
No, we need fewer maniacs driving 80-90+ in a 55-65 zone, weaving in and out of traffic, almost killing people, and driving like they are on crack all the while they are yacking on their cell phones.
If people would slow down not only would the roads be safer but we would use a ton less fuel. Time for the return of the 55 MPH speed limit and STRICT and unyielding enforcement of it.
Speed limts go over 55? Not in Illinois. Sure we drive 75 MPH because other states do but the signs still say 55. I'm going to move to Nebraska. 75MPH right through that long [censored] state.
Originally Posted By: brianl703
Yes, it does. West Virginia has half the population density. They also have a 70MPH speed limit.
I was amazed the first time I travelled on WV 50 from Clarkesburg to Parkersburg. Four lane road with a lot of cross roads and the speed limit is 65.
First time I've seen 65 on anything other than a limited access highway.
There was virtually no traffic and you could make great time legally.
Yes, it does. West Virginia has half the population density. They also have a 70MPH speed limit.
I was amazed the first time I travelled on WV 50 from Clarkesburg to Parkersburg. Four lane road with a lot of cross roads and the speed limit is 65.
First time I've seen 65 on anything other than a limited access highway.
There was virtually no traffic and you could make great time legally.
Originally Posted By: brianl703
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
but we would use a ton less fuel.
BTW, someone who tools around in a 5.7L Hemi pickup shouldn't even go there, since it seems just as likely that larger vehicles will be heavily taxed and/or CAFE'd out of existence as it is that a national 55MPH speed limit will be enacted.
I support neither of those, by the way.
I drive it because I use it for WORK.
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
but we would use a ton less fuel.
BTW, someone who tools around in a 5.7L Hemi pickup shouldn't even go there, since it seems just as likely that larger vehicles will be heavily taxed and/or CAFE'd out of existence as it is that a national 55MPH speed limit will be enacted.
I support neither of those, by the way.
I drive it because I use it for WORK.
""I live in "Cow'Hampshire" dude. Doesn't get much more rural. 55-60 MPH is as fast as anyone needs to go. ""
and I smell a Dummocrat here
Steve
and I smell a Dummocrat here
Steve
It wouldn't bother me one bit if New Hampshire went to a 55MPH max speed limit.
When someone who lives in New Hampshire wants to dictate what the speed limit should be in Virginia, I have a big problem with that.
When someone who lives in New Hampshire wants to dictate what the speed limit should be in Virginia, I have a big problem with that.
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
I drive it because I use it for WORK.
Why don't you get, oh, I dunno, a Smart car for when you're not working?
I drive it because I use it for WORK.
Why don't you get, oh, I dunno, a Smart car for when you're not working?
Originally Posted By: Canawler
First time I've seen 65 on anything other than a limited access highway.
Virginia has some 4-lane divided highways which are not limited access posted at 60MPH.
Quote:
The Virginia legislature passed a law allowing for 60 mph speed limits on certain rural 4-lane highways, including US 29.
http://www.expresswaysite.com/virginia_29.htm
First time I've seen 65 on anything other than a limited access highway.
Virginia has some 4-lane divided highways which are not limited access posted at 60MPH.
Quote:
The Virginia legislature passed a law allowing for 60 mph speed limits on certain rural 4-lane highways, including US 29.
http://www.expresswaysite.com/virginia_29.htm
Originally Posted By: brianl703
It wouldn't bother me one bit if New Hampshire went to a 55MPH max speed limit.
When someone who lives in New Hampshire wants to dictate what the speed limit should be in Virginia, I have a big problem with that.
You guys are so funny it is not funny.
So many assumptions and so much hostility.
I am not trying to dicate anything to anyone. Just stating my opinion( this is a message forum right where we discuss our views on things? )that for the good of all, for those in NH, VA, and even left wing hotbeds like CA and MA that could fall off the planet for all I care, we need to lower the speed limit back to 55.
It is much safer to travel at 55 vs 80+ just as traveling at 20 MPH is safer than 55( I am not advocating lowering the highway SL to 20 so don;t go there ). It is also a proven fact that traveling at 55-60 MPH is the most fuel efficient speed for most vehicles. Exceed 60 mph and your MPG plummets at a rapid rate. If people would slow down we would use a lot less fuel in our current vehicles.
If I stick to 60 MPH w/ CC I can pull 19-20 MPG highway from my truck. If I go 70-75 it drops to 15-16. BIG difference. The same would apply to almost any vehicle.
For the record I am a rock solid Republican as well. I have got in trouble on this site for going after Democrats so to call me one is really humorous. Maybe the funniest thing I have ever seen said on here.
I see no comment on me providing that data you asked for.
It wouldn't bother me one bit if New Hampshire went to a 55MPH max speed limit.
When someone who lives in New Hampshire wants to dictate what the speed limit should be in Virginia, I have a big problem with that.
You guys are so funny it is not funny.
It is much safer to travel at 55 vs 80+ just as traveling at 20 MPH is safer than 55( I am not advocating lowering the highway SL to 20 so don;t go there ). It is also a proven fact that traveling at 55-60 MPH is the most fuel efficient speed for most vehicles. Exceed 60 mph and your MPG plummets at a rapid rate. If people would slow down we would use a lot less fuel in our current vehicles.
If I stick to 60 MPH w/ CC I can pull 19-20 MPG highway from my truck. If I go 70-75 it drops to 15-16. BIG difference. The same would apply to almost any vehicle.
For the record I am a rock solid Republican as well. I have got in trouble on this site for going after Democrats so to call me one is really humorous. Maybe the funniest thing I have ever seen said on here.
I see no comment on me providing that data you asked for.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: brianl703
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
I drive it because I use it for WORK.
Why don't you get, oh, I dunno, a Smart car for when you're not working?
Aw heck, why not get a different car for every day of the week or for every possible reason I might use a vehcle for. I can create a flow chart and select which of my 200 cars and truck I will use that day for that use.
WOW!
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
I drive it because I use it for WORK.
Why don't you get, oh, I dunno, a Smart car for when you're not working?
Aw heck, why not get a different car for every day of the week or for every possible reason I might use a vehcle for. I can create a flow chart and select which of my 200 cars and truck I will use that day for that use.
WOW!
Fuel efficiency data is one thing. How about safety data? I've seen data that shows that the highway death rate has decreased every year between 1985 and 2005, despite speed limit increases in practically every state between those years and the repeal of the national mandatory speed limit in 1995, giving that power to the states which is where it rightfully belongs.
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
For the record I am a rock solid Republican as well.
Lots of people make that claim, but just don't back it up with their actions.
For the record I am a rock solid Republican as well.
Lots of people make that claim, but just don't back it up with their actions.
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
If I stick to 60 MPH w/ CC I can pull 19-20 MPG highway from my truck. If I go 70-75 it drops to 15-16. BIG difference. The same would apply to almost any vehicle.
The more aerodynamic a vehicle is, the less fuel savings there are to be had by driving slower. I guarantee you there isn't a 5MPG difference between 60 and 75 in a Honda Civic, it's probably more like 1.5MPG.
Likewise, the fuel savings on an 18-wheeler between 60MPH and 75MPH is definitely larger than 5MPG.
If we're going to go down the road of regulation, why not just govern large vehicles to, say, 50MPH, as they do in Europe?
If I stick to 60 MPH w/ CC I can pull 19-20 MPG highway from my truck. If I go 70-75 it drops to 15-16. BIG difference. The same would apply to almost any vehicle.
The more aerodynamic a vehicle is, the less fuel savings there are to be had by driving slower. I guarantee you there isn't a 5MPG difference between 60 and 75 in a Honda Civic, it's probably more like 1.5MPG.
Likewise, the fuel savings on an 18-wheeler between 60MPH and 75MPH is definitely larger than 5MPG.
If we're going to go down the road of regulation, why not just govern large vehicles to, say, 50MPH, as they do in Europe?
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Aw heck, why not get a different car for every day of the week or for every possible reason I might use a vehcle for. I can create a flow chart and select which of my 200 cars and truck I will use that day for that use.
I know a number of people who bought a cheap $1500 fuel-efficient econobox to drive when they don't need their pickup for work, back when gas was $4/gallon.
Aw heck, why not get a different car for every day of the week or for every possible reason I might use a vehcle for. I can create a flow chart and select which of my 200 cars and truck I will use that day for that use.
I know a number of people who bought a cheap $1500 fuel-efficient econobox to drive when they don't need their pickup for work, back when gas was $4/gallon.
Originally Posted By: brianl703
Fuel efficiency data is one thing. How about safety data? I've seen data that shows that the highway death rate has decreased every year between 1985 and 2005, despite speed limit increases in practically every state between those years and the repeal of the national mandatory speed limit in 1995, giving that power to the states which is where it rightfully belongs.
Yeah, if the police wanted to save lives, they should start ticketing those poking along in the left lane. Actually I suspect it has more to do better crash worthiness including air bags preserving the lives of those too dumb to fasten their seat belts. It does call ''speed kills'' into question.
Fuel efficiency data is one thing. How about safety data? I've seen data that shows that the highway death rate has decreased every year between 1985 and 2005, despite speed limit increases in practically every state between those years and the repeal of the national mandatory speed limit in 1995, giving that power to the states which is where it rightfully belongs.
Yeah, if the police wanted to save lives, they should start ticketing those poking along in the left lane. Actually I suspect it has more to do better crash worthiness including air bags preserving the lives of those too dumb to fasten their seat belts. It does call ''speed kills'' into question.
Some more safety data:
Quote:
DOT 93-09
Thursday, July 2, 2009 Contact: Ellen Martin
Telephone: (202) 366-9550
U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood: Overall Traffic Fatalities Reach Record Low
First Quarter 2009 Traffic Fatalities Project Continued Record Trend
The U.S. Department of Transportation today announced that the number of overall traffic fatalities reported in 2008 hit their lowest level since 1961 and that fatalities in the first three months of 2009 continue to decrease. The fatality rate, which accounts for variables like fewer miles traveled, also reached the lowest level ever recorded.
The fatality data for 2008 placed the highway death count at 37,261, a drop of 9.7 percent from 2007. The fatality rate for 2008 was 1.27 persons per 100 million VMT, about 7 percent below the rate of 1.36 recorded for 2007.
NHTSA
Quote:
DOT 93-09
Thursday, July 2, 2009 Contact: Ellen Martin
Telephone: (202) 366-9550
U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood: Overall Traffic Fatalities Reach Record Low
First Quarter 2009 Traffic Fatalities Project Continued Record Trend
The U.S. Department of Transportation today announced that the number of overall traffic fatalities reported in 2008 hit their lowest level since 1961 and that fatalities in the first three months of 2009 continue to decrease. The fatality rate, which accounts for variables like fewer miles traveled, also reached the lowest level ever recorded.
The fatality data for 2008 placed the highway death count at 37,261, a drop of 9.7 percent from 2007. The fatality rate for 2008 was 1.27 persons per 100 million VMT, about 7 percent below the rate of 1.36 recorded for 2007.
NHTSA
- Status
