Senate OKs bill for 70 mph limit

[TheGunslinger]

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage

The Senate yesterday overwhelmingly approved a 70 mph speed limit on rural interstates and parkways, sending it to the House, where the speaker expects it to pass. The Senate voted 34-2 to pass Senate Bill 103, which also would raise the speed limit on rural four-lane highways to 65 mph from 55 mph.

[ColonelTom]

1. More deaths, more fuel use. What's the downside? n/t

:eyes:

[Roland99]

3. Speed doesn't kill. Inattentiveness and recklessness kills

70mph on I-65 south of Louisville, for example, is just fine. Heck, most people are driving at 70-80 already.


Fatigue, alcohol, drugs, messing with the radio, tending to kids, talking on the cell phone, etc. are at the cause of accidents. A fatal accident could occur at 30mph.

[ColonelTom]

5. Speed does kill. Here comes the science...

All of those other factors count, too, but speed's an easy one to measure and reduce with speed limits. Higher speed also increases the likelihood that an accident due to any of the factors you mentioned will be fatal. Obviously " fatal accident could occur at 30mph," but the likelihood that a given accident will be fatal increases with the speed of the cars involved.

The effect of raising the speed limit from 55 to 65 has been heavily studied. There are a ton of links if you Google - here's one, from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety:

How has abolishing the national speed limit affected fatalities? Institute studies show that deaths on rural interstates increased 25-30 percent when states began increasing speed limits from 55 to 65 mph in 1987. In 1989, about two-thirds of this increase — 19 percent, or 400 deaths — was attributed to increased speed, the rest to increased travel.

A 1999 Institute study of the effects of the 1995 repeal of the national maximum speed limit indicates this trend continues. Researchers compared the numbers of motor vehicle occupant deaths in 24 states that raised speed limits during late 1995 and 1996 with corresponding fatality counts in the 6 years before the speed limits were changed, as well as fatality counts from 7 states that did not change speed limits. The Institute estimated a 15 percent increase in fatalities on interstates and freeways.

A separate study was conducted by researchers at the Land Transport Safety Authority of New Zealand to evaluate effects of increasing speed limits from 65 mph to either 70 or 75 mph. Based on deaths in states that did not change their speed limits, states that increased speed limits to 75 mph experienced 38 percent more deaths per million vehicle miles traveled than expected — an estimated 780 more deaths. States that increased speed limits to 70 mph experienced a 35 percent increase, resulting in approximately 1,100 more deaths.

As for the other usual argument - that everyone speeds anyway:

Does the speed limit matter? Don't drivers speed anyway? Many drivers tend to drive somewhat faster than posted speed limits, no matter what the limits are. However, drivers do not completely ignore posted speed limits but choose speeds they perceive as unlikely to result in a ticket. The more important speed-related safety issue on freeways is the proportion of vehicles traveling at very high speeds, not the proportion violating the speed limit. The Institute's frequent monitoring of free-flowing travel speeds on interstate highways shows that, in general, higher speed limits lead to greater proportions of cars traveling at very high speeds.

For example, New Mexico raised its speed limits to 65 mph on rural interstates in 1987, and the proportion of motorists exceeding 70 mph grew from 5 percent shortly after speed limits were raised to 36 percent in 1993. In 1996, when speed limits were further increased to 75 mph, more than 29 percent of motorists exceeded 75 mph; by 2003, 55 percent of motorists exceeded 75 mph.10 In Maryland, which retained 55 mph limits on rural interstates until 1995, the proportion traveling faster than 70 mph remained virtually unchanged at 7 percent during 1988-93. By 1994, 12-15 percent of cars were exceeding 70. In neighboring Virginia, which switched to 65 mph limits on rural interstates in 1988, the percentage exceeding 70 mph went from 8 percent in 1988 to 29 percent by 1992 and 39 percent by 1994.

Sometimes I'd like to drive faster too. That doesn't make it good public policy. And arguing that there are other factors doesn't mean that we shouldn't take an easy step (or in this case, NOT take an easy step) and reduce something we can easily control.

[Roland99]

6. I bet if you looked deeper into the numbers you'd find that....

the speed *difference* kills, such as reported here by CBS:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/05/national/main557123.shtml


Slower drivers, people pulling into the fast lane without checking first, etc. are the dangers. They are typically more inattentive. Speed, by itself, does not kill. Something has to cause an accident and that is from one of the reasons I posted above.

[ColonelTom]

7. Which actually helps my point

The study doesn't explain the reasons for the difference, but co-author Thomas Dee, an assistant economics professor at Swarthmore College, theorizes that a higher speed limit increases the disparity of driving speeds and thus the risk of accidents.

"The conventional view is often that speed kills. But some people ... would argue that the variance of speed kills," Dee said Wednesday.

He doesn't cite any evidence for the point, but even if you take him at his word, he's against the higher speed limit.

Where's the proof for your assertion that faster drivers are safer?

And even if they are, how would raising the speed limit do anything but make the disparity worse? Or, if the slow drivers went proportionally faster under a higher speed limit - which I doubt - wouldn't they still be at least as dangerous, with the added momentum upon impact increasing the risk of fatalities?

[Roland99]

8. I never asserted that faster drivers are safer.

I'm just saying you can't say that speed alone kills.

Inattentiveness is the source. Speed is but one factor.


What needs to be done is a higher minimum speed set. 45mph is the current on a 65mph highway. 45mph is as much slower as 85mph is faster. Think about that. 85mph. That's pretty damn fast. I don't travel that fast. I keep my cruise on about 72mph.

Someone going 45mph pulling into the fast lane is a danger.

[ColonelTom]

9. And I never said speed alone kills.

Speed is but one factor, as I've stated all along if you read my earlier posts. The reason I - and legislators over the years - have focused on speed is that it's the one factor you can impact directly and effectively through legislation. There is an "inattentive driver" statute on the books, but it's almost impossible to enforce. Public service announcements might help a bit, but I suspect not much.

Someone going 45mph pulling into the fast lane is a danger.

Come on now - how often do you see that? That's a spurious argument.

A wheelbarrow sitting abandoned in the fast lane is a danger too, and I've almost been in a high-speed crash due to one. But how often does that happen? Not often, which is why you don't see anyone legislating a reduction in the number of wheelbarrows in the left lane.

By the way, if I were going 5 mph faster, I'm not sure I would have avoided that wheelbarrow. Higher speed reduces the time you have to react to an impending crash. It's basic physics.

[Roland99]

10. I see it a fair amount. Esp. with tractor-trailers heading up a hill

I drive often up I-71 to Cincy and the truckers feel they own the road.

Another big problem is tailgating. The wrecks along I-71 or I-64 heading in to town are, I'm assuming, 99% from tailgating. But, we're not looking at increasing speeds in urban areas, just on rural areas where there is much less traffic.

[ColonelTom]

11. So you're going to mandate that tractor-trailers go 55 uphill?

And presumably the state will foot the bill for all the retrofitting and repairs that will entail?

Kentucky already has a state law (see this link for the statute in PDF format) that prohibits driving in the left lane (on 65 mph roads with 2+ lanes in each direction) unless you're passing, avoiding merging traffic from an entrance ramp, or where driving conditions at that moment "prohibit" driving in another lane.

[Roland99]

12. I'm well aware of the left-lane prohibition. Getting it enforced? HA!

Ok, the trucks were a bad example but they do pull in front of traffic more often than they should.


As for the study, the IIHS hasn't always been unbiased.

[ridgerunner]

2. The biggest problem I have with this issue

is the condition of our roadways. The ones that I drive on regularly are beat all to hell. Just doing 65 mph on them does a lot of damage to a vehicle.

What they need to do is lower the speed limit to reflect the poor conditions, maybe 45 mph, and rename the interstates and parkways the Kentucky cow path system.

[Roland99]

4. Which roads are those?

I-71 to Cincinnati is nice.

I-65 south to Tennessee is fine by me.

I-64 east to Lexington (only a section around Frankfort needs some work last I drove it)

[ridgerunner]

13. Well

65 from BG to the TN line is horrible. I haven't been on the Bluegrass in a couple of years, but last time it was beat up really bad also. The Natcher isn't great by any means.

I think the biggest problem lies in the road building process itself, it's a virtual monopoly, so there is no incentive to build a better road.

[alfredo]

14. I can second that. I used to drive that stretch of the

road all the time. I have nightmares about it.

[alfredo]

15. On I-65 that is the lower limit. If you aren't doing over

70 mph, you'll get run over.