[vasudeva]

You are in Texas (the Haryana of US) Frankly, I have read about the things you have said. Also data to prove that higher speeds cause less death. Also of the fact that different states have different kinds of law abiding citizens and law enforcement officials. Very few in Delhi observe speed limits, because there is no enforcement. But I have seen many in Chandigarh do. The law may be flawed, but in my opinion it has to be obeyed. On speed limits, my personal comfort zone is around 90-100 max.

[supremeBaleno]

Originally Posted by kuttapan

If everyone around you is doing 70-80, and you are doing 55, you are a sitting duck and a disaster in waiting, IMO. Even 18 wheelers do above 70 on the freeways, and they don't look so nice when you see them in your rearview mirror, pottering around at 55.

If you make 55 the legal speed limit, people (in the US ie.) might drive at 60 or max 65, but definitely not at 80, which would invite hefty speeding tickets.

I still think this is a good initiative. Especially because enforcement in the US is much much better than in say India.

They definitely also need to come up with public transportation systems along with these initiatives and reduce their dependance on private transportation.

[kuttapan]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

If you make 55 the legal speed limit, people (in the US ie.) might drive at 60 or max 65, but definitely not at 80, which would invite hefty speeding tickets.

I still think this is a good initiative. Especially because enforcement in the US is much much better than in say India.

Might, here, is the operative word, not definitely. US freeways, tollways are much much safer than the sorry excuse for roads that we have in India and 55mph is not a viable speed at all. Add to it that at least 90% or more adhere to proper lanes while driving and these speeds are much much safer in US.

Here, the onus is on saving gas, and I do not think it should be enforced, it should come naturally. If one was conscious about saving gas, he/she would automatically bring speeds down. Why, even Dubya said conserving energy cannot be dictated to people, though conservation is a good thing.

And why I think it is a bad initiative is 'coz, I am yet to get a car here. I want to have my share of fun before this whole XXXX - house goes down in flames.

[RedMM340]

Originally Posted by sridhga

It is an interesting piece. Think of driving on those never ending expressways at 55 miles. I like to confess once out of time constraint I drove at 110 miles on Ohio Turnpike for about 3 hours. Lucky I did not get a ticket. But they should look at some taxation policy like we have in India which pushes people to buy smaller vehicle. May be they would save more of Arctic Ice if they replaced all those Hummers and Grand Cherokees with Priusses , Civic hybrids and Ford Focusses. Detriot big 3 and Oil lobby has corrupted american minds into thinking that those frail women in Mid-forties really need to drive in Ford Expeditions and Chrysler Town and Countrys to reach home safe. When does that country think realistically? God save America!

Actually you are lucky not to have been arrested.

Maybe your impression is from being in Ohio, which is not exactly a leading edge state.

Go to any progressive town and you will see plenty of Priuses. In fact the Toyota Prius is the latest progressive green statement by white collar professionals. Toyota just cant make enough for the U.S. market.

[sujaylahiri]

Even on the 401 Expressway from Windsor to Montreal in Canada (the busiest motorway in North America), the "recommended" speed limit on the left lane is about 120-130 kph (75-80 mph), about 20 kph more than the official speed limit.

Usually the cops won't stop you even if you're doing 130, as long as you do not cause any danger to the surrounding traffic.

The most I've ever done is 195 kph, but that was at 3am in the morning with no traffic.

And I fully agree with kuttapan about motorists keeping up with the traffic even if it's above the speed limit, in fact it's not a recommendation but an unwritten rule.

[VJ_MAVRICK]

I can just imagine the 101 freeway in the bay area connecting san francisco and the silicon valley with people driving @ 55mph. As others said, the public transport all across the US is not that big thing barring some big commercial center cities. They should try to press forward the utility of a public transport rather than this good on paper but too ludicrous in reality proposal.

Yea! Definitely drivers getting tickets will be on the rise. Maybe those fines will help the US to match the rising oil prices

[GTO]

Originally Posted by RedMM340

Go to any progressive town and you will see plenty of Priuses. In fact the Toyota Prius is the latest progressive green statement by white collar professionals. Toyota just cant make enough for the U.S. market.

Actually they can. But Toyota is diverting a lot of Prius' away from the States and into other more lucrative markets which pay more for the same car. The dollars beating made Toyota finetune its strategy.

[snaronikar]

In our country, if we think about Speed Governers itself, the transporters will go for strike. But this is nice initiative. IMO, 50mph has to be increased to atleast 80mph in freeways. That way, if this law comes into force, it will be great...

[sridhga]

Originally Posted by RedMM340

Actually you are lucky not to have been arrested.

Maybe your impression is from being in Ohio, which is not exactly a leading edge state.

Go to any progressive town and you will see plenty of Priuses. In fact the Toyota Prius is the latest progressive green statement by white collar professionals. Toyota just cant make enough for the U.S. market.

First offence of over speeding is a misdemeanor and does not attract arrest penalty. My impression is not from Ohio and I never lived there. That is your pre-concieved notion. I drove through the state just once. 'Green statement' is a fashionable fad limited to Bay Area. Hope this clarifies.

[bblost]

I guess discussing about safety is an OT on this thread.
Speed is not being reduced to increase safety but to save fuel.

And in that context its a good thing.

[supremeBaleno]

Originally Posted by bblost

I guess discussing about safety is an OT on this thread.
Speed is not being reduced to increase safety but to save fuel. And in that context its a good thing.

Exactly. The proposal aims to reduce consumption to conserve a resource that is fast reaching its EOL. I dread to think of the day when there wont be any oil left. And something tells me it is not that far away.

[sridhga]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

Exactly. The proposal aims to reduce consumption to conserve a resource that is fast reaching its EOL. I dread to think of the day when there wont be any oil left. And something tells me it is not that far away.

Maybe we all need to hone up our horse riding skills Some bio engineering firm should mass produce all the horses required.

[Zappo]

People are so gung-ho about US implementing 55mph on the Interstates. So many are presenting such pressing arguments, my my... I am really impressed. And yet when they see cops on the bangalore mysore highway fining people for driving at 70 kmph they go berserk and open threads here on the board, condemning the high-handed, corrupt cops and imbecile governments.

Why this double standard folks?

[watashi75]

I have a contradictory view. In addition to number of cars, traffic is also about the amount of time cars stay on the road. If cars stay longer on the road there is more traffic.

If the speed limit is reduced, people will take longer to reach their destination. That is, they have to stay longer on the road, hence more cars on the road and hence more traffic and hence even lesser speed and hence more fuel consumption. Is there something wrong with this logic?

[sridhga]

Originally Posted by watashi75

I have a contradictory view. In addition to number of cars, traffic is also about the amount of time cars stay on the road. If cars stay longer on the road there is more traffic.

If the speed limit is reduced, people will take longer to reach their destination. That is, they have to stay longer on the road, hence more cars on the road and hence more traffic and hence even lesser speed and hence more fuel consumption. Is there something wrong with this logic?

Optimum fuel consumption occurs at the lowest possible speed in the highest gear. That is surely less than 65 miles per hour(100 kmph). It could vary from car to car. However, your hypothesis holds good if the cars are performing below optimum speed. I believe if the traffic is smooth flowing and speed is lesser than the current limit, then you surely save fuel.