Texas House backs plan to allow 85 mph speed limit

Did Montana do away with it no daylight speed limit? If not then they would still have the distinction of the allowing motorists to drive the fastest.

I did a little research and in 1999 Montana instituted a 75MPH max. Prior to that the daytime speed limit was whatever "reasonable and prudent" for the road.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_Stat...

I would not drive at 85m/hr unless is a real emergency. Don't trust other drivers to stay in the right lane, a lot of people would not move to the right when driving at the speed limit, say 70m/hr, in my way back from Florida I saw a couple of accidents and almost got hit twice from behind by idiots who were driving to fast for the amount of traffic there was in I75 N, anyway today I got on I65 S and a lot of trucks were driving at (55m/hr)something kind of unusual. I wonder if it has something to do with the price of gas, the faster you drive the more gas you spend and the ratio of m/gallon goes down right?

That was the original reason (gas prices)to have speed limits on the first place.

But for people who can afford to drive at that speed, have fun but be very careful.

When I was "a bit" younger I used to drive a "little" faster than I do now. I had my days of over 100 mph in my Austin-Healy and my Buick RoadMONSTER back in the 50's. Lots of fun.

However, I have also had rear tire blowouts twice when I was driving over 80 mph. Not fun trying to control the car or to remove my heart from my throat afterwards.

Now, I try to keep AT the posted speed limit and stay in the right hand lanes. I'm not in that big a hurry when I'm on the interstates.I won't drive over 75 mph. I also don't get as tired driving.

Just one person's perspective on getting there in 1 piece.

To each his own !

The article says they already have roads in Texas with 80mph speed limits. There certainly won't be any "minor" accidents on these 80-85 mph roads. Any accident will almost certainly be a major accident, likely with loss of life.

That's one way to cull the herd...

85 mph limit is a bit extreme - certain death or loss of body parts in an accident.

Cool, but I doubt either one of my old clunkers can push it that high

makes good sense

So there must be roads full of dead bodies in Texas? And in Germany there are still sections of highways without any speed limits. Haven't seen too many accidents there, and there are not a "rural" highways in US meaning. And many people there take seriously "no speed limit" rule and sometimes drive well above 125mph.

But wait, I heard this reasoning before. When was it...? Oh yes, it was 1995 and Congress just repealed 55mph national limit. An something called Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (yes, this one that is pressing hard that RLCs save lifes) predicted thousand of additional deaths from thousands of accidents caused by increase of speed limits. But life is a b**ch, and US Department of Transportation announced that road fatalities in 2010 fell to the lowest level since 1949 (since systematic records were first kept). Fatalities dropped three percent from 2009 levels to 32,788 killed with 1.09 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. So much for IIHS reliability.

So I still will treat this dire predictions of thousands (millions maybe!) additional deaths on roads from increasing limits this 5mph with skepticism. And why you worry about gas usage? You are not paying for it, so if they can afford this sort of driving let them. It's not mandatory to drive with this speed, if you looking for lower gas consumption just drive slower. Why it is always that people know what is best for others? Just take care of yourself, and if you will not drive 45mph on left line (I saw this myself, with speed limit of 65 - rural highway and just couple cars on about mile long strech) you will not be affected by those driving 85mph.

Do you really think it will make that big difference if you crash with 65mph instead of 85mph? If you count on seat belts then there is bad news. You will have bunch of broken bones from seat belts. They can even kill you. And even car with most impressing crash test score will not provide much of protection.

Why, you ask? Because crash test are made for accidents in city driving not highway high speed driving. Test are made in two categories:
1. 35-mph frontal impact and
2. 35-mph side impact.
(see here: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/accidents-h...)

So in reality there will be not much difference for crashing at 65mph or 85mph. For people inside crashed car I mean. So only way to make car safety futures work properly is to limit speed on highways to 35mph. But it was tried before (at 55mph actually) and didn't work too well.

the 85 MPH car
has a blowout next to you,
or
a car in front of you fails to guage the 85 MPH driver's speed correctly and pulls out to pass such that a multicar collision ensues,
or
the 85 MPH car looses control in a curve and slides into you,

all of which could occur at any speed but are more likely when at high speed.

While I do not feel safe driving at such a high speed myself, I think there are some roads where drivers who keep their distance from other cars and stay in the right lane except to pass and slow down in poor weather conditions would be safe.

By the way, when I read the data about traffic deaths declining in 2009 (even tho the number of miles driven grew), I did not see any data about the number of traffic accidents. Does anyone know whether accidents went up or down?

Maybe you should volunteer to do a one-car accident at 65 mph and another at 85. That way we'd have a better idea of just how bad, or good, 85 mph crash is.

They would have to be of the same type. I vote for a head on crash test.

Head on against a tractor trailer going 85 in the opposite direction

The predictions about limbs flying might come true

I drove my '64 Corvair Monza from Indianapolis to some little town in Kentucky in 1966. Drove 85 mph (in 65 mph zone) all the way. Just for grins, I checked my gas mileage when I filled up and got just over 25 mpg. I doubt my wife's Toyota Corolla could do that good at that speed.

I was thinking the same thing, given the size of the rigs these days(double, triples) nothing is going to save you(seat belts or air bags)

Cool, I'll be legal riding through Texas.

Germany has very strict regulations for driver training from the TUV. You don't just write a test, and drive around the block to pass.

25 is quite decent at that rate. I tried to do a similar test myself.

According to the EPA, an 09 TDI Sedan gets 40 MPG on the highway. I was curious to see what speed one must travel to receive that type of mileage on the highway. Typically I see around 42-44. I sped up until I received 40MPG, which occurred ~85 MPH

Comparing speed limits in the US against those in Germany is not really an apples-to-apples comparison.
Like was just said, you LEARN how to drive in Germany. Also, the Autobahn roads are BUILT for such driving, and are maintained far better than US roads (in general).
So, it's far safer to drive fast in Germany than here in the US.
Having said that, I believe US Interstates, for the most part, would be just fine with higher speed limits, when they're not in twisty mountainous areas. 85 may seem a little extreme, but many folks drive 75 or more now.

Yeah, unfortunately in the US the driving test is essentially a breath test on a mirror. It is very easy to cut the number of deaths on the road every year, require people to demonstrate they can actually control a car. Anybody who cannot pass a skill test such as putting the right tire on the shoulder line and keeping it there should only have a very limited license until they can pass the skill test.

I agree, I would like to see mandatory tests at least every 5-10 years for everyone! Knowledge based and also a driving portion as well.

If they raise the limit to 85mph it will be just like the 70mph limit. A lot of cars and trucks will go faster than that.
The tow trucks will have to carry sponges to clean up the mess. Todays cars are not like the old ones. (heavy steel) I have seen accidents at 70mph, the cars just come apart Probably a lot wors the faster you go.

Yea, contrary to what North Americans think, driving is not just 'point and shoot'. There's actually a science to it.

Gee, who'd a thunk?

It may be something new for you, but opposite to your understanding even if you drive 85mph or more you don't really have to have accident. Personally I was driving quite few time with speed over 100mph. And believe or not: no accidents. Of course not every car is good for this speed, if it's something light it is very unstable. But bigger cars have no problems.

Your idea Tuckahoemike is nothing else like pointless crying. I can tell you what is the difference, as I had "pleasure" to see myself this accidents in real life and with real people. And you know what? Not big difference for people inside those cars. They were almost always taken away in body bags if it was head-on or t-bone crash. With roll overs they have more chance to survive.

So instead pointless ideas maybe try to bring something valuable to discussion, not just your own tachophobia.

Texas has just over 500 miles of highway that have a speed limit of 80 for cars. All 500 are on I10 and I20 in west Texas. Flat, wide straight roads, extra wide medians, rattlesnakes, cactus, lots of blue sky and not much else. Many times when you're on these roads you are the only car for miles and miles. Best to have SAT radio to keep you awake as the radio stations are few and coverage is sparce. 85 will make little difference in west Texas. The rest of the state will stay at 75 or below. Keeping trucks in the right lane and not pulling out to pass another truck at their 75 limit is the biggest problem as they will go for miles side by side trying to pass.

You do realize that your argument is in this same class like warnings from IIHS in 1995? They were predicting exactly this same outcome like you do right now. And guess what, it didn't happened.

And don't make me laugh. Do you really think that people are so determined to drive 10 or 20 mph over limit no matter what? So I can tell you that it's a lie. You need proper car to drive non stop 85, most cheap cars is really pain in the behind to drive at this speed. So most people will still drive like they use to: 70-75mph. The only one that have something to complain about are highway cops. It will be for them much harder to ticket somebody for speed.

And if you think that steel cars are safer in accident. Well, guess what will happen to tank crew (50 tons of steel!) if they crash tank at 80mph? I can tell you: they will die from instant deceleration. Same way like people dying in car crashes.

Jgermann you never stop with your pointless rants? If tires blows, if accident happens, if UFO will abduct you from highway (easier at higher speeds of course )

And what number of accidents have to do with anything? Everybody agree that accident at new limit (85mph) is practically always deadly. So number of deaths is relevant in this case but number of accidents not. And number of deaths was significantly higher when speed limit was limited to 55mph. All the time we are talking about highways outside of cities of course. And new speed limit will applied to those rural highways as well.

But like always you have to start with you pseudo scientific theories. But so far fact are like this: since 1995 when national speed limit of 55mph was repealed crashes with fatalities were on decline reaching lowest level since 1949 in 2010. And it's not statistics, it's simple numbers even statistician should be able to read correctly.

Back when I was young, foolish, and immortal I believed 95 to be a nice cruising speed. Of course, that means people have to hit 110 to pass.

Everything is relative, I guess . . .

As a resident of Texas, I'm familiar with the area where they are considering the 85 mph speed limit. On one hand it is a very sparsely populated area. Most often the closest car to you might be 1/2 mile away, BUT if you survived a wreck, you could be a long way from a trauma center. By the time EMTs arrived and determined they needed a helicopter to get you out, it might be too late.

A blowout at that speed is a real possibility; not all tires are rated to sustain that speed, especially when it's 110° in the shade (what shade?).

As stated by others, this section of Interstate is already posted for 80 mph. My guess is that most drivers out there are already pushing 85 anyway.

All that said, I agree that modern cars of quality can be safely driven at those speeds. The rules of any high speed highway need to be enforced, slower traffic must keep to the right. That's one of the reasons the Autobahn can support some traffic traveling twice as fast as the slower lanes.

The cost of fuel and fuel economy is an entire issue on its own. A couple of years ago when 87 octane was $4+ here, there were still those who had to lay rubber at every green light... As long as their pockets are deep enough, who am I to criticize?

The reason I asked about accidents was to see if there was any correlation with deaths - especially when comparing Germany and the US.

I did find some data comparing the two countries.
According to International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group (IRTAD). http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/irtad/pdf/risk.pd.... Germany has many fewer traffic fatalities than the United States.

Measured by Road fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants per year, Germany has 4.5 and the US has 12.3. Measured by Road fatalities per 100,000 motor vehicles, Germann has 7.2 and the US has 15

From Wikipedia:
"The National Maximum Speed Law (NMSL) in the United States was a provision of the 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act that prohibited speed limits higher than 55 mph (90 km/h). It was drafted in response to oil price spikes and supply disruptions during the 1973 oil crisis. While gasoline consumption was expected to fall by 2.2%, the United States Department of Transportation calculated actual savings at 1%. Independent studies suggest savings as low as a half percent.

The law was widely disregarded by motorists and most states subversively opposed the law. Actions ranged from proposing deals for exemption to minimizing speed limit enforcement.

The NMSL was modified in 1987 and 1988 to allow up to 65 mph (105 km/h) limits on certain roads. Congress repealed the NMSL in 1995, fully restoring authority to determine the the maximum speed limits for each state to the U.S. States.

The law's safety benefit, as measured in annual fatalities, was short-lived and was possibly a statistical anomaly"

I draw conclusions different from you about the impact of the 55 MPH speed limit. After enactment, deaths went down; after repeal, deaths went up (even tho they have recently declined) and the deaths per 100 million vehicle miles stayed about the same. Others can make up their own minds based on the statistics.

I tried to find the actual statistical data that was the basis of Ray LaHood’s recent announcement, but have not come up with them. However, looking at the US Statistical Abstract, one finds that the “deaths within 30 days of an accident” (in thousands) were
1980 – 51.1 NMSL enacted in 1974
1990 – 44.6
1995 – 41.8 full repeal of NMSL
2000 – 41.9
2004 – 42.8
2005 – 43.5
2006 – 42.7
2007 – 41.3
2008 – 37.3

accidents (in millions)
1980 – 17.9
1990 – 11.5
1995 – 10.7
2000 – 13.4
2004 – 10.9
2005 – 10.7
2006 – 10.4
2007 – 10.6
2008 – 10.2

Traffic death rates per 100 million vehicle miles
1980 – 3.3
1990 – 2.1
1995 – 1.7
2000 – 1.5
2004 – 1.4
2005 – 1.5
2006 – 1.4
2007 – 1.4
2008 – 1.3

(Table 1102. Motor Vehicle Accidents—Number and Deaths: 1980 to 2008)

As has been discussed elsewhere on this site, cars have been getting safer (seat belts first, then air bags, ABS, traction control, crumple zones, etc). An expectation might be that one would see deaths per traffic accident dropping because of the ability of the car itself to protect the passenger. There does not seem to be a clear pattern, however.

When I drove from Ohio to California recently, I found many places where there were high (to me) speed limits, including a couple of 75-80 mph areas.

Regardless of that, I did not feel compelled to drive that fast; I stay below 70 all the time, and actually prefer 65. For me, the fuel consumption, tire wear, and so on as a result of higher speeds just isn't worth it.

For those who think it is, that's their choice (If they are even thinking about it.)

The problem in this country as compared to Europe is that the drivers here do not have the same practice driving at the speeds they have in Europe. They are used to driving at those speeds.
Some people here think they have to go faster than the speed limits to be macho.
I myself have a heavy foot on the gas pedal, but I hope I know how fast is fast enough.
I drive between NY & FL quite a bit and when traffic backs up and then opens up a lot of drivers try to make up the time they lost in the backup.
It doesn't have to be you, it can be the driver next to you that loses it and you can be a byproduct of their mistake.

I traveled through Montana often a few years ago. When the speed limit was 55, the troopers would issue a "Wasting Energy" citation for $5.00, payable on the spot. I never was stopped, but that's what I heard. When the speed limit was repealed, I observed that most people drove about 82 MPH. The troopers were then issuing speeding tickets to people with Corvettes and Beemers saying that their high speed was unsafe. The problem with that was that the officer became a judge & jury. The locals did not like that, so the legislature settled on 75mph. Most people still drove about 82. I never saw a "Bear in the air" enforcement with the 75 limit.

I wonder what the enforcement point would be. I often drive 8mph over the limit in rural areas and have never had an issue. On I25 in north Colorado 80ish seems to be normal. A Montana state police officer told me once that about 85mph would get me pulled over even though there was no limit. A Colorado state police officer, doing the 55mph limit, pulled over to let me and my motorcycle pass. I proceeded at about 5 over without issue. I got a ticket for doing 10 over and was told it only happened because it was raining. I didn't like it but saw the logic. I'm a fan of driving to fit the conditions but that concept seems to elude many people. I know when revenue enhancement is a goal, the letter of the law rather than the spirit seems to prevail.

Yeah, right. Those damn fender benders at 80mph. It's just happens all the time, people just don't care and are not reporting them.

Jgermann get real. With speed we are talking about there is no safe car to be in during accident. Seat belts are just to make you feel better. If you got accident at 80mph you are probably dead. And even if other car slightly touches you, you are off the road. And unless its smooth shoulder with even prairie past it then you are probably dead too. So give me a brake with all those ABS, seat belts and other things. They work well if you are driving this 30-40mph. If you are twice fast they can just humor you. Why crash test are done at 35mph? And I can assure you, you can't interpolate results when speed will be twice that.

And those tricks you are trying to pull with statistics doesn't work on me. I had very interesting 2 years of statistics and econometrics on university, and it was very enlightening. Especially, when we were choosing data and types of calculations to get certain results. Pure fun for sake of it, but it has given me picture how statistics can be manipulated.

From your post I think that you must be (or were) working for IIHS or something similar, as you are defending even most moronic ideas if they are only in favor of IIHS theories. Same with RLC. IIHS report was discredited by authorities (IIHS said RLC decrease number of accidents, where independent and government reports are AT BEST saying that results are inconclusive). But you are still trying to prove that white is black. They must pay you very well, as you are really persistent and trying very, very hard. And you never got even slight suspicion about IIHS reports, but you are dismissive about every other one if it doesn't agree with IIHS thesis. Makes one think about your intentions.

I did not expect you to agree or even to comment on the numbers.

That is why I commented that we would just let others draw their own conclusion.

You know, legally driving at high speed isn't easy in Europe. Germany is only country without limits on highways (in some places only). The other country with highest speed limit is Poland (since this year highways have 140kmph-about 87.5mph) but they don't have many highways. Most of Europe is 120-130kmph (75-80mph). And if you look at map you will see, that distances between cities are much shorter than in US. And highways in city areas always have speed lowered like in US, because of exit-entrance ramps. And highways in EU are much more loaded with cars than those in rural US areas. So EU highways aren't really so good for high speed driving like US rural highways.

Driving for twenty four years now, I would rather lose a ball joint doing the speed limit compared to the daredevils driving above the posted speed limit. My chances of survival and others (if I wipe them out) are much better.

Energy = 1/2 mass times velocity squared
So your vehicle has 1.71 times as much energy (which must be disipated in an accident) at 85mph as compared to 65mph.
Mark

You're gonna get FUBAR'd.

Which is why an extra 5 mph does matter (as questioned in a previous post). Take a 3000 lb. car (total weight including passengers) at 80 mph = 19.2 million lb-mph of kinetic energy. That same car at 85 mph is ~21.7 million lb-mph of kinetic energy.

Another important factor in survivability is the stopping distance of the vehicle. For example, the difference between running head-on into a solid barrier (say a large concrete bridge post) versus going off of the side of the road on a curve and rolling over several times. The greater the stopping distance, the more survivable the crash (assuming the cabin is not compromised by crushing, impaling, etc., and the occupants are properly restrained by their seat belts).

However, I agree that the likelyhood of surviving an 80 mph crash is probably not much better than surviving an 85 mph crash.

Having driven those roads in west Texas at 80 mph, they are designed and built for that speed. That said, you, as the driver, need to know how to handle that speed and your vehicle needs to be in proper condition to safely operate at that speed. Then, hope you don't run into one of them Jackelopes.

Sounds like a great idea for gas companies.

Unless they raise the minimum speed limit to something that makes sense, like 70mph. When they raised the limit in Florida years ago from 65 to 70 (or was it 70 to 75?) they left the minimum speed limit where it was. That;s stupid. The minimum must be raised as well, otherwise you'll have an even greater disparity of speeds on those sections with the increased maximum speed. People driving too slowly and or in the wrong lane is what makes high speed unsafe, not the speed itself.

If you can't or refuse to drive atleast this fast on limited access roads, get the F off that road. YOU are making it unsafe by going too slow!

... just a little faster than I'd want to drive

--

it's the dog's fault

Faster than I need to drive... A couple of saved minutes in an hour? And, people complain about gas prices?

To go twice as fast, it requires four times as much horsepower. Do the math.

Well the wind in my hair riding with the top down will definitely get an entirely different meaning at 85mph. I can start a new hair style, convertible blown!

85 speed limit? means 100+