Michigan pondering lower speed limits to reduce consumption?

[Msterbeau]

http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID...NEWS06/80702041

I have a better idea. Let us decide for ourselves and give us the option to drive quicker legally.

[Goth Brooks]

Uhm... Michigan speed limits are 55min to 70max.

How much slower do they want us going? They give people a 15mph window to choose from.

[jynxxxedangel]

If the lawmakers REALLY wanted to reduce fuel consumption, they would hasten the National WIFI project.

Think of all the errands involving leaving the house that would become obsolete, if all people could use the internet to do much of their shopping, bill paying, and banking.

[MyViolentMachine]

Hah what a crock of shit. The title should be "Lowering speed limits to make more money on traffic fines for the state"

[Hellion]

Hah what a crock of shit. The title should be "Lowering speed limits to make more money on traffic fines for the state"

Would not surprise me,but if it does happen expect to see alot of SUV's pulled over.

[creatureofthenyte]

That's a bs waste of time, and just another dumb excuse for your governor to waste more of your tax dollars.

Most people in this country never really obey the speed limit signs unless there's a cop nearby watchin anyway.

[Michiko_Dreads]

That's a bs waste of time, and just another dumb excuse for your governor to waste more of your tax dollars.

Most people in this country never really obey the speed limit signs unless there's a cop nearby watchin anyway.

I Agree

[Vater Araignee]

I obey the limit. I try to go the minimum.

In fact I was bitching when they raised the minimum to 55 and my exact words where...

WHAT THE FUCK! That fucking cunt governess is forcing us to pay more tax by forcing us to go faster!

Then I started bitching about congress.

[Homicidalheathen]

Personally I don't think we need to go so fast...it would save lives to

[Nienna]

The amount of money all the new signs would cost will cancel out any money saved...by anyone.

[Fin]

"SURE we'll save a few lives...but millions will be LATE!!"

--Homer Simpson

[Reaper]

I've noticed more lives lost by people not paying attention to what they were doing because of cell phones, reading, being drunk, etc in town than because of going too fast on the highways. So I support Marc's suggestion. They should, however, make the speed limits closer to the same for semis as well as cars. Seen too many instances where a car misjudged the distance of a truck coming up so he could pass someone else and end up about rear-ending the semi. The slower a truck is supposed to go with a faster car speed limit, the better the chance of a serious accident occurring. That is why a lot of states have a flat speed limit for everyone whether it be Kentucky's 65 mph, or Arizona/New Mexico's 75 mph.

[sass_in_the_pants]

"SURE we'll save a few lives...but millions will be LATE!!"

--Homer Simpson

Brilliant. I heart Homer.

[n0Mad]

The amount of money all the new signs would cost will cancel out any money saved...by anyone.

True dat. Plus those DOT employees get paid quite a bit of money to stand around in orange vests, plus hazard pay.

[jynxxxedangel]

Oy..

I was told (by a very reliable source) that the reason our road conditions are so hit-and-miss is because the Road Commision spreads the work out-- so the employees ALWAYS have work, all year round.

I wouldn't be able to sleep with the entire population of Michigan HATING me.

[Nightgaunt]

The amount of money all the new signs would cost will cancel out any money saved...by anyone.

They couldn't even afford to replace all the signs when they raised the limit to 70. It's the spirit of the times...more government intrusion and more highway robbery.

[jynxxxedangel]

They couldn't even afford to replace all the signs when they raised the limit to 70. It's the spirit of the times...more government intrusion and more highway robbery.

They don't count on us having our wits about..they think we are lured by the carrot.

Anyone who's not MAD AS HELL right now about what our country's become, will be the FIRST to fall.

I'll be out in the streets, beating on my biggest roasting pan, calling the people "To Arms!!"

Watch me.

[n0Mad]

I'll be out in the streets, beating on my biggest roasting pan, calling the people "To Arms!!"

If that's the case, you're going to have to get something a lot more substantial than your .380.

"Anyone who would give up a bit of liberty for a bit of security deserves neither and is sure to lose both." -Ben Franklin

[jynxxxedangel]

If that's the case, you're going to have to get something a lot more substantial than your .380.

"Anyone who would give up a bit of liberty for a bit of security deserves neither and is sure to lose both." -Ben Franklin

Don't worry..I'm good on that, dear Spook..

[Enishi]

This makes me want to drive faster than I normally do, grr...

[Troy Spiral (13)]

We need to be careful not to think that what we WANT to be true is true and only look for details to support our desires. We don't like to be told we should change our ways, we don't like to be told what we are doing or thinking might be wrong. That does not mean what we are doing wrong, IS wrong, but we tend to bias our opinions based on what "feels" right, which tends to be a bad way to come to a reasoned conclusion about an important issue. Intuitive judgments are useful for everday incidental things, but not all that useful for long term "big" problems.

Something like:

On average traveling 75 (the average speed that is driven in a 70 mph zone) consumes 27% more than traveling at 65 mph (average in a 60 mph zone), according to the ATA. Bringing speed limits down to 65 mph would save 2.8 billion gallons of diesel fuel for trucks in a decade and reduce CO2 emissions by 31.5 million tons—equal to a year’s CO2 generated by 9 million Americans, or the total population of the State of Connecticut. Automobile consumption of gasoline would drop by 8.7 billion gallons, with an accompanying drop in CO2 emissions of 84.7 million tons.

Sounds more convincing to me. I don't want to say all that detail there is TRUE, but it sure sounds more convincing than "damnit I wana drive as fast as I want to drive." for instance.

We have to do some actual homework before we can make an real judgments. Before we just start complaining we need to look into the details. Fuel consumption does rise as speed increases generally. Is that bad on balance vs time saved and such? No clue.

If we are talking about SAFETY that's a no brainier. Slower is safer. True its really the "driver" that is the problem, but we have to deal with reality, master driving for everyone is not realistic and even the best drivers are still safer if everyone is driving slower. Not that I advocate safety over expedience or capitalism, just saying that its clearly safer to drive slower.

I doubt signs are an issue, if fuel consumption is the concern, changing signs isn't going to outweigh an institutional sea-change of driving speeds. Not that I'm in FAVOR of speed limit changes, just the signage vs a long term fuel savings would be probably something like comparing a bucket of water to an Olympic sized swimming pool.

I seem to remember something about them lowering the speed limits due to the fuel crisis in the (70s?) but the speed limits slowly creeped back up to what they are today due to lowering fuel costs. Not that this EITHER is a definitive argument about anything, but its real food for thought. We need to be careful about just pulling something out of the air or a knee-jerk reaction to change, some anecdotal evidence or just what we "want" or "feel" is true.

[Msterbeau]

I have no quarrel with your data about lower speeds equaling lower consumption Troy... I've kept pretty good track of mine for a couple years now. I think the 27% number is a bit generous. I'd call it more like 10%. But, I want the choice to go a little faster if needed. Let the consumption question sort itself out via gas prices. Those that can afford it will burn more, those that want to save will slow down. The vast majority can't afford to burn it like they used to... they'll make adjustments. Forcing the speed limit down is just a convenient excuse for making it easier to ticket people. I travel 65-70 right now and I get passed by 90% of traffic. If it went down to 60mph, 100% of traffic would be over the limit. Speeds are generally set at 85th percentile... meaning 85% of traffic is at or below that speed. Setting it artificially low just causes problems and frustrations for motorists.

We need to be careful not to think that what we WANT to be true is true and only look for details to support our desires. We don't like to be told we should change our ways, we don't like to be told what we are doing or thinking might be wrong. That does not mean what we are doing wrong, IS wrong, but we tend to bias our opinions based on what "feels" right, which tends to be a bad way to come to a reasoned conclusion about an important issue. Intuitive judgments are useful for everday incidental things, but not all that useful for long term "big" problems.

Something like:

Sounds more convincing to me. I don't want to say all that detail there is TRUE, but it sure sounds more convincing than "damnit I wana drive as fast as I want to drive." for instance.

We have to do some actual homework before we can make an real judgments. Before we just start complaining we need to look into the details. Fuel consumption does rise as speed increases generally. Is that bad on balance vs time saved and such? No clue.

If we are talking about SAFETY that's a no brainier. Slower is safer. True its really the "driver" that is the problem, but we have to deal with reality, master driving for everyone is not realistic and even the best drivers are still safer if everyone is driving slower. Not that I advocate safety over expedience or capitalism, just saying that its clearly safer to drive slower.

I doubt signs are an issue, if fuel consumption is the concern, changing signs isn't going to outweigh an institutional sea-change of driving speeds. Not that I'm in FAVOR of speed limit changes, just the signage vs a long term fuel savings would be probably something like comparing a bucket of water to an Olympic sized swimming pool.

I seem to remember something about them lowering the speed limits due to the fuel crisis in the (70s?) but the speed limits slowly creeped back up to what they are today due to lowering fuel costs. Not that this EITHER is a definitive argument about anything, but its real food for thought. We need to be careful about just pulling something out of the air or a knee-jerk reaction to change, some anecdotal evidence or just what we "want" or "feel" is true.

[tanuki1985]

The amount of money all the new signs would cost will cancel out any money saved...by anyone.

Exactly my thoughts.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I want to highlight the fact that I wasn't really meaning to point out any data or that I have any special access to an accurate consensus of studies. I was more arguing against the style of reasoning used in some of the above arguments.

I just like to try and get at a close approximation of the truth. We tend to use our moods/desires/confidence/personal stories rather than actual data/studies which is far more useful (even if flawed).

I think that quote there was intended to be for diesel fuel and trucks, which from the website i took it from it was a pretty detailed study, not just a single-truck or something. Again though, nothing really particularly noteworthy about a single study.

Just that a real study, even if flawed, is more useful than some of the other "personal" self-centered reasoning tech we often use to our own detriment. I use it myself all the time, so I'm definitely not trying to point any fingers.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Exactly my thoughts.

Not trying to be obstinate, but its unrealistic to think that millions of gallons of fuel over years and years would save less money than changing some signage. Note my (detailed) above posts for ingrained reasons why we tend to come to such unrealistic conclusions.

I'm wrong like 99% of the time, but there is a 1% margin for error. lol