On speed limits and their ~enforcement in the U.S.:

https://slate.com/business/2021/12/speed-limit-americas-most-broken-law-history.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Some brief mention of bicycling, regarding the danger imposed by speeders.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 4:12:15 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On speed limits and their ~enforcement in the U.S.:
>
> https://slate.com/business/2021/12/speed-limit-americas-most-broken-law-history.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab
>
> Some brief mention of bicycling, regarding the danger imposed by speeders.

Well, since I was lucky enough to be stopped for driving the speed limit I have to wonder about speeding.

On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 7:12:15 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On speed limits and their ~enforcement in the U.S.:
>
> https://slate.com/business/2021/12/speed-limit-americas-most-broken-law-history.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab
>
> Some brief mention of bicycling, regarding the danger imposed by speeders..
>
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

This is an interesting stat:
"One 1994 survey, for example, looked at crash data since 1987, when many states were permitted to raise speed limits to 65 in rural areas, in a series of carve-outs to the 1974 law, and concluded that the speed limit increase had reduced fatalities by as much as 5 percent,"

This rationale makes a bit of sense too:
"Others have surmised that it is less speeding than the difference of speeds that causes accidents, and higher speed limits encourage everyone to drive in a more self-similar fashion, "

I notice during my commutes, that the closer I get to the pace of traffic (not difficult given the congestion in my area) the more space the drivers seem to give me. My feeling is that a lower speed differential gives them more time to see me.

On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 2:59:43 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 7:12:15 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On speed limits and their ~enforcement in the U.S.:
> >
> > https://slate.com/business/2021/12/speed-limit-americas-most-broken-law-history.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab
> >
> > Some brief mention of bicycling, regarding the danger imposed by speeders.
> >
> >
> > --
> > - Frank Krygowski
> This is an interesting stat:
> "One 1994 survey, for example, looked at crash data since 1987, when many states were permitted to raise speed limits to 65 in rural areas, in a series of carve-outs to the 1974 law, and concluded that the speed limit increase had reduced fatalities by as much as 5 percent,"
>
> This rationale makes a bit of sense too:
> "Others have surmised that it is less speeding than the difference of speeds that causes accidents, and higher speed limits encourage everyone to drive in a more self-similar fashion, "
>
> I notice during my commutes, that the closer I get to the pace of traffic (not difficult given the congestion in my area) the more space the drivers seem to give me. My feeling is that a lower speed differential gives them more time to see me.
Only someone as stupid as you wouldn't realize that some people obeying the speed limit were being put at graver danger from reckless speeders and that it was the speeders that was the problem which wasn't corrected by increasing the speed limits. But continue putting out your stupidity until someone puts a stop to it in a rather painful manner.

On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 7:12:15 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On speed limits and their ~enforcement in the U.S.:
>
> https://slate.com/business/2021/12/speed-limit-americas-most-broken-law-history.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab
>
> Some brief mention of bicycling, regarding the danger imposed by speeders..
>
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

Also, in massachusetts during the pandemic the traffic volume was effectively halved, but the _number_ of accidents remained the same as did the number of speeding fines. The number of incidents in which the speed was in excess of 85 MPH went up dramatically. Unfortunately, as the volume has been increasing, it doesn't seem as if the number of people speeding has declined.

On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 7:31:34 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 7:12:15 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On speed limits and their ~enforcement in the U.S.:
> >
> > https://slate.com/business/2021/12/speed-limit-americas-most-broken-law-history.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab
> >
> > Some brief mention of bicycling, regarding the danger imposed by speeders.
> >
> >
> > --
> > - Frank Krygowski
> Also, in massachusetts during the pandemic the traffic volume was effectively halved, but the _number_ of accidents remained the same as did the number of speeding fines. The number of incidents in which the speed was in excess of 85 MPH went up dramatically. Unfortunately, as the volume has been increasing, it doesn't seem as if the number of people speeding has declined.
And that doesn't ring any sort of bell with you. Perhaps you should just continue trying to pass off copyrighted material as your own.

On 12/17/2021 5:59 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 7:12:15 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On speed limits and their ~enforcement in the U.S.:
>>
>> https://slate.com/business/2021/12/speed-limit-americas-most-broken-law-history.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab
>>
>> Some brief mention of bicycling, regarding the danger imposed by speeders.
>>
>>
>> --
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> This is an interesting stat:
> "One 1994 survey, for example, looked at crash data since 1987, when many states were permitted to raise speed limits to 65 in rural areas, in a series of carve-outs to the 1974 law, and concluded that the speed limit increase had reduced fatalities by as much as 5 percent,"
>
> This rationale makes a bit of sense too:
> "Others have surmised that it is less speeding than the difference of speeds that causes accidents, and higher speed limits encourage everyone to drive in a more self-similar fashion,"
>
> I notice during my commutes, that the closer I get to the pace of traffic (not difficult given the congestion in my area) the more space the drivers seem to give me. My feeling is that a lower speed differential gives them more time to see me.

The entire issue is pretty complex. I won't re-read the article, but
IIRC they said raising speed limits sometimes does reduce crash counts.
However, crashes that do occur are more severe.

As to matching traffic speed: We have a ten mile stretch of very twisty
inner-city freeway, with a 50 mph limit. Some years back, the crash
count was very high, and I don't doubt that the rather extreme speed
differentials were part of that. Speed differentials and crash counts
went way down when they employed speed cameras (set for 60 mph). The
cameras are now gone, but the state patrol has large signs proclaiming
it to be a "no tolerance" zone, and an electronic "days since last
serious crash" sign that changes daily. (It's now saying something like
4 days, IIRC.)

So do people drive 50 mph? No. Or rather, almost nobody does. After some
trial and error, I decided 55 to 57 best matches other motorists, and
leads to the lowest amount of lane changing to pass or go allow passing.

But that brings up another point: How much time does 57 save me vs. 50
mph? If I'm driving the entire 10 miles, it's only 90 seconds
difference. And that's the general rule, I think: most time savings are,
practically speaking, negligible.

The weird part is the psychology. There's something about being in a car
that makes slowing even one mile per hour, or wasting an extra 30
seconds, seem like a terrible imposition.

.. . . .

The most bike-relevant part of the article was the condemnation of the
"85% rule." As they said, it's homage to the risk tolerance of the
driver regarding his own safety, NOT the safety of others, like cyclists.

And it may be the only example of a law with which we let the violators
modify to their own preference.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 8:14:07 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 12/17/2021 5:59 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 7:12:15 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On speed limits and their ~enforcement in the U.S.:
> >>
> >> https://slate.com/business/2021/12/speed-limit-americas-most-broken-law-history.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab
> >>
> >> Some brief mention of bicycling, regarding the danger imposed by speeders.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> - Frank Krygowski
> >
> > This is an interesting stat:
> > "One 1994 survey, for example, looked at crash data since 1987, when many states were permitted to raise speed limits to 65 in rural areas, in a series of carve-outs to the 1974 law, and concluded that the speed limit increase had reduced fatalities by as much as 5 percent,"
> >
> > This rationale makes a bit of sense too:
> > "Others have surmised that it is less speeding than the difference of speeds that causes accidents, and higher speed limits encourage everyone to drive in a more self-similar fashion,"
> >
> > I notice during my commutes, that the closer I get to the pace of traffic (not difficult given the congestion in my area) the more space the drivers seem to give me. My feeling is that a lower speed differential gives them more time to see me.
> The entire issue is pretty complex. I won't re-read the article, but
> IIRC they said raising speed limits sometimes does reduce crash counts.
> However, crashes that do occur are more severe.
>
> As to matching traffic speed: We have a ten mile stretch of very twisty
> inner-city freeway, with a 50 mph limit. Some years back, the crash
> count was very high, and I don't doubt that the rather extreme speed
> differentials were part of that. Speed differentials and crash counts
> went way down when they employed speed cameras (set for 60 mph). The
> cameras are now gone, but the state patrol has large signs proclaiming
> it to be a "no tolerance" zone, and an electronic "days since last
> serious crash" sign that changes daily. (It's now saying something like
> 4 days, IIRC.)
>
> So do people drive 50 mph? No. Or rather, almost nobody does. After some
> trial and error, I decided 55 to 57 best matches other motorists, and
> leads to the lowest amount of lane changing to pass or go allow passing.
>
> But that brings up another point: How much time does 57 save me vs. 50
> mph? If I'm driving the entire 10 miles, it's only 90 seconds
> difference. And that's the general rule, I think: most time savings are,
> practically speaking, negligible.
>
> The weird part is the psychology. There's something about being in a car
> that makes slowing even one mile per hour, or wasting an extra 30
> seconds, seem like a terrible imposition.
>
> . . . .
>
> The most bike-relevant part of the article was the condemnation of the
> "85% rule." As they said, it's homage to the risk tolerance of the
> driver regarding his own safety, NOT the safety of others, like cyclists.
>
> And it may be the only example of a law with which we let the violators
> modify to their own preference.

I think you'd find that that 85% would not like spending 2 weeks in jail for speeding, losing their cars on the second conviction and their license for the third, and a felonious prison term for a fourth. It doesn't take much of this accompanied by Lame Stream Media coverage to bring these speeds down.

This isn't a case of no one caring who gets killed you understand. Just three blocks away there is a grade school and playground past which people drive over 10 mph over the limit including passing people who are obeying the law on a barely 2 lane wide street. This is coming to a street near you while you're attempting to pull over and turn left.

On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 11:14:07 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 12/17/2021 5:59 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 7:12:15 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On speed limits and their ~enforcement in the U.S.:
> >>
> >> https://slate.com/business/2021/12/speed-limit-americas-most-broken-law-history.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab
> >>
> >> Some brief mention of bicycling, regarding the danger imposed by speeders.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> - Frank Krygowski
> >
> > This is an interesting stat:
> > "One 1994 survey, for example, looked at crash data since 1987, when many states were permitted to raise speed limits to 65 in rural areas, in a series of carve-outs to the 1974 law, and concluded that the speed limit increase had reduced fatalities by as much as 5 percent,"
> >
> > This rationale makes a bit of sense too:
> > "Others have surmised that it is less speeding than the difference of speeds that causes accidents, and higher speed limits encourage everyone to drive in a more self-similar fashion,"
> >
> > I notice during my commutes, that the closer I get to the pace of traffic (not difficult given the congestion in my area) the more space the drivers seem to give me. My feeling is that a lower speed differential gives them more time to see me.
> The entire issue is pretty complex. I won't re-read the article, but
> IIRC they said raising speed limits sometimes does reduce crash counts.
> However, crashes that do occur are more severe.
>
> As to matching traffic speed: We have a ten mile stretch of very twisty
> inner-city freeway, with a 50 mph limit. Some years back, the crash
> count was very high, and I don't doubt that the rather extreme speed
> differentials were part of that. Speed differentials and crash counts
> went way down when they employed speed cameras (set for 60 mph). The
> cameras are now gone, but the state patrol has large signs proclaiming
> it to be a "no tolerance" zone, and an electronic "days since last
> serious crash" sign that changes daily. (It's now saying something like
> 4 days, IIRC.)
>
> So do people drive 50 mph? No. Or rather, almost nobody does. After some
> trial and error, I decided 55 to 57 best matches other motorists, and
> leads to the lowest amount of lane changing to pass or go allow passing.
>
> But that brings up another point: How much time does 57 save me vs. 50
> mph? If I'm driving the entire 10 miles, it's only 90 seconds
> difference. And that's the general rule, I think: most time savings are,
> practically speaking, negligible.

Those savings are actually tangible for me. I drive a Honda Element. I found that dropping my speed from 70 to 60 on the highway results in a mileage increase of over 10%. I have a relatively short driving commute that's almost all highway and takes about 25 minutes under favorable traffic conditions. The time difference between 70 vs 60? < 5 minutes. Getting a 10% mileage increase seems well worth that to me, plus ther's the added benefit of actually going slower than most of the traffic which I was surprised is actually stress reducing.

> The weird part is the psychology. There's something about being in a car
> that makes slowing even one mile per hour, or wasting an extra 30
> seconds, seem like a terrible imposition.

Apathy helps :)

>
> . . . .
>
> The most bike-relevant part of the article was the condemnation of the
> "85% rule." As they said, it's homage to the risk tolerance of the
> driver regarding his own safety, NOT the safety of others, like cyclists.
>
> And it may be the only example of a law with which we let the violators
> modify to their own preference.
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

Am 17.12.2021 um 17:49 schrieb funkma...@hotmail.com:
> On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 11:14:07 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski
> wrote:

>> But that brings up another point: How much time does 57 save me vs.
>> 50 mph? If I'm driving the entire 10 miles, it's only 90 seconds
>> difference. And that's the general rule, I think: most time savings
>> are, practically speaking, negligible.
>
> Those savings are actually tangible for me. I drive a Honda Element.
> I found that dropping my speed from 70 to 60 on the highway results
> in a mileage increase of over 10%. I have a relatively short driving
> commute that's almost all highway and takes about 25 minutes under
> favorable traffic conditions. The time difference between 70 vs 60? <
> 5 minutes. Getting a 10% mileage increase seems well worth that to
> me, plus ther's the added benefit of actually going slower than most
> of the traffic which I was surprised is actually stress reducing.

Theoretically, driving 70 instead of 60 should give you a 36% milage
decrease (on every car). Practically, nobody drives perfectly the same
all the time but this kind of difference is extremely noticable.

Recently, I had to drive to a funeral some 300 miles away, rushing there
on the Friday afternoon and rushing home on the Sunday on the Autobahn
(with my son playing in a concert for the 50th anniversaty of his music
scholl in the late afternoon).
Doing a constant 90 on the way there and going 100 to 115 on the empty
roads on the way home, I had to re-fuel after 300 miles as opposed to
the normal 500 miles per tank (gaining 20 minutes by going 115 tops
instead of the usual 80 and losing 15 minutes at the additional fuelling
stop - doing my usual 70 to 80 would have needed one fuel stop on the
way out and none on the way back).

Only on cars with really large fuel tanks, the saved time of driving
fast is more than the lost time of the extra fuel stops.

On 12/17/2021 11:49 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 11:14:07 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> But that brings up another point: How much time does 57 save me vs. 50
>> mph? If I'm driving the entire 10 miles, it's only 90 seconds
>> difference. And that's the general rule, I think: most time savings are,
>> practically speaking, negligible.
>
> Those savings are actually tangible for me. I drive a Honda Element. I found that dropping my speed from 70 to 60 on the highway results in a mileage increase of over 10%. I have a relatively short driving commute that's almost all highway and takes about 25 minutes under favorable traffic conditions. The time difference between 70 vs 60? < 5 minutes. Getting a 10% mileage increase seems well worth that to me, plus ther's the added benefit of actually going slower than most of the traffic which I was surprised is actually stress reducing.

About the gas mileage: I do pay a lot of attention to that, and the fact
that our Mazda 3 averages about 40 mpg makes me feel a little better
about the surprising amount of driving I'm now having to do.

But I often think in terms of benefits and detriments. And it's occurred
to me that with enough data, I could correlate gas consumption and
speed. From there, I could in principle compare two speeds and figure
out how much money I was saving per hour of slower driving. It would
effectively be the hourly wage for that time differential.

I suspect the "wage" would be small. But of course, it wouldn't include
the environmental benefits of using less gas.

Along those lines: I once took a stab at an equation for gas mileage,
based on weight, percent grade, tire rolling resistance Crr, CdA, air
density, engine efficiency, BTU/gallon etc. It's interesting to look at
and play with, but there are too many constants to easily assess. In
fact, some of the "constants" (like Crr) are actually variables.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 12:44:11 PM UTC-5, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> Am 17.12.2021 um 17:49 schrieb funkma...@hotmail.com:
> > On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 11:14:07 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski
> > wrote:
>
> >> But that brings up another point: How much time does 57 save me vs.
> >> 50 mph? If I'm driving the entire 10 miles, it's only 90 seconds
> >> difference. And that's the general rule, I think: most time savings
> >> are, practically speaking, negligible.
> >
> > Those savings are actually tangible for me. I drive a Honda Element.
> > I found that dropping my speed from 70 to 60 on the highway results
> > in a mileage increase of over 10%. I have a relatively short driving
> > commute that's almost all highway and takes about 25 minutes under
> > favorable traffic conditions. The time difference between 70 vs 60? <
> > 5 minutes. Getting a 10% mileage increase seems well worth that to
> > me, plus ther's the added benefit of actually going slower than most
> > of the traffic which I was surprised is actually stress reducing.
>
> Theoretically, driving 70 instead of 60 should give you a 36% milage
> decrease (on every car). Practically, nobody drives perfectly the same
> all the time but this kind of difference is extremely noticable.

I'd say a lot of that has to do with the aerodynamics of the vehicle, terrain, gearing, etc....A boxy vehicle is going to see a much larger drag coefficient increase between 60-70 than one designed to cheat the wind (square law effect). I don't think you could apply 36% to _every_ car. For me on my daily trip the difference is ~ 22mpg to ~25 MPG, then throw in those days that are very cold, traffic ty-ups, it all averages out to only about 10%

>
> Recently, I had to drive to a funeral some 300 miles away, rushing there
> on the Friday afternoon and rushing home on the Sunday on the Autobahn
> (with my son playing in a concert for the 50th anniversaty of his music
> scholl in the late afternoon).
> Doing a constant 90 on the way there and going 100 to 115 on the empty
> roads on the way home, I had to re-fuel after 300 miles as opposed to
> the normal 500 miles per tank (gaining 20 minutes by going 115 tops
> instead of the usual 80 and losing 15 minutes at the additional fuelling
> stop - doing my usual 70 to 80 would have needed one fuel stop on the
> way out and none on the way back).

It takes you 15 minutes to fill your tank?

>
> Only on cars with really large fuel tanks, the saved time of driving
> fast is more than the lost time of the extra fuel stops.

On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 12:51:28 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 12/17/2021 11:49 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 11:14:07 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>
> >> But that brings up another point: How much time does 57 save me vs. 50
> >> mph? If I'm driving the entire 10 miles, it's only 90 seconds
> >> difference. And that's the general rule, I think: most time savings are,
> >> practically speaking, negligible.
> >
> > Those savings are actually tangible for me. I drive a Honda Element. I found that dropping my speed from 70 to 60 on the highway results in a mileage increase of over 10%. I have a relatively short driving commute that's almost all highway and takes about 25 minutes under favorable traffic conditions. The time difference between 70 vs 60? < 5 minutes. Getting a 10% mileage increase seems well worth that to me, plus ther's the added benefit of actually going slower than most of the traffic which I was surprised is actually stress reducing.
> About the gas mileage: I do pay a lot of attention to that, and the fact
> that our Mazda 3 averages about 40 mpg makes me feel a little better
> about the surprising amount of driving I'm now having to do.
>
> But I often think in terms of benefits and detriments. And it's occurred
> to me that with enough data, I could correlate gas consumption and
> speed. From there, I could in principle compare two speeds and figure
> out how much money I was saving per hour of slower driving. It would
> effectively be the hourly wage for that time differential.
>
> I suspect the "wage" would be small. But of course, it wouldn't include
> the environmental benefits of using less gas.
>
> Along those lines: I once took a stab at an equation for gas mileage,
> based on weight, percent grade, tire rolling resistance Crr, CdA, air
> density, engine efficiency, BTU/gallon etc. It's interesting to look at
> and play with, but there are too many constants to easily assess. In
> fact, some of the "constants" (like Crr) are actually variables.

There are also weather factors to consider. Colder days see poorer fuel economy, and then theres the winter fuel formulation which also drops economy. But, I had a honda CRX back in the 80's. I remember it made no difference how I drove it - from jack-rabbit starts and keeping up with the fastest highway traffic to following every fuel economy rule, the damn thing got 40 MPG every time.

On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 9:44:11 AM UTC-8, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> Am 17.12.2021 um 17:49 schrieb funkma...@hotmail.com:
> > On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 11:14:07 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski
> > wrote:
>
> >> But that brings up another point: How much time does 57 save me vs.
> >> 50 mph? If I'm driving the entire 10 miles, it's only 90 seconds
> >> difference. And that's the general rule, I think: most time savings
> >> are, practically speaking, negligible.
> >
> > Those savings are actually tangible for me. I drive a Honda Element.
> > I found that dropping my speed from 70 to 60 on the highway results
> > in a mileage increase of over 10%. I have a relatively short driving
> > commute that's almost all highway and takes about 25 minutes under
> > favorable traffic conditions. The time difference between 70 vs 60? <
> > 5 minutes. Getting a 10% mileage increase seems well worth that to
> > me, plus ther's the added benefit of actually going slower than most
> > of the traffic which I was surprised is actually stress reducing.
> Theoretically, driving 70 instead of 60 should give you a 36% milage
> decrease (on every car). Practically, nobody drives perfectly the same
> all the time but this kind of difference is extremely noticable.
>
> Recently, I had to drive to a funeral some 300 miles away, rushing there
> on the Friday afternoon and rushing home on the Sunday on the Autobahn
> (with my son playing in a concert for the 50th anniversaty of his music
> scholl in the late afternoon).
> Doing a constant 90 on the way there and going 100 to 115 on the empty
> roads on the way home, I had to re-fuel after 300 miles as opposed to
> the normal 500 miles per tank (gaining 20 minutes by going 115 tops
> instead of the usual 80 and losing 15 minutes at the additional fuelling
> stop - doing my usual 70 to 80 would have needed one fuel stop on the
> way out and none on the way back).
>
> Only on cars with really large fuel tanks, the saved time of driving
> fast is more than the lost time of the extra fuel stops.

Do you still consider the Autobahn safe enough for those speeds with all of the eastern Europeans coming over the boarder and pretending to know how to drive? I drive slow because I'm concerned about my reaction time to drivers that do not know how to drive at all, driving at elevated speeds. If they stayed in the faster lanes it wouldn't be any problem but they are just as likely to come by at 90 mph in the slow lane from behind a truck so that they are invisible until it is too late to avoid them. If I had the experience that drivers were going to drive according to the rules of the road I would not be so concerned about speeders but experience shows me that you cannot trust the driving of someone from El Salvador that just got his first car and wants to show people what a great driver he is.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 11:14:02 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 12/17/2021 5:59 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 7:12:15 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On speed limits and their ~enforcement in the U.S.:
>>>
>>> https://slate.com/business/2021/12/speed-limit-americas-most-broken-law-history.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab
>>>
>>> Some brief mention of bicycling, regarding the danger imposed by speeders.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>> This is an interesting stat:
>> "One 1994 survey, for example, looked at crash data since 1987, when many states were permitted to raise speed limits to 65 in rural areas, in a series of carve-outs to the 1974 law, and concluded that the speed limit increase had reduced fatalities by as much as 5 percent,"
>>
>> This rationale makes a bit of sense too:
>> "Others have surmised that it is less speeding than the difference of speeds that causes accidents, and higher speed limits encourage everyone to drive in a more self-similar fashion,"
>>
>> I notice during my commutes, that the closer I get to the pace of traffic (not difficult given the congestion in my area) the more space the drivers seem to give me. My feeling is that a lower speed differential gives them more time to see me.
>
>The entire issue is pretty complex. I won't re-read the article, but
>IIRC they said raising speed limits sometimes does reduce crash counts.
>However, crashes that do occur are more severe.
>
>As to matching traffic speed: We have a ten mile stretch of very twisty
>inner-city freeway, with a 50 mph limit. Some years back, the crash
>count was very high, and I don't doubt that the rather extreme speed
>differentials were part of that. Speed differentials and crash counts
>went way down when they employed speed cameras (set for 60 mph). The
>cameras are now gone, but the state patrol has large signs proclaiming
>it to be a "no tolerance" zone, and an electronic "days since last
>serious crash" sign that changes daily. (It's now saying something like
>4 days, IIRC.)
>
>So do people drive 50 mph? No. Or rather, almost nobody does. After some
>trial and error, I decided 55 to 57 best matches other motorists, and
>leads to the lowest amount of lane changing to pass or go allow passing.
>
>But that brings up another point: How much time does 57 save me vs. 50
>mph? If I'm driving the entire 10 miles, it's only 90 seconds
>difference. And that's the general rule, I think: most time savings are,
>practically speaking, negligible.
>
>The weird part is the psychology. There's something about being in a car
>that makes slowing even one mile per hour, or wasting an extra 30
>seconds, seem like a terrible imposition.
>
>. . . .
>
>The most bike-relevant part of the article was the condemnation of the
>"85% rule." As they said, it's homage to the risk tolerance of the
>driver regarding his own safety, NOT the safety of others, like cyclists.
>
>And it may be the only example of a law with which we let the violators
>modify to their own preference.

Years ago I read an article about speeding which referenced a test or
study made on a stretch of road, near or in Chi cage, I think. They
recorded the average speed of traffic and then changed the speed limit
signs, and recorded the average speed, and repeated this a number of
times. The conclusion is that, on the average, drivers drive at a
speed at which they feel comfortable disregarding the posted limits.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 12:51:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 12/17/2021 11:49 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 11:14:07 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>> But that brings up another point: How much time does 57 save me vs. 50
>>> mph? If I'm driving the entire 10 miles, it's only 90 seconds
>>> difference. And that's the general rule, I think: most time savings are,
>>> practically speaking, negligible.
>>
>> Those savings are actually tangible for me. I drive a Honda Element. I found that dropping my speed from 70 to 60 on the highway results in a mileage increase of over 10%. I have a relatively short driving commute that's almost all highway and takes about 25 minutes under favorable traffic conditions. The time difference between 70 vs 60? < 5 minutes. Getting a 10% mileage increase seems well worth that to me, plus ther's the added benefit of actually going slower than most of the traffic which I was surprised is actually stress reducing.
>
>About the gas mileage: I do pay a lot of attention to that, and the fact
>that our Mazda 3 averages about 40 mpg makes me feel a little better
>about the surprising amount of driving I'm now having to do.
>
>But I often think in terms of benefits and detriments. And it's occurred
>to me that with enough data, I could correlate gas consumption and
>speed. From there, I could in principle compare two speeds and figure
>out how much money I was saving per hour of slower driving. It would
>effectively be the hourly wage for that time differential.
>
>I suspect the "wage" would be small. But of course, it wouldn't include
>the environmental benefits of using less gas.
>
>Along those lines: I once took a stab at an equation for gas mileage,
>based on weight, percent grade, tire rolling resistance Crr, CdA, air
>density, engine efficiency, BTU/gallon etc. It's interesting to look at
>and play with, but there are too many constants to easily assess. In
>fact, some of the "constants" (like Crr) are actually variables.

Does anyone remember Uncle Tom McCahill, who wrote about automobiles
for a number of magazines including Mechanix Illustrated Magazine. He
was, perhaps, the first writer to write well though out road tests for
all sorts of automobiles in the late '40's and '50's.

Anyway, one of his "tests" was to drive from the east coast to the
west coast religiously obeying all posted speed limits, remember this
was before the U.S, built their own Autobahn system, and then return,
driving at the fastest speeds possible. The difference was only a
matter of a few hours over approximately a 2500 mile trip.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 12/17/2021 6:23 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 11:14:02 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>>
>> The most bike-relevant part of the article was the condemnation of the
>> "85% rule." As they said, it's homage to the risk tolerance of the
>> driver regarding his own safety, NOT the safety of others, like cyclists.
>>
>> And it may be the only example of a law with which we let the violators
>> modify to their own preference.
>
>
> Years ago I read an article about speeding which referenced a test or
> study made on a stretch of road, near or in Chi cage, I think. They
> recorded the average speed of traffic and then changed the speed limit
> signs, and recorded the average speed, and repeated this a number of
> times. The conclusion is that, on the average, drivers drive at a
> speed at which they feel comfortable disregarding the posted limits.

IME that seems to vary by region - and more specifically, by city size
and/or density. Most of my driving these days (which is much more than
I'd prefer) is pretty open territory between cities of moderate size.
With my cruise control set to the speed limit, I have cars passing me
with some frequency, but most are only about 5 over the limit. (I judge
that by comparison with walking and biking speeds.)

But on freeways in large cities, the atmosphere is much different. It's
not unusual to see people rushing like hell to get up and tailgate a
vehicle they can't pass; or flying by to be one car ahead on a backed-up
exit ramp; or diving across two lanes of traffic for an opening to pass
on the right, then diving back left again.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 12/17/2021 7:25 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 12:51:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>>> On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 11:14:07 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But that brings up another point: How much time does 57 save me vs. 50
>>>> mph? If I'm driving the entire 10 miles, it's only 90 seconds
>>>> difference. And that's the general rule, I think: most time savings are,
>>>> practically speaking, negligible.
>
> Does anyone remember Uncle Tom McCahill, who wrote about automobiles
> for a number of magazines including Mechanix Illustrated Magazine. He
> was, perhaps, the first writer to write well though out road tests for
> all sorts of automobiles in the late '40's and '50's.
>
> Anyway, one of his "tests" was to drive from the east coast to the
> west coast religiously obeying all posted speed limits, remember this
> was before the U.S, built their own Autobahn system, and then return,
> driving at the fastest speeds possible. The difference was only a
> matter of a few hours over approximately a 2500 mile trip.

I remember Tom McCahill well!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 21:29:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 12/17/2021 6:23 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 11:14:02 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The most bike-relevant part of the article was the condemnation of the
>>> "85% rule." As they said, it's homage to the risk tolerance of the
>>> driver regarding his own safety, NOT the safety of others, like cyclists.
>>>
>>> And it may be the only example of a law with which we let the violators
>>> modify to their own preference.
>>
>>
>> Years ago I read an article about speeding which referenced a test or
>> study made on a stretch of road, near or in Chi cage, I think. They
>> recorded the average speed of traffic and then changed the speed limit
>> signs, and recorded the average speed, and repeated this a number of
>> times. The conclusion is that, on the average, drivers drive at a
>> speed at which they feel comfortable disregarding the posted limits.
>
>IME that seems to vary by region - and more specifically, by city size
>and/or density. Most of my driving these days (which is much more than
>I'd prefer) is pretty open territory between cities of moderate size.
>With my cruise control set to the speed limit, I have cars passing me
>with some frequency, but most are only about 5 over the limit. (I judge
>that by comparison with walking and biking speeds.)
>
>But on freeways in large cities, the atmosphere is much different. It's
>not unusual to see people rushing like hell to get up and tailgate a
>vehicle they can't pass; or flying by to be one car ahead on a backed-up
>exit ramp; or diving across two lanes of traffic for an opening to pass
>on the right, then diving back left again.

We live about 200 km N.E. of Bangkok on the main highway to the North
East and visit Bangkok, usually once a month, or so. In some cases we
might have an appointment somewhere and my wife will drive a bit like
you describe in order to "get there on time". Other times not feeling
in a hurry she will drive a bit more sensibly (as I describe it). Out
of curiosity I've timed the trip a number of times and regardless of
how she drives the actual clock time from the house to the same spot
in Bangkok is within, perhaps, 10 minutes of the same time.

As for my wife's driving, Well, it is HER car as opposed to MY pickup
truck so she drives it (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 21:33:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 12/17/2021 7:25 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 12:51:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>>> On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 11:14:07 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> But that brings up another point: How much time does 57 save me vs. 50
>>>>> mph? If I'm driving the entire 10 miles, it's only 90 seconds
>>>>> difference. And that's the general rule, I think: most time savings are,
>>>>> practically speaking, negligible.
>>
>> Does anyone remember Uncle Tom McCahill, who wrote about automobiles
>> for a number of magazines including Mechanix Illustrated Magazine. He
>> was, perhaps, the first writer to write well though out road tests for
>> all sorts of automobiles in the late '40's and '50's.
>>
>> Anyway, one of his "tests" was to drive from the east coast to the
>> west coast religiously obeying all posted speed limits, remember this
>> was before the U.S, built their own Autobahn system, and then return,
>> driving at the fastest speeds possible. The difference was only a
>> matter of a few hours over approximately a 2500 mile trip.
>
>I remember Tom McCahill well!

Andrew (who I believe is a Corvair freak) might be interested that
Uncle Tom tested the Chevrolet Corvair in 1959 and reported that he
was pleased with the handling characteristics and that the Corvair
handled better than the 1959 Porsche. (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 12/17/2021 10:38 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 21:33:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 12/17/2021 7:25 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 12:51:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 11:14:07 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But that brings up another point: How much time does 57 save me vs. 50
>>>>>> mph? If I'm driving the entire 10 miles, it's only 90 seconds
>>>>>> difference. And that's the general rule, I think: most time savings are,
>>>>>> practically speaking, negligible.
>>>
>>> Does anyone remember Uncle Tom McCahill, who wrote about automobiles
>>> for a number of magazines including Mechanix Illustrated Magazine. He
>>> was, perhaps, the first writer to write well though out road tests for
>>> all sorts of automobiles in the late '40's and '50's.
>>>
>>> Anyway, one of his "tests" was to drive from the east coast to the
>>> west coast religiously obeying all posted speed limits, remember this
>>> was before the U.S, built their own Autobahn system, and then return,
>>> driving at the fastest speeds possible. The difference was only a
>>> matter of a few hours over approximately a 2500 mile trip.
>>
>> I remember Tom McCahill well!
>
> Andrew (who I believe is a Corvair freak) might be interested that
> Uncle Tom tested the Chevrolet Corvair in 1959 and reported that he
> was pleased with the handling characteristics and that the Corvair
> handled better than the 1959 Porsche. (:-)

Mine was a 1966 Corvair, and it handled beautifully. But that's a
"second generation" model with a more sophisticated rear suspension.

One of my best friends is currently restoring a first generation, swing
axle Corvair. I'll be very interested in giving it a test drive.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 12/18/2021 10:02 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 12/17/2021 10:38 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 21:33:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/17/2021 7:25 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 12:51:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 11:14:07 AM UTC-5,
>>>>>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But that brings up another point: How much time does
>>>>>>> 57 save me vs. 50
>>>>>>> mph? If I'm driving the entire 10 miles, it's only 90
>>>>>>> seconds
>>>>>>> difference. And that's the general rule, I think:
>>>>>>> most time savings are,
>>>>>>> practically speaking, negligible.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone remember Uncle Tom McCahill, who wrote about
>>>> automobiles
>>>> for a number of magazines including Mechanix Illustrated
>>>> Magazine. He
>>>> was, perhaps, the first writer to write well though out
>>>> road tests for
>>>> all sorts of automobiles in the late '40's and '50's.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, one of his "tests" was to drive from the east
>>>> coast to the
>>>> west coast religiously obeying all posted speed limits,
>>>> remember this
>>>> was before the U.S, built their own Autobahn system, and
>>>> then return,
>>>> driving at the fastest speeds possible. The difference
>>>> was only a
>>>> matter of a few hours over approximately a 2500 mile trip.
>>>
>>> I remember Tom McCahill well!
>>
>> Andrew (who I believe is a Corvair freak) might be
>> interested that
>> Uncle Tom tested the Chevrolet Corvair in 1959 and
>> reported that he
>> was pleased with the handling characteristics and that the
>> Corvair
>> handled better than the 1959 Porsche. (:-)
>
> Mine was a 1966 Corvair, and it handled beautifully. But
> that's a "second generation" model with a more sophisticated
> rear suspension.
>
> One of my best friends is currently restoring a first
> generation, swing axle Corvair. I'll be very interested in
> giving it a test drive.
>

One of my brothers has a '62 convertible with one of my
140HP engines. Seems fine but the swing axle does not lend
itself to aggressive cornering (see also Ernie Kovacs). The
early model lines are cute in their own way, just drive it
like an old lady.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 12/18/2021 11:29 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 12/18/2021 10:02 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 12/17/2021 10:38 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 21:33:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/17/2021 7:25 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 12:51:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 11:14:07 AM UTC-5,
>>>>>>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But that brings up another point: How much time does
>>>>>>>> 57 save me vs. 50
>>>>>>>> mph? If I'm driving the entire 10 miles, it's only 90
>>>>>>>> seconds
>>>>>>>> difference. And that's the general rule, I think:
>>>>>>>> most time savings are,
>>>>>>>> practically speaking, negligible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone remember Uncle Tom McCahill, who wrote about
>>>>> automobiles
>>>>> for a number of magazines including Mechanix Illustrated
>>>>> Magazine. He
>>>>> was, perhaps, the first writer to write well though out
>>>>> road tests for
>>>>> all sorts of automobiles in the late '40's and '50's.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, one of his "tests" was to drive from the east
>>>>> coast to the
>>>>> west coast religiously obeying all posted speed limits,
>>>>> remember this
>>>>> was before the U.S, built their own Autobahn system, and
>>>>> then return,
>>>>> driving at the fastest speeds possible. The difference
>>>>> was only a
>>>>> matter of a few hours over approximately a 2500 mile trip.
>>>>
>>>> I remember Tom McCahill well!
>>>
>>> Andrew (who I believe is a Corvair freak) might be
>>> interested that
>>> Uncle Tom tested the Chevrolet Corvair in 1959 and
>>> reported that he
>>> was pleased with the handling characteristics and that the
>>> Corvair
>>> handled better than the 1959 Porsche. (:-)
>>
>> Mine was a 1966 Corvair, and it handled beautifully. But
>> that's a "second generation" model with a more sophisticated
>> rear suspension.
>>
>> One of my best friends is currently restoring a first
>> generation, swing axle Corvair. I'll be very interested in
>> giving it a test drive.
>>
>
> One of my brothers has a '62 convertible with one of my 140HP engines.
> Seems fine but the swing axle does not lend itself to aggressive
> cornering (see also Ernie Kovacs). The early model lines are cute in
> their own way, just drive it like an old lady.

My old lady might find that phrasing offensive! ;-)

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 12/18/2021 10:46 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 12/18/2021 11:29 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 12/18/2021 10:02 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 12/17/2021 10:38 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 21:33:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/17/2021 7:25 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 12:51:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 11:14:07 AM UTC-5,
>>>>>>>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But that brings up another point: How much time does
>>>>>>>>> 57 save me vs. 50
>>>>>>>>> mph? If I'm driving the entire 10 miles, it's only 90
>>>>>>>>> seconds
>>>>>>>>> difference. And that's the general rule, I think:
>>>>>>>>> most time savings are,
>>>>>>>>> practically speaking, negligible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does anyone remember Uncle Tom McCahill, who wrote about
>>>>>> automobiles
>>>>>> for a number of magazines including Mechanix Illustrated
>>>>>> Magazine. He
>>>>>> was, perhaps, the first writer to write well though out
>>>>>> road tests for
>>>>>> all sorts of automobiles in the late '40's and '50's.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, one of his "tests" was to drive from the east
>>>>>> coast to the
>>>>>> west coast religiously obeying all posted speed limits,
>>>>>> remember this
>>>>>> was before the U.S, built their own Autobahn system, and
>>>>>> then return,
>>>>>> driving at the fastest speeds possible. The difference
>>>>>> was only a
>>>>>> matter of a few hours over approximately a 2500 mile
>>>>>> trip.
>>>>>
>>>>> I remember Tom McCahill well!
>>>>
>>>> Andrew (who I believe is a Corvair freak) might be
>>>> interested that
>>>> Uncle Tom tested the Chevrolet Corvair in 1959 and
>>>> reported that he
>>>> was pleased with the handling characteristics and that the
>>>> Corvair
>>>> handled better than the 1959 Porsche. (:-)
>>>
>>> Mine was a 1966 Corvair, and it handled beautifully. But
>>> that's a "second generation" model with a more sophisticated
>>> rear suspension.
>>>
>>> One of my best friends is currently restoring a first
>>> generation, swing axle Corvair. I'll be very interested in
>>> giving it a test drive.
>>>
>>
>> One of my brothers has a '62 convertible with one of my
>> 140HP engines. Seems fine but the swing axle does not lend
>> itself to aggressive cornering (see also Ernie Kovacs).
>> The early model lines are cute in their own way, just
>> drive it like an old lady.
>
> My old lady might find that phrasing offensive! ;-)
>
>
She probably hasn't ever rolled a car.

Poor beginning (note LH rear wheel)
https://img.drivemag.net/media/default/0001/65/corvair-2861-default-large.jpeg

Bad ending
https://cdn.motor1.com/images/mgl/YK41q/s1/unsafe-at-any-speed-1962-chevy-corvair.jpg

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 6:29:24 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 12/17/2021 6:23 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 11:14:02 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> The most bike-relevant part of the article was the condemnation of the
> >> "85% rule." As they said, it's homage to the risk tolerance of the
> >> driver regarding his own safety, NOT the safety of others, like cyclists.
> >>
> >> And it may be the only example of a law with which we let the violators
> >> modify to their own preference.
> >
> >
> > Years ago I read an article about speeding which referenced a test or
> > study made on a stretch of road, near or in Chi cage, I think. They
> > recorded the average speed of traffic and then changed the speed limit
> > signs, and recorded the average speed, and repeated this a number of
> > times. The conclusion is that, on the average, drivers drive at a
> > speed at which they feel comfortable disregarding the posted limits.
> IME that seems to vary by region - and more specifically, by city size
> and/or density. Most of my driving these days (which is much more than
> I'd prefer) is pretty open territory between cities of moderate size.
> With my cruise control set to the speed limit, I have cars passing me
> with some frequency, but most are only about 5 over the limit. (I judge
> that by comparison with walking and biking speeds.)
>
> But on freeways in large cities, the atmosphere is much different. It's
> not unusual to see people rushing like hell to get up and tailgate a
> vehicle they can't pass; or flying by to be one car ahead on a backed-up
> exit ramp; or diving across two lanes of traffic for an opening to pass
> on the right, then diving back left again.

With the cruise control set to the speed limit, I drove from San Leandro to Phoenix in one day and returned the same way, I kind of remember riding my bike over the old Grape Vine but there is a flat perfectly straight freeway there now and I wouldn't even know where to find the way to the Grape Vine.