Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Photo Radar
1788 messages, Last post on Nov 14, 2009 at 3:43 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
| Thanks. | |
|
Here is an interesting article about the economic impact of speed limits: from: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/20/2095878.htm Govt defends speed limits, despite road and economic toll Posted Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:37pm AEDT Updated Tue Nov 20, 2007 2:46pm AEDT An Australian car testing company spokesman says Alice Springs has lost business to remote areas of Spain and Africa because speed testing is no longer allowed in Central Australia. Doug Gould says he believes car testing previously generated between $6 million and $9 million a year in revenue for hotels and other businesses in Alice Springs. But since speed limits were introduced on remote roads, he says international car manufacturers are looking elsewhere to test their vehicles. "Any major brand name you can think of in the world, you name that brand and they have done testing in Alice Springs ... Apart from the Australian companies for whom Alice is close and relatively cheap, I think all the rest will stop." Mr Gould says car manufacturers are usually getting ready to test their vehicles over the next few months, when conditions are hot in Central Australia. But he says he hasn't been approached by any international car manufacturers since speed limits were introduced. "We've certainly had no inquiries from European companies at all this year which would be the first year ... in four or five years that we have had no inquiries." The comments were made a day after the Territory Government came out in defence of its decision to introduce speed limits on the Territory's open roads. The CLP Opposition has criticised the new laws, saying 45 people have been killed on Territory roads since the speed limit was introduced in January, six more than at this time last year. The fact more people have died on Territory roads this year shows the speed limits are pointless, the Opposition says. But Transport Minister Delia Lawrie says it will take years for the new laws to have any real effect. "Right around Australia, in every single state and territory where they have really tried to address their road toll by bringing in a raft of road safety changes, they've all taken years to actually see the reduction in the tolls start to happen." Her comments were backed up by a car safety expert, Professor Jack McLean from Adelaide University's Centre for Automotive Safety Research. "I would think it would take more than 10 years before you'd be able to see anything convincing in a statistical sense just simply because the actual number of fatalities are fortunately very small," he said. |
|
|
This is an older article, but makes for interesting reading on the economic impact of speed limits. There are pros and cons to speed limits too, imagine that! When money talks, politicians do listen  excerpt from: http://www.abd.org.uk/motorwayspeedlimit.htm This paper assesses the consequences of raising the motorway speed limit to 80 mph or removing it altogether. It looks at the likely effects on actual speeds, safety, the environment and the economy. The measure of speed generally used when setting speed limits is the 85th percentile speed. This is the speed at or below which 85% of vehicles travel. On motorways in the UK, the 85th percentile speed for cars is approximately 85 mph, i.e. 15 mph above the current limit. An increase in the speed limit to 80 mph would be expected to lead to a rise in the 85th percentile speed of around 2.5 mph, to 87.5 mph. This would mean a greatly reduced percentage of drivers exceeding the speed limit and the majority would be below the Association of Chief Police Officers' guideline level for prosecution. Removal of the speed limit altogether would be expected to lead to an increase in the 85th percentile speed to no more than 95 mph (10 mph more than today), which is the current level on those autobahns in Germany that are unrestricted. The impact on safety is the most obvious area of concern and there will be those who find it hard to accept that raising the speed limit would not have a detrimental effect. International comparisons, however, show no correlation between motorway speed limits and accident rates. Evidence from the United States indicates that overall accident rates and insurance claims fell when freeway speed limits were raised, contrary to the predictions of many. There is no reason to believe, therefore, that an increase in the motorway speed limit in the UK would result in a higher accident rate and it is possible that it could reduce. The most cautious estimate is that an increased motorway speed limit would be neutral in safety terms. The impact of a raised motorway speed limit on the environment has been assessed in terms of the emissions of toxic pollutants, carbon dioxide and noise. Most of the toxic emissions covered by the National Air Quality Strategy (NAQS) are within their target levels or are set to meet them, as emission controls improve. The increases arising from small changes in actual speeds would be insignificant. Levels of only two pollutants, nitrogen dioxide and particulates, are forecast to exceed their NAQS targets under any foreseeable circumstances. In the case of nitrogen dioxide, the target is likely to be exceeded only in the centres of the largest cities. There will not be a problem along sections of motorway where traffic is flowing freely enough to permit a higher speed limit to be exploited. Transport contributes only a quarter of airborne particulates and most of that comes from the large diesel engines of buses and heavy goods vehicles, which would not be affected by a change in speed limit. The ABD does not accept that global climate change is caused by human activity and emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the burning of fossil fuels. Nevertheless, even if the gas were accepted to be a 'pollutant', an increase in the motorway speed limit would have a negligible effect on its concentration in the atmosphere. It is calculated that removal of the motorway speed limit altogether would increase man-made emissions in the UK by only 0.4% and all CO2 emissions by just 0.016%. Higher speeds would have a small effect on the frequency of traffic noise, most of which is generated between a vehicle's tyres and the road surface. The high proportion of heavy goods vehicles on motorways contributes significantly to overall noise levels and will largely mask any change in the component from cars and other light vehicles. Any increases in noise will be much less than the reductions to be achieved from the Government's programme for resurfacing the motorway and trunk road network. Increasing the motorway speed limit would result in significant economic benefits from time savings and these would greatly outweigh the additional costs of resources consumed, even assuming the high, pre-tax fuel prices which prevailed in 2000. It is estimated that an increase to 80 mph would lead to net savings of around £50 million per year. If the limit were removed altogether, the savings would increase to around £130 million per year. In addition, there would be a significant increase in tax revenue to the Treasury due to increased fuel consumption. This could be as much as £840 million per year if the speed limit were removed altogether. The ABD recommends, therefore, that there should be an immediate increase in the motorway speed limit to 80 mph. After a suitable period of acclimatisation to a higher speed limit, possibly three years, consideration should be given to a further increase or removal of the limit altogether. Training and testing of drivers must be improved in motorway driving skills, particularly judgment of speed and distance in conditions of restricted visibility. The anomaly under which exceeding the speed limit on motorways is punished more severely than on other roads should be removed. |
|
|
Appendix 1 from: http://www.abd.org.uk/motorwayspeedlimit.htm APPENDIX 1 VALUE OF TIME SAVED FROM AN INCREASE IN SPEED LIMIT Vehicle-kilometres travelled on motorways in 1999: Cars 63.3 billion Light vans 8.5 billion Assuming 60% are undertaken in free-flow conditions and 1 km = 0.621 miles, total vehicle-miles per year spent travelling on motorways in free flow: Cars 63.3 x 0.6 x 0.621 = 23.59 billion Light vans 8.5 x 0.6 x 0.621 = 3.17 billion Assuming average speed with current speed limit for cars and light vans is 72mph, time spent travelling per year on motorways in free flow: Cars (23.59 x 109) ÷ 72.0 = 327,638,888.9 hours Light vans (3.17 x 109) ÷ 72.0 = 44,027,777.8 hours a) Speed limit raised to 80 mph If the speed limit were raised to 80 mph, the average speed for cars and light vans is assumed to increase to 74.5 mph. The time spent travelling on motorways per year in free flow would then be: Cars (23.59 x 109) ÷ 74.5 = 316,644,295.3 hours Light vans (3.17 x 109) ÷ 74.5 = 42,550,335.6 hours Thus the time saved per year from an increase in the motorway speed limit to 80mph would be: Cars 10,994,593.6 hours Light vans 1,477,442.2 hours The all-week average values of time for an average vehicle (1998 prices) are: Cars £9.23 per hour Light vans £8.58 per hour The value of time saved per year would then be: Cars 10,994,593.6 x 9.23 = £101,480,099 Light vans 1,477,442.2 x 8.58 = £12,676,454 Total £114,156,553 b) No speed limit If the speed limit were removed, the average speed for cars and light vans is assumed to increase to 82 mph. The time spent travelling on motorways per year in free flow would then be: Cars (23.59 x 109) ÷ 82.0 = 287,682,926.8 hours Light vans (3.17 x 109) ÷ 82.0 = 38,658,536.6 hours Thus the time saved per year from removal of the motorway speed limit would be: Cars 39,955,962.1 hours Light vans 5,369,241.2 hours The value of time saved per year would then be: Cars 39,955,962.1 x 9.23 = £368,793,530 Light vans 5,369,241.2 x 8.58 = £46,068,090 Total £414,861,620
|
|
|
Replying to: vcheng (Mar 25, 2009 5:25 am) APPENDIX 2 CHANGES IN VEHICLE OPERATING COSTS Vehicle-kilometres travelled on motorways in 1999: Cars 63.3 billion Light vans 8.5 billion Assuming 60% are undertaken in free-flow conditions, total vehicle-kilometres affected by an increase in the motorway speed limit: Cars 63.3 x 0.6 = 37.98 billion Light vans 8.5 x 0.6 = 5.10 billion Fuel Costs The relationship between average speed and fuel use is given by the equation: Cars L = 0.1689 - 0.00282(V) + 0.00001910(V2) Light vans L = 0.2026 - 0.00328(V) + 0.00002630(V2) Where: L = fuel consumption (litres per kilometre), V = speed (kilometres per hour) For the current average speed of 72 mph (115.85 kph), fuel consumption is: Cars L = 0.1689 - 0.326697 + 0.256345 = 0.098548 l/km Light vans L = 0.2026 - 0.379988 + 0.352978 = 0.175590 l/km a) Speed limit raised to 80 mph If the speed limit were raised to 80 mph, the average speed for cars and light vans is assumed to increase to 74.5 mph (119.87 kph), so fuel consumption would be: Cars L = 0.1689 - 0.338033 + 0.274444 = 0.105311 l/km Light vansL = 0.2026 - 0.393174 + 0.377900 = 0.187326 l/km The increase in annual fuel consumption would be: Cars (0.105311 - 0.098548) x (37.98 x 109) = 256,858,740 l Light vans (0.187326 - 0.175590) x (5.1 x 109) = 59,853,600 l Total 316,712,340 l The resource cost of fuel and the total tax on fuel (Excise Duty plus VAT) in 1998 and 2000 were: 1998 2000 Resource cost 12.1 p/litre 20.0 p/litre Tax element 55.3 p/litre 58.5 p/litre The increase in resource costs per year would be: At 1998 Prices 316,712,340 x 0.121 = £38,322,193 At 2000 Prices 316,712,340 x 0.200 = £63,342,468 The increase in tax revenue per year would be: At 1998 Prices 316,712,340 x 0.553 = £175,141,924 At 2000 Prices 316,712,340 x 0.585 = £185,276,189 b) No speed limit If the speed limit were removed, the average speed for cars and light vans is assumed to increase to 82.0 mph (131.94 kph), so fuel consumption would be: Cars L = 0.1689 - 0.372071 + 0.332496 = 0.129325 l/km Light vans L = 0.2026 - 0.432763 + 0.457835 = 0.227672 l/km The increase in annual fuel consumption would be: Cars (0.129325 - 0.098548) x (37.98 x 109) = 1,168,910,460 l Light vans (0.227672 - 0.175590) x (5.1 x 109) = 265,618,200 l Total 1,434,528,660 l The increase in resource costs per year would be: At 1998 Prices 1,434,528,660 x 0.121 = £173,577,968 At 2000 Prices 1,434,528,660 x 0.200 = £286,905,732 The increase in tax revenue per year would be: At 1998 Prices 1,434,528,660 x 0.553 = £793,294,349 At 2000 Prices 1,434,528,660 x 0.585 = £839,199,266 Non-Fuel Costs Non-fuel costs are calculated from the formula: C = a1 + (b1 ÷ V) Where: C = cost (pence per kilometre), V = speed (kilometres per hour), a1 and b1 are constants for each vehicle type. Cars C = 3.040 + (15.54 ÷ V) Light vans C = 4.336 + (38.28 ÷ V) For the current average speed of 72 mph (115.85 kph), non-fuel costs are: Cars C = 3.040 + 0.13414 = 3.17414 p/km Light vans C = 4.336 + 0.33043 = 4.66643 p/km a) Speed limit raised to 80 mph If the speed limit were raised to 80 mph, the average speed for cars and light vans is assumed to increase to 74.5 mph (119.87 kph), so non-fuel costs would be: Cars C = 3.040 + 0.12964 = 3.16964 p/km Light vans C = 4.336 + 0.31935 = 4.65535 p/km The decrease in annual non-fuel costs would be: Cars (0.0317414 - 0.0316964) x (37.98 x 109) = £1,709,100 Light vans (0.0466643 - 0.0465535) x (5.1 x 109) = £565,080 Total £2,274,180 b) No speed limit If the speed limit were removed, the average speed for cars and light vans is assumed to increase to 82.0 mph (131.94 kph), so non-fuel costs would be: Cars C = 3.040 + 0.11778 = 3.15778 p/km Light vans C = 4.336 + 0.29013 = 4.62613 p/km The decrease in annual non-fuel costs would be: Cars (0.0317414 - 0.0315778) x (37.98 x 109) = £6,213,528 Light vans (0.0466643 - 0.0462613) x (5.1 x 109) = £2,055,300 Total £8,268,828 |
|
|
This article raises some interesting questions for discussion. from: http://www.lafayette-online.com/purdue-news/2008/06/70-safe-for-indiana/ Lafayette Online | Community News, Purdue News Higher interstate speed limit proves safe for Indiana By Staff Reports, Purdue University News Service Posted June 23, 2008 (552 views) WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. — Researchers at Purdue University have determined that raising the speed limit from 65 to 70 on Interstate 65 in Indiana has not increased the probability of fatalities or severe injuries. “These findings are important because the influence of speed limits on roadway safety has been a subject of continuous debate in the state of Indiana and nationwide,” said Fred Mannering, a professor of civil engineering. “Indiana highway-related accidents result in about 900 fatalities and 40,000 injuries annually and place an incredible social and economic burden on the state.” The findings add new fuel to an ongoing debate, with some studies indicating that the benefits of raising the speed limit outweigh potential safety hazards while others suggest just the opposite. “The safety of raising the speed limit has been a matter of considerable concern in Indiana since the state raised its speed limits on rural interstates and selected multilane highways on July 1, 2005,” Mannering said. “Everybody expects that when you increase the speed limit, injuries and the severity of injuries are going to increase, but that hasn’t happened on the interstate highway system in Indiana.” Findings are detailed in a research paper presented earlier this year at a meeting of the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies of science and engineering. The paper, appearing in an upcoming issue of the Transportation Research Record, was written by Mannering and research assistant Nataliya V. Malyshkina. The researchers used a series of mathematical equations in “multinomial logit models” to calculate accident probabilities based on motor vehicle accident data from 2004 and 2006, before and after the speed limit increased. The models showed that the increased speed limit did not affect the probability of suffering a severe injury in an accident. Understanding the magnitude of the safety impact of increasing speed limits, or whether safety is improved or compromised, remains a contentious subject, Mannering said. That’s because research has not been able to convincingly unravel the effects of speed limit changes from factors such as speed enforcement; vehicle miles traveled; vehicle occupancy; seat belt usage; alcohol use; proportions of passenger cars, minivans, pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles; and vehicle safety features, including air bags and antilock brakes. The models used in the research calculate “estimated probabilities” based on accident data. Of the 204,382 accidents on state highways in 2004, 21 percent resulted in injuries and about 0.4 percent were fatal. The same percentages were seen in the 182,922 accidents in 2006. Comparing only highways where the speed limit rose to 70 showed virtually no change from 2004 to 2006. The speed-limit increase made Indiana the 30th state to raise interstate speed limits up to 70 mph on rural interstates. Findings by other researchers suggest even higher speed limits on interstate highways might also result in no rise in the probability of severe injuries. “If going from 65 to 70 doesn’t have a significant effect on the severity of accidents, you have to ask yourself, what about 70 to 75?” Mannering said. “At what point does it begin to impact safety?” The change has highlighted the tradeoff between speed and safety, a debate that began more than three decades ago since passage of the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act in 1974, which mandated a 55 mph national maximum speed limit on interstate highways in the United States, Mannering said. State and federal speed-limit policy changes have been driven by various research findings and subsequent legislation, including the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995, which gave states freedom to set interstate speed limits. Most research efforts have concluded that the 1974-mandated 55 mph interstate speed limit saved lives, a conclusion that has been confirmed by some studies looking at recent speed limit increases on interstates. “For example, one study found that a speed limit increase from 55 to 65 resulted in roughly a 3 percent increase in the accident rate and a 24 percent increase in the probability of a fatality once an accident occurred,” Mannering said. “But then other studies have contended that legislation-enabled speed-limit increases have actually saved lives. One study argued that increasing from 55 to 65 saved lives because of shifts in law enforcement resources, the ability of higher speed limit interstates to attract riskier drivers away from inherently more dangerous non-interstate highways and reducing how often drivers speed up and slow down.” The state also increased the speed limit from 55 to 60 on non-interstate multilane roads, but findings were inconclusive regarding the impact on those roadways, Mannering said. However, the researchers cautioned that future speed limit increases should be carefully assessed for those roads on a case-by-case basis. The potential for accidents is higher on such roadways because of factors including stop-and-go traffic and vehicles entering the road from various businesses and residential areas. |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Mar 24, 2009 1:37 pm) His/Her desire to speed excessively has nothing to do with me. Most drivers are driving at 75-80 mph on limited access highways. So virtually everyone is "speeding excessively" by your defintion. Yet the roads are safer than ever before... Informed drivers realize that blocking the flow of traffic on a limited access highway does nothing to improve safety, and is actually counterproductive to that effort. It's not 1949 anymore...the typical speed on limited access highways is 75 mph. It's perfectly safe, and informed drivers know it.
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Mar 24, 2009 2:26 pm) People who go to jail for vehicular manslaughter aren't there because they had an accident while driving 75-80 mph in the 65 mph zone of a limited access highway. They were driving under the influence, or drag racing on a public road, and caused a fatal accident. Huge difference. |
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Mar 25, 2009 8:09 am) Next time you get stopped, use that opportunity to explain how unfair you think the speed limit laws are. It'll give him a good story for the donut shop. |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Mar 25, 2009 8:31 am) When those cops obey the law, let me know. Until then, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. larsb: Next time you get stopped, use that opportunity to explain how unfair you think the speed limit laws are. It'll give him a good story for the donut shop. I don't worry about being stopped. I just follow the police car driving 75-80 mph. It's nice to have a police escort to my destination...  For those times when there is no police escort - that is why people use radar detectors and CB radios.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Photo Radar
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
