What is with the 55 mph truck speed limits?

Thread Tools
  #41  
Old 12-01-2007, 03:30 PM
Fredog's Avatar
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 3,756
Default

Originally Posted by west_coaster
I am a cop, and I patrol the freeway. I will not stop a truck going 65 or under unless they're doing something really stupid, and our truck speed limit in Oregon is 55. If I do stop a truck for speeding, its because it's speeding, not to generate revenue :roll:. The last thing I think about when I issue a speeding citation is the money it may bring in. The speed limits in most states are set by the state legislature, so the way to change it is get a petition, get it on a ballot, and vote.

I personally think that the speed limits on the freeways in Oregon are too low (65 cars, 55 trucks). I do know that the original federally set speed limits of 55mph were due to some smart guy back in the black and white days determining that the kinetic energy built up by an object increases exponentially after 55mph, thus causing quite a bit more damage at 65 vs. 55 (compared to 45 vs. 55) I'm not sure why, I'm not smart enough to figure out the math of the equation.

Another thing to think about is cost vs. benefit. If you run faster, you will run more miles in a day, but you will also burn more fuel (Fozzy is right!) and run your truck at a higher rpm's (= more wear and tear on stuff). You also increase your stopping distance and decrease reaction times. When you add in adverse weather conditions, it quantifies the problems. If you can justify the benefits over the cost of running consistently faster, then you should run fast in the states that you can legally do it in. I know that California and Oregon have both stated firmly that they will not raise the truck speed limits, citing safety reasons. I'm not sure if it's true, but I do know that guys like you and I will probably never be able to influence any state legislature, we're just not that rich.

That's my rant.

W.C.
No matter what the speed limit is or what the reason for it, having split limits is more dangerous than having one limit..
 
  #42  
Old 12-01-2007, 04:26 PM
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Redneckistan
Posts: 2,831
Default

Originally Posted by Fredog
Originally Posted by west_coaster
I am a cop, and I patrol the freeway. I will not stop a truck going 65 or under unless they're doing something really stupid, and our truck speed limit in Oregon is 55. If I do stop a truck for speeding, its because it's speeding, not to generate revenue :roll:. The last thing I think about when I issue a speeding citation is the money it may bring in. The speed limits in most states are set by the state legislature, so the way to change it is get a petition, get it on a ballot, and vote.

I personally think that the speed limits on the freeways in Oregon are too low (65 cars, 55 trucks). I do know that the original federally set speed limits of 55mph were due to some smart guy back in the black and white days determining that the kinetic energy built up by an object increases exponentially after 55mph, thus causing quite a bit more damage at 65 vs. 55 (compared to 45 vs. 55) I'm not sure why, I'm not smart enough to figure out the math of the equation.

Another thing to think about is cost vs. benefit. If you run faster, you will run more miles in a day, but you will also burn more fuel (Fozzy is right!) and run your truck at a higher rpm's (= more wear and tear on stuff). You also increase your stopping distance and decrease reaction times. When you add in adverse weather conditions, it quantifies the problems. If you can justify the benefits over the cost of running consistently faster, then you should run fast in the states that you can legally do it in. I know that California and Oregon have both stated firmly that they will not raise the truck speed limits, citing safety reasons. I'm not sure if it's true, but I do know that guys like you and I will probably never be able to influence any state legislature, we're just not that rich.

That's my rant.

W.C.
No matter what the speed limit is or what the reason for it, having split limits is more dangerous than having one limit..
IF there was some stretch of road ANYWHERE , where people actually did the speed limits. The whole point is basically worthless and better yet unprovable because there is no way to get real data. There is no real proof anywhere other than someone's pet theory that this split speeds are dangerous. Name the road where the data was taken that proves the myth...
 
  #43  
Old 12-01-2007, 04:51 PM
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 725
Default

Originally Posted by tjv189
Ok, I see what you are saying, but then why don't they just make the speed limit 55 mph for EVERYONE, not just trucks. They would make a hell of a lot more that way, right?
Do you remember when the speed limit was 55 in most places? As you can see that was too slow for the 4-wheelin' motoring public, so the politicians changed it. Politicians in 55 mph states like the revenue they get from 55+ mph trucks. Life is less stressful in these states if you just set the cruise at 55 and let everyone else go around.
 
  #44  
Old 12-01-2007, 05:10 PM
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: pod# 110 -Shared with a high risk in a red jumper.
Posts: 2,240
Default

Originally Posted by Fozzy
if there was some stretch of road ANYWHERE , where people actually did the speed limits. The whole point is basically worthless and better yet unprovable because there is no way to get real data. There is no real proof anywhere other than someone's pet theory that this split speeds are dangerous. Name the road where the data was taken that proves the myth...

Sounds like senoir Fozzy doesn't even drive a truck ...probably rides a vespa .
 
  #45  
Old 12-01-2007, 05:59 PM
Fredog's Avatar
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 3,756
Default

Originally Posted by Fozzy
Originally Posted by Fredog
Originally Posted by west_coaster
I am a cop, and I patrol the freeway. I will not stop a truck going 65 or under unless they're doing something really stupid, and our truck speed limit in Oregon is 55. If I do stop a truck for speeding, its because it's speeding, not to generate revenue :roll:. The last thing I think about when I issue a speeding citation is the money it may bring in. The speed limits in most states are set by the state legislature, so the way to change it is get a petition, get it on a ballot, and vote.

I personally think that the speed limits on the freeways in Oregon are too low (65 cars, 55 trucks). I do know that the original federally set speed limits of 55mph were due to some smart guy back in the black and white days determining that the kinetic energy built up by an object increases exponentially after 55mph, thus causing quite a bit more damage at 65 vs. 55 (compared to 45 vs. 55) I'm not sure why, I'm not smart enough to figure out the math of the equation.

Another thing to think about is cost vs. benefit. If you run faster, you will run more miles in a day, but you will also burn more fuel (Fozzy is right!) and run your truck at a higher rpm's (= more wear and tear on stuff). You also increase your stopping distance and decrease reaction times. When you add in adverse weather conditions, it quantifies the problems. If you can justify the benefits over the cost of running consistently faster, then you should run fast in the states that you can legally do it in. I know that California and Oregon have both stated firmly that they will not raise the truck speed limits, citing safety reasons. I'm not sure if it's true, but I do know that guys like you and I will probably never be able to influence any state legislature, we're just not that rich.

That's my rant.

W.C.
No matter what the speed limit is or what the reason for it, having split limits is more dangerous than having one limit..
IF there was some stretch of road ANYWHERE , where people actually did the speed limits. The whole point is basically worthless and better yet unprovable because there is no way to get real data. There is no real proof anywhere other than someone's pet theory that this split speeds are dangerous. Name the road where the data was taken that proves the myth...
common sense would tell it's true if you had any
 
  #46  
Old 12-01-2007, 06:00 PM
Fredog's Avatar
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 3,756
Default

Originally Posted by BIG JEEP on 44's
Originally Posted by Fozzy
if there was some stretch of road ANYWHERE , where people actually did the speed limits. The whole point is basically worthless and better yet unprovable because there is no way to get real data. There is no real proof anywhere other than someone's pet theory that this split speeds are dangerous. Name the road where the data was taken that proves the myth...

Sounds like senoir Fozzy doesn't even drive a truck ...probably rides a vespa .
He just likes to argue, it probably keeps his mind off his other problems
 
  #47  
Old 12-01-2007, 06:02 PM
Fredog's Avatar
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 3,756
Default

Originally Posted by LOAD IT
Originally Posted by tjv189
Ok, I see what you are saying, but then why don't they just make the speed limit 55 mph for EVERYONE, not just trucks. They would make a hell of a lot more that way, right?
Do you remember when the speed limit was 55 in most places? As you can see that was too slow for the 4-wheelin' motoring public, so the politicians changed it. Politicians in 55 mph states like the revenue they get from 55+ mph trucks. Life is less stressful in these states if you just set the cruise at 55 and let everyone else go around.
I go through Illinois a lot and I set the cruise at about 57, trucks go around me constantly. even JB and Swift. those guys seem to think that if your truck is governed at a certain speed, then you MUST go that speed at all times.
 
  #48  
Old 12-01-2007, 06:08 PM
Fredog's Avatar
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 3,756
Default

Originally Posted by Fozzy
Originally Posted by Fredog
Originally Posted by west_coaster
I am a cop, and I patrol the freeway. I will not stop a truck going 65 or under unless they're doing something really stupid, and our truck speed limit in Oregon is 55. If I do stop a truck for speeding, its because it's speeding, not to generate revenue :roll:. The last thing I think about when I issue a speeding citation is the money it may bring in. The speed limits in most states are set by the state legislature, so the way to change it is get a petition, get it on a ballot, and vote.

I personally think that the speed limits on the freeways in Oregon are too low (65 cars, 55 trucks). I do know that the original federally set speed limits of 55mph were due to some smart guy back in the black and white days determining that the kinetic energy built up by an object increases exponentially after 55mph, thus causing quite a bit more damage at 65 vs. 55 (compared to 45 vs. 55) I'm not sure why, I'm not smart enough to figure out the math of the equation.

Another thing to think about is cost vs. benefit. If you run faster, you will run more miles in a day, but you will also burn more fuel (Fozzy is right!) and run your truck at a higher rpm's (= more wear and tear on stuff). You also increase your stopping distance and decrease reaction times. When you add in adverse weather conditions, it quantifies the problems. If you can justify the benefits over the cost of running consistently faster, then you should run fast in the states that you can legally do it in. I know that California and Oregon have both stated firmly that they will not raise the truck speed limits, citing safety reasons. I'm not sure if it's true, but I do know that guys like you and I will probably never be able to influence any state legislature, we're just not that rich.

That's my rant.

W.C.
No matter what the speed limit is or what the reason for it, having split limits is more dangerous than having one limit..
IF there was some stretch of road ANYWHERE , where people actually did the speed limits. The whole point is basically worthless and better yet unprovable because there is no way to get real data. There is no real proof anywhere other than someone's pet theory that this split speeds are dangerous. Name the road where the data was taken that proves the myth...
“In 1963, David Solomon reported that deviation from the mean speed of traffic in both the negative and positive direction contributed significantly to the occurrence of accidents. In fact, Solomon showed that vehicles traveling 10 to 15 mph slower than the mean speed of traffic were much more likely to be involved in accidents than vehicles traveling slightly above the mean speed. Solomon presented his results in the now famous ‘U-shaped’ curve, which relates variance from mean speed to involvement in accidents.

“Solomon’s study was conducted on two- and four-lane main rural highways. A similar analysis was conducted on the interstate that has higher operating speeds. The data for this study was collected by 20 state highway departments, including Ohio. The analysis showed the same ‘U-shaped’ curve for interstate highways and generally lower accident involvement rates, again confirming the safety benefits of the interstate system. The analysis also showed the variance in speeds on the interstate was between 5 to 7 mph, approximately half that of non-interstate facilities.

“The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration subsequently contracted with Indiana University to conduct a speed-safety study. This study confirmed the ‘U-shaped’ curve established by Solomon and the interstate study.”

Ohio truckdriver and OOIDA member Dick Chambers told the committee, “By raising the limits on the major interstate systems, the state would give truckdrivers a greater incentive to drive on the safest roads in Ohio. Our interstate highways have limited access, are wider, have banked curves and, as many of you know, were designed for speeds in excess of 65 mph.”

—by Keith Goble, staff writer
Keith Goble can be reached at [email protected].


ok Fozzy, go ahead and tell me why this study isnt legitimate
 
  #49  
Old 12-01-2007, 06:18 PM
Fredog's Avatar
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 3,756
Default

Originally Posted by Fredog
Originally Posted by Fozzy
Originally Posted by Fredog
Originally Posted by west_coaster
I am a cop, and I patrol the freeway. I will not stop a truck going 65 or under unless they're doing something really stupid, and our truck speed limit in Oregon is 55. If I do stop a truck for speeding, its because it's speeding, not to generate revenue :roll:. The last thing I think about when I issue a speeding citation is the money it may bring in. The speed limits in most states are set by the state legislature, so the way to change it is get a petition, get it on a ballot, and vote.

I personally think that the speed limits on the freeways in Oregon are too low (65 cars, 55 trucks). I do know that the original federally set speed limits of 55mph were due to some smart guy back in the black and white days determining that the kinetic energy built up by an object increases exponentially after 55mph, thus causing quite a bit more damage at 65 vs. 55 (compared to 45 vs. 55) I'm not sure why, I'm not smart enough to figure out the math of the equation.

Another thing to think about is cost vs. benefit. If you run faster, you will run more miles in a day, but you will also burn more fuel (Fozzy is right!) and run your truck at a higher rpm's (= more wear and tear on stuff). You also increase your stopping distance and decrease reaction times. When you add in adverse weather conditions, it quantifies the problems. If you can justify the benefits over the cost of running consistently faster, then you should run fast in the states that you can legally do it in. I know that California and Oregon have both stated firmly that they will not raise the truck speed limits, citing safety reasons. I'm not sure if it's true, but I do know that guys like you and I will probably never be able to influence any state legislature, we're just not that rich.

That's my rant.

W.C.
No matter what the speed limit is or what the reason for it, having split limits is more dangerous than having one limit..
IF there was some stretch of road ANYWHERE , where people actually did the speed limits. The whole point is basically worthless and better yet unprovable because there is no way to get real data. There is no real proof anywhere other than someone's pet theory that this split speeds are dangerous. Name the road where the data was taken that proves the myth...
“In 1963, David Solomon reported that deviation from the mean speed of traffic in both the negative and positive direction contributed significantly to the occurrence of accidents. In fact, Solomon showed that vehicles traveling 10 to 15 mph slower than the mean speed of traffic were much more likely to be involved in accidents than vehicles traveling slightly above the mean speed. Solomon presented his results in the now famous ‘U-shaped’ curve, which relates variance from mean speed to involvement in accidents.

“Solomon’s study was conducted on two- and four-lane main rural highways. A similar analysis was conducted on the interstate that has higher operating speeds. The data for this study was collected by 20 state highway departments, including Ohio. The analysis showed the same ‘U-shaped’ curve for interstate highways and generally lower accident involvement rates, again confirming the safety benefits of the interstate system. The analysis also showed the variance in speeds on the interstate was between 5 to 7 mph, approximately half that of non-interstate facilities.

“The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration subsequently contracted with Indiana University to conduct a speed-safety study. This study confirmed the ‘U-shaped’ curve established by Solomon and the interstate study.”

Ohio truckdriver and OOIDA member Dick Chambers told the committee, “By raising the limits on the major interstate systems, the state would give truckdrivers a greater incentive to drive on the safest roads in Ohio. Our interstate highways have limited access, are wider, have banked curves and, as many of you know, were designed for speeds in excess of 65 mph.”

—by Keith Goble, staff writer
Keith Goble can be reached at [email protected].


ok Fozzy, go ahead and tell me why this study isnt legitimate
and this one
Attention: Illinois truckers. Another attempt is being made to end split speed limits on the state's interstate highways. Take time now to contact your state legislators and speak in favor of uniform speed limits.

Rep. Robert Flider, D-Decatur, and Sen. John Sullivan, D-Rushville, have taken up the battle to eliminate the provisions that set up slower speed limits on rural interstates for vehicles weighing more than 8,000 pounds. Currently, those vehicles are required to travel 10 mph below the 65 mph speed limit.

Flider's bill - HB1786 - and Sullivan's bill - SB540 - would allow the Illinois Department of Transportation to increase large truck speeds to as much as 65 mph.

Flider made it clear that even if the bill is signed into law it doesn't guarantee elimination of the speed gap. The bill allows the state to consider authorizing uniform speeds. Its passage wouldn't mandate a change, but it would allow for a change that is currently not an option.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich has said that he fears faster trucks would mean bloodier accidents because the force of impact is stronger the faster a vehicle is traveling.

But federal statistics show that split speed limits actually lead to more accidents. Flider cited these concerns as reasoning for introducing the bill. Studies show that uniform speed limits would actually be safer.

To find contact information for Illinois state senators click here. For contact information on Illinois state representatives, click here.
 
  #50  
Old 12-01-2007, 06:56 PM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 142
Default

Fredog, nice job finding that proof there. Very helpful articles. They very much enforce my point in this topic, if you look back to my first post. Thank you Fredog.
 




Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 06:11 PM.

Top