Speed: What’s the limit?

We all see the speed-limit signs on the side of the road, and even roadside memorials, serving as reminders to drive safely and at the proper speed. There is good reason to heed their guidance, thereby reducing injury risk and fuel consumption. Speeding is a factor in about one-third of all fatal crashes and causes more than 1,000 American deaths per month. Beyond the human tragedy, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that speed-related crashes cost over $40 billion a year.

Speed limit laws date back to 1901 and have traditionally been the responsibility of the states, except for a period between 1974 and 1995 when the federal government stepped in to help regulate. Speed limits were then set to 55 mph, but as the oil shortage and fears of fuel availability faded, the numbers headed back up. In 1987, states were allowed to increase the limit on rural highways to 65 mph and in 1995, the National Highway System Destination Act repealed the maximum speed limit, allowing and all states were allowed to go back to determining their own limits on all roads. Currently, 33 states have limits of 70 mph or higher.

Research by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has shown that when the speed limit increases, people drive faster. In a recent study, the Institute looked at eight metropolitan areas and found that on urban interstates, travel speeds exceeded the limits. On those roads, speeds greater than 70 mph ranged from 1 to 38 percent in the eight areas. Speeds over 75 mph on all types of roads (suburban and rural) ranged from 6 to 49 percent. The reverse also happens. Four years after the 1995 repeal, Montana reinstated the 55 mph speed limit and travel speeds plunged. (Read the IIHS Q&A on speeding.)

How does speeding affect crash data?
Deaths on rural roads increased 25-30 percent in 1987 after the states increased the speed limits from 55 to 65 mph. In 1999, IIHS estimated a 15 percent increase in fatalities due to the 1995 repeal of the speed limit law. In 2007, speed was a factor in 26 percent of crashes with injuries.

Who is speeding?
A 2002 survey by the NHTSA found that three-quarters of drivers admit to speeding the previous month. Speeding is a problem for all drivers, but men are 50 percent more likely than women to drive over the posted limit. The biggest offenders are males under 30 years old. Incidentally, the proportion of deaths from speed-related crashes decreases with rising driver age.

Can technology help?
Radar detectors have been used for years to warn drivers to slow down before they were caught by police officers, but now many portable GPS devices use speed warnings to help monitor driving. Rather than warn that you may get caught speeding, some GPS navigators help drivers obey the law by displaying the posted speed limit and issuing a warning when you are over the limit at user-selectable intervals.

Speeding vs. fuel costs
Besides the risks of driving over the limit, speeding reduces fuel economy, as well. Our tests with a Toyota Camry found that when we increased the Camry's highway cruising speed from 55 mph to 65, the car's fuel economy dropped from 40 mpg to 35. Speeding up to 75 mph cost the car another 5 mpg.

The bottom line
We all know the statistics—speeding increases the risk of crashes, causes reduced fuel economy, and can get you a ticket. So, what can be done? Last summer, Senator John Warner of Virginia expressed interest in a return to a federally mandated speed limit to conserve fuel, but public and state support would be unlikely. Many states are putting money into speeding awareness campaigns or setting up speed cameras to help curb the problem.

What are your thoughts? Do you think the government should reinstitute a national speed limit in order to decrease fuel economy consumption and save lives? Are speed warnings via GPS or other technology useful? Would you support a return to the 55 mph limit? Please post your comments below.

—Liza Barth

Comments

[Bryan]

There is dissonance here. DOT crash reports put excess speed for conditions way down the list of crash causative factors and exceeding speed limits isn't visible in that list. The MUTCD indicates that research shows that drivers pay little attention to speed limit signs unless there is threat of enforcement. The overall statistics I have seen indicate that deaths per mile have decreased despite more traffic and higher speeds.

How do we reconcile these facts with those cited by Barth? I do note that there is a lack of precision in defining terms and that the conclusions are rather broadly based aggregate measures.

There is also the problems inherent in deciding who is best to make decisions and that gets into basic governance philosophy. The question is basically whether the government should make your driving decisions for you and that is not a trivial question, especially when it appears that the case being made for governmental control is not based on reconcilable and clear data - and the government has a well established reputation for using such mandates as a revenue enhancement scheme rather than a safety enhancement effort.

[David]

"So, what can be done?"

Uh, how about nothing at all? Driving at a certain speed is an individual choice and possibly people are willing to take the risks that they are taking.

What would it do to safety and fuel economy if the nationwide speed limit was reduced to 45? How about 35? How about 25?

[mucalitu]

I dont think should be a speed limit on freeway except in dangerous areas.Slow drivers should be forced by law to take the right lane and leave the speed lane for more faster drivers.I dont think that speed is the major factor in accidents and you should try to drive with the speed limit on the freeway for about 50 miles after that please tell me how many times you had to change your lane because slow drivers and how many times you had to change lane because fast drivers.I allready tried that and i had not change the lane not even once because of speeders.Please prove me wrong.Also the insurance companies should not be alowed to use moving violation tickets to increase your premium they should be alowed to use only your accident record for that.There are out there people who got many tickets and never had an accident and other who have one almost every year and apparently they even drive "dangerously"slow.Using moving violation tickets for increase premium is only a way to produce huge profits for insurance companies.Also people should be ticketed to drive under speed limit in area with one lane per direction.USA is huge keping people driving slower will just increase fatigue that can create another hazard.Please see the other side of coin!

[David W]

I think that the repeal of speed limits are appropriate. With the increase in fuel efficient cars, there is no reason, when driving conditions are appropriate (such as rural areas, sunny days, no traffic) that drivers should not be able to be at enhanced highway speeds. This increases productivity, and decreases costs to families and businesses for commuting time. Like with many other social problems, the real issue with speed is lack of judgment or skill for those who are actually injured or killed in speed related incidents. I do not think that the majority of americans should be punished and restricted from proceeding with all appropriate speed because some people are not trustworthy or competent to drive. In some ways, these speed related incidents are darwinism at work. It is no surprise that most speed related incidents are males under 30. This is because, quite simply, these folks are not responsible members of society.

[Don]

I hope we never return to the 55 mph speed limit. Unfortunately, "speed kills" is a nice sound bite as is "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Two terribly over-simplified issues. We have wonderful Interstate highways in the US, as good as those in Western Europe, although not as smooth or well-maintained. We need US drivers to be as well trained as European drivers. In my recent experience in France, they did not tailgate, they did obey the posted speed limits (80 mph dry, 70 mph rain) and most importantly, they stayed in the right hand lane unless they were passing slower traffic. That last simple act, staying right, makes all the difference in the world between smooth flowing traffic and congestion.

[Aren Cambre]

HELL NO to more arbitrary, nanny state restrictions.

The 55 mph failed. It only reduced gas consumption by 1% at most (per federal fuel consumption and road travel numbers). It's not worth all the downsides: less convenience and enjoyment of drivers, conversion of police into revenue squads, reduced overall safety because of perception that traffic laws are bogus, etc.

Restricting otherwise reasonable behavior is the choice of 9 out of 10 tyrants.

Will CR ever endorse something that reduces government intervention?

[Byron Horn]

The federally mandated 55 mph limit simply caused a lot of otherwise law abiding citizens to purchase detectors and CB radios. This most certainly caused them to think they were violators and some thought of themselves as criminals. From a retired police officer's point of view the 55 mph posted limit was "unenforceable" in that any officer could make an arrest almost at will.
Our interstate highways are designed 80 mph roadways. Because of this those in the western states with their openness have curves built in to cause drivers to do something which caused them to avoid boredom and simply driving off the side of the road and having a one car accident. At 55 mph those scheduled curves didn't work.
The best reason for no federally mandated speed limit is its simply not described as federal authority according to our constitution. It's a state's call. There reaches a point where government should stay out of personal responsibility for one's own safety.
All of this is difficult for anyone too young to remember living in America before World War Two. We were once a republic.

[Nathan Ramsey]

I'm suspect of the data referenced in this report. I have seem multiple reports from "everywhere except the US" where decreased speed limits have actually INCREASED deaths. Here is a recent one I came across on The Truth About Cars.

"Australia: Deaths Go Up After Speed Limits Imposed"
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/australia-deaths-go-up-after-speed-limits-imposed/

[David]

Like all arguments based on statistics the suggestion that speed limits alone caused an increase in accidents is really just a guess. Seeing the comment from Bryan (above) makes me think that this suggestion is indeed wrong.
Not that I have any facts to support a different cause, but cell phone use in the US increased at least 200% in the period from 1995 to 1999. We also know that "cell phone distraction" is a cause of accidents (from the recently uncovered NHTSA study).
Maybe what we need is a device on cars that blocks the driver from using the phone when they exceed the speed limit. This might not fix the problem, but it would at least give us data on the real cause of increased traffic accidents.

[Bill]

Fuel economy does not drive consumer behavior unless fuel is expensive enough that behaving badly hurts in the pocketbook. The abundance of large SUV's, popularity of overpowered V8 sports cars that handle well only in straight lines, lack of interest in diesel models, and efficent cars that are marketted in other countries but not in the US all indicate on average that US consumers do not value fuel economy enough for it to drive their behavior. You won't find the Ford Ka (diesel 1.3L with 65 MPG) on its US website and you won't find the V8 Shelby Cobra (petrol V8 with 14-22 MPG) on their UK site. The 4 cylinder BMW 3 series models 318i and 320d that are their most popular models in europe do not exist in the US - smalles te US gets is 6 cylinders... Other manufactures websites are similarly depressing to compare.

As much greener as the UK and Europe consumers are on choice of cars they purchase, they do not drive them slow. UK motorways are 70 MPH with backroads 60 MPH, Belgium motorways at 75 MPH (120 kph), France at 81 MPH (130 kph), and Germany with its lack of any limit on the Autobahn all top out much higher than the 55 MPH in parts of the US. Clearly in those markets the drivers have chosen to save on fuel costs by purchasing efficient cars rather than slowing down. Car taxes in those area are based on their efficiency such that owning a V8 would be prohibitively expensive for most consumers.

[david]

First of all, I like to say that I am "david" with a lower case "d", as in all my previous postings have been.

I am with the people here. Speed does not kill. Here is a quote from wikipedia on autobahn.

"A 2005 study by the German Federal Interior Ministry (Bundesministerium des Innern) indicated that Autobahn sections with unrestricted speed have the same accident record as sections with speed limits. "

[Paul]

In the words of Sammy Hagar..."I CAN'T DRIVE - - 55!"
.
Seriously, though. I wouldn't have a problem with more speed limit enforcement to keep traffic flowing at a more consistent pace...I like to set my cruise control right on the speed limit and I hate it when that 18-wheeler comes rushing up to within a few feet of my bumper when I'm already in the slow lane (happened again today).

[George]

I agree with David. Certainly there are more effective ways that we can reduce traffic accidents based on data:

1. Cell Phone Distraction
2. Running Lights
3. Some limitations on young (16-18) drivers
4. Driving tests for the elderly
5. Affordable alternatives to driving (consumer friendly public transport and high speed trains)
6. Educate and Enforce safe driving practices (left lane for overtaking, right lane for slower traffic)

[Syl]

I do not subscribe to Consumer Reports for your opinion on the speed limit , global warming , or any other flavor of the month cause. I subscribe to Consumer Reports to find out what kind of dishwasher is likely to fit my needs and be a trouble free model. I care less then zero about what you think or have to say about anything other then consumer products I am likely to spend my hard earned money on. You asked for opinions on the speed limit so I will give mine. It is up to the individual State to decide what the speed limit will be within it's
boarders.Washington should stay out of it.

[Chuck]

Stop the insanity - more government intervention into people's lives. Consumer Reports seems to continually favor more government regulation. Apparently its editors do not value freedom. While a 55 MPH limit may be fine for the tiny little states in the northeast, here in Texas it would take forever to get anywhere. Get out of the way if you don't understand that it's "the pedal on the right" that makes your vehicle move!

[Matthew Smith]

I have a near 100-mile roundtrip commute each day. My drive starts in sizable urban area and ends in a distant suburban area. My family and I also just completed a 3,000 cross-country road trip. In my experience, inattention, left-lane squatting and uneven, sporadic driving styles are the greatest threats on the road. The safest drivers are those who "go with the flow;" pass on the left and return to the right lane(s) as soon as possible; and keep their cell phones in their pockets.

We should put our efforts and increasingly limited funds into better training for our younger drivers and mandating refresher courses for our older drivers. This will drastically improve the safety of our roads without returning to the dark days of the federally mandated double-nickel.

We should not look for ways to expand the role of the federal government. Rather we should support state rights and govern locally.

[david]

This morning, I was driving out of my neighborhood and realized that there are a large number of huge SUVs. If people or the government want to get better gas mileage, why not start with taxing heavy cars and trucks? Look at Europe, very very few huge cars.

I say we should follow the road constructions in Germany and increase the speed limits. Once speeds are up, there will be fewer huge SUVs as they can't keep up or agile enough to drive that at speed. Faster speed saves time. Time is money.

[GregL]

As is often the case, we are looking at a problem from the wrong direction. It should not be the Government's responsibility to regulate a drivers speed. We all know the danger of excessive speed, and it's something that any repsonsible parent should be teaching their kids about.

Wouldn't it also be more prudent make it harder for people to get a driver's license in the first place? The last driver license test I took was only 10 questions long, and anyone who can memorize the handbook can pass it. That doesn't make a person qualified to drive 3500 lb missle on wheels, especially when there are so many other unqualified missle drivers out there as well. They don't let pilots simply read a handbook and take a 10-question test; which may be why it's safer to fly!

I'd also take one of George's suggestions a step further: Everyone should be retested every three to five years, regardless of age. Traffic laws change or are modified regularly, roundabouts are becoming more popular in urban areas, and we all forget some of the simplest, rules of the road.

Should we look to the Government to regulate what we as responsible citizens should already be doing on our own? Absolutely not.

[Ben]

Lowering the speed limit is about the most boneheaded idea that could possibly be presented. The problem here is that when we're getting data from the IIHS, we're getting skewed results.

The IIHS receives pretty much all its funding from the insurance companies. Insurance companies are being squeezed by competition and would like to raise rates at any possible opportunity but can't. However, if you have speeding tickets on your record, all bets are off as far as inexpensive coverage. Therefore, the more people who appear to "speed", the more profit made by the insurance companies.

Personally I stick it to my insurance company by never having once gotten a ticket for anything in my 10 years of driving. That doesn't mean I like going 65 mph on an interstate designed for 75 or 80 and getting passed by practically everybody else.

Futhermore, the vast majority of fatalities happen on rural TWO LANE roads, NOT INTERSTATES. Most states in the east and many in the west STILL have 55 mph speed limits on these highways. Lowering the speed limit on rural interstates back to 55 would have the unintended consequence of pushing more people to 2-lane roads (because why not take the scenic route if it takes the same amount of time to get to your destination) and the higher traffic on less safe roads would mean GREATER fatalities overall.

I strongly support a complete ban on any type of cell phone usage and a public information campaign along the lines of the "you drink, you drive, you lose" campign where they would hammer home the dangers of distracted driving (from all distractions, not just cell phones).

As other people have said, the Autobahn in Germany actually has a lower fatality rate per 100,000,000 VMT than the US interstate system. But when I was over there, I regularly saw people going in excess of 180 km/h (110 mph) and the general flow of traffic moved along at about 140 km/h (85 mph). The problem as I see it is that when an officer ticks the "speed related" box on an accident report, we can't know exactly what he or she meant. For example, going 50 mph (a supposedly safe speed) in a snowstorm and having a crash would be speed related. But in fact you were going LESS than the speed limit (at least in most rural places). Therefore the data that drives the whole "speed kills" campaign is pretty much all crap.

[/rant]

[Wesley]

If the government is going to lower speed limits, there should be a greater investment made in building infrastructure for rapid forms of public transportation.

The U.S. is one of few industrialized nations that does not have a network of high speed "bullet" trains. A fast, efficient means of long-distance public transportation would be a very attractive alternative to travelling on the highway.

Reducing the volume of traffic on the nations highways will make travel much safer. Fewer vehicles on the road means it would be easier for drivers to maintain a safe following distance in all conditions.

Spend enough time on the road and you will see many driving behaviors that are much more unsafe than speeding, such as: following too closely, unsafe lane changes, excessive braking, changing lanes without signalling, careless passing on the right, and travelling in a lane that is not appropriate for the vehicle's speed.

[Jumpsuit]

The article cites a study indicating that people drive slower when the speed limit is lower. And we know that speed is a "factor" in a certain number of fatalities and crashes. But my understanding is that a huge issue when speed is a "factor" is the differential between the speeds of two cars. Do we have data that shows that lowering (or raising) speed limits impacts that differential? I think there are common-sense arguments that could explain both possibilities, so I'd love to see some hard data.

[Bill]

(same Bill as above)

The part I find most grating about CR pontificating about impact of speed on fuel economy is that CR recommends many vehicle models that are gas guzzlers at any speed. The following are CR recommend models having 15 MPG or less fuel economy based on CR's own overall mileage stats: Ford Expedition (13 MPG), Chevrolet Avalanche (13 MPG), Lincoln Navigator (13 MPG), Nissan Armada (13 MPG), Nissan Titan (13 MPG), Ford F150 (14 MPG), Honda Ridgeline (15 MPG), Nissan Frontier (15 MPG), Nissan Pathfinder (15 MPG), Toyota Tundra (15 MPG). The list of recommended vehicles getting less than 20 MPG is too long to enumerate and be in good taste.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/types/new-recommended-models-index.htm

Furthermore, the mileage is not included on the overview pages CR has for each car, however engine displacement and performance is. One sees right away that the Ford Expedition has a 3.8 L V8 with 300 HP, but has to click twice to findout what the milage is (first click on complet specs, and on the next page click on fuel economy (3rd selection from the bottom, under comfort). If CR believed fuel ecomomy was a priority among its readers, MPG would be on the overview page, not a footnote on page 3. I acknowlege the black dot for fuel economy on page 1 does give it some service, but the actual MPG number has more impact. IMHO, the MPG should be reported right next to engine size and horsepower to temper the bigger is always better crowd.

[david]

Bill, I did not realized that there are that many cars/suvs out there with so low of mpg. I forgot to point out earlier that with so many heavy (and low mpg) cars/suvs out there, it makes it very intimidating for buyers to buy small (therefore better mpg) cars. The weight differential is deadly to small/light weight cars in an event of collision.

Wesley, great point on the so many unsafe practices that people do.

[Judge Jay Miller]

Not long ago, while driving in a 25 m.p.h. zone through a small, New England village, a driver in a Jeep Wagoneer, drove his vehicle rapidly just off my car's rear bumper. Although I was doing the limit, and the road was a single lane, twisty, village road, he kept his horn going, flashed his lights and attempted to bully me by his aggressive driving. Once in the village center, I pulled over to let him pass. Rather than passing, he stopped behind me, exited his car and approached my window. He yelled that 25 miles per hour is a "MINIMUM" and that I was doing under it!

Somewhere along the way, drivers have lost their way. This stressed-out society and the rush to anywhere have allowed a society of unknowing, uncaring and angry drivers to emerge. If we are to survive, with any semblance of civility and safety, then laws must be passed requiring annual, driving courses teaching drivers what things like "speed limits" mean.

Drivers will not, voluntarily, take it upon themselves to understand safety and laws, unfortunately, and that is when it is the duty of society to force them to understand. Otherwise, we are dealing with lawlessness, and anger ruling the roadways based on ignorance.

[Darwin]

Bah, let em die its Survival of the fittest. lol