If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Des Moines Register)   Study of highway speed data shows Iowa governor Terry Branstad is a one percenter   (desmoinesregister.com) divider line 44
    More: Followup, Governors of Iowa, Terry Branstad, Iowa, Iowa Department of Transportation, Iowa State Patrol, seat belt laws, safety belts, New Jersey State Police  
•       •       •

6929 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jul 2013 at 8:43 AM (38 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



44 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-22 08:54:20 AM
And there will be no legal consequences whatsoever.
 
2013-07-22 08:54:28 AM
It's Iowa, blame anyone who want's to get out of there faster?
 
2013-07-22 09:00:35 AM
 
2013-07-22 09:04:21 AM
Sp, instead of corn, corn, corn, corn, corn what's that smell? It was corncorncorncorn, what's that smell, look! a tree!
 
2013-07-22 09:07:36 AM
Nearly 78 percent of motorists traveling in 65-mph speed zones in Iowa exceeded the speed limit from April 1 through June 30

Maybe because 65 mph is unreasonably slow for most interstates and highways in a modern car? It's a limit. It should be set at the highest safe speed for an average vehicle in good conditions. It's been 25 years since the 65 mph limit was allowed. My car, like the vast majority of others on the roads today, has far better brakes, handling, safety structure and tires than anything available at the time. Raise the farking limit to recognize this fact. The vast majority of my driving is done on wide, multi-lane roads on which can see a mile or more ahead. It's absolutely retarded to have to drive that slow on them.
 
2013-07-22 09:12:25 AM
Nearly 78 percent of motorists traveling in 65-mph speed zones in Iowa exceeded the speed limit from April 1 through June 30.

So, what you are saying is that a vast majority of motorists can drive comfortably at 75mph, but for some odd rea$on we have it set below that...

/Something to read...
 
2013-07-22 09:18:13 AM
Driving through Iowa sucks. Once you hit the state line on I-29 or I-80 you gotta drop your speed. It is currently 70mph on those interstate highways unless you are going through a city. But still when I can ramp it up to 80mph while driving thru South Dakota or Nebraska without too much hassle from the cops, as soon as the IA border comes up... Those cops are looking for out-of-staters. They also have photo enforcement in Sioux City which has nabbed many people I know including some extended family.

Anyway Iowa sucks.

//Idiots Out Wanderin' Around
////I Owe the World an Apology
Any othe acronyms that I missed?
 
2013-07-22 09:21:42 AM
Hell, West Virginia....where the state is nothing but one huge mountain (and curvy roads) has the speed limit set at 70 mph....

Illinois is  the worst IMO.  65 mph through flat cornfield country?  Give me a break!

/Ohio finally went up to 70 mph.
 
2013-07-22 09:23:55 AM
I want to find where I can find average driver speeds in my state

/Bet we have those averages beat
//Connecticut
///Gets passed regularly doing 85 on I-91 north of hartford
 
2013-07-22 09:24:51 AM

skozlaw: 65 mph is unreasonably slow for most interstates and highways in a modern car?  My car, like the vast majority of others on the roads today, has far better brakes, handling, safety structure and tires


The low limit is meant to save the planet, not lives.

/ tilts head...
 
2013-07-22 09:25:00 AM

aintnuttintofarkwith: http://branstachery.tumblr.com/


what has been seen, etc.
 
2013-07-22 09:32:50 AM

Burr: Hell, West Virginia....where the state is nothing but one huge mountain (and curvy roads) has the speed limit set at 70 mph....

Illinois is  the worst IMO.  65 mph through flat cornfield country?  Give me a break!

/Ohio finally went up to 70 mph.


Awesome!  I drive I70 and I68 when I drive from VA to visit my folks in IN.  WV has always been nice with the 70mph limit, and IN joined in a year or two ago.  If OH has increased theirs that's really going to cut some time off my drive as I travel the whole length of OH on I70.  The other very nice part about OH I70 is in multiple sections it's widened to three lanes which really helps clear out blockages from all the trucks and the morons doing the speed limit in the left lane.

On the other hand, I have found that I can keep a more consistent speed through OH than IN because of the mentioned three lanes.  IN has two and the drivers are retarded.  I'm a cruise control guy and there's nothing I love more than to have to sit behind some asshole passing a semi at 65mph with the semi going 64mph.
 
2013-07-22 09:34:25 AM

TomD9938: The low limit is meant to save the planet....


No, that's the goal of the liquid popcorn I'm obligated to put in my tank even though it hurts my power and MPGs and has little discernible effect on the output at the exhaust since my car has a very complicated and expensive emissions system that already does 99% of that work....

/ motoring in the U.S. sucks
 
2013-07-22 09:40:56 AM

skozlaw: TomD9938: The low limit is meant to save the planet....

No, that's the goal of the liquid popcorn I'm obligated to put in my tank even though it hurts my power and MPGs and has little discernible effect on the output at the exhaust since my car has a very complicated and expensive emissions system that already does 99% of that work....

/ motoring in the U.S. sucks


Ethanol has 10% less energy than gasoline, therefor a 10% ethanol 90% gas blend has about 1% less energy than straight gasoline. Please explain how 10% ethanol "kills" your power and MPG's.

Also explain how your "very complicated and expensive emission system" reduces the output of fossil fuel based carbon exhaust.
 
2013-07-22 09:50:23 AM

Burr: Nearly 78 percent of motorists traveling in 65-mph speed zones in Iowa exceeded the speed limit from April 1 through June 30.

$o, what you are $aying i$that a va$t majority of motori$t$ can drive comfortably at 75 mile$ per hour, but for $ome odd rea$on we have it $et below that...


FTFY.
 
2013-07-22 09:51:49 AM

max_pooper: skozlaw: TomD9938: The low limit is meant to save the planet....

No, that's the goal of the liquid popcorn I'm obligated to put in my tank even though it hurts my power and MPGs and has little discernible effect on the output at the exhaust since my car has a very complicated and expensive emissions system that already does 99% of that work....

/ motoring in the U.S. sucks

Ethanol has 10% less energy than gasoline, therefor a 10% ethanol 90% gas blend has about 1% less energy than straight gasoline. Please explain how 10% ethanol "kills" your power and MPG's.

Also explain how your "very complicated and expensive emission system" reduces the output of fossil fuel based carbon exhaust.


Woopee, we're all going to die!
Making food into fuel is what one calls, stupid.
There is a big picture, you should see it.
 
2013-07-22 09:55:57 AM
Driving at night, with no traffic, I have noticed that I get 25% better mileage than slow/speed up/slow down for idiots sitting in left lane or two I find in daytime.
Is that where all the vampire chit got started on TV?

Guessing 70% of traffic is in the left lane. If 3 lanes, 90% in left two.
Just can't assplaine that.
 
2013-07-22 09:57:14 AM
55 Alive!

Those were the days.
 
2013-07-22 09:58:20 AM

max_pooper: "kills"


If you're going to demand that I explain things to you maybe you should start by asking me to explain simpler things like how quotations work, since you are apparently confused on that issue.

max_pooper: Also explain how your "very complicated and expensive emission system" reduces the output of fossil fuel based carbon exhaust.


I didn't say anything about carbon exhaust, now did I? But since you bring it up, you know what REALLY reduces carbon in the atmosphere much better than the paltry amount reduced by burning water-sucking popcorn in your engine?

Burning less fuel. By driving a more fuel efficient car like mine.

But, no, no.... I'm sure you totally have some sort of a point here hiding underneath your made-up quotes and strawmen....
/ also, you seem to be confused about how ethanol actually works, but I can't tell how badly confused you are until you enlighten us all with your deep wisdom by stating how much of a reduction there is in carbon exhaust
// although technically the "reduction" is nearly 0 I'll be generous and just assume you actually meant "net reduction in the atmosphere"
 
2013-07-22 09:59:45 AM
And once again, we have a winner!
The perennial favorite, Speed, is our Villain of the Year.
Praise The Maker and pass the tickets.
 
2013-07-22 10:11:13 AM

max_pooper: skozlaw: TomD9938: The low limit is meant to save the planet....

No, that's the goal of the liquid popcorn I'm obligated to put in my tank even though it hurts my power and MPGs and has little discernible effect on the output at the exhaust since my car has a very complicated and expensive emissions system that already does 99% of that work....

/ motoring in the U.S. sucks

Ethanol has 10% less energy than gasoline, therefor a 10% ethanol 90% gas blend has about 1% less energy than straight gasoline. Please explain how 10% ethanol "kills" your power and MPG's.

Also explain how your "very complicated and expensive emission system" reduces the output of fossil fuel based carbon exhaust.


Probably the same way it does for the corn based carbon exhaust.

Ethanol...let's see

Costs more to produce than an equivalent volume of standard petroleum
Has less energy density than said petroleum, causing you to have to fill up more often
Increases fresh water contamination due to runoff water full of concentrated fertilizers and insecticides

Yeah, can't see any downsides to that at all.
 
2013-07-22 10:19:21 AM

snocone: And once again, we have a winner!
The perennial favorite, Speed, is our Villain of the Year.
Praise The Maker and pass the tickets.


Yep.  Nevermind that my car has the power and suspension to comfortably cruise at 90mph, some homeowner association president in training driving an early 90s Windstar has decided that driving safely at that speed is impossible because their vehicle and skill level are incapable of it.
 
2013-07-22 10:24:57 AM

StrangeQ: snocone: And once again, we have a winner!
The perennial favorite, Speed, is our Villain of the Year.
Praise The Maker and pass the tickets.

Yep.  Nevermind that my car has the power and suspension to comfortably cruise at 90mph, some homeowner association president in training driving an early 90s Windstar has decided that driving safely at that speed is impossible because their vehicle and skill level are incapable of it.


Yep, my 17yo car gets 25mpg if not farked by obstacles(traffic) cruising at 85, 2200rpm.
Now, the vehicles made this century do a bit better, but the vehicle will never make up for the crummy driver that does not understand that driving is a TEAM sport.
 
2013-07-22 10:42:19 AM
its definitely a MPG limit, not a safety limit.  The only thing that hasn't changed in the last 30 years is driver reaction time, and now with accident avoidance tech that aspect of driving is irrelevant now too.

now we have these tiny turbo 4 banger engines that supposedly get great mpgs and make good power, but what they fail to mention to the consumer is that you only get those great mpgs if you're cruising at 60mph.  if you want to do 75, you're running at peak boost and getting half the rated mileage.  look at all the consumer reports on the ford eco boosts and how poor the mileage is at "real" highway speeds.  They should let the consumer of the goods decide how fast they want to drive, and as a result, how much more money in fuel they are willing to spend.
 
2013-07-22 10:54:00 AM
Governor Terry "Cheesestache" Brandstad is still governor of Iowa?

They really do appoint them for life out there.

I remember Robert "Try As You Might, You Simply Can Not Hate This Man" Ray serving through Ice Age and Pleiscene epochs.
 
2013-07-22 11:02:46 AM

TomD9938: skozlaw: 65 mph is unreasonably slow for most interstates and highways in a modern car?  My car, like the vast majority of others on the roads today, has far better brakes, handling, safety structure and tires

The low limit is meant to save the planet, not lives.

/ tilts head...


This. 65mph is what a car engine is designed for running at optimal MPG. Less than that, and its not working hard enough, more than that, and its working too hard.
 
2013-07-22 11:15:42 AM

max_pooper: Please explain how 10% ethanol "kills" your power and MPG's.


Oh, and to answer the question you didn't actually bother asking in your rush to trip over your own point...

The government's own ethanol-whoring website says the MPG reduction is on average about 3-4% so in my car that's more than 1 MPG.

/ and boy oh boy do I sure love having to mix in stabilizer to my gas can all the time so that the ethanol doesn't pick water up in my weedeater or lawn mower and ruin them
// yay ethanol, the worst of all possible worlds!

Mongo No.5: if you want to do 75, you're running at peak boost


I don't think you know how a turbocharger works. Either that or you have one of those weirdo 1.0L European cars that's not really meant to leave a city.
 
2013-07-22 11:19:58 AM
We had a former governor who always thought that he was above the law and was notorious for always speeding wherever he went without repercussion. He got a away with it until he blew through a stop sign, killed a kid and ended up getting convicted of manslaughter. That kind of put the skids on his political career.
 
2013-07-22 11:27:00 AM

Mongo No.5: its definitely a MPG limit, not a safety limit.  The only thing that hasn't changed in the last 30 years is driver reaction time, and now with accident avoidance tech that aspect of driving is irrelevant now too.

now we have these tiny turbo 4 banger engines that supposedly get great mpgs and make good power, but what they fail to mention to the consumer is that you only get those great mpgs if you're cruising at 60mph.  if you want to do 75, you're running at peak boost and getting half the rated mileage.  look at all the consumer reports on the ford eco boosts and how poor the mileage is at "real" highway speeds.  They should let the consumer of the goods decide how fast they want to drive, and as a result, how much more money in fuel they are willing to spend.


I drive a 2003 Mitsubishi Lancer, which is a four-banger.  I typically use cruise control 7-9 above the posted limit on long drives so that puts me in the 72-79 range generally.  My car is supposed to get 27 mpg highway I think, I usually get 31-33 and even hit 35 mpg once.  I always use the lowest octane regular gas.

YMMV
 
2013-07-22 12:00:48 PM
Let's assume there is a death rate of X  and a serious injury rate of Y when the average speed of the cars is 65mph.  Further, let us assume that an increase to 75mph average does not increase the number or frequency of accidents (very doubtful but we'll leave it there).

The kinetic energy and g-forces involved in the accidents and the resulting severity with this 15% increase in velocity will also increase by 15% and the death rate will become (1.15)X and the serious injury rate will become (1.15)Y.
Is this what we want?

And, while we're at it, fuel consumption increases with the square of the % difference in speed (because your car's wind resistance can be considered to be a rectangle.  If your car has excellent aerodynamics it presents a smaller equivalent rectangle but it is still a square function.) so 1.15x1.15 = 1.33 so a 33% increase in fuel consumption.

A 400- mile trip at 65mph will take you 6h 10min and at 75mph 5h 20 min.   What terribly significant, important and wonderful things are you doing with those 50 'saved' minutes?????

Take your time, be safer, save on fuel and relax!!!
 
2013-07-22 12:34:29 PM

cnocnanrionnag: Let's assume there is a death rate of X  and a serious injury rate of Y when the average speed of the cars is 65mph.  Further, let us assume that an increase to 75mph average does not increase the number or frequency of accidents (very doubtful but we'll leave it there).

The kinetic energy and g-forces involved in the accidents and the resulting severity with this 15% increase in velocity will also increase by 15% and the death rate will become (1.15)X and the serious injury rate will become (1.15)Y.
Is this what we want?

And, while we're at it, fuel consumption increases with the square of the % difference in speed (because your car's wind resistance can be considered to be a rectangle.  If your car has excellent aerodynamics it presents a smaller equivalent rectangle but it is still a square function.) so 1.15x1.15 = 1.33 so a 33% increase in fuel consumption.

A 400- mile trip at 65mph will take you 6h 10min and at 75mph 5h 20 min.   What terribly significant, important and wonderful things are you doing with those 50 'saved' minutes?????

Take your time, be safer, save on fuel and relax!!!


Devil's advocate: The rate of death at 65 mph is higher than the rate at 55mph which is higher than at 45 and so on, so therefore the obvious solution in terms of safety is to remove accelerators from cars and have everyone idle from A to B.
 
2013-07-22 12:49:08 PM

cnocnanrionnag: A 400- mile trip at 65mph will take you 6h 10min and at 75mph 5h 20 min.   What terribly significant, important and wonderful things are you doing with those 50 'saved' minutes?????


Sitting on the back porch with a beer in my hand instead of inside of a car bored out of my mind for one thing.  And if I could make that same trip at 90, I would be there in 4.5 hours feeling significantly less stressed than if I had been sitting in a car for another hour and a half.

And to use your logic, why don't you just farking walk?  What's so important in your life that you can't waste a little time for?
 
2013-07-22 01:06:06 PM

cnocnanrionnag: What terribly significant, important and wonderful things are you doing with those 50 'saved' minutes?????


Spending time with my family and not on the road.  50 mins might not seem like anything to somebody like you, but to some of us working 50-60 hours a week, 50 mins is a lot of time.

Time is precious.  Granted, speeding might shorten my life in the long run (contributing to an early death) but at the same time I could die right now from an aneurysm, so I think of any short term gains on my time with an .0001% increase in death a risk I am willing to take.
 
2013-07-22 01:21:21 PM

cnocnanrionnag: Let's assume there is a death rate of X  and a serious injury rate of Y when the average speed of the cars is 65mph.  Further, let us assume that an increase to 75mph average does not increase the number or frequency of accidents (very doubtful but we'll leave it there).

The kinetic energy and g-forces involved in the accidents and the resulting severity with this 15% increase in velocity will also increase by 15% and the death rate will become (1.15)X and the serious injury rate will become (1.15)Y.
Is this what we want?

And, while we're at it, fuel consumption increases with the square of the % difference in speed (because your car's wind resistance can be considered to be a rectangle.  If your car has excellent aerodynamics it presents a smaller equivalent rectangle but it is still a square function.) so 1.15x1.15 = 1.33 so a 33% increase in fuel consumption.

A 400- mile trip at 65mph will take you 6h 10min and at 75mph 5h 20 min.   What terribly significant, important and wonderful things are you doing with those 50 'saved' minutes?????

Take your time, be safer, save on fuel and relax!!!


Just for fun, a 400 mile trip at 120mph will only take 3 hours 20 mins. I just saved 2 hours 50 mins!
 
2013-07-22 01:26:36 PM
If they had just paid the fine and kept there mouths shut this whole mess would have on the back page.
 
2013-07-22 01:56:00 PM

cnocnanrionnag: let us assume that an increase to 75mph average does not increase the number or frequency of accidents


Fail.

upload.wikimedia.org
This curve is why smart people teach their kids the sage advice of "drive with the flow of traffic" and stupid people say things like "IT'S A SPEED LIMIT, NOT A SPEED REQUIREMENT".

Deviating significantly from the average speed of the roadway, particularly by driving considerably slower than the average, is the single most dangerous thing you can do once you've joined the flow of traffic because you increase the rate of flow around you and, therefore, increase the number of possible collisions as more people pass you.

Furthermore, your assumptions about survivability of a crash are absurd. Even ignoring that you're forgetting that most crashes are going to involve some measure of deceleration with the brake first, at 100 km/h the probability of fatality is already about 85%. There is not a particularly huge increase in the probability of dying or being seriously injured at 75 MPH versus 65 MPH because by 65 MPH the forces are already so high as to be largely unsurvivable.

Taken altogether, this means two things. One, if everybody else is driving at 75 MPH on a 65 MPH roadway you'd be a fool not to join them because you significantly increase the odds you'll be involved in a crash but only slightly increase your odds of surviving. Two, if you're that worried about safety, you should probably stick to one-lane secondary roads where the prevailing speed is generally limited to 45 MPH or less since those crashes are far more survivable.
 
2013-07-22 03:07:41 PM

skozlaw: h


The interstate is a hundred times safer than any secondary road. Even at 90mph the interstate is far far safer than any other road at 40mph.

Note to others, depending on much money you make, you may be losing time as well by speeding. You spend an extra 50 in the car, but then an extra 120 minutes at work to make back the money you lost driving so fast.
 
2013-07-22 03:09:08 PM

Chiquidin: Driving through Iowa sucks. Once you hit the state line on I-29 or I-80 you gotta drop your speed. It is currently 70mph on those interstate highways unless you are going through a city. But still when I can ramp it up to 80mph while driving thru South Dakota or Nebraska without too much hassle from the cops, as soon as the IA border comes up... Those cops are looking for out-of-staters. They also have photo enforcement in Sioux City which has nabbed many people I know including some extended family.  Anyway Iowa sucks.


The funniest thing is that these dumbass hayseeds don't realize that money that I'd be spending in their state is instead being spent in neighboring states.  They don't seem to understand that their state's entire purpose in life is as a stopping point on the way to someplace else, so they don't see an economic downside to unreasonable speed limits.
 
2013-07-22 03:16:18 PM

shaddix: The interstate is a hundred times safer than any secondary road.


[citation needed]

If we're not making up silly numbers, they're about twice as safe as non-interstate highways because of all the safety precautions that went into them like the median.

Regardless, your comment has little to do with mine within the context mine was made regarding high speed crashes the other poster brought up.

shaddix: You spend an extra 50 in the car, but then an extra 120 minutes at work to make back the money you lost driving so fast.


wut?
 
2013-07-22 04:17:57 PM

skozlaw: cnocnanrionnag: let us assume that an increase to 75mph average does not increase the number or frequency of accidents

Fail.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 493x599]
This curve is why smart people teach their kids the sage advice of "drive with the flow of traffic" and stupid people say things like "IT'S A SPEED LIMIT, NOT A SPEED REQUIREMENT".

Deviating significantly from the average speed of the roadway, particularly by driving considerably slower than the average, is the single most dangerous thing you can do once you've joined the flow of traffic because you increase the rate of flow around you and, therefore, increase the number of possible collisions as more people pass you.

Furthermore, your assumptions about survivability of a crash are absurd. Even ignoring that you're forgetting that most crashes are going to involve some measure of deceleration with the brake first, at 100 km/h the probability of fatality is already about 85%. There is not a particularly huge increase in the probability of dying or being seriously injured at 75 MPH versus 65 MPH because by 65 MPH the forces are already so high as to be largely unsurvivable.

Taken altogether, this means two things. One, if everybody else is driving at 75 MPH on a 65 MPH roadway you'd be a fool not to join them because you significantly increase the odds you'll be involved in a crash but only slightly increase your odds of surviving. Two, if you're that worried about safety, you should probably stick to one-lane secondary roads where the prevailing speed is generally limited to 45 MPH or less since those crashes are far more survivable.


If the Average speed changes from 65 to 75 (which was my main premise) it is still the average speed and therefore is at the minimum point on your graph.  The graph is making a different point, that of not driving with the flow, which you quite rightly maintain is an excellent strategy...

I was (clumsily, I admit)  trying to isolate the variable of speed and its life-partner momentum from things like reflexes, condition of the car etc. so as to make the point that, the faster you go the forces involved in any incident are going to be greater and the risk to life and limb is also greater.

/I'm a right lane, go with the flow driver myself.
//As a retired person I do have more time, it seems, than some folks here...
///I have an excellent CD collection and satellite radio and I always bring some audio books with me on long trips so time in the car isn't wasted or frustrating for me.  YMMV
 
2013-07-22 06:47:11 PM

max_pooper: Ethanol has 10% less energy than gasoline, therefor a 10% ethanol 90% gas blend has about 1% less energy than straight gasoline.


Ethanol has about 33% less energy than gasoline, so a 10/90 mix ends up being as much as 3-4% less energy.
 
2013-07-23 08:45:30 AM

cnocnanrionnag: so as to make the point that, the faster you go the forces involved in any incident are going to be greater


It's not really a point if it relies on an extreme set of circumstances to be true.

You're not making a point, you're just being wrong. Driving considerably slower than the prevailing speed is considerably more dangerous than driving faster to match the prevailing speed. It's not like this is some weird voodoo I'm just making up, the Solomon Curve has been studied for more than fifty years and its accuracy has been confirmed again and again.

The national speed limit, by all objective measures, should be raised if the goal of a speed limit is improved safety.
 
2013-07-23 02:08:14 PM
I have twice now tried to say that if the average speed, the mean speed, the prevailing speed, as you phrase it,  of all the drivers were to go from 65 to 75 then the forces involved in any collisions or upsets will also, on average, be greater.  That is all.  I have not said that one should drive 10mph slower than anyone else.

The solomon curve shows an increase in accidents above and below any arbitrary average speed (0 on the graph at its minimum point) which could refer to a 55mph limit (hello 1970's) or a 65 or 75 or 80 or whatever.

Reading is hard, I admit.....   and math is really tough......
 
2013-07-23 03:51:27 PM
cnocnanrionnag:The solomon curve shows an increase in accidents above and below any arbitrary average speed (0 on the graph at its minimum point) which could refer to a 55mph limit (hello 1970's) or a 65 or 75 or 80 or whatever.

The Solomon curve is only half the story.  The '85th Percentile Rule' is the other half.  It explains why you can't make the highways safer by enforcing (e.g.) a 55 MPH limit.
 
Displayed 44 of 44 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report