Some seem to think so according to this article. They say the police are against it for reasons of reduced revenue. No surprise there.
Some states have absurdly low speed limits...like Oregon. They limit it to 65 on freeways and 55 on other roads. OR has some of the best maintained roads I've ever been on and their limits are ridiculous..and usually ignored.


Higher Speed Limits Seen As Safer And Desirable

Higher Speed Limits Seen As Safer And Desirable
Some states raising speed limits for safety sake
AOL Original Content Posted: Sep 04, 2013
| By: David Kiley | AOL Autos

How does driving 80 mph, legally, sound?

For the last few years, as budget-pressured states and municipalities have pressed law-enforcement to write more speeding and traffic tickets, employed speed cameras and battled in court against drivers who warn other drivers about speed traps, there are voices, including those of some police departments, saying higher speed limits would be safer and contribute to our quality of life.

Take Michigan State Senator Rick Jones, a Republican from Grand Ledge, Mich., and a former police officer, who has proposed that state speed limits be raised to as high as 80 mph, up from the upper limit of 70 mph. The Detroit News recently supported Jones' measure with an editorial.

Jones knows local police forces may fight the proposal until they figure out how to replace lost ticket revenue.

"All good police officers oppose speed traps," Jones says. "Speeds should be posted scientifically and properly for the safest speed and then the officers will catch the big violators. We don't need to get the average Joe getting to work." Jones also said the higher limits would afford police the ability to focus on other enforcement areas such as impaired, distracted or careless driving, and restraint (seat-belt) enforcement.

There is support at the state level.

"With artificially low speed limits we put police in a position of actually ticketing safe drivers," said Lt. Gary Megge of the Michigan State Police Traffic Services. He's pushing for Jones' bill.

Illinois has recently upped its speed limits on rural highways from 65 mph to 70 mph. And there is support in Wisconsin's state house for similarly increasing the speed limit from 65 mph to 70 mph, a measure that has support from some of the state's newspapers.

AAA generally opposes higher speed limits. The organization said in its opposition to Illinois' measure that nearly half of the state's traffic fatalities involve speeding, with that percentage on the rise. But let's look behind the numbers. There were 1,248 fatal car accidents on Illinois highways in 2007 and 918 in 2011. The percentage of accidents involving speeding was 42% in 2007 and 47% in 2011. Not only are the numbers and percentages close, but drawing a straight line between higher speed limits and more traffic fatal accidents is not valid. Unknowns, for example, in those statistics are how many accidents may have been caused by motorists suddenly adjusting speed at the sight of a police speed trap, the number impacted by impaired drivers or influenced by road construction.

Why and what is the theory behind higher speed limits being safer for drivers? The National Motorists Association argues that higher speed limits make roads safer, endorsing research that supports the idea that setting speed limits around the speed that 85 percent of drivers travel.

"We're supportive of the 85th percentile rule," Michigan Dept. of Transportation DOT spokesman Jeff Cranson told The Detroit News. "There's a misconception that speed alone kills. It really depends on road conditions. If it means increasing the speed limit to make some roads safer, then it should be done."

There are a lot of variances in speed limits in the U.S. as anyone driving cross country can attest. The highest speed limits are for the most part 75 mph in western states and 70 mph in eastern states. Northeast states have 65 mph limits. A small portion of the Texas and Utah road networks have higher limits of 80 mph and even 85 mph.

Remember when speed limits kept drivers to a hair-pulling 55 mph? Between 1974 and 1987, the lower highway speed limit was a result of policy that said the lower speed limit would save gas. During World War II, the speed limit was set at 35 mph for the same reason. While it is generally true that most vehicles will use less gas if their speed is set between 55 and 65 in highway driving, proof that the national policy saved energy on the whole is debatable at best. The National Maximum Speed law was repealed in 1995 and speed limits were given back to the states to set.

Will higher speed limits make us less safe? After New York raised the limit on its highway traffic to 65 mph in 1995, the state's total crash rate dropped by 4 percent. In 2000, the Automobile Club of Southern California determined that higher speed limits in that state did not increase the rate of statewide accidents over a period of five years. Additionally, traffic fatalities as a percentage of miles traveled dropped sharply after the repeal of the 55 mph rule.

Speed, however, does have a direct effect on how serious an accident can be. Physics dictates that the force of impact increases with speed. But research in this area can be quickly out-dated as carmakers have added technology to new cars-multiple airbags, seatbelt minders that chime until the belts are buckled, electronic stability control. These features are all found standard on every new car. Even more technology, such as sophisticated collision-avoidance systems, are being phased into cars, albeit mostly luxury cars for now.

In case you are wondering when speed limits were first set, it was in Colonial times. In 1757, in Boston, the board of selectmen set the speed limit for wagons, carriages, horses, etc. on Sunday was set at "a walking pace." Anyone exceeding this limit would be fined 10 shillings.

Today's vehicles have a lot more horsepower. And it could just be safer to let them run

Speed limits are for revenue, not safety. Look up the highway death toll data on the DOT website, the death rate took a dramatic drop after the 55 mph national speed limit was repealed. The reason was that you no longer had half the drivers doing 55 and the other half doing 75-80. If you set a reasonable speed limit instead of ridiculously low limits then traffic can flow at it's natural, safer speed.

I think having a truck limit lower than the car limit is a hazard. You get several trucks piled up with cars trying to get around them at 70. It's asking for trouble.

ever notice that left to their own devices, folks on the Interstate seem to settle down around the same speed? 75 or 80 around here.

IIRC the number of severe wrecks went down when Montana's was "reasonable and prudent".....vehicles werent bunched up as bad so when a wreck happened it generally only involved a single or two vehicles depending on circumstances was the conclusions so numbers of deaths went down.....

There is a whole lot of accurate data neded to make that decision. I do not believe such date exists.

I felt safer driving for hours at 100 MPH + on the autobahn in Germany than I do on our interstates. The primary factor for this has to do with 2 things - driving to right unless you are passing and strict adherence to traffic laws which leads to predictable behavior and driving patterns. Rarely saw an accident.

The average accident happens at 35MPH, that's why I drive at least 70MPH wherever I am. It doubles my chances of not having an accident.

I thought we were supposed to be trying to lower our dependence on foreign oil.

If so, why are we increasing speeds which usually increases gas consumption?

As a society, we suck as drivers. I spend a lot of time on the road with my job. Paying attention in the car is second to everything else. Ie phone , kids , finishing their make-up. Etc etc.

Only because the government doesn't want it to.

That's why in just about every state in the union speed limits are based on an engineering study of the 85th Percentile speed of the free flowing traffic.

At least they are suppose to be. Unfortunately, there are other factors that get involved like say POLITICS for instance that really throw a wrench in the works....

And that's all I'm sayin'!!!!!

I always remember being told to walk with a purpose instead of just strolling along. That has always carried over to my driving as well... I drive with a purpose.

In N.C. The DOT recommends a speed limit but for it to be legally enforced it has to be legislated, the legislature rarely passes the same speed limit that it recommended.

I'm not sure about increasing speed limits. Where I drive the Texans cross into Louisiana and continue to drive like they're in Texas. They're usually doing 80-85, tail gateing, passing on the right, or changing lanes without signaling. Maybe they think Drive Friendly only applies to Texas. One passed me last week and we were in the SAME lane.

Come on Tex, I know it takes a looooooong time to drive all the way across the state but if your east bound, slow down once your pass Dallas.



And yes, I've done things driving that seemed alright at the time that in retrospect might have been a poor decision.

Just my experience. Flame me.

drive down the interstate in North Dakota where you can see for miles and both ahead of you and in your rear view you can count the vehicles you see on your fingers and have several left over and ask yourself if its not safe to run at 100 there....i know there are alot of places where its a bad idea and not safe but there are alot of places where it is as safe as driving 65

No doubt about it. My reference is to moderate traffic.

I don't know what my tires are speed rated at but I doubt its 100 MPH.

I grew up in wild wild wild Montana, with no speed limits. And then I got a street bike and raced it for a while when I was living in the Bay Area. Bottom line is, if you drive fast enough it takes all your attention. If the speed limit is too low, your attention starts to wander.
I have gotten in more trouble on stupidly slow roads than any time I was tooting right along.
Nonetheless, I have never, ever gotten a speeding ticket or been in a car wreck (bikes don't count). I have been pulled over and weaseled out of every one. Basically, the cop asks me, I say Yep, I know exactly how fast I was going, and ask him or her what the radar or laser says. And it usually goes well from there, and even if it doesn't, the worst has been a non-points equipment ding.

It depends. I thought the 55 MPH limit was a joke. But all the interstates I drive on now have 70-75 mph limits with 65 in some urban areas. Considering almost all LE will give you 10 MPH most of us can drive 75-80 anyway. That is as fast as I want to go and puts me sligtly ahead of the flow in most places.

In Georgia (with a few exceptions ) most LE are required by law to give you 10 over the limit. That law was put in place to limit speed traps. The exceptions are school zones, construction zones and Georgia State Troopers. Local LE cannot write a ticket unless you are 10+ over the limit. While GSP can technically write you for 1 mph over, I've never known of a GSP officer to write a ticket that was not deserved.

My gripe is with small town cops who are only employed to generate revenue. There are at least 3 tiny communities between Atlanta and Chattanooga with 1 patrol car departments, not a single traffic light and 4-5 miles off the interstate. Yet that 1 patrol car is always on the side of I-75 instead of preventing crime in their small towns.

Then mandate smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles and diesel engines. Get rid of the crazy diesel emissions standards and use the European standards which will open up our market to lots of new vehicles with great fuel mileage. Don't try and sell us lower speed limits under the guise of safety when it's really about revenue generation.

What do the Germans do to drivers that don't have a license, insurance and brakes? We give them a check every month.

The Germans and all European countries actually have a driver's test that's worthashit. Driver License tests here are a JOKE. Cops give tickets mostly to meet revenue quotas, and ignore the people who cause accidents for the most part, driving at or below speed limits in the left lane, STOPPING to merge onto highways and of course the favorite around here, people ignoring yellow lights.

I agree with Jammer -- school zones, urban streets, construction zones, I always strictly comply with the posted limits because, for one, there's no time to be made up by cheating -- and it's dangerous.
Speed and momentum are not dangerous in and of themselves, it's where you have it and what happens to it that really matters.
One thing I'd like to see for drivers is an A-Card license. You go five years without a ticket and/or wreck and you get an A-license and a transponder that is good only for you. ZOOOOM. Huge fines if you cheat. No speeding tickets....but you can lose your A card with an at-fault or careless driving citation as noted below.
I really miss the reasonable and prudent law we had in Montana. It would be nice to have a category called "Driving While Stupid." Try to explain THAT before a judge.
What I would really like to see is more enforcement of proper driving, lane changes, signalling, right-left lane, centerline, tailgating, leaking out of the left-turn lane, unsafe, blown stops and the other "sloppy" things people do. If people tightened up their actual driving, it would make a huge difference.

dont really find much to disagree with yah there Dave

The stuff in red accounts for about 95% of dumb$hit stuff that American drivers pull. If you did either of those in Germany you'd have everyone on the road honking and flashing their lights at you, they give immediate negative feedback when another driver does something stupid. Here we just pile up behind them while they poke along in the left lane with 20 cars stacked behind them. It costs about $3000 and a long time to get a Germany drivers license, I'm not sure I want that here. People are people and I'm not convinced that German drivers are really any better than American drivers, they're just not allowed to do the two stupid things mentioned above and that would fix most of the problems here. Teaching people in driver's ed that the left lane is for passing ONLY along with meaningful laws against impeding the flow of traffic and aggressive enforcement of them would fix a lot. You're in the left lane impeding the flow of traffic---$200 fine. Instead our cops would rather write tickets for doing 45 in a 35 zone.

We had a neighborhood here a few years ago that wanted, begged and pleaded for ZERO TOLERANCE on speeders. They demanded it. Anybody speeding gets a ticket-no exceptions, no "five over is OK".

That lasted exactly two days. Apparently they wanted EVERYBODY ELSE to get tickets.

Now I know why the kids on your bus think you rock..........

some of the better drivers i've been around were on the Autoban; the only speed limit was how fast your car would go;
although I did hear on the radio of a 200 plus car pile up.


Here in the SW, 70 mph does not seem fast. The roads can be a straight line to the horizon. If it is a multi lane road, have a fast/passing lane to the left and slower traffic to the right.

Worldly and cloistered at the same time. Neat.

I would think so on rural highways in eastern Oregon, 55 is the fastest allowed which is so slow for most road conditions, it's hard to keep awake and alert.

Last week I drove from Boise to Grants Pass. Fifty-five is too fast to be slow and too slow to be fast. The roads can easily handle 70MHP.

I agree. Oregon speed limits are ridiculous. But this is the state gave the country the 55 mph limit and our Governor would love to impose it again if he could. Gov. Do-over.

Rant ON

If you are being tailgated in the left hand lane, you are the problem. Lead , follow or get the hell outa the way. I don't care if you get out and crawl to where you are going, just do it in the right hand lane. I don't have all day to get to where I am going.

Rand OFF

If all the drivers were going the same speed I don't see how faster would be a bad thing.
As is there are hoards of drivers addicted to the Passing lane and driving well under the limit, being tailgated by drivers that want to get down the road with lots of dodging and darting to get around.
It's not unusual to wait behind a driver that wont merge with traffic until there is a clear shot to the far left lane.

IMHO, it's the Difference in driving speeds that is the real danger. Not just the max posted speed.

Only speed limit that matters is light speed.

Even on the freeway. From Caldwell ID to the border is 75MPH then you hit the river into OR and is 65MPH and they do not screw around. Sure you get into the winders in the canyon around Lime and is down to 55MPH, but nothing after that until you get to the Blues. Have never figured that one out. We go over to Sumpter every other weekend and gets really old once you hit OR and we are never in a rush.

Some of the local gravel roads are 60-70mph(if you're in a hurry, I'm usually not), of course slow down when you meet another outfit. Hate catching rocks on the windshield.



As for speeding, I hate [bleep] who zoom around town 35-40mph, slow down damnit.

i do at the school zones......

We have toll road 130 that runs to Austin, that averages 80 mph, sometimes 85 mph! Its the fastest posted in the usa. Think most drive 90 on it! Texas now has little farm roads marked 75 now.

My #1 rant is driving in the left lane. I stay in the right except to pass. Don't know if I changed their minds but had two women at work insist that as long as they were driving the speed limit it didn't matter which lane they were in. Women

Last weekend I was on that stretch of I-10, that is mostly 80mph. The nice part was folks were actually polite and driving smoothly. Some drove a little faster, or a little slower, but most were close to the same speed. No tailgating, super-slow, or super fast. I set it on 82 and seldom touched the brake

Contrast it with one time in California, the Sunday after Thanksgiving, on I-5, the main north & south highway. Traffic 100 miles from SF was running 80 in a 70 limit, and it was still bumper to bumper. How there was no massive pileup I don't know.

t n c, you know if you travel that corridor regularly that massive pileups do occur on the "5" most every year and it can happen anywhere along the length of it from the Southern border to Oregon. Tule fog in the central valley gets 'em every winter it seems, Ice up north by Shasta/Weed, Snow on the Grapevine, and too many folks in the LA basin. I'm guessing it's not much different on the east coast and central US n/s freeways at holiday time.

I 5 is one of my least favorite roads to travel on in the US. Holidays are extremely bad. I went to school in N cal and all my siblings are down in the SD area. It's positively scary to try to drive that road anywhere near the speed limit and for me it's too scary to get out in the fast lane at 80 with untrained drivers runnin my bumper. I used to use 99 or 101 but traffic on those has gotten worse now too. too many drivers unwilling to put in the effort to actually drive. They don't look ahead for the truck pulling out to pass or for their exit. They do expect to be able to pass people on the right if they want to. They are on their phones. Some have been driving since Washington or San D trying to get south/north for Christmas. I'd hate to see the speed limit upped to 80 on that road, all those yahoos would be going 90-100 then. I now generally avoid holiday driving, the wife and I stay home then and visit at other times of the year.

I'm down with the wife in the "Sucktomento" area right now and hate driving around this town for all the reason mentioned already, especially running red lights. Can't wait to get back up to E WA where traffic jams are caused by combines driving between grain fields.

Higher speed limits in rural areas = yes, especially Oregon as I have to pass through there a few times a year.

Speed laws were developed due to fuel consumption not safety. Cars are safer now than ever, can't say the same about drivers. You see 90 percent or more with a phone glued to their head or texting instead of driving. It would be nice to have a faster speed limit like the autobahn for traveling across country.

Dude! I'm not trying to sell anything.

I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of our governments.

Europe thinks they have the answer to all of these problems...

http://www.iol.co.za/motoring/indus...th-speed-limiters-1.1571476#.UinH9STn85s

EU to fit cars with speed limiters?

September 2 2013 at 08:42am
By Glen Owen

Comment on this story

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




IOL mot sep2 speed limit
AFP

European proposal could see cars fitted with technology that automatically applies the brakes if the speed limit is exceeded.


Related Stories
Drivers face 'spy in sky' monitoring

European drivers face having their cars fitted with devices that slam on the brakes if they go over the speed limit, under draconian new road safety measures being drawn up by officials in Brussels.

All new cars would have to include camera systems that �read� the limits displayed on road signs and automatically apply the brakes.

And vehicles already on the road could even be sent back to garages to be fitted with the �Big Brother� technology, meaning that no car in the UK would be allowed to travel faster than 70mph (112.6km/h) � the speed limit on motorways.

UK Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin is said to have �erupted� when the proposals landed on his desk and has told his officials to block the moves.

He has been asked by the European Commission for his views ahead of the publication of formal proposals this autumn.

The EC�s Mobility and Transport Department hopes to roll out the �Intelligent Speed Adaptation� technology (ISA) as part of a new road safety programme, which aims to slash the death toll from traffic accidents by a third by 2020.

Every year, more than 30 000 people die on the roads in EU countries and a shocking 1.5 million are injured, of whom 120 000 are left permanently disabled.

Experts estimate that 6000 of those deaths could be prevented if drivers obeyed speed limits.

But Mr McLoughlin has stressed to officials that the UK already has one of the best road safety records in Europe. The number of people killed on its roads fell last year from 1901 to 1754 � the lowest figure since records began in 1926. By comparison, 3645 people died in France and 3657 in Germany.

�BIG BROTHER� TECHNOLOGY

The ISA technology works in one of two ways � either through satellites, which communicate limits automatically to cars from databases, or by using cameras to read road signs.

It then deploys one of three controls to slow drivers: �advice�, in which the motorist is simply notified of the speed limit by an alarm, giving them the opportunity to slow down; �driver select�, which arrests the car�s speed but gives the driver the option of disabling the device; or �mandatory�, which would not let a driver breach the speed limit under any circumstances.

Mr McLoughlin was told by his officials that new vehicles will soon be designed with camera and satellite technology automatically incorporated, making it �cheap and easy� to add speed-control systems.

Last night, a Government source said Mr McLouglin had instructed officials to block the moves because they were a �violation� of British motorists� freedom.

The source said: �This has Big Brother written all over it and is exactly the sort of thing that gets people�s backs up about Brussels. We are about getting a better deal for Britain, not letting EU bureaucrats encroach further into people�s lives.

�The Commission wanted his views ahead of plans to publish the proposals this autumn. He made it very clear what those views were.�

CREATING NEW DANGERS

A spokesman for the AA said at lower speeds the new technology could actually create dangers.

He said: �If you were overtaking a tractor and suddenly needed to accelerate to avoid a head-on collision, you would not be able to.� But he said he would support a system of audible speed alerts.

A spokesman for the EC said: �It is part of the Commission�s job � because it has been mandated to do so by member states, including the UK � to look at, promote research into and consult stakeholders about new road-safety technology which might ultimately save lives. This is done in close co-operation with member states and the UK has generally supported such efforts.�

The spokesman added: �There is a currently consultation focusing on speed-limiting technology already fitted to HGVs and buses.

�Taking account of the results, the Commission will publish in the autumn a document by its technical experts which will no doubt refer to ISA among many other things.

Valsdad,



When someone is driving below the speed limit in the left lane do you slow down behind them? I have often seen this and wonder what mentality it takes to give someone else control over you instead of going around them.

Slow drivers get more people killed than fast drivers

oh so your one of the idiots that doesnt look that i always wind up slamming on my breaks to make room for them so they dont head on with someone coming the other way cause they didnt bother to slow down and look ahead....

What's always ignored is the other part of the kinetic energy equation, which is mass (weight). A fully loaded eighteen wheeler doing 75 MPH has as much kinetic energy as a man on a motorcycle traveling at the speed of sound, yet cops give the truck a pass in order to ticket a motorcycle rider doing 85 MPH. Is it bias or just ignorance?

I hope I'm understanding you right. The concept I was trying to get across is those people "wanting" to get around traffic, whether or not the person in the "fast lane" is below, at, or exceeding the speed limit. Lots of folks don't even care what traffic conditions exist. Yes, a mostly open road with an inattentive driver hogging the fast lane, maybe it does make sense to pass on the right. Crowded road, traffic moving sorta slow, not much sense in endangering others by going around on the right. Odds are one won't get very far ahead if they do.

Well, what about if they want to pass on the right even if the person in the left lane is going over the speed limit? Lets say by 10 mph, 75 in a 65 zone. Is it OK then because they want to go 80? This is a common situation on I 5 on a regular day, not necessarily a holiday weekend. It just gets worse then.

I will confess to having passed on the right. Mostly I try not too, fortunately with my little four cyl pick up and the fact most of my driving is done on rural rds/hwys I don't run into the situations I did when I regularly put lots of miles on the freeways in SoCal. I do have to come down to the State of Utter Confusion known as California for a few months every year and hate it. Nowadays, I'm the one watching my ass when I have to pull into the fast lane to pass a 55 mph truck on a 65 mph freeway (that's the rule in Cali, trucks and vehicles w/trailers = 55mph). Even watching out for fast moving traffic coming up (yeah, I use my mirrors a lot) I probably piss some folks off as I'm getting around the truck, but as soon as it's safe ( I used to drive a truck and therefor don't cut back in immediately as some "nice" people do) I get back over so they can go on their merry way.

When the situation does arise, I try the flashing high beams trick a few times and if that doesn't work I wish for a vaporizer button on the dash and pass on the right, hating it all the way. You're right, I'm not willing to stay in a lineup that could cause a pileup with me in it.

Years ago I knew a guy from Germany. Don't know if it still holds true, but he told me then that if someone on the 'bahn refused to pull over to let you pass and got caught they had their license pulled for a year. Can you imagine that happening here? I thought it sounded reasonable to me. Be a lot less folks out there driving around with the "I paid the same taxes as you, I'll drive in whatever d--n lane I want to" attitude.

Sometimes people using the right lane to pass are not even the dangerous ones, I've seen lots of them use the right shoulder, center divider, the white line between lanes, even the off ramp back down the on ramp trick. Drive 70,000 miles a year around San Diego, Orange, LA, and Riverside counties and you get an idea what kind of drivers there really are out there. I'm really grateful I don't have to do it anymore.

Now I'm the slow old guy trying to get back in the right lane so I can do the speed limit mostly, trying to not get run over. It's easier on me and my truck gets much better mileage at 2500 rpm than at 3000. And every once in while the need, not want, to pass on the right arises.

I know that I have not gotten any more tickets since Idaho raised our speed limits to a reasonable level. I used to get ticketed every once in a while for for seventy five on the interstate, that's the limit now.

I know that in Oregon the law states that you must drive in the left lane except when passing. Idaho has no such law. Idaho expects that traffic will make use of both lanes. You are almost as likely to be passed on the right while driving in the left lane as vice versa.

Some drivers have difficulty with that concept.

I do relate to you on the Oregon stuff. I got pulled over years ago after I got off I5 in Central OR, got on the 99W and kept going 65 as it was night, there was no traffic, it was a rural area and I thought 65 was the limit. Fortunately, the OSP officer let me go with a warning and informed me that in OR unless on a real freeway the limit is 55. AS screwy as California is, when I grew up they had a "basic speed law". It was 65 everywhere unless posted otherwise or conditions dictated slower (rain, snow, limited visibility, etc.)

"I know that in Oregon the law states that you must drive in the left lane except when passing"
I'm thinking you meant to type right lane?

Oregon and many other states have passed that right lane only law only in "recent" times (recent for an older guy like me anyway) due to the fact that they couldn't enforce keeping slower folks in the right lane without it. Even Cali has had signs (for over 40 years that I know of) on most roads when you enter the state that say "Slower traffic MUST mover over to allow passing", My emphasis on "must". That does not mean you "should" pull over, or that you "can" pull over; "Must" means "must" in the English I grew up with. Lots of other states have passed laws now requiring normal travel in the right lane only to save the left for passing. They've also had to pass laws requiring people to slow down and/or move over for emergency vehicles because some folks have no common sense and blow right past a cop car/ambulance/tow truck on the side of the road at 65, 75, or higher. Those folks on the side of the road love that.

I don't know if Idaho "expects" traffic to use both lanes and that one should expect to be passed on the right. Maybe this is a generational thing. When I learned to drive they taught that on roads with more than one lane of travel in each direction the right lane was the travel lane and is to also be used for entering and exiting the road, the left lane was to be used for passing slower traffic and to move into to allow others to enter and exit. If there was 3 or more lanes in one direction the right lane was for slow traffic like trucks and for entering and exiting, the middle lanes were for travelling, and the left (or "fast" ) lane was for passing and emergency vehicle use. When used like that folks could go for miles in the middle lanes not having to worry about other merging onto the highway or slowing to exit. Or worry about passing vehicles coming up in the right lane unexpectedly. Traffic flows pretty smoothly if the lanes are used that way. All it takes is for someone (I'll be nice and not use an expletive to describe them) to use the fast lane as a travel lane though and someone is going to want to pass on the right, therefor causing those in the real travel lane to brake or get out of the way 'cuase someone cut them off to get around the slow on e out there in the fast lane.

Do they even teach that stuff in driving classes nowadays? Do they teach that the proper way to get on a high speed road is to adjust your speed to the traffic on the road you're entering? (After all, the little sign on the "on ramp" usually says merge or yield, not "STOP".) Do they teach one to look 6-12 seconds down the road so you can plan ahead if you see a slow vehicle or emergency vehicle and you can move over without cutting people off?

Not picking on Idaho, I kinda like my Neighbor to the east. After all I live only about thirty miles from the ID/WA border. However, I might have difficulty with the "concept" of "expecting" traffic to use both lanes. Might be the reason so many states have had to write it into law. It's hard to legislate common sense, but sometimes there's no way around it. Unfortunately it doesn't get enforced enough and folks still drive slow in the fast lane forcing others to pass them on the right.

Oregon! Oh man, I forgot about that cesspool. I had an article to write over there and it involved widely spaced interviews. So, I'm in Baker and have to be in Dreadford the next AM to watch a congressional hearing.
"55? Are you foofing me?" methinks --
So I put a brick on it, there's a road in the Christmas Valley or somewhere that goes past the big radar site. It runs from ridge to ridge survey, with curves on the ridge top. I remember that part....
I come popping up over one of those ridges and there's a sheriff, not an OSP goon. I just put both hands up on the wheel and stayed in it, he waved and no gumballs. He understood, I guess, but I was going 95. I'd slowed down for the ridge corner.

Yes, you got me on the typo.

During the hours of 7 AM - 9 AM and 4 PM - 6 PM traffic on I 84 in the Boise area typically is bumper to bumper in both lanes, or all three lanes, or all four lanes, depending on which area of the highway you are on. The situation has been thus for over thirty years.

Attempting to push that traffic flow into fewer lanes would be a disaster. Some areas actually have signs requesting "thru traffic use right lane" to free up the left for entrances and exits.

We also have exit ramps off the left side of the free way. I had assumed that was the norm for the nation. Perhaps I was mistaken.

I was passed on the right yesterday coming home from work. I, and the car in front of me were traveling eighty in a seventy five. Were in the left lane with about two car lengths between us, just passing a semi doing the truck limit of 65.

The front car was just even with the back bumper of the semi when some guy doing 90+ comes flying up in the right lane and slid in between me and the front car with less than ten feet clearance on each end.

In Idaho it's not the guy traveling at the speed limit, and with traffic flow in the left that causes accidents. It is the idiots pushing the limits who cause accidents.

Doing 80 in a 75....So is 5 over speeding? Or is it just a little speeding cause it was you? Cant have it both ways.

You at 80, the truck at 65, 15mph difference you should had cleared that truck quickly. I am guessing the guy behind was tired of following both of you and figured no one was gonna get over anyway .

Paying attention to your surroundings in a car is way down on the list of things to be concerned about in todays world.
Phone, food, kids. smokes, makeup are way above driving.

I have followed cars for miles while trying to get around and they never look in the rearview mirror.

I used to go to Germany on business regularly and drove on the autobahn. If you are doing 150 mph in the left (passing) lane and get hit by a car doing 180 mph, you are at fault for obstructing traffic!

Higher speed must be safer since autobahn drivers only have one accident.

Now there's some real Campfire reasoning! (I did detect a note of sarcasm in your post, didn't I ?)

Clogged "freeways" aren't really relevant to higher speed limit questions as most of the time when they get clogged speed limits are hardly reachable. I've been on a lot of 65mph fwys and never gotten above 40 and that was when traffic is really moving. Perhaps that's why I try to avoid clogged fwys. I get to leave to go back up to E WA tonight from down here around Sacto, CA. Not leaving until after traffic dies down, around 8 or 9 probably. That way whichever route I choose, East on I 80 to Winnemucca, the N through E OR and up to Lewiston on 95, or head N on the 5 to Weed, K Falls, Biggs, then E to where I work I won't have to deal with crowded roads.

"We also have exit ramps off the left side of the free way. I had assumed that was the norm for the nation. Perhaps I was mistaken." That's one of the worst engineering designs ever created. Not sure if it's the norm, but I've seen it enough. Not so bad when it's a FWY split, horrible if it's an exit to a surface street and traffic backs up trying to get off.

"I, and the car in front of me were traveling eighty in a seventy five. Were in the left lane with about two car lengths between us, just passing a semi doing the truck limit of 65."

Please, if I'm in front of you at 80, leave me a bit more than 2 car lengths. that's a few car lengths less than recommended, even with the better brakes cars have nowadays. Of course, I probably won't be going 80 and will be a lane or two over so hopefully we never meet that way.

Stay safe out there on that 84 in Boise. Probably not as bad as the 805/5 split in San Diego, or the 405/5 split in Orange County, Or the "spaghetti bowl" in LA, but from the sounds of it you don't have an easy commute.

One dangerous maneuver is changing lanes. Some freeways, including the new construction going through Boise, forces you to change. Approaching an exit, the right lane becomes a turn only lane so everyone not turning has to move left. At the next exit, they all have to move left again, and again. Meanwhile, since the right lane disappears at the exit, they create a new left lane so everyone on the freeway has to change lanes to the left to keep it even. Apparently the engineers never considered creating a new turn lane so only those turning have to change lanes instead of every car on the road.

Laffin

It is of my opinion that the folks at ACHD and nearby cohorts mostly rode the short bus

rattler,



Again my inability to communicate comes out. First I didn't ask you the question, but it's O.K. that you answered. I thought we were discussing freeways when I posted the question. But may I ask if you fall in line behind a driver going slow in the fast lane?