Should the Tulsa city council consider lowering speed limits in Tulsa as an effort to reduce emission this summer and encourage less sprawl?
quote:
Originally posted by mrhaskellok
Should the Tulsa city council consider lowering speed limits in Tulsa as an effort to reduce emission this summer and encourage less sprawl?
Does that really work? Wouldn't it cause more congestion, and higher emissions? I've found that I get better fuel economy the faster I go (up to a point). Isn't sprawl partially caused by an effort to escape congestion?
I may be totally wrong, but common sense tells me that if we drop the speed on riverside to say 30 mph, and it takes everyone an extra few minutes to get to work, we would have an extra few minutes of automobiles on the road achieving their absolute worst gas mileage. Consequently if we raised the limit and eliminated some stop lights, we could increase fuel efficiency to nearly highway statistics.
Also people would need to figure the few extra minutes too and from work, so they would have to get up earlier and therefore fire up the lights and coffee maker earlier in the day. Extending the use of energy.
I like the idea of just eliminating one work day. 4 day week! [:D] Lets do that instead! We could make every Monday "Earth Day." Sit around and drink environmentally conscious drinks like wheat grass and vodka!
Uhh yeah, when pollution is at its worst at low speeds in traffic jams in rush hour you are not going to affect that much with a speed limit, and lowering the limit at times before and after rush hour only mean that rush hour is going to come faster and cause more severe jams because of the lower speed limit. Super.
If they lowered the speed limit on 169 from 65 to 55 I would just be ticketed for going 20 over instead of 10 over. That is, of course, if the city survived the riots that would ensue.
I posted the question incorrectly. I don't know the answer. Many web sites claim that there are many benifits to lower speeds. Wanted to see what everyone's thoughts were.
It looks like the while you are right, more cars on would be on the road longer, the consumption difference is where the emission benefit is realized. A car seemingly burns far less fuel when cars are driving slower.
Here are some links that I was looking at...
Northwest Herald Article (//%22http://www.nwherald.com/articles/2007/04/24/opinion/letters/doc4622de154cae2925503936.txt%22)
Slower Speeds Initiative (//%22http://www.slower-speeds.org.uk/%22)
Drive 55 Save Gas, get flipped off (//%22http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/19/MNG3NFAOF11.DTL%22)
Edmond's Test drive (//%22http://www.edmunds.com/advice/fueleconomy/articles/106842/article.html#test2%22)
ETSC (//%22http://www.whatcar.com/news-article.aspx?NA=232467%22)
Autobahn now has speed limit (//%22http://www.hybridcars.com/news/autobahn-lower-speed-limits-emissions-jimmy-carter.html%22)
Absolutely not.
In fact, there should be no speed limits, only speed recommendations besides in areas like school zones and busy pedestrian areas.
From that point, the officer can only pull you over if he deems you're driving reckless.
The best government, is the that governs the least.
quote:
Absolutely not. In fact, there should be no speed limits, only speed recommendations besides in areas like school zones and busy pedestrian areas.
From that point, the officer can only pull you over if he deems you're driving reckless.
The best government, is the that governs the least.
I would be happy to discuss the position of what you are saying...but please understand, no mysterious group of people forced a gun to the head of our legislators and forced them to make a speed limit law. They are the result of public outcry and influence.
Now, I know your position well. Most would call me libertarian. (because I prefer citizen solutions over government solutions) I differ from most conservatives on this issue because I see the air I breath as a right of mine to be clean and not polluted with your nasty smoke. If we can't agree here, then I am afraid we wont be able to more forward with our discussion . Unless of course you are willing to let me sue you for smoking up my air. [:D]
I don't think you would believe it right of me to release toxic chemicals in my yard into the air if I lived next door. I would argue on your side, you shouldn't have to breath it! It has nothing to do with governing least or more. You and I probably agree in other respects like economy and health insurance. But I have a few rights I believe. You should not be legally able to kill me with your smoke whether you be five feet away or collectively over an entire city.
I find it ironic that you are willing to concede that school zones pose a peculiar threat. Why? Are children given any special rights under the Constitution? Or are you just making that statement because it will give it more political weight? Would like to know. "Recommendation" or not, you are already admitting that there needs to be some "extra" attention given to the way we interact and how we do in certain areas.
Case and point, as long as any municipality falls under the US Constitution, they may, by the proper and legal election of representatives, govern themselves as they see fit. So long as those laws are not deemed a violation of my constitutional rights. Don't see anywhere you must be aloud to drive 80 down Memorial.
Since we have speed limits already, what is wrong with wanting to ensure they are serving us as best as possible?
So define "government" and then lets talk.
Gas mileage peaks right around 60-65mph I believe.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
Gas mileage peaks right around 60-65mph I believe.
That is based on old four barrel carbureted engines that ran on two barrels unless the car was under hard acceleration or reached the speed of about 60. Todays cars are fuel injected with variable timing and lots of tricks to get both power and mileage. The only reason you get better mileage at high speed now is because of automatic overdrive and the fact that a combustion engine is most efficient when kept at a constant speed. It is least efficient when accelerating or deaccelerating. The opposite of electric motors.
So if you want to reduce consumption work on eliminating stop/start situations like 71st from Riverside to 169. Driving 55 won't do much.
Most/many charts I have seen show gas mileage peaking around 40-50 mph running,of course, at a constant speed and relatively constant RPM (slow down slight up hills, allow yourself to go faster down). Above that and wind really starts to pick up it's resistance. Below that and the aerodynamics and power of most cars are under utilized.
Per congestion, slower speed limits would only HELP if they timed the lights accordingly. Else I would think it is a hindrance as traffic seems to flow well at 40 mph on major streets.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Most/many charts I have seen show gas mileage peaking around 40-50 mph running,of course, at a constant speed and relatively constant RPM (slow down slight up hills, allow yourself to go faster down). Above that and wind really starts to pick up it's resistance. Below that and the aerodynamics and power of most cars are under utilized.
Per congestion, slower speed limits would only HELP if they timed the lights accordingly. Else I would think it is a hindrance as traffic seems to flow well at 40 mph on major streets.
Yeah, but helping is all it may take to stay off the filthy city list. I have been driving 55 on the hwy and I have to say, it isn't bad. I also noticed that vehicles passing me were right in front of me most of the time. I travel from Bixby to Owasso quite frequently and I am continually surprised at how little of a difference it makes in the time it takes simply driving 55.
According to this site, you can save 20-50% in fuel economy by simply staying below 55mph.
Drive 55 (//%22http://drive55.org%22)
A panel in Washington state said that if they would lower the maximum speed to 55 in Washington they would cut emissions by 10%.
RM, do you know what the numbers are for Tulsa in the summer? How much of an impact would 10% reduction in vehicle emissions have? I don't mind driving slower for cleaner air and cheaper fuel. Anyone else?
(http://www.drive55.org/downloads/tdiclubchart.gif)
A ten percent reduction in emissions from vehicles would be huge. About half of our air quality issues come from vehicle emissions.
Slowing down a few miles per hour clearly helps, but we should also avoid unnecessary idling. On ozone days , avoid the drive-through lunch or even better, bring your lunch and stay in.
With lower speed limits at one end with a residential speed limit of 20mph have shown to reduce annual accident frequency fell by 60%, the overall reduction in child accidents was 67%, and there was an overall reduction in accidents to cyclists of 29%. It does however lead to an increase in CO2 emissions of 10%. In this case, it might only be suitable for residential areas with high non motorised accident rates. City wide the changing of signals to encourage a constant and smooth speed maybe the one idea to reduce carbon.
At the other end of the scale vehicle efficiency tends to fall quickly after 70mph so stopping speed freaks on the highways could have an important impact.
In my opinion the easiest way to reduce carbon and improve the emissions is to reduce the size of cars people drive and support public transport.
quote:
Originally posted by mrhaskellok
(http://www.drive55.org/downloads/tdiclubchart.gif)
That's a bad example. The Volkswagen TDI is a Turbo Diesel engine. Diesels have lower RPM and this particular transmission is designed for city driving, achieving it's best mileage at a low speed.
I have a TrailBlazer and my manual shows my best mileage peaking at 58 mph. Since most of us drive gasoline engines I would expect the peak to be around 55-60.
Just as I suspected, the average high-end fuel economy speed for modern gasoline powered vehicles is around 60 mph (according to the Consumer Energy Commission and the California Energy Commission and Stanford University and Edmonds and The Department of Energy).
(http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/consumer_tips/images/speed_vs_mpg.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Just as I suspected, the average high-end fuel economy speed for modern gasoline powered vehicles is around 60 mph (according to the Consumer Energy Commission and the California Energy Commission and Stanford University and Edmonds and The Department of Energy).
(http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/consumer_tips/images/speed_vs_mpg.gif)
Mine was 60 but I've recalibrated it down to 50 because I do more city driving. A recent news story said the bad light timing in tulsa could actually be effecting our MPG by something close to 20%. That has more of an effect on me than anything.
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
With lower speed limits at one end with a residential speed limit of 20mph
Do you mean roads in neighborhoods or surface streets in general? Ie. do you mean 38th St. or Harvard?
ON the former, people readily ignore 25 MPH, so I imagine 20 would be equally ignored. If you mean Harvard, you would more than double many peoples daily commute (me!) so I doubt that would happen.
- - -
On a sightly different note, so long as you are not working your engine harder - wouldn't there be LESS emissions as it would require less running time? My engine is at 2K rpm at 40MPh and at 20Mph, I imagine the net emission are higher running for 2 hours at 20 mph than 1 at 40.
quote:
Originally posted by mrhaskellok
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Most/many charts I have seen show gas mileage peaking around 40-50 mph running,of course, at a constant speed and relatively constant RPM (slow down slight up hills, allow yourself to go faster down). Above that and wind really starts to pick up it's resistance. Below that and the aerodynamics and power of most cars are under utilized.
Per congestion, slower speed limits would only HELP if they timed the lights accordingly. Else I would think it is a hindrance as traffic seems to flow well at 40 mph on major streets.
Yeah, but helping is all it may take to stay off the filthy city list. I have been driving 55 on the hwy and I have to say, it isn't bad. I also noticed that vehicles passing me were right in front of me most of the time. I travel from Bixby to Owasso quite frequently and I am continually surprised at how little of a difference it makes in the time it takes simply driving 55.
According to this site, you can save 20-50% in fuel economy by simply staying below 55mph.
Drive 55 (//%22http://drive55.org%22)
A panel in Washington state said that if they would lower the maximum speed to 55 in Washington they would cut emissions by 10%.
RM, do you know what the numbers are for Tulsa in the summer? How much of an impact would 10% reduction in vehicle emissions have? I don't mind driving slower for cleaner air and cheaper fuel. Anyone else?
Driving 55 on the highway when everyone else is going 65 will cause worse gas milage for everyone unless there is hardly any traffic on the roads. Normally that slow car will block off the right lane causing people to have to slow down until they can switch lanes and then speed up again. Then often the passing cars will cut off the slow car in the right lane causing the slow driver to have to hit the brakes and kill the cruise control (or else keep cruising inside of the unsafe 2 second following distance until the passing car gets far enough ahead). All this speeding up and braking can't possibly be good for gas milage.
Everyone needs to drive the same speed on the highway.
quote:
Driving 55 on the highway when everyone else is going 65 will cause worse gas milage for everyone unless there is hardly any traffic on the roads. Normally that slow car will block off the right lane causing people to have to slow down until they can switch lanes and then speed up again. Then often the passing cars will cut off the slow car in the right lane causing the slow driver to have to hit the brakes and kill the cruise control (or else keep cruising inside of the unsafe 2 second following distance until the passing car gets far enough ahead). All this speeding up and braking can't possibly be good for gas milage.
Yeah but I am saving $$$ [:D]
I spend over 4 hundred a month on fuel. I take the savings where I can. [:o)]
CF, I wish I could find some good numbers here. It appears that there are two conflicting sets of data...one says it lowers emissions (Washington study) and others say its false.
I was just postulating, but it made sense to me. Further research seems to support my contention. A study by The AA (the UK's AAA) found reducing the speed limit from 30mph to 20mph reduced fuel efficiency by up to 5.8mpg and raised emissions by more than 10%.
http://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/news/20mph-roads-emissions.html
Makes sense to me. RPMs burn gas, gas creates emissions. If I can get more miles with the same amount of gas, it should be less emissions.
Also interesting int he study, speed bumps increase fuel consumption on a given stretch of road by over 40%. Which makes sense when though about, BRAKE, ease over the bump, accelerate - repeat.
What you are proposing is setting speed limits 'artificially low.'
In the vast majority of instances, motorists determine the speed limits of the road. Like I've posted before, traffic engineers conduct speed studies then put the speed limit at the 85th percentile. The natural feel of the road, the amount of traffic and so forth cause most people to drive a certain speed where they are most comfortable.
Setting speed limits 'artificially low' will mean nothing because most folks won't do that. It would be like putting a 30 mph zone on an expressway. No one will do 30.
The safest streets are where everyone goes the same direction at the same speed without having to stop. The more in conflict with that rule you are, the more unsafe the road becomes.
Wilbur,
I agree. Consistency is needed. It is interesting to note though after all this reading how much of an impact cars have and driving habits have on emissions. Is there a more passive way to correct our emission problem?
CF,
I agree, it appears most government data suggest that. There are many independent studies that contradict it, but I don't give them as much weight. (hope FOTD doesn't read this) [:D]
For the first time ever, I tried driving the speed limit on my way home yesterday and it felt like I was going so very slow. I had people blowing by me left and right and giving me dirty looks. I was in the right lane. I usually go about 75-80.
Tonight, I'll be trying to do 60mph.
I did it all for the MPG'Z!
Some cities have taken steps toward actively discouraging motor vehicle use through lower speed limits and difficulty in finding parking. Copenhagen reduced speed limits in some areas to 30 kph or about 18 mph. London instituted congestion pricing. Most of these measures resulted in an increased mode share for walking, cycling, and mass transit. And congestion pricing really did reduce traffic in central London.
It's true that reduced speeds result in markedly better crash survival for all road users. If I recall right, 35 mph is the dividing line. So if we reduced the speed limit city wide to 25, we could expect reduced pedestrian, cyclist, and motorist fatalities. What are those lives worth when compared to gas mileage?
Another point: Oklahoma permits low speed golf carts to operate on streets with speed limits of 25 mph or less. If the city speed limit were 25, more of these vehicles would be a normal part of traffic, and it could be expected that their design would be ideal for those speeds. In other words, they would have the optimal speed vs fuel consumption. But I honestly do not know if they emit more unburnt fuel and greenhouse gases than a car equipped with a catalytic converter.
Still, it would be nice to have lower speeds with lower overall noise levels. A sedate pace in traffic would contribute to livability issues, and again, there's no way to equate that in dollars.
someone already stated it on the TDI deal, but with more and more cars coming out with 6, 7 speed and even CVT transmissions, I think all of these graphs and statistics are a little outdated. It is all about RPMs and if you can find a transmission that keeps the rpms down at higher speeds, your fuel economy will not suffer. I wonder if fuel economy goes down on that one lexus with the 8 speed tranny......I bet not.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
someone already stated it on the TDI deal, but with more and more cars coming out with 6, 7 speed and even CVT transmissions, I think all of these graphs and statistics are a little outdated. It is all about RPMs and if you can find a transmission that keeps the rpms down at higher speeds, your fuel economy will not suffer. I wonder if fuel economy goes down on that one lexus with the 8 speed tranny......I bet not.
Agreed. Its hard to argue with the graphs and the numbers but they are misleading people. It depends on the torque of the engine at a particular rpm and the gearing on the drive axle and the transmission to best use that torque. Diesels are great for low rpm torque which is why the TDI was getting good mpg at a low speed and why it is a good city car. It would need either a higher geared rear end or an 8 speed transmission to also get that mileage on the highway. Most tractor trailers have plenty of gears in their trans to accomplish highway speeds but still be able to pull such heavy loads from a stand still. Some even have multi-speed rear ends. One for city, one for highway.
The graphs that show best mileage around 60mph probably are the result of Detroit gearing the car (matching efficient motor rpm to final drive ration of transmission to rear end ratio) for the best performance at that speed. Any number of ways to adjust that from shutting off cylinders, changing timing or changing the gearing. I bet cars that run the Autobahn are geared for better mileage at higher speeds which may account for the poor mileage figures that Mercedes and BMW log up on our roads. I'm guessing a CVT trans uses variable gearing which would be cool too.
Not to be too confusing but a combustion engine is not effiecient at all rpm's. So the design the engine has a lot to do with what gearing it has and for what purpose. For instance my Corolla has a little four that seems to have very little low rpm torque but plenty from 40-55. At 60 it is reluctant to go into a lower gear because the engine will scream (out of its power band) so it has little torque for passing other cars but it gets 30mpg no matter what speed you do. The v-8 in the Impala SS would not have such problems but since its power band is around 5500 to 6000 rpm it will pass other cars easily but only get 12-18mpg no matter what driving you do.
I used to read a lot of Road & Track kinds of mags. [:D]
quote:
Some cities have taken steps toward actively discouraging motor vehicle use through lower speed limits and difficulty in finding parking. Copenhagen reduced speed limits in some areas to 30 kph or about 18 mph. London instituted congestion pricing. Most of these measures resulted in an increased mode share for walking, cycling, and mass transit. And congestion pricing really did reduce traffic in central London.
It's true that reduced speeds result in markedly better crash survival for all road users. If I recall right, 35 mph is the dividing line. So if we reduced the speed limit city wide to 25, we could expect reduced pedestrian, cyclist, and motorist fatalities. What are those lives worth when compared to gas mileage?
Another point: Oklahoma permits low speed golf carts to operate on streets with speed limits of 25 mph or less. If the city speed limit were 25, more of these vehicles would be a normal part of traffic, and it could be expected that their design would be ideal for those speeds. In other words, they would have the optimal speed vs fuel consumption. But I honestly do not know if they emit more unburnt fuel and greenhouse gases than a car equipped with a catalytic converter.
Still, it would be nice to have lower speeds with lower overall noise levels. A sedate pace in traffic would contribute to livability issues, and again, there's no way to equate that in dollars.
I agree on both points. I was just having that discussion with someone. My background is emergency services (Combat Medic army, Firefighter EMT civilian) and I have seen first hand how devastating the increased speeds can have on people and cars. Sure, we would all get somewhere faster, but all of us agreeing that 40k people a year is an acceptable sacrifice for our inconvenience is sort of like committing national negligence.
Of course we can't equate for MISTAKES other people make like driving left of center, but again, my point is we have already surrendered certain responsibilities to our local government (safe driving speed), why can't we openly address the large scale carnage that is occurring on our streets daily.
Final point on this then I will shut up...[:D][:D][:D] Auto accidents still account for more deaths of people under 75 than any cancer or heart failure or anything else. We are very willing, at least it appears that way sometimes, to change our lifestyle to minimize the risk of say heart failure, but why are we not willing to slow down...an act that may actually save far more lives that if we all went to the gym. We need to value life more and focus on building safer roads and enforce the laws to the fullest extent if we do violate these laws. I get peeved when people complain about getting a speeding ticket for doing 75 down a two lane hwy. I don't think people realize that they are FAR more likely to die AND kill whoever they hit at that speed then even at 65mph. Don't believe me just do a ride along with your local ambulance service for a week...you will get to see what I mean.
WHEW! Sorry, just got out of a council meeting and I am obviously all worked up! [:D]
Lovin every minute of it!
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
What you are proposing is setting speed limits 'artificially low.'
In the vast majority of instances, motorists determine the speed limits of the road. Like I've posted before, traffic engineers conduct speed studies then put the speed limit at the 85th percentile. The natural feel of the road, the amount of traffic and so forth cause most people to drive a certain speed where they are most comfortable.
Setting speed limits 'artificially low' will mean nothing because most folks won't do that. It would be like putting a 30 mph zone on an expressway. No one will do 30.
The safest streets are where everyone goes the same direction at the same speed without having to stop. The more in conflict with that rule you are, the more unsafe the road becomes.
You are right about he safest roads being single direction roads. However what can be safe for the motorist can be very unsafe for the pedestrian or cyclist and as they aren't the ones encased in steel and polluting the environment I think they should get priority.
I disagree with building roads to the 85th percentile and letting users set the speed limit. I think if the road feels like it should be driven faster than it is safe to do, it should be changed. Residential areas need low speed limits even if the road could be safely driven at 60mph. If it can be driven at that speed it needs to be changed, either narrowed, change the surface, have parked cars lining it or have bump outs. I think a safe speed limit should be set, enforced and if people still speed the road should be changed so it can't be sped down.
quote:
Originally posted by mrhaskellok
quote:
Some cities have taken steps toward actively discouraging motor vehicle use through lower speed limits and difficulty in finding parking. Copenhagen reduced speed limits in some areas to 30 kph or about 18 mph. London instituted congestion pricing. Most of these measures resulted in an increased mode share for walking, cycling, and mass transit. And congestion pricing really did reduce traffic in central London.
It's true that reduced speeds result in markedly better crash survival for all road users. If I recall right, 35 mph is the dividing line. So if we reduced the speed limit city wide to 25, we could expect reduced pedestrian, cyclist, and motorist fatalities. What are those lives worth when compared to gas mileage?
Another point: Oklahoma permits low speed golf carts to operate on streets with speed limits of 25 mph or less. If the city speed limit were 25, more of these vehicles would be a normal part of traffic, and it could be expected that their design would be ideal for those speeds. In other words, they would have the optimal speed vs fuel consumption. But I honestly do not know if they emit more unburnt fuel and greenhouse gases than a car equipped with a catalytic converter.
Still, it would be nice to have lower speeds with lower overall noise levels. A sedate pace in traffic would contribute to livability issues, and again, there's no way to equate that in dollars.
I agree on both points. I was just having that discussion with someone. My background is emergency services (Combat Medic army, Firefighter EMT civilian) and I have seen first hand how devastating the increased speeds can have on people and cars. Sure, we would all get somewhere faster, but all of us agreeing that 40k people a year is an acceptable sacrifice for our inconvenience is sort of like committing national negligence.
Of course we can't equate for MISTAKES other people make like driving left of center, but again, my point is we have already surrendered certain responsibilities to our local government (safe driving speed), why can't we openly address the large scale carnage that is occurring on our streets daily.
Final point on this then I will shut up...[:D][:D][:D] Auto accidents still account for more deaths of people under 75 than any cancer or heart failure or anything else. We are very willing, at least it appears that way sometimes, to change our lifestyle to minimize the risk of say heart failure, but why are we not willing to slow down...an act that may actually save far more lives that if we all went to the gym. We need to value life more and focus on building safer roads and enforce the laws to the fullest extent if we do violate these laws. I get peeved when people complain about getting a speeding ticket for doing 75 down a two lane hwy. I don't think people realize that they are FAR more likely to die AND kill whoever they hit at that speed then even at 65mph. Don't believe me just do a ride along with your local ambulance service for a week...you will get to see what I mean.
WHEW! Sorry, just got out of a council meeting and I am obviously all worked up! [:D]
Lovin every minute of it!
Speed limits don't work unless harshly enforced. . .driving away traffic and making for a poor city atmosphere.
The solution is psychological methods of road development. Decrease setbacks so that buildings but up to sidewalks and are closer to the road. This causes drivers to slow down naturally and makes for a better pedestrian environment.
Add curves to long residential and city roads when developing them or offset the grid at some intersections.
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
quote:
Originally posted by mrhaskellok
quote:
Some cities have taken steps toward actively discouraging motor vehicle use through lower speed limits and difficulty in finding parking. Copenhagen reduced speed limits in some areas to 30 kph or about 18 mph. London instituted congestion pricing. Most of these measures resulted in an increased mode share for walking, cycling, and mass transit. And congestion pricing really did reduce traffic in central London.
It's true that reduced speeds result in markedly better crash survival for all road users. If I recall right, 35 mph is the dividing line. So if we reduced the speed limit city wide to 25, we could expect reduced pedestrian, cyclist, and motorist fatalities. What are those lives worth when compared to gas mileage?
Another point: Oklahoma permits low speed golf carts to operate on streets with speed limits of 25 mph or less. If the city speed limit were 25, more of these vehicles would be a normal part of traffic, and it could be expected that their design would be ideal for those speeds. In other words, they would have the optimal speed vs fuel consumption. But I honestly do not know if they emit more unburnt fuel and greenhouse gases than a car equipped with a catalytic converter.
Still, it would be nice to have lower speeds with lower overall noise levels. A sedate pace in traffic would contribute to livability issues, and again, there's no way to equate that in dollars.
I agree on both points. I was just having that discussion with someone. My background is emergency services (Combat Medic army, Firefighter EMT civilian) and I have seen first hand how devastating the increased speeds can have on people and cars. Sure, we would all get somewhere faster, but all of us agreeing that 40k people a year is an acceptable sacrifice for our inconvenience is sort of like committing national negligence.
Of course we can't equate for MISTAKES other people make like driving left of center, but again, my point is we have already surrendered certain responsibilities to our local government (safe driving speed), why can't we openly address the large scale carnage that is occurring on our streets daily.
Final point on this then I will shut up...[:D][:D][:D] Auto accidents still account for more deaths of people under 75 than any cancer or heart failure or anything else. We are very willing, at least it appears that way sometimes, to change our lifestyle to minimize the risk of say heart failure, but why are we not willing to slow down...an act that may actually save far more lives that if we all went to the gym. We need to value life more and focus on building safer roads and enforce the laws to the fullest extent if we do violate these laws. I get peeved when people complain about getting a speeding ticket for doing 75 down a two lane hwy. I don't think people realize that they are FAR more likely to die AND kill whoever they hit at that speed then even at 65mph. Don't believe me just do a ride along with your local ambulance service for a week...you will get to see what I mean.
WHEW! Sorry, just got out of a council meeting and I am obviously all worked up! [:D]
Lovin every minute of it!
Speed limits don't work unless harshly enforced. . .driving away traffic and making for a poor city atmosphere.
The solution is psychological methods of road development. Decrease setbacks so that buildings but up to sidewalks and are closer to the road. This causes drivers to slow down naturally and makes for a better pedestrian environment.
Add curves to long residential and city roads when developing them or offset the grid at some intersections.
Love that too! [;)]
Yeah, I am familure with that concept. Over the long term it would be great to adopt those principles, but for right now speed limit signs are cheaper.[:D]
People keep talking about "RESIDENTIAL ROADS" but not specifying what they mean.
Do you mean 29th St. through the neighborhood... or Yale? Both are residential in that they have housing on them.
and again, I've lived in sub divisions with an 18mph speed limit - it's a joke. Likewise my college town had a thoroughfare set at 30 mph. In either case people drove the speed they were comfortable at (probably 25/45 respectively) without regard to the posted limit.
Why would Tulsa be any different?
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
People keep talking about "RESIDENTIAL ROADS" but not specifying what they mean.
Do you mean 29th St. through the neighborhood... or Yale? Both are residential in that they have housing on them.
and again, I've lived in sub divisions with an 18mph speed limit - it's a joke. Likewise my college town had a thoroughfare set at 30 mph. In either case people drove the speed they were comfortable at (probably 25/45 respectively) without regard to the posted limit.
Why would Tulsa be any different?
I agree CF, BUT, don't you give some weight to enforcment? On 51 hwy, don't know if it is still the case, but it was 55mph from Coweta to Tulsa. Everyone wanted to drive 65, but I always drove 55 and wasn't passed by every car on the road. I didn't use a radar gun but I think that the average speed was lower than on a road posted 75. I think you are right, people will drive in the comfort range, but I believe humans can grow accustomed to doing something not "safe" if the consequences are acutely obvious.
I don't want to argue about the validity of of lower speeds because we probably tend to agree, but I am interested to know what you think about how behaviors would change if at all.
Everyone has seen those radar signs that display your speed limit. They have been proven over and over again to slow traffic down. By simply making the driver aware of their speed (and how it may cost them to break the law) people tend to slow down.
What do you think?
I think that works well in instances where the speed limit is already reasonable or there is a good reason for slowing down (school zones, residential neighborhood, speed reduced coming into town). But outside of that, people generally ignore them. They are speed advisories, and if they don't take it as good advice they'll do their own thing.
Enforcement is a deterrent, but < 10 over it is a moderate one and not worth the cops time. Not too mention police generally have more important things to do and can't be every where. So I have little credence in enforcement as an effective tool.
I guess I view this potential as making everyone a criminal. I think the best way to enforce speed limits on surface streets is with light timing - make it so you hit most of the lights going the speed limit and faster than that you will have to stop, at which point regular drivers figure it out fast (see downtown Tulsa before the construction).
quote:
Originally posted by mrhaskellok
Everyone has seen those radar signs that display your speed limit. They have been proven over and over again to slow traffic down. By simply making the driver aware of their speed (and how it may cost them to break the law) people tend to slow down.
I think I am in the 25% of people that like to see how high a readout I can get whilst I pass by..
The moral of the story for some drivers like me is, I don't care if it is going to save me a few dollars.. I CAN NOT DRIVE 55. It would be like drinking half a bottle of nyQuil because it would feel like the road is moving in such slow motion on the highway. Maybe when I am 70 I will feel differently, but for now I go as fast as conditions and the visual processing speed of my brain balanced with my risk analysis department will allow me to go :)
Our premises are going to require we define "Reasonable". If you poll 100 people and they find that 85 is reasonable for turnpikes, should that then be the speed limit? Or should we determine it based on crash data or safety sets. Or do we also factor in environmental impacts as well. My position simply seeks to find the best possible balance...
1. a speed that will get us where we need to go in a time period that is able to be validated by necessity (easily set with some analysis I believe);
2. a speed that will not dramatically increase the fatality rates on our highway AND that take into consideration the type of road being traveled (barriers, shoulder width or absence of shoulder, volume of traffic, average distance of commute, etc.)
3. real environmental impact study...we can't talk about solving our air pollution problems and then ignore one relatively simple solution, if indeed it is a solution, which after looking the data, it does appear that there could be certain categories of vehicles that, after reducing speeds, would decrease emissions.
On another note, if the state does not want to have emission inspections, can Tulsa do this independently? If you work or live in Tulsa your vehicle must pass a simple emission tests. Perhaps during testing we could also gather emission information for all the vehicles in relationship to their RPM, quantify that data then we may have a better idea as to what speed range is average for our applications.
Just ideas, I enjoy discussing this with you CF.
quote:
Originally posted by mrhaskellok
Our premises are going to require we define "Reasonable". If you poll 100 people and they find that 85 is reasonable for turnpikes, should that then be the speed limit? Or should we determine it based on crash data or safety sets. Or do we also factor in environmental impacts as well. My position simply seeks to find the best possible balance...
1. a speed that will get us where we need to go in a time period that is able to be validated by necessity (easily set with some analysis I believe);
2. a speed that will not dramatically increase the fatality rates on our highway AND that take into consideration the type of road being traveled (barriers, shoulder width or absence of shoulder, volume of traffic, average distance of commute, etc.)
3. real environmental impact study...we can't talk about solving our air pollution problems and then ignore one relatively simple solution, if indeed it is a solution, which after looking the data, it does appear that there could be certain categories of vehicles that, after reducing speeds, would decrease emissions.
On another note, if the state does not want to have emission inspections, can Tulsa do this independently? If you work or live in Tulsa your vehicle must pass a simple emission tests. Perhaps during testing we could also gather emission information for all the vehicles in relationship to their RPM, quantify that data then we may have a better idea as to what speed range is average for our applications.
Just ideas, I enjoy discussing this with you CF.
If you are talking emmissions, then maybe inspections that would get idiots with horribly out of tune cars off the road would actually have an impact. There are some seriously unsafe and poorly maintained cars on our roads. I swear in the past 4 months I have seen more taillights out than I have ever seen in my life. Sometimes the car I am following has lost a side taillight AND the center brake light and I can't even tell if they are turning or just braking erratically. That's if I can see their car through the clouds of smoke billowing from their exhaust.
quote:
If you are talking emmissions, then maybe inspections that would get idiots with horribly out of tune cars off the road would actually have an impact. There are some seriously unsafe and poorly maintained cars on our roads. I swear in the past 4 months I have seen more taillights out than I have ever seen in my life. Sometimes the car I am following has lost a side taillight AND the center brake light and I can't even tell if they are turning or just braking erratically. That's if I can see their car through the clouds of smoke billowing from their exhaust.
What!? You mean those red lens are supposed to be lit up? When I started working in Tulsa I took those bulbs out because I thought Tulsa had some sort of environmental deal going on...I mean , don't laugh at me, the logic is there...first I noticed all the street lights were out, so I naturally assumed we were all removing our tail lights too so we could save money there as well.
Boy do I feel like a burby!
[:D][:D][:D]
Disclaimer: Not a single word written above is true.
There are plenty of self appointed lower speed limit enforcers. They drive side by side on our 4 lane arterials (Memorial) at 10 to 15 below the posted speed limit with no one in front of them and in good weather.
Best gas mileage will depend on the car design, road conditions and things like head wind. Having driven before, during, and after the curse of the 55 MPH era, I usually got my best gas mileage on expressways between 60 and 65 MPH. One of the family cars NEVER got more than 12 mpg when we lived east of 70 MPH limits (mostly 55-60) in the 1960s. That car (63 Buick LeSabre) got up to 17 mpg at 70 MPH when we moved to Tulsa.
Our roads and driver capabilities won't support it but when I was in Germany in 1995 most drivers kept their speed between 85 and 100 mph (135-160 km/hr) on the Autobahn. Most statistics I've seen show their accident rate to be similar to our interstates. I have seen data that the interstates were designed to be safe at 85 MPH in 1950s cars. Too bad the interstate highways are mostly in such bad shape.
Speed Humps Hamper Buses, Fire Trucks
http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=9023625
Some in my neighborhood want them and talked to the city planner who handles speed humps he wants to put 17 humps in my neighborhood of 120 houses.
quote:
Originally posted by mrhaskellok
Should the Tulsa city council consider lowering speed limits in Tulsa as an effort to reduce emission this summer and encourage less sprawl?
only if you want to overwhelm the new E-ticket system.
quote:
Originally posted by patric
Speed Humps Hamper Buses, Fire Trucks
http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=9023625
I'm surprised the fire insurance companies haven't figured this out yet and started raising rates in cities (or neighborhoods) where these things are prevalent.
Sort of like they figure out how close the nearest fire station and hydrant are, they ought to figure out how many speed humps there are between your home and the fire station.
Since I left Fayetteville, they went crazy with the things. I was over there the other day and found three speed humps in less than a quarter mile on a road that nobody drove more than 5 over on in the first place.
Certainly when deployed in that manner, it's just a bunch of feel good BS.
quote:
Originally posted by mrhaskellok
Should the Tulsa city council consider lowering speed limits in Tulsa as an effort to reduce emission this summer and encourage less sprawl?
This is just one person's opinion, but having lived in Dallas for a time, it seems to me that Tulsans suffer from severely over-docile driving habits as it is.
Is it something in the water? Yield doesn't mean stop at the end of an expressway ramp. Right-turn green arrow comes on DIRECTLY after a red light in most circumstances. WAKE UP TULSANS, learn to drive in a forward motion without bicycle pedals, please!!
Slowing traffic down even more would be enough to cause me to have to go out and buy a Batmobile. That way I could just run over these slow moving cars.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
quote:
Originally posted by mrhaskellok
Should the Tulsa city council consider lowering speed limits in Tulsa as an effort to reduce emission this summer and encourage less sprawl?
This is just one person's opinion, but having lived in Dallas for a time, it seems to me that Tulsans suffer from severely over-docile driving habits as it is.
Is it something in the water? Yield doesn't mean stop at the end of an expressway ramp. Right-turn green arrow comes on DIRECTLY after a red light in most circumstances. WAKE UP TULSANS, learn to drive in a forward motion without bicycle pedals, please!!
Slowing traffic down even more would be enough to cause me to have to go out and buy a Batmobile. That way I could just run over these slow moving cars.
You just haven't discovered the secret code yet. A sign on an expressway that indicates 65 MPH as the speed limit really means not to drive within 10 to 15 MPH of 65, ie: go faster than 75 or slower than 50. If you are going slow, be sure to be in the inside (left) lanes. On arterials a 45 sign really means about 35. Yield means stop as you have indicated. STOP means slow down to the speed limit in residential areas. Basically Tulsa drivers have embraced the digital age. They are stopped or they are going 35 MPH.
First, speed humps are sent from the devil. ZOOM, screeech, ZOOOM, thump, screeech, zooooom. Very rarely do they actually slow the street down, they merely slow it down every now and then and encourage rapid acceleration every where else. I hate them with the entirety of my being.
But while we are talking about idiot drivers...
Top 10 complaints about Tulsa drivers:
1) MERGER. When getting on a highway you are supposed to accelerate and merge into traffic. Stopping is not merging. In fact, when you are attempting to get on a highway stopping at the top of the on ramp makes it much, much more difficult for you (and everyone else) to actually accomplish their goal.
I hate you Mr. stop at the top of the onramp man.
2) DRIVING IN THE RIGHT LANE ON THE FREEWAY. There are 3 separate lanes on many or most of Tulsa's freeways. The left most is for passing, the middle is for driving, and the right most lane is generally for merging and exiting traffic. I understand that there are instances when this system breaks down under volume, but we are in Tulsa; not LA. Thus, under most circumstances this should be the status quo.
A contributing factor to #1 probably
3) NO LEFT TURN. The little signs with a left arrow and an ex, or the words "NO LEFT TURN" sometimes accompanied by the previously mentioned symbol... actually mean no left turn. I understand this sucks, BUT, if and when there is a line of care behind you (most likely getting angry and honking and otherwise encouraging you to go straight) you should probably obey this sign. You're being a jerk. When there are no cars to impede, ignore it... I don't care. But don't be a jerk.
This a applies double at my boys school. Turn right jerks and go around the block. There is not room to turn left, that's why you all sit like retarded sheep wondering why it takes so long to drop off your crotch fruit at school.
4) MERGE LANES. Kind of related to #1, but more rare. Sometimes, just sometimes, there is a special lane allowing you to merge. This is true of several onramps to 169 where you get your own temporary lane, of the 169 to 71st exit ramp, and exiting from the BA to Harvard southbound. When you have your own little lane, you can briefly yield to make sure there are no (other) idiots and then keep going. You DO NOT, NOT need to stop and then proceed into traffic abandoning your merge lane.
They gave you a little slice of heaven and you refuse to use it.
5) FOUR WAY STOPS. At a four way stop the vehicle there first has the right of way. If multiple vehicles are there at the same time yield to the right. When it is time to go cars in opposite directions go at the same time (gasp!). Right turners can go at the same time as well. Any left turners should proceed INTO the intersection as if going straight until the straight traffic has cleared, at which point they turn. When clear the traffic in the 90 degree direction (left/right) doe the same. Repeat.
You are all idiots. Stop waiving me on, waiving him on, zipping a quick left in front of me, or doing the you go I go you go he goes OK we'll all go at once crap. Follow the damn rules.
6) RIGHT ON RED. You can turn right on red. Really, you can. Go ahead. You can also turn left on a red light IF turning from a one way streets to another one way street. Seriously, this shouldn't be news to you.
7) LEFT TURNS. For the sake of the gods people. When turning left though shalt proceed INTO THE INTERSECTION before executing your turn. You DO NOT have to wait behind the white line for traffic to clear enough for you to then proceed into the intersection and execute a turn. NO. Just go into the intersection, and stop IN the intersection. Thus you need much less time to execute your turn when traffic allows AND should the light turn yellow/red you will be able to execute your turn and allow greater traffic flow.
Really people, I'm not making this up... this is how they teach it to be done.
But that said, the left turn yields to the straight every time. You can't sneak a quick left turn in front of me as soon as the light turns green. Your Honda is not that fast no matter how big your muffler is and I will crush you with my SUV.
8) Stop signs and red lights are NOT optional. I get that you will not totally stop your wheels at a stop sign unless needed, and I'm OK with that. BUT, you need to at least slow down to such an extent that you are barely moving... that you could stop with *very* little effort should the need arise.
Speed limits can be fudged, fine. Rolling stops at stop signs, OK. But seriously people, stop lights are fairly serious business.
9) NO TALKING. I don't mean don't talk to passengers. I don't mean no cell phones even. I mean don't stop in the middle of the damn road and roll down your window to have a conversation.
You're not cool, you're an donkey. And I hate you.
10) YOU ARE NOT COOL. Odds are, you're car is not cool. I am not impressed but what you have done to destroy a perfectly good hatch back. I've seen Corvettes before. I've heard loud motorcycles. You're stereo is loud and you listen to gansta rap, good for you. Any pickup truck should be able to burn the back tires. I don't care how low in your seat you can sit. Stickers in windows are not impressive.
I know it seems cool to be on a crotch rocket, or in a sports car, or in a big truck. Really, I get it. It does seem cool. But really, it's probably not. To everyone else it's just another vehicle. There are very few vehicles that by their essence make you cool, your is probably not one of them.
/rant