MGB: Natilonal speed limit proposed - again

Has this already been posted? I didn't see it, if it has:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/03/warner.speed.limit.ap/index.html

I remember my dad bitching and moaning when the 55mph thing came into being back in the 70s.

This pisses me off. If people WANT to save gas by driving slowly, they can! Why should it be MANDATED that I have to drive my zippy-zoomy daily-driver so damned slow???

saffyres Wrote:

Quote: "
Has this already been posted? I didn't see it, if it has:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/03/warner.speed.limit.ap/index.html
I remember my dad bitching and moaning when the 55mph thing came into being back in the 70s.
This pisses me off. If people WANT to save gas by driving slowly, they can! Why should it be MANDATED that I have to drive my zippy-zoomy daily-driver so damned slow???
"

Most people will continue to drive 10 mph over the posted limit - what ever that is. It's always been that way.

tfisher7621 Wrote:

Quote: "
Most people will continue to drive 10 mph over the posted limit - what ever that is. It's always been that way.
"

I thought that's the way it is suppose to be so I add another 10 MPH to that :)

Personally, I got better mileage at 80 than I did at 70 driving to Philly last week. Its more about fatalities in crashes than anything, but don't believe the hype. If you're in a head-on crash, it doesn't matter if you're going 55 or 100. Same goes for a side impact! Luckily, we'll never have to worry about it. All 50 states will never agree, and many will eat the loss of federal funding for road repair, as we already do!

B-racer Wrote:

Quote: "
...many will eat the loss of federal funding for road repair, as we already do!
"

Is that such a good idea?

Ryan, if that bridge is a state highway why should the citizens of another state pay anything to fix it. That was the problem last time. The speed limit is a state perogrative and the only way the Federal Government got was to threaten to take away funding.

I remember back in the 70's where Car & Driver offered up the option of allowing a car to each have an allowable top speed based upon a minimum MPG rating at that speed Like 25mpg. The graph showed small sportscars could drive 70-90 mph and have the same gas efficiency as a big boat at 35 etc.

It was just an interesting albeit tongue in cheek take on the whole drive slower to save gas thing.

It does not surprise me that 55 mph is being proposed again. There are plenty of special interest groups who want this mandated again. As this energy crunch continues for the foreseeable future the voices for 55 will become louder. The only way to stop it will be if the constituancy really makes their voices heard in opposition. I believe the gov't used some sort of energy mandate the last time. In otherwords, Wyoming's state speed limit in 1979 may have been 80 mph, there was a federal energy law that overrode it mandating 55 mph. I don't remember all the details as I was pretty young, but it was something like that. Additionally, as more and more states have budget shortfalls it will be easy to get compliance from the states if it is necessary. Let's hope not.

saffyres Wrote:

Quote: "
If people WANT to save gas by driving slowly, they can! "

Not exactly. At least not safely or even legally.

Ok can some one explain wy a unified Speed Limit isnt a good idea?? At least with one you'd would not have to remember that moving from one state into another means a slowing down to stay legal, or speeding up to stay out of trouble..

6863m Wrote:

Quote: "
Ryan, if that bridge is a state highway why should the citizens of another state pay anything to fix it. That was the problem last time. The speed limit is a state perogrative and the only way the Federal Government got was to threaten to take away funding.
"

Thirteen people lost their lives and about 100 more were injured on the I-35W Mississippi River Bridge when it collapsed last year. All those killed were Minnesota residents. With more inspections (inspections=$$$), they might have noticed the bent plates. However, if they were gundecking the inspections, more money might not have helped.

http://www.startribune.com/local/16927626.html

Bowing of gusset plates was visible in photos taken of the 35W bridge by inspectors more than 4 years before the collapse.

By TONY KENNEDY, Star Tribune

National Transportation Safety Board, ASSOCIATED PRESS - AP

Two crucial gusset plate connections on the Interstate 35W bridge were visibly deformed at least four years before the structure collapsed, according to photographs newly released by the National Transportation Safety Board.

The NTSB's Office of Highway Safety confirmed Friday that the bowing of steel gusset plates depicted in the June 2003 photos is part of the investigation into why the bridge collapsed last Aug. 1. The deformed plates were located in the bridge's U-10 connections -- nodes of connecting beams that federal investigators believe were among the first points of failure.

The photos came to light last week when the NTSB released more than 100 pages of new information from its investigation. The agency has provided five official updates and will continue to release additional documents leading up to a final report by the end of the year.

Minnesota Department of Transportation officials declined to answer questions from the Star Tribune about the U-10 gusset plate deformations. One of the questions MnDOT was asked was whether knowledge of gusset plate bending on the I-35W bridge contributed to its decision Thursday to close the Hwy. 23 bridge in St. Cloud after inspectors found that gusset plates on that span were bending in four locations.

The St. Cloud bridge is closed indefinitely and may have to be replaced.

"Since some of your questions are directly relating to NTSB published information, we are unsure if we will be able to answer them,'' MnDOT spokeswoman Lucy Kender said in an e-mail. "We will let you know next week.''

There is no record in MnDOT's I-35W bridge inspection reports of anyone ever fixing the out-of-plane bending on the U-10 gusset plates. One of the questions the Star Tribune posed to MnDOT was when the state first became aware of the abnormality.

Plates were under-designed

NTSB Chairman Mark Rosenker has said repeatedly that the U-10 gusset plates, along with more than a dozen other gusset plates that fractured on the bridge, were under-designed 40 years ago -- they were only one-half inch thick. Rosenker has not commented on pre-collapse bowing in the U-10 gusset plates as depicted in the photos.

The pair of U-10 nodes were above the Mississippi River, directly opposite each other in the steel superstructure that was holding up the 40-year-old bridge.

NTSB spokesman Terry Williams said on Friday that the bowing is among "the many things that we are looking at as part of this investigation.''

One of the photos is stamped June 10, 2003. It shows slight bowing in two gusset plates at U-10 West, underneath the bridge deck. A second photo, stamped June 12, 2003, shows one gusset plate in the U-10 East connection bending in the same upstream direction as the plates in the U-10 West connection.

On the day that the I-35W bridge collapsed, tons of sand and gravel were piled on decking in the vicinity of the U-10 connections and the NTSB is investigating whether the construction loads overwhelmed the bridge. Thirteen people were killed, including one of the construction workers, and 145 people were injured in the disaster.

The pre-collapse condition of the U-10 gusset plates is being scrutinized by lawyers representing victims of the collapse.

Phil Sieff, a Minneapolis attorney helping to represent 96 of the victims on a no-compensation basis, said Friday that he wants to know when MnDOT bridge officials first discovered the deformations and what, if anything, they did about them.

"Anyone in the business would know to look into that problem,'' Sieff said.

He said the load-bearing strength of a gusset plate could be compromised by a deformation. He said he doubted that the plates were bent during the initial construction during the 1960s.

Since then, MnDOT had added significant weight to the bridge by adding a layer of concrete to the deck in 1977 and by installing concrete barriers in 1998.

James Schwebel, who is representing another group of victims, said the June 2003 photos contained in the documents the NTSB released are not the only evidence of gusset plates problems beyond the original thickness of the steel.

"We're convinced there was substantial evidence of gusset plate bending that was visible to the naked eye'' before the bridge collapsed, Schwebel said.

The two photos of the U-10 nodes are believed to have been taken by URS Inc., the San Francisco consulting firm that was hired by MnDOT from 2003 through 2007 to study the structural integrity of the I-35W bridge.

Williams, the NTSB spokesman, said he was working to confirm the origin of the photos.

If the politicians that take the ridiculous amounts of gas tax from us actually used it for road repair and road infrastructure we wouldn't have problems. Bridges, like any other structure need inspections and maintenance, but our gas tax get used for everything else the politicians fancy. We need one of Al's "lock boxes"!

I think slowing the speed limit to 55mph is a good idea. People can be on their cell phones longer.

Simon Wrote:

Quote: "
Ok can some one explain wy a unified Speed Limit isnt a good idea?? At least with one you'd would not have to remember that moving from one state into another means a slowing down to stay legal, or speeding up to stay out of trouble..
"

Simon,

Imagine for instance, driving to Atlanta Ga. from South Carolina during that time. After Augusta Georgia there is nothing on I-20 for the next 200 miles but straight interstate. With a 55 limit the fastest you could safely go was about 64 mph. You felt like you wanted to jump out of the car and run because it would be faster. I hope that it does not happen again.

The only good thing about a 55 mph limit is that our 4-speed MGBs would be able to keep up with the traffic..... even the RB ones :)

Another republican bites the dust...
Its not about energy its about money. Its another source of revenue for politicians. This will be wildy popular with our bankrupt state government in CA.
We have not heard the end of this. See you in traffic court.

A unified speed limit would be great, just not 55mph. Set it at 70 for cars and 55 for 18 wheelers and make the 18 wheelers stay in the right lane of all multi-laned highways.

What works in some urban area interstate would not be as practical in the rural areas. There are many areas in the country where you have hundreds of miles of nothing but straight. Of course the people who will make these laws all live in urban areas and would not understand.

I'm certain that the governor of Illinois will hop on this bandwagon...of course, it may not come into existence until after he's impeached, which is a very good possibility at this time.

Vote out the liberals and keep the speed limits and everything else. Drill for new oil too.

Back when they had that 55 MPH thing the hubby and I drove from S.C. to California and back. It was a terrible trip both ways and as Paul said it makes one want to just jump out of the car and run ahead of it. Sure hope they don't start that again :)

I remember the 55 MPH speed limit strictly enforced in I-5 in the Sacramento Valley. A 4-lane Freeway with a huge center median and probably no more then 10 turns between Redding and Bakersfield. 450 miles. Just too painful to drive it at that speed. But you had to do it as it was a revenue cash cow for the rural counties.

One of the items they do not quantify is the cost to productivity because everything takes longer. This is huge additional cost to the economy in my opinion.

Im thinking based on the last experience, we wont get a 55 mph speed limit any time soon. They still haven't fixed steriods in sports and now they have to consider maple vs ash and aluminum bats.

Warner can shove the national speed limit right up his a_....rear orifice.

Try this on: at 55 mph your trip whatever it may be takes 2 hours. Same trip at 70 takes 1 hour 35 min. Sure fuel consumption is higher at 70 but you are burning it for less time. Is there a real savings that is significant?

GILMGA Wrote:

Quote: "
Vote out the liberals and keep the speed limits and everything else. Drill for new oil too.
"

It's a Republican proposing the speed limit.

pauls78 Wrote:

Quote: "
Simon Wrote:Quote:
Ok can some one explain wy a unified Speed Limit isnt a good idea?? At least with one you'd would not have to remember that moving from one state into another means a slowing down to stay legal, or speeding up to stay out of trouble..
Simon,
Imagine for instance, driving to Atlanta Ga. from South Carolina during that time. After Augusta Georgia there is nothing on I-20 for the next 200 miles but straight interstate. With a 55 limit the fastest you could safely go was about 64 mph. You felt like you wanted to jump out of the car and run because it would be faster. I hope that it does not happen again.
The only good thing about a 55 mph limit is that our 4-speed MGBs would be able to keep up with the traffic..... even the RB ones
"

Paul look at my post, I did not say set at 55mph, but asked in generic terms what is wrong with a uniform speed limit from state to state. I agree that 55MPH is not right but neither is having one state max limit at 75 and another at 65. An across the board limit of 65 or 70 would not cause any problems..

Simon Wrote:

Quote: "
An across the board limit of 65 or 70 would not cause any problems..
"

The problem is....the knee-jerk reaction of our politicians won't give us a 65mph or a 70mph national speed limit.

It will be back to the 70's...with 55mph to 60mph being the "set".

:(

Call me pessimistic....but.....

Figures its a guy from Virginia where traffic extortion is a fine art. Pretty typical east coast stupidity. I'm sure 55 is fine when there is a major city ever 100 miles and you never really leave the suburbs.

75 to 80 is perfectly safe out here. If you want to drive slower hop on 2 lane highways. Up here there's always one paralleling the interstate. I miss the days when Montana had only a minimum speed during the day. Nothing better than cruising at the speed that made the most sense to you and how much you wanted to spend on gas, but the feds had to mess that one up as well. I really wanted to get one of Montana's 5 dollar wasting environmental resources tickets.

Lower speed = better mileage doesn't always equate anymore. I know for a fact that the '69 Saab 900S I recently swappped off bot 4 MPG better mileage at 75 MPH than at 65. Back when slower meant more mileage-wise the cars simply weren't as sophisticated as they are now and the gas hogs all had bigger displacement engines than you can get even in a small truck now-a-days.

The Wiz Wrote:

Quote: "
GILMGA Wrote:Quote:
Vote out the liberals and keep the speed limits and everything else. Drill for new oil too.
It's a Republican proposing the speed limit.
"

Some of them are liberals also

Rod H. Wrote:

Quote: "
saffyres Wrote:Quote:
If people WANT to save gas by driving slowly, they can!
Not exactly. At least not safely or even legally.
"

Legally?? What highway in the US has a minimum speed above 55 or 60? (I want to visit?)

Simon Wrote:

Quote: "
pauls78 Wrote:Quote:
Simon Wrote:Quote:
Ok can some one explain wy a unified Speed Limit isnt a good idea?? At least with one you'd would not have to remember that moving from one state into another means a slowing down to stay legal, or speeding up to stay out of trouble..
Simon,
Imagine for instance, driving to Atlanta Ga. from South Carolina during that time. After Augusta Georgia there is nothing on I-20 for the next 200 miles but straight interstate. With a 55 limit the fastest you could safely go was about 64 mph. You felt like you wanted to jump out of the car and run because it would be faster. I hope that it does not happen again.
The only good thing about a 55 mph limit is that our 4-speed MGBs would be able to keep up with the traffic..... even the RB ones
Paul look at my post, I did not say set at 55mph, but asked in generic terms what is wrong with a uniform speed limit from state to state. I agree that 55MPH is not right but neither is having one state max limit at 75 and another at 65. An across the board limit of 65 or 70 would not cause any problems..
"

Uhhh, what's wrong is, it applies a uniform limit to wildly varying conditions. And for what? people too inattentive to notice the posted limit in a given state? Those folks are beyond help, anyway. A unified limit is neither necessary nor wise. Why on earth should Montana have the same limit as Massachusetts? is it really too hard to actually look at the posted limit, and drive accordingly? You have to do that in all non -highway driving anyway. And, by the way, a 65 limit in Nevada or Montana would most definitelty "cause problems" in my view.

Edted: sorry for the double post.

PAMidget Wrote:

Quote: "
Rod H. Wrote:Quote:
saffyres Wrote:Quote:
If people WANT to save gas by driving slowly, they can!
Not exactly. At least not safely or even legally.
Legally?? What highway in the US has a minimum speed above 55 or 60? (I want to visit?)
"

We must not be understanding each other. My point was that if you drive under the posted speed limit to save fuel, but other's aren't, it's unsafe, you will be tailgated, and possibly ticketed for impeding traffic.

"Pretty typical east coast stupidity. I'm sure 55 is fine when there is a major city ever 100 miles and you never really leave the suburbs. 75 to 80 is perfectly safe out here."

This oversimplifies just a little bit, I think. East Coast isn't all cities and West isn't all empty space. Having a 75-80 mph limit on the freeways going through Los Angeles would be a terrible idea since kids driving Daddy's BMW would push it to 85 or 90 while lots of other drivers would be trying to get better gas mileage going 65 (like me!). That's a recipe for a rear-end accident that will happen.

You cannot have some people going 65 and others going 80, 85, or 90 mph in heavy urban traffic. Now out on the Great Plains it's a whole different story, and as far as I'm concerned you could have an 80 mph limit there.

Why have a lower national speed limit, somebody asked? Well, here's one major reason: To be patriotic. Because you care about your country.

Our national dependency on foreign oil has grown, not declined, over the last 30+ years since the 1973 OPEC Oil Boycott. New drilling isn't going to put gas into our cars for at least 8-10 years. That's how long it takes to go from getting the okay to drill, doing all the science needed, paperwork, drilling, etc. Even if we did start drilling off the coasts, that wouldn't solve this oil crisis for years and years. What do we do in the meantime? Do we just keep over-consuming imported oil, making us more dependent on Saudi Arabia, etc.? That's a real recipe for national dependency, the same problem that we're in now.

What kind of patriotism is that? If you want an energy independent United States you have to do two things: (1) Find more sources of energy (oil, but not just oil) AND (2) conserve the energy we are using. That's the reason why a reduced national speed limit which would save fuel might make sense. The same reason why more fuel efficient cars make sense -- and public transit -- and solar power -- and so on.

I wouldn't like a reduced speed liimt, and you wouldn't like it. But, it would save millions of barrels of oil In fact, right now, lots of LA drivers seem to be driving a good deal more slowly in the last month or so. But, then there's the occasional idiot going 80-90 mph just looking to rear-end somebody and possibly kill both of them.
His "right" to guzzle oil is both dangerous to other drivers and not very patriotic. It's really not much different from "buying American" vs. buying Chinese. Except in this case, it's buying Arabian.

I have noticed that around here people are still driving as if gasoline cost $0.80 a gallon. Jack rabbit starts, tires squealing, flying past you on the expressway. I guess they have money to literally burn. Amazing.

I have slowed down. I coast in the B when possible. When I'm on an expressway which is really rare for me now, I hold it to 65. That makes me the only one going 65, a target for getting rear ended.
I also don't let the tank go below 3/4. That way it doesn't hurt as much to fill up.

Paul , your logic is faulty simply because a Limit is not an implied you must do this speed, but a limit that states you should not do MORE than this speed.

Any driver, with any intelligence drives according to conditions and would be driving slower than the limit when conditions dictate that that is the safer option. Those that don't are most likely the same people who would not obey a speed limit no matter what it was set to.

Rod H. Wrote:

Quote: "
PAMidget Wrote:Quote:
Rod H. Wrote:Quote:
saffyres Wrote:Quote:
If people WANT to save gas by driving slowly, they can!
Not exactly. At least not safely or even legally.
Legally?? What highway in the US has a minimum speed above 55 or 60? (I want to visit?)
We must not be understanding each other. My point was that if you drive under the posted speed limit to save fuel, but other's aren't, it's unsafe, you will be tailgated, and possibly ticketed for impeding traffic.
"

I understand just fine--that's why I limited my comment to legality--there's no place you'll be ticketed for 60 in the US. Safety? Different matter, which is why I didn't talk about it. (I completely agree as to that aspect.)

Simon Wrote:

Quote: "
Paul , your logic is faulty simply because a Limit is not an implied you must do this speed, but a limit that states you should not do MORE than this speed.
Any driver, with any intelligence drives according to conditions and would be driving slower than the limit when conditions dictate that that is the safer option. Those that don't are most likely the same people who would not obey a speed limit no matter what it was set to.
"

But, you can be ticketed for driving UNDER the speed limit when the gendarme decides that you are impeding traffic. This was just confirmed by the Illinois Supreme Court, backing police officers (in this particular case) of pulling over a car for driving 25mph in a 45 mph zone.

Simon Wrote:

Quote: "
Paul , your logic is faulty simply because a Limit is not an implied you must do this speed, but a limit that states you should not do MORE than this speed.
"

Simon,

Please look at THE post, I did not respond to you it was Thomas :)

I had said all that I had to say, and was just trying to give you my perspective on the subject when I quoted your origional reply.

GILMGA Wrote:

Quote: "
The Wiz Wrote:Quote:
GILMGA Wrote:Quote:
Vote out the liberals and keep the speed limits and everything else. Drill for new oil too.
It's a Republican proposing the speed limit.
Some of them are liberals also
"

LOL!

...........?patriotic"?..........."right to guzzle gas"?.........right to .....harm the enviro......right to eat two cheeseburgers......right to have three children.......right to protest.........the right to not be you......

The minimum speed on the interstates (at least around here) is 40mph. Attentive driving will allow one to gauge closing speed on the slower moving car in front of you, allowing plenty of time to avoid a rearending them.

On the Autobahn (when I lived over there) there were only "recommended speeds" around major cities (of about 80mph), with a minimum speed of about 37mph on all portions of the roadway. The little Ladas & Trabis could BARELY do that 37mph, and I generally zipped along around 95-97mph. Closing speed on that was kinda frightening at first, but you do LEARN to deal with them (and spot Ladas & Trabis from a mile away) and get around them.

Stewart Wrote:

Quote: "
Figures its a guy from Virginia where traffic extortion is a fine art. Pretty typical east coast stupidity. I'm sure 55 is fine when there is a major city ever 100 miles and you never really leave the suburbs. "

Most of Virginia is rural. Speed limit enforcement in Virginia is rare. The police don't comply with the speed limit, much less enforce it.

Every time I've been through Virginia its been cops everywhere and the tickets were a flowing and I love they way they now rape the residents of that state large amounts for a simple infraction that in most places would be a slight but noticeable sting on the wrist but $3550 for a speeding ticket is nuts.

Glad I live in a reasonable state where they don't bother to take points off your license till 11 mph over.

Stewart Wrote:

Quote: "
I love they way they now rape the residents of that state large amounts for a simple infraction that in most places would be a slight but noticeable sting on the wrist but $3550 for a speeding ticket is nuts.
Glad I live in a reasonable state where they don't bother to take points off your license till 11 mph over.
"

That law was repealed and all money was refunded.

I'll be damned sounds like some politicians got a real ear full to give up all that money.

Return to Archive Index | Live Forums Front Page | Website Front Page

Please note this is an archived discussion.
If you would like to add a comment or question please follow this link:
Live discussion: MGB: Natilonal speed limit proposed - again