What is with the 55 mph truck speed limits?

[Fredog]

I am a cop, and I patrol the freeway. I will not stop a truck going 65 or under unless they're doing something really stupid, and our truck speed limit in Oregon is 55. If I do stop a truck for speeding, its because it's speeding, not to generate revenue . The last thing I think about when I issue a speeding citation is the money it may bring in. The speed limits in most states are set by the state legislature, so the way to change it is get a petition, get it on a ballot, and vote.

I personally think that the speed limits on the freeways in Oregon are too low (65 cars, 55 trucks). I do know that the original federally set speed limits of 55mph were due to some smart guy back in the black and white days determining that the kinetic energy built up by an object increases exponentially after 55mph, thus causing quite a bit more damage at 65 vs. 55 (compared to 45 vs. 55) I'm not sure why, I'm not smart enough to figure out the math of the equation.

Another thing to think about is cost vs. benefit. If you run faster, you will run more miles in a day, but you will also burn more fuel (Fozzy is right!) and run your truck at a higher rpm's (= more wear and tear on stuff). You also increase your stopping distance and decrease reaction times. When you add in adverse weather conditions, it quantifies the problems. If you can justify the benefits over the cost of running consistently faster, then you should run fast in the states that you can legally do it in. I know that California and Oregon have both stated firmly that they will not raise the truck speed limits, citing safety reasons. I'm not sure if it's true, but I do know that guys like you and I will probably never be able to influence any state legislature, we're just not that rich.

That's my rant.

W.C.

No matter what the speed limit is or what the reason for it, having split limits is more dangerous than having one limit..

[Fozzy]

I am a cop, and I patrol the freeway. I will not stop a truck going 65 or under unless they're doing something really stupid, and our truck speed limit in Oregon is 55. If I do stop a truck for speeding, its because it's speeding, not to generate revenue . The last thing I think about when I issue a speeding citation is the money it may bring in. The speed limits in most states are set by the state legislature, so the way to change it is get a petition, get it on a ballot, and vote.

I personally think that the speed limits on the freeways in Oregon are too low (65 cars, 55 trucks). I do know that the original federally set speed limits of 55mph were due to some smart guy back in the black and white days determining that the kinetic energy built up by an object increases exponentially after 55mph, thus causing quite a bit more damage at 65 vs. 55 (compared to 45 vs. 55) I'm not sure why, I'm not smart enough to figure out the math of the equation.

Another thing to think about is cost vs. benefit. If you run faster, you will run more miles in a day, but you will also burn more fuel (Fozzy is right!) and run your truck at a higher rpm's (= more wear and tear on stuff). You also increase your stopping distance and decrease reaction times. When you add in adverse weather conditions, it quantifies the problems. If you can justify the benefits over the cost of running consistently faster, then you should run fast in the states that you can legally do it in. I know that California and Oregon have both stated firmly that they will not raise the truck speed limits, citing safety reasons. I'm not sure if it's true, but I do know that guys like you and I will probably never be able to influence any state legislature, we're just not that rich.

That's my rant.

W.C.

No matter what the speed limit is or what the reason for it, having split limits is more dangerous than having one limit..

IF there was some stretch of road ANYWHERE , where people actually did the speed limits. The whole point is basically worthless and better yet unprovable because there is no way to get real data. There is no real proof anywhere other than someone's pet theory that this split speeds are dangerous. Name the road where the data was taken that proves the myth...

[LOAD IT]

Ok, I see what you are saying, but then why don't they just make the speed limit 55 mph for EVERYONE, not just trucks. They would make a hell of a lot more that way, right?

Do you remember when the speed limit was 55 in most places? As you can see that was too slow for the 4-wheelin' motoring public, so the politicians changed it. Politicians in 55 mph states like the revenue they get from 55+ mph trucks. Life is less stressful in these states if you just set the cruise at 55 and let everyone else go around.

[BIG JEEP on 44's]

if there was some stretch of road ANYWHERE , where people actually did the speed limits. The whole point is basically worthless and better yet unprovable because there is no way to get real data. There is no real proof anywhere other than someone's pet theory that this split speeds are dangerous. Name the road where the data was taken that proves the myth...

Sounds like senoir Fozzy doesn't even drive a truck ...probably rides a vespa .

[Fredog]

I am a cop, and I patrol the freeway. I will not stop a truck going 65 or under unless they're doing something really stupid, and our truck speed limit in Oregon is 55. If I do stop a truck for speeding, its because it's speeding, not to generate revenue . The last thing I think about when I issue a speeding citation is the money it may bring in. The speed limits in most states are set by the state legislature, so the way to change it is get a petition, get it on a ballot, and vote.

I personally think that the speed limits on the freeways in Oregon are too low (65 cars, 55 trucks). I do know that the original federally set speed limits of 55mph were due to some smart guy back in the black and white days determining that the kinetic energy built up by an object increases exponentially after 55mph, thus causing quite a bit more damage at 65 vs. 55 (compared to 45 vs. 55) I'm not sure why, I'm not smart enough to figure out the math of the equation.

Another thing to think about is cost vs. benefit. If you run faster, you will run more miles in a day, but you will also burn more fuel (Fozzy is right!) and run your truck at a higher rpm's (= more wear and tear on stuff). You also increase your stopping distance and decrease reaction times. When you add in adverse weather conditions, it quantifies the problems. If you can justify the benefits over the cost of running consistently faster, then you should run fast in the states that you can legally do it in. I know that California and Oregon have both stated firmly that they will not raise the truck speed limits, citing safety reasons. I'm not sure if it's true, but I do know that guys like you and I will probably never be able to influence any state legislature, we're just not that rich.

That's my rant.

W.C.

No matter what the speed limit is or what the reason for it, having split limits is more dangerous than having one limit..

IF there was some stretch of road ANYWHERE , where people actually did the speed limits. The whole point is basically worthless and better yet unprovable because there is no way to get real data. There is no real proof anywhere other than someone's pet theory that this split speeds are dangerous. Name the road where the data was taken that proves the myth...

common sense would tell it's true if you had any

[Fredog]

if there was some stretch of road ANYWHERE , where people actually did the speed limits. The whole point is basically worthless and better yet unprovable because there is no way to get real data. There is no real proof anywhere other than someone's pet theory that this split speeds are dangerous. Name the road where the data was taken that proves the myth...

Sounds like senoir Fozzy doesn't even drive a truck ...probably rides a vespa .

He just likes to argue, it probably keeps his mind off his other problems

[Fredog]

Ok, I see what you are saying, but then why don't they just make the speed limit 55 mph for EVERYONE, not just trucks. They would make a hell of a lot more that way, right?

Do you remember when the speed limit was 55 in most places? As you can see that was too slow for the 4-wheelin' motoring public, so the politicians changed it. Politicians in 55 mph states like the revenue they get from 55+ mph trucks. Life is less stressful in these states if you just set the cruise at 55 and let everyone else go around.

I go through Illinois a lot and I set the cruise at about 57, trucks go around me constantly. even JB and Swift. those guys seem to think that if your truck is governed at a certain speed, then you MUST go that speed at all times.

[Fredog]

I am a cop, and I patrol the freeway. I will not stop a truck going 65 or under unless they're doing something really stupid, and our truck speed limit in Oregon is 55. If I do stop a truck for speeding, its because it's speeding, not to generate revenue . The last thing I think about when I issue a speeding citation is the money it may bring in. The speed limits in most states are set by the state legislature, so the way to change it is get a petition, get it on a ballot, and vote.

I personally think that the speed limits on the freeways in Oregon are too low (65 cars, 55 trucks). I do know that the original federally set speed limits of 55mph were due to some smart guy back in the black and white days determining that the kinetic energy built up by an object increases exponentially after 55mph, thus causing quite a bit more damage at 65 vs. 55 (compared to 45 vs. 55) I'm not sure why, I'm not smart enough to figure out the math of the equation.

Another thing to think about is cost vs. benefit. If you run faster, you will run more miles in a day, but you will also burn more fuel (Fozzy is right!) and run your truck at a higher rpm's (= more wear and tear on stuff). You also increase your stopping distance and decrease reaction times. When you add in adverse weather conditions, it quantifies the problems. If you can justify the benefits over the cost of running consistently faster, then you should run fast in the states that you can legally do it in. I know that California and Oregon have both stated firmly that they will not raise the truck speed limits, citing safety reasons. I'm not sure if it's true, but I do know that guys like you and I will probably never be able to influence any state legislature, we're just not that rich.

That's my rant.

W.C.

No matter what the speed limit is or what the reason for it, having split limits is more dangerous than having one limit..

IF there was some stretch of road ANYWHERE , where people actually did the speed limits. The whole point is basically worthless and better yet unprovable because there is no way to get real data. There is no real proof anywhere other than someone's pet theory that this split speeds are dangerous. Name the road where the data was taken that proves the myth...

“In 1963, David Solomon reported that deviation from the mean speed of traffic in both the negative and positive direction contributed significantly to the occurrence of accidents. In fact, Solomon showed that vehicles traveling 10 to 15 mph slower than the mean speed of traffic were much more likely to be involved in accidents than vehicles traveling slightly above the mean speed. Solomon presented his results in the now famous ‘U-shaped’ curve, which relates variance from mean speed to involvement in accidents.

“Solomon’s study was conducted on two- and four-lane main rural highways. A similar analysis was conducted on the interstate that has higher operating speeds. The data for this study was collected by 20 state highway departments, including Ohio. The analysis showed the same ‘U-shaped’ curve for interstate highways and generally lower accident involvement rates, again confirming the safety benefits of the interstate system. The analysis also showed the variance in speeds on the interstate was between 5 to 7 mph, approximately half that of non-interstate facilities.

“The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration subsequently contracted with Indiana University to conduct a speed-safety study. This study confirmed the ‘U-shaped’ curve established by Solomon and the interstate study.”

Ohio truckdriver and OOIDA member Dick Chambers told the committee, “By raising the limits on the major interstate systems, the state would give truckdrivers a greater incentive to drive on the safest roads in Ohio. Our interstate highways have limited access, are wider, have banked curves and, as many of you know, were designed for speeds in excess of 65 mph.”

—by Keith Goble, staff writer
Keith Goble can be reached at kgoble@landlinemag.com.


ok Fozzy, go ahead and tell me why this study isnt legitimate

[Fredog]

I am a cop, and I patrol the freeway. I will not stop a truck going 65 or under unless they're doing something really stupid, and our truck speed limit in Oregon is 55. If I do stop a truck for speeding, its because it's speeding, not to generate revenue . The last thing I think about when I issue a speeding citation is the money it may bring in. The speed limits in most states are set by the state legislature, so the way to change it is get a petition, get it on a ballot, and vote.

I personally think that the speed limits on the freeways in Oregon are too low (65 cars, 55 trucks). I do know that the original federally set speed limits of 55mph were due to some smart guy back in the black and white days determining that the kinetic energy built up by an object increases exponentially after 55mph, thus causing quite a bit more damage at 65 vs. 55 (compared to 45 vs. 55) I'm not sure why, I'm not smart enough to figure out the math of the equation.

Another thing to think about is cost vs. benefit. If you run faster, you will run more miles in a day, but you will also burn more fuel (Fozzy is right!) and run your truck at a higher rpm's (= more wear and tear on stuff). You also increase your stopping distance and decrease reaction times. When you add in adverse weather conditions, it quantifies the problems. If you can justify the benefits over the cost of running consistently faster, then you should run fast in the states that you can legally do it in. I know that California and Oregon have both stated firmly that they will not raise the truck speed limits, citing safety reasons. I'm not sure if it's true, but I do know that guys like you and I will probably never be able to influence any state legislature, we're just not that rich.

That's my rant.

W.C.

No matter what the speed limit is or what the reason for it, having split limits is more dangerous than having one limit..

IF there was some stretch of road ANYWHERE , where people actually did the speed limits. The whole point is basically worthless and better yet unprovable because there is no way to get real data. There is no real proof anywhere other than someone's pet theory that this split speeds are dangerous. Name the road where the data was taken that proves the myth...

“In 1963, David Solomon reported that deviation from the mean speed of traffic in both the negative and positive direction contributed significantly to the occurrence of accidents. In fact, Solomon showed that vehicles traveling 10 to 15 mph slower than the mean speed of traffic were much more likely to be involved in accidents than vehicles traveling slightly above the mean speed. Solomon presented his results in the now famous ‘U-shaped’ curve, which relates variance from mean speed to involvement in accidents.

“Solomon’s study was conducted on two- and four-lane main rural highways. A similar analysis was conducted on the interstate that has higher operating speeds. The data for this study was collected by 20 state highway departments, including Ohio. The analysis showed the same ‘U-shaped’ curve for interstate highways and generally lower accident involvement rates, again confirming the safety benefits of the interstate system. The analysis also showed the variance in speeds on the interstate was between 5 to 7 mph, approximately half that of non-interstate facilities.

“The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration subsequently contracted with Indiana University to conduct a speed-safety study. This study confirmed the ‘U-shaped’ curve established by Solomon and the interstate study.”

Ohio truckdriver and OOIDA member Dick Chambers told the committee, “By raising the limits on the major interstate systems, the state would give truckdrivers a greater incentive to drive on the safest roads in Ohio. Our interstate highways have limited access, are wider, have banked curves and, as many of you know, were designed for speeds in excess of 65 mph.”

—by Keith Goble, staff writer
Keith Goble can be reached at kgoble@landlinemag.com.


ok Fozzy, go ahead and tell me why this study isnt legitimate

and this one
Attention: Illinois truckers. Another attempt is being made to end split speed limits on the state's interstate highways. Take time now to contact your state legislators and speak in favor of uniform speed limits.

Rep. Robert Flider, D-Decatur, and Sen. John Sullivan, D-Rushville, have taken up the battle to eliminate the provisions that set up slower speed limits on rural interstates for vehicles weighing more than 8,000 pounds. Currently, those vehicles are required to travel 10 mph below the 65 mph speed limit.

Flider's bill - HB1786 - and Sullivan's bill - SB540 - would allow the Illinois Department of Transportation to increase large truck speeds to as much as 65 mph.

Flider made it clear that even if the bill is signed into law it doesn't guarantee elimination of the speed gap. The bill allows the state to consider authorizing uniform speeds. Its passage wouldn't mandate a change, but it would allow for a change that is currently not an option.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich has said that he fears faster trucks would mean bloodier accidents because the force of impact is stronger the faster a vehicle is traveling.

But federal statistics show that split speed limits actually lead to more accidents. Flider cited these concerns as reasoning for introducing the bill. Studies show that uniform speed limits would actually be safer.

To find contact information for Illinois state senators click here. For contact information on Illinois state representatives, click here.

[tjv189]

Fredog, nice job finding that proof there. Very helpful articles. They very much enforce my point in this topic, if you look back to my first post. Thank you Fredog.

[Fozzy]

Fredog, nice job finding that proof there. Very helpful articles. They very much enforce my point in this topic, if you look back to my first post. Thank you Fredog.

Both were opinions... thats all, there is no proof if the conditions cannot be met for the study.. and of course they weren't. Do I like to play devils advocate on topics like this and some others. you bet! But quit pretending that this for the majority of those involved has the slightest thing to do with their concern over safety. Drivers complain about the split speeds because they feel its "not fair" that they cannot legally go faster.

[Fredog]

Fredog, nice job finding that proof there. Very helpful articles. They very much enforce my point in this topic, if you look back to my first post. Thank you Fredog.

Both were opinions... thats all, there is no proof if the conditions cannot be met for the study.. and of course they weren't. Do I like to play devils advocate on topics like this and some others. you bet! But quit pretending that this for the majority of those involved has the slightest thing to do with their concern over safety. Drivers complain about the split speeds because they feel its "not fair" that they cannot legally go faster.

as you stated that is your "opinion" you have no idea how the studies were conducted, you werent there.. why should we listen to you? you cant even park your truck without running through the garage.

[Fredog]

[quote="BIG JEEP on 44's"]

A: Its all about stopping distances.

B: It's only about revenue if you speed...

Very simple concept.


P.S. If the drivers were worried about the fuel prices, they would all be driving 55... but they wont. They love being part of the problem.[/quote


AND GEORGE BUSH IS WORTH EVERY PENNY OF THE AMERICAN TAX PAYER FOR THE SUPERB JOB HE'S DOING .

[Fredog]

Fredog, nice job finding that proof there. Very helpful articles. They very much enforce my point in this topic, if you look back to my first post. Thank you Fredog.

Both were opinions... thats all, there is no proof if the conditions cannot be met for the study.. and of course they weren't. Do I like to play devils advocate on topics like this and some others. you bet! But quit pretending that this for the majority of those involved has the slightest thing to do with their concern over safety. Drivers complain about the split speeds because they feel its "not fair" that they cannot legally go faster.

as you stated that is your "opinion" you have no idea how the studies were conducted, you werent there.. why should we listen to you? you cant even park your truck without running through the garage.

Sorry Fozzy, I had you mixed up with Rev , I doubt if you even drive a truck

[mike3fan]

Drivers complain about the split speeds because they feel its "not fair" that they cannot legally go faster.

I'll add one other thing,I think it hurts our image.I drive alot in Michigan and we have split speed limits 70/60,when on I-94 between Detroit and Chicago the majority of the road is 2 lanes each way,even at 62-63 mph when you are passing another truck it will take a little bit of time to get clear and inevitably you will quickly get a line of cars behind you and they become very impaitent and alot of the times we get the #1 finger salute on their way by,it is not my fault for the speed limit split but why do I have to be the one for everyone to take their anger out on?

Beyond the fuel issue,in my experience it is safer and traffic flows much easier when there are no split speeds.

[Fredog]

Drivers complain about the split speeds because they feel its "not fair" that they cannot legally go faster.

I'll add one other thing,I think it hurts our image.I drive alot in Michigan and we have split speed limits 70/60,when on I-94 between Detroit and Chicago the majority of the road is 2 lanes each way,even at 62-63 mph when you are passing another truck it will take a little bit of time to get clear and inevitably you will quickly get a line of cars behind you and they become very impaitent and alot of the times we get the #1 finger salute on their way by,it is not my fault for the speed limit split but why do I have to be the one for everyone to take their anger out on?

Beyond the fuel issue,in my experience it is safer and traffic flows much easier when there are no split speeds.

yep, and no one said let the trucks go faster, they just said let everyone go the same speed

[Fozzy]

Drivers complain about the split speeds because they feel its "not fair" that they cannot legally go faster.

I'll add one other thing,I think it hurts our image.I drive alot in Michigan and we have split speed limits 70/60,when on I-94 between Detroit and Chicago the majority of the road is 2 lanes each way,even at 62-63 mph when you are passing another truck it will take a little bit of time to get clear and inevitably you will quickly get a line of cars behind you and they become very impaitent and alot of the times we get the #1 finger salute on their way by,it is not my fault for the speed limit split but why do I have to be the one for everyone to take their anger out on?

Beyond the fuel issue,in my experience it is safer and traffic flows much easier when there are no split speeds.

yep, and no one said let the trucks go faster, they just said let everyone go the same speed

Yeah, thats what everyone is talking about...

[LOAD IT]

Ok, I see what you are saying, but then why don't they just make the speed limit 55 mph for EVERYONE, not just trucks. They would make a hell of a lot more that way, right?

Do you remember when the speed limit was 55 in most places? As you can see that was too slow for the 4-wheelin' motoring public, so the politicians changed it. Politicians in 55 mph states like the revenue they get from 55+ mph trucks. Life is less stressful in these states if you just set the cruise at 55 and let everyone else go around.

I go through Illinois a lot and I set the cruise at about 57, trucks go around me constantly. even JB and Swift. those guys seem to think that if your truck is governed at a certain speed, then you MUST go that speed at all times.

Those guys arent buying the fuel either and are hammer down on the pedal dumping excess fuel in the cylinder. But hey, they have to get to the next load. You know the old saying, "drive like hell, you'll get there faster" 8)