Home » Editorials » Highway Deaths Lowest since 1949. Good. Can We Go Faster Now?

Highway Deaths Lowest since 1949. Good. Can We Go Faster Now?

9 December, 2011 6

 

"Where I'm from, my people run free." RS5 to CHP officer.

 

The topic of speed limits comes up in our merry band of arsonists (thanks to Dan Neil for that name) oh; every single time we drive a car. We usually give extra thought and a more “passionate” discussion after receiving speeding tickets. Most of the cars we drive-especially that we make episodes of-are either high-performance cars or expensive cars. Not exactly cars that drive poorly. Yes, they’re fast but they also have good brakes, traction system, air bags, warning lights (which we hate) and good tires. Germany has the Autobahn, proving travel at extremely high speed is safe. We know that won’t happen here, but what about a bump in limits?

 

Let’s be honest, everyone who drives a car knows in a good car it’s safe to travel above the posted speed limit. Everyone -on highways at least- speeds at least a little bit. I remember learning to drive and asking my dad how fast to go on the highway. He said “65″, to which I replied, “Oh please you never drive that speed. What’s the real number?” I wasn’t asking if it’s ok to max out our Laredo but I paid enough attention when my parents drove to know we weren’t the only families doing 5 over. More

 

 

" I wanna go fast."

 

A lot of people probably think this a silly, dangerous whine that justifies illegal behavior, but now we have evidence. Mwahahaha.

 

I have two people to thank for this scientific evidence. The first is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). The NHTSA recently reported that even though Americans drove more in 2010 than ever, traffic fatalities dropped (2.9%) for the 5th year in a row. They haven’t been this low since 1949. And guess what? The Interstate Highway System hadn’t been built yet. Hell it had barely been thought of. Danger comes with speed; speed with highways, so comparing deaths now to a pre-freeway time is silly.  NHTSA, you get a fruit basket.

 

So do we!

 

And the IIHS gave presented my argument with visual aids: a 2009 video showing a head-on crash between a 1959 Chevy Bel Air and a 2009 Chevy Malibu.  They wanted to show people that big, heavy cars are not as safe as we think. People always refer to giant old cars as tanks, but in the video it’s clear you’d rather be in the new Malibu (It’s safer, not cooler). It was done to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the IIHS, but guess what, I’m stealing their gift. If the cars are safer and accident-related death rates are dropping… Right? See where I’m headed?

 

Click here for director’s cut.

 

So why can’t we go a little faster? It doesn’t matter if you’re into cars or not and if you have a fairly modern car it doesn’t even matter what it is. A German Ford Fiesta -which can safely go 100MPH- is basically the same as a Fiesta here. In fact, our DOT is even more anal than the Germans and makes companies add all kinds of ugly blinkers and rubber bumpers and crap. And I’m not saying we need an autobahn. But I would like to see some of the well-maintained highways have their limits raised to more realistic numbers. You’re going to tell me a new car with AWD isn’t safe on a new U.S. road  but in Germany it is? And don’t give me the road engineering spiel. For unlimited speeds that matters, but fresh black tarmac is totally safe at 90MPH.

Yeah, you’ll always have your states like South Carolina, known for their strict enforcement. We spent a week there and I’ve never looked at the speedometer so much in my entire life. The normal response to realizing you’re driving 2MPH over the limit is, “Oh. Who cares.” Not there.

 

But outside these, ahem, slower areas people tend to hover a little over. I think the mentality is that if 65MPH is what the government deems a safe rate of travel, hovering a little above that can’t be dangerous. They wouldn’t set the limit at 65, knowing that cars spontaneously shed all their bolts like a tree’s leaves in a hurricane should the driver go 67. (You’re welcome, Cars 3 for that idea, probably followed by some joke about old cars and losing hair.)

 

Of course, the fact is not everyone has a new, modern, safe car. Germany has its rigorous TÜV tests, which we don’t have. You can’t raise the limit on the 101 to 75 or 80 because some guy in a 1978 Blazer with a camper shell will kill someone. But what about a higher limit for cars made after a certain year? People might say it’s classist, and they’re stupid, but if you’re travelling in a 2010 Camry with 12 airbags why should you to comply to speed limits decided on cars from 40 years ago or an oil crisis in 1974? Brakes are good now. Cars are basically sticky sleds filled with computers and air mattresses. Getting hit is probably like diving in a pit of Tempurpedic mattresses. The video proves it.

 

I know it won’t happen yet. Maybe when every car on the road was from 2000 or newer. Maybe. I just hope it happens within my lifetime, because cars will only get better from here. If I’m still have to drive 65 in my 2038 Audi A4 or Corvette, I’ll be fucking pissed.  And since fewer people are dying, we can gamble a bit, right?

- Zack K

 


  • Wrxowner

    Ha! Just come up to Oregon sometime. You have NO idea how frustrating and annoying it is here to have a car that has over 340hp to the wheels. You'd wanna shoot yourself. I'm surrounded by hippies, Prius owners, soccer moms, minivans and others whom accelerate at the slowest possible pace. People here wait 2-3 second before hitting the gas when the light turns green. Everyone here tailgates and refuses to let you in while merging. Interestingly enough though, people here all drive about 35-45mph. 35 in a school zone/busy mall parking lot, 45 mph on the freeways…it's just the same boring unenthusiastic pace with lack of any urgency. I was born and raised here, and after driving in several other states, this place is by far the worst. We could have 200mph speed limits in Oregon, and people here would still go 45mph to save the environment, while sipping coffee and reaching in the glovebox for their prescription antidepressants. If you're annoyed, just visit here for one week! My solution would be variable speed limits based on road conditions and traffic density. This would require EFFORT, which in Oregon doesn't occur often. Also, we need to pay officers of the law to ticket people for driving slow! -Annoyed WRX owner.

    • Casey

      Exact same in Seattle area! :-(

  • chartguy

    "Danger comes with speed"

    Actually, danger comes with differentials in speed. When vehicles are not all going about the same speed, that is the most dangerous, A highway with a 75mph speed limit, where most are going 80mph is safer than a 65mph highway where some are going 80mph and some are going 55mph. That was an NHTSA report from about twenty years ago (sorry, I don't have the link).

    The second point that I would make is that in the 1960s, traffic engineers had a simple way of setting speed limits. They would put their pneumatic hoses out and measure the speeds of drivers on the stretch of road. Then, they would set the speed limit at the 85th percentile. In other words, If the limit was high enough that only 15% of the drivers were over the limit, then it was probably about right. What was remarkable, was that if they lowered the speed limit, behavior did not change (unless there was obvious enforcement). People tend to drive the speed that they feel is safe, whatever the speed limit is. Lowering the speed limit does not affect overall speeds. Lowering the speed limit can actually be dangerous because the few drivers that react to it tend to be at the slow end. In other words, the slowest drivers get even slower with a lower speed limit. That increases the speed differential and the danger of an accident.

    We need to go back to that 85% rule. It worked very well. I blame Nixon and the first oil crunch (1974) when they installed that idiotic national 55mph speed limit on the interstates. It takes 5 hours to cover 350 miles at 70mph. It takes 6 hours and 22 minutes to cover the same distance at 55 mph. As a result, people drove many fewer miles, which both hurt the economy and dramatically lowered deaths. If we stopped driving entirely, we'd have zero traffic deaths, and the economy would collapse.

    That's the third point. Traffic deaths tend to correlate with economic growth. When the economy is strong, people drive more miles, and have more opportunities to die in a traffic accident. In other words, all the low number tells you is that the economy sucked last year.

    • Zack

      Quit ruining my argument for higher speed limits! Jokes aside, miles driven is indeed down, -2.9% between January 2009 and 2010. That's quite a lot. High gas prices and shitty economy are to blame for that. But I would bet that with the constantly advancing safety measures in cars, even if the miles driven were even, deaths would decline. Even if we drive the same way and the same speed we did in 1999, having 15 airbags and crumple zones will save lives. I would be in the next 20 years we'll see a steady decline, no matter what the economy or fuel looks like. It's just safer to drive a 2010 Camry than a 1999. It's pretty incredible what they can do with some engineering and airbags. Even a Mini cooper gets 5 star crash ratings in some categories.

      @wrxowner. I've lived in Colorado and the driving is similar. Slow drivers, bad at merging, never in a hurry. One car actually stopped on an on-ramp, looking back at on coming traffic. I almost rear-ended her. I also had a Subaru, so you and I feel the same pain.

  • Edstang12

    Please….I would LOVE to be able to drive even 65 here in So. Cal, especially in LA. The traffic is so crappy here that raising the speed limit probably wouldn't even do anything. I do agree with you though, fuck speed limits!

  • Kai

    Well I am from Germany and I do test fast cars. I have gone several times over 200 mph in GT2 and GT3 RS 4.0 and many more cars, and YES it is dangerous at those speeds. You need to absolutely know what you are doing and even more important you need to predict what others are doing. I can't go 200 mph past a truck at night because he might fall asleep for a quick moment and come into the left lane and I am dead. Here in CA the police told me driving a car at 80 mph is uncontrollable. I was almost laughing but then I got a very angry look from the cop.
    One problem here is just that drivers education is f@#@! ridiculously easy. I mean you drive around the block and get a drivers license. In Germany it takes about 2 months and like $2000 to get a drivers license. That's why we have a much lower accident per thousand drivers rate than the US and most other countries. You have to really start from the origin where the problem could start (if that makes sense). Better drivers education, make going to a professional drivers course a requirement, better highways, higher car standard requirements and and and. I mean those driving schools here are a freaking JOKE. Driving with a Mexican "Instructor" in a 1998 Ford Taurus or some crap…. I will never forget that.