STUDY: Raising national speed limit has resulted in 12,500 deaths
In 1995, highway speed limits increased from a nation-wide 55 mph to 65, 70 or 75 mph, depending on the state, and most Americans were thrilled. The obvious benefit of the change was people could legally get to where they wanted to go, but according to a new study, the downside has been an alarming increase in accidents and deaths.
The University of Illinois School of Public Health studied accidents from 1995 to 2005 to determine the impact on the speed increase on accidents. The study examined deaths and injuries in fatal car crashes on rural interstate highways, urban interstates and non-interstate road, and found the speed increase resulted in 2,545 deaths and an additional 36,582 injuries.
All told, the study found that deaths and injuries increased by 3.2% over the ten-year period, while rural road deaths increased by an alarming 9.1%. Lead researcher Lee S. Friedman says the easy way to solve the increases in deaths and injuries would be to drop the speed limit back to 55 mph, adding "Researchers have demonstrated that lower travel speeds and death tolls usually follow lowering of speed limits, and higher travel speeds and death tolls follow increases in speed limits."
Naturally, Friedman points out that the drop in speed would result in decreased fuel consumption and lower greenhouse gasses as well. Studies show that decreased speeds lead to higher volume capacity on freeways as well, as drivers require less distance between vehicles to safely drive.
Not all agree with Friedman's hypothesis, though. Dr. David L. Katz, director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University School of Medicine, says that while deaths will decrease with a lower speed limit, it'd also gum up everyone's schedule. Others point out that the bulk of the added deaths happened in areas where limits are 70 and 75 mph, and where the limits were 65, the impact was far less severe.
[Source: US News | Image Source: Ian Waldie/Getty]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 7)
akboss302 12:40PM (7/20/2009)
Speed doesn't kill people, untrained, inadequate or inattentive drivers speeding kills people.
Reply
dinnercoat 12:46PM (7/20/2009)
Agreed no number of new fangled car gadgets, legislation, or lowered speed limits will save anyone from incompetent, inattentive drivers.
Unfortunately traffic is regulated by the lowest common denominator. No matter how careful, observant, and courteous of a driver someone is their safety is still determined by the idiots who chat on their cellphone, while eating a cake, without car insurance, change 3 lanes at a time without signaling or looking, all at 5mph under the posted speed limited.
MikeW 12:53PM (7/20/2009)
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/28/2840.asp
Dondonel 12:59PM (7/20/2009)
Speed acounts for 4% of the accidents in US, and the percentage actually decreased slightly from 10 years ago. In other words speed accounts for a smaller percentage among all causes of accidents, but for more accidents in absolute numbers, because the traffic has increased in the past 10 years.
Talking on the phone while driving accounts for 6% of the accidents (and growing) and I don't see anyone worring about that. In reality traffic jams, road work, driving with health issues, tired or under influence have a much bigger share of the accidents than speeding.
Speeding is just easy to tax, that's all - no authority really cares about drivers when it raises this issue.
geo.stewart 1:02PM (7/20/2009)
I suppose that the increase in number of drivers or the increase in urban sprawl had absolutely nothing to do with the increase either?
thus the problem with focus studies, they only find what they want and only consider the contributors they are focused on.
There was no mention that the % of accidents increased over same miles or same # of drivers.
Cripes, I would expect an undergrad student to do a better job.
Kitko 1:09PM (7/20/2009)
Exactly. It's drivers. I crossed Europe several times and the safest highways to drive on are in Switzerland and in Germany. Unless you happen to meet a Hungarian motorist reversing on an exit ramp, it's all quiet, calm and fast. Drivers usually act like a single organism, paying attention to what's going on around, something rarely found on a typical North American highway.
futurama 1:19PM (7/20/2009)
completely agree.
rather than focusing on lowering the speed limit, drivers need to be educated more. tests need to be harder. and so on...
lots of accident happen due to inadequate drivers, SUCH AS THOSE WHO DRIVE SLOW IN THE FAST PASSING LANE AND REFUSE TO MOVE OVER TO DRIVING LANE - because people will have to go around them which causes potentially more dangerous situation.
EDUCATING DRIVERS should be the most important agenda.
Strict licensing rules and more comprehensive education on drivers can save hundreds of lives. (There is reason why Germany's Autobahn is safer than one would think)
Noidor 2:14PM (7/20/2009)
I don't buy this at all. I would like to know what were the contributing factors
1) Type of vehicle
2) Road design
3) Road conditions (rain, fog, potholes, bumps, snow)
4) Alcohol involved?
5) Drugs involved? (drugs need to be treated differently from alcohol)
6) Driver background
7) Vehicle condition
8) Any other variables that played into the crash (tailgating, not using turn indicator)
It is just utterly moronic to just blame speed, akin to blaming capitalism on our economic collapse.
yacoub 5:36PM (7/20/2009)
Besides, it weeds out the population a bit.
Randy915 4:35PM (7/20/2009)
Perhaps they should factor in the rise of the cell phone into this equation? It's naive to blame this solely on speed limit.
Polly Prissy Pants 4:43PM (7/20/2009)
55! That's ridiculous! Sure, they'll save a few lives, but millions will be late!
dcunningham3 5:08PM (7/20/2009)
Don't care. Slow and stupid are culled from the herd by their own acts since we don't have predators to do it anymore. Darwin award winners.
Mike 7:10PM (7/20/2009)
I wonder if they took into account that cell phones started becoming mainstream at about the same time, along with probably hundreds of other things that they didn't bother to factor into their "study".
These studies are usually pretty ridiculous and meant to get a 30 second spot on the nightly news or to try to hype up an agenda (the supervisor of the study convieniently notes that greenhouse gases will be reduced if speed limits are). I mean according to studies, 3 out of 5 users of so-and-so widget got cancer. It just so happens that the same 3 guys also smoked for the last 20 years and the other 2 didn't, they forgot to include that little tidbit in the "study".
the4thheat 11:38PM (7/20/2009)
It's probably a combination of cell phones and the fact that people in the US aren't as well trained in driving as the people in countries in higher speed limits usually are.
Pretty bad when the fatality rates manage to go up even though cars have gotten a ton of safety improvements since then. But psychologically speaking the safer you make a car the worse people will drive and the more they'll push the limits of recklessness since it's now "safer" to do it. Thus entirely negating the effects of safety improvements with painting your toenails while driving.
Seriously they should just make driver training better in the US, but the truth is that everyone here thinks they're great drivers and that everyone else is the problem when the reality is that most of us are the problem whether we'd like to admit it or not. A recent survey showed that most drivers thought OTHER drivers talking on their cell phones was a big problem, and that 98% of drivers thought they were safe drivers even though almost all of them had used cell phones while driving themselves. It's always the other guy who's a lousy driver, and never yourself. Which is why nobody will ever agree to go retake a tougher licensing exam in order to keep their license, and we'll continue to drive like idiots.
waiownsyou 12:40PM (7/20/2009)
Call me a conspiracist but I think the Government wants this to happen. More accidents equals more hospital money, insurance money to be pushed back into economy, and eliminate those who die instead of get injured (who usually have cheap and unsafe cars, thereby marking the "poor" people).
It's the same reason I believe they won't add a simple 2-second interval between red and green lights. That would dramatically stop intersection accidents of people running red lights.
Reply
Alex 1:03PM (7/20/2009)
i don't know where you live but just about every single light in the in the Philadelphia region has at least a 2 sec all red pause.
geo.stewart 2:49PM (7/20/2009)
you are forgetting the fact that people will always run red lights and if you lengthen the pause, they will run it for longer. most of our lights have 2 second delays but we have two with 5 second delays and all that does is lengthen the train of cars running the red.
cdwrx 3:43PM (7/20/2009)
That's crazy talk. Removing trained people from the workforce does not improve the economy.
Dave in MI 12:41PM (7/20/2009)
I thought we were traveling more miles per person and the actual fatality number per mile decreased mostly due to safety improvements in the modern automobile. If you don't like this study, sit tight. Another one is coming I'm sure.
Reply
Nellydesign 3:27PM (7/20/2009)
Personally I love "scientific" studies that equate correlation with causation. Just because two things happened during the same time period does not mean one caused the other.
Example: 12,267 people honked their car horns at the exact moment a plane crashed therefore honking horns can cause planes to crash. It's trash science.