Talk:National Maximum Speed Law

85 mph speedometers

I have moved this to here because cursory Google searches suggest this may be an urban legend perpetuated by communal reinforcement:

• Joan Claybrook, head of the NHTSA under President Jimmy Carter, in an effort to get people to pay attention to there now widely ignored law, passed a rule requiring that new vehicle speedometers have 55 mph bolded and not have the ability to indicate speeds higher than 85 mph. This rule was in effect from 1980 until it was repealed in 1989.

Can anyone find a definitve source that supports this? Note that "thousands" of Google hits are meaningless if they all point to web forums. We need reliable sources for this one. Nova SS 19:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Despite the edit summary's claim that there are thousands of references, a google search for the whole term brings up 13 results, not all of them re. the US.This Heritage Foundation paper from 1986 uses the term in the first para. "the 55 mph speed limit, technically called the National Maximum speed law (NMSL)"- although it only talks about the supposed fuel efficiency effect of the law. Richardjames444 19:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

oh yes, and the paper indicates that the law was passed in 1974, which supports the article's claims as far as chronology. Richardjames444 19:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about, and how does that relate to 85 mph speedometers? And who said "thousands of references" and on what? Please start a new section on this page or provide some kind of context so we can have a clue what you're talking about. Nova SS 19:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I see your "thousands of references" claim. (Kelly Cook's edit.) Now what the heck are you talking about with the rest of your statements? Nova SS 19:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Just trying to be helpful. My bad. Richardjames444 19:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC) ×

Denial of true facts is worse than having something non-referenced

In regards to the 85 mph speedometer...

You guys want to find the actual NHTSA rule go ahead as it existed for over a decade. Everything for the NHSTA prior to 1991 is in the National Archives warehouse for record group RG-416 in College Park MD, but quite simple the speedometer rule did exist.

As the bolded text in this policy states, The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question. As I do not know if it is true, and I think it would be hard to add that it is common knowledge (as it is a regulation that nobody can seem to find), it needs a source. So, the text (about the government rule) should only be reinserted if it accompanied by a {{fact}} or the source. Thanks. Ufwuct 18:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

To verify this, I walked a few buildings over and asked some older engineers who design speedometers at a major automobile manufacture. They immediately confirmed that it was a NHTSA rule. And yes they also confirmed were derisively known in the auto industry as "Claybrook speedometers" though finding an official reference to that term would be fairly difficult, there were no blogs back then

Putting down something so wishy-washy as "Some cars of the era had speedometers which emphasized 55 mph" is just plain wrong, since they all did. The burden of proof should be on those who seem not to believe that such a nonsensical rule existed. It should be easy too, find one car built in the early 1980s and sold in the United States (GM, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Ferrari ... it really doesn't matter) without a factory installed 85 mph speedo. You won't as all of them have a maximum indicated speed of 85 mph with equal spacing for equal speeds with a special emphasis on 55 mph.

The simple question to ask yourself, is do you really think an Porsche 928 sold in the U.S. and capable of driving at more than 150 mph would have restricted itself to only indicating 85 mph if this it wasn't government mandated, but an 85 mph speedometer it contains. [1], specifically [2] -- KelleyCook 18:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that there are no definitive online references to something so hated. Nova SS 02:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The speedometer rule didn't exist for over a decade; it was more like three years. Yes the actual rules are available; I found them and added citations. You can all now read the original, final text of the implementation and the revocation. I also removed the sentence about what some car and truck makers did afterward; it has no relevance to the EHECA. AL Virginia (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

See also spamming

We don't need to add links to energy conservation or the 1973 crisis because both are already linked earlier in the article. Isopropyl 02:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I found another photo of a speed limit sign being changed to 55 mph in 1974 and added a link.

NPOV

I think more needs to be done to make this article conform to a neutral point of view. It seems the majority of references for items presented as fact are from policy groups favoring one side of the debate. While I am not all that familiar with the subject, it definitely needs some review for NPOV. CapitalSasha ~ talk 01:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The lack of citations in favor are because virtually no credible articles exist to favor a national 55 mph speed limit. It has been picked apart and lambasted and arguably only existed because of regulatory inertia and fear of change more than anything else. During its repeal, little credible information came out against it except perhaps an EPA study alleging an increase in smog-forming pollutants near highways. Nova SS (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is such a large amount of strong evidence we should be able to do better than a citation to one article from the Heritage Foundation and another from the CATO Institute to document all of it. Neither of those are widely viewed as impartial sources. 71.153.193.198 (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not in favor of a national 55 mph speed limit, however I find the Heritage Foundation reference (Ref 5) questionable. The statement that the 55 mph limit saved no more than 1% of fuel use does not make physical sense nor could I find any published DOT article by a Dr. John Eberhart. Air drag is increased by 86% at 75 vs 55. For most cars this increases the drag force by 50-60 pounds; for a Hummer it's almost 120 pounds. From personal experience, my gas mileage improved by 20% by driving at 55 vs 75. If the original DOD reference cannot be found, I recommend deleting the Hertitage Foundation reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.227.167 (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a WHOOOOOOOLE lot more to speed policy than middle school math. Hopefully you can accept that the systemwide effect changing a speed limit is not as simple as anticipating corresponding changes in actual speeds and zero other impacts. Novasource (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

One example of an article that disagrees with the "speed is safe" slant of this article is the national research council's report "55: a decade of experience." Special Report 204, 1984. The NRC is <it>the</it> clearing house for top science in the US. They have the top scientists review all available literature, decide on the credible ones and then write their report.

Also see, [the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety|http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/speed_limits.html]. Read the answer to questions 7, which is littered with references. It starts, "Institute studies show that deaths on rural interstates increased 25-30 percent when states began increasing speed limits from 55 to 65 mph in 1987. In 1989, about two-thirds of this increase — 19 percent, or 400 deaths — was attributed to increased speed, the rest to increased travel.13,14,15" 68.239.100.147 (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Then add your NRC references. BTW, IIHS is hardly an unbiased source. It represents an industry that profits handsomely from speeding tickets. Ever heard of an insurance surcharge? 76.186.121.17 (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the NRC reference is added, but now the lead disagrees with the body, which is populated entirely with right wing think tank references that disagree with an NRC reference--this means they are pretty much useless.

I also don't understand the IIHS source bias. How do insurance companies profit from speeding tickets surcharges? That is as ridiculous as saying that health insurance companies profit from people smoking. 0¹⁸ (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

They generally profit because they can assess hefty surcharges. I reverted your one-sided edits. Just because an organization is politically-aligned doesn't mean it's wrong. You may add back your reference if you don't delete other valid references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.121.17 (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Two years later, I've found a definitive reference.

Washington Post -- March 10th, 1978 B11, Larry Kramer "Odometer Security Rules Due"

Federal Traffic Safety Chief Joan Claybrook ... said the National Traffic Safety Administration regulations also call for 1980 model cars to read only 85 miles an hour. And she wants 55 mph reading on the speedometer to be highlighted to remind drivers to observe the national speed limit."

I have a pdf of the scanned newspaper article, but that is from a pay source, so I cannot pubicly redistribute it. Email me if you need to see it. -- KelleyCook (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Your summary above says the reg was only to limit speedos to 85 mph. Joan Claybrook's preference is not a regulation, therefore it is not credible to say that emphasis on 55 had anything to do with NHTSA. Nova SS (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

To respond to your talk page edit comment, the perceived fact that all cars in a certain era had emphasis on 55 mph is not evidence of a regulation.

I don't object to pointing out the commonality of emphasis on 55. I object to declaring existence of a regulation when, as of yet, no credible proof has been found. Nova SS (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have owned and driven three Honda Accords from the period in question, of model years 1983, 1985, 1987. All three were purchased in the U.S. I distinctly recall that the '83 model's speedometer topped out at 120 mph, because it was the first car I had driven with a speedo that went that high. I'm fairly certain that the '85 and '87 speedometers were similar. I still have the '87 parked in my backyard, and will verify when I am home. Would it help if I uploaded a photo? --Mike --152.5.254.24 (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Mike: I found the answer to your question: the rules were scrapped just over 2 years after they were put into place. Novasource (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Novasource. Just to follow up with the information promised (and not intending to beat a dead horse), the 1987 Accord's speedometer goes to 130 mph. --Mike --152.5.254.24 (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And my 1989 Ford Escort speedo only went to 85mph, and had a different color for the 55. It was amusing to see the needle go past the 85 mark, across the odometer, and hit the back side of the 0mph peg. Of course, on a race track.

Photo caption

I have removed the following "Note the sign below, presumably a 60 or 65 mph truck speed limit." from the photo caption as being inherently speculative. It may also be wrong as I seem to recall that the limit applied to everyone including trucks. Also, some states have minimum speeds referenced by signs displayed directly below the speed limit sign (for instance, in Vermont the minimum is 40 MPH and in New Hampshire it's 45). Really, the lower sign can't be seen, and could be just about anything.Cbvt (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, but I won't revert. That sign is almost certainly a truck speed limit as the first digit is 6. It would seem unusual to have a minimum speed limit of 60 or 65; that's a pretty narrow bound. Novasource (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Senator John Warner

A news clip by KVUE Austin, TX has a possibility that the 1974 federal law which was repealed in 1995 would be reinstated due to the oil price increases since 2003:

http://www.kvue.com/news/top/stories/070808kvuespeedlimit-km.377d307c.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.138.68 (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. It would be a new law, not a literal resurrection of this law, and the subject is already discussed in Speed limits in the United States. Novasource (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

It appears that Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act is almost exclusively about the 55 mph speed limit and some far less notable ride sharing initiative. Why not just merge the whole thing over to here? Novasource (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, one sentence in the history section would seem to take care of it. -- KelleyCook (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No. As an encyclopedia, people should be able to look up specific things (like laws) by their official name in the Wikipedia, rather than try to find it buried as a line or two in the history section of an article on a subject they may not know had anything to do with what they are looking for (like the long-since repealed "National Maximum Speed Law" -- which was only one provision of the Act, and that was not the official name for that provision in the Act anyway. A better solution is to expand the stub which is the current article for the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act to include more information about the Act, its history, provisions, intent and effects. I will do that myself if someone with more expertise doesn't do it within the next month or so. -- J Cricket (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I encourage everyone to disregard J Cricket. He is a noncredible author who hacked this entry to promote his POV on speed limits.[3]

The article about the act could link directly to a section of this article talking about the act.

Novasource (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

National Motorists Association

I made an April 2008 citation request at National Motorists Association concerning them taking credit for repeal of the National Maximum Speed Law. Until that is fulfilled, I do not want to see them mentioned on this page.

The NMA is deceptively named. It is not an association; it's a for-profit corporation. They have a profit motive in taking credit for repeal, so commensurate skepticism is encouraged.

Novasource (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Rename

This should be renamed to National Maximum Speed Law in the United States. Someone that visits this page could be from anywhere in the world. Just my opinion. (121.45.201.206 (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

The name used in the original law and the later update is "National Maximum Speed Limit." NMSLaw is an inaccurate term that crept into use later. The NMSL is one part, albeit by far the best known, of the EHECA. I unified the various references (it was used both ways) to say Limit. I also added the source references for the EHECA itself and the various speedometer rules.AL Virginia (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

This should be renamed National Maximum Speed Limit, to match the text used in the original legislation. I haven't seen any justification for using the word "Law" instead, and using it promotes an incorrect assumption about what NMSL means.AL Virginia (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Office Of Driver Research

I was trying to find where the 1% number came from and I googled the "Office of Driver Research" and only got 5 hits, so I think it dosen't exist. Also had trouble finding John Eberhart in the DOT. So since the Heritage Founditation is the only surce on that I think it should be removed. I will try and find some information from a peer reviewed journal on the subject of fuel savigns. 144.62.240.2 (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Heritage Foundation is credible. You need to present something besides "I can't Google it" if you want to remove this. 68.95.134.34 (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

undo of recent edits by 76.186.121.17

The National Research Council defines good science. They write reports using a consensus process and reviewing all relevant research and judging it on its merit. There is no reason not to attribute to them what they say, even in the lead. 0¹⁸ (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It is correct for the header to say that there are differing views on the 55 mph speed limit's safety benefit. The NRC does not own the sole truth on intepreting the safety benefit. There are other, documented, legitimate, sound viewpoints. Therefore, the NRC's viewpoint belongs beside them in the detail section.

76.186.121.17 (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The NRC gets together a panel of experts (usually ones who have not published in a particular area, but could have) and they read all of the relevant literature and try to decide what a good reader would get form it. They usually make judgement calls about what reports to believe and what reports not to believe. The process represents the pinnacle of scientific understanding.

In contrast, reports are written by an author or two and may not even be read well by anyone else. 0¹⁸ (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be some confusion as to the Wikipedia consensus process. It is outlined here WP:CON. Basically, I want the NRC paper to stay in the lead and I'd like to discuss that. In leu of discussion, I'm going to ask that the previous version to be in place. 0¹⁸ (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Please cite the Wikipedia guideline that lets you use personal editorial discretion to promote one side of a disputed viewpoint. Until then, people will keep reverting you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.121.17 (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Lets focus on the issue at hand. So long as you will discuss this with me, I'm fine leaving this out of the lead. Now, Please respond to my July 31 comment. My basic view point is NRC is a secondary source, and unbiased while Heritage Foundation represents a fringe perspective. I think it is okay to attribute dissent from Heritage to the author, similar to an editorial, but their reports are self published and should be treated as such. 0¹⁸ (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

slow-moving edit war

People, stop the insanity! Discuss this disagreement like rational adults, or both of you could be blocked from editing. You're both engaged in a slow-moving edit war, and regardless of who is "right", edit warring is wrong, period. Imzadi 1979 → 19:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Posted on my talk page and copied here to keep the discussion together:

Hi, at Talk:National_Maximum_Speed_Law you just accused me of edit warning. I'd appreciate it if you thought more about that and considered taking it back. I don't like the edit another editor is making and is unwilling to discuss. There are two options in this situation: rollover and play dead or keep moving back to the version I like and wait for him to start discussing the matter. Or maybe I'm missing something? 0¹⁸ (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reconsidered, and my original statement stands. WP:Edit warring states: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned." That is exactly what is going on here. Imzadi 1979 → 20:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, name a point at which I was not trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. 0¹⁸ (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You're still both overriding and reverting each other's edits. You both should resolve the dispute on the talk page first before either edits to change the content of the article related to the disagreement. Making a talk page posting about how you disagree with the IP editor does not give you license to revert him/her. Imzadi 1979 → 20:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

My question still stands, can you please respond to it. 0¹⁸ (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is my summary of action so far:

     date       time dif    edit
.17  June 18                remove NPOV tag "NPOV argument ran its course 3 years ago. The tagger is free to add his own referenced information to this article."
O18  June 27    week        RV, "nope, this article has to deal with NPOV. 3 years ago discussion is closed, this one is very open."
O18  June 27                talk: 
O18  June 28    day         add controversial text noting, "I'd be find removing the POV tag with this edit"
.17  July 1     days        remove POV tag "rv. Valid reference removed, IIHS is not an unbiased organization, so its findings cannot be substitutes for other organizations."
.17  July 1                 talk
.17  July 23    weeks       RV "The safety benefit is not clear, so a statement as such does not belong in the summary. Moved the safety benefit discussion to the appropriate section, and restored some text deleted a while back."
O18  July 23    hours       RV, "undo previous two edits, it is cited. it's okay"
othr July 29    days        remove text from visibility, "removing potentially misleading paragraph regarding misleading studies"
.17  July 30    day         remove text completely, "There is NO SINGLE UNIVERSAL viewpoint on the safety benefit, so a glowing pronouncement on its benefits does not belong in the header. Also, the pop culture is very legitimate.)"
.17  July 30                talk
O18  July 31    day         RV, "I like the old consensus version. I'm okay to add a note that it is controversial. Please do not RV this before we have consensus "
O18  July 31                talk
.61  Aug  1     day         RV, "Consensus viewpoint does not mean only putting one side in the header."
O18  Aug  1     hours       RV, "Consensus is the previous version. To request a disupted update to the consensus version, use the talk page."
O18  Aug  1                 talk
.61  Aug  2     day         RV, "Don't put only one side of the issue in the header."
O18  Aug  3     day         RV, "undoing recent IP edits. Please use talk page"
O18  Aug  3                 Talk: request to use talk page on .17s talk user talk.
.17  Aug  5     days        RV, "RVing O18's repeated attempts to promote one side of a disputed viewpoint. Either put both viewpoints in the header or save them for the detail section. Not OK to just put one viewpoint there."
.17  Aug  5                 talk

where IPs are called by their last three letters and other is another editor.

Twice in two months I have RVed an edit where the user also made a comment on the talk page, otherwise I RVed when the user just did a drive by. If you seriously think that is abusive, I give up. 0¹⁸ (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between WP:3RR and a slow-moving edit war. No matter the time period, the constant reversions have de-stabilized this article over the long term. Stop changing it back and forth, no matter how long or how short of time since the last reversion, and discuss and decide which version will be chosen. There are three options

1. With "The National Research Council to be about 4000 lives in 1974 relative to 1973..." in the lead,
2. Without that part of the paragraph in the lead,
3. With a modified version of that paragraph in the lead altering it to respond to the IP editor's comments and concerns.

As for me, I'd choose some variation of number 3 as the first sentence of the disputed content does have a grammatical and logical error in it. (The sentence is missing a verb, so as a reader, I don't know what the NRC has done in relation to those "about 4000 lives". Did they say that they were saved? Did they say that they were killed? Did they go skipping merrily off to Candy Land?) The fact remains that the one sentence says that there is a dispute about a purported safety benefit to the law. Without some clarification, as written, that paragraph would only state one side of the issue (IIHS's side), which is not a neutral point of view and leads to undue weight.

As a second point, we have to gauge whether or not that text is an appropriate summary of the article. Whole sections of the article are not represented in the lead at the moment. Some balancing and refactoring is in order no matter what. Imzadi 1979 → 02:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm very happy to go for 3, I just need someone to discuss with.

On discussing... okay, what makes you say IIHS is not a neutral point of view? Also, what is IIHS saying? The NRC is who it is being attributed to. 0¹⁸ (talk) 02:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's not neutral; they've taken a stance. The problem isn't with that. NPOV doesn't require that each source of information has to be neutral, it means that as editors we can't take a side, we let the reader make an informed judgement after we present all creditable points of view with due weight given to each point of view. The problem is with the first sentence you keep reinserting: "The National Research Council to be about 4000 lives in 1974 relative to 1973." What is the NRC's position, exactly, because that text doesn't state it. (That is a direct quote from the content previously removed, re-inserted and re-removed.) There are several words missing from that sentence, which in effect, does not give their findings/results/estimates/opinions/etc completely. The text does not state if these are "4000 lives" that were saved, killed or whatever. We also have the problem that the NRC is being supported by the IIHS citation, yet the text makes no connection between the NRC and the IIHS. That level of specificity may not be needed in the lead when a good general summary can be inserted and the details left to the body of the article. Imzadi 1979 → 03:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm now working on the rest of the article. Lets start there--and I think I might like the lead the way it is when I'm done with the body. Do you see a way to add the Cato bit back? to the section on safety? Do you think it is necessary? The other descanting paper has a clear argument for what is going on. "reversion to the mean" is non-sense since the law wasn't enacted because of high death tolls but because of an outside oil price shock. 0¹⁸ (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The Cato stuff is fine as written. If there are studies that minimize or discredit them, a simple explanation of the findings and who they are should be sufficient. Imzadi 1979 → 04:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

lets go over the changes I just made that were RVed

Lets try to start with the easy stuff in this diff.

In popular culture: This was unwieldy and not really related to the main topic of the article. I think these sections are generally not looked upon as great material. I propose limited it to just three.

*Sammy Hagar's hit single "I Can't Drive 55".
* The term "double nickel" came into widespread usage.
*A hand with a pair of fives in Texas hold'em poker is referred to as "Speed Limit".

I'm fine to change what stays, but, again, I think the list was just too long. the second one I also asked for a reference for.

Comments on this proposed change? 0¹⁸ (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Opposition and noncompliance

in this section I propose the following changes:

• fix a typo by changing "(AAA)]" to "(AAA)"
• in the bullet

**The speed limit had very low compliance, reversing one practice that says the speed limit should criminalize only the fastest 15% of drivers:

Change "reversing the commonly accepted practice that says" to "reversing one practice that says." I think there are many interpretations of this, but I think we would need a good cite for , "commonly accepted" which is weasel words in the first place. 0¹⁸ (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Safety impact

Here I propose bigger changes. I propose changing:

The National Research Council found the limit's safety benefit to be about 4000 lives in 1974 relative to 1973. However, a Cato Institute report showed that the safety record worsened in the first few months of the new speed limits, suggesting that the fatality drop found by the NRC was a statistical anomaly that regressed to the mean by 1978. After the oil crisis abated, the NMSL was retained mainly due to the possible safety aspect.

In 1986, when speed limits were still capped, the highway death toll was roughly half that of 1966. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which normally favors increased restrictions on drivers, said that credit for the improvement "mainly" goes to laws passed eight years before the NMSL went into effect. Joan Claybrook was in "deep agreement."

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that the increase from 55 to 65 mph (89 to 105 km/h) on rural roads led to a 25% to 30% increase in deaths while the full repeal in 1995 led to a further 15% increase to fatalities. However, research by the University of California Transportation Science Center found that studies finding a safety benefit failed to review system-wide safety changes and that raising rural speed limits to 65 mph (105 km/h) caused a 3.4% to 5.1% safety improvement. Since the NMSL's repeal, annual road-related fatalities have continued to fall to historical lows despite steadily increasing speed limits.

to:

The limit's effect on highway safety is unclear. According to the National Academies of Science, when the law took effect there was a decrease in fatalities of about 4000 lives after the law took effect. In addition, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety workers wrote three papers that argue that increase from 55 to 65 mph (89 to 105 km/h) on rural roads led to a 25% to 30% increase in deaths (1/3 from increased travel, 2/3 from increased speed) while the full repeal in 1995 led to a further 15% increase to fatalities. In contrasting work, researchers at University of California Transportation Science Center argue that the interstates in question are only part of the equation, one also must account for traffic moving off the relatively more dangerous country roads and onto the relatively safer interstates. Accounting for this they find that raising rural speed limits to 65 mph (105 km/h) caused a 3.4% to 5.1% decrease in fatalities.

comments? 0¹⁸ (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

References

85 mph rule

The following sentence was recently added to the 85 MPH speedometer section. "The speedometer rule remained in effect for several years, and most autos sold in the United States through the late 1980's had 85 mph speedometers." We already have the exact end date of the rule in the text, and "most autos sold in the United States" is pretty wishy-washy. I propose removing this sentence. 0¹⁸ (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The end date of the rule is not in the article text, although it is mentioned here in discussion. I wasn't aware of the exact end date which is why I inserted the statement about "most autos." Seems to me that either the end date should be placed in the article, or if a reference to it cannot be found, then "most autos" is factually correct. --67.174.241.230 (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

the proposal of the end is in there, though the references are not working for me. What evidence for "most autos" is there? I'm going to ask for a reference for that. 0¹⁸ (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? My reference is personal experience. I was alive, had a driver license and owned cars in the 1980's. Hope that's good enough for you. --24.155.73.167 (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

No. WP:RS describes what is a reliable source. I do not see the benefit of this sentence or what it adds so I removed it. 0¹⁸ (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

88/89/90 KPH

In this article, 55mph = 90 kph; in another article, on traffic deaths, 55mph = 89kph; the general conversion among lay people is 88. Should the 90 stand?211.225.34.73 (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

And now I see that even with-in this one article, 89 is also used (in the picture caption).Kdammers (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It should be done like this: {{convert|55|mph|kph}} which converts the units automatically. The result looks like this: "55 miles per hour (89 km/h)". N419BH 21:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done All conversions are now identical. N419BH 21:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

O18's repeated attempts to promote pro-55 mph viewpoints

This page's history shows O18 engaging in a deliberate pattern of suppressing viewpoints or research unfavorable to the 55 mph speed limit. This user has repeatedly rewritten the summary section to exclude the possibility of anti-55 mph opinions or research, and he has deleted valid, referenced information opposing the 55 mph speed limit.

Per prior conversations here, O18 is not to rewrite the summary to promote a viewpoint exclude anti-55 mph research.

Below are the anti-55 mph viewpoints as they exist in the article today:

• The 55 mph's effect on highway safety is unclear or disputed. (This is a valid opening sentiment to the Safety Impact section.)
• The Cato Institute found that the 55 mph limit's impact on the national highway death rate may have been a short-lived anomaly. Indeed, the death rate was declining for years before the 55 mph limit was imposed. The death rate briefly dropped faster than this right after the 55 mph was imposed, but by the late '70s, the annual death rate improvement had slowed sharply. The death rate, by that point, got to a level that could have been predicted if the pre-'74 annual death rate reductions had continued linearly.
• In 1986, nationally prominent safety advocates, including the IIHS and Joan Claybrook, said that most credit for highway safety improvements goes to laws passed in the mid- to late 1960s, not the 55 mph speed limit.
• Highway safety has continued to improve, arguably dramatically, after the total repeal of the 55 mph despite steadily increasing speed limits nationwide.
• Some systemic research finds that raising speed limits to 65 mph in the late '80s caused decreases in fatalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.20.13 (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

In case O18 continues his disinformation campaign, Wikipedia readers should check the page history and restore these viewpoints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.20.13 (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you please reply to my above suggestions to make these changes, perhaps we can find text we both agree with. I think you added some good sentences in your most recent edit and I don't think we are that far apart on what we think should be on the page. When you do this, please do not talk about me or my motivations. 0¹⁸ (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The best thing about this whole saga, is that the IP thinks it is in a position to make topic bans! Colofac (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at that change, I have to agree with the IP -- research showing the lack of effect of the law was removed, giving no reason besides an implied WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Although it was unchallenged here, it still wasn't a good edit to make. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

SOV, There are quite a few sections of talk above, have you read all of them? 0¹⁸ (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit besides myself on this one. Did you read the sources? Some of them are huge misquotes as well. It may be the case that insufficient talk has happened, but that can hardly be blamed on me. 0¹⁸ (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, there's more to this one that meets the eye. The article before was heavily slanted against the 55mph limit. So while it looks like O18 is pro-55 POV-pushing, he's actually trying to make it more neutral. He's doing things I wouldn't do, like moving pro-55mph content to lead sections, but he's also introducing reliably-sourced content. I'm not sure yet on the deletions of anti-55 content, I haven't looked deeply enough at them. However, a couple of the ones which presently exist strike me as possible cases WP:SYNTH by how they're worded. Just a hunch. N419BH 21:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

globe and mail article verification

In the article it is written, "Since the NMSL's repeal, annual road-related fatalities have continued to fall to historical lows despite steadily increasing speed limits." with a reference to this article. The article says that deaths are at an all time low, but does not say anything about speed limits except to note that better speed limit enforcement with cameras is one of the factors that helped in Chicago.

I think that now that the first paragraph says that there is a large secular decline caused by increased automobile safety, this sentence becomes uninformative or misleading. I propose removing it. 0¹⁸ (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It's almost common sense that speed limits are generally going up. Seriously, any article you find about a policy of general speed reductions will be overwhelmed by articles of speed increases.

It does inform that lowered speed limits' contributions to safety are minor compared to other safety improvements, which is almost certainly contrary to popular perception. This is similar to the quotes from IIHS and Joan Claybrook, which credited 1966 laws, not the 55 mph, for the bulk of safety improvements over several years.

Maybe the wording could be improved? I don't know. But I think it is highly relevant to the discussion of 55 mph that safety rates keep improving, hitting new annual records, despite gradually increasing speed limits.

Even taking an optimistic view, the 55 mph wasn't a significant contributor ("significant" in normal human sense, not statistical significance) to safety or fuel savings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.54.198 (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The point is the article doesn't support the claim, and the claim is already made (now in the first paragraph), why make it twice? It isn't very good writing.

Look, if aliens started shooting people from outer space while we made advances in medical technology that increased life span, that wouldn't change the fact that the aliens were bad for our health, right? 0¹⁸ (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If the article doesn't support "steadily increasing speed limits.", then we shouldn't say it does. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Now that you said that, I'm thinking about it this way: this page is saying the article says, "A and B therefore C" where A="speed limits went up", B="lives lost went down" and C="speed limits do not save lives." But the linked article really only says B. I might be okay with referencing it if it was just, "A and B" but if this page isn't also saying the "therefore C" part, then what does it have to do with the topic of the article, it should be axed. 0¹⁸ (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know much about this article and its intricacies. It seems to be creating some conflict, so we should stick to the sources extra close. Anything this article says that not everyone likes should have a clear citation to back it up. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

anecdotal but ..I drove on the Interstate highway system coast to coast from 1980-87 while the 55mph was in effect. Other than a few Mountain states/remote areas..it was my experience the 55mph was enforced..unlike what was stated on this article

De-emphasis of speed limits: possible reasons

Actions ranged from proposing deals for exemption to de-emphasizing speed limit enforcement. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the article pointing out the (apparent) reason for that per-state de-emphasis. So let me speculate about it (though with a certain bit of common sense): I guess one of the greater reasons might just have been lack of personnel to handle all those mini-speed-fine issues? Could be logical, couldn't it? I mean, if you have limited personnel available for handling these things and get inundated with thousands of those 10/ 15 mph petty offenses, you will (well, usually) begin to question the sensibility of this, sooner or later. Since otherwise, you would cause the way more severe traffic offense cases to get overlooked in that mess. -andy 77.7.4.51 (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on National Maximum Speed Law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121018125924/http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1986_266087 to http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1986_266087

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Safety issue

I no longer have the sources to post this on the page, but research we did in 1975 on the safety issues found the fatality rate was already dropping in 1973, and rose during 1974 showing no correlation to the growing 55 limit compliance figures, and most of the drop was in pedestrian fatalities and accidents at railroad crossings, which had no relation to the 55. The claims by many of the safety benefits were completely at odds with all the statistics we found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.29.178 (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on National Maximum Speed Law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.eia.gov/FTPROOT/multifuel/038407.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512173343/http://www.uctc.net/papers/069.pdf to http://www.uctc.net/papers/069.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130304135803/http://isddc.dot.gov/OLPFiles/FHWA/012894.pdf to http://isddc.dot.gov/OLPFiles/FHWA/012894.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120804211351/http://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au/GVGPublicUI/CompareVehicles.aspx to http://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au/GVGPublicUI/CompareVehicles.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100402102635/http://www.lexus.de/range/IS/Index.aspx to http://www.lexus.de/range/is/index.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Can we have a graphical timeline?

The article has many dates and is at times a bit hard to follow. A timeline, particularly a {{Graphical timeline}} with time moving downwards, each speed limit in a box and then events down the right hand side I think would be a great addition. Unfortunately the help says it is Easy and I'm not so sure :) Alex Sims (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Smog reducing gas

Current version (2021.12.12) reads: "purportedly smog-reducing gas was not common in 1973." Change to "unleaded gasoline was not common in 1973?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wholemealflower (talk • contribs) 04:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

no i believe they are specifically referring to ethanol as it says Gjxj (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)