I agree with you that the increased mpg was insignificant. However:
"
Effective December 1987 and January 1988, the maximum speed limit on rural limited access highways in Michigan was raised from 55 mph to 65 mph. This study examined the effects of the raised limit on injury morbidity and mortality. A multiple time-series design was used, comparing roads where the speed limit was raised with roads where the limit remained unchanged. Data were collected on numbers and rates of automobile crashes, injuries, and deaths from January 1978 through December 1988. Time-series intervention analyses were conducted to estimate effects associated with the speed limit change while controlling for long-term trends, seasonal cycles, and other patterns. Statistical controls were also included for major factors known to influence crash and injury rates. Results revealed significant increases in casualties on roads where the speed limit was raised, including a 19.2% increase in fatalities, a 39.8% increase in serious injuries, and a 25.4% increase in moderate injuries. Fatalities also increased on 55 mph limited access freeways, suggesting that the 65 mph limit may have spillover effects on segments of freeways where the limit was not changed. No significant changes in fatalities or injuries were found on other types of roads. The increased convenience of reduced travel time with the higher speed limit is obtained at a significant cost in terms of injury morbidity and mortality.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2275740
And this type of study has been done over and over every time speed limits change. It all points in the same direction.
More speed does increase accident rates, BUT not because of the speed so much as because the reaction times of humans don't increase equally. And people need time to react to changes in road conditions.
AJ
You understand that:
1)
nothing in there indicates an increase in accident rates, only an increase in severity of injuries, which I already specified as a known result of speed?
2) "
Fatalities also increased on 55 mph limited access freeways....may have spillover" means there might (or might not) have been another confounding factor, but rather than say "something else might have been responsible for the increase on both roads", they chose to use wording that allows them to get the conclusion they aimed for. Wasn't someone just talking about hard science and facts? "May have" represents a conclusion that is only one possible option from the given data.
3) It was published 27 years ago and does not address significant improvements in vehicle and tire manageability and safety since 1990
I Italicized a line in your post:
And this type of study has been done over and over every time speed limits change. It all points in the same direction. More speed does increase accident rates.
Because I am not aware of any data anywhere that strongly supports the notion that more speed increases accident rates. Only that speed increases severity of injuries.
As for "leaving well enough alone" one does wonder when 30,000 people die in the US, a good deal of them as a result of excess speed if it should be "left well enough lone" when it could be changed. The attitude displayed by my interlocutors displays a wanton disregard for rational behavior in favor of an emotional desire to do what they want regardless of how it endangers themselves or those around them. I'm arguing for rational behavior based upon the best numbers available against an inherent belief that we can do whatever we want so long as we are comfortable with doing it and can get away with it.
Do you also argue for gun control at every opportunity? Because there are more than 30,000 deaths in the U.S. every year as a result of gunshots. Targeting the 90 million Americans who own guns seems like an easier bet than targeting the 100 million Americans who drive faster than the posted limits. Especially since they are responsible for 100% of the people who die from gunshots vs "a good deal of" the 30 million traffic related deaths, some of which
involve high speed but are actually
caused by alcohol.
Furthermore, despite having a population almost 50% higher than the first years
after speed limits were reduced, the death rate as a result of all vehicle accidents is over 20% lower, yet thare are not fewer people speeding. A casual researcher could say that may mean speeding reduces accidents, rather than vehicles are 30% safer than they were.
side-notes, 1) we are not
your interlocutors. All of us, including you, are interlocutors of this discussion, which, if it belongs to anyone, belongs to Eideann, for complaining about people going too slow in the fast lane. 2) we (the interlocutors minus yourself) have different attitudes, so we do not display one
attitude, and there is nothing "wanton" about any of those attitudes. Some of them display a disregard for certain behaviors which you hold to be important, but there is nothing wanton about that. "Wanton" is an emotional attack on the people with whom you are in disagreement and is not based on logic.