From the archives of TheNewspaper.com, here is a compilation of nine cities that have voted to ban ticket cameras:

1) Chillicothe, Ohio November 2009

In addition to kicking two camera supporters off the city council, 72 percent of those voting in Chillicothe, Ohio approved a total prohibition on the use of red light cameras and speed cameras. Prior to the vote, in order to protect their revenue stream, Redflex Traffic Systems sent a glossy mailer to every voter while the mayor demanded that the Ohio Supreme Court ban the public from even voting on the issue — a move high court justices swiftly rejected.

2) Heath, Ohio November 2009

In Heath, voters were bombarded with the same advertisements from Redflex, but they failed to persuade a majority. Voters also defeated Mayor Richard Waugh who had introduced photo enforcement as the signature issue of his administration.

3) College Station, Texas November 2009

The city’s automated ticketing vendor American Traffic Solutions (ATS) bankrolled a front group to conduct mass mailings and push polling in an effort to save the program that would have earned the company more than $11 million over the life of the contract. The ATS-funded group reported raising $71,240 in contributions, but not one dollar came from anyone living in the local community. To supplement the vendor’s effort, the city allocated taxpayer money to send red light camera promotional material to every voter. Despite all this, local citizens still voted to get rid of the cameras.

4) Sulphur, Louisiana April 2009

In a special election, the Southern Louisiana city of 22,000 overwhelmingly rejected photo enforcement. Asked, “Shall Ordinance No. 873, M-C Series adopting automated speed enforcement for the City of Sulphur, Louisiana, be repealed?” eighty-six percent of voters said “Yes.”

5) Cinncinnati, Ohio November 2008

The residents of Cincinnati, Ohio made it clear that photo enforcement is not welcome in the city. A majority of voters approved an amendment to the city charter prohibiting local officials from ever installing either red light cameras or speed cameras. Cincinnati city council members had been trying for the past four years to install the devices that promised to generate between $2 million and $12 million in annual revenue. Advocates were stopped in 2005 when former Mayor Charlie Luken vetoed a camera ordinance saying, “Let’s be honest with the public — we didn’t think about this until we came up with a budget problem.”

6) Steubenville, Ohio November 2006

An overwhelming majority of voters in Steubenville, Ohio rejected the city’s speed camera program in a referendum on whether the city ordinance authorizing the program should stand. With all precincts reporting, 76.2 percent of voters said “no.” The program began in 2005 issuing nearly 7000 tickets worth $85 each to motorists driving as little as 5 MPH over the speed limit.

7) Anchorage, Alaska April 1996

Faced with the overwhelming public and legal backlash, the Anchorage Assembly voted to stop using photo radar on the program’s one-year anniversary on March 13, 1997. That concession was not enough for local activist Alex Gimarc who warned that nothing would stop city leaders from coming back and installing red light cameras and speed cameras at some point in the future. Gimarc led the effort to gather 12,000 signatures to place a referendum on the April 15, 1996 city ballot — far more than the 6958 signatures required. A strong majority approved Proposition Three which amended the city charter to require human police officers to issue traffic citations, effectively banning photo radar.

8) Batavia, Illinois March 1992

On March 17, 1992, two-thirds of eligible voters showed up at the polls to answer the question: “Should the City of Batavia use photo-radar devices to photograph motor vehicles and/or drivers for the purpose of enforcing speed limits?” A total of 63.3 percent said no; just 36.7 said yes. Voters sent a second message as David Waters — the primary proponent of the cameras — met with a crushing defeat in the Republican primary at the hands of Douglas Weigand.

9) Peoria, Arizona March 1991

In 1991, the group Citizens Against Speed Traps formed in Peoria to battle a then-new program that mailed automated speeding tickets on the streets of the Phoenix suburb. The group succeeded in gathering enough signatures on a petition that, less than a year after the cameras were first activated, voters were given the choice of whether to accept or reject photo radar. On March 19, 1991, the claims of Peoria officials that the program was popular turned out to be unfounded — photo ticketing lost in the referendum by a two-to-one margin.

The next time you see a news story claiming widespread public support for ticket cameras, just remember this fact:

Ticket cameras have never survived a public vote.

That’s why the ticket camera companies fight so hard (and spend so much money) to stop citizens from having their say.

Please pass this article on to your friends. Share it online, reprint it, spread the word.

• The Real Reason Ken Livingstone Lost
• Ticket Cameras May Be Used To Enforce Text Messaging Laws
• Ticket Camera Scams Are Plentiful In The D.C. Area
• Majority Of Speed Camera Photos In Arizona Are Unusable
• City Of Scottsdale, Arizona Lies To Drivers To Get Their Money

The speed cameras were authorized six months ago after intensive lobbying efforts by the ticket camera industry. The legislature knew that the driving public would not approve of speed cameras being allowed on all roads so they included a provision that the cameras could only be used within a half mile of a school zone as a way to combat opposition.

The city of Baltimore has decided to exploit a loophole in the legislation and is creating new school zones to allow speed cameras to be installed. TheNewspaper.com explains:

The city’s plan is to take a number of roads that are within the legally required distance to a school but are in areas where children do not regularly walk. Baltimore will install “school zone” signs on these roads for the sole purpose of meeting the legal requirement that the speed cameras be used only in a school zone. The new zones include Charles Street at Lake Avenue, Northern Parkway at Greenspring, Pulaski Highway at Monument Street and Roland Avenue at West Cold Spring.

Baltimore is not alone. In New Carrollton, two of the five proposed speed camera locations were not in actual, existing school zones.

“Speaking as a parent of two small children myself,” the editor of StopBigBrotherMD.org wrote, “if these were legitimate locations for school zones we might ask why public officials put the safety of children at risk by not bothering to do the inexpensive bare minimum step of marking the locations as school zones and alerting drivers to the presence of a school nearby… until there was a revenue motive for doing so.”

The city’s greed will also have negative long-term effects on school zone safety in the state. Once drivers figure out that these fake school zones never have any children near them, they are likely to begin ignoring them. Eventually this will lead to drivers having less respect for legitimate school zones in the area.

• School Is Never Out For Speed Cameras
• Speed Limit Signs Used To Research Speed Enforcement
• The Truth About Speed Cameras: They Don’t Work
• Ticket Camera Scams Are Plentiful In The D.C. Area
• What Should Cities Do If 90% Of Drivers Exceed The Speed Limit?

By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist

Almost everyone will, at some point in their lives, have to deal with a car that won’t start because of a weak or dead battery. Jump-starting a car is simple but a few cautions should be observed:

1) Look under the hoods of both cars; pull the car with the good battery as close to the car with the dead battery as possible without the cars physically touching.

2) Put both vehicles in Park, depress the parking brake, shut off the engine (jumper car), turn the ignition switch to “off” for both cars and disconnect any plug-in accessories such as cell phones, iPods or radar detectors. The reason for this is to prevent current draw to accessories, which will make the car harder to start – and to protect accessories from possible power spikes through the system during the jump-starting process.

3) Inspect both batteries for signs of physical damage, in particular, cracks in the case and/or leaking fluid. If you see either, forget about jumping and call a tow truck. Attempting to jump-start a leaking battery could result in a catastrophic explosion resulting from sparks igniting volatile gasses escaping from the battery.

4) Locate the positive (+) and negative (-) terminals on each battery. Each terminal is usually marked with a stamped-in “+” or “-” sign, or a red plastic cap (positive) and black plastic cap (negative). As a further identification aid, the positive terminal usually has a red cable leading to it while the negative cable is usually black. Be 100 percent sure which terminal is positive and which terminal is negative before proceeding. If you have any doubt at all, do not connect jumper cables. Call AAA or another towing service. Better to risk a little inconvenience than a possible explosion/fire or severe damage to your car’s electrical system.

5) Use a rag or paper towel or whatever is handy to clean off the exposed surfaces of the terminals. This will help assure a good connection and a successful jump.

6) Get your jumper cables. These should be in good physical shape, with the positive and negative clamps on each end clearly marked (red for positive, black for negative). Check for damaged insulation/frayed wires before proceeding. If the cables are damaged, find a better set or call AAA. Once again, you don’t want to risk a major problem over a relatively trivial inconvenience.

7) Assuming the cables check out ok, have one person hold one end – making sure to keep the positive and negative clamps from touching.

8) First, connect one red/positive clamp of the jumper cables to the red/positive terminal of the dead battery. Next, connect the other end of the red/positive jumper cable clamp to the red/positive terminal of the good battery.

9) Second, connect one end of the jumper cable’s black/negative clamps to the negative terminal of the good battery.

10) Finally, connect the remaining black/negative jumper cable clamp to a “ground” on the car to be jump-started. A “ground” is a metallic/unpainted part of the engine or frame/chassis. An accessory bracket or large bolt usually works well. The reason for connecting the negative cable to ground rather than to the negative terminal of the dead battery is to minimize the chances of a spark near the battery, where there may be potentially explosive gasses. If the dome/interior light comes on in the car to be jumped, it’s a good sign the cables are connected correctly.

11) Start the engine of the car with the good battery and raise the engine rpm to a fast idle (about 1,500 rpm, if the car has a tachometer). Run the engine for about five minutes, then shut if off. Disconnect the cables and attempt to start the car with the bad battery. For the first attempt, do not try to start the car with the dead battery while the jumper car’s engine is running and the cables are still connected. Reason? It’s possible the strain on the jumper car’s alternator could cause damage or excess wear. If the car to be jumped is slow to crank or doesn’t want to start, don’t keep cranking the starter; this will only further weaken the battery.

12) If the car won’t start using the above method, reconnect the cables as described, start the car with the good battery (being sure to turn off the headlights, which will draw power you need for maximum boost) and let it idle again for a couple of minutes. Now try to start the car with the dead battery. You may need to rev the engine of the jumper car a bit, especially if the other car’s battery is really dead and it’s really cold outside.

13 Once the car starts, remove the cables in the reverse order you hooked them up, beginning with the black ground cable.
Be super careful that the clamps don’t accidentally touch as you do this.

14) Do not shut off the engine of the car that was jump-started for at least 10-15 minutes (which will give the car’s alternator time to recharge the battery) and ideally, not until you get home or to a safe place. If the battery is weak, it won’t be able to hold a charge and the car may not restart even after you drive it or 10-15 minutes. If your headlights/dash lights seem dimmer than usual, you may have a bad alternator, too. Get home – or to a repair shop – as quickly as possible.

Image Credit

• How To Squeeze Every Penny Out Of Your Car
• Getting Your Car Ready For Winter
• How To Safely Raise And Support A Car
• Don’t Overreact To These Common Car Problems
• Getting Your Money’s Worth

By John Carr, NMA Activist

A year ago Utah became the second state in the modern era to post an 80 mile per hour speed limit. Since 1995 state law has specified a 75 mile per hour maximum speed limit. In 2008 that limit was lifted from part of I-15. Utah DOT could post any speed limit it wanted. Officials chose to post 80. The law directed DOT to report back in a year on the effects of speed limit changes.

The report is out. The effects were nil. The fastest 85th percentile speed was 85 mph before and 85 after. Accidents did not change significantly. Speed variance increased slightly without other effect.

This is all as expected. Numbers on signs do not control drivers’ speed. There aren’t enough police to run constant speed traps in the middle of nowhere, and that’s what it takes to slow traffic.

There was a major accident on I-15 shortly after the speed limit went up. It could have been anywhere. It happened not far outside the new 80 zone. Inside the 80 zone it would have been taken as proof that the speed limit increase was recklessly endangering drivers. In the 75 zone it was not taken as an indictment of the low speed limit.

That is how people think about speed limits. Ignore what they don’t want to believe, panic over what they do want to believe.

Next time a state considers raising a highway speed limit we’ll all hear how everybody will start driving faster and dying faster. This is false, of course, but facts are not welcome in this debate.

Media coverage:

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=8401437

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705338447/UDOT-80-mph-limit-slows-speeders.html

Editorial:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705338984/Editorial-Find-natural-speed-limits.html

• Fight Your Speeding Ticket With Simple Math
• Realistic Speed Limits Reduce Road Rage
• What Should Cities Do If 90% Of Drivers Exceed The Speed Limit?
• Satellite-Enforced Speed Limits: A Glimpse Of Our Future?
• Nearly 80% Of Drivers Oppose 55 MPH National Speed Limit

By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist

Before you can change engine oil or do many other minor (and major) vehicle service, it’s usually necessary to raise the vehicle sufficiently to gain access. Even if all you’re doing is changing a tire, it’s important to raise (and support) the vehicle properly.

Here’s how:

* Do not use the factory-supplied tire jack to raise the car except in emergencies (such as a flat tire) and even then, never get underneath the vehicle when it’s only supported by the factory tire jack. These jacks are often marginally safe, not particularly stable, even flimsy.

* Obtain a good-quality floor or bottle-type hydraulic jack with a load rating sufficient to safely raise the car. A jack with a 2 or 3 ton capacity is typically plenty for most passenger cars. Floor jacks (the ones that roll on four little wheels, etc.) are more expensive but more stable and thus safer than bottle-type jacks. They also have (typically) a larger contact pad and are easier to use.

* Obtain a pair of good-quality fixed jack stands to support the car once it’s been raised by the hydraulic jack. Hydraulic jacks can leak or fail, which is why it is very important to use fixed jack stands to support the weight of the vehicle. (The fixed stands are height-adjustable; once you set the height you need, you lock them into place with a ratcheting mechanism or pin.)

* Let someone know you are about to do some work on the vehicle — just in case.

* Park the vehicle on a level, firm surface such as a driveway pad. Avoid surfaces such as grass and loose sand/gravel, etc. which may shift or be compressed by the weight of the vehicle.

* Be sure the transmission is in “Park” and the parking brake fully applied to prevent the vehicle from rolling.

* Look underneath the vehicle and locate a structural hard point such as a frame rail. Be careful not to place the jack underneath non-structural sheetmetal (rocker panels, etc.) or relatively delicate suspension components. Never place the jack underneath the engine/oil pan. On unibody-type vehicles there will usually be an easily identifiable notched area on the underbody intended as a jacking point. Many owner’s manuals also will tell you where it’s safe to place the jack. Be absolutely sure about the place where you’re about to try to raise the vehicle. If it’s not a structural hard point and you try to jack up the car, you may cause damage.

* Be sure the jack’s pad — the part that contacts the vehicle’s frame/hard point — is centered on the jacking point.

* Gently raise the vehicle to the working height you need. Only raise the vehicle high enough to gain access as the higher off the ground it is, the less stable it may become as weight shifts, etc. Observe the jacking point as you proceed; if you see signs of crimpling metal or hear unusual sounds, stop and immediately release pressure on the jack. Re-check your hard point.

* Once the vehicle is at the working height you want, carefully slide a fixed jack stand underneath the frame/hard point and gently lower the hydraulic jack until the weight of the vehicle is on the jack stand, not the hydraulic jack. For maximum safety, it’s a good idea to use jack stands in pairs, so that the front (or rear) end of the vehicle is supported evenly.

* Be sure the car is securely supported and stable on the jack stand(s) before you crawl underneath.

* When you’re finished working, use the hydraulic jack to raise the vehicle enough so that you can safely remove the jack stands. Gently lower the vehicle.

You’re done!

• Do You Make These Mistakes With Your Car?
• 10 Things Everyone Should Know About Tires
• Getting Your Car Ready For Winter
• 7 Tips For Dealing With Your Car Dealership
• 6 Unusual But Essential Tools For Car Guys (And Girls)

So that it’s easier for motorists to be informed about the laws in their state, we’ve collected links to each state’s vehicle code below:

Alabama Vehicle Code (Title 32)
Click Here

Alaska Vehicle Code (Title 28)
Click Here

Arizona Vehicle Code (Title 28)
Click Here

Arkansas Vehicle Code (Title 27)
Click Here

California Vehicle Code
Click Here

Colorado Vehicle Code (Title 42)
Click Here

Connecticut Vehicle Code (Title 14)
Click Here

Delaware Vehicle Code (Title 21)
Click Here

District of Columbia Vehicle Code (Title 50)
Click Here

Florida Vehicle Code (Title 23)
Click Here

Georgia Vehicle Code (Title 40)
Click Here

Hawaii Vehicle Code (Title 17)
Click Here

Idaho Vehicle Code (Title 49)
Click Here

Illinois Vehicle Code (Chapter 625)
Click Here

Indiana Vehicle Code (Title 9)
Click Here

Iowa Vehicle Code (Title 8)
Click Here

Kansas Vehicle Code (Chapter 8)
Click Here

Kentucky Vehicle Code (Title 16)
Click Here

Louisiana Vehicle Code (Title 32)
Click Here

Maine Vehicle Code (Title 29-A)
Click Here

Maryland Vehicle Code (click Maryland Code –> Transportation)
Click Here

Massachusetts Vehicle Code (Chapter 90)
Click Here

Michigan Vehicle Code
Click Here

Minnesota Vehicle Code (Chapters 160-174)
Click Here

Mississippi Vehicle Code (Title 63)
Click Here

Missouri Vehicle Code (Title 19)
Click Here

Montana Vehicle Code (Title 61)
Click Here

Nebraska Vehicle Code (Chapter 60)
Click Here

Nevada Vehicle Code
Click Here

New Hampshire Vehicle Code (Title 21)
Click Here

New Jersey Vehicle Code (Title 39)
Click Here

New Mexico Vehicle Code (Chapter 66)
Click Here

New York Vehicle Code (Click TRA)
Click Here

North Carolina Vehicle Code (Chapter 20)
Click Here

North Dakota Vehicle Code (Title 39)
Click Here

Ohio Vehicle Code (Title 45)
Click Here

Oklahoma Vehicle Code (Title 47)
Click Here

Oregon Vehicle Code (Title 59)
Click Here

Pennsylvania Vehicle Code (Title 75)
Click Here

Rhode Island Vehicle Code (Title 31)
Click Here

South Carolina Vehicle Code (Title 56)
Click Here

South Dakota Vehicle Code (Title 32)
Click Here

Tennessee Vehicle Code (Title 55)
Click Here

Texas Vehicle Code (Title 7)
Click Here

Utah Vehicle Code (Title 41)
Click Here

Vermont Vehicle Code (Title 23)
Click Here

Virginia Vehicle Code (Title 46)
Click Here

Washington Vehicle Code (Title 46)
Click Here

West Virginia Vehicle Code (Chapter 17)
Click Here

Wisconsin Vehicle Code (Chapter 340-351)
Click Here

Wyoming Vehicle Code (Title 31)
Click Here

• How To Spend Less Time Waiting At Your Local DMV
• Watch Your Wallet When Driving Through These 10 States
• How To Request A Copy Of Your Driving Record
• Trial By Declaration: Fight A Traffic Ticket Without Going To Court
• Do Speeding Tickets Deter Drivers From Speeding?

By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist

It was a small incident but it revealed something interesting. Not just the hypocrisy of Those Who Rule Us when it comes to the issue of “speeding” — and much else besides. But more deeply, we are afforded a glimpse into the unconscious sense of privilege and entitlement that operates the wheels and cogs inside the minds of these people.

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford — he of the love junkets to South America on the taxpayer’s dime — recently got pulled over on SC Interstate 385 because a state trooper clocked his car at 85 mph. The posted maximum is 70. In many states, over 80 mph is an automatic reckless driving charge — which will cost you your license as well as affordable insurance for the next several years if you’re convicted.

At minimum, 85 mph means a big ticket for… well, anyone except one of Those Who Rule us.

But Sanford’s driver (and Sanford himself) was let go with no ticket at all. The perks of being one of Those Who Rule Us, you see.

In fact, he was barely inconvenienced. The stop itself lasted less than two minutes. Once the cop found out who was in the car, he backed off — and the governor’s car rolled away scott-free.

Here’s the video of the actual stop for your delectation:

When news of this leaked, guess who got nailed to the wall? Not Governor Sanford. Initially, the trooper who failed to write the ticket was to be “cited,” according to State Department of Public Safety DIrector Mark Keel. Eventually, the driver did, in fact, get a ticket. But only after a massive public outcry. The fact we should fix on is that the state cop immediately backed off once the governor made himself known. He, you see, may drive with impunity at high speeds on public roads. It is only “unsafe” (and ticketable) for the little people to do so.

As not One of Those Who Us, my sympathies are with the cop. A lowly functionary doesn’t ticket the state’s jefe anymore than a sergeant tells a general to drop and give him twenty. The poor cop no doubt feared for his job and whatever other dread repercussions the governor might decide to rain down upon him.

So, he let him (and his driver) go.

That’s not what aggravates here. What does aggravate is the Herman Goring-esque sense of importance and entitlement these poo-bahs radiate. Not since the Bourbons of 18th century France has a political class become so grating, unctuously arrogant. You or me or any other non-person doing 85 on the highways of South Carolina would in all likelihood be subjected to a gun-drawn felony stop and very likely, a roadside cuffing and stuffing. Probably our car would be searched for drugs. And then, impounded. We would have eventually been brought before a Torquemada-style judge and raked over the coals. After investing in a lawyer to defend us and hundred of dollars in fines and a suspended/revoked license later, we’d be “free to go.”

Free, that is, to pay jacked-up insurance premiums based on our “reckless driving” for the next three-to-five years, or however long the record remained active.

But kissy-face Sanford Man? Nothing. He hasn’t got an SCCA license and probably can’t drive as well as many of us “speeders.” But he is, after all, the governor.

Apparently, speed only kills when you’re not that.

Oh, and it bears mentioning that back in 2006, when the lieutenant governor of the state was stopped — and let go –twice for speeding, Sanford went on and on about the horror of it all. He felt “…very strongly that preferential treatment should never be a factor when enforcing the law.”

Just like those “family values,” you see.

These people are beneath contempt.

Unfortunately, they also have their boots on our necks — which means there is nothing we can do about it except take it or begin to resolve not to take it anymore.

And then, to do something about it.

What that something ought to be I cannot say. But clearly, it is time to do something. Everything is out of whack. Average people are held to one standard; the politically connected elite to another.

Those Who Rule Us need to go. Either that, or we can expect to be on the receiving end of more of the same.

• The 10 Biggest Injustices Against Motorists In October
• The Privileged Many: "Professional Courtesy" Exposed
• St. Louis Aldermen Don’t Have To Worry About Paying Tickets
• Maryland Police Refuse To Pay Speed Camera Tickets
• Avoid Speeding Tickets: The Value Of A Good Radar Detector

[Michigan State Police First Lt. Thad] Peterson said major contributors to aggressive driving include: speed limits that are too low for the road; traffic congestion; and poorly timed traffic lights. These act as instigators to drivers speeding, changing lanes and tailgating, all characteristics of “aggressive” driving.

Changes made to roadways where aggressive driving occurs have reduced reported incidents or road rage, he said.

As an example, Peterson pointed to changes made along a section of Interstate 496 outside of Lansing, which accounted for 40 percent of reported incidents of aggressive driving in that area. When the speed limit was raised from 55 mph to 70 mph, incidents of aggressive driving dropped to zero.

“The low speed limit frustrated many drivers, so they drove over the speed limit. This caused problems for other drivers who were driving at the limit. The speed differential caused the tailgating, passing, and speeding that were reported as ‘aggressive’ driving,” Peterson said.

His data also showed accident rates in that area also fell when the speed limit was raised.

Surprisingly, the higher speed limit also improved traffic flow, nearly eliminating all symptoms of rush hour congestion along that stretch.

For more information on speed limits, check out our speed limit section or browse our blog archives.

• The Effect Of Speed Limits On Actual Travel Speeds
• Speed Limits: Slower Does Not Mean Safer
• A New Way To Set Speed Limits?
• How Should Speed Limits Be Set?
• Ohio Cashes In On Freeway With Artificially Low Speed Limit

One thing that’s interesting but unnoticed by most is that economy car performance (fuel efficiency wise) was stronger 15-20 years ago.

In the ’80s, for example, there were several models getting 40-plus MPG. I think there may be one (or possibly two) current models that do as well (non-hybrids). Most don’t come close. The typical new/2009 model year economy car gets in the low-mid 30s on the highway and mid-high 20s in city driving. Average real world economy (combined city/highway) for the typical ‘09 economy car is probably around 28-30 mpg. So, we’re “down” by roughly 5-10 mpg.

Why?

Two main reasons:

First, new/late model economy cars are considerably heavier than their equivalents of the past. For example, an ‘09 Honda Fit — one of the smallest new economy cars on the market — has a curb weight (without any people on board) of 2,489 pounds. Compare that to say a 1990 Geo Metro (remember that one?). It weighed 1,620 pounds, or almost 1,000 pounds less. That is an enormous difference.

And it’s why the Geo’s fuel economy stats — 38 city/41 highway — are so vastly superior to the current “state of the art” economy car (the Fit comes in at a so-so 27 highway, 33 highway).

The added weight means modern economy cars require larger, more powerful — and less fuel efficient — engines. While the Geo got by with a 1 liter, 3-cylinder engine rated at 49 hp, the ‘09 Fit is powered by substantially larger 1.5 liter four that produces literally more than twice as much horsepower (117).

It has to, of course. You can’t pull a 2,500 pound vehicle with 49 hp. That would be serious mechanical abuse — as well as torment for its owner.

But you can’t expect to get 40 mpg with 117 hp, either.

That’s the econo-car Catch 22 we’re dealing with today.

Part of the blame, if you want to assign it, is due to the government — which mandates an ever-growing roster of weight-adding crashworthiness and safety requirements (air bags, etc.) all of which have (to date) bloated up the curb weight of the typical econ-car from around 1,800-2,000 lbs. to 2,500 lbs. or more.

Improved safety/crashworthiness is a fine thing — but it’s not cost-free. You can have one thing (a safer car) but not the other (optimum/best-possible fuel efficiency). At least, not in the same car. Not without a compromise or cost somewhere along the way.

No free lunches — either at the soup line or in engineering.

Part of the blame is also due consumers — who now expect weight-adding/power-sapping creature comforts like AC, electric windows and sunroofs, etc. They also want a car that can reach 60 mph in under 11 seconds.

In the ’80s and before, economy cars were slow. I mean crippled old man slow. Something like an original Beetle needed as much as 30 seconds to achieve 60 mph and topped out — barely — at 80-ish mph. The Geo Metro cut that down some, but not by much. If memory serves, it needed 15-20 seconds to get to sixty. On the highway, it was dangerously underpowered. It was literally out of its element. Might be ok as an in-city commuter. But you almost had to buy something else if you needed to operate on roads where the traffic flow was above 60 mph.

That kind of performance is consumer unacceptable today. You’ll hear commentators accuse the automakers of suckling the public on the teat of inefficiency, but the plain truth is people — most people — would never buy a car like the ‘90 Geo Metro today. Even if it did get 40 mpg.

So, as much as people complain about gas mileage, the truth is they have unrealistic expectations — whether they’re aware of them or not. You could almost certainly engineer a small car that gets 45-50 mpg with today’s technology very easily. But it’s just as true that you’d never get it past federal safety requirements, meet consumer expectations about minimal levels of creature comforts and make it reasonably quick, too — at least, not without either drastically increasing its cost or its weight. Or sacrificing economy, to some extent at least.

Which ought to help you understand why today’s economy cars aren’t quite as economical as their forbears.

The upside is they’re a lot less miserable — and can actually be driven without taking your life in your hands every time you get behind the wheel.

Keeping up with traffic is nice, too. Even if it does cost a few MPGs.

• If We Really Wanted To Save Gas…
• 300 MPG Or Conspiracy Theory?
• The Cars Were Never Better — But It Probably Doesn’t Matter
• Why The 2009 Camaro Is Doomed
• Will Plug-in Hybrids Save Us From High Gas Prices?

Numerous studies have shown that the 85^th percentile is the safest possible level at which to set a speed limit, but the excerpt below (from a booklet released by the Michigan State Police) is particularly effective at explaining this point:

The primary basis for establishing a proper, realistic speed limit is the nationally recognized method of using the 85th percentile speed. This is the speed at or below which 85% of the traffic moves. For example, if 85 of each 100 motor vehicles were recorded at 45 mph or under, then 45 mph is the 85th percentile speed.

Historically, before and after traffic engineering studies have shown that changing the posted speed limit does not significantly affect the 85th percentile speed. The driving environment, which includes other traffic on the road and roadway conditions, is the primary factor which influences the prevailing speed.

The driving environment is reflected by the 85th percentile speed. The majority of drivers, consciously or unconsciously, consider the factors in the driving environment and travel at a speed that is safe and comfortable regardless of the posted speed limit.

The speed data are collected by recording the speeds of free flowing motor vehicles using a radar or other speed measuring device. A representative sample of vehicular speeds is recorded and these speeds would include local residents who drive through the zone.

Use of the 85th percentile speed acknowledges that 15% of the drivers are traveling above a speed that is reasonable and proper. This is the 15% of motorists at which enforcement action is directed. Studies have shown that this is the group of motorists that cause many of the crashes and have the worst driving records.

There are other parameters used to evaluate speed data, such as the average, median and pace speeds. However, the 85th percentile speed is the most critical criterion in establishing realistic speed limits.

The graph included below (from the Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation) shows the relationship between the 85th percentile and a motorist’s chance of being in an accident:

Unfortunately, most speed limits are set well below the 85th percentile speed. When speed limits are set too low, drivers are forced to travel at a speed that increases their risk of being involved in an accident. The alternative is to travel at the safest (85th percentile) speed and risk a speeding ticket. This is something that many drivers do everyday.

The NMA has been fighting back against unrealistic speed limits for years (starting with the 55 MPH National Speed Limit), but we need your help to spread the word. Send this article to your friends, co-workers, and legislators so that they can better understand this subject.

This excerpt from the “Establishing Realistic Speed Limits” booklet summarizes things well:

Contrary to popular belief, lower speed limits do not necessarily improve safety. The more uniform the speeds of vehicles in a traffic stream, the less chance there is for conflict and crashes. Posting speed limits lower or higher than what the majority of drivers are traveling produces two distinct groups of drivers: those attempting to observe the speed limit and those driving at a speed they feel is reasonable and prudent. These differences in speeds can result in increased crashes due to tailgating, improper passing, reckless driving, and weaving from lane to lane.

The key to improving traffic safety isn’t slowing everyone down, it’s getting drivers to travel near the same speed. This is something that the 85th percentile accomplishes naturally.

It may seem counter-intuitive, but it’s the truth.

• How Should Speed Limits Be Set?
• The Effect Of Speed Limits On Actual Travel Speeds
• What Should Cities Do If 90% Of Drivers Exceed The Speed Limit?
• Utah Speed Limit Increase Has No Effect On Speed Or Safety
• Satellite-Enforced Speed Limits: A Glimpse Of Our Future?