Talk:National Maximum Speed Law

message: 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  This rule was in effect from 1980 until it was repealed in 1989.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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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  or the source.  Thanks. Ufwuct 18:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  85 mph speedometers 

message: 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  or the source.  Thanks. Ufwuct 18:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Denial of true facts is worse than having something non-referenced

message: 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)
thread_title:  See also spamming 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Photo caption 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Senator John Warner 

message: 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)
thread_title:  National Motorists Association 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rename 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Office Of Driver Research

message: 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)
thread_title:  lets go over the changes I just made that were RVed 

message: 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)
thread_title: Opposition and noncompliance

message: 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  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  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., citing Transportation Research Board. 1984. 55: a decade of experience. Special Report 204. Washington, DC., available for purchase online at  In addition, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety workers wrote three papers that argue that increase from  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  caused a 3.4% to 5.1% decrease in fatalities.
comments? 018 (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Safety impact

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  85 mph rule 

message: 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)
replies: text: It should be done like this:  which converts the units automatically. The result looks like this: "". N419BH 21:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  All conversions are now identical. N419BH 21:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  88/89/90 KPH 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  O18's repeated attempts to promote pro-55 mph viewpoints 

message: 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)
thread_title:  De-emphasis of speed limits: possible reasons 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on National Maximum Speed Law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Safety issue 

message: 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  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: The article has many dates and is at times a bit hard to follow. A timeline, particularly a  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)
thread_title:  Can we have a graphical timeline? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Smog reducing gas