Wild hogs, however, were not a factor in the crash, police said. Four crashes between vehicles and hogs took place during the first night the toll road opened.

Figures dem darn Road Hogs would cause the first crash!

Lots of people die on the roads every day. It is not about speed, it is about poor control over the vehicle or other driver's errors.

How come nobody is yelling about the speed limit compromising gas mileage? Speed limits all over the nation are being raised and everyone seems to think it's ok. I don't get it! Gas is costing a fortune, partly because of supply and demand, partly because of market speculation, etc. I thought the whole idea was to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This isn't the road to that independence, this is just catering to big oil. I'm sure I'll get the thumbs down for this but the national speed limit needs to go back to 55. Just how fast do we really need to go. And this is coming from a former speed freak!

Honda Civic (econo box motorized wheelbarrow) + 85 or more MPH (very fast for any hwy vehicle) = Bad situation

I love driving the speed limit in Arizona - and when you ride my ass I jam on the brakes - I try to make friends where ever I go...HAAAAAAA!

I've gotten 2 tickets for speeding in my life - one was the day after the Federal law changed all hi-ways to 55mph...bummer.

monopoly's can charge what ever they want once they've driven the competition out of business,

just wait till Walmart drives Sears(Kmart) and Target out of business.

Walmart will have free rein on what they want to charge.

there will always be crashes as long as incompetent people are allowed to get behind the wheel who put things other than driving as a priority while the vehicle is in their control.

My biggest problem with a highway being owned and run by a private organization is that a highway requires property condemnation.

The government forcing someone to sell land to a company is crap.

Several years ago, a city near where I live took all the irrigation water rights in the city, under eminent domain, and sold them to golf courses.

When the government has to build a road for the benifit of all the people in an area, they have to condemn peoples land. That makes sense. We need roads.

But when the government takes something to give to someone else, the people with the most money get what ever they can pay a congressman to do.

@Disturbedlibrarian

this is just catering to big oil.... Speed limits all over the nation are being raised and everyone seems to think it's ok. I don't get it!

On the contrary, I think you DO get it!

Spencer -

This non-toll/toll (i.e public vs. private) issue is not that simple. In general I agree with your position regarding the use of eminent domain for private use, but there is a clear public service difference between a golf course and a highway. In addition, toll roads typically are not OWNED privately. Most (if not all) are owned by the local or state government, and leased to a private company to manage and maintain. It's a technicality, but it's also reality. Consider this: if a state determines that it needs a new highway or bypass to serve an increasing number of vehicles on an existing highway, and it will cost them $300 million dollars to build it, shouldn't they at least consider an alternative option to build build the highway for FREE (privately funded), and then allow the builder to recoup the construction expense in tolls? For me, this is the ideal scenario, because the users pay for it, not all the taxpayers in a state or region. Why should I have to pay an equal share of a new highway on the east side of town, when I live on the west side and only use that highway once a year??

Backcountry,

Your first statement is true however, I live in NJ and the NJ-Turnpike basically can charge whatever they want and I'll pay it.

It's the most economic and fastest way to get around this shape of state. By taking back roads for 60+ miles with gas prices as high as they are, it'll take a longer time & cost more in gas $ to go the same 60 miles with all the stop & go.

That said, be nice to Hillary and have a good day....

When will the big one hit California?

In other news... some farted in fairbanks alaska....(no offense to the citizens of fairbanks)

Max,

I understand your point about control, but you are wrong. Speed matters. If 2 vehicles collide at 15mph then there won't be fatalities. If 2 vehicles collide at 80mph then there will likely be fatalities. Physics at play here, speed matters.

If it's a "private road"............. why are there police?

The only thought I have about this is...when the speed limit is 65, and you feel adventurous and drive 15-20 mph over the speed limit, you end up at 85. But when the speed limit is 85, and you drive 15-20 mph (which people will do just to push the limits), you end up over 100mph and that's dangerous speeds for the majority of drivers, although they may not think so...

"How come nobody is yelling about the speed limit compromising gas mileage?"

In my car there is about 0.4MPG fuel consumption difference between 55MPH and 70MPH. As in 29.5MPG for 70MPH and 29.9MPG at 55MPG.

Now you know what REALLY messes up my mileage? Red lights and Stop signs. There the mileage can drop to 19MPG in city driving...

RE: Toll roads vs Public roads.

When I first moved to Chicagoland, I thought toll roads were a horrible idea...until I realized the toll roads were the best maintained roads.

Tolls kill. The road was safe until they started charging a toll. Live free or die.

That didn't take long. Speed kills. One thing missing in the planning for this "pay to speed" concept is the fact that few individuals have the first clue about how to drive at those speeds, and how to react if something happens at that speed.

Do the math: High speed + driver inexperience = crashes

The death toll for this stretch of roadway is destined to be large, it's inevitable. And then people will stop using it.

Experiment: FAIL

It's not that hard. I own a company and I have an office in Munich, Germany. In fact I was there a few weeks ago. I routinely drive 150 MPH in a BMW I rent and I never had a problem. I also drove a NASCAR car at the Miami-Homestead speedway last year and I hit 160 MPH. Again, no problems.

You sissy liberals should not drive that fast though, of course. LOL!

I live in the center of Texas. It seems like that no matter where I go, by the time I reach the state line, I'm almost halfway there.

Drive across the state some time at 55. It will seem like a life time. Which is worse, dying on a Texas highway or spending an eternity there?

Another basically stupid story. People are killed every day whether it's on a high speed tollway, a county road or the street in front of our homes. I'm finding it harder to read these ignorant stories written by people who apparently don't have a clue.

You are so cool, Boobster.

If enough Texans will get on board for secession, it won't matter what the rest of the country thinks. So far the petition has met its goal of 25,000. Be better if it was 25 million! Hey, it's a place to start and more people are signing up each day.

I am working for it in my small home town, by talking it up. If need be, I'll go door to door.

totally agree, Yourekidding.

I'd also call him a braggart, except for two things: 1) nobody cares; 2) he's a liar.

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out, IWonder. Feel free to die on a Texas highway.

:)

Creek Dog

Backcountry,

Your first statement is true however, I live in NJ and the NJ-Turnpike basically can charge whatever they want and I'll pay it.

The rest of your post proves my point.

It's the most economic and fastest way to get around this shape of state. By taking back roads for 60+ miles with gas prices as high as they are, it'll take a longer time & cost more in gas $ to go the same 60 miles with all the stop & go.

Why don't they double or triple the rate if its so economical and you'd be willing to pay any amount? There is always a limit to what the market will bear.

There is a reason Germany has the autobahn - because they're drivers are responsible and logical, they follow the rules - that means no distractions, no left lane bandits, no speed wardens, no brakeriders, no right lane passers and no emotions when driving at a high speed.

The reason we have such low speed limits is simply because people here are not responsible enough to be trusted with a higher velocity.

To people that think that anything over 65 is crazy need to understand that at the time of the 55mph speed limit, going 55 in those cars at the time was as safe as going 100mph in todays vehicles. Also, if your car is aerodynamic enough and has enough gears, MPG shouldnt suffer from going faster.

I Wonder - "If enough Texans will get on board for secession, it won't matter what the rest of the country thinks. So far the petition has met its goal of 25,000."

I think most of us would be happy to sign your petition ;-)

Spencer - your post reminds me of when the ex and I wanted to buy a lot and a half at Picnic Point right across the street from Puget Sound - they told us we couldn't build there because it is a landslide zone...a 3 million dollar home now sits there.

If the national speed limit were reset to 55, it would save 1 billion barrels of oil per year. The most aerodynamic cars today have a drag coefficient that is about half that of some pickups and SUVs. This depends mostly on the size of the car. Big SUVs have more than double the frontal area of some small cars. Weight affects the amount of drag the tires put on the car. Big SUVs can weigh two to three times what the smallest cars weigh. That is not even counting the safety benefits from reducing the amount of kinetic energy that cars travel around with.

@Pax "In my car there is about 0.4MPG fuel consumption difference between 55MPH and 70MPH. As in 29.5MPG for 70MPH and 29.9MPG at 55MPG."

I would say you are full of chit. The difference should be over 15% if not more, therefore if your car got 30 MPG at 55 in your car then it would get 25.5 MPG at 70. An SUV or a truck is even worse and wastes even more gas to travel at 70 MPH. Here are a couple links since you morons will try and argue with me as always.

http://www.mpgforspeed.com/

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/fuel-economy/question477.htm

http://homepages.math.uic.edu/~jlewis/math165/asavgcost.htm

And yet morons cry about the price of gas...DRIVE SLOWER. Morons cry about the price of cars when vehicles need 7+ airbags which cost $500 or so a piece if not more just to try and protect them from the energy/velocity of a crash.

(P.S. not like there was not ALREADY a road that ran parallel this new toll road. I wonder why they reduced the speed limit on that old road to 55...hmm I wonder? I wonder if that lady would have died in the civic had the speed limit been lower...I wonder? I wonder what happened when half the country tried to break apart from the nation? I wonder what will happen if Texas tries it...I wonder? I am surrounded by morons.)

To all the "speed kills" people, highway fatalities have come down markedly across the nation since the speed limit went from 55 to 70. Your argument is contradicted by reality.

To the people who say 55mph saves oil? My time is more valuable than that. If yours isn't, be my guest and do 55 in the right lane.

@ relax "To all the "speed kills" people, highway fatalities have come down markedly across the nation since the speed limit went from 55 to 70. Your argument is contradicted by reality.

That has more to do with safety standards and people actually using seatbelts. If cars were built the same as they were in the 70's fatalities would be even higher. Crush zones were not used, air bags were not used, etc., nice way to ignore all the other factors moron.

Al718 - you be one clueless chap - my old 1965 Impala was far more stable than any car I have had since. Those boats we had back then pretty much all had V-8's, and you could crash and actually survive. You crash in today's cars and you better hope the air-bag goes off. My wife has a fully loaded Kia Optima - that thing is squirly as all hell, nice car but you don't dare look away from the road for one second. Go to Phoenix, AZ. and see how many cars are upside down - in 30mph zones - hit a curb in today's cars and you become a turtle on its back.

Ok nvpat, you're on.

Go to https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions, I'll take all the help that I can get. You'll have to scroll, then arrow down. We're up to 38,047 signers, the more the merrier.

Sounds like you don't want Texas in your country and I sure don't want to be there. I hope the future of your country is good.

Al718 and Pax, both of y'all need to learn a little physics. Most cars reach maximum efficiency at about 45 mph. Once you go beyond that, the amount of horsepower required to maintain you speed increases drastically and gas mileages plummets.

For anyone who believe it's not that driving 100 mph isn't that much more dangerous than driving 70, it is true that cars today have much better safety system and tires can better handle the speeds but, you need to realize that a car traveling at 100 mph generates about 43% more force than a car driving 70. As long as nothing goes wrong, tires don't fail, a gust of wind doesn't blow you off the road, a piece of debris or buzzard doesn't come through your windshield (the buzzard happened to some friends of mine at around 60 mph. It ended up in the back seat!) and nothing runs into the road, right in front of you (like a hog), you are correct but, if something does go wrong, crumple zones and air bags aren't designed to deal with a 100 mph crash. Odds are, you and anyone in the car with you, are going to die.

I used to live in Denmark, and often drove on the autobahn in Germany. While I was there they changed the speed limit laws a little. You can still drive as fast as you want in open country (cities have always had lower speed limits) but, if you are involved in an accident and you are going more than 130 kph ( about 81 mph), you will bare some of the responsibility for the accident. We always thought that was kind of funny because, with accidents at those speeds, few actually survive.

39,386, thanks guys! :)

JP, and im the clueless one lol? You mean to tell me the last 50 years saw no improvements in safety tech? I love classics as much as the next guy but whats the braking distance and cornering limit on that Impala? How's it fare in the lane change? And about the Kia, maybe your wife should have gotten something with decent steering - for that type of car I'd look at the Fusion, Accord or maybe a Mazda =)

The cat is out of the bag. Texas brags about a balanced budget with low taxes on the rich, they just don't tell you, they charge user fees for driving on Texas highways and the consumption of oxygen. With speed limits of 80 and 85 MPH, and wild hogs running around, Texas will create a lot of jobs and business for private funeral homes

All I can say is I love the 75 mph speed limits in rural Arizona and my mileage is a heck of a lot better on those high speed drives from Phoenix to Flagstaff on a gorgeous powder ski day than the usual mileage I get driving around town, going to work, etc. I'm also sure glad ours isn't a toll road. How much did it cost to change the speed limit signs back in the 1990s? I don't know, but I doubt it was much. Why should driving fast mean a big money-making opportunity for a private company?

JP ,

While cars today have a lot more safety features, many have independent suspension which causes them to roll much easier, the outward wheels have a tendency to tuck in on tight corners

@Iwonder, I'll gladly sign your petition, I just don't think that the federal government will allow it.

I thought the whole idea was to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This isn't the road to that independence, this is just catering to big oil. I'm sure I'll get the thumbs down for this but the national speed limit needs to go back to 55. Just how fast do we really need to go. And this is coming from a former speed freak!

Hey "former speed freak," let me guess, you're a NASCAR fan too, and their cars are fuel efficient? LOL!!

Now come on back with, that's race fuel...ok, and where does it come from, "water!" LOL

Ellis Baumgarner

With the toll roads maybe Texas is looking for future funds since they are requesting they secede from the Union, and they know if they are granted their request they'll be the poorest country in the world, surely all the big Military bases, Fort Hood, Bliss, Sam Houston, NASA, none of that will stay there....LOL I'm thinking Mexico will invade and occupy Texas after they secede....LOL

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/texas-petition-secede-reaches-threshold-obama-comment/story?id=17701519

You know what happened the last time states decided to secede, right? I have to say though, my opinion of Texas has gone from neutral to outright disdain with all the holier than thou rhetoric and talk of treason which would inevitably lead to war.

I Wonder - "If enough Texans will get on board for secession, it won't matter what the rest of the country thinks. So far the petition has met its goal of 25,000."

YEAH!!!! only 235,000 more to reach 1% of Texas' population!!!!!

moshuluu...

Mexico is already invading Texas:

“I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders and that Mexican migrants are an important – a very important – part of this.” — Former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo, Chicago on July 23, 1997.

“The American Southwest seems to be slowly returning to the jurisdiction of Mexico without firing a single shot.” — Excelsior – The national newspaper of Mexico

@Tired and slow

@ relax "To all the "speed kills" people, highway fatalities have come down markedly across the nation since the speed limit went from 55 to 70. Your argument is contradicted by reality.

That has more to do with safety standards and people actually using seatbelts. If cars were built the same as they were in the 70's fatalities would be even higher. Crush zones were not used, air bags were not used, etc., nice way to ignore all the other factors moron.

On the contrary, I'm glad you understand how driving has gotten safer as speed limits have been raised. Now that we're in agreement that driving overall got safer as speed limits increased, I'll expect you to support further increases in the speed limit where appropriate. Looks like the safety technology is ready for another round of speed limit increases! Gracias, Amigo.

If Texas secedes, that US border fence is going to make more sense to Americans than ever ....but along the shared borders with Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma and New Mexico. And I wouldn't be surprised if Mexico built their own Northern border fence, as well ( to keep out the riff-raff! ;-)

Yes but liberals want to control everything and when they see some relaxing of control ( 85mph speed limit) they just freak !

Not at all - we're hoping you'll raise it further :-)

Why is Texas still here, don't they want to secede from the Union, and become a part of Mexico.....LOL

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/texas-petition-secede-reaches-threshold-obama-comment/story?id=17701519

Lets refer the question to the Texas school board, that way we can get the educated answer from the dumbest people in the country.

Speaking of dumb, here's a dumb but brilliant idea: could we give Texas to Mexico in exchange for 50 years of free oil?

a toll road being run by a private company. hows that for the free market?

AG99

Toll road? I should be able to drive on any public road in the country without being charged.

First off that doesn't even apply to this story, this is a PRIVATE road built solely to relieve congestion on the public alternative routes.

Second, why should you be able to drive on any public road just because your taxes pay part of the cost of maintainance? Some roads cost more to maintain than others, why shouldn't the people who use those roads pay a little extra?

@brian-397693

a toll road being run by a private company. hows that for the free market?

It's perfect. People who want to make the trip faster pay for the convience to do so. People who don't want to pay the toll take the old route which now has less traffic. Win-win.

Backcountry: If it's a completely privately-funded road, then fine, but if any of my tax dollars went into it, then I should be able to use it without having to pay even more. And we're not talking about a little here; this road costs $8 to use it. You can't pay that every day.

Case in point: There's a toll bypass road around Denver that is pretty expensive to use (like this Texas road), so not a lot of people use it. The interstates that go through town are so congested at rush hour that you're barely moving. How much would that congestion be eased if the bypass road were free?

The answer is "I don't know," but I can't help but think if that bypass were more available, Denver driving would be a whole hell of a lot easier. Isn't that the point of having roads?

Backcountry-Second, why should you be able to drive on any public road just because your taxes pay part of the cost of maintainance? Some roads cost more to maintain than others, why shouldn't the people who use those roads pay a little extra?

If that's the case then people who use all of this country's welfare, foodstamps, federal housing, Sec 8 housing, Obama phones, and every other program that bleeds this country, then those people should be paying something in taxes, even a little more than others by your standard.

Obama phones

So a program the telecommunication companies started in the 90's that costs us nothing, is now the doing of Obama?

then those people should be paying something in taxes

You do know that it's only federal income taxes they don't pay, correct? Even so, less than 10% of the 47% that people throw around in ignorance, are deadbeats. The rest can barely make it from one check to the next, are elderly, are too young to work or have severe disabilities.

Not everyone on assistance is a deadbeat. It's about time you realise that. Then again, you think a program started long before Obama took office, is his doing.

Dawgfan - you're making Backcountry's point. Using AG99's logic, we should all be able to walk into any government agency office and take what we want for free. After all, our taxes are paying for it. Driver's license fee? No way, my taxes paid for that building.

AG99 - I live in Denver. $8 to drive from Austin to San Antonia is a ridiculous deal. E-470 is $2 every 8 to 10 miles - twice the Texas toll rate. And you're making the point against yourself. If I-25 is too congested, E-470 offers you a quick and easy alternative. I like E-470 precisely because it's traffic-free. I can pretty much drive as fast as I want to. Using your logic, I should be able to take the bus and light rail for free, because it would reduce car congestion on the "free" highway.

GREAT! Here goes insurance rates, just because a bunch of rednecks want to get to the bar faster.

@NYMIKE, Obamaphone phrase came from an Obama voter who ignorantly spewed on tv that errbody on welfare, on foodstamps, in govt housing gots to get they Obamaphone. I know the origins of the the program that was first started for people to have a phone in their house. Since home phones are become a scarce thing the govt has expanded to cell phones.

This is the core of the Republican plans for the nation. They want to give anything of value that belongs to America and give it away cheap to their cronies who then make billions and give nothing back to the taxpayers.

It boggles the mind that anyone believes their drivel about private industry performing a job at lower cost. The only way to lower costs is to use sub standard parts, people and management. Giving America away to private companies is a dead end road.

@AG99

Backcountry: If it's a completely privately-funded road, then fine, but if any of my tax dollars went into it, then I should be able to use it without having to pay even more.

If high maintenance, high cost roads, public or private, can not charge tolls to recoup part of that expense there are only 2 other alternatives. One is to raise those taxes you're bitching about forcing EVERYONE to pay a little more whether they use that expensive road or not. The other is to close those expensive roads. Do either of these two option actually sound better to you??

It's nice to make broad statements about how you think things should work but you do have to take reality into consideration.

Case in point: There's a toll bypass road around Denver that is pretty expensive to use (like this Texas road), so not a lot of people use it. The interstates that go through town are so congested at rush hour that you're barely moving. How much would that congestion be eased if the bypass road were free?

Not one bit, in fact it would be worse because if the toll road were free it never would have been built.

@Dawgfan-4710266

If that's the case then people who use all of this country's welfare, foodstamps, federal housing, Sec 8 housing, Obama phones, and every other program that bleeds this country, then those people should be paying something in taxes, even a little more than others by your standard.

You're barking up the wrong tree. I don't think the Federal government has any business doing any of those things.

Sic-n-tired

This is the core of the Republican plans for the nation. They want to give anything of value that belongs to America and give it away cheap to their cronies who then make billions and give nothing back to the taxpayers.

Take your rhetoric and spew it somewhere it makes a tiny bit of sense. No one gave anything away here.

It boggles the mind that anyone believes their drivel about private industry performing a job at lower cost.

The only reason your mind is "boggled" is because you don't use it. Anyone can see the obvious advantage ANY AND EVERY time there is a comparison. Ask the folks in NYC how much they enjoy the escalators on the subway system since some dip@!$%# politician decided to "save" money by turning maintenance over to public works. Twice the cost and half the functioning escalators.

Of course you can always shove my words back in my face by providing some examples to prove me wrong. I won't hold my breath waiting.

All well and good when tolls are used to pay for the roads they built. But here in the north, they're just another revenue source because the roads were long ago paid for.

The only reason your mind is "boggled" is because you don't use it. Anyone can see the obvious advantage ANY AND EVERY time there is a comparison.

Let's imagine a for profit fire department: Fire Corp. You pay a monthly fee for fire protection. Maybe they rope you into a 2 year commitment but hey, most folks don't move every two years. But then comes the tiered services. The basic package will save lives but not property on a single floor home. Additional floors cost extra. If you live in a high rise, your rates are different, because that requires a ladder truck. To save property, that's the next tier of service. Pets are an add-on service. Etc. They still charge you per call out.

So how does Fire Corp. grow its business, especially when Extinguish, LLC just moved into town and is building their own station? Well, they cut costs. Less equipment. Cheaper workers. Less training. They can also increase revenues. Cost to the consumer increases.

What happens when your neighbor, covered by Extinguish LLC, has a house fire and your property catches fire? Well assuming you have the appropriate tier of service and the correct floor has caught fire, who should respond, Extinguish LLC or Fire Corp? Private market says Fire Corp. Better call them and double up the cost of a single fire by having two of each required vehicle, staff, and piece of equipment on hand. Of course maybe Extinguish LLC will put it out for you, but they'll charge you the "out-of-network" rate, which is several thousand bucks.

Sounds like a nightmare to me.

Texas is pay to play. Give money to Perry, you get to privatize anything. You even get to set up a nuclear waste dump. So Texas, rather than being an endless problem becomes a solution to another endless problem. Fill it up with radioactive waste, then give it to mexico.

LOL!! Good one, MJS!!!

Texas is one of those states that doesn't build those long circular ramps that allow you to get a look at the road while approaching the merger point. Texans also use every bit of the merger lane before they get on the road. Many reach the end of the merge lane and then just stop and look over their shoulder instead of using their mirrors and taking a quick glance.

I would say that is about a 90 percent chance that is what happened. Most times it's imigrants from the north that will merge and don't look, usually because they are some of the rudest drivers. We have had 4 way stops for years and at some very busy interstections and never had a problem but you can tell an out of state driver cause they don't like to wait their turn. We used to have very good drivers ed courses that were required. When I lived up north I could not believe you could get a license without drivers ed?????

@ fral659....Man I couldn't agree with you more ! As a trucker, I've been placed in many scary situations by people taking thier sweet time merging into traffic and only speeding up at the last moment. Rule of thumb is speed up when getting on and slow down when getting off...and by all means ALWAYS CHECK traffic. Great post !

@fral659

So while speed was a factor to a point, it probably was not the cause of the crash.

Well as long as we're going with "probably" I'd like to point out that since this was a road intended and designed for high speed traffic it probably has dedicated on/off lanes so that on coming traffic can come up to speed before merging.

fral659

It's the law, dummy. People merging onto a highway HAVE the right-away. It's your requirement to move

over or slow down and let them in.

That's exactly the point being made here....from 9 years of experience as a driver / trainer, I've seen people carry on conversations, eat, and do all other things except pay attention. Yes there are acceleration lanes and deceleration lanes and some folks with little, poor, or no driving experience understand that. There are folks to this day that can't explain what certain road markings are or what background colors mean on road signs stand for.

Dave 404065 you have that exactly backwards. The cars merging on to the highway must yield to traffic already on the highway. It is very courteous to move to the left, but not required, and not always possible due to other traffic. While some states do have yield signs at the bottom of the ramp, this is an 'implied yield' similar to the right turn on red after stop -- you can't just stop and pull out without regards for oncoming traffic, and although the angle of a merge is less than a right turn, its basically the same manuver except for the angle. I sure hope you check traffic and yield if there's a big truck doing 85 in the right late, because if you don't you'll be in a bad place.

@ Dave-404065

Sorry but you are wrong, people merging on to a highway do not have the right of way. Traffic on the freeway have the right of way and merging traffic have to yield.

Dave,

You are mistaken. It is the driver merging onto the highway that must yeild to traffic. The driver on the highway gives way out of courtesy, but are not required to.

EDIT:Three posts by people telling Dave he is wrong in a three minute window.

From the Texas DMV Drivers Handbook:

Driving on Multiple-Lane Roads

On a road divided into three or more lanes providing for one-way movement, a vehicle entering a lane oftraffic from the right must yield the right-of-way to a vehicle entering the same lane of traffic from the left.

filbert, that law applies to two vehicles coming into the same lane. It does not apply to on-ramps where there is someone already in the lane of traffic.

n@o more filbert

From the Texas DMV Drivers Handbook:

Why don't you post what they have to say about yeild signs because there is one on every on-ramp I've ever used.

Dave, you just sent chills up my spine, because I do a lot of driving in tight, urban freeway traffic, and I always wondered if people who cut me off while merging did so because they were j-e-r-k-s, or because the DMV was failing to educate them properly. Now I can't help but wonder how many people just merge into traffic blindly and dangerously, wrongly assuming that the other drivers have to look out for them.

Speed isn't the problem. Much of the Autobahn has no speed restrictions yet is a very safe road.

Driver training and vehicle safety regulations influence road fatality rates much more than speed limits.

See: http://www.ehow.com/about_6726960_autobahn-safety-vs_-interstate-safety.html

Agree with McGee. The Autobahn is really safe, and they have no speed limit.

It's all about the driver and the vehicle and the safety regulations.

If a road is maintained , all drivers are good drivers, no youth, old folks, drunks, health problems, no animals, nothing falling off vehicles onto road, all cars in excellent shape, good tires, great weather..............it might be ok to go 90 mph.

No, I don't buy into that. Here in AZ we have a number of highways with 75mph speed limits and people do not go 10-15 over as they do on the 55-65mph highways. Second, as having driven on the autobahn in Germany for a number of years, the speed is not the problem it is poorly taught drivers. I can drive 120-130 on the autobahn all the time and rarely have any problems because nobody EVER passes on the right side only on the left and when a car approaches from the rear people pull to the right immediately to allow the faster cars by. It is called trained drivers and alert drivers.

You shouldn't be suprised in the least.

We have privatized the military, with the exception of the dying part. We still recruit troops for that.

We are slowly privatizing our prisons. Hell, people are now losing jobs to inmates in the private prison industry.

In the next 50 years, expect nearly all aspects of the government on the state and federal level to be outsourced to private firms.

I visited Texas last year and I could not believe how BAD the roads are in Texas........mostly tar and chip.......not a good combo for high speed traveling.........thought Texas was a 'rich state', flush full of money, guess I was wrong!!

My question is this. If the roads become privatized, then why does the state/federal still collect the same taxes from the populas? They aren't paying for it, why should they still get revenue from it.

Thought the USA was a rich nation, flush full of money, guess we are all wrong.

So why are the individual states any better.

Our role model leaders in Washington...

I can see Gov. Perry's thinking....build toll highway.....get toll money....raise speed limit to 85.....cars use more gas at that speed....we get more revenue from gas tax....and....and....and....I forget what else we get!

Fish you are right I have been here 40 years and have not seen it either, the worst thing is when they built the North Dallas Tollway they said the tolls would be lifted in 20 years That did not happen

50 years ago the Tom Landry Turnpike was Dallas-Ft Worth Turnpike and it had a toll. After it paid for itself 3 times over they lifted the toll. How many times will N. Dallas Tollway, G. Bush Turnpike and HW 121 pay for themselves before they remove the toll? That's a trick question; they'll never lift the tolls.

Why privatize?

1) The cost of using the services/facilities is borne by those that use them rather than spreading it across all taxpayers. In this case, people in San Antonio that never drive in DFW don't have to contribute to DFW highways.

2) Related to #1, you can provide services/facilities to the populace without making it look like they have to pay for it. I.E. No additional taxes.

3) Cost efficiency. As much as we'd like to deny it, government doesn't get the same pressure to be cost efficient as private enterprises do through market competition. An inconvenient and ugly truth, but truth all the same. I'm not saying it's impossible for government to get efficient without that pressure... but it never does. Then again, privatization of government services doesn't usually get major competition to operate, only to bid. Once the franchise is won, it's not like they compete with others. Can you say Halliburton?

So, should we privatize? Offhand, I can't think of anything that should be privatized. We definitely should not privatize vital infrastructure: Care and maintenance of transportation arteries, first responders, (public) libraries and schools... these all should be on the public tab and used freely by all.

In daylight hours, the speed limit on rural Montana interstates is "reasonable and prudent". Basically, they won't ticket you unless you're well over 90.

While traveling from Texarkana to El Paso in 1971 there were no speed limits ,sings posted speed at own risk.

Texarkana to El Paso in 1971????? By car?? OMG! You poor SOB! How many weeks did it take you? LOL! And the last 1/3 of the trip, all you saw was two lane empty road and tumbleweeds! You poor SOB! I made the trip from Dallas to El Paso ONCE in the 80's! NEVER again!!!!

Doubt a seat belt will save you going 85 mph.

That's why there's a right-hand lane.

84 mph is fast enough ,

doesn't work that way. people are all over the road.

How did hogs get on the road and do they look both ways before crossing? Big trucks throwing tire treads?

Will 16 year olds know to stay in the right lane? What happens if you have a blow out?

Red necks are suckers for being used by capitalists. I'm fightgin fer freedumb in Iraq...I'm gonna git dem Iraqia who done attacked us. Er..it was not Iraq? Yes, it was you liberal 'cause Rush done told me so..yuk yuk, I'm frum Texas.

Actually, the definition of speeding is driving too fast for..

road type

road conditions

weather

experience

condition of vehicle

other driver's experience, condition of their cars

access to roads by animals, deer, hogs

time of day, night

visibility

Same requirements that NASCAR requires for speed. NSACAR also shuts down the road when oil is spilled or anytghing gets on road, monitors cars, drivers, weather.....if that is good enough for NASCAR it ought to tell Texas red necks something

You need to tell everyone in California and the N.E. to slow down too. When I visit LA people are reguarly going 20 or more over. And this is with some 20 million people in the valley. And the N.E., people are driving 50 on freaking surface streets. But of course, instead of making an accurate argument, you resort to bigotry, racism, prejudice, and a numerous other low-intelligent remarks. Typical liberal elitism.

if you want to go slow in LA try driving in rush hour(s) traffic lucky to do 35

Funny how some European countries have solved that, they have new drivers use a sign on their cars for the first year or two that designates they are allowed to drive only 50mph. Interesting concept, huh?

Why not check out the gridlock and speeds in LA fool.

This is not exactly true. Only Germany has the Autobahn where only specific sections have no speed limit. All of the other country's in Europe have speed limits everywhere.

Thanks for confirming this.

Yep. Montana did away with daytime speed limits again in the mid 90s too.

I know because back in 1996 I lived in Salt Lake City & went to Gillette, Wyoming to visit relatives during Memorial Day weekend. On my way back I took a long detour all the way through Montana just to experience no speed limits. I headed up I-25 towards Billings, west across Montana on I-90, & then back down I-15 into Utah.

The speed limit signs read - Daytime: Reasonable & Prudent, Night: 70 mph if I remember correctly.

At the time I had an RX-7 Turbo. I think I went a bit overboard as I was hitting 130mph & 140mph on many stretches going across on I-90.

I saw people pulled over by the police during my sprint across the state. I wondered at the time why they had been stopped.

A couple of years later I read an article in Road & Track where they went on a ride along with a Montana State Trooper. The officer stated that if he saw a family in some old station wagon going 85-90 mph he would pull them over because the car just wasn't built for sustained speeds like that. If it was a guy in Porsche going 90-95 mph he would let them go because the car was perfectly safe at those speeds. Anything beyond 95 mph or so & he would pull them over & give them a speeding ticket regardless of what they were driving.

I was very lucky that I didn't get caught going 130-140 mph. That would have landed be directly in jail. What can I say, the weather was nice, the road conditions were good, & traffic was light & 130+ mph seemed reasonable & prudent to me that day. LOL It also helped that I had a radar detector. Been using them since 1990....

Sometime in the late 90s or early 2000s Montana imposed a daytime speed limit again. Probably best that they did. The only ones that were driving like maniacs were people from out of state like me. The citizens up there were probably sick of it. LOL

I think you need to fact check this one

ben I own a Honda, to be a 99 it is still in good shape but you are right it takes some time to reach 85 mph once there, it has no trouble crusing all day long as I have on trips to florida. That being said any merge lane that is not long enough or some one speeding makes it very dangerous, there are many cloverleafs that are extremely short and have sweated a few of them.

We must add to the discussion the subject of driver awareness. Don't forget both drivers bear some responsibility for the collision.

Very will said. I would think that a toll lanes would be marked (example a 3 lane hiway, would have a fast lane say 80-85mph, a slower lane 70-75 and the slowest lane of 55-65.) or have it like the autobahn where you drive in the slower lane except to pass. althugh I would still have a slower lane to merge. The poblem is drivrs do not watch far enoough ahead of them to antisipate problems, they wear blinders, and look only 100 feet ahead, and when driving 60 or more is very dangerous. You can see autobaun crashes at over 100 and the people walk away, because the cars are made for it. Most new icecube boxes that people drive are not.

Was the driver mexican?

If he was No.7, then I'm sure Jack will personally lobby someone else to pay a higher tax rate to get their entire extended family into the states. But, I won't say that, because it's "tasteless". It's funny, left wing party confused me. They preach tolerance, acceptance, and the willingness to be okay with those that differ with you. It sure doesn't seem that way. I'm hearing a lot of pro-genocide and pro-removal of an entire populace because they don't "think like we do".

You racists/xenophobes are really getting tiresome.