Driving on the highway seems like I'm stressing the car

[BailOut]

Originally Posted by ern-diz

i'm pretty sure, at least in california, that one of the laws IS to keep up with the flow of traffic

Like most States, California has laws dealing with impeding the flow of traffic. However, it is entirely subjective both from enforcement and conviction standpoints, and the only definitive laws deal with the left-most lane. In other words, doing the speed limit, or even a bit below the speed limit (meaning 55 MPH), in the right-hand lane, is perfectly legal and defensible.

Here's an article from the California Chronicle that explains it all:

http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/view/105497

[SailDesign]

Commuting 85 miles each way - 1/3 back road, 2/3 highway, averaging 60mph for the trip (75-80mph highway most of the time to "go with the flow") and no stress on the engine. Averaged 39 mpg for the week.

[JBIZZ]

The Yaris can handle it and is desinged to run at higher RPMs. As far as posted speed goes, most posted speed limits were intially enacted when cars were far less safe, such as cars with 4 drum brakes, no air bags, no seat, belts & no crumple zones. These days any car can go 85 mph safely on the highway. If you get a ticket fight it in court. It's what courts are for. Plus you can help the government with court fees, they need it right now.

[TOUGEghost]

VVT starts getting more aggressive around the 3500 rpm area; that' s why the engine gets a little louder. It's still a relatively low rpm that doesn't put that much stress on the engine.

[xtremesniper]

Good to know guys, I think the general consensus here is that there is no stress on the engine. I will, for good measure, check the engine oil just to be sure. But this is a fairly new car (still under 5000km on it) so I doubt there will be any problems there.

[Zaphod]

Originally Posted by JBIZZ

As far as posted speed goes, most posted speed limits were intially enacted when cars were far less safe, such as cars with 4 drum brakes, no air bags, no seat, belts & no crumple zones.

Traffic conditions were also much lighter than they are today and people had more common sense.

Yay for anti-lock disc brakes, but air bags, crumple zones and seat belts do absolutely nothing to help prevent an accident, which is the whole point of the speed limit in the first place.

I'm no angel but I know when I'm taking a risk by speeding and I don't go for sissy cop outs like that.

[xtremesniper]

Originally Posted by Zaphod

Traffic conditions were also much lighter than they are today and people had more common sense.

Yay for anti-lock disc brakes, but air bags, crumple zones and seat belts do absolutely nothing to help prevent an accident, which is the whole point of the speed limit in the first place.

I'm no angel but I know when I'm taking a risk by speeding and I don't go for sissy cop outs like that.

I don't agree that speed limits exist to prevent accidents, as there are far more things that contribute to accidents than simply speed. It's much more complex/intertwined than that.

But regardless, speed limits are here. I use them as guidelines, not strict maximums. That's as simple as my reasoning gets. I usually go 10 KM/h over the limit, whatever it is set to, except for 80KM/h zones, which I usually am satisfied with as a speed limit. There is nothing unsafe about that.

[Zaphod]

Originally Posted by xtremesniper

I don't agree that speed limits exist to prevent accidents, as there are far more things that contribute to accidents than simply speed. It's much more complex/intertwined than that.

But regardless, speed limits are here. I use them as guidelines, not strict maximums. That's as simple as my reasoning gets. I usually go 10 KM/h over the limit, whatever it is set to, except for 80KM/h zones, which I usually am satisfied with as a speed limit. There is nothing unsafe about that.

I agree that there are multiple causes for accidents, probably the largest reason around here is just ego, plain and simple. Followed closely by cell phones, or otherwise distracted drivers.

I was only talking about risks, and being aware when you're taking them.

Accidents are just one risk associated with speeding, another is tickets, which are just another form of revenue for some counties/cities. It's the same way with photo enforced stoplights and speed zones.

I'm talking about using common sense and realizing that you change your reaction time and increase your stopping time, adjusting the space between you and the car in front of you, memorizing the location of the most common speed traps, paying attention to what's happening around you, etc.

And I know for a fact that they are always adjusting the speed limits for work zones, high traffic areas for the sole purpose of avoiding accidents. How many government sponsored commercials advertising just exactly that?

And that's what I'm talking about, if you decide to plow through dangerous interchanges at 80mph an hour where the speed limit says 45, well you're kind of asking for it, aren't you? But everybody knows better until their car is a wrecked heap and they've lost full functionality of a limb, which is fine by me as long as they don't involve me in their self destructive ego trip.

[talnlnky]

Originally Posted by PK198105

no the first reason for a speed limit on the highway is to safe gas , thus reducing the stress on the oil supply thus reducing the need to buy fuel. in Germany you can go as fast as you want in certain areas, but above 130km/h you are waiving your insurance away. Simple effective and fair

maybe in your country.... Saving gas was only once a reason for speed limits in this country.... and it really was just a strong armed tactic used against Montana by the federal government.