To The People Who Drive Very Fast:

[jakeroot]

I'm sort of guilty of exceeding speed limits by about 5-10 miles per hour. But I absolutely hate people who completely disregard speed limits and just want to go as fast as they possibly can. Again, I may be a bit of a hypocrite saying that, but I do notice speed limit signs and try my best to either maintain that limit or not go too far above it.

What constitutes "as fast as...[possible]"? I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone pass me going more than 100, and that was a very unusual circumstance. The very fastest drivers seem to top out at about 85 around here. The fact is that most, if not all cars built in the last ten years are capable of travelling 100+, yet no one travels that fast.

And therein lies the folly of "everyone just goes 10 over anyway". Humans have a natural speed limit. It's the limit of how quickly we can react. Speeds over that don't feel safe to us. The Autobahn is an example of this "natural speed limit". In the unrestricted sections, average speeds are around 75 (as of 1992, the last year of available data). These people could go as fast as they want, yet they don't go much more than that. Why? Because it doesn't feel safe (my gut tells me that people drive faster than that now, but I don't have any data to support that).

[7/8]

I voted for "Speed Limit Signs Are My Natural Enemy" .  I personally find too many low speed limits in Ontario, like the 401 being 100 km/h (62 mph), and many wide arterial roads in my area are only 50 km/h (31 mph). I can respect slower drivers as long as they don't purposely block the passing lane (which some do!). Though it's hard not to be annoyed when some have the "high-horse" attitude that they're automatically better drivers just because they follow the limit to the t.

I enjoyed driving in rural Saskatchewan where two-line roads are 100 km/h. However, Circle Drive in Saskatoon is only 90 km/h and photo enforced (my nightmare) . I was impressed at how the cameras force everyone to drive that slow, but I'm just thankful Ontario hasn't adopted these speed cameras yet .

[vdeane]

Quite correct.  In the first year of the evil NMSL, traffic mortality in the USA per VMT was a whopping 3.53.  Finally some rural interstates were permited to raise the SL in 1987,  and by 1992, despite the idiotic spew from the insurance, courthouse gang and police lobbies, it had declined to 1.75.    Finally inn 1995, the idiotic NMSL died.  Again the special interests spewed idiocy.  And the rate was 1.73.  By 2003 it stood at 1.48.  The most recent year measured was 1.12.   

1.12 with SLs as high as 85.  3.35 with a uniform idiotic SL of 55.  Pure science.

And, of course, these are figures from ALL types of highways.  The safest form of highway to drive upon, of course, are rural interstates.  The ones with the highest average speeds and highest SLs.

The idea that SLs set too low save lives is just wrong.  And, since we have not yet seen an uptick in the figures, despite higher and higher limits, we know that the SLs are still way too low.

One shouldn't assume causation simply because there is correlation.
Deaths in car wrecks trending downward since the 70's has everything to do with advances in automobile safety.  The relationship to speed limit is spurious.  To suggest otherwise is bad science since it does not control for other, more influential factors.

A specific example; the end of a national speed limit coincides with the mandate to include airbags for driver and front passenger.  Airbags were becoming standard features in the same time period.

The most we can definitively say is speed limit has far less of an impact on highway fatalities than the safety of the automobiles themselves.

We also have data from recent speed limit increases in states, which have shown the exact same thing.  I don't think automobile safety features have anything to do with those.

[ColossalBlocks]

People who drive fast are prevalent in Arkansas (especially around Blytheville). I set my cruise control to 75 if the speed limit is 70, but people zip by me going a good 80-90+. Fuck, just today I saw people zipping down the shoulder at 80/90 during a traffic jam on I-55 in West Memphis. The people around these parts are total idiots.

[Buffaboy]

There are instances where doing the speed limit is ridiculous, specifically on I-90 in the Buffalo urbanized area (55 MPH). Very few people go this slow, most are doing 60 at a minimum, with 65 likely the average and others doing 70 as you go left.

On the mainline Thruway, I usually do between 65-70, and not usually more than this unless I have to. My car is an early 2000s SUV/truck that burns a lot of gas, and I'm not willing to go over 80-85 anywhere in it.

[slorydn1]

On the question "Do you like drivers driving too fast?" I voted no.

Why? Because I can't concieveably think that anyone would like someone driving too fast for the roadway or the prevailing conditions.

But that begs the next question: How fast is too fast?


Is it going over that arbitrary number in black type on a white sign?

For the most part I'm with SP Cook. Not about traffic laws in general, most of the vehicle code in the several states are there for our safety. Run a couple of stop signs or red lights at a busy intersection and see how fast you get into a wreck. Fail to yield the right of way to the vehicle that should have it and see how long it takes before you hurt or kill someone. The various iterations of the "Move Over Law" has saved countless lives of our first responders. Tailgating is illegal in every state and for good reason. DWI and Driving While Distracted laws in all their various forms have been absolutely neccessary, violate them at your own peril, you will have zero sympathy from me.

But he is spot on when it comes to speed limits. Since the 1970's speed limits in and of themselves have had nothing to do with safety, but for more revenue enhancement. Yeah the NMSL itself was originally about fuel economy. But the various governmental entities starting seeing an absolute windfall in ticket revenues, and the insurance companies started reaping huge profits when states started reporting the number of points on your record to them. That's what kept the NMSL around for as long as it was. If you had a cash cow, would you want the federal government to do something to take that away from you? I thought not.


In another thread we were discussing what it was like pre-NMSL. I was too young to remember those days, but my parents always said that the speed limits felt more inline with the type of road they were posted on and they couldn't remember too many people blowing their doors off by going way over that number (65 or 70 or whatever it was). They said that most people actually did the speed limit.
Along comes the NMSL and most actually adhered to it for a few months, after all our National Security depended upon it. <sarcasm intended> As it dragged on, so did the feeling of the average road trip. 55 on I-65 between Gary and Indianapolis felt ridiculously slow. The prevailing speed started creeping up, slowly at first. People started getting the idea that they could get away with 60-65 without getting smoked with a ticket (my dad's default speed was 62). By the time I started to drive in the mid 80's, the disdain for "Arrive Alive, Drive 55" was in full effect. People spent big money on radar detectors, and people started to really fly. It was nothing to be doing 60-65 and watching some one soar by at 75+, only to see their brake lights come on a half mile up the road in response to their radar detector.


We all know the story after that, the repeal of the NMSL and where we are today. There is an entire generation of drivers on the road, those in my age group +20/-5 who learned absolute disdain for that black on white speed limit sign. They know what it means and what they can get away with and they will push to that edge. Those who go over that edge eventually get caught and get very expensive tickets.



I think that for the most part, the speed limits that most of us complain about are the freeway speed limits, and to some extent expressway speed limits (Chicagoans see freeway for full access control, I'm talking 4 lanes with at grades and a few stop lights here, lol). I feel like most towns and cities do get their speed limits right on their arterials and side streets (admittedly some of the NC towns with 20 MPH speed limits on their Main St is a little ridiculous, however). There are several at grade expressways in eastern NC that could easily support 60, maybe even 65mph but are still stuck at 55. The state has allowed a few (NC-11 between Kinston and Greenville comes to mind) to be posted at 60mph but only after the elimination of cross-overs and left turns at uncontrolled intersections. Most people do 65 on NC-11, and 60-62 on the 55 mph portions of US-70. There arent a whole lot going over those speeds, myself included.


I feel like the guy who is right at or below the speed limit, clogging the left lane of a 4-6 lane freeway is every bit as dangerous as that douchenozzle that is going 30+ over weaving back and forth and passing on the shoulder (etc). The slow poke is causing multiple traffic conflicts behind him, often times not even having a clue that is what is happening. It doesn't take a college professor to figure out that the more traffic conflicts there are, the higher the likelyhood of 2 vehicles trying to occupy the same space at the same time becomes. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen!


So how fast is too fast? That is up for each individual driver to ascertain. I would think that it would be the speed that would cause one to have to do some really dangerous crap to maintain it (drive down the shoulders, lane split, weaving back and forth just to "go where they a'int" (to borrow a racing term). I don't think that there is an absolute number, just whatever speed that causes you to be the traffic conflict for everyone else on the road. At some point somebody isn't going to be able to get out of your way fast enough, or they'll duck for that hole you were getting ready to occupy and that'll be it.


OP, congrats on obeying the speed limit. If it makes you feel better than do it. Only, as many others before me have said, keep it in the right lane and I will never have an issue with you.

[intelati49]

Here's a stretch where I first (And only) got stopped for speeding

It was 55mph, I was merging into the "interstate" so I got up to 70. It was 55 there. Oops. Now it's 65 and I'm kind of mad.

[bzakharin]

If higher speed limits are safer, how do you explain these?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#Effectiveness

[jeffandnicole]

If higher speed limits are safer, how do you explain these?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#Effectiveness

How do you explain the note for the US showing decreases or no significant changes when speed limits were raised, yet individual states managed to have huge increases in deaths?

Yet, year-over-year, total deaths have gone down.  Dramatically. 

Sounds like there's a little number playing going on.  And, Because, Wikipedia.

[Brandon]

If higher speed limits are safer, how do you explain these?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#Effectiveness

You missed this part:

US (22 states) (1992)   5 mph to 15 mph (8 km/h to 24 km/h) decreases   No significant changes

US (Michigan) (1992)   Various   No significant changes
US (Ohio) (1992)   55 mph to 65 mph (89 km/h to 105 km/h)   Injury and property damage increased but not fatal crashes.[84]
US (40 states) (1994)   55 mph to 65 mph (89 km/h to 105 km/h)   Statewide fatality rates decreased 3-5% (Significant in 14 of 40 states)
US (22 states) (1997)   5 mph to 15 mph (8 km/h to 24 km/h) increase   No significant changes

You were saying?

[bzakharin]

If higher speed limits are safer, how do you explain these?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#Effectiveness

You missed this part:

US (22 states) (1992)   5 mph to 15 mph (8 km/h to 24 km/h) decreases   No significant changes

US (Michigan) (1992)   Various   No significant changes
US (Ohio) (1992)   55 mph to 65 mph (89 km/h to 105 km/h)   Injury and property damage increased but not fatal crashes.[84]
US (40 states) (1994)   55 mph to 65 mph (89 km/h to 105 km/h)   Statewide fatality rates decreased 3-5% (Significant in 14 of 40 states)
US (22 states) (1997)   5 mph to 15 mph (8 km/h to 24 km/h) increase   No significant changes

You were saying?

Well sure, there are exceptions, but there is a general trend. I mean certainly each case should be looked at separately, but the default should take these things into account. Don't get me wrong, it *feels* to me like the speed limits around here (NJ and vicinity) are way too low, but that does not make it objectively true.

What I personally do is exceed the speed limit by up to 10 MPH, up to 15 on freeways, especially in 55 MPH zones. There are very few cases when I don't do this, mostly residential roads and those with sharp curves. I feel like I'd keep doing this if speed limits went up, though I doubt I'd exceed 80 or 85, maybe 90 when passing.

[Joe The Dragon]

No matter where I am, I will always follow the flow of traffic because it's just safer to keep up with the pack. Now of course you'll get the maniacs who drive insanely fast but on average most people will follow a similar speed. My routine for streets:

Local roads: 5 over limit (people still do 15 over which is dangerous)
Interstates or divided highways in city: between 70 and 75
Interstates or divided highways in rural: 75-80

What I've found when I follow these, I've kept up with traffic and prevented any slowdowns caused by me. It's just safer to keep up with flow.

People are doing 75-80+ on the new part of I-90 and it's still posted at 55

[Brandon]

No matter where I am, I will always follow the flow of traffic because it's just safer to keep up with the pack. Now of course you'll get the maniacs who drive insanely fast but on average most people will follow a similar speed. My routine for streets:

Local roads: 5 over limit (people still do 15 over which is dangerous)
Interstates or divided highways in city: between 70 and 75
Interstates or divided highways in rural: 75-80

What I've found when I follow these, I've kept up with traffic and prevented any slowdowns caused by me. It's just safer to keep up with flow.

People are doing 75-80+ on the new part of I-90 and it's still posted at 55

And ISP District 15 is probably enforcing 75-80 (maybe even higher).  I've been going 70-75 on the tollways (55 zones) and have had my doors blown off by them.

[kalvado]

Well sure, there are exceptions, but there is a general trend. I mean certainly each case should be looked at separately, but the default should take these things into account.

It is fairly obvious that there will be few, if any, fatalities at 5 MPH limit (deaths from boredom don't count); and much more fatalities at 500 MPH (about airplane speed in cruise). I suspect there is a fairly large plateau somewhere in 50-60 MPH range with small relative changes.
However the question I would ask is what is the acceptable accident rate for us. If reducing all highway speed limits by 5 MPH (think NMSL) would result in 1 less death nationwide over next 10 years - is it worth doing? what if 1 death a day? 1 death over our lifetime?
Driving - and pretty much any other transportation mode, including walking -  carries some risks.  We are used to accepting those risks by virtue of being, well, humans. Unacceptable risk threshold is different for all of us, and choice of speed limit is, basically, negotiation of those common risks - some would have to accept higher thresholds, some would be forced to slow down.
Saying "there is an increase/decrease in rate" is nothing. It is question of risk worth taking.

I can give a few estimates of what would be acceptable from my perspective - but then invariably there would be someone saying "my spouse/kid/parent died because of people LIKE YOU!!!" - and burst into tears. Well, if anyone loosing lottery would blame the organizers - there would be no gambling... But again such response would be booed at...

[jwolfer]

I only drive the speed limit when I'm drunk or high......  Just kidding

Speed limits should be for the design of the road and surroundings.

Most people who drive are cluless. They dont read signs. They dont pay attention to traffic conditions. Make stupid decisions (ie maybe turning left into the gas station isnt the best decision during rush hour) if you miss your exit go to the next one.

Always going the speed limit doesnt make you a better citizen or more virtuous.  I remember years ago going to a class to avoid point on my
licence( mea culpa) the instructor from the Northeast Florida Safety Council talked about "too safe Sally or Sam" being dangerous on the road

LGMS428

[triplemultiplex]

We also have data from recent speed limit increases in states, which have shown the exact same thing.  I don't think automobile safety features have anything to do with those.

Are these the speed limit increases that coincided with the Great Recession when people were driving less?  I want to make sure this is a fatality rate you are referencing and not a raw number of fatalities.

[SP Cook]

Are these the speed limit increases that coincided with the Great Recession when people were driving less?  I want to make sure this is a fatality rate you are referencing and not a raw number of fatalities.

The numbers I quoted were per VMT.

Fact is the SLs keep going up, and the traffic fatalities keep going down.  Pure science.

[kalvado]

Are these the speed limit increases that coincided with the Great Recession when people were driving less?  I want to make sure this is a fatality rate you are referencing and not a raw number of fatalities.

The numbers I quoted were per VMT.

Fact is the SLs keep going up, and the traffic fatalities keep going down.  Pure science.

Correlation does not imply causation.
Better cars, seatbelt use, airbags, ABS, traction control, blind spot warnings, rear view cameras, more and more aggressive dealing with drunk driving, reduced legal alcohol limits.....
I would credit last 2 items most, btw.

[Brandon]

Are these the speed limit increases that coincided with the Great Recession when people were driving less?  I want to make sure this is a fatality rate you are referencing and not a raw number of fatalities.

The numbers I quoted were per VMT.

Fact is the SLs keep going up, and the traffic fatalities keep going down.  Pure science.

Correlation does not imply causation.
Better cars, seatbelt use, airbags, ABS, traction control, blind spot warnings, rear view cameras, more and more aggressive dealing with drunk driving, reduced legal alcohol limits.....
I would credit last 2 items most, btw.

All of which help where crashes and fatalities are most likely to happen: surface streets and two-lane rural roads.  What's forgotten here, is that even with the high speeds, the freeway is the safest road there is.

[kalvado]

All of which help where crashes and fatalities are most likely to happen: surface streets and two-lane rural roads.  What's forgotten here, is that even with the high speeds, the freeway is the safest road there is.

safest per mile, or safest per trip?
my average round on surface streets is 2-3 miles, my daily highway dash is 20 miles one way.
If highway is 10x safer per mile, it makes it about as dangerous as surface street for me.

[hotdogPi]

All of which help where crashes and fatalities are most likely to happen: surface streets and two-lane rural roads.  What's forgotten here, is that even with the high speeds, the freeway is the safest road there is.

safest per mile, or safest per trip?
my average round on surface streets is 2-3 miles, my daily highway dash is 20 miles one way.
If highway is 10x safer per mile, it makes it about as dangerous as surface street for me.

If you are going 17-18 miles out of your way just to use a freeway, and using the surface roads would be 2-3 miles, you're doing it wrong.

[kalvado]

All of which help where crashes and fatalities are most likely to happen: surface streets and two-lane rural roads.  What's forgotten here, is that even with the high speeds, the freeway is the safest road there is.

safest per mile, or safest per trip?
my average round on surface streets is 2-3 miles, my daily highway dash is 20 miles one way.
If highway is 10x safer per mile, it makes it about as dangerous as surface street for me.

If you are going 17-18 miles out of your way just to use a freeway, and using the surface roads would be 2-3 miles, you're doing it wrong.

No, you got me wrong, sorry.
My normal commute is ~0.7 mile street +~19.5  mile highway + 1 mile street.
Even if highway is safer per mile, getting an accident on a highway is much more likely that getting an accident on a street on per ride basis for me. And I think I am not an anomaly in terms of highway-heavy commute, even though my street/highway ratio is on lower side...

[Brandon]

All of which help where crashes and fatalities are most likely to happen: surface streets and two-lane rural roads.  What's forgotten here, is that even with the high speeds, the freeway is the safest road there is.

safest per mile, or safest per trip?
my average round on surface streets is 2-3 miles, my daily highway dash is 20 miles one way.
If highway is 10x safer per mile, it makes it about as dangerous as surface street for me.

Not in the least.  It means you're far more likely to be injured or killed at one of the intersections on the surface streets.  Speed does not kill; intersections do.

[kalvado]

All of which help where crashes and fatalities are most likely to happen: surface streets and two-lane rural roads.  What's forgotten here, is that even with the high speeds, the freeway is the safest road there is.

safest per mile, or safest per trip?
my average round on surface streets is 2-3 miles, my daily highway dash is 20 miles one way.
If highway is 10x safer per mile, it makes it about as dangerous as surface street for me.

Not in the least.  It means you're far more likely to be injured or killed at one of the intersections on the surface streets.  Speed does not kill; intersections do.

Probably not. The very stretch of highway I am using has fairly regular fatal accidents - at least every few months. Many of them are what I would call "good faith" accidents. City, on the other hand, is area with significant fraction of pedestrian accidents.  I remember a non-pedestrian fatality in the city area, it was a few years ago. Guy was seriously DUI, tried to enter highway at 100 MPH going normally 20 MPH curve, left a spectacular hole in a branch of a bank...
But if you say those endless roundabouts increase  risk of car damage (total of 7 for round-trip), I do have to agree. Traffic lights would be better.

[intelati49]

All of which help where crashes and fatalities are most likely to happen: surface streets and two-lane rural roads.  What's forgotten here, is that even with the high speeds, the freeway is the safest road there is.

safest per mile, or safest per trip?
my average round on surface streets is 2-3 miles, my daily highway dash is 20 miles one way.
If highway is 10x safer per mile, it makes it about as dangerous as surface street for me.

Not in the least.  It means you're far more likely to be injured or killed at one of the intersections on the surface streets.  Speed does not kill; intersections do.

Probably not. The very stretch of highway I am using has fairly regular fatal accidents - at least every few months. Many of them are what I would call "good faith" accidents. City, on the other hand, is area with significant fraction of pedestrian accidents.  I remember a non-pedestrian fatality in the city area, it was a few years ago. Guy was seriously DUI, tried to enter highway at 100 MPH going normally 20 MPH curve, left a spectacular hole in a branch of a bank...
But if you say those endless roundabouts increase  risk of car damage (total of 7 for round-trip), I do have to agree. Traffic lights would be better.

I think it's better as conflicts kill, not intersections. Roundabouts have less conflicts... Freeways have less conflicts.

The 100mph on any stretch of highway is a serious edgecase. You do take these into account, but you can't design for that. (Well, you can you want to pay for it)