Are 75 m.p.h. speed limits finally coming to Washington State?

[Thunderbyrd316]

Found this this morning. Are things finally beginning to move in this direction? Link: http://www.krem.com/news/local/spokane-county/wsdot-looking-to-increase-speed-limits-statewide/57932864

[Bruce]

Going 80 mph is a scummy move.

We need more variable limits, since people will insist on driving at the limit or over during bad weather. 75 mph is fine on a nice summer day on a straight section of I-90, but is not appropriate on a curvy section of I-5 in the rain.

[Brandon]

Going 80 mph is a scummy move.

Why?  80 mph is perfectly acceptable, and is even the limit in some areas like Utah, Montana, France, etc.

[jeffandnicole]

Going 80 mph is a scummy move.

We need more variable limits, since people will insist on driving at the limit or over during bad weather. 75 mph is fine on a nice summer day on a straight section of I-90, but is not appropriate on a curvy section of I-5 in the rain.

Ok. What's a variable limit going to do? People will insist on driving over them on bad weather.

[Bruce]

Enforce hard and without much leeway. That's the only way to stamp out this kind of bad behavior.

[Brandon]

Going 80 mph is a scummy move.

We need more variable limits, since people will insist on driving at the limit or over during bad weather. 75 mph is fine on a nice summer day on a straight section of I-90, but is not appropriate on a curvy section of I-5 in the rain.

Ok. What's a variable limit going to do? People will insist on driving over them on bad weather.

Not only that, but different people handle inclement weather at different skill levels.  Why would you punish those of us who are skilled at it?

[mcarling]

I agree with Brandon.  A safe speed for Michael Schumacher in a well-maintained Ferrari is not the same the safe speed for my father in beat-up Honda Civic.  The difference is probably three-to-one or four-to-one.  Accordingly, I am firmly opposed to all procrustean speed limits.  There should be a severe penalty for driving at an unsafe speed, but what is unsafe is extremely variable depending on so many factors that it cannot possibly be determined in advance by bureaucrats who know nothing about the driver, nothing about the vehicle, and nothing about the road conditions.

[kkt]

I agree with Brandon.  A safe speed for Michael Schumacher in a well-maintained Ferrari is not the same the safe speed for my father in beat-up Honda Civic.  The difference is probably three-to-one or four-to-one.  Accordingly, I am firmly opposed to all procrustean speed limits.  There should be a severe penalty for driving at an unsafe speed, but what is unsafe is extremely variable depending on so many factors that it cannot possibly be determined in advance by bureaucrats who know nothing about the driver, nothing about the vehicle, and nothing about the road conditions.

So how would you enforce speed laws if they're completely dependent on the vehicle and driver?  No speed tickets unless speed was a factor in an accident?

[jakeroot]

Enforce hard and without much leeway. That's the only way to stamp out this kind of bad behavior.

75-80 is not bad behavior, even in the rain. I've driven home from Seattle to Tacoma numerous times in the rain at 70-75 mph, without any issue.

As for variable limits, a better idea might be to introduce variable advisory limits, rather than actual limits. Many times, VSL's are used to slow traffic down before a hazard comes into view. Ticketing someone for, effectively, not slowing down fast enough is laughable, if not downright insulting.

[kkt]

Variable speed limits could be useful on I-5 through the Skagit Valley farmland.  Most of the time, in good weather, 70 is perfectly safe.  But during tulip blooming season there are often severe traffic backups onto the freeway, from so many visitors overloading the off ramps to look and pick out bulb varieties for their gardens, and it would be much better to approach them at about 50.  There are several rear enders there every year, during the four week or so season.

[TEG24601]

It doesn't matter what the speed is, you will still encounter the following:

   
• Moron with old car, not realizing it can't maintain speed (usually in the left or passing lane).
• Asshole, who thinks they know better and purposely drive below the speed limit, all the time.
  
• Idiot, that doesn't know that a "Speed Limit", is a limit, not a requirement, regardless of weather.
  

75 or 80 are nice, comfortable speed limits.  Variable speed limits only seem to work in the city, because it help alleviate the sudden breaking when reaching a jam.  The Variable limits over the passes are rarely followed, and almost as rarely enforced (like those 15 years the software on the signs wouldn't allow them to set it higher than 65).

Remember, these limits need to be set using the 85/15 rule, and not set because an individual doesn't like the speed, or their vehicle is poor (they would fall into the 15).

Of course, if the states had something like UK's MOT, and your vehicle had to maintain reasonable standards for safety and operation, we could go full Autobahn, but 80 would be decent, and much better for fuel economy than the paltry 70 that WSDOT has saddled us with.  Sure there are places where a lower limit is reasonable, which would come out doing ant 85/15 study, and those would be marked appropriately (like the dumb drop to the river near George).  And while they are at it, get rid of the lower truck limit.  It does nothing but clog the road.

[Bruce]

Speed limits are generally poorly set and enforced, so one must re-engineer a road (via road diets) to force drivers to slow down and not plow through buildings as seen on Rainier Avenue in the Rainier Valley.

FWIW, the reduced speed limit on I-5 here in Marysville (went down from 70 to 60 a decade or so ago) has caused a good number of accidents to decrease, and that was before the concrete median barrier was installed.

[mcarling]

So how would you enforce speed laws if they're completely dependent on the vehicle and driver?  No speed tickets unless speed was a factor in an accident?

Same as reckless driving laws are enforced now, depending on the situation.

[mcarling]

FWIW, the reduced speed limit on I-5 here in Marysville (went down from 70 to 60 a decade or so ago) has caused a good number of accidents to decrease, and that was before the concrete median barrier was installed.

If that argument is valid, then speed limits should be set to, say, 4mph at intersections and 8mph between intersections (used to be the speed limits in San Francisco) and then the number of collisions would be even lower than at 60mph.

[Henry]

75 is a nice limit for a place like WA, but 80 is just pushing it.

[jakeroot]

75 is a nice limit for a place like WA, but 80 is just pushing it.

I think you, and a lot of other people, have been engineered to think that 80 is "pushing it", but I don't necessarily think it is. Divided highways with long curves and straightaways pose almost no risk to drivers at speeds above even 100 mph. The design speed of many roadways is 70-80 mph, but that doesn't take into account the stretches where design speed was not relevant, because the surrounding geography posed no challenge, and the road was simply curved to keep drivers awake.

Here's a stretch of I-90 where 70 is far too conservative: https://goo.gl/8xPtWC; This is a stretch of 23 miles without a single kink in the roadway. At the very least, the limit should be 80, with advisory speeds for certain corners. There's many other long stretches like this where keeping to even 75 may be difficult (and where the 85th percentile is likely well above that).

[kkt]

75 is a nice limit for a place like WA, but 80 is just pushing it.

I think you, and a lot of other people, have been engineered to think that 80 is "pushing it", but I don't necessarily think it is. Divided highways with long curves and straightaways pose almost no risk to drivers at speeds above even 100 mph. The design speed of many roadways is 70-80 mph, but that doesn't take into account the stretches where design speed was not relevant, because the surrounding geography posed no challenge, and the road was simply curved to keep drivers awake.

Here's a stretch of I-90 where 70 is far too conservative: https://goo.gl/8xPtWC; This is a stretch of 23 miles without a single kink in the roadway. At the very least, the limit should be 80, with advisory speeds for certain corners. There's many other long stretches like this where keeping to even 75 may be difficult (and where the 85th percentile is likely well above that).

It's certainly straight enough.  I'd wonder about ranch roads and whether animals tend to wander onto the roadway and how often there's congestion.  I wouldn't post anywhere in the U.S. over 80 mph, unless there was lots better driver training.

[mrsman]

75 is a nice limit for a place like WA, but 80 is just pushing it.

I think you, and a lot of other people, have been engineered to think that 80 is "pushing it", but I don't necessarily think it is. Divided highways with long curves and straightaways pose almost no risk to drivers at speeds above even 100 mph. The design speed of many roadways is 70-80 mph, but that doesn't take into account the stretches where design speed was not relevant, because the surrounding geography posed no challenge, and the road was simply curved to keep drivers awake.

Here's a stretch of I-90 where 70 is far too conservative: https://goo.gl/8xPtWC; This is a stretch of 23 miles without a single kink in the roadway. At the very least, the limit should be 80, with advisory speeds for certain corners. There's many other long stretches like this where keeping to even 75 may be difficult (and where the 85th percentile is likely well above that).

It's certainly straight enough.  I'd wonder about ranch roads and whether animals tend to wander onto the roadway and how often there's congestion.  I wouldn't post anywhere in the U.S. over 80 mph, unless there was lots better driver training.

You're right.  Driver training is the key.  Because I can imagine a perfect rural interstate with wide breakdown medians, low traffic numbers, exits at least 5 miles apart, perfect daytime weather, and along completely flat terrain.  Technically, it should be safe to travel at any reasonable speed - even 100 mph.  But becuase of our poor driving skills, along the lines of following too closely, poorly maintaining vehicles, distracted driving, etc. - even this ideal road should be limited to something along the lines of 75-80 mph.

[Thunderbyrd316]

   Just to clarify, the current law will only allow increases to 75 m.p.h., not 80 m.p.h. (Though in response to the person above who said they would be opposed to ANY speed limit in the U.S. above 80 m.p.h., a 41 mile long segment of the Texas 130 toll freeway between the San Antonio and Austin metro areas has had an 85 m.p.h. speed limit since it opened in 2013 and I have not heard of there being any issues caused by it there.)

   I personally am in favor of Washington increasing speed limits as follows: 75 m.p.h. on Interstate 5 from mile post 12 to mile post 55, mile post 83 to mile post 99 and mile post 207 to mile post 221, Interstate 82 from mile post 39 to mile post 130 and Interstate 90 from mile post 111 to mile post 136, mile post 143 to mile post 174 and mile post 180 to 270. The speed limit should also be increased to 65 m.p.h. on Interstate 5 from mile post 112 to mile post 120 and from mile post 128 to mile post 154 and on 4 lane sections of U.S.12 between the Tri-Cities and Walla Walla as well as on most of rural U.S. 195. I would also not be opposed to raising some other suburban freeways to 65 m.p.h. such as I-5 north of Vancouver, I-90 on the east sides of the Seattle and Spokane metro areas, I-405, S.R. 3, S.R. 16, S.R. 18, S.R. 167 and S.R. 512

[paulthemapguy]

Enforce hard and without much leeway. That's the only way to stamp out this kind of bad behavior.

This is exactly the type of starry-eyed idealism and lack of practicality I expect from someone in the Pacific Northwest  There's a reason Portlandia is a funny show.

Before I say anything else, know that we aren't trying to stomp out "bad behavior."  We're trying to eliminate crashes, deaths, and injuries.
We can't put law enforcement everywhere.  We would need like half the population to be police to keep speeds down.  In Chicago, even traffic cameras are being judged as unethical and invasive.
In reality, speed limits are established based on the prevailing speeds people choose to travel, not the other way around.  Most people travel at the speed they feel is reasonable, and regulations are made to keep people moving at a speed matching the traffic, so as not to create slow-moving obstacles most people have to dodge around.
And while in the rain, people slow down to speeds below the limit to keep safe.  If you lived in a place other than the west coast (i.e. anywhere with ice or snow), that would be strikingly clear to you.  (People on the west coast, especially CA don't know to adjust their driving based on the weather conditions because they never see rain.)  Grant people some agency.  There are a few bad eggs out there, but don't make the whole citizenry suffer because of their rare form of recklessness.

[jakeroot]

(People on the west coast, especially CA don't know to adjust their driving based on the weather conditions because they never see rain.)

Seattle and Portland are two of the rainiest places in the US. I assure you, we can't drive in ice or snow (but then again, we have hills everywhere, so what do you expect?) But we can drive in the rain, much better than anyone from southern California.

[kkt]

But we can drive in the rain, much better than anyone from southern California.

That's a pretty low bar...

Really, drivers in the rain here are amazingly bad, given how much practice we get.  Sure, we can take corners at 10 over the posted speed limit even when there's a puddle across the whole road.  Hydroplaning?  What's that?

[jakeroot]

But we can drive in the rain, much better than anyone from southern California.

That's a pretty low bar...

Really, drivers in the rain here are amazingly bad, given how much practice we get.  Sure, we can take corners at 10 over the posted speed limit even when there's a puddle across the whole road.  Hydroplaning?  What's that?

Do we live in the same city? I've never gotten the impression that we can't drive in the rain.

[paulthemapguy]

In the Midwest, you can get some really debilitating downpours that cause most or all of the drivers on the Interstate to pull over and wait it out.  I'm not sure you get those kinds of downpours in OR/WA?  My understanding of Pacific NW weather is that it's overcast or rainy a lot, but it's mainly light showers with the rare occasion of a downpour.

[jakeroot]

In the Midwest, you can get some really debilitating downpours that cause most or all of the drivers on the Interstate to pull over and wait it out.  I'm not sure you get those kinds of downpours in OR/WA?  My understanding of Pacific NW weather is that it's overcast or rainy a lot, but it's mainly light showers with the rare occasion of a downpour.

Western Washington and Western Oregon do experience heavy squalls like that several times a year, but rarely are they so heavy that drivers need to pull over. The persistent drizzle between October and April is the most identifiable part of our climate (the rest of the year is much drier, for the most part).

On the other hand, Eastern Washington and Eastern Oregon have an entirely different climate (more akin to the rest of the west: four identifiable seasons). Not sure they have any more rain squalls than we do, but certainly a lot less rainy days overall.