"No Speed Limit" Signs in the MUTCD

[Kniwt]

Is there any photographic evidence of this sign ever being deployed in the field for real-life use? (As opposed to, say, a drill.) One would think it could be used during hurricane evacuation, but I also suspect that way too many people would have a whacked-out definition of "top safe speed."

[fillup420]

In the mountains of North Carolina i have seen signs that say "Resume Safe Speed" after sections of 35 or 45. I assume its the default state limit of 55, but why not just say 55 on the sign then?

[roadman]

In the mountains of North Carolina i have seen signs that say "Resume Safe Speed" after sections of 35 or 45. I assume its the default state limit of 55, but why not just say 55 on the sign then?

I suspect North Carolina is similar to Massachusetts, where a specific numerical limit cannot legally be posted on a regulatory speed sign unless there is a special regulation establishing a speed zone on a given section of highway.  Resume Safe Speed (or End Speed Zone, which is used in Massachusetts), informs the driver that the prima-facie speed limit is now in effect for that section of road.

Personally, I've always objected to laws or rules preventing the posting of prima-facie speed limits on regulatory signs.  Seems to me a more effective way to deal with this would be to add a 'PRIMA-FACIE' plate below R2-1 signs where the sign denotes the prima-facie limit instead of one established by special regulation.

[paulthemapguy]

In the mountains of North Carolina i have seen signs that say "Resume Safe Speed" after sections of 35 or 45. I assume its the default state limit of 55, but why not just say 55 on the sign then?

Can't speak for North Carolina, but in Massachusetts a specific numerical limit cannot be posted on a regulatory speed sign unless there is a regulation establishing a speed zone on a given section of highway.  Resume Safe Speed (or End Speed Zone, which is used in Massachusetts), informs the driver that the prima-facie speed limit is now in effect for that section of road.

The MUTCD has phased out the "END SPEED ZONE" signs as of the 2009 edition, requesting that "speed limit 55" signs get placed instead--and they have done so because of this exact case of ambiguity.

[GaryV]

Seems to me a more effective way to deal with this would be to add a 'PRIMA-FACIE' plate below R2-1 signs where the sign denotes the prima-facie limit instead of one established by special regulation.

Then you'd have to explain to 99% + of the drivers what "prima-facie" means.

[roadman]

Seems to me a more effective way to deal with this would be to add a 'PRIMA-FACIE' plate below R2-1 signs where the sign denotes the prima-facie limit instead of one established by special regulation.

Then you'd have to explain to 99% + of the drivers what "prima-facie" means.

The purpose of having a Prima-Facie tab (or perhaps Statutory instead) is so that the posted limit is legally enforceable in states (like Massachusetts) that normally require special regulations to post regulatory speed limit signs on highways.

[hotdogPi]

Exceeding a prima facie speed limit by itself isn't illegal.

[Revive 755]

Seems to me a more effective way to deal with this would be to add a 'PRIMA-FACIE' plate below R2-1 signs where the sign denotes the prima-facie limit instead of one established by special regulation.

Then you'd have to explain to 99% + of the drivers what "prima-facie" means.

The purpose of having a Prima-Facie tab (or perhaps Statutory instead) is so that the posted limit is legally enforceable in states (like Massachusetts) that normally require special regulations to post regulatory speed limit signs on highways.

If the time and funds are going to be spent to erect a sign, use on a sign that actual provides useful information to the driver such as the actual speed limit.  It's bad enough try to remember U-turn and turn on red arrow regulations for each state.  The same thing should not be done with speed limits.  Especially since so many states very the speed limit by the type of road (Interstate, other state jurisdiction four lane, state jurisdiction two lane, non-state routes, and in worse cases it varies by the  type of state highway).

Then you get the added difficulty with states that differentiate between urban and rural, with the definition of the urban not being consistent.  Some times I think what the law defines as an "urban area" may not be readily apparent to a driver unfamiliar with the road in question.  Take Illinois's definition for example:

The territory contiguous to and including any street which is built up with structures devoted to business, industry or dwelling houses situated at intervals of less than 100 feet for a distance of a quarter of a mile or more.

[roadfro]

Seems to me a more effective way to deal with this would be to add a 'PRIMA-FACIE' plate below R2-1 signs where the sign denotes the prima-facie limit instead of one established by special regulation.

Then you'd have to explain to 99% + of the drivers what "prima-facie" means.

The purpose of having a Prima-Facie tab (or perhaps Statutory instead) is so that the posted limit is legally enforceable in states (like Massachusetts) that normally require special regulations to post regulatory speed limit signs on highways.

Perhaps a better approach is to get Massachusetts, et al, to change their silly law. Requiring special regulations just to post a speed limit is ridiculous.

[jeffandnicole]

Exceeding a prima facie speed limit by itself isn't illegal.

Exactly. 

You just have to show expert analysis and proof that the speed limit in effect at the time was too low.  Feel free to hire your own engineering team, which will have to conduct a speed study and look over the engineering, design and construction of the roadway. Don't forget to ask the judge for a lengthy continuance so that the documents can be gathers and the conditions studied. 

After the $25,000 is spent doing that, hopefully you can get that $100 speeding ticket dismissed.

[roadman]

Seems to me a more effective way to deal with this would be to add a 'PRIMA-FACIE' plate below R2-1 signs where the sign denotes the prima-facie limit instead of one established by special regulation.

Then you'd have to explain to 99% + of the drivers what "prima-facie" means.

The purpose of having a Prima-Facie tab (or perhaps Statutory instead) is so that the posted limit is legally enforceable in states (like Massachusetts) that normally require special regulations to post regulatory speed limit signs on highways.

Perhaps a better approach is to get Massachusetts, et al, to change their silly law. Requiring special regulations just to post a speed limit is ridiculous.

The reason for the special speed regulation requirement is to insure that posted limits have a legitimate basis, and aren't arbitrarily selected by politicians.  Hardly silly if you ask me.  And posting signs with 'Prima-Facie' or 'Statutory' tabs to distinguish the limit for enforcement purposes is far easier and less time consuming than trying to get the law changed.

[ipeters61]

Seems to me a more effective way to deal with this would be to add a 'PRIMA-FACIE' plate below R2-1 signs where the sign denotes the prima-facie limit instead of one established by special regulation.

Then you'd have to explain to 99% + of the drivers what "prima-facie" means.

The purpose of having a Prima-Facie tab (or perhaps Statutory instead) is so that the posted limit is legally enforceable in states (like Massachusetts) that normally require special regulations to post regulatory speed limit signs on highways.

Perhaps a better approach is to get Massachusetts, et al, to change their silly law. Requiring special regulations just to post a speed limit is ridiculous.

The reason for the special speed regulation requirement is to insure that posted limits have a legitimate basis, and aren't arbitrarily selected by politicians.  Hardly silly if you ask me.  And posting signs with 'Prima-Facie' or 'Statutory' tabs to distinguish the limit for enforcement purposes is far easier and less time consuming than trying to get the law changed.

This just reminded me of a strangle law in Delaware.  Apparently, on certain roads, it is required to place a "Strictly Enforced" banner below the speed limit for municipal police agencies to actually issue a speeding ticket (Title 21, Section 701(c)).

[roadfro]

Seems to me a more effective way to deal with this would be to add a 'PRIMA-FACIE' plate below R2-1 signs where the sign denotes the prima-facie limit instead of one established by special regulation.

Then you'd have to explain to 99% + of the drivers what "prima-facie" means.

The purpose of having a Prima-Facie tab (or perhaps Statutory instead) is so that the posted limit is legally enforceable in states (like Massachusetts) that normally require special regulations to post regulatory speed limit signs on highways.

Perhaps a better approach is to get Massachusetts, et al, to change their silly law. Requiring special regulations just to post a speed limit is ridiculous.

The reason for the special speed regulation requirement is to insure that posted limits have a legitimate basis, and aren't arbitrarily selected by politicians.  Hardly silly if you ask me.  And posting signs with 'Prima-Facie' or 'Statutory' tabs to distinguish the limit for enforcement purposes is far easier and less time consuming than trying to get the law changed.

A better approach would be for the law to require that speed limits be set based on the result of engineering analysis.

A "statutory" speed limit sign is fine if you happen to be from the area and know the state's default speed limits. But that doesn't tell anything to the visiting driver from another state or country, for whom you shouldn't reasonably expect to have researched the minutia of state driving laws prior to visiting. It also doesn't do anything to help distinguish between any state-level and municipal speed limit rules that may differ. If I'm not from from the area, I know exactly what "Speed Limit 45" means.

[roadfro]

This just reminded me of a strangle law in Delaware.  Apparently, on certain roads, it is required to place a "Strictly Enforced" banner below the speed limit for municipal police agencies to actually issue a speeding ticket (Title 21, Section 701(c)).

The way I read that statute, it applies specifically to *arrests* without a warrant for specific speed-related moving violations in accordance with the state's general speed restrictions and specific speed restrictions on specific state highways.

[jeffandnicole]

This just reminded me of a strangle law in Delaware.  Apparently, on certain roads, it is required to place a "Strictly Enforced" banner below the speed limit for municipal police agencies to actually issue a speeding ticket (Title 21, Section 701(c)).

The way I read that statute, it applies specifically to *arrests* without a warrant for specific speed-related moving violations in accordance with the state's general speed restrictions and specific speed restrictions on specific state highways.

Ticket = arrest.

[ipeters61]

This just reminded me of a strangle law in Delaware.  Apparently, on certain roads, it is required to place a "Strictly Enforced" banner below the speed limit for municipal police agencies to actually issue a speeding ticket (Title 21, Section 701(c)).

The way I read that statute, it applies specifically to *arrests* without a warrant for specific speed-related moving violations in accordance with the state's general speed restrictions and specific speed restrictions on specific state highways.

Ticket = arrest.

Agreed.  I worked with police officers for the past year and a half and the terms "ticket" and "arrest" were interchanged frequently, whether it was a seat belt violation or a DUI (though "arrest" was always used when discussing DUI).

[1995hoo]

This just reminded me of a strangle law in Delaware.  Apparently, on certain roads, it is required to place a "Strictly Enforced" banner below the speed limit for municipal police agencies to actually issue a speeding ticket (Title 21, Section 701(c)).

The way I read that statute, it applies specifically to *arrests* without a warrant for specific speed-related moving violations in accordance with the state's general speed restrictions and specific speed restrictions on specific state highways.

Ticket = arrest.

Agreed.  I worked with police officers for the past year and a half and the terms "ticket" and "arrest" were interchanged frequently, whether it was a seat belt violation or a DUI (though "arrest" was always used when discussing DUI).

Yup. In Virginia, the form the cops use to issue a traffic ticket is the same one they use for criminal matters–the "Virginia Uniform Summons." They'll use the same form for a misdemeanor as they will for simple failure to stop at a stop sign. The summons lists the "arrest date" and the "arrest location," even if you weren't "taken into custody" in the sense of being hauled off to a police station or similar. The word "arrest" is simply one of those words that has a different meaning to the general public–no doubt influenced by TV shows and the like where the expression "you're under arrest" is used–than it does in the law. It's not hard to think of other such words, including in the road-related context. "Freeway" is a good example, IMO, because there are a lot of people out there who will object if you refer to a tolled highway as a "freeway" because "it's not free."

[roadman]

A better approach would be for the law to require that speed limits be set based on the result of engineering analysis.

The purpose of requiring a special speed regulation, which is based on a speed study done by the city or town and then reviewed by MassDOT Traffic Engineering staff for final approval by the MassDOT Traffic Engineer and RMV Registrar before signs can be posted, is to insure just that.  Having a general "speed limits must be established as the result of engineering analysis" law presumes you have a mechanism in place to insure this requirement is met, and does not preclude the installation of signs before it is verified the limit is based on engineering analysis.  IMO, it's much more time and cost effective, not to mention easier from a political perspective, to require the studies and reviews be done up front rather than have to review everything after the fact and then chase communities who've established speed limits that are not based on engineering analysis.

[vdeane]

This just reminded me of a strangle law in Delaware.  Apparently, on certain roads, it is required to place a "Strictly Enforced" banner below the speed limit for municipal police agencies to actually issue a speeding ticket (Title 21, Section 701(c)).

The way I read that statute, it applies specifically to *arrests* without a warrant for specific speed-related moving violations in accordance with the state's general speed restrictions and specific speed restrictions on specific state highways.

Ticket = arrest.

Agreed.  I worked with police officers for the past year and a half and the terms "ticket" and "arrest" were interchanged frequently, whether it was a seat belt violation or a DUI (though "arrest" was always used when discussing DUI).

Yup. In Virginia, the form the cops use to issue a traffic ticket is the same one they use for criminal matters–the "Virginia Uniform Summons." They'll use the same form for a misdemeanor as they will for simple failure to stop at a stop sign. The summons lists the "arrest date" and the "arrest location," even if you weren't "taken into custody" in the sense of being hauled off to a police station or similar. The word "arrest" is simply one of those words that has a different meaning to the general public–no doubt influenced by TV shows and the like where the expression "you're under arrest" is used–than it does in the law. It's not hard to think of other such words, including in the road-related context. "Freeway" is a good example, IMO, because there are a lot of people out there who will object if you refer to a tolled highway as a "freeway" because "it's not free."

It's worth noting that the entire concept of getting a ticket rather than being put in handcuffs and escorted to the police station was created specifically for traffic law, as such was resulting in otherwise law-abiding citizens who previously never would interact with the police in such a way getting infractions.  There were also fears that juries would not vote to convict an otherwise law-abiding person of a traffic offense.

[roadfro]

A better approach would be for the law to require that speed limits be set based on the result of engineering analysis.

The purpose of requiring a special speed regulation, which is based on a speed study done by the city or town and then reviewed by MassDOT Traffic Engineering staff for final approval by the MassDOT Traffic Engineer and RMV Registrar before signs can be posted, is to insure just that.  Having a general "speed limits must be established as the result of engineering analysis" law presumes you have a mechanism in place to insure this requirement is met, and does not preclude the installation of signs before it is verified the limit is based on engineering analysis.  IMO, it's much more time and cost effective, not to mention easier from a political perspective, to require the studies and reviews be done up front rather than have to review everything after the fact and then chase communities who've established speed limits that are not based on engineering analysis.

Fair enough. Just seems like a bunch of extra work the way that's presented. So no speed limit can be posted without a study, even like a residential road? And then that circles back to the issue of what to do with the lack of a specific speed limit...

[roadman]

A better approach would be for the law to require that speed limits be set based on the result of engineering analysis.

The purpose of requiring a special speed regulation, which is based on a speed study done by the city or town and then reviewed by MassDOT Traffic Engineering staff for final approval by the MassDOT Traffic Engineer and RMV Registrar before signs can be posted, is to insure just that.  Having a general "speed limits must be established as the result of engineering analysis" law presumes you have a mechanism in place to insure this requirement is met, and does not preclude the installation of signs before it is verified the limit is based on engineering analysis.  IMO, it's much more time and cost effective, not to mention easier from a political perspective, to require the studies and reviews be done up front rather than have to review everything after the fact and then chase communities who've established speed limits that are not based on engineering analysis.

Fair enough. Just seems like a bunch of extra work the way that's presented. So no speed limit can be posted without a study, even like a residential road? And then that circles back to the issue of what to do with the lack of a specific speed limit...

In Massachusetts, there are two exceptions to the special speed regulation (SSR) requirement.  One is school zones, which can be posted (20 mph) by cities or towns without a SSR.  The other, which was recently enacted by the Legislature, is that a city or town can establish a default speed limit of 25 mph for local streets and roads within the community that are not otherwise posted with an SSR.  This blanket speed limit does not need MassDOT/RMV approval, but cities and towns that adopt it must inform MassDOT they've done so.

[Dustin DeWinn]

If you're asking what the sign would say if it were indicating "Go as fast as you want" you might just say "55+"

Just add a plus sign to it.

[michravera]

Seems to me a more effective way to deal with this would be to add a 'PRIMA-FACIE' plate below R2-1 signs where the sign denotes the prima-facie limit instead of one established by special regulation.

Then you'd have to explain to 99% + of the drivers what "prima-facie" means.

The purpose of having a Prima-Facie tab (or perhaps Statutory instead) is so that the posted limit is legally enforceable in states (like Massachusetts) that normally require special regulations to post regulatory speed limit signs on highways.

Perhaps a better approach is to get Massachusetts, et al, to change their silly law. Requiring special regulations just to post a speed limit is ridiculous.

The reason for the special speed regulation requirement is to insure that posted limits have a legitimate basis, and aren't arbitrarily selected by politicians.  Hardly silly if you ask me.  And posting signs with 'Prima-Facie' or 'Statutory' tabs to distinguish the limit for enforcement purposes is far easier and less time consuming than trying to get the law changed.

For a long time in California, "SPEED LIMIT XX" meant "PF SPEED LIMIT XX" and "MAXIMUM SPEED XX" meant "STATUTORY SPEED LIMIT XX". Sometime a few years ago, the distinction has been blurred. In California, Only 55 (for trucks and 2-lane undivided) and 65 and 70 MPH are statutory. Every other sign that you see is PF. There are default PF speed limits that are lower, but you will get cited for CVC 22350 ("Basic Speed Law"), if you violate them. There is a reason that most RADAR enforced limits give you a fairly generous cushion (often 15MPH) over the PF limit. Most RADAR enforcement takes place when the traffic cops have nothing better to do, so the weather is often good and the conditions are often good, so they want to avoid going to court over quibbles. As far as I know, on maximum speed limit RADAR, they only give you about 10% (5% for your equipment and 5% for theirs).

[stevashe]

For a long time in California, "SPEED LIMIT XX" meant "PF SPEED LIMIT XX" and "MAXIMUM SPEED XX" meant "STATUTORY SPEED LIMIT XX". Sometime a few years ago, the distinction has been blurred. In California, Only 55 (for trucks and 2-lane undivided) and 65 and 70 MPH are statutory. Every other sign that you see is PF. There are default PF speed limits that are lower, but you will get cited for CVC 22350 ("Basic Speed Law"), if you violate them. There is a reason that most RADAR enforced limits give you a fairly generous cushion (often 15MPH) over the PF limit. Most RADAR enforcement takes place when the traffic cops have nothing better to do, so the weather is often good and the conditions are often good, so they want to avoid going to court over quibbles. As far as I know, on maximum speed limit RADAR, they only give you about 10% (5% for your equipment and 5% for theirs).

I thought the Maximum Speed signs were only put up because of the National Maximum Speed Law since there was a need to distinguish the fact that California's Basic Speed Law didn't apply. At least that's what I remember reading on Wikipedia. I assume that the signs that still say "Maximum Speed" were just leftovers from that, especially since most of them have overlay panels on the numbers which suggests that the limit was changed, and the ones that don't were probably carbon copy replacements.

Example with overlay panel: https://goo.gl/maps/2JYhJxaP2WBdEBwG7. This has even since been replaced with a standard speed limit sign: https://goo.gl/maps/zgfjvPhHM19AGZqEA.

I'm somewhat surprised the cops only give 10% on statutory speed limits given most drivers still seem to exceed them by 15 mph anyway, though I suppose that could be due to lack of enforcement as you allude to.

[Bitmapped]

Ohio used to use "Resume Legal Speed" at the end of construction zones, which wasn't particularly helpful if you weren't sure what the original speed limit was. Now, they've gone back to just posting a regular Speed Limit sign.

I've seen a couple "End / Speed Limit XX" assemblies in Ohio and a few "End XX MPH Speed," but just posting a "Speed Limit 55" is what is used in the overwhelming number of cases.