Speed Limits that are too high

[webny99]

Are there any speed limits that you feel are too high, possibly because of terrain, curvature, or dense development making it hard to maintain the existing limit?

Also, what about limits that another state's DOT would have set much lower on the exact same stretch of roadway?

Generally, I am an advocate of higher speed limits, but there are cases where the limit could be set lower and a lot of acceleration/deceleration cycles could be avoided, allowing better maintenance of a consistent speed.

[slorydn1]

Sure. The speed limit in my cul de sac (25 mph) is too high for a tight street that 2 cars cant just stay in their lane when they encounter each other, one must pull over and make sure they don't tear their mirror off on a mailbox. 15 mph should be more than enough for such a short, tight street.

Other than that, I really cannot think of any "through" roads or highways where the speed limit is too high. Not in my area at least.

[US 89]

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20198.0

[Hurricane Rex]

I-84 Cabbage Hill. Currently at 70T65 but really should be 65T55 due to terrain and curves.

OR 219 over Chehalem mountain: currently 55 with 15 MPH advisory curves. Should be or 45. Raise the speed limit in Newberg from 35 to 45 to match this.

US 101 between Yahats and 8 miles north of Florence: currently 55, should be 45. (Most hesitent on this, I actually think 55 is fine except for advisory curves on this stretch. It is still in here for advisory purposes).

MT 135: currently 70T60 N65T55 should be 65 (no truck limit).

I-705: Currently 60 should be 55.

Main road through Leavenworth, WA (not US 2, the one next to it): current 25, should be 20.

[jakeroot]

Main road through Leavenworth, WA (not US 2, the one next to it): current 25, should be 15.

Limits below 20 are not legally allowed in WA: http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.415

[ce929wax]

I think South Westnedge Avenue through downtown and southside Kalamazoo is too high at 35.  There are too many people doing 40-45 and too many pedestrians and bicycles.  It should be 30 or even 25.

[jeffandnicole]

Speed limits are never too high. They are a limit, not a minimum qualification. 

[webny99]

Speed limits are never too high. They are a limit, not a minimum qualification.

They are too high if they are hard - or impossible - to maintain. This is fairly rare, but I can think of several roads with a lot of curvature that might qualify. Possibly roads with high pedestrian volumes too, although I say that a little more cautiously.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20198.0

Oops. Let this thread signify that the Roadgeekteen era is over, lol.

[Rothman]

Ross Ruland Rd near Cairo, NY has a 45 mph speed limit.  A lot of fun, but may be a smidge high.

[vdeane]

As for the "another state's DOT" question, I can think of a bazillion places at 65 that PennDOT would sign at 55.  Namely, everything that's in an area shaded in pink on this map: https://gis3.dot.ny.gov/html5viewer/?viewer=FC

[jeffandnicole]

Speed limits are never too high. They are a limit, not a minimum qualification.

They are too high if they are hard - or impossible - to maintain.

Nonsense. Take a look at a car's tachometer. You don't run it in the red or just below the red. Tase a look at circuit breakers. If it's a 15 amp circuit, you don't plug 15 amps of stuff into it consistency.

A limit, in theory, should be the upper echelon of what you can go. Speed Limits have long been changed into something that officials know will be exceeded by nearly everyone.

[Max Rockatansky]

US 180/62 east of El Paso with a 75 MPH speed limit is kind of nutty at times.  US 90 east from I-10 in Van Horn can be a little much at 75 MPH as well.  In the case of the former I seem to recall that it had a 65 MPH night time speed limit.  Either way, quite the experience to rocket down a two-lane highway at a legal 75 MPH.

[Hurricane Rex]

Speed limits are never too high. They are a limit, not a minimum qualification.

They are too high if they are hard - or impossible - to maintain.

Nonsense. Take a look at a car's tachometer. You don't run it in the red or just below the red. Tase a look at circuit breakers. If it's a 15 amp circuit, you don't plug 15 amps of stuff into it consistency.

A limit, in theory, should be the upper echelon of what you can go. Speed Limits have long been changed into something that officials know will be exceeded by nearly everyone.

I'll take OR 219 as an example, if you drive 55 on ANY portion of the south side of Chehalem Mountain, you will not slow down enough in time to make any of the curves safely. You'll be lucky to hit 40 on that road.

Edit: I do agree though that Speed limits should be set at the upper limit of safety.

[jakeroot]

Speed limits are never too high. They are a limit, not a minimum qualification.

They are too high if they are hard - or impossible - to maintain.

Nonsense. Take a look at a car's tachometer. You don't run it in the red or just below the red. Tase a look at circuit breakers. If it's a 15 amp circuit, you don't plug 15 amps of stuff into it consistency.

A limit, in theory, should be the upper echelon of what you can go. Speed Limits have long been changed into something that officials know will be exceeded by nearly everyone.

I'll take OR 219 as an example, if you drive 55 on ANY portion of the south side of Chehalem Mountain, you will not slow down enough in time to make any of the curves safely. You'll be lucky to hit 40 on that road.

So it's a true limit. You've just proved his point.

Speed limit ≠ suggested speed.

[Hurricane Rex]

Speed limits are never too high. They are a limit, not a minimum qualification.

They are too high if they are hard - or impossible - to maintain.

Nonsense. Take a look at a car's tachometer. You don't run it in the red or just below the red. Tase a look at circuit breakers. If it's a 15 amp circuit, you don't plug 15 amps of stuff into it consistency.

A limit, in theory, should be the upper echelon of what you can go. Speed Limits have long been changed into something that officials know will be exceeded by nearly everyone.

I'll take OR 219 as an example, if you drive 55 on ANY portion of the south side of Chehalem Mountain, you will not slow down enough in time to make any of the curves safely. You'll be lucky to hit 40 on that road.

So it's a true limit. You've just proved his point.

Speed limit ≠ suggested speed.

Yes and no. It is true that it is a true limit, but that doesn't mean going 55 is safe through there. If it was posted at 45 instead, it would be the fastest you can safely go under ideal conditions for that road, which is the ideal true limit. Any slower turns it into a not a true limit.

For Webny: If it is hard to maintain/hit safely: that is a true limit.
If it is impossible to hit safely then it is too high.

LG-TP260

[Bickendan]

I-84 Cabbage Hill. Currently at 70T65 but really should be 65T55 due to terrain and curves.

I wouldn't even complain if eastbound were 60T50.

[jakeroot]

Speed limits are never too high. They are a limit, not a minimum qualification.

They are too high if they are hard - or impossible - to maintain.

Nonsense. Take a look at a car's tachometer. You don't run it in the red or just below the red. Tase a look at circuit breakers. If it's a 15 amp circuit, you don't plug 15 amps of stuff into it consistency.

A limit, in theory, should be the upper echelon of what you can go. Speed Limits have long been changed into something that officials know will be exceeded by nearly everyone.

I'll take OR 219 as an example, if you drive 55 on ANY portion of the south side of Chehalem Mountain, you will not slow down enough in time to make any of the curves safely. You'll be lucky to hit 40 on that road.

So it's a true limit. You've just proved his point.

Speed limit ≠ suggested speed.

Yes and no. It is true that it is a true limit, but that doesn't mean going 55 is safe through there. If it was posted at 45 instead, it would be the fastest you can safely go under ideal conditions for that road, which is the ideal true limit. Any slower turns it into a not a true limit.

For Webny: If it is hard to maintain/hit safely: that is a true limit.
If it is impossible to hit safely then it is too high.

Are you challenging me to achieve 55 along the Hillsboro Hwy? Challenge accepted.

You seem to prefer nanny limits that reflect immediate geometry: 55 here, 50 here, 60 here, 45, here...that stuff's bullshit. Just have one limit (say, 55 or 60), with advisory limits on the corners. There are many cars, especially new ones, that could easily hit any speed limit in a given area. Maybe yours can't, but many can. For the state of Oregon (or any state) to effectively say, "some cars are incapable of maintaining the limit along any stretch of this road, therefore, we shall lower the limit to make the slow cars compliant", is total crap. Those cars can go whatever speed they want. Preferably close to the limit if possible, but no harm done if below. But then, all the cars that can easily achieve the limit are now breaking the law doing what was a reasonable speed. And they're now all liable for tickets.

Common practice in this country has been for limits to be the speed that drivers should go. That needs to change. The limit needs to be the limit: it needs to feel fast.

[Hurricane Rex]

Speed limits are never too high. They are a limit, not a minimum qualification.

They are too high if they are hard - or impossible - to maintain.

Nonsense. Take a look at a car's tachometer. You don't run it in the red or just below the red. Tase a look at circuit breakers. If it's a 15 amp circuit, you don't plug 15 amps of stuff into it consistency.

A limit, in theory, should be the upper echelon of what you can go. Speed Limits have long been changed into something that officials know will be exceeded by nearly everyone.

I'll take OR 219 as an example, if you drive 55 on ANY portion of the south side of Chehalem Mountain, you will not slow down enough in time to make any of the curves safely. You'll be lucky to hit 40 on that road.

So it's a true limit. You've just proved his point.

Speed limit ≠ suggested speed.

Yes and no. It is true that it is a true limit, but that doesn't mean going 55 is safe through there. If it was posted at 45 instead, it would be the fastest you can safely go under ideal conditions for that road, which is the ideal true limit. Any slower turns it into a not a true limit.

For Webny: If it is hard to maintain/hit safely: that is a true limit.
If it is impossible to hit safely then it is too high.

Are you challenging me to achieve 55 along the Hillsboro Hwy? Challenge accepted.

You seem to prefer nanny limits that reflect immediate geometry: 55 here, 50 here, 60 here, 45, here...that stuff's bullshit. Just have one limit (say, 55 or 60), with advisory limits on the corners. There are many cars, especially new ones, that could easily hit any speed limit in a given area. Maybe yours can't, but many can. For the state of Oregon (or any state) to effectively say, "some cars are incapable of maintaining the limit along any stretch of this road, therefore, we shall lower the limit to make the slow cars compliant", is total crap. Those cars can go whatever speed they want. Preferably close to the limit if possible, but no harm done if below. But then, all the cars that can easily achieve the limit are now breaking the law doing what was a reasonable speed. And they're now all liable for tickets.

Common practice in this country has been for limits to be the speed that drivers should go. That needs to change. The limit needs to be the limit: it needs to feel fast.

On 219, yes I have nanny limits for geography, however in my fictional tier 4 plan (which is what I'm going off of), most of the time roads are posted at 65 or 70 except in towns. In fact, I am against nanny limits changing every 5 miles (example) if there is no town most of the time. I only like to reduce it over mountain passes or in towns. 219 just seems to be a wierd highway when it comes to design. In fact I would post 219 at 65 except on the South side of the mountain (45) and this is despite numerous right angle turns. Also for reference, I would raise the Newberg limit to match this so it is one limit (35 I feel is a little slow for there, especially north of Mountain view drive). 90% of the time, I will not reduce speed limits for roadway geometrics but I do have exceptions (242, this, cabbage hill). These exceptions may not total less than 3 miles in length each for consistency purposes. Now many cars can go faster than the 2005 outback that I can drive, and I don't deny that. If I did, the limit I would've proposed would've been 40 or 35. Now for urban areas, nanny limits can work more often but it must be in the right circumstances.

The same goes with weather, and traffic conditions do not reduce the limit for different weather/traffic conditions. Let the driver decide there just like with most turns. Advisories are fine though as it can aid in those unfamiliar with the area and conditions.

Edit: When I say impossible to maintain, I normally mean over mountain passes.

[webny99]

A limit, in theory, should be the upper echelon of what you can go. Speed Limits have long been changed into something that officials know will be exceeded by nearly everyone.

I'm an advocate of limits being set reasonably, and then abided by. On the Thruway, this probably means around 85-90 mph, if not higher. On a hilly, winding, and/or residential street, the existing limit is probably already reasonable, and if it's challenging to maintain (admittedly rare) it wouldn't do anyone any harm if the posted limit more accurately reflected the (lower) upper bound of travel speeds.

[hbelkins]

Are there any speed limits that you feel are too high, possibly because of terrain, curvature, or dense development making it hard to maintain the existing limit?

Also, what about limits that another state's DOT would have set much lower on the exact same stretch of roadway?

Generally, I am an advocate of higher speed limits, but there are cases where the limit could be set lower and a lot of acceleration/deceleration cycles could be avoided, allowing better maintenance of a consistent speed.

No, I do not know of any speed limits that are too high. On roads with parts that the speed limit may be too high to safely navigate, such as curves, then advisory speeds are posted and drivers are on their own if they don't heed those advisory speeds. In general, I think speed limits are too low and those low limits allow for random taxation, as SP Cook calls it.

In terms of what other state DOTs would do to a particular stretch of road, look at US 119 between Charleston and Pikeville. It's mostly signed for 65 mph in West Virginia. Get into Kentucky and out of the South Williamson/Belfry area, and it's signed for 55 mph, even though much of that road is newer than the WV section and seemingly built to a higher design speed standard.

[wxfree]

US 180/62 east of El Paso with a 75 MPH speed limit is kind of nutty at times.  US 90 east from I-10 in Van Horn can be a little much at 75 MPH as well.  In the case of the former I seem to recall that it had a 65 MPH night time speed limit.  Either way, quite the experience to rocket down a two-lane highway at a legal 75 MPH.

The night speed limits were eliminated by legislation passed in 2011.  The same bill also authorized 75 mph speed limits anywhere in the state, not just the far-flung areas.  Because of that, we have two-lane roads with that limit all over, outside of urban and suburban areas.  Some of them are a little intense.  There's one not too far from me where the road has narrow shoulders and blind hills.  I don't necessarily go 75 the whole time through there.  The two roads you mentioned seem like the best two-lane roads for such high limits, being relatively straight and flat and carrying little traffic.  There are also narrow roads with that speed limit, including this one, with pavement 24 feet wide, but it has no traffic.  I have no problem going 75 there.  Maybe you just get accustomed to it.

https://goo.gl/maps/WfvDFfFhEC22

[Max Rockatansky]

US 180/62 east of El Paso with a 75 MPH speed limit is kind of nutty at times.  US 90 east from I-10 in Van Horn can be a little much at 75 MPH as well.  In the case of the former I seem to recall that it had a 65 MPH night time speed limit.  Either way, quite the experience to rocket down a two-lane highway at a legal 75 MPH.

The night speed limits were eliminated by legislation passed in 2011.  The same bill also authorized 75 mph speed limits anywhere in the state, not just the far-flung areas.  Because of that, we have two-lane roads with that limit all over, outside of urban and suburban areas.  Some of them are a little intense.  There's one not too far from me where the road has narrow shoulders and blind hills.  I don't necessarily go 75 the whole time through there.  The two roads you mentioned seem like the best two-lane roads for such high limits, being relatively straight and flat and carrying little traffic.  There are also narrow roads with that speed limit, including this one, with pavement 24 feet wide, but it has no traffic.  I have no problem going 75 there.  Maybe you just get accustomed to it.

https://goo.gl/maps/WfvDFfFhEC22

For what its worth US 62/180 had some pretty wide shoulders and lanes.  Personally I'd hate to go that fast at night with the likelihood of a coyote encounter or two.

[wxfree]

There's no longer a lower night speed limit, but slowing down isn't a bad idea.  I usually do in areas that have tend to have more wildlife.

[SCtoKC]

Missouri Route 18 between Adrian and Clinton is one that I drove recently that comes to mind.  The speed limit is 55 mph for much of it, but the road is pretty narrow and in poor condition, and there are a lot of hills in that area.

[adwerkema]

I notice that there seems to be two sides to speed limit opinions:

A) The speed limit should stay true to it's name: the fastest a vehicle can safely drive (e.g. without skidding off the road or unable to stop at stoplights)

B) The speed limit should be a speed slower than the definition in opinion (A). Still fast, but not on the border between safe and dangerous.



I'd say almost all speed limits in the U.S. follow opinion (B). However, this encourages people that it's safe to go above the speed limit.

Though opinion (A) would be ideal (since the speed limit would mean what it says), too much of our country has been conditioned to think that it's safe to go above the speed limit. Switching speed limits to opinion (A) would cause people to go above the limits of safety.