AARoads Forum

What speed do drivers travel on local highways without traffic? Around here, traffic flows at 70-80 on freeways.

80 MPH on CA 99, 41, 180 and 168 around Fresno. 

Around 70-75 on most freeways, though you'll encounter the occasional 85er in the left lane and 60-65er in the right lane.

Around here usually between 80 and 90 mph on like I-75, I-96, I-94, I-69, US-23 and so on.

In the Ohio part of the Cincinnati metro, excluding the left lane, average of around 70-75 mph in 65 mph zones (I-71 exits 12-28, I-75 north of exit 14, most of I-74 and I-275), and 75-80 mph in 70 mph zones (I-71 north of exit 28, I-74 west of exit 3). 55 mph zones are weird, as it can range from 60-65 mph on I-71 exits 9-12, most of OH 126 and 562, because of the many curves and/or narrower medians. Also, I-71 is currently a construction zone in that area. Or it can go at 70-75 mph, like I-71 between downtown and exit 9.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 20, 2021, 07:10:43 PM
What speed do drivers travel on local highways without traffic? Around here, traffic flows at 70-80 on freeways.

Without traffic, and in good weather, and if running late, I have done 87 continuously until approach highway exit.

With traffic, I drive as fast as possible in the regular lane until I notice a car in front of me. I keep many Invisible Cars distance. I usually keep the same speed as that automobile as long as their speed is constant. If it is a windy day, I will pass them. I return to the regular lane one minute after passing the car to make plenty of space.

Other people's traffic is as fast as possible (usually Chryslers) dangerously too close to each other, and pass on shoulders. This is also dangerous as they block the off ramps. The off ramps are often congested from traffic light to frontage road to ramp to shoulder. It is necessary to slow down prematurely to be able to stop at the very long line of cars.

The highways could be widened, but many people oppose the upgrades, and there is not enough upgrades being done on the nearby parallel highways.

It depends. Usually around 65-70 mph in 55 mph zones, and 75-80 mph in 65 mph zones. 70 mph and 80 mph respectively seem to be people's expectation for the left lane. Below that, and you'll get passed on the right. Above that, and you're probably fine (but should still move right when you can, of course! :biggrin:)

The freeways that collect traffic from outlying areas, like NY 104 and NY 531 (and even the short section of NY 441), are my favorites for traffic flow. They tend to move along really fast, especially during commute times, while 390/I-490/590 sometimes have fast packs but are a bit slower in general. It's rare to encounter anyone doing more than 85 mph though, no matter the speed limit.

For Chicagoland, usually it's around 75-80. When you get farther out, it might increase to 80-85. I can't speak for the inner city freeways though like the Kennedy and Eisenhower. I just remember the Edens being a rat-race when I drove down to Touhy Ave daily last year before the virus restrictions.

Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 20, 2021, 09:24:40 PM
For Chicagoland, usually it's around 75-80. When you get farther out, it might increase to 80-85. I can't speak for the inner city freeways though like the Kennedy and Eisenhower. I just remember the Edens being a rat-race when I drove down to Touhy Ave daily last year before the virus restrictions.

75-80 in 55 zones? Normally cars can hit that in MA 55 zones, but mostly 70-75.

Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 20, 2021, 09:24:40 PM
For Chicagoland, usually it's around 75-80. When you get farther out, it might increase to 80-85. I can't speak for the inner city freeways though like the Kennedy and Eisenhower. I just remember the Edens being a rat-race when I drove down to Touhy Ave daily last year before the virus restrictions.

Kennedy, Dan Ryan and the Ike are anywhere between 40 and about 65 mph. Anything over that your just on the back end of the car in front of you. It's frustrating beyond belief. I've never been able to steady go above 65 mph in Chicago. I have gone over that but I've had to slow down. It gets worse the closer to the Circle interchange you get.

In Montana, people generally drive ~5 MPH above or below the speed limit, so speeds generally range from 75-85 in 80 MPH zones and 60-70 in 65 MPH zones within city limits. Of course, the mountainous stretches are different as the speed limits are set more by terrain, and speeds vary accordingly.

Quote from: Flint1979 on April 20, 2021, 09:45:09 PM

Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 20, 2021, 09:24:40 PM
For Chicagoland, usually it's around 75-80. When you get farther out, it might increase to 80-85. I can't speak for the inner city freeways though like the Kennedy and Eisenhower. I just remember the Edens being a rat-race when I drove down to Touhy Ave daily last year before the virus restrictions.

Kennedy, Dan Ryan and the Ike are anywhere between 40 and about 65 mph. Anything over that your just on the back end of the car in front of you. It's frustrating beyond belief. I've never been able to steady go above 65 mph in Chicago. I have gone over that but I've had to slow down. It gets worse the closer to the Circle interchange you get.

Yup. The roads are just too congested. Like I said, the short stint I had on the Edens was always a fun time. Three lanes each way simply does not cut it.

Quote from: FrCorySticha on April 20, 2021, 11:21:30 PM
In Montana, people generally drive ~5 MPH above or below the speed limit, so speeds generally range from 75-85 in 80 MPH zones and 60-70 in 65 MPH zones within city limits. Of course, the mountainous stretches are different as the speed limits are set more by terrain, and speeds vary accordingly.

Wow, a state with reasonable speed limits!

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 20, 2021, 11:56:44 PM

Quote from: FrCorySticha on April 20, 2021, 11:21:30 PM
In Montana, people generally drive ~5 MPH above or below the speed limit, so speeds generally range from 75-85 in 80 MPH zones and 60-70 in 65 MPH zones within city limits. Of course, the mountainous stretches are different as the speed limits are set more by terrain, and speeds vary accordingly.

Wow, a state with reasonable speed limits!

I'm still waiting for Indiana to raise the speed limit on most of I-465. You're just asking to get crashed into driving at 55 mph, when almost all other vehicles are going at least 15-20 mph over. Pretty sure the cops don't even care at this point, though there are still occasional speed traps (one in the Carmel area and one somewhere in the south loop I think).

The last few times I've been on I-85 between I-75/85 and I-285 (northeast side), I've encountered groups of cars going 85+ mph, despite the speed limit being 55 or 65. I usually go 70-75 on that road myself.

In Minnesota I notice a subtle difference between cruising speeds on Interstates and non-Interstate freeways.

Interstates are 65 in the metro to 80 on outstate Interstates.
US/state freeways and expressways are 60-70.

I notice a much larger variance in speeds on I-494/694 than, say, MN 100 despite both having a 60 limit.

In Pennsylvania, it varies a lot. Usually you'll see 70-80 in 70 zones and 70-75 in 65 zones as general rules. In 55 zones, you're usually looking at 65-75, depending on where it is, but some 55 zones flow under 60. I-99 through Altoona, for instance, I'm not going over 65 because I'll get pulled. I-81 north of Harrisburg, I can go 70-75 and not be noticed at all. The further east you go, as another rule, the faster people go. I-80 from Hazleton to Stroudsburg can sometimes resemble a racetrack.

People do seem to regard 80mph around here as a pretty iron cap.

I-64 between Williamsburg and Richmond - speed limit 70 mph - traffic usually moves around 58 - 62 mph in the right lane, and 62 - 65 mph in the left lane. Maybe the occasional 68 - 70 mph if you're lucky, if you want any forward progress, usually you have to pass right when the opportunity opens up to even maintain the speed limit. Once you do pass a group, you can usually cruise about 77 - 80 mph for a couple miles until you reach the next group, and restart. This will usually happen anytime in both directions between 6am - 12am. You usually are clear between the hours of 12am and 6am.

It's hell for 30 miles, but you got 6 lanes on either side to look forward to.

In my experience, Atlanta freeways tend to be about 70-75 mph in 65 or 70 zones, and 65-70 mph in 55 or 60 zones.

The maximum limit posted in Georgia is 70 mph, but once you get out of the cities I'd say the average cruising speed falls somewhere in the 75-80 mph range. I will say, however, that I-575 in particular might as well be a racetrack. Every time I've been on it it seems a majority of cars are doing north of 80-85. Last time I had to set cruise all the way up to 82 just to not get run off the road.

Quote from: SkyPesos on April 21, 2021, 12:00:13 AM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 20, 2021, 11:56:44 PM

Quote from: FrCorySticha on April 20, 2021, 11:21:30 PM
In Montana, people generally drive ~5 MPH above or below the speed limit, so speeds generally range from 75-85 in 80 MPH zones and 60-70 in 65 MPH zones within city limits. Of course, the mountainous stretches are different as the speed limits are set more by terrain, and speeds vary accordingly.

Wow, a state with reasonable speed limits!

I'm still waiting for Indiana to raise the speed limit on most of I-465. You're just asking to get crashed into driving at 55 mph, when almost all other vehicles are going at least 15-20 mph over. Pretty sure the cops don't even care at this point, though there are still occasional speed traps (one in the Carmel area and one somewhere in the south loop I think).

At least Indiana has 70.

During the non-commute hours when traffic flow is generally free, the older freeways in the area (US 101, I-880/CA 17) tend to stay somewhere in the 65-70 range (much of that posted at 55) unless there's a CHP vehicle rolling along at about 68, which they are wont to do sporadically (with traffic bunching up behind).  CA 85 between I-280 and US 101 through Sunnyvale and Mountain View follows this pattern as well.  Generally the highest speeds are seen on the remainder of CA 85 and on I-280 west of I-880/CA 17; I'd put the average somewhere between 70 and 75.  You don't see much above that except on I-680 from about Berryessa north to the Sunol grade and US 101 heading out of town toward Morgan Hill and Gilroy.  But the slowest speeds are found on I-280 from I-880 east (cardinal south) to US 101, primarily because of lane additions and drops exacerbated by the sheer number of interchanges; drivers slow down simply to avoid being sideswiped.  The weirdest area freeway has to be CA 87; it's a raceway north of downtown in the airport area (drivers exceeding 80-85 are commonplace midday), but through downtown shares a lot of characteristics with I-280 (which it intersects in the middle of that freeway's problematic slow section) all the way south to its terminus at CA 85, prompting reactive slowing.  I've had more near-misses on CA 87 than any other regional freeway (it's also the one closest to both my home and office). 

Quote from: Flint1979 on April 20, 2021, 07:49:55 PM
Around here usually between 80 and 90 mph on like I-75, I-96, I-94, I-69, US-23 and so on.

On average?  No.

Usually you find some people doing 80-90?  Absolutely.

Quote from: Ketchup99 on April 21, 2021, 12:48:42 AM
In Pennsylvania, it varies a lot. Usually you'll see 70-80 in 70 zones and 70-75 in 65 zones as general rules. In 55 zones, you're usually looking at 65-75, depending on where it is, but some 55 zones flow under 60. I-99 through Altoona, for instance, I'm not going over 65 because I'll get pulled. I-81 north of Harrisburg, I can go 70-75 and not be noticed at all. The further east you go, as another rule, the faster people go. I-80 from Hazleton to Stroudsburg can sometimes resemble a racetrack.

People do seem to regard 80mph around here as a pretty iron cap.

I will mostly concur with this. Just amend a little to say 70-80 in both 65 and 70 zones, and to specify that many will go 70-80 in the rural and suburban 55 zones (i.e. free I-70, I-78 in Lehigh County, US 422 King of Prussia-Pottstown), with the urban 55 zones featuring slower traffic, due to increased congestion.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 20, 2021, 09:28:08 PM

Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 20, 2021, 09:24:40 PM
For Chicagoland, usually it's around 75-80. When you get farther out, it might increase to 80-85. I can't speak for the inner city freeways though like the Kennedy and Eisenhower. I just remember the Edens being a rat-race when I drove down to Touhy Ave daily last year before the virus restrictions.

75-80 in 55 zones? Normally cars can hit that in MA 55 zones, but mostly 70-75.

No one follows speed limits around here. Local PD does not bother pulling people over unless they are going 15+ or being very reckless (weaving, using shoulder, etc). So yeah 70-80 is pretty common city/burbs, 80-90 in rural areas

Quote from: US 89 on April 21, 2021, 01:11:53 AM
I will say, however, that I-575 in particular might as well be a racetrack. Every time I've been on it it seems a majority of cars are doing north of 80-85. Last time I had to set cruise all the way up to 82 just to not get run off the road.

We might be onto something here with exurban freeways. People on these freeways probably tend to have longer commute times which means more time to make up time.

Upthread I mentioned something similar for Rochester-area freeways such as NY 104 and NY 531, and up in Canada the QEW between Grimsby and Burlington also fits the trend.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 20, 2021, 09:28:08 PM

Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 20, 2021, 09:24:40 PM
For Chicagoland, usually it's around 75-80. When you get farther out, it might increase to 80-85. ...

75-80 in 55 zones?

I would think 70 is closer to average in most places, but you will still encounter traffic doing 75-80 in some 55 mph zones.

Urban: 5 mph under the speed limit or 25 mph over.  Seriously, it feels like people can't figure out how to drive on the highway in Denver.  There are many times where I zoom by someone when I'm going 5 mph over the speed limit.  Then, at night, you'll see plenty of knuckleheads going 90 mph drifting in and out of lanes.

Rural: 5-10 mph over the speed limit.  I don't see too many people going over 85 on the rural stretches of interstates out here.

Chris

Wichita:
Speed limit 60 = Cruising speed 62-72
Speed limit 65 = Cruising speed 65-75

Rural Kansas:
Speed limit 75 = Cruising speed 78-85

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 20, 2021, 11:56:44 PM

Quote from: FrCorySticha on April 20, 2021, 11:21:30 PM
In Montana, people generally drive ~5 MPH above or below the speed limit, so speeds generally range from 75-85 in 80 MPH zones and 60-70 in 65 MPH zones within city limits. Of course, the mountainous stretches are different as the speed limits are set more by terrain, and speeds vary accordingly.

Wow, a state with reasonable speed limits!

No not really. Montana had about a 4 year run with a reasonable speed limit for daytime interstates at least, the speed limit was "safe and prudent." Unfortunately, somne just had to sue over a simple traffic ticket (that the guy could have easily afforded, he was in a damn Corvette) and the court struck it down.

After that it was to 75 for the interstate highways, which was later bumped to 80 by the legislature. However, that had no net effect as the DOT used it as a pretense to lower the speed limit in may other areas, to the point where the old 75 everywhere limit was effectively higher. So back to square one.

Montana does have the interesting distinction of being one of few states that has a statutory allowance of 10 MPH for passing on 2 lane roads, which is quite sensible. However, this does not apply where any speed limit other than the default 70 is used, so for example US 212 which is posted 65 has no allowance for passing, which is frankly stupid.

Also, keep in mind that while 80 seems "reasonable" that is only because you are thinking of it in the context of more densely populated states where 80 would be reasonable. In Montana 80 is still an unreasonable speed limit for the interstate, no limit or a very high limit like 120 would both be "reasonable" in that case.

Honestly Texas has more reasonable limits with its removal of nighttime and truck limits.

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 21, 2021, 01:02:30 PM
Honestly Texas has more reasonable limits with its removal of nighttime and truck limits.

80 mph could be used more on rural interstate highways, besides I-10 and a sliver of I-20.

I-27, I-37, and I-40 come to mind as candidates. Could go more. Future rural sections of I-69 south of Houston.

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 21, 2021, 01:02:30 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 20, 2021, 11:56:44 PM

Quote from: FrCorySticha on April 20, 2021, 11:21:30 PM
In Montana, people generally drive ~5 MPH above or below the speed limit, so speeds generally range from 75-85 in 80 MPH zones and 60-70 in 65 MPH zones within city limits. Of course, the mountainous stretches are different as the speed limits are set more by terrain, and speeds vary accordingly.

Wow, a state with reasonable speed limits!

No not really. Montana had about a 4 year run with a reasonable speed limit for daytime interstates at least, the speed limit was "safe and prudent." Unfortunately, some asshole just had to sue over a simple traffic ticket (that the prick could have easily afforded, he was in a damn Corvette) and the court struck it down.

After that it was to 75 for the interstate highways, which was later bumped to 80 by the legislature. However, that had no net effect as the DOT used it as a pretense to lower the speed limit in may other areas, to the point where the old 75 everywhere limit was effectively higher. So back to square one.

Montana does have the interesting distinction of being one of few states that has a statutory allowance of 10 MPH for passing on 2 lane roads, which is quite sensible. However, this does not apply where any speed limit other than the default 70 is used, so for example US 212 which is posted 65 has no allowance for passing, which is frankly stupid.

Also, keep in mind that while 80 seems "reasonable" that is only because you are thinking of it in the context of more densely populated states where 80 would be reasonable. In Montana 80 is still an unreasonable speed limit for the interstate, no limit or a very high limit like 120 would both be "reasonable" in that case.

Honestly Texas has more reasonable limits with its removal of nighttime and truck limits.

120? 80 seems fast enough for rural interstates, maybe 85. Also Montana has 70 on 2 lane roads. Not perfect, but certainly above average in America.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 21, 2021, 01:16:27 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 21, 2021, 01:02:30 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 20, 2021, 11:56:44 PM

Quote from: FrCorySticha on April 20, 2021, 11:21:30 PM
In Montana, people generally drive ~5 MPH above or below the speed limit, so speeds generally range from 75-85 in 80 MPH zones and 60-70 in 65 MPH zones within city limits. Of course, the mountainous stretches are different as the speed limits are set more by terrain, and speeds vary accordingly.

Wow, a state with reasonable speed limits!

No not really. Montana had about a 4 year run with a reasonable speed limit for daytime interstates at least, the speed limit was "safe and prudent." Unfortunately, some asshole just had to sue over a simple traffic ticket (that the prick could have easily afforded, he was in a damn Corvette) and the court struck it down.

After that it was to 75 for the interstate highways, which was later bumped to 80 by the legislature. However, that had no net effect as the DOT used it as a pretense to lower the speed limit in may other areas, to the point where the old 75 everywhere limit was effectively higher. So back to square one.

Montana does have the interesting distinction of being one of few states that has a statutory allowance of 10 MPH for passing on 2 lane roads, which is quite sensible. However, this does not apply where any speed limit other than the default 70 is used, so for example US 212 which is posted 65 has no allowance for passing, which is frankly stupid.

Also, keep in mind that while 80 seems "reasonable" that is only because you are thinking of it in the context of more densely populated states where 80 would be reasonable. In Montana 80 is still an unreasonable speed limit for the interstate, no limit or a very high limit like 120 would both be "reasonable" in that case.

Honestly Texas has more reasonable limits with its removal of nighttime and truck limits.

120? 80 seems fast enough for rural interstates, maybe 85. Also Montana has 70 on 2 lane roads. Not perfect, but certainly above average in America.

Have you ever seen how rural Montana is? There is no justifiable reason that the speed limit should be 80, at least not in most places. The population density is 1.1% of that of Germany, which has long sections of Autobahn with no speed limits. It would be perfectly safe to cruise at 100 for miles on end.

See my above comment on 2 lane roads and the speed limits there.

It is irrelevant that it is slightly above average in America because the population density is an order of magnitude lower than many places, it is no better in proportional terms.

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 21, 2021, 01:22:04 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 21, 2021, 01:16:27 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 21, 2021, 01:02:30 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 20, 2021, 11:56:44 PM

Quote from: FrCorySticha on April 20, 2021, 11:21:30 PM
In Montana, people generally drive ~5 MPH above or below the speed limit, so speeds generally range from 75-85 in 80 MPH zones and 60-70 in 65 MPH zones within city limits. Of course, the mountainous stretches are different as the speed limits are set more by terrain, and speeds vary accordingly.

Wow, a state with reasonable speed limits!

No not really. Montana had about a 4 year run with a reasonable speed limit for daytime interstates at least, the speed limit was "safe and prudent." Unfortunately, some asshole just had to sue over a simple traffic ticket (that the prick could have easily afforded, he was in a damn Corvette) and the court struck it down.

After that it was to 75 for the interstate highways, which was later bumped to 80 by the legislature. However, that had no net effect as the DOT used it as a pretense to lower the speed limit in may other areas, to the point where the old 75 everywhere limit was effectively higher. So back to square one.

Montana does have the interesting distinction of being one of few states that has a statutory allowance of 10 MPH for passing on 2 lane roads, which is quite sensible. However, this does not apply where any speed limit other than the default 70 is used, so for example US 212 which is posted 65 has no allowance for passing, which is frankly stupid.

Also, keep in mind that while 80 seems "reasonable" that is only because you are thinking of it in the context of more densely populated states where 80 would be reasonable. In Montana 80 is still an unreasonable speed limit for the interstate, no limit or a very high limit like 120 would both be "reasonable" in that case.

Honestly Texas has more reasonable limits with its removal of nighttime and truck limits.

120? 80 seems fast enough for rural interstates, maybe 85. Also Montana has 70 on 2 lane roads. Not perfect, but certainly above average in America.

Have you ever seen how rural Montana is? There is no justifiable reason that the speed limit should be 80, at least not in most places. The population density is 1.1% of that of Germany, which has long sections of Autobahn with no speed limits. It would be perfectly safe to cruise at 100 for miles on end.

See my above comment on 2 lane roads and the speed limits there.

It is irrelevant that it is slightly above average in America because the population density is an order of magnitude lower than many places, it is no better in proportional terms.

Not sure if American drivers can handle 100.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 21, 2021, 01:23:42 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 21, 2021, 01:22:04 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 21, 2021, 01:16:27 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 21, 2021, 01:02:30 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 20, 2021, 11:56:44 PM

Quote from: FrCorySticha on April 20, 2021, 11:21:30 PM
In Montana, people generally drive ~5 MPH above or below the speed limit, so speeds generally range from 75-85 in 80 MPH zones and 60-70 in 65 MPH zones within city limits. Of course, the mountainous stretches are different as the speed limits are set more by terrain, and speeds vary accordingly.

Wow, a state with reasonable speed limits!

No not really. Montana had about a 4 year run with a reasonable speed limit for daytime interstates at least, the speed limit was "safe and prudent." Unfortunately, some asshole just had to sue over a simple traffic ticket (that the prick could have easily afforded, he was in a damn Corvette) and the court struck it down.

After that it was to 75 for the interstate highways, which was later bumped to 80 by the legislature. However, that had no net effect as the DOT used it as a pretense to lower the speed limit in may other areas, to the point where the old 75 everywhere limit was effectively higher. So back to square one.

Montana does have the interesting distinction of being one of few states that has a statutory allowance of 10 MPH for passing on 2 lane roads, which is quite sensible. However, this does not apply where any speed limit other than the default 70 is used, so for example US 212 which is posted 65 has no allowance for passing, which is frankly stupid.

Also, keep in mind that while 80 seems "reasonable" that is only because you are thinking of it in the context of more densely populated states where 80 would be reasonable. In Montana 80 is still an unreasonable speed limit for the interstate, no limit or a very high limit like 120 would both be "reasonable" in that case.

Honestly Texas has more reasonable limits with its removal of nighttime and truck limits.

120? 80 seems fast enough for rural interstates, maybe 85. Also Montana has 70 on 2 lane roads. Not perfect, but certainly above average in America.

Have you ever seen how rural Montana is? There is no justifiable reason that the speed limit should be 80, at least not in most places. The population density is 1.1% of that of Germany, which has long sections of Autobahn with no speed limits. It would be perfectly safe to cruise at 100 for miles on end.

See my above comment on 2 lane roads and the speed limits there.

It is irrelevant that it is slightly above average in America because the population density is an order of magnitude lower than many places, it is no better in proportional terms.

Not sure if American drivers can handle 100.

Of course they can.

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 21, 2021, 01:25:11 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 21, 2021, 01:23:42 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 21, 2021, 01:22:04 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 21, 2021, 01:16:27 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 21, 2021, 01:02:30 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 20, 2021, 11:56:44 PM

Quote from: FrCorySticha on April 20, 2021, 11:21:30 PM
In Montana, people generally drive ~5 MPH above or below the speed limit, so speeds generally range from 75-85 in 80 MPH zones and 60-70 in 65 MPH zones within city limits. Of course, the mountainous stretches are different as the speed limits are set more by terrain, and speeds vary accordingly.

Wow, a state with reasonable speed limits!

No not really. Montana had about a 4 year run with a reasonable speed limit for daytime interstates at least, the speed limit was "safe and prudent." Unfortunately, some asshole just had to sue over a simple traffic ticket (that the prick could have easily afforded, he was in a damn Corvette) and the court struck it down.

After that it was to 75 for the interstate highways, which was later bumped to 80 by the legislature. However, that had no net effect as the DOT used it as a pretense to lower the speed limit in may other areas, to the point where the old 75 everywhere limit was effectively higher. So back to square one.

Montana does have the interesting distinction of being one of few states that has a statutory allowance of 10 MPH for passing on 2 lane roads, which is quite sensible. However, this does not apply where any speed limit other than the default 70 is used, so for example US 212 which is posted 65 has no allowance for passing, which is frankly stupid.

Also, keep in mind that while 80 seems "reasonable" that is only because you are thinking of it in the context of more densely populated states where 80 would be reasonable. In Montana 80 is still an unreasonable speed limit for the interstate, no limit or a very high limit like 120 would both be "reasonable" in that case.

Honestly Texas has more reasonable limits with its removal of nighttime and truck limits.

120? 80 seems fast enough for rural interstates, maybe 85. Also Montana has 70 on 2 lane roads. Not perfect, but certainly above average in America.

Have you ever seen how rural Montana is? There is no justifiable reason that the speed limit should be 80, at least not in most places. The population density is 1.1% of that of Germany, which has long sections of Autobahn with no speed limits. It would be perfectly safe to cruise at 100 for miles on end.

See my above comment on 2 lane roads and the speed limits there.

It is irrelevant that it is slightly above average in America because the population density is an order of magnitude lower than many places, it is no better in proportional terms.

Not sure if American drivers can handle 100.

Of course they can.

They might, but remember that in Germany it's a lot harder to get a driver's license.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 21, 2021, 01:26:58 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 21, 2021, 01:25:11 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 21, 2021, 01:23:42 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 21, 2021, 01:22:04 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 21, 2021, 01:16:27 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 21, 2021, 01:02:30 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 20, 2021, 11:56:44 PM

Quote from: FrCorySticha on April 20, 2021, 11:21:30 PM
In Montana, people generally drive ~5 MPH above or below the speed limit, so speeds generally range from 75-85 in 80 MPH zones and 60-70 in 65 MPH zones within city limits. Of course, the mountainous stretches are different as the speed limits are set more by terrain, and speeds vary accordingly.

Wow, a state with reasonable speed limits!

No not really. Montana had about a 4 year run with a reasonable speed limit for daytime interstates at least, the speed limit was "safe and prudent." Unfortunately, some asshole just had to sue over a simple traffic ticket (that the prick could have easily afforded, he was in a damn Corvette) and the court struck it down.

After that it was to 75 for the interstate highways, which was later bumped to 80 by the legislature. However, that had no net effect as the DOT used it as a pretense to lower the speed limit in may other areas, to the point where the old 75 everywhere limit was effectively higher. So back to square one.

Montana does have the interesting distinction of being one of few states that has a statutory allowance of 10 MPH for passing on 2 lane roads, which is quite sensible. However, this does not apply where any speed limit other than the default 70 is used, so for example US 212 which is posted 65 has no allowance for passing, which is frankly stupid.

Also, keep in mind that while 80 seems "reasonable" that is only because you are thinking of it in the context of more densely populated states where 80 would be reasonable. In Montana 80 is still an unreasonable speed limit for the interstate, no limit or a very high limit like 120 would both be "reasonable" in that case.

Honestly Texas has more reasonable limits with its removal of nighttime and truck limits.

120? 80 seems fast enough for rural interstates, maybe 85. Also Montana has 70 on 2 lane roads. Not perfect, but certainly above average in America.

Have you ever seen how rural Montana is? There is no justifiable reason that the speed limit should be 80, at least not in most places. The population density is 1.1% of that of Germany, which has long sections of Autobahn with no speed limits. It would be perfectly safe to cruise at 100 for miles on end.

See my above comment on 2 lane roads and the speed limits there.

It is irrelevant that it is slightly above average in America because the population density is an order of magnitude lower than many places, it is no better in proportional terms.

Not sure if American drivers can handle 100.

Of course they can.

They might, but remember that in Germany it's a lot harder to get a driver's license.

People always bring that out as some big difference, but in reality it makes very little.
Think of it this way, even if the US is more permissive on licensing (which I don't really agree that it is that much anymore, that was true 20 years ago but not today) what really matters is the aggregate experience someone develops driving.
US drivers put in a lot of miles, more than Germans, so my guess is by the time someone is a bit older they have essentially equalized in terms of driving with a German counterpart. So the major difference might be amongst the youngest, but in the US that is not the population that spends a lot of time on the highways.
Also the fact that the US licenses fairly early partially trades off for the ease in getting one because you spend more time behind the wheel before venturing out. I had my license at 15 and did not undertake any major Interstate driving solo until I was 19 and had 4 years experience. That is worth far more than a somewhat more rigorous process.

Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 20, 2021, 11:41:09 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on April 20, 2021, 09:45:09 PM

Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 20, 2021, 09:24:40 PM
For Chicagoland, usually it's around 75-80. When you get farther out, it might increase to 80-85. I can't speak for the inner city freeways though like the Kennedy and Eisenhower. I just remember the Edens being a rat-race when I drove down to Touhy Ave daily last year before the virus restrictions.

Kennedy, Dan Ryan and the Ike are anywhere between 40 and about 65 mph. Anything over that your just on the back end of the car in front of you. It's frustrating beyond belief. I've never been able to steady go above 65 mph in Chicago. I have gone over that but I've had to slow down. It gets worse the closer to the Circle interchange you get.

Yup. The roads are just too congested. Like I said, the short stint I had on the Edens was always a fun time. Three lanes each way simply does not cut it.

Yeah or on the Bishop Ford too only three lanes in each direction then it goes down to two lanes in each direction just before the Dan Ryan.

Quote from: GaryV on April 21, 2021, 08:36:29 AM

Quote from: Flint1979 on April 20, 2021, 07:49:55 PM
Around here usually between 80 and 90 mph on like I-75, I-96, I-94, I-69, US-23 and so on.

On average?  No.

Usually you find some people doing 80-90?  Absolutely.

Yes on average. Try going 70 in Michigan and you'll get passed, you'll also get passed at 80, go 85 and you'll still get passed.

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 21, 2021, 01:02:30 PM
Unfortunately, some asshole just had to sue over a simple traffic ticket (that the prick could have easily afforded, he was in a damn Corvette) and the court struck it down.

It was a 1996 Camaro with fewer than 10,000 miles on the odometer.  Not exactly a Ferrari...

Rudy Stanko was his name, and he was driving a steady 85 mph on MT-200 (https://goo.gl/maps/fN1AUP5iwpRDKUicA) at the far eastern end of Garfield County.  Even though the road was curvy and hilly and had no shoulders, the court determined that driving 85 mph in a Camaro on dry pavement during daylight hours wasn't exactly a slam-dunk violation of the "reasonable and prudent" speed limit.  Furthermore, neither the officer nor the Attorney General could state a speed that would have been reasonable and prudent.  The court therefore decided that the basic speed rule as it stood "not only permits, but requires the kind of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement that the due process clause in general, and the void-for-vagueness doctrine in particular, are designed to prevent" and that it was "void for vagueness on its face and in violation of ... the Montana Constitution".

Quote from: Supreme Court of Montana:  STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Rudy STANKO, Defendant and Appellant (No. 97-486)
¶ 27 The difficulty that § 61-8-303(1), MCA, presents as a statute to regulate speed on Montana's highways, especially as it concerns those interests which the void-for-vagueness doctrine is intended to protect, was further evident from the following discussion with the Attorney General during the argument of this case:

Q. Well how many highway patrol men and women are there in the State of Montana?

A. There are 212 authorized members of the patrol.   Of that number, about 190 are officers and on the road.

Q. And I understand there are no specific guidelines provided to them to enable them to know at what point, exact point, a person's speed is a violation of the basic rule?

A. That's correct, Your Honor, because that's not what the statute requires.   We do not have a numerical limit.   We have a basic rule statute which requires the officer to take into account whether or not the driver is driving in a careful and prudent manner, using the speed.

Q. And it's up to each of their individual judgments to enforce the law?

A. It is, Your Honor, using their judgment applying the standard set forth in the statute․

Q. Well, if I'm driving down the interstate highway through Montana on a clear day on a dry road with little traffic in the area, at what speed can I assume that I'm complying with the law, or is that up to whichever one of those 190 officers are on duty at that location at that time?

A. It depends, Your Honor, because it will depend upon the application of the statutory factors.   Where are you on the interstate highway on a clear road?

Q. Let's say that I've got a vehicle that's new, there are no problems with the brakes, there are no problems with the steering, it's a clear day, the road is dry, the traffic is light, there are no other conditions which make it dangerous for me to travel at a high speed.   At what speed can I be assured that I'm not violating the law?

A. Your Honor, my response will be, it depends.   There is no numerical limit that I can cite you because it will depend where you are.   And it will depend on an officer's discretion ultimately.   And it will depend upon your own judgment in the operation of your vehicle․

Q. So I just don't know?

A. You don't know, but you have a lot of good guidance provided in the statute․ But to provide you with a number, the legislature hasn't given one, and if they do not give us one, we will continue to apply the statutory factors in every circumstance.

Quote from: kphoger on April 21, 2021, 02:08:21 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 21, 2021, 01:02:30 PM
Unfortunately, some asshole just had to sue over a simple traffic ticket (that the prick could have easily afforded, he was in a damn Corvette) and the court struck it down.

It was a 1996 Camaro with fewer than 10,000 miles on the odometer.  Not exactly a Ferrari...

Rudy Stanko was his name, and he was driving a steady 85 mph on MT-200 (https://goo.gl/maps/fN1AUP5iwpRDKUicA) at the far eastern end of Garfield County.  Even though the road was curvy and hilly and had no shoulders, the court determined that driving 85 mph in a Camaro on dry pavement during daylight hours wasn't exactly a slam-dunk violation of the "reasonable and prudent" speed limit.  Furthermore, neither the officer nor the Attorney General could state a speed that would have been reasonable and prudent.  The court therefore decided that the basic speed rule as it stood "not only permits, but requires the kind of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement that the due process clause in general, and the void-for-vagueness doctrine in particular, are designed to prevent" and that it was "void for vagueness on its face and in violation of ... the Montana Constitution".

Quote from: Supreme Court of Montana:  STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Rudy STANKO, Defendant and Appellant (No. 97-486)
¶ 27 The difficulty that § 61-8-303(1), MCA, presents as a statute to regulate speed on Montana's highways, especially as it concerns those interests which the void-for-vagueness doctrine is intended to protect, was further evident from the following discussion with the Attorney General during the argument of this case:

Q. Well how many highway patrol men and women are there in the State of Montana?

A. There are 212 authorized members of the patrol.   Of that number, about 190 are officers and on the road.

Q. And I understand there are no specific guidelines provided to them to enable them to know at what point, exact point, a person's speed is a violation of the basic rule?

A. That's correct, Your Honor, because that's not what the statute requires.   We do not have a numerical limit.   We have a basic rule statute which requires the officer to take into account whether or not the driver is driving in a careful and prudent manner, using the speed.

Q. And it's up to each of their individual judgments to enforce the law?

A. It is, Your Honor, using their judgment applying the standard set forth in the statute․

Q. Well, if I'm driving down the interstate highway through Montana on a clear day on a dry road with little traffic in the area, at what speed can I assume that I'm complying with the law, or is that up to whichever one of those 190 officers are on duty at that location at that time?

A. It depends, Your Honor, because it will depend upon the application of the statutory factors.   Where are you on the interstate highway on a clear road?

Q. Let's say that I've got a vehicle that's new, there are no problems with the brakes, there are no problems with the steering, it's a clear day, the road is dry, the traffic is light, there are no other conditions which make it dangerous for me to travel at a high speed.   At what speed can I be assured that I'm not violating the law?

A. Your Honor, my response will be, it depends.   There is no numerical limit that I can cite you because it will depend where you are.   And it will depend on an officer's discretion ultimately.   And it will depend upon your own judgment in the operation of your vehicle․

Q. So I just don't know?

A. You don't know, but you have a lot of good guidance provided in the statute․ But to provide you with a number, the legislature hasn't given one, and if they do not give us one, we will continue to apply the statutory factors in every circumstance.

Camaro, Corvette same thing. The point is the ticket was probabally something like $20 and that he had to ruin it for everyone else.

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 21, 2021, 02:29:43 PM

Quote from: kphoger on April 21, 2021, 02:08:21 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 21, 2021, 01:02:30 PM
Unfortunately, some asshole just had to sue over a simple traffic ticket (that the prick could have easily afforded, he was in a damn Corvette) and the court struck it down.

It was a 1996 Camaro with fewer than 10,000 miles on the odometer.  Not exactly a Ferrari...

Camaro, Corvette same thing. The point is the ticket was probabaly something like $20 and that prick had to ruin it for everyone else.

And my point is that a new Camaro sold for just under $20,000 MSRP in 1996.  That's less than a Toyota Camry LE.  It doesn't exactly scream "moneybags" the way your post makes it out to.

Besides which...  Maybe he was a prick, I don't know.  But he testified in court that, with the police officer following him, he specifically began paying more attention to his driving, making sure he was driving safely.  Then he got pulled over for driving unreasonably and imprudently.  I can sure understanding wanting to fight the system that allowed such a thing to happen.  He wasn't hot-dogging it through an urban expressway full of traffic or anything like that.  He was just driving at a constant speed that he considered to be appropriate for the conditions of the road and his vehicle.

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 21, 2021, 02:29:43 PM

Quote from: kphoger on April 21, 2021, 02:08:21 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 21, 2021, 01:02:30 PM
Unfortunately, some asshole just had to sue over a simple traffic ticket (that the prick could have easily afforded, he was in a damn Corvette) and the court struck it down.

It was a 1996 Camaro with fewer than 10,000 miles on the odometer.  Not exactly a Ferrari...

Rudy Stanko was his name, and he was driving a steady 85 mph on MT-200 (https://goo.gl/maps/fN1AUP5iwpRDKUicA) at the far eastern end of Garfield County.  Even though the road was curvy and hilly and had no shoulders, the court determined that driving 85 mph in a Camaro on dry pavement during daylight hours wasn't exactly a slam-dunk violation of the "reasonable and prudent" speed limit.  Furthermore, neither the officer nor the Attorney General could state a speed that would have been reasonable and prudent.  The court therefore decided that the basic speed rule as it stood "not only permits, but requires the kind of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement that the due process clause in general, and the void-for-vagueness doctrine in particular, are designed to prevent" and that it was "void for vagueness on its face and in violation of ... the Montana Constitution".

Quote from: Supreme Court of Montana:  STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Rudy STANKO, Defendant and Appellant (No. 97-486)
snip.

Camaro, Corvette same thing. The point is the ticket was probabally something like $20 and that prick had to ruin it for everyone else.

He was looking out for himself.  Doesn't matter what the ticket cost.  If you're willing to just pay a ticket to avoid "ruining it for everyone else", then you're only ruining your own wallet. 

The State came back and said 75 was the limit.  Why did they go so low?  If they said 100 mph was the max limit, people wouldn't have complained so much. 

It's unfortunate the state struck down this law, but blame it on the state for creating a vague law, not a person who got a ticket and did the right thing to fight it.

Quote from: kphoger on April 21, 2021, 02:47:29 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 21, 2021, 02:29:43 PM

Quote from: kphoger on April 21, 2021, 02:08:21 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 21, 2021, 01:02:30 PM
Unfortunately, some asshole just had to sue over a simple traffic ticket (that the prick could have easily afforded, he was in a damn Corvette) and the court struck it down.

It was a 1996 Camaro with fewer than 10,000 miles on the odometer.  Not exactly a Ferrari...

Camaro, Corvette same thing. The point is the ticket was probabaly something like $20 and that prick had to ruin it for everyone else.

And my point is that a new Camaro sold for just under $20,000 MSRP in 1996.  That's less than a Toyota Camry LE.  It doesn't exactly scream "moneybags" the way your post makes it out to.

Besides which...  Maybe he was a prick, I don't know.  But he testified in court that, with the police officer following him, he specifically began paying more attention to his driving, making sure he was driving safely.  Then he got pulled over for driving unreasonably and imprudently.  I can sure understanding wanting to fight the system that allowed such a thing to happen.  He wasn't hot-dogging it through an urban expressway full of traffic or anything like that.  He was just driving at a constant speed that he considered to be appropriate for the conditions of the road and his vehicle.

If you read the court's other opinion involving Mr. Stanko (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mt-supreme-court/1237434.html), issued the following day, in which they affirmed his conviction on two separate reckless driving tickets (unrelated to the 85-mph speeding charge in the other case), it might influence your thought process about him. I've read some commentary suggesting that the 85-mph case was cooked up in order to get a numerical speed limit imposed in Montana, but this second case leads me to doubt that theory.

Quote
Issue 3.

¶ 39 Did the District Court err in denying Stanko's motion to dismiss in which he argued that no one was injured and excessive speed could not be the sole basis for a charge of reckless driving?

 ¶ 40 The District Court denied Stanko's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Establish the Necessary Elements in which Stanko contended, with respect to the Lobdell charge, that no person or property was harmed by his conduct and that excessive speed could not be the sole factual basis for a charge of reckless driving under § 61-8-301, MCA. Stanko contends on appeal that the District Court erred in not granting his motion.

 ¶ 41 The grant or denial of a motion to dismiss in a criminal case is a question of law, thus our review is plenary;  we will review the district court's conclusion to determine whether it is correct. City of Helena v. Danichek (1996), 277 Mont. 461, 463, 922 P.2d 1170, 1172 (citing State v. Hansen (1995), 273 Mont. 321, 323, 903 P.2d 194, 195;  State v. Rushton (1994), 264 Mont. 248, 255, 870 P.2d 1355, 1359).

¶ 42 Contrary to Stanko's assertions, Officer Lobdell did not base her citation solely on the fact of Stanko's speed. Indeed, the citation itself states: "Reckless Driving! 117 mph over Crest of Hill on Narrow Road Moderate Traffic."  (Emphasis added.) Furthermore, Officer Lobdell testified at trial that she cited Stanko for reckless driving because he was endangering everyone on the road due to the high speed, the narrow road, and the hill crest. She also testified that although traffic in the area was moderate on the day she cited Stanko, there was the potential for tourist traffic such as campers and boats as well as ranch and farm vehicles and trucks.

 ¶ 43 Stanko's argument that speed alone may not constitute reckless driving is beside the point. Neither officer cited Stanko for reckless driving based solely on speed. Rather, both officers considered speed plus the other factors referred to above. Other jurisdictions have long held that excessive speed under some circumstances may constitute willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others. See State v. Lunt (R.I.1969), 106 R.I. 379, 260 A.2d 149, 152;  State v. Pruett (Idaho 1967), 91 Idaho 537, 428 P.2d 43;  Norfolk v. State (Wyo.1961), 360 P.2d 605. We agree with these authorities. While "[t]here may be a point at which the speed becomes so excessive, the danger of injury to the passenger so probable, that such extreme speed alone might be held to be willful misconduct,"  People v. Nowell (Cal.App.Dept.Super.Ct.1941), 45 Cal.App.2d Supp. 811, 114 P.2d 81, 83(quoting Fisher v. Zimmerman (Cal.Ct.App.1937), 23 Cal.App.2d 696, 73 P.2d 1243, 1246), that is not the fact situation here and our decision is not premised on Stanko's speed alone.

 ¶ 44 In addition, and again contrary to Stanko's contentions, § 61-8-301, MCA, does not require that there be an actual injury before the conduct may be considered reckless.

(1) A person commits the offense of reckless driving if he:

(a) operates any vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property․

Section 61-8-301, MCA (emphasis added).

¶ 45 Finally, Stanko imagines himself to be a "champion race-car driver"  because he won a few stock-car races in Oregon almost twenty years ago. He testified that he was consciously driving 117 mph and 121 mph at the times he was cited, but that this conduct was not reckless because he is accustomed to driving at high speeds. While Stanko's driving abilities may be legend in his own mind, we are not impressed. Unfortunately, Stanko fails to realize that racing conditions are far different from highway conditions and that Montana highways are not controlled racetracks. While Stanko may be willing to risk his own life and property traveling the highways at grossly excessive speeds as though he is still on a racetrack, other motorists do not assume the risk of driving in racetrack conditions when they travel Montana's highways. In point of fact, Montana's highways are used by senior citizens, parents hauling small children, farmers and ranchers moving machinery, school buses, commercial vehicles, and bicyclists, all of whom typically drive at less than "racetrack"  speeds. Other motorists, as well, in driving and in overtaking and passing vehicles rightfully expect that following and oncoming traffic will be moving at a reasonably prudent and safe speed. Few would gauge their driving in anticipation that coming over the crest of the next hill will be a car traveling at well over 100 mph being driven by one who believes that he is on the Autobahn. Moreover, even if Stanko were to only injure or kill himself in a high-speed crash, his conduct still would be responsible for putting on the highway and at risk the emergency personnel and vehicles that would most surely have to respond. Furthermore, any person who drives in this State is aware that wild and domestic animals frequently cross Montana's roads and highways. It is common experience that trying to avoid wildlife or livestock on a road, without crashing, is difficult enough while driving at a reasonable and prudent highway speed;  it is nearly impossible while driving at speeds well over 100 mph.

¶ 46 In short, it is clear that, under the conditions at issue here, Stanko unquestionably operated his vehicle "in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property."  Section 61-8-301, MCA. Accordingly, we hold that the District Court was correct in denying Stanko's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Establish the Necessary Elements of the reckless driving offenses with which he was charged.

Quote from: Flint1979 on April 21, 2021, 01:58:25 PM

Quote from: GaryV on April 21, 2021, 08:36:29 AM

Quote from: Flint1979 on April 20, 2021, 07:49:55 PM
Around here usually between 80 and 90 mph on like I-75, I-96, I-94, I-69, US-23 and so on.

On average?  No.

Usually you find some people doing 80-90?  Absolutely.

Yes on average. Try going 70 in Michigan and you'll get passed, you'll also get passed at 80, go 85 and you'll still get passed.

I think you're mixing up "average" and "maximum".

If out of every 100 cars, 99 go 70 mph and one goes 90... if I drive 85, I'm driving well above the average speed but I'm still getting passed.

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 21, 2021, 03:02:43 PM
If you read the court's other opinion involving Mr. Stanko (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mt-supreme-court/1237434.html), issued the following day, in which they affirmed his conviction on two separate reckless driving tickets (unrelated to the 85-mph speeding charge in the other case), it might influence your thought process about him. I've read some commentary suggesting that the 85-mph case was cooked up in order to get a numerical speed limit imposed in Montana, but this second case leads me to doubt that theory.

Thanks!  Yes, I figured he probably really was a prick.  And I knew that wasn't his only case, but I hadn't bothered to look up the others.

As for New Jersey, this is how I tend to describe our rules for highways:

55 mph:  Up to 74 mph before the cops care.  Average is in the mid 60's to low 70's. (Tends to be a wide range in this zone)
65 mph: Up to 79 mph before the cops care.  Average is in the low-mid 70's.

NJ Turnpike:
   Exit 9 and South:  Up to 79 or 84 mph before the cops care...can't really figure it out.  Average is often in the mid 70's. 
   Exit 9 and North:  Reasonable and Prudent.

Garden State Parkway:
   South of NJ 72: Up to 79 before the cops care.  Average is in the low-mid 70's.
   Between 72 and the Raritan Bridge:  Up to 84 mph before the cops care.  Average is in the mid-upper 70's.
   North of the Raritan Bridge:  Unreasonable and Not Prudent. 

(Yes, I may be exaggerating a little. But speeds in the north on the Turnpike and Parkway, especially with commuting traffic, is quite fast)

(I'll edit my answer to say that the average may be lower because you'll get the PA and NY drivers in the left lane going under the speed limit, reducing the average speed for everyone else)

I set myself at 65 in the 60 zones around the suburbs of Seattle (and down to 60 in Seattle proper due to the merging issues) and still pass a lot of traffic in the other lanes. Even the southernmost bit of our 70 zone is still under due to the rolling terrain.

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 21, 2021, 01:02:30 PM
After that it was to 75 for the interstate highways, which was later bumped to 80 by the legislature. However, that had no net effect as the DOT used it as a pretense to lower the speed limit in may other areas, to the point where the old 75 everywhere limit was effectively higher. So back to square one.

What? No. There never was "75 everywhere" in Montana. When Reasonable and Prudent went away, it was 75 on Interstates outside of city limits, 65 on Interstates in city limits, 70 on 2-lane highways during the day, and 65 on 2-lane highways at night. And of course there are parts of the state where mountainous terrain prohibits speeds that high.

Quote from: HighwayStar
Have you ever seen how rural Montana is? There is no justifiable reason that the speed limit should be 80, at least not in most places. The population density is 1.1% of that of Germany, which has long sections of Autobahn with no speed limits. It would be perfectly safe to cruise at 100 for miles on end.

I've definitely seen Montana, as I actually live here. I have a car that does 100 MPH comfortably on straight, flat stretches of highway, and would do so for long distances. I wouldn't mind seeing the most rural parts of the state marked 85 or even 90, but 80 is absolutely a reasonable speed limit for much of the Interstate system in the state. Especially since the MHP won't even look twice at you if you're doing +5 MPH or so.

Quote from: kphoger on April 21, 2021, 02:08:21 PM
Rudy Stanko was his name, and he was driving a steady 85 mph on MT-200 (https://goo.gl/maps/fN1AUP5iwpRDKUicA) at the far eastern end of Garfield County.  Even though the road was curvy and hilly and had no shoulders [...]

I've driven that road way too often, as I lived and worked in both Circle and Jordan, MT. Jordan is pretty much the only real town in Garfield County, and Circle is 70 miles to the east along MT 200. To call it "curvy and hilly and had no shoulders" is being generous to the road. It's a poorly maintained road with the shoulder line pretty much painted half on the grass and horrible sight distances at the best of times. It's also quite busy with lots of truck traffic, agricultural equipment, wildlife, and the occasional cow that's gotten out of its pasture. There are points where doing the 70 MPH speed limit is questionable, even on a clear, sunny day with dry roads.

Quote from: kphoger on April 21, 2021, 03:10:13 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 21, 2021, 03:02:43 PM
If you read the court's other opinion involving Mr. Stanko (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mt-supreme-court/1237434.html), issued the following day, in which they affirmed his conviction on two separate reckless driving tickets (unrelated to the 85-mph speeding charge in the other case), it might influence your thought process about him. I've read some commentary suggesting that the 85-mph case was cooked up in order to get a numerical speed limit imposed in Montana, but this second case leads me to doubt that theory.

Thanks!  Yes, I figured he probably really was a prick.  And I knew that wasn't his only case, but I hadn't bothered to look up the others.

I can't really blame him for contesting the 85-mph speeding ticket. While I feel it's a shame that the case ultimately resulted in a numeric speed limit being posted, I do think it's problematic to have a law that doesn't give you any notice beyond "cop's discretion" as to when you're subject to being stopped for speeding. While some people might argue that "cop's discretion" still applies, I think there's a difference between, say, going 65 mph in a 55-mph zone and knowing you could be pulled over for that (even if it's unlikely) versus a situation where there's nothing whatsoever indicating whether you might get stopped other than the luck of the draw as to which police officer happens to be patrolling that area on a given day.

Quote from: US 89 on April 21, 2021, 03:04:30 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on April 21, 2021, 01:58:25 PM

Quote from: GaryV on April 21, 2021, 08:36:29 AM

Quote from: Flint1979 on April 20, 2021, 07:49:55 PM
Around here usually between 80 and 90 mph on like I-75, I-96, I-94, I-69, US-23 and so on.

On average?  No.

Usually you find some people doing 80-90?  Absolutely.

Yes on average. Try going 70 in Michigan and you'll get passed, you'll also get passed at 80, go 85 and you'll still get passed.

I think you're mixing up "average" and "maximum".

If out of every 100 cars, 99 go 70 mph and one goes 90... if I drive 85, I'm driving well above the average speed but I'm still getting passed.

90 is not maximum. The average is around 80 mph and not under it either.

Quote from: Flint1979 on April 21, 2021, 07:40:44 PM

Quote from: US 89 on April 21, 2021, 03:04:30 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on April 21, 2021, 01:58:25 PM

Quote from: GaryV on April 21, 2021, 08:36:29 AM

Quote from: Flint1979 on April 20, 2021, 07:49:55 PM
Around here usually between 80 and 90 mph on like I-75, I-96, I-94, I-69, US-23 and so on.

On average?  No.

Usually you find some people doing 80-90?  Absolutely.

Yes on average. Try going 70 in Michigan and you'll get passed, you'll also get passed at 80, go 85 and you'll still get passed.

I think you're mixing up "average" and "maximum".

If out of every 100 cars, 99 go 70 mph and one goes 90... if I drive 85, I'm driving well above the average speed but I'm still getting passed.

90 is not maximum. The average is around 80 mph and not under it either.

If we're talking true average (mean) then those 2 jerks going 130 might just raise the average to 80 for a given population of vehicles in the vicinity.

But we are probably talking about the median.  Half of traffic is faster, half is slower.

In my experience, I usually go 74-76 in a 70mph zone.  Yes, I get passed. But I pass others as well. If the average (median) was 80, I'd get passed much more often than passing others.  And that just doesn't happen.

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 21, 2021, 03:49:17 PM

Quote from: kphoger on April 21, 2021, 03:10:13 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 21, 2021, 03:02:43 PM
If you read the court's other opinion involving Mr. Stanko (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mt-supreme-court/1237434.html), issued the following day, in which they affirmed his conviction on two separate reckless driving tickets (unrelated to the 85-mph speeding charge in the other case), it might influence your thought process about him. I've read some commentary suggesting that the 85-mph case was cooked up in order to get a numerical speed limit imposed in Montana, but this second case leads me to doubt that theory.

Thanks!  Yes, I figured he probably really was a prick.  And I knew that wasn't his only case, but I hadn't bothered to look up the others.

I can't really blame him for contesting the 85-mph speeding ticket. While I feel it's a shame that the case ultimately resulted in a numeric speed limit being posted, I do think it's problematic to have a law that doesn't give you any notice beyond "cop's discretion" as to when you're subject to being stopped for speeding. While some people might argue that "cop's discretion" still applies, I think there's a difference between, say, going 65 mph in a 55-mph zone and knowing you could be pulled over for that (even if it's unlikely) versus a situation where there's nothing whatsoever indicating whether you might get stopped other than the luck of the draw as to which police officer happens to be patrolling that area on a given day.

I do, its not as if it was a large sum of money for the guy, it probabally cost him more to contest the stupid thing than it was worth.

Quote from: FrCorySticha on April 21, 2021, 03:33:39 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 21, 2021, 01:02:30 PM
After that it was to 75 for the interstate highways, which was later bumped to 80 by the legislature. However, that had no net effect as the DOT used it as a pretense to lower the speed limit in may other areas, to the point where the old 75 everywhere limit was effectively higher. So back to square one.

What? No. There never was "75 everywhere" in Montana. When Reasonable and Prudent went away, it was 75 on Interstates outside of city limits, 65 on Interstates in city limits, 70 on 2-lane highways during the day, and 65 on 2-lane highways at night. And of course there are parts of the state where mountainous terrain prohibits speeds that high.

Quote from: HighwayStar
Have you ever seen how rural Montana is? There is no justifiable reason that the speed limit should be 80, at least not in most places. The population density is 1.1% of that of Germany, which has long sections of Autobahn with no speed limits. It would be perfectly safe to cruise at 100 for miles on end.

I've definitely seen Montana, as I actually live here. I have a car that does 100 MPH comfortably on straight, flat stretches of highway, and would do so for long distances. I wouldn't mind seeing the most rural parts of the state marked 85 or even 90, but 80 is absolutely a reasonable speed limit for much of the Interstate system in the state. Especially since the MHP won't even look twice at you if you're doing +5 MPH or so.

There never was "75 everywhere" in Montana I was referring to 75 everywhere on interstates, not everywhere on other roads. And yes, there was a period where all interstates were 75.

And no, 80 is not a reasonable speed limit for most of the interstate highways in the state. Given traffic counts and the geometry of the roads a speed of 110+ would not be an issue whatsoever. Its ridiculous to limit people to 80 when you could drive 20 or 30 MPH faster than that without issue. Having MT posted 80 is like having every highway in NJ posted at 40, it makes no sense.

Quote from: kphoger on April 21, 2021, 02:47:29 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 21, 2021, 02:29:43 PM

Quote from: kphoger on April 21, 2021, 02:08:21 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 21, 2021, 01:02:30 PM
Unfortunately, some asshole just had to sue over a simple traffic ticket (that the prick could have easily afforded, he was in a damn Corvette) and the court struck it down.

It was a 1996 Camaro with fewer than 10,000 miles on the odometer.  Not exactly a Ferrari...

Camaro, Corvette same thing. The point is the ticket was probabaly something like $20 and that prick had to ruin it for everyone else.

And my point is that a new Camaro sold for just under $20,000 MSRP in 1996.  That's less than a Toyota Camry LE.  It doesn't exactly scream "moneybags" the way your post makes it out to.

Besides which...  Maybe he was a prick, I don't know.  But he testified in court that, with the police officer following him, he specifically began paying more attention to his driving, making sure he was driving safely.  Then he got pulled over for driving unreasonably and imprudently.  I can sure understanding wanting to fight the system that allowed such a thing to happen.  He wasn't hot-dogging it through an urban expressway full of traffic or anything like that.  He was just driving at a constant speed that he considered to be appropriate for the conditions of the road and his vehicle.

No that is less than a Camry LE today not in 1996. That is 35K today. If you have that kind of money to be driving a sports vehicle on public roads you don't need to be a stick in the mud about a $20 speeding ticket. He took it all the way to the supreme court, that just screams someone trying to make trouble.

The MSRP for a 1996 Toyota Camry LE ranged from $20k to $22k, depending on engine and trim level.

The MSRP for a 1996 Chevrolet Camaro ranged from $14k to $19k, depending on engine and trim level.

Quote from: kphoger on April 22, 2021, 02:10:43 PM
The MSRP for a 1996 Toyota Camry LE ranged from $20k to $22k, depending on engine and trim level.

The MSRP for a 1996 Chevrolet Camaro ranged from $14k to $19k, depending on engine and trim level.

It is beside the point. The guy had a $35k car in 2021 dollars, he could afford the fine, and in any case it cost far more to fight it all the way to the supreme court than to just pay it. He did it to be a prick.

What's to not say if he didn't take it to the Supreme Court, another case wouldn't come up in the future?

Quote from: sprjus4 on April 22, 2021, 02:13:47 PM
What's to not say if he didn't take it to the Supreme Court, another case wouldn't come up in the future?

Maybe it would, maybe it would not. But the point is going out and driving like that right in front of the HP so you can sue and go to the state is a low move. Its honestly too bad the courts can't just take cases like this and throw them out at the start.

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 22, 2021, 02:15:09 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on April 22, 2021, 02:13:47 PM
What's to not say if he didn't take it to the Supreme Court, another case wouldn't come up in the future?

Maybe it would, maybe it would not. But the point is going out and driving like an ass hat right in front of the HP so you can sue and go to the state his a prick move. Its honestly too bad the courts can't just take cases like this and throw them out at the start.

Well, his case was a legitimate one. You can't just "throw it out" .

The case was legitimate, the Supreme Court's ruling was stupid. We use the "reasonable and prudent" rule all the time - when it's really dark, in bad weather, etc. Courts never have an issue with that, not sure how it can be unconstitutional to use it in the day as well.

Hell, reckless driving charges are judgement based, except the artificial speed caps many states use of course. But for other things, it's discretion.

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 22, 2021, 02:12:58 PM

Quote from: kphoger on April 22, 2021, 02:10:43 PM
The MSRP for a 1996 Toyota Camry LE ranged from $20k to $22k, depending on engine and trim level.

The MSRP for a 1996 Chevrolet Camaro ranged from $14k to $19k, depending on engine and trim level.

It is beside the point. The guy had a $35k car in 2021 dollars, he could afford the fine, and in any case it cost far more to fight it all the way to the supreme court than to just pay it. He did it to be a prick.

My point is that, if he had been driving a Camry, I'm sure you wouldn't have said that "the prick could have easily afforded [the fine], he was in a damn Camry" as if Camry drivers are filthy rich moneybags.

Quote from: kphoger on April 22, 2021, 02:22:29 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 22, 2021, 02:12:58 PM

Quote from: kphoger on April 22, 2021, 02:10:43 PM
The MSRP for a 1996 Toyota Camry LE ranged from $20k to $22k, depending on engine and trim level.

The MSRP for a 1996 Chevrolet Camaro ranged from $14k to $19k, depending on engine and trim level.

It is beside the point. The guy had a $35k car in 2021 dollars, he could afford the fine, and in any case it cost far more to fight it all the way to the supreme court than to just pay it. He did it to be a prick.

My point is that, if he had been driving a Camry, I'm sure you wouldn't have said that "the prick could have easily afforded [the fine], he was in a damn Camry" as if Camry drivers are filthy rich moneybags.

No, but there is a good reason for that. You buy a Camry because you need transportation, might have kids to haul, etc. You buy a Camero if you are the type that feels the need to show off. Its not a practical car, is a status symbol car.

...which has nothing to do with his ability or inability to afford the fine.

If he could afford to take it to the Supreme Court, he could afford the fine.  End of story.

Quote from: vdeane on April 22, 2021, 02:33:54 PM
If he could afford to take it to the Supreme Court, he could afford the fine.  End of story.

...which has nothing to do with him driving a Camaro.

Besides, are you guys suggesting that anyone who can afford to fight a ticket shouldn't fight a ticket, because they can obviously afford to just pay the fine instead?  That leaves the only people who should fight a ticket as the very ones who can't afford it.

Or is your position that only non-pricks should get to defend themselves?

My mind is blown by the fact that, in 1996, a Camry cost(ed?) that much more than a Camaro.

Given that fact, the current 2021 connotations of the two vehicles are pretty much irrelevant.

Quote from: webny99 on April 22, 2021, 03:06:30 PM
My mind is blown by the fact that, in 1996, a Camry cost(ed?) that much more than a Camaro.

Given that fact, the current 2021 connotations of the two vehicles are pretty much irrelevant.

Those connotations were no different in the 90's, one is a practical car you buy because you need transport, the other is something you buy to display wealth.

A Camaro is intended to display wealth?  Ha!  That's news to me...

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 22, 2021, 03:34:38 PM

Quote from: webny99 on April 22, 2021, 03:06:30 PM
My mind is blown by the fact that, in 1996, a Camry cost(ed?) that much more than a Camaro.

Given that fact, the current 2021 connotations of the two vehicles are pretty much irrelevant.

Those connotations were no different in the 90's, one is a practical car you buy because you need transport, the other is something you buy to display wealth.

And yet, the practical car is significantly more expensive? That makes no sense, and that's why I don't believe the current 2021 connotations were the same in the '90's.

Quote from: webny99 on April 22, 2021, 03:45:44 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 22, 2021, 03:34:38 PM

Quote from: webny99 on April 22, 2021, 03:06:30 PM
My mind is blown by the fact that, in 1996, a Camry cost(ed?) that much more than a Camaro.

Given that fact, the current 2021 connotations of the two vehicles are pretty much irrelevant.

Those connotations were no different in the 90's, one is a practical car you buy because you need transport, the other is something you buy to display wealth.

And yet, the practical car is significantly more expensive? That makes no sense, and that's why I don't believe the current 2021 connotations were the same in the '90's.

Sure, there is no reason that the practical car should be cheaper, the fact that it has more utility should actually make it more expensive than a cut rate sports car. The difference is the Camry is a car you buy because you have to and it is your only car, the Camero is a weekend toy you buy on top of the other vehicles you already own.

For that matter, I cannot understand why everyone is going to such lengths to defend a guy that was clearly out to cause trouble for Montana and what was a perfectly good speed limit. Its no different than the guys that got laser jamming gear banned in Texas by blowing right past the police at high speed with them on. Some people do bad things that ruin a good system for more reasonable people, and they are not worthy of a defense.

That's a stupid argument. There's no reason why anyone "should" have to pay an unjustified ticket just because he "can" pay the ticket. It somewhat reminds me of Judge Learned Hand's famous quotation about taxes:

QuoteAnyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.

Just because the court's opinions give the appearance that Stanko was probably a bit of a punk doesn't mean he should have to pay the ticket just to make some guy from Philadelphia happy.

There's more I want to say, but in deference to the forum's rules about political comments, I will refrain from doing so.

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 22, 2021, 03:53:18 PMand they are not worthy of a defense.

This would fundamentally ruin how court cases work.

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 22, 2021, 03:53:18 PM
and they are not worthy of a defense.

He was cited for breaking the law, but he wasn't.

So how is that not worthy for a defense?

Quote from: sprjus4 on April 22, 2021, 04:29:19 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 22, 2021, 03:53:18 PM
and they are not worthy of a defense.

He was cited for breaking the law, but he wasn't.

So how is that not worthy for a defense?

Or, more accurately, he had no way of knowing if he was breaking the law or not.

This argument is so bad that it makes me wonder if the Attorney General was trying to get the law tossed.

Quote from: Supreme Court of Montana:  STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Rudy STANKO, Defendant and Appellant (No. 97-486)
¶ 27 The difficulty that § 61-8-303(1), MCA, presents as a statute to regulate speed on Montana's highways, especially as it concerns those interests which the void-for-vagueness doctrine is intended to protect, was further evident from the following discussion with the Attorney General during the argument of this case:

Q. Well how many highway patrol men and women are there in the State of Montana?

A. There are 212 authorized members of the patrol.   Of that number, about 190 are officers and on the road.

Q. And I understand there are no specific guidelines provided to them to enable them to know at what point, exact point, a person's speed is a violation of the basic rule?

A. That's correct, Your Honor, because that's not what the statute requires.   We do not have a numerical limit.   We have a basic rule statute which requires the officer to take into account whether or not the driver is driving in a careful and prudent manner, using the speed.

Q. And it's up to each of their individual judgments to enforce the law?

A. It is, Your Honor, using their judgment applying the standard set forth in the statute․

Q. Well, if I'm driving down the interstate highway through Montana on a clear day on a dry road with little traffic in the area, at what speed can I assume that I'm complying with the law, or is that up to whichever one of those 190 officers are on duty at that location at that time?

A. It depends, Your Honor, because it will depend upon the application of the statutory factors.   Where are you on the interstate highway on a clear road?

Q. Let's say that I've got a vehicle that's new, there are no problems with the brakes, there are no problems with the steering, it's a clear day, the road is dry, the traffic is light, there are no other conditions which make it dangerous for me to travel at a high speed.   At what speed can I be assured that I'm not violating the law?

A. Your Honor, my response will be, it depends.   There is no numerical limit that I can cite you because it will depend where you are.   And it will depend on an officer's discretion ultimately.   And it will depend upon your own judgment in the operation of your vehicle․

Q. So I just don't know?

A. You don't know, but you have a lot of good guidance provided in the statute․ But to provide you with a number, the legislature hasn't given one, and if they do not give us one, we will continue to apply the statutory factors in every circumstance.

[Edited formatting for readability. –S.]

Houston and exurbs:
65 mph limit = 70-85 mph cruising speed
60 mph limit = 70-82 mph cruising speed

US 59, eastern Texas:
75 mph limit = 75-82 mph cruising speed

TX-130
85 mph limit = 86-90 mph cruising speed

Quote from: CoreySamson on April 22, 2021, 09:58:20 PM
Houston and exurbs:
65 mph limit = 70-85 mph cruising speed
60 mph limit = 70-82 mph cruising speed

US 59, eastern Texas:
75 mph limit = 75-82 mph cruising speed

TX-130
85 mph limit = 86-90 mph cruising speed

Do people not drive 90-100 on TX-130?

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 22, 2021, 10:07:01 PM
Do people not drive 90-100 on TX-130?

No.

The couple times I've been on it, I drove between 85 and 90 mph, got passed a couple times (probably 95 mph top speed), though passed a number of vehicles going between 65 (commercial vehicles) - 85 mph.

The road was lightly traveled.

Do people hit 100 mph? Sure. But it's not the norm for everyone. A reasonable speed limit = compliance.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 22, 2021, 10:07:01 PM
Do people not drive 90-100 on TX-130?

What sprjus4 said. I might add that TX-130 honestly had the best speed limit compliance I've ever seen on a freeway ever, at least when I drove it.

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 22, 2021, 03:53:18 PM

Quote from: webny99 on April 22, 2021, 03:45:44 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 22, 2021, 03:34:38 PM

Quote from: webny99 on April 22, 2021, 03:06:30 PM
My mind is blown by the fact that, in 1996, a Camry cost(ed?) that much more than a Camaro.

Given that fact, the current 2021 connotations of the two vehicles are pretty much irrelevant.

Those connotations were no different in the 90's, one is a practical car you buy because you need transport, the other is something you buy to display wealth.

And yet, the practical car is significantly more expensive? That makes no sense, and that's why I don't believe the current 2021 connotations were the same in the '90's.

Sure, there is no reason that the practical car should be cheaper, the fact that it has more utility should actually make it more expensive than a cut rate sports car. The difference is the Camry is a car you buy because you have to and it is your only car, the Camero is a weekend toy you buy on top of the other vehicles you already own.

For that matter, I cannot understand why everyone is going to such lengths to defend a guy that was clearly an ass out to cause trouble for Montana and what was a perfectly good speed limit. Its no different than the guys that got laser jamming gear banned in Texas by blowing right past the police at high speed with them on. Some people do bad things that ruin a good system for more reasonable people, and they are not worthy of a defense.

Frankly, I can't understand why someone would care about a state that, and maybe I'm wrong, they have never driven in.  If you want to go fast, there's several highways in the Philly area you can do so without much of an issue.  My best example was up north in the dual-dual zone of the NJ Turnpike.  I was in a line of vehicles in otherwise light traffic in the middle lane going about 90.  A State Trooper was coming up in the left lane, and passed us like it was completely normal for traffic to be going 25 over the limit. He was probably going about 100 - 105.  Trooper didn't even glance over at us.  This is probably so routine they don't give it a second thought sometime, unless they are on speed detail hiding off on one of the "Authorized use only" ramps.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 21, 2021, 01:27:58 AM

Quote from: SkyPesos on April 21, 2021, 12:00:13 AM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 20, 2021, 11:56:44 PM

Quote from: FrCorySticha on April 20, 2021, 11:21:30 PM
In Montana, people generally drive ~5 MPH above or below the speed limit, so speeds generally range from 75-85 in 80 MPH zones and 60-70 in 65 MPH zones within city limits. Of course, the mountainous stretches are different as the speed limits are set more by terrain, and speeds vary accordingly.

Wow, a state with reasonable speed limits!

I'm still waiting for Indiana to raise the speed limit on most of I-465. You're just asking to get crashed into driving at 55 mph, when almost all other vehicles are going at least 15-20 mph over. Pretty sure the cops don't even care at this point, though there are still occasional speed traps (one in the Carmel area and one somewhere in the south loop I think).

At least Indiana has 70.

Yea, but that's mostly exclusive to rural interstates. I-465 is still signed at 55 mph on its entire length just because of a couple of chokepoints, and considering that it has miles of fairly straight stretches up to 10-12 lanes wide at some areas, that's way too low, and no one follows it anyways. Should really be at least signed at 65 mph.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 22, 2021, 11:01:23 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 22, 2021, 03:53:18 PM

Quote from: webny99 on April 22, 2021, 03:45:44 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 22, 2021, 03:34:38 PM

Quote from: webny99 on April 22, 2021, 03:06:30 PM
My mind is blown by the fact that, in 1996, a Camry cost(ed?) that much more than a Camaro.

Given that fact, the current 2021 connotations of the two vehicles are pretty much irrelevant.

Those connotations were no different in the 90's, one is a practical car you buy because you need transport, the other is something you buy to display wealth.

And yet, the practical car is significantly more expensive? That makes no sense, and that's why I don't believe the current 2021 connotations were the same in the '90's.

Sure, there is no reason that the practical car should be cheaper, the fact that it has more utility should actually make it more expensive than a cut rate sports car. The difference is the Camry is a car you buy because you have to and it is your only car, the Camero is a weekend toy you buy on top of the other vehicles you already own.

For that matter, I cannot understand why everyone is going to such lengths to defend a guy that was clearly an ass out to cause trouble for Montana and what was a perfectly good speed limit. Its no different than the guys that got laser jamming gear banned in Texas by blowing right past the police at high speed with them on. Some people do bad things that ruin a good system for more reasonable people, and they are not worthy of a defense.

Frankly, I can't understand why someone would care about a state that, and maybe I'm wrong, they have never driven in.  If you want to go fast, there's several highways in the Philly area you can do so without much of an issue.  My best example was up north in the dual-dual zone of the NJ Turnpike.  I was in a line of vehicles in otherwise light traffic in the middle lane going about 90.  A State Trooper was coming up in the left lane, and passed us like it was completely normal for traffic to be going 25 over the limit. He was probably going about 100 - 105.  Trooper didn't even glance over at us.  This is probably so routine they don't give it a second thought sometime, unless they are on speed detail hiding off on one of the "Authorized use only" ramps.

Lived there for years, and spent plenty of time driving there and still do. Checkmate.  :spin:
Furthermore, it is not about some childish desire to "go fast" legal or not. I am more than familiar with the speeding etc. that goes on in the East, but that is A) illegal, and going to be a serious problem for you if you are the one guy they finally pull over doing 30+ over the speed limit. And B) not purposeful in my view since it is really driving too fast for conditions.
No, the point is that speed limits in ANY state (if we have them at all) should not limit motorists to a speed well below that which is safe. In a state like Montana this becomes particularly irritating because A) it is a large state with considerable distances to traverse and B) a much higher limit would be perfectly safe for many of the roadways. I don't have to go fast for the sake of going fast, which is why I am not making a point to find some place in NJ to blow by the cops and have them not care. Rather, if I have to transverse 400+ miles of basically nothing, I would prefer to be able to cruise at the highest safe speed for geometry and conditions.

Idaho:
65 MPH urban freeways (my main experience is I-84 but may apply to others): 70-75. Some people push 80 but in my experience cops will ticket for >75.
    60 MPH I-184: 70
80 MPH rural freeways: 80-85. Kinda interesting because drive into Utah, and the similar 80 MPH freeways, average more like 85-90.

Quote from: doorknob60 on April 23, 2021, 01:18:35 PM
80 MPH rural freeways: 80-85. Kinda interesting because drive into Utah, and the similar 80 MPH freeways, average more like 85-90.

See I would disagree with this. In Utah I'll usually set cruise for 82 or 83, and I usually find I pass a little bit more traffic than passes me.

Agreed on your assessment of Idaho though, and I think it's because police in Idaho are known to pull people over for lower speeds than they do in Utah (I don't know how true this is, but it is a sentiment I have heard expressed more than once).

At any rate, my assessment for Utah would be:

Urban 70mph freeways (most interstates): 70-80

Urban 65mph freeways (201 and some interstate segments): 65-75
- Exception: Legacy Parkway (65mph) speeds tend to be lower (65-70) probably thanks to the history of a semi-strictly enforced 55mph environmental limit. Although the law requiring this has expired and the limit raises to 65, it still moves a little slower than one might expect.

Urban 55 or 60mph freeways (parts of Bangerter, US 89 in Davis County): 55-70

US-131 yesterday going into Grand Rapids. I had my cruise set at 83 in the 75 mph zone and went back to 80 in the 70 mph zone. I kept getting passed and for awhile traffic was ahead of me with nothing else behind me so I bumped my cruise to 90 mph and couldn't even catch the traffic ahead of me.

Quote from: Flint1979 on April 24, 2021, 10:03:15 AM
US-131 yesterday going into Grand Rapids. I had my cruise set at 83 in the 75 mph zone and went back to 80 in the 70 mph zone. I kept getting passed and for awhile traffic was ahead of me with nothing else behind me so I bumped my cruise to 90 mph and couldn't even catch the traffic ahead of me.

US-131 north of Grand Rapids (especially north of Rockford) feels like the Autobahn. Traffic is routinely going 85+ through there.

Also on US-131, but south of Grand Rapids, there are times I can be going 80-82 and still get passed and others where I'm lucky to be going 65 (especially if there are trucks)

On many rural two-lane state highways, average cruising speed seems to be between 60 and 65. If the speed limit is 65 (some highways in the Superior and North MDOT regions, as well as two highways in the Grand region (M-37 in northern Lake County [which was formerly in the North region] and M-231)), cruising speed is around 70.

Quote from: ftballfan on April 24, 2021, 05:29:21 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on April 24, 2021, 10:03:15 AM
US-131 yesterday going into Grand Rapids. I had my cruise set at 83 in the 75 mph zone and went back to 80 in the 70 mph zone. I kept getting passed and for awhile traffic was ahead of me with nothing else behind me so I bumped my cruise to 90 mph and couldn't even catch the traffic ahead of me.

US-131 north of Grand Rapids (especially north of Rockford) feels like the Autobahn. Traffic is routinely going 85+ through there.

Also on US-131, but south of Grand Rapids, there are times I can be going 80-82 and still get passed and others where I'm lucky to be going 65 (especially if there are trucks)

On many rural two-lane state highways, average cruising speed seems to be between 60 and 65. If the speed limit is 65 (some highways in the Superior and North MDOT regions, as well as two highways in the Grand region (M-37 in northern Lake County [which was formerly in the North region] and M-231)), cruising speed is around 70.

I start out at the speed limit then figure out how fast everyone is moving. Half the time in a 70 zone in doing 80 and of course getting passed. If I set it at 85 I can keep up with the flow.

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 22, 2021, 01:45:39 PM
There never was "75 everywhere" in Montana I was referring to 75 everywhere on interstates, not everywhere on other roads. And yes, there was a period where all interstates were 75.

Yes, most of of the interstates in Montana were 75. Again, cities were specifically written into the law at 65, and mountains were and still are slower. So, no, there never was a period where all interstates were 75.

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 22, 2021, 01:45:39 PM
And no, 80 is not a reasonable speed limit for most of the interstate highways in the state. Given traffic counts and the geometry of the roads a speed of 110+ would not be an issue whatsoever. Its ridiculous to limit people to 80 when you could drive 20 or 30 MPH faster than that without issue. Having MT posted 80 is like having every highway in NJ posted at 40, it makes no sense.

Perhaps it would be best to let someone who actually lives here tell you whether or not a particular speed is reasonable instead of assuming you know better. 110 would absolutely be an issue. Traffic counts and road geometry do not tell the story of drivers' particular aptitude behind the wheel, the condition of their car, weather and more. Wildlife accidents alone are bad enough at 80, much less 100 MPH or better.

I have no problem with your area being posted at 40 on interstates. After all, you all have a lot of people there, and traffic, and bad roads, and it's a lot safer for you to drive 40 than 55 or 60. I mean, it's easy for me to judge what speed you should be driving when I'm not the one out there doing it.

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 23, 2021, 11:00:25 AM
Lived there for 20 years, and spent plenty of time driving there and still do. Checkmate.  :spin:

I've lived and driven here for 30 years, minus a few years for USAF service and school.

Then you should know that 80 is fine, and anything over about 90 is stupid. What you propose is not a safe speed on Montana's interstates, period.

Quote from: FrCorySticha on April 24, 2021, 11:11:51 PM
it's easy for me to judge what speed you should be driving when I'm not the one out there doing it.

Clearly it's not.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 24, 2021, 11:43:55 PM

Quote from: FrCorySticha on April 24, 2021, 11:11:51 PM
it's easy for me to judge what speed you should be driving when I'm not the one out there doing it.

Clearly it's not.

Sorry it didn't come across. It was sarcastic. I no more believe that NJ should have only 40 MPH speed limits than I do MT allowing 100+.

My point is that although I've driven on roads in the Eastern US, and agree that some may be posted with speed limits not fitting for road conditions, I'm not the one to determine whether or not they truly are. It's for those who live there and drive on them on a day-to-day basis. The same goes for someone who currently lives in the Eastern US, or at least puts his location as a major city in that region, who may have lived here at one time. I'm the one who is driving on the roads in Montana on a day-to-day basis and have been for quite a few years, so I'm probably a better judge of what is safe and reasonable for road conditions here than someone who no longer lives here.

Quote from: CoreySamson on April 22, 2021, 09:58:20 PM
Houston and exurbs:
65 mph limit = 70-85 mph cruising speed
60 mph limit = 70-82 mph cruising speed

US 59, eastern Texas:
75 mph limit = 75-82 mph cruising speed

TX-130
85 mph limit = 86-90 mph cruising speed

Yep I mostly agree with these with a few exceptions/additions:
IH 45 north at night: often 80-85
Between Houston and Dallas 80-90

IH 10 between Houston and San Antonio 75-80
Between Houston and Louisiana: 75-80

When US 59 is fully converted to IH 69 the speed limit between Houston and Corpus Christi needs to be like 80 because there are some long empty stretches out there. There are long empty stretches on pretty much every interstate with the only the exception probably of IH 35

Quote from: US 89 on April 24, 2021, 09:42:30 AM

Quote from: doorknob60 on April 23, 2021, 01:18:35 PM
80 MPH rural freeways: 80-85. Kinda interesting because drive into Utah, and the similar 80 MPH freeways, average more like 85-90.

See I would disagree with this. In Utah I’ll usually set cruise for 82 or 83, and I usually find I pass a little bit more traffic than passes me.

Yeah 85-90 might be overselling it a little, but I can say with certainty that at least on my trip taking the whole of I-15, speeds definitely average slightly higher than Idaho, especially south of Payson or so. Just not quite sure how to quantify that in numbers. It was enough difference in the flow of traffic that I found myself averaging around 85 rather than the 80-82 I usually do in Idaho. That said, in trips on I-84 between Idaho and Ogden, there's not as much of a difference.

Quote from: doorknob60 on April 23, 2021, 01:18:35 PM
Idaho:
65 MPH urban freeways (my main experience is I-84 but may apply to others): 70-75. Some people push 80 but in my experience cops will ticket for >75.
    60 MPH I-184: 70
80 MPH rural freeways: 80-85. Kinda interesting because drive into Utah, and the similar 80 MPH freeways, average more like 85-90.

Damn, 70 on I-184? I clinched that multiple times a week for years until a month ago and felt like one of the fastest cars on the road at 65. I feel like in Idaho five over generally puts you at about 85th percentile except where it's 80 and then it might be a couple mph less.

Quote from: corco on April 26, 2021, 02:57:38 PM

Quote from: doorknob60 on April 23, 2021, 01:18:35 PM
Idaho:
65 MPH urban freeways (my main experience is I-84 but may apply to others): 70-75. Some people push 80 but in my experience cops will ticket for >75.
    60 MPH I-184: 70
80 MPH rural freeways: 80-85. Kinda interesting because drive into Utah, and the similar 80 MPH freeways, average more like 85-90.

Damn, 70 on I-184? I clinched that multiple times a week for years until a month ago and felt like one of the fastest cars on the road at 65.

When I commuted on the road (stopped in 2018), if it wasn't too crowded for traffic issues, yeah pretty much. 65-70 is probably more accurate. I almost always park it at 70 on when I happen to drive it (not super common anymore, usually off peak now), usually feels about right. Maybe it's different at different times of the day, or maybe my memory is a little off.

Arizona mostly seems to be 75-80 mph in 65 mph zones and 80-85 mph in 75 mph zones (Arizona has no 70 mph zones).  There will be the occasional above 85 mph super speeder in both 65 and 70 mph zones, although that is considered a criminal offense in Arizona.

I was speaking to a highway patrolman last year while our sons were both playing on the same basketball team.  He said that the average speed on the freeways in my part of the Bay Area was about 74 MPH.  The regular limit on nearly all of these roads is 65 MPH.  His advice was basic common sense:  "Don't stand out from the crowd"

120 km/h here in Ontario, although sometimes 130 km/h. (75 and 80 MPH)

Quote from: doorknob60 on April 26, 2021, 02:29:52 PM

Quote from: US 89 on April 24, 2021, 09:42:30 AM

Quote from: doorknob60 on April 23, 2021, 01:18:35 PM
80 MPH rural freeways: 80-85. Kinda interesting because drive into Utah, and the similar 80 MPH freeways, average more like 85-90.

See I would disagree with this. In Utah I'll usually set cruise for 82 or 83, and I usually find I pass a little bit more traffic than passes me.

Yeah 85-90 might be overselling it a little, but I can say with certainty that at least on my trip taking the whole of I-15, speeds definitely average slightly higher than Idaho, especially south of Payson or so. Just not quite sure how to quantify that in numbers. It was enough difference in the flow of traffic that I found myself averaging around 85 rather than the 80-82 I usually do in Idaho. That said, in trips on I-84 between Idaho and Ogden, there's not as much of a difference.

You know, I have noticed the same thing and I'm pretty sure it's because on I-15 south of the Wasatch Front you're getting a lot more of the California/Vegas tourist traffic, which in my experience is usually in much more of a hurry (isn't I-15 between Barstow and Vegas known for very high freeway speeds?). Whereas I-15 or 84 north of the Wasatch Front is more laid-back, general inland west driving for the most part.

Quote from: andrepoiy on April 28, 2021, 12:37:18 PM
120 km/h here in Ontario, although sometimes 130 km/h. (75 and 80 MPH)

Is the speed limit still 100 or did they raise it to 110?

80+ on most highways outside the Charleston metro area.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 28, 2021, 01:51:30 PM

Quote from: andrepoiy on April 28, 2021, 12:37:18 PM
120 km/h here in Ontario, although sometimes 130 km/h. (75 and 80 MPH)

Is the speed limit still 100 or did they raise it to 110?

100 in most places, but there's a pilot project of 110 on like a few sections of freeway. In my experience driving in one of the 110 sections, people still go either 120 or 130 depending on which pack of cars I'm following.

Quote from: andrepoiy on April 28, 2021, 08:27:50 PM

Code Select Expand

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 28, 2021, 01:51:30 PM

Quote from: andrepoiy on April 28, 2021, 12:37:18 PM
120 km/h here in Ontario, although sometimes 130 km/h. (75 and 80 MPH)

Is the speed limit still 100 or did they raise it to 110?

100 in most places, but there's a pilot project of 110 on like a few sections of freeway. In my experience driving in one of the 110 sections, people still go either 120 or 130 depending on which pack of cars I'm following.

So they raised the speed limit and the speed of traffic didn't change lol.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 28, 2021, 10:13:53 PM

Quote from: andrepoiy on April 28, 2021, 08:27:50 PM

Code Select Expand

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 28, 2021, 01:51:30 PM

Quote from: andrepoiy on April 28, 2021, 12:37:18 PM
120 km/h here in Ontario, although sometimes 130 km/h. (75 and 80 MPH)

Is the speed limit still 100 or did they raise it to 110?

100 in most places, but there's a pilot project of 110 on like a few sections of freeway. In my experience driving in one of the 110 sections, people still go either 120 or 130 depending on which pack of cars I'm following.

So they raised the speed limit and the speed of traffic didn't change lol.

Pretty much what happens when you have an artificial 60 mph speed limit on a rural freeway.

I don't know why they're so against raising the 401, it's not like people don't already do 70-75+ mph.

Quote from: sprjus4 on April 28, 2021, 10:52:32 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 28, 2021, 10:13:53 PM

Quote from: andrepoiy on April 28, 2021, 08:27:50 PM

Code Select Expand

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 28, 2021, 01:51:30 PM

Quote from: andrepoiy on April 28, 2021, 12:37:18 PM
120 km/h here in Ontario, although sometimes 130 km/h. (75 and 80 MPH)

Is the speed limit still 100 or did they raise it to 110?

100 in most places, but there's a pilot project of 110 on like a few sections of freeway. In my experience driving in one of the 110 sections, people still go either 120 or 130 depending on which pack of cars I'm following.

So they raised the speed limit and the speed of traffic didn't change lol.

Pretty much what happens when you have an artificial 60 mph speed limit on a rural freeway.

I don't know why they're so against raising the 401, it's not like people don't already do 70-75+ mph.

Cops want to be able to randomly pull over people.

I-95 in Maryland from the Wilson Bridge to MD 24 in Harford County - 77 miles - is at least eight lanes. The speed between the beltways and north of Baltimore is posted at 65. Without major traffic, you can easily hit 70 or more on much of this stretch of it, although in Baltimore, where the posted speed is generally 55, it tends to be lower since there are several key exits in the city, not to mention you have to pay a toll at Fort McHenry. From MD 24 northward, which is six lanes, you can get up to around 80. I've reached 70 on parts of I-695, which ranges from four to eight lanes, during off-peak hours.

I-70 from Ellicott City westward is 70 except within Frederick and Hagerstown. This is four lanes between US 29 and the US 40 merge/split, six lanes from there to US 15/340, and four again into Pennsylvania excepting truck lanes ascending and descending two mountains. Traffic is rarely an issue on this corridor and you can hit 80 between I-695 and the approach to Frederick, where it drops to 60. West of Frederick, extra caution is recommended due to the hillier terrain and additional curves. This is the same for I-68, which is 70 the entire way except in Cumberland, where it drops all the way down to 40 due to several sharp curves and tight ramps.

I-83, 60 MPH north of I-695 to Shawan Road (six lanes) and 65 into Pennsylvania (four lanes), can be tackled up to about 75. There are some wide curves around exits 27 and 31. On I-97 which is 65 MPH, six lanes north of MD 3/32 and four lanes south of it, you can really only go above 65 on the latter stretch, regardless of traffic. I-81 is an easy 70-plus in 11 miles. I-270 from about Germantown southward has a lot of lanes and you would be lucky to hit 65 even in good conditions. You used to be able to fly down I-895 west of the B Spur (the connector to I-97 and MD 2) when there was barely any traffic at any time of the day.

On US 29, MD 32 and MD 100 around Columbia you're lucky to hit 60 at any time.

Quote from: epzik8 on April 28, 2021, 11:36:40 PM
I-70 from Ellicott City westward is 70 except within Frederick and Hagerstown. This is four lanes between US 29 and the US 40 merge/split, six lanes from there to US 15/340, and four again into Pennsylvania excepting truck lanes ascending and descending two mountains. Traffic is rarely an issue on this corridor and you can hit 80 between I-695 and the approach to Frederick, where it drops to 60.

Isn't I-70 through Frederick posted at 65 mph?

I recall it used to be 65 mph on either side of the city, then 55 mph through, though about 7 years ago they bumped it to 70 mph on either side and 65 mph through.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 28, 2021, 10:57:20 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on April 28, 2021, 10:52:32 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 28, 2021, 10:13:53 PM

Quote from: andrepoiy on April 28, 2021, 08:27:50 PM

Code Select Expand

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 28, 2021, 01:51:30 PM

Quote from: andrepoiy on April 28, 2021, 12:37:18 PM
120 km/h here in Ontario, although sometimes 130 km/h. (75 and 80 MPH)

Is the speed limit still 100 or did they raise it to 110?

100 in most places, but there's a pilot project of 110 on like a few sections of freeway. In my experience driving in one of the 110 sections, people still go either 120 or 130 depending on which pack of cars I'm following.

So they raised the speed limit and the speed of traffic didn't change lol.

Pretty much what happens when you have an artificial 60 mph speed limit on a rural freeway.

I don't know why they're so against raising the 401, it's not like people don't already do 70-75+ mph.

Cops want to be able to randomly pull over people.

Actually not really the case in Ontario. On the freeways you don't usually get pulled over for less than 50 km/h over the limit because then they have the trump card of being able to suspend your license on the spot. 130 km/h translates to 80 mph, I'd be pretty surprised if anyone ever got pulled over for 130 on the QEW considering how much of the traffic usually moves along at that speed or faster.

I believe the reason they haven't raised the limit on the 401 has more to do with exit spacing and highway standards than it does with speed enforcement. They'll probably raise it once the "trial period" for QEW/402/417 is over, whenever that is.

Quote from: sprjus4 on April 29, 2021, 01:00:33 AM

Quote from: epzik8 on April 28, 2021, 11:36:40 PM
I-70 from Ellicott City westward is 70 except within Frederick and Hagerstown. This is four lanes between US 29 and the US 40 merge/split, six lanes from there to US 15/340, and four again into Pennsylvania excepting truck lanes ascending and descending two mountains. Traffic is rarely an issue on this corridor and you can hit 80 between I-695 and the approach to Frederick, where it drops to 60.

Isn't I-70 through Frederick posted at 65 mph?

I recall it used to be 65 mph on either side of the city, then 55 mph through, though about 7 years ago they bumped it to 70 mph on either side and 65 mph through.

Yes on both counts - the speed limit was raised to 65 thru Frederick once the 6-lane widening project between exits 54 & 56 was completed in late 2013 or early 2014, then for a couple years I-70 had a uniform speed limit of 65 throughout the state prior to the portions outside Frederick and west of exit 87 getting the bump to 70.

Quote from: webny99 on April 29, 2021, 07:55:48 AM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 28, 2021, 10:57:20 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on April 28, 2021, 10:52:32 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 28, 2021, 10:13:53 PM

Quote from: andrepoiy on April 28, 2021, 08:27:50 PM

Code Select Expand

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 28, 2021, 01:51:30 PM

Quote from: andrepoiy on April 28, 2021, 12:37:18 PM
120 km/h here in Ontario, although sometimes 130 km/h. (75 and 80 MPH)

Is the speed limit still 100 or did they raise it to 110?

100 in most places, but there's a pilot project of 110 on like a few sections of freeway. In my experience driving in one of the 110 sections, people still go either 120 or 130 depending on which pack of cars I'm following.

So they raised the speed limit and the speed of traffic didn't change lol.

Pretty much what happens when you have an artificial 60 mph speed limit on a rural freeway.

I don't know why they're so against raising the 401, it's not like people don't already do 70-75+ mph.

Cops want to be able to randomly pull over people.

Actually not really the case in Ontario. On the freeways you don't usually get pulled over for less than 50 km/h over the limit because then they have the trump card of being able to suspend your license on the spot. 130 km/h translates to 80 mph, I'd be pretty surprised if anyone ever got pulled over for 130 on the QEW considering how much of the traffic usually moves along at that speed or faster.

I believe the reason they haven't raised the limit on the 401 has more to do with exit spacing and highway standards than it does with speed enforcement. They'll probably raise it once the "trial period" for QEW/402/417 is over, whenever that is.

Yeah, the OPP probably would like it if the speed at which someone is 50 kph over and causes that law to be invoked would stay exactly where it was - hence why Ontario was stuck at 100 for so long.

Quote from: sprjus4 on April 29, 2021, 01:00:33 AM

Quote from: epzik8 on April 28, 2021, 11:36:40 PM
I-70 from Ellicott City westward is 70 except within Frederick and Hagerstown. This is four lanes between US 29 and the US 40 merge/split, six lanes from there to US 15/340, and four again into Pennsylvania excepting truck lanes ascending and descending two mountains. Traffic is rarely an issue on this corridor and you can hit 80 between I-695 and the approach to Frederick, where it drops to 60.

Isn't I-70 through Frederick posted at 65 mph?

I recall it used to be 65 mph on either side of the city, then 55 mph through, though about 7 years ago they bumped it to 70 mph on either side and 65 mph through.

Quote from: epzik8 on April 28, 2021, 11:36:40 PM
I-70 from Ellicott City westward is 70 except within Frederick

In Tampa, where the freeway speed limit is mostly 55, I'd say traffic usually drives between 65 and 75 mph. On the Pinellas side, 275 is 65 mph, so probably between 70 and 80. On the Howard Frankland Bridge, with 65 mph limit, people regularly go 75 to 85 mph. Lots of speeding on the Gandy Bridge too, which has 55 limit but drivers will regularly drive 75 or 80.

Quote from: epzik8 on April 29, 2021, 07:50:29 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on April 29, 2021, 01:00:33 AM

Quote from: epzik8 on April 28, 2021, 11:36:40 PM
I-70 from Ellicott City westward is 70 except within Frederick and Hagerstown. This is four lanes between US 29 and the US 40 merge/split, six lanes from there to US 15/340, and four again into Pennsylvania excepting truck lanes ascending and descending two mountains. Traffic is rarely an issue on this corridor and you can hit 80 between I-695 and the approach to Frederick, where it drops to 60.

Isn't I-70 through Frederick posted at 65 mph?

I recall it used to be 65 mph on either side of the city, then 55 mph through, though about 7 years ago they bumped it to 70 mph on either side and 65 mph through.

Quote from: epzik8 on April 28, 2021, 11:36:40 PM
I-70 from Ellicott City westward is 70 except within Frederick

I was questioning where you said I-70 is posted at 60 mph through Frederick... it's 65 mph.

Also, Hagerstown never drops on I-70, it holds 70 mph through.

I was talking to a Michigan State Trooper several years ago and we came to the agreement that the average speed on an Interstate highway is 77 mph.

Quote from: Flint1979 on April 30, 2021, 07:51:54 AM
I was talking to a Michigan State Trooper several years ago and we came to the agreement that the average speed on an Interstate highway is 77 mph.

In speed limit 70 or 75 zones?

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 30, 2021, 08:12:19 AM

Quote from: Flint1979 on April 30, 2021, 07:51:54 AM
I was talking to a Michigan State Trooper several years ago and we came to the agreement that the average speed on an Interstate highway is 77 mph.

In speed limit 70 or 75 zones?

Probably in 70 zones (especially depending on how many "several years ago" the comment was made).  But when you go from a 70 to a 75 zone, the speed often doesn't increase by that much.  I typically set my speed control at 78 in a 75 mph zone, which already decreased the gas mileage quite a bit.  Many other drivers are not comfortable driving over 80 mph, the 95-100 minority notwithstanding.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 30, 2021, 08:12:19 AM

Quote from: Flint1979 on April 30, 2021, 07:51:54 AM
I was talking to a Michigan State Trooper several years ago and we came to the agreement that the average speed on an Interstate highway is 77 mph.

In speed limit 70 or 75 zones?

This was well before Michigan had 75 mph speed limits.

Quote from: GaryV on April 30, 2021, 09:10:14 AM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 30, 2021, 08:12:19 AM

Quote from: Flint1979 on April 30, 2021, 07:51:54 AM
I was talking to a Michigan State Trooper several years ago and we came to the agreement that the average speed on an Interstate highway is 77 mph.

In speed limit 70 or 75 zones?

Probably in 70 zones (especially depending on how many "several years ago" the comment was made).  But when you go from a 70 to a 75 zone, the speed often doesn't increase by that much.  I typically set my speed control at 78 in a 75 mph zone, which already decreased the gas mileage quite a bit.  Many other drivers are not comfortable driving over 80 mph, the 95-100 minority notwithstanding.

It was probably around 2008 or 2009.

I've been cruising at the speed limit lately, most I've done is 5 over and to be honest it doesn't get you that far to go that much faster. I was coming over the Holland Street Bridge in Saginaw earlier at 30 mph which is the speed limit and a guy blows past me at about 50 or so and the light at Michigan was green so I knew it was going to change soon so I slowed down and this car raced up to the light and it changed before he got there so I just rolled up to the red light thinking that got you far plus you used up more gas to get here.

Quote from: Flint1979 on May 03, 2021, 08:57:26 PM
I've been cruising at the speed limit lately, most I've done is 5 over and to be honest it doesn't get you that far to go that much faster. I was coming over the Holland Street Bridge in Saginaw earlier at 30 mph which is the speed limit and a guy blows past me at about 50 or so and the light at Michigan was green so I knew it was going to change soon so I slowed down and this car raced up to the light and it changed before he got there so I just rolled up to the red light thinking that got you far plus you used up more gas to get here.

Depends. On a surface arterial, maybe. On a long distance interstate trip? Driving 80 or 85 mph vs. 70 mph for hundreds of miles can easily cut an hour or more off.

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 03, 2021, 09:04:32 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on May 03, 2021, 08:57:26 PM
I've been cruising at the speed limit lately, most I've done is 5 over and to be honest it doesn't get you that far to go that much faster. I was coming over the Holland Street Bridge in Saginaw earlier at 30 mph which is the speed limit and a guy blows past me at about 50 or so and the light at Michigan was green so I knew it was going to change soon so I slowed down and this car raced up to the light and it changed before he got there so I just rolled up to the red light thinking that got you far plus you used up more gas to get here.

Depends. On a surface arterial, maybe. On a long distance interstate trip? Driving 80 or 85 mph vs. 70 mph for hundreds of miles can easily cut an hour or more off.

Driving the 115 miles to/from Indy comparing me vs my brother is its own story. I usually drive 15-20 minutes quicker than my brother who drives at the limit, me about 77-80 regardless of whether I'm in a 65 or a 70 on that stretch. He's yet to drive I-65 south of Indy but I made it from 265 to 465 in about an hour 25 (~80 mph average). Driving at the limit on that stretch is hardly possible, you're either 10 below or 10 above, so it'll be interesting to see how long it takes him.

Point 1: the extra 5-10 definitely makes a difference in travel time on longer trips
Point 2: the extra 5-10 definitely makes a difference on how you interact with traffic around you. Because that 5-10 mph difference can quickly turn into 15-20, especially in states like Indiana that have truck limits.

Well I cheat I have adaptive cruise control and it works well I seriously like the stress it takes off and I can keep my eyes on the road and don't have to keep looking at my speed. If I set it and come up to stopped traffic or slower traffic it adapts to the speed the car in front of me is doing and comes to a stop. I love it.

There are times where I bump it up and do 75 or 80. I don't like doing 80 for a long time so I usually do 70 or 75 or sometimes just 77. I usually go past state cops who don't even bother me because they are looking for people doing 85-90 and above. Usually about 6 or 7 over is when you trigger them but they let you do 80 on the freeways. My theory is as long as you don't stand out you'll be fine.

Quote from: Flint1979 on May 03, 2021, 10:54:38 PM
My experience is as long as you don't stand out you'll be fine.

I drove I-96 from metro Detroit to Grand Rapids and back on Saturday.  I had my cruise set at 75, and got passed more times than I passed others - roughly 2:1.  But those that were passing me were typically within 5 mph of my speed.  So with those that were slower than me and those that were faster, I'd estimate the median speed to be somewhere between 75 and 80, probably closer to 75.

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 03, 2021, 09:04:32 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on May 03, 2021, 08:57:26 PM
I've been cruising at the speed limit lately, most I've done is 5 over and to be honest it doesn't get you that far to go that much faster. I was coming over the Holland Street Bridge in Saginaw earlier at 30 mph which is the speed limit and a guy blows past me at about 50 or so and the light at Michigan was green so I knew it was going to change soon so I slowed down and this car raced up to the light and it changed before he got there so I just rolled up to the red light thinking that got you far plus you used up more gas to get here.

Depends. On a surface arterial, maybe. On a long distance interstate trip? Driving 80 or 85 mph vs. 70 mph for hundreds of miles can easily cut an hour or more off.

Heck, yeah.

On a 700-mile trip on 70-mph highways, just going 8 over the speed limit saves a whole hour.