Average cruising speeds on freeways in your area/state

[webny99]

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.

[JayhawkCO]

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

[kphoger]

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

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

[HighwayStar]

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.

[sprjus4]

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.

[Roadgeekteen]

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.

[HighwayStar]

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.

[Roadgeekteen]

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.

[HighwayStar]

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.

[Roadgeekteen]

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.

[HighwayStar]

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.

[Flint1979]

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.

[Flint1979]

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.

[kphoger]

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 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".

¶ 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.

[HighwayStar]

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 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".

¶ 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.

[kphoger]

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.

[jeffandnicole]

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 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".

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.

[1995hoo]

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, 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.

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.

[US 89]

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.

[kphoger]

If you read the court's other opinion involving Mr. Stanko, 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.

[jeffandnicole]

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)

[Bruce]

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.

[FrCorySticha]

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.

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.

[FrCorySticha]

Rudy Stanko was his name, and he was driving a steady 85 mph on MT-200 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.

[1995hoo]

If you read the court's other opinion involving Mr. Stanko, 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.