Speed Limits that are too high

[jakeroot]

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

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

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



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

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

To a point. There isn't evidence that supports increased vehicle speeds following speed limit increases. The point of a limit increase, generally, is to get more cars going the same speed. Those who don't care what the limit is, will keep doing what they were doing before, since they're apparently happy with that speed. Those that are sticklers will hopefully speed up. Less variation...less crashes.

Example: yours truly typically goes 70 to 80 on urban Seattle freeways. That's 10 to 20 over. Potentially a big ticket, but I'm not alone going that speed, so I'm not worried. But, when I'm out of the city, and the limit goes up to 70, I don't usually change my speed (the road, geometrically, is nearly identical). I'm less nervous about my speed, but that's the only difference. Out of the city, many more people are going between 70 and 80, versus in the city, where there's a giant variation in speed from the left to right lanes.

[jeffandnicole]

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

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

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



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

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

To a point. There isn't evidence that supports increased vehicle speeds following speed limit increases. The point of a limit increase, generally, is to get more cars going the same speed. Those who don't care what the limit is, will keep doing what they were doing before, since they're apparently happy with that speed. Those that are sticklers will hopefully speed up. Less variation...less crashes.

Example: yours truly typically goes 70 to 80 on urban Seattle freeways. That's 10 to 20 over. Potentially a big ticket, but I'm not alone going that speed, so I'm not worried. But, when I'm out of the city, and the limit goes up to 70, I don't usually change my speed (the road, geometrically, is nearly identical). I'm less nervous about my speed, but that's the only difference. Out of the city, many more people are going between 70 and 80, versus in the city, where there's a giant variation in speed from the left to right lanes.

I think evidence shows that there is increased vehicle speeds for some increases, but never the same difference as the increase.  For example, if the limit increased from 70 to 75 mph (5 mph), actual speeds may increase from 76 to 78 mph (2 mph).  Overall, the average driver is still going over the limit, but not as great as before.

[doorknob60]

US 20/26 in downtown Boise: currently 35, should be 25.

I disagree. Current traffic (when it's not overly backed up) moves right about 35 MPH, so it seems to be set about right. Though, I've thought about this before and between 13th St and Capitol Blvd 30 MPH would be reasonable (the lights kind of make you go that speed sometimes anyways). But east of Capitol should stay 35. 25 on any of it would be a crawl and constantly ignored, especially eastbound coming directly off the freeway.

Though, I was mildly annoyed when they lowered Idaho and Main St from 30 MPH to 25 a year or so back, but now any faster than 25 feels too fast to me, so who knows. But there's on street parking and narrow lanes here, Front and Myrtle are much more suited to higher speeds.

After seeing that, I would also be okay with lowering some other roads near the downtown core from 30 to 25, such as 15th and 16th St (from Grove to Hays, possibly also up 15th to Hill Rd), State St east of 16th St, Grove St, maybe part/all of 5th/6th St, maybe Harrison Blvd, and maybe Fort and Hays St.

As for other roads in the area, I could see the argument for lowering Eagle Rd from Fairview to Chinden (currently 55) to 50. Or even all of Eagle from Overland to Chinden (currently 50 Overland to Fairview) to 45. But honestly, when you drive off peak with minimal traffic, driving the speed limit at the current 50/55 feels just fine. It's just not very common you can make it up to that. Yeah there's quite a few driveways and stuff so I could understand lowering it some, but I think the traffic does a good job of regulating its speed regardless of signs (during much of the day you won't break 35-40 MPH).

[Hurricane Rex]

US 20/26 in downtown Boise: currently 35, should be 25.

I disagree. Current traffic (when it's not overly backed up) moves right about 35 MPH, so it seems to be set about right. Though, I've thought about this before and between 13th St and Capitol Blvd 30 MPH would be reasonable (the lights kind of make you go that speed sometimes anyways). But east of Capitol should stay 35. 25 on any of it would be a crawl and constantly ignored, especially eastbound coming directly off the freeway.

Though, I was mildly annoyed when they lowered Idaho and Main St from 30 MPH to 25 a year or so back, but now any faster than 25 feels too fast to me, so who knows. But there's on street parking and narrow lanes here, Front and Myrtle are much more suited to higher speeds.

After seeing that, I would also be okay with lowering some other roads near the downtown core from 30 to 25, such as 15th and 16th St (from Grove to Hays, possibly also up 15th to Hill Rd), State St east of 16th St, Grove St, maybe part/all of 5th/6th St, maybe Harrison Blvd, and maybe Fort and Hays St.

As for other roads in the area, I could see the argument for lowering Eagle Rd from Fairview to Chinden (currently 55) to 50. Or even all of Eagle from Overland to Chinden (currently 50 Overland to Fairview) to 45. But honestly, when you drive off peak with minimal traffic, driving the speed limit at the current 50/55 feels just fine. It's just not very common you can make it up to that. Yeah there's quite a few driveways and stuff so I could understand lowering it some, but I think the traffic does a good job of regulating its speed regardless of signs (during much of the day you won't break 35-40 MPH).

Coming from someone who has more experience with that than me, thank you for pointing that out. I have only been on it once so I always thought 35 was too fast in downtown areas but clearly traffic moves differently. That will be removed from the post.

[jakeroot]

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

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

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



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

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

To a point. There isn't evidence that supports increased vehicle speeds following speed limit increases. The point of a limit increase, generally, is to get more cars going the same speed. Those who don't care what the limit is, will keep doing what they were doing before, since they're apparently happy with that speed. Those that are sticklers will hopefully speed up. Less variation...less crashes.

Example: yours truly typically goes 70 to 80 on urban Seattle freeways. That's 10 to 20 over. Potentially a big ticket, but I'm not alone going that speed, so I'm not worried. But, when I'm out of the city, and the limit goes up to 70, I don't usually change my speed (the road, geometrically, is nearly identical). I'm less nervous about my speed, but that's the only difference. Out of the city, many more people are going between 70 and 80, versus in the city, where there's a giant variation in speed from the left to right lanes.

I think evidence shows that there is increased vehicle speeds for some increases, but never the same difference as the increase.  For example, if the limit increased from 70 to 75 mph (5 mph), actual speeds may increase from 76 to 78 mph (2 mph).  Overall, the average driver is still going over the limit, but not as great as before.

True. And that roughly aligns with what WSDOT estimated would occur if the limit on I-90 in Eastern WA were raised from 70 to 75; vehicle speeds would go from around 73 to around 75 to 77. Either way, the ceiling was still below 78 (or original speeds plus the increased limit). They didn't end up increasing the limit, though, due to an expectation that there would be 0.62 to 1.27 more traffic fatalities (societal cost of $4-8mil); neither were compatible with the DOT's Vision Zero campaign.

[ftballfan]

For the first part of the OP's question, I-196 through Grand Rapids (especially from about M-45 to US-131) is a little high at 65 considering the super tight curve and the left entrance at M-45 in both directions. East of 131, 65 fits.

For the second part of the OP's question, most urban freeways in Michigan (many of which are 70; the only 55's are in Detroit) would be 55 in Indiana. Conversely, many roads that are 55 in Indiana would be 70 in Michigan. Also, MI has some two-lane roads that are 65 (almost all in the Superior and North regions, with two in the Grand Region [one of which is Super-2 and the other is in a county which recently moved from the North region to the Grand region]), most of which would be 55 or lower in most other states east of the Mississippi.

[tribar]

For the first part of the OP's question, I-196 through Grand Rapids (especially from about M-45 to US-131) is a little high at 65 considering the super tight curve and the left entrance at M-45 in both directions. East of 131, 65 fits.

For the second part of the OP's question, most urban freeways in Michigan (many of which are 70; the only 55's are in Detroit) would be 55 in Indiana. Conversely, many roads that are 55 in Indiana would be 70 in Michigan. Also, MI has some two-lane roads that are 65 (almost all in the Superior and North regions, with two in the Grand Region [one of which is Super-2 and the other is in a county which recently moved from the North region to the Grand region]), most of which would be 55 or lower in most other states east of the Mississippi.

"Higher than they would be in nearby states" doesn't mean a speed limit is too fast. Don't blame Michigan for setting more reasonable limits, blame the surrounding states.

[webny99]

"Higher than they would be in nearby states" doesn't mean a speed limit is too fast. Don't blame Michigan for setting more reasonable limits, blame the surrounding states.

Agreed. When asking the question, I didn't mean that one state or the other should be "blamed" for setting a higher or lower limit. It's just interesting to theorize as to what another state might do differently on a particular roadway.

[CNGL-Leudimin]

The German Autobahnen. With so many construction zones littering the entire system, no speed limit is a bit too high IMO.

In Spain, on regular roads if there is no speed limit specified then it's 90 km/h (56 mph) by default. Which is definitely too high for goat paths like this one.

[roadman65]

US 60 in WV has parts in the mountains that are (or were) signed as 55 considering the curves are too plenty for one to even accelerate to that limit.  Right around Gauley's Bridge, the road is so winding, you have to constantly brake to make the curves, so 35 should be the max.

[jakeroot]

In Spain, on regular roads if there is no speed limit specified then it's 90 km/h (56 mph) by default. Which is definitely too high for goat paths like this one.

Maybe. In the UK, where the national speed limit (60 or 70) applies to all road types outside of a city, there are many roads without any speed limit signs (AKA National speed limit applies), even those which are only one lane wide (single-track roads, which are very common in Scotland in my experience). In general, people don't go 60 unless visibility permits it. Because, at any point, a driver could come towards you at speed, you have to be on your toes all the time. It would seem that these roads are actually quite safe, due to hair-raising design.

[adwerkema]

For the first part of the OP's question, I-196 through Grand Rapids (especially from about M-45 to US-131) is a little high at 65 considering the super tight curve and the left entrance at M-45 in both directions. East of 131, 65 fits.

There's an advisory speed limit of 45mph for that tight turn.

[yand]

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

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

I think people do have a concept in their mind of what a safe speed is that may or may not reflect reality or their personal uneducated biases. Personally I would love for all speed limits to be the safe limit rather than a watered down limit.
The behavior of drivers would change very quickly if there were a high certainty of getting caught. Selective enforcement is good for efficiency, good for revenue raising, but bad for safety. I guess this is sort of a chicken/egg deal where increased enforcement and raising the speed limit are complementary, but many people only want one without the other.
Another option would be to somehow engineer roads to "feel" unsafe above the speed limit without compromising actual safety.

[jeffandnicole]

Another option would be to somehow engineer roads to "feel" unsafe above the speed limit without compromising actual safety.

This is basically the very definition of traffic calming, often seen in neighborhoods and business districts.

Crosswalk bumpouts into the roadway, narrow lanes, highly visible crosswalks, slight curves when none are needed, etc all create the effect that it'll feel unsafe if you traveled above the limit.

[hotdogPi]

Another option would be to somehow engineer roads to "feel" unsafe above the speed limit without compromising actual safety.

This is basically the very definition of traffic calming, often seen in neighborhoods and business districts.

Crosswalk bumpouts into the roadway, narrow lanes, highly visible crosswalks, slight curves when none are needed, etc all create the effect that it'll feel unsafe if you traveled above the limit.

Those do compromise actual safety if people don't reduce their speed, though.

[jeffandnicole]

Another option would be to somehow engineer roads to "feel" unsafe above the speed limit without compromising actual safety.

This is basically the very definition of traffic calming, often seen in neighborhoods and business districts.

Crosswalk bumpouts into the roadway, narrow lanes, highly visible crosswalks, slight curves when none are needed, etc all create the effect that it'll feel unsafe if you traveled above the limit.

Those do compromise actual safety if people don't reduce their speed, though.

Right.  How else do you engineer roads to feel unsafe at a speed above the limit, rather than *actually* make them unsafe?

[yand]

Narrowing lanes is maybe good for getting people who speed to slow down, not so great to reduce safety margins for people already doing the speed limit.

[jakeroot]

Another option would be to somehow engineer roads to "feel" unsafe above the speed limit without compromising actual safety.

This is basically the very definition of traffic calming, often seen in neighborhoods and business districts.

Crosswalk bumpouts into the roadway, narrow lanes, highly visible crosswalks, slight curves when none are needed, etc all create the effect that it'll feel unsafe if you traveled above the limit.

Those do compromise actual safety if people don't reduce their speed, though.

That's true, at the beginning of a stretch of traffic-calmed streets. But if an entire area is traffic calmed (perhaps not so fun for drivers), the chance of a driver getting up to an unsafe speed, and then having a crash, is less likely.

Seattle's favorite traffic-calming methods is having one-lane two-way streets w/ parked cars lining each side (parked in any direction), traffic circles at almost every non-arterial intersection, cutting off through-roads to only peds and cyclists, chicanes, narrowed lanes, and several other things I can't readily think of.

[Alps]

Duplicate thread, see link below.