Quote from: NoviniteBulgaria Ups Hwy Speed Limit to 140 Km/H
The maximum speed limit on Bulgarian highways went up to 140 km/h at midnight Tuesday, but it is effective only for sections with the most modern pavement.
According to the newly adopted legislation, "vehicles can move with a speed of up to 140 km/h only in new sections where the pavement allows such speed."
The previous speed limit was 130 km/h. It remains 90 km/h in risky sections and highway sections built years ago.
The amendments to the Traffic Act also introduce the term "fast road," where drivers can develop speeds up to 120 km/h. These roads will not have an emergency lane, just some places to stop. They are yet to be built in Bulgaria and will cost about 30% less than regular highways.
http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=140674The article is not entirely correct, as 140 km/h became the default speed limit unless otherwise posted, not the other way round.
This is the second country in Europe with a 140 km/h - 87 mph speed limit - after Poland introduced it 2 years ago.
Contrary to popular belief, Italy doesn't have - and never had - a 150 km/h speed limit. The highway code has a provision for 150 km/h, but it has never been activated so far. It's often quoted on the internet that Italy has certain toll roads with a 150 km/h limit. This is not correct.
Austria, however, did post a 160 km/h (100 mph) speed limit on the A10 Tauern Autobahn in 2006 as a trial project, but it was not continued by the next government.
Seems like Europe is in a "who can raise speed limits the highest" contest.
I would be nice if some states here would challenge Texas. Or Canada, whose limits are roughly equivalent to the northeast US even though most of the country is much more remote.
the Bulgarian "fast road" idea sounds like Texas signing 75mph on adequately built rural two-laners. seems like a good idea to me.
are any places other than Germany looking to go no-speed-limit?
Quote from: deanej on June 28, 2012, 10:35:06 AM
Seems like Europe is in a "who can raise speed limits the highest" contest.
You can count Britain out. We have been slashing speed limits left right and center since the 1990's, the same time that speed cameras were introduced :banghead:
Quote from: deanej on June 28, 2012, 10:35:06 AM
Seems like Europe is in a "who can raise speed limits the highest" contest.
I would be nice if some states here would challenge Texas. Or Canada, whose limits are roughly equivalent to the northeast US even though most of the country is much more remote.
Utah called Texas on the 80 mph thing, but Texas raised to 85. So far nobody but Texas has shown interest in 85.
Wonder if a few years from now we'll be seeing 90 MPH limits in Texas...?
Quote from: Truvelo on June 28, 2012, 03:47:22 PM
Quote from: deanej on June 28, 2012, 10:35:06 AM
Seems like Europe is in a "who can raise speed limits the highest" contest.
You can count Britain out. We have been slashing speed limits left right and center since the 1990's, the same time that speed cameras were introduced :banghead:
Recent news begs to differ:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/29/speed-limit-raised-80mph
Various sources have been reporting on this study since the end of last summer. I saw an article pop up (I believe it was on Reddit in r/transportation) last week that was the first I heard of it.
^^That may be true but the 80mph trial has yet to begin and even if it becomes permanent the default will still be 70. In the meantime there's been many 100's of miles of rural 2 lane 60mph roads which have been slashed to 50 and 40. Suburban 40's are now 30 and so on. Even some sections of motorway have been cut from 70 to 50.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 28, 2012, 11:25:13 PM
Quote from: deanej on June 28, 2012, 10:35:06 AM
Seems like Europe is in a "who can raise speed limits the highest" contest.
I would be nice if some states here would challenge Texas. Or Canada, whose limits are roughly equivalent to the northeast US even though most of the country is much more remote.
Utah called Texas on the 80 mph thing, but Texas raised to 85. So far nobody but Texas has shown interest in 85.
Wonder if a few years from now we'll be seeing 90 MPH limits in Texas...?
I could see one or more of the Texas toll roads upping theirs to 90mph just to get some extra customers to pay the toll just so they can legally go that fast.
Quote from: Sykotyk on July 02, 2012, 05:01:41 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 28, 2012, 11:25:13 PM
Quote from: deanej on June 28, 2012, 10:35:06 AM
Seems like Europe is in a "who can raise speed limits the highest" contest.
I would be nice if some states here would challenge Texas. Or Canada, whose limits are roughly equivalent to the northeast US even though most of the country is much more remote.
Utah called Texas on the 80 mph thing, but Texas raised to 85. So far nobody but Texas has shown interest in 85.
Wonder if a few years from now we'll be seeing 90 MPH limits in Texas...?
I could see one or more of the Texas toll roads upping theirs to 90mph just to get some extra customers to pay the toll just so they can legally go that fast.
I could see that happening for 130 in Austin. Most of the other tollways in Texas are urban and because of the volume, physically impossible to get up to that speed without eating some bumper except late, late at night.
Quote from: Road Hog on July 02, 2012, 11:23:21 AM
I could see that happening for 130 in Austin. Most of the other tollways in Texas are urban and because of the volume, physically impossible to get up to that speed without eating some bumper except late, late at night.
what about the free roads? I-10 and I-20 out west, as well as certain two-laners, could easily handle a no-speed-limit situation, with enforcement for reckless driving instead.
Don't you know? Anything above 65 is reckless driving.
Quote from: Bickendan on July 04, 2012, 02:35:38 AM
Don't you know? Anything above 65 is reckless driving.
Dude, this is Texas we're talking about. Anything below 65 is. . . just not Texan.
anything above 0 is a moving violation, anything at 0 is a parking violation, and anything below 0 is a physics violation.
Quote from: kphoger on July 04, 2012, 10:06:46 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on July 04, 2012, 02:35:38 AM
Don't you know? Anything above 65 is reckless driving.
Dude, this is Texas we're talking about. Anything below 65 is. . . just not Texan.
Jake gets what I was driving at.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 28, 2012, 10:49:58 AM
....
are any places other than Germany looking to go no-speed-limit?
Seems unlikely when you consider that the no-speed-limit roads in the Northern Territory were recently posted at 110 km/h (with a few routes posted at 130).
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 12, 2012, 09:42:33 AM
Seems unlikely when you consider that the no-speed-limit roads in the Northern Territory were recently posted at 110 km/h (with a few routes posted at 130).
there were no-speed-limit roads in Australia? until how recent?
what's the enforcement like on those roads? there are a lot of roads in the world which have no
de facto speed limit, due to a lack of enforcement. I would be quite comfortable driving the Alcan at excessive speeds, for example.
Go eastern Europe!
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 12, 2012, 10:23:22 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 12, 2012, 09:42:33 AM
Seems unlikely when you consider that the no-speed-limit roads in the Northern Territory were recently posted at 110 km/h (with a few routes posted at 130).
there were no-speed-limit roads in Australia? until how recent?
what's the enforcement like on those roads? there are a lot of roads in the world which have no de facto speed limit, due to a lack of enforcement. I would be quite comfortable driving the Alcan at excessive speeds, for example.
From what I've read, the Northern Territory had no posted speed limit on many roads until 2007, although I assume roads around Darwin were probably an obvious exception. I have no idea about the enforcement. I agree with you about there being some roads where I'd be very comfortable going very fast, although over time I've become more aware of the risk of animals running out into the road and that risk tempers my enthusiasm for going super-fast.
My Australian friend hit a kangaroo a couple of years ago. He wasn't hurt but it sure fucked his car up. I believe he was doing the speed limit. The roo flopped up and tried to hop away but he probably didn't survive.
Quote from: bugo on July 12, 2012, 11:34:44 AM
My Australian friend hit a kangaroo a couple of years ago. He wasn't hurt but it sure fucked his car up. I believe he was doing the speed limit. The roo flopped up and tried to hop away but he probably didn't survive.
Several years ago I was on a two-lane road near Orange, Virginia, at night on the way back from a football game in Charlottesville and I was getting annoyed at the guy in front of me because one minute he'd be doing 60 mph and the next he'd be doing 45 (speed limit was 55 mph). I was just about to pull out and pass when I saw some brake lights in the distance, so I backed off.....and when we reached the brake lights we found a small SUV, Honda CR-V or similar, that had just hit a deer. The carcass was still spinning in the highway. If I'd have pulled out to pass I'd have plowed right into the deer at 65—70 mph and really smashed up the car, as I was driving my then-girlfriend's 2003 Acura RSX. All it takes is one incident like that to make you a lot more cautious about such things.
It's not just nighttime, either. In May of this year I was on I-66 westbound in Virginia in full daylight doing 75 mph (speed limit 70) when I saw a deer standing on the shoulder looking like it would leap out at any second to cross the road. Scared the crap out of me, especially with a tractor-trailer behind me (i.e. I couldn't risk slamming on the brakes and would have to hit the deer if it bolted into the road).
Plus they say if you see one deer there's probably another one not far behind, a statement that's often proven true in my observation just around my neighborhood where we have a good number of deer in the woods.
But anyway, we're taking this thread off-topic, so to try to get it back where it belongs, I think concerns like deer and the like are a fine example of the point I've made to people that the speed limit is just that–the speed
limit. As long as you don't obstruct traffic or dip below the minimum speed limit (if there is one), and as long as you stay out of the passing lane, there's nothing requiring you to go as fast as the speed limit. You can go slower if you like. I don't hesitate to do so if, for example, the sun is in my eyes and I think I might have trouble seeing cars being driven without lights. A lot of Americans seem to believe the speed limit is the speed you're supposed to go–if it says "Speed Limit 70" they get outraged if you're not going 70. That's not how it's supposed to work, although I certainly agree it's damn annoying when you encounter a string of trucks going under the speed limit in one lane and slowpokes who don't accelerate whilst passing in the other lane. If people understood that you're allowed to go slower than the posted speed limit, then posting speed limits of 80 mph or more on most rural Interstates wouldn't be a problem. But people don't understand that. I suppose that's an example of one reason why higher speed limits sometimes seem to work better in other countries where lane discipline and the like are more ingrained–although I've never been to Bulgaria and have no idea what circumstances prevail there.
30+ years of the United States underposting highway speed limits for political reasons tends to do that. Only recently have speed limits in general risen back to what they were posted in the early '70's.
Their are three main types of drivers:
1. Those who drive the speed they are comfortable at regardless of the speed limit (the majority of US drivers; this speed is well above the speed limit 90% of the time)
2. Those who are slowpokes who shouldn't be on the road (almost all of the rest)
3. Those who drive the speed limit (it's VERY frustrating to be in this group!)
The reason the US doesn't have higher speed limits is because the anti-speed nazis have managed to convince everyone that if the speed limit is raised the group 1 drivers will be driving 90 instead of 70-80. And at least in New York, it's almost impossible to go below the speed limit and not obstruct traffic. And why should traffic ahead of you be allowed to force you to drive below the speed limit? That's what you do when you drive below the limit: you force everyone to drive slower than they want to!
Personally, I usually drive the speed limit because I don't want to get a ticket, though I've noticed that I'm a lot more willing to speed than I used to be since NY fixed the state budget (the state troopers have mysteriously vanished since that happened despite all claims that speed enforcement was about safety).
Quote from: deanej on July 13, 2012, 06:00:00 PM
The reason the US doesn't have higher speed limits is because the anti-speed nazis have managed to convince everyone that if the speed limit is raised the group 1 drivers will be driving 90 instead of 70-80.
That is the usual argument. If you raise the limit to 80, people will drive 90, if you raise it to 90, people will drive 110 and before you know it people zip by at 300 miles per hour.
Of course this is nonsense, because people like to drive a speed that fits the road. Studies in the Netherlands found that raising the limit from 120 to 130 kph increased the V85 by only 2 kph, from 127 to 129 kph. In other words, people were already exceeding the limit, but did not significantly increase their speed after they were allowed to drive faster.
There will also be the 1% idiots that drive too fast no matter what, but it's not like the other 99% of the traffic has to suffer from unrealistic low speed limits.
Quote from: Chris on July 14, 2012, 04:27:59 AM
Quote from: deanej on July 13, 2012, 06:00:00 PM
The reason the US doesn't have higher speed limits is because the anti-speed nazis have managed to convince everyone that if the speed limit is raised the group 1 drivers will be driving 90 instead of 70-80.
That is the usual argument. If you raise the limit to 80, people will drive 90, if you raise it to 90, people will drive 110 and before you know it people zip by at 300 miles per hour.
Of course this is nonsense, because people like to drive a speed that fits the road. Studies in the Netherlands found that raising the limit from 120 to 130 kph increased the V85 by only 2 kph, from 127 to 129 kph. In other words, people were already exceeding the limit, but did not significantly increase their speed after they were allowed to drive faster.
There will also be the 1% idiots that drive too fast no matter what, but it's not like the other 99% of the traffic has to suffer from unrealistic low speed limits.
Ditto for when MDOT raised the limit from 55 to 70 mph on the freeways in Detroit. It brought the lower end of traffic up and slightly calmed, yes, I said calmed, the top end. It actually made for a smoother traffic flow.
I saw some data from when New York finally posted a 65-mph speed limit in 1995. Prior to the change (i.e. when they still followed the original NMSL) the average speed on New York's Interstates was 65 mph. After the change, it increased to 68 mph. The change is easily attributed to the speed-limit obeyers speeding up.
BTW, I'd consider one group of drivers to be a fourth group–the ones who ate determined to go as fast as they want regardless of road conditions, traffic, speed limits, etc., and who will weave all over the place in and out of traffic like madmen, tailgate, etc. The dangerous groups are these people and the ones who drive too slowly, and by "too slowly" I mean the little old lady or the immigrant who's clearly scared shitless to the point of being a traffic hazard due to slow speed.
Quote from: kphoger on July 04, 2012, 10:06:46 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on July 04, 2012, 02:35:38 AM
Don't you know? Anything above 65 is reckless driving.
Dude, this is Texas we're talking about. Anything below 65 is. . . just not Texan.
Except at night, where some drivers usually do 10 under the speed limit based on my experiences.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 12, 2012, 11:51:45 AM
A lot of Americans seem to believe the speed limit is the speed you're supposed to go–if it says "Speed Limit 70" they get outraged if you're not going 70.
There is at least one case where this is actual taught practice, not just common belief: in Connecticut, they teach you in driver's ed that you should stay within the window between the speed limit and 5 under. Why do they teach you this? If you dip more than 5 under the limit without having a particular reason to on your road test, they will take a point off for it. They want to make sure people are comfortable driving up to the limit rather than just crawling around being overly cautious.
Indeed. The only time I'm not driving the limit (or slightly above), not accounting for conditions, is when someone is merging ahead of me and I'm slowing up to reestablish a safe following distance. Usually, this means simply letting up the gas until my 4-5 second window is regained.
Quote from: deanej on July 13, 2012, 06:00:00 PM
.... And at least in New York, it's almost impossible to go below the speed limit and not obstruct traffic. And why should traffic ahead of you be allowed to force you to drive below the speed limit? That's what you do when you drive below the limit: you force everyone to drive slower than they want to!
....
On the other hand, though, if you follow that argument to its conclusion, then the signs that a number of states and provinces use posting minimum speed limits (e.g., "Speed Limit 70/Minimum 40" or Quebec's oft-used "Maximum 100/60 Minimum") would be irrelevant or inaccurate because people "shouldn't be allowed" to go slower than the posted maximum.
I'm not arguing that being stuck behind someone going below the speed limit isn't damn annoying in many cases, especially on a rural two-lane road with no passing zones for miles at a time. I just don't agree that the mere fact that the sign says the speed limit is 70 mph means you automatically have a right to go 70 mph. The signs on the Garden State Parkway that say "Speed Limit 65/Conditions Permitting" underscore the principle pretty well–most people would agree that in bad weather you might have an obligation to slow down, for example, but "conditions" can also include things like sun glare or traffic.
Or, put differently, when I was learning to drive my father said, "Sometimes you get stuck in a situation where the speed limit is 65 but the traffic in the right lane is doing 60 due to a slow truck and the traffic in the left lane is doing 75. In that case you either slow down and get in the right lane or you speed up and get in the left lane, but you do not tailgate just because you think the people in the right lane are 'too slow' and you do not block the left lane just because you think those people are 'too fast.' You adjust your speed to one lane or the other."
(I feel VERY strongly about lane discipline and keeping out of the passing lane except to pass, to the point where it sometimes drives my wife crazy because I'm always moving back to the right. But I HATE it when someone is blocking the left lane unless there's a compelling reason for it like debris in the other lane. BTW, I say "keeping out of the passing lane" to account for countries where you drive on the left and the far right lane is the passing lane.)
Yes, driving is much less frustrating when you don't have a strict adherence to speed limits (and everything else) stuck in your head. I always get frustrated when in a situation where it's impossible to not do something wrong, and since I like going fast and am impatient, driving below the speed limit when conditions don't require it is very frustrating. It does not help that many of the roads I drive have enough traffic (at least during the school year - US 11 is a much nicer drive when the colleges aren't in session) to make being behind a slow poke the entire drive inevitable. An extreme example was being stuck behind a farm vehicle (normally these drive in the shoulder as much as possible to facilitate passing; this one wasn't) doing 15 in a 55 on NY 68 with a long line of cars refusing to pass despite many opportunities (only a fraction of drivers seem willing to pass on two lane roads, especially for less extreme speed differentials).
I tend to go about 77, and if I am passing, and there is someone in the left lane coming up behind me 85 I will happily speed up to 85 to accommodate them.
if they're coming up behind me doing 110, I'll happily speed up to 85.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 16, 2012, 12:04:55 PM
I tend to go about 77, and if I am passing, and there is someone in the left lane coming up behind me 85 I will happily speed up to 85 to accommodate them.
if they're coming up behind me doing 110, I'll happily speed up to 85.
For me it depends on the situation. I can think of times when I've been passing someone but saw someone else approaching from behind me a lot faster than I was going and I've slowed down, pulled right, then moved back left to finish passing. But for me to do that it has to be a situation where I can see there's only one car coming from behind me and he's going a LOT faster than I am. I'm not going to slow down and pull to the right if it means I'm going to get trapped there.
This morning I was driving slower than the speed limit and it was intentional–I was taking my wife to the subway stop, the speed limit was 45, but I knew the traffic always slows to a crawl just after you go over this one particular hill (and sure enough, it did). I was going 35 and saw no point in speeding up to come to a stop, especially when speeding up meant I'd need to upshift.
Quote from: deanej on July 16, 2012, 11:49:57 AM
.... An extreme example was being stuck behind a farm vehicle (normally these drive in the shoulder as much as possible to facilitate passing; this one wasn't) doing 15 in a 55 on NY 68 with a long line of cars refusing to pass despite many opportunities (only a fraction of drivers seem willing to pass on two lane roads, especially for less extreme speed differentials).
I've noticed more and more people don't pass on two-lane roads and I've wondered why. My general thought is that as we become more and more urbanized, a lot of people have less experience with two-lane roads and therefore just aren't comfortable with it; I think they also don't have a good understanding of HOW to do it (such as the need to follow relatively closely when you're getting ready to pull out and pass). I've sometimes wondered if the proliferation of automatic-transmission vehicles might factor in as well, as snapping off a downshift and gunning it past the slowpoke is often an important part of passing. People who drive automatics simply seem to accelerate differently.
But with slow-moving farm equipment....heck, most people I know will just pass them over the double yellow line if the road is clear and there's no cop around. I've certainly done that often enough.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 17, 2012, 09:41:24 AM
But with slow-moving farm equipment....heck, most people I know will just pass them over the double yellow line if the road is clear and there's no cop around. I've certainly done that often enough.
This is explicitly legal in some states and implicitly legal in some others (since 'obstruction' is not well-defined).
Quote from: NE2 on July 17, 2012, 02:25:12 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 17, 2012, 09:41:24 AM
But with slow-moving farm equipment....heck, most people I know will just pass them over the double yellow line if the road is clear and there's no cop around. I've certainly done that often enough.
This is explicitly legal in some states and implicitly legal in some others (since 'obstruction' is not well-defined).
I don't know what the law is in Virginia, but my point was more in the nature of saying I just do it anyway and don't care what the law is. I've sometimes passed slow-moving cars or minivans over double yellow lines in rural areas, mainly Southside Virginia. If I encounter someone doing 25 mph out there and the speed limit is 55 and it's pretty clear he's not turning off soon, I'm not going to sit there behind him.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 17, 2012, 09:41:24 AM
I've noticed more and more people don't pass on two-lane roads and I've wondered why. My general thought is that as we become more and more urbanized, a lot of people have less experience with two-lane roads and therefore just aren't comfortable with it; I think they also don't have a good understanding of HOW to do it (such as the need to follow relatively closely when you're getting ready to pull out and pass).
In the U.S., so many two-lane arterial highways have been replaced by Interstates (which are supposed to have at least four lanes and be divided), or by multilane arterial roads.
Not the case in places with low populations and large land areas, including, in my own experience, Sweden and Finland, where a multilane divided highway is not warranted (though both are building four-lane motorways for traffic volumes that might be considered low by U.S. standards).
At least in those nations, people do know how to safely pass another vehicle on a two lane highway.
Bulgaria must have no energy shortage to consider the speed limit put at one-eighth of 100 mph! And European speed limits are said to be higher than in the US, notice their cars are built for higher speeds and stoppage time.
Quote from: Mike D boy on July 30, 2012, 08:50:22 AMnotice their cars are built for higher ... stoppage time.
I take it you meant lower stopping time, and higher speed, rather than higher applying to both?
Bulgaria's motorways are mostly new or recently rebuilt, mostly straight, mostly have decent distances between exits so no weaving - averaging about 10km between exits.
Quote from: english si on July 30, 2012, 01:08:35 PM
Quote from: Mike D boy on July 30, 2012, 08:50:22 AMnotice their cars are built for higher ... stoppage time.
I take it you meant lower stopping time, and higher speed, rather than higher applying to both?
Bulgaria's motorways are mostly new or recently rebuilt, mostly straight, mostly have decent distances between exits so no weaving - averaging about 10km between exits.
Sounds somewhat like the New Jersey Turnpike.
Quote from: Mike D boy on July 30, 2012, 08:50:22 AM
Bulgaria must have no energy shortage to consider the speed limit put at one-eighth of 100 mph! And European speed limits are said to be higher than in the US, notice their cars are built for higher speeds and stoppage time.
Energy shortage has nothing to do with it. The lower speed limit here (55mph) saved maybe one-half of one percent of the total fuel used. A mere drop in the bucket, and statistically insignificant.