AARoads Forum

With some states now raising their speed limit to 80 mph (those states now being Idaho, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming), I was wondering, which state you think will be next?

My guess is that Montana would be the most likely.  Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota may also be possibilities.  Nevada is unlikely since they had a failed bill that would have raised the state speed limit.  Arizona may be a challenge, since there is a state law that any speed of 85 mph or higher is considered criminal speeding, regardless of the posted speed limit.  I don't see it being Louisiana or Maine either.

Note that my poll only includes states that currently have 75 mph speed limits.

South Dakota is my guess. They'll do it quietly, with little fanfare.

Montana is also a possibility, since Montanans don't like speed limits, and two of the three states it borders with road access have 80 MPH speed limits.

I have reasons to be believe Montana won't be the next state:

1) Interstates in Montana are gnarlier than the ones in Idaho or Wyoming by a good stretch, and that could be a good reason not to raise the limit to 80. Idaho and Wyoming's interstates are more or less out in the high plains, with a couple little passes excepted (which are not 80, and in the case of I-90 in Idaho it's not 80 at all). Montana has several fairly substantial mountain passes along its interstates. Montana interstates are way sketchier than Idaho or Wyoming in winter.

2) Speed limit law in Montana. Montana classifies roads by type and assigns a blanket speed limit. To get a deviation from that speed limit, substantial engineering work at substantial cost has to be done. For this reason, speed limits already often don't make a lot of sense (70 MPH on US 212 (http://goo.gl/maps/mRl0A) over the Beartooth where it's completely impossible to even come close to 70 MPH is a good example of this). Right now the Speed Limit on rural interstates in Montana is 75, including in places like Lookout Pass, Pipestone Pass, I-15 from Butte to Great Falls, I-90 East of Bozeman, etc. There might be hesitation to raise to 80 simply because they don't want those stretches to be 80 and the work that is required by Montana law to get a deviation on a rural interstate is too costly to justify raising the limit.  There's only a couple places in the state where MDT has done the engineering work to legally justify a speed limit difference (US 93 south of Missoula, US 191 by Big Sky, MT 16 just north of Glendive) because it's just not cost effective unless there's stacks on stacks of accidents.

I suspect for the limit to be raised in Montana, the legislature will either have to give MDT the discretion to post interstates at 75 or 80, which is unprecedented (and I believe would require the modification of other standing regulation), or MDT will have to be comfortable allowing for an 80 MPH speed limit over some pretty crazy mountain passes. Otherwise, the benefits of a 5 MPH limit increase would be exceeded by the burden on the taxpayer, since it would be way more complicated than a simple sign swap.

In the case of Idaho, though, the legislature just said "80 MPH on everything rural but I-90 with a few limited exceptions" over the objections of both ITD (who has been actively lowering speed limits) and ISP (who like giving speeding tickets), so now the speed limit is 80 in places where I guarantee it wouldn't be if ITD had the discretion to choose where 80 zones are safe. Something similar could happen in Montana.

There is a Norman senator working on raising I-44 between OKC and Tulsa to 80 mph, but the design of the road makes it questionable in terms of safety unless major modernization work were done.

I seem to remember someone posting that Arizona is already considering that

Quote from: halork on September 21, 2014, 10:12:28 PM
I seem to remember someone posting that Arizona is already considering that

That was 10 years ago, and that legislation failed.  In addition to raising the speed limit, it would have increased the criminal speeding threshold to 90 mph.

Quote from: corco on September 21, 2014, 07:43:07 PM
...speed limits already often don't make a lot of sense (70 MPH on US 212 (http://goo.gl/maps/mRl0A) over the Beartooth where it's completely impossible to even come close to 70 MPH is a good example of this).

I still feel there is a difference between a speed limit and a safe travel speed. Montana's US-212 is a great example a of a speed limit that, despite what you feel corco, I think makes sense; it's the maximum safe speed along that stretch of road.

But alas, this is not how speed limits are set in this country so my dream is a pipe one.

I also feel that blanket speed limits are a good idea. Constantly changing speed limits seem like a speed trap to me.

QuoteI still feel there is a difference between a speed limit and a safe travel speed. Montana's US-212 is a great example a of a speed limit that, despite what you feel corco, I think makes sense; it's the maximum safe speed along that stretch of road.

Bwahahaha, if you go 70 down Beartooth Pass, you will drive off a cliff. My point is that that speed is actually impossible to reach on that stretch of highway. The maximum "safe" speed would be considerably less than that. The speed limit exists because it is a rural non-interstate highway, and therefore automatically has a 70 MPH speed limit.

Quote from: corco on September 21, 2014, 10:38:32 PM

QuoteI still feel there is a difference between a speed limit and a safe travel speed. Montana's US-212 is a great example a of a speed limit that, despite what you feel corco, I think makes sense; it's the maximum safe speed along that stretch of road.

Bwahahaha, if you go 70 down Beartooth Pass, you will drive off a cliff. My point is that that speed is actually impossible to reach on that stretch of highway. The maximum "safe" speed would be considerably less than that. The speed limit exists because it is a rural non-interstate highway, and therefore automatically has a 70 MPH speed limit.

I never suggested going down Beartooth Pass at 70 was a good idea...what I'm saying is that 70 would be the maximum safe speed you could reach at any one point along that road, even if the vast majority of the road is more or less safely driven at around 50. Besides, just looking at a map of Beartooth Pass suggests to me that, between the bends, 70 is easily achieved. However, that is a hunch because I have never driven it.

Also, Montana is like much of the industrialized world with its blanket speed limits. That suggests to me that the US is the minority in this case and constantly varying speed limits is perhaps more dangerous than definite ones.

Nevada, for I-80 across most of the state and I-15 north of Vegas.

IIRC, Arizona changes from prima facie to absolute and civil to criminal once you cross 85mph, so increasing the speed limit beyond 75 there would require additional work so there's more than a 5mph buffer.

I also think Texas will expand 80mph limits to cover more than just SH130 and the far west portions of I-10 and I-20, at least once they're finished with all the studies to bump everything else they can to 75. If a 2 lane undivided rural road can safely handle 75, then there's no reason a rural freeway can't be even higher.

Montana did have "Reasonable and Prudent" during the 90s, until some court said no you can't do that...

Quote from: dfwmapper on September 22, 2014, 12:39:19 AM
Nevada, for I-80 across most of the state and I-15 north of Vegas.

Yeah, I was hopeful too. But that bill died in the 2013 legislative session, and the earliest we could see a similar proposal would be the 2015 legislative session for implementation in 2016.

Oregon.  :bigass:

Montana is interesting because the reason they're 75 is because that was the fastest one could go in the US at the time they were forced to adopt a speed limit.  You can bet that if reasonable and prudent ended under current conditions that they would have adopted 80 (or 85) instead.

Quote from: KEK Inc. on September 22, 2014, 06:41:00 AM
Oregon.  :bigass:

Definitely won't be Oregon.  They are currently only 65 mph, and going straight to 80 mph would be a huge increase.

Quote from: corco on September 21, 2014, 07:43:07 PM
South Dakota is my guess. They'll do it quietly, with little fanfare.

Montana is also a possibility, since Montanans don't like speed limits, and two of the three states it borders with road access have 80 MPH speed limits.

I have reasons to be believe Montana won't be the next state:

1) Interstates in Montana are gnarlier than the ones in Idaho or Wyoming by a good stretch, and that could be a good reason not to raise the limit to 80. Idaho and Wyoming's interstates are more or less out in the high plains, with a couple little passes excepted (which are not 80, and in the case of I-90 in Idaho it's not 80 at all). Montana has several fairly substantial mountain passes along its interstates. Montana interstates are way sketchier than Idaho or Wyoming in winter.

2) Speed limit law in Montana. Montana classifies roads by type and assigns a blanket speed limit. To get a deviation from that speed limit, substantial engineering work at substantial cost has to be done. For this reason, speed limits already often don't make a lot of sense (70 MPH on US 212 (http://goo.gl/maps/mRl0A) over the Beartooth where it's completely impossible to even come close to 70 MPH is a good example of this). Right now the Speed Limit on rural interstates in Montana is 75, including in places like Lookout Pass, Pipestone Pass, I-15 from Butte to Great Falls, I-90 East of Bozeman, etc. There might be hesitation to raise to 80 simply because they don't want those stretches to be 80 and the work that is required by Montana law to get a deviation on a rural interstate is too costly to justify raising the limit.  There's only a couple places in the state where MDT has done the engineering work to legally justify a speed limit difference (US 93 south of Missoula, US 191 by Big Sky, MT 16 just north of Glendive) because it's just not cost effective unless there's stacks on stacks of accidents.

I suspect for the limit to be raised in Montana, the legislature will either have to give MDT the discretion to post interstates at 75 or 80, which is unprecedented (and I believe would require the modification of other standing regulation), or MDT will have to be comfortable allowing for an 80 MPH speed limit over some pretty crazy mountain passes. Otherwise, the benefits of a 5 MPH limit increase would be exceeded by the burden on the taxpayer, since it would be way more complicated than a simple sign swap.

.

When it was "reasonable and prudent" I drove in Montana just to go outragelously fast and I-90 had so many turns in it I didn't get much over 75 at all!

I'd say KS, because it's been done there before, when the speed limit on that state's Turnpike was 80 many years ago.

Quote from: vdeane on September 22, 2014, 12:56:13 PM
Montana is interesting because the reason they're 75 is because that was the fastest one could go in the US at the time they were forced to adopt a speed limit.  You can bet that if reasonable and prudent ended under current conditions that they would have adopted 80 (or 85) instead.

Correlation does not equal causation. 75 was a logical speed limit for Montana. If they wanted to go higher they could have.

Reasonable and Prudent has a different meaning from a numbered speed limit. R&P means "You are responsible for determining a safe driving speed" whereas speed limit 75 is perceived by folks, rightly or wrongly, and especially on interstates as " We have determined for you that it is safe to drive 75, " so I really don't think it's fair to say that because MT used to not have speed limits, they are comfortable raising them. That doesn't mean that's not true, but it's a pretty big assumption to make.

Quote from: corco on September 21, 2014, 07:43:07 PM
South Dakota is my guess. They'll do it quietly, with little fanfare.

That makes sense. From Box Elder to Mitchell there's really not a lot of traffic.

Quote from: corco on September 22, 2014, 02:33:31 PM

Quote from: vdeane on September 22, 2014, 12:56:13 PM
Montana is interesting because the reason they're 75 is because that was the fastest one could go in the US at the time they were forced to adopt a speed limit.  You can bet that if reasonable and prudent ended under current conditions that they would have adopted 80 (or 85) instead.

Correlation does not equal causation. 75 was a logical speed limit for Montana. If they wanted to go higher they could have.

Reasonable and Prudent has a different meaning from a numbered speed limit. R&P means "You are responsible for determining a safe driving speed" whereas speed limit 75 is perceived by folks, rightly or wrongly, and especially on interstates as " We have determined for you that it is safe to drive 75, " so I really don't think it's fair to say that because MT used to not have speed limits, they are comfortable raising them. That doesn't mean that's not true, but it's a pretty big assumption to make.

People still equate speed limits with safety?  I thought that idea died with NMSL.

Quote from: vdeane on September 22, 2014, 05:56:55 PM

Quote from: corco on September 22, 2014, 02:33:31 PM

Quote from: vdeane on September 22, 2014, 12:56:13 PM
Montana is interesting because the reason they're 75 is because that was the fastest one could go in the US at the time they were forced to adopt a speed limit.  You can bet that if reasonable and prudent ended under current conditions that they would have adopted 80 (or 85) instead.

Correlation does not equal causation. 75 was a logical speed limit for Montana. If they wanted to go higher they could have.

Reasonable and Prudent has a different meaning from a numbered speed limit. R&P means "You are responsible for determining a safe driving speed" whereas speed limit 75 is perceived by folks, rightly or wrongly, and especially on interstates as " We have determined for you that it is safe to drive 75, " so I really don't think it's fair to say that because MT used to not have speed limits, they are comfortable raising them. That doesn't mean that's not true, but it's a pretty big assumption to make.

People still equate speed limits with safety?  I thought that idea died with NMSL.

Sort of. Thanks to the NMSL, people think speed limits are below the maximum safe speed, so when they speed limit 75 they think they can easily, safely go 75, if not faster.

And yet the idea that raising the speed limit makes everyone drive faster has been repeatedly debunked, so that isn't it, either.

West Virginia has plenty of twisty mountain roads posted at 55 that are intense to drive at 30. People don't drive these roads at the speed limit because people actually do know better.

If anything I'd imagine that for twisty roads it's probably better to have the limit a lot too high than a little too high. If the speed limit is a little too high, some misguided people might drive it. But if the speed limit is obviously too high, people aren't going to treat it as justification for going that fast.

Nevada.  I'm surprised they haven't already.  85mph would make sense not just for I-80 but also a lot of the rural two-laners like US-93 and US-95.

Why isn't Montana doing it considering their original Reasonable and Prudent speed zones?  I can see them dropping it down to 75 because the other states went 75, but when four states now have gone 80 you figure that they would reconsider raising it back up a little.

I think that most of the Northeastern states won't see a speed limit above 70 for about four decades. Not unless something major happens. I can think of several stretches of Interstate roadway where a 70 would be fine in the Northeastern US, but no, it's 65 or bust half of the time.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 23, 2014, 01:35:59 PM
Nevada.  I'm surprised they haven't already.  85mph would make sense not just for I-80 but also a lot of the rural two-laners like US-93 and US-95.

I've looked at a lot of roads in Nevada and I definitely could see a number of them being safe enough for at least an 80 MPH speed limit. There's a portion of US 50 east of Carson City that is extremely straight that I could see easily being at least 75 if they aren't already (GMSV is very shoddy quality in this area), if not 80.

PA does, or at least on the PA Turnpike for a stretch.

Quote from: roadman65 on September 23, 2014, 01:44:28 PM
PA does, or at least on the PA Turnpike for a stretch.

If I saw a speed limit 70 (or higher) sign in New Jersey I would think it was custom made. I think the Parkway could be 70 easily. I can't say the same about the Turnpike though, considering how many lanes it gets to as you continue north towards Newark (besides, there's VMS speed limits on the Turnpike anyway, which probably work for the best knowing how many accidents people still manage to have on it).

Oh yeah the Parkway could be 70 easily, but the way NJ is it won't ever get to be.  Look how long it took for NJ to get the 65 mph maximum.  Then again, we are still waiting for Self Serve Gasoline in the Garden State to this day when 48 other states have had it for almost four decades.

Quote from: roadman65 on September 23, 2014, 01:39:00 PM
Why isn't Montana doing it considering their original Reasonable and Prudent speed zones?  I can see them dropping it down to 75 because the other states went 75, but when four states now have gone 80 you figure that they would reconsider raising it back up a little.

That assumes that Montana's Interstates are as good for high-speed driving as the ones in neighboring states now posted at 80.  As corco and texaskdog noted above, that's not necessarily the case.  When I drove the "Montanabahn" in 1996 in my former BMW 3-series sedan, during R&P days, only east of Billings did I feel comfortable consistently exceeding 85 mph.  West of Billings, curves and traffic volumes forced me to dial it back a little, especially to avoid blowing the doors off local traffic doing 65 mph in the right lane.

My impression from talking to Montanans back then is that they liked R&P because they didn't like micromanagement of driver speeds, not because they liked to drive fast.  Indeed they seemed unhappy with speed demons like me, they thought their gas taxes were too high already and didn't want to spend more on their highways to accommodate fast drivers.  I don't have a sense of current public attitudes in Montana, but would not be shocked if there isn't much support for following the lead of neighboring states (just as, in R&P days, they went their own way in the opposite direction). 

Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 23, 2014, 01:35:59 PM
Nevada.  I'm surprised they haven't already.  85mph would make sense not just for I-80 but also a lot of the rural two-laners like US-93 and US-95.

I was real disappointed that the bill didn't pass the legislature last year. That would have raised rural freeways to 80mph, where speed studies would allow.

I don't recall that it would have done anything for two-lane highways. I don't see NDOT bumping any of those up to 80mph any time soon, but maybe to 75mph.

Nevada's current maximums are 75mph on rural Interstates, 70mph on any other type of highways (although this is mostly rural US routes).

Quote from: Zeffy on September 23, 2014, 01:42:12 PM
I've looked at a lot of roads in Nevada and I definitely could see a number of them being safe enough for at least an 80 MPH speed limit. There's a portion of US 50 east of Carson City that is extremely straight that I could see easily being at least 75 if they aren't already (GMSV is very shoddy quality in this area), if not 80.

A lot of Nevada highways (US routes and state routes) are two-lane highways. Several of them are decently traveled, and there are portions of certain highways that have relatively high head-on collision rates. So I doubt NDOT would bump the speed limits higher.

US 50 east of Carson City (especially out to Dayton, but maybe even as far as Silver Springs or even Fallon) is one of these corridors that sees a good deal of traffic and there have been some safety issues. Although NDOT is trying to (or has already done) widening out that way. With that corridor potentially seeing traffic volumes increase in the not-too-distant future (due in part to the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center and the Tesla plant locating there along future USA Parkway, which will connect to US 50 near Silver Springs), I do not see this stretch getting a raised limit. I don't know the speed limit out there, but I don't even think it's as high as 70.

Quote from: oscar on September 23, 2014, 02:14:19 PM
My impression from talking to Montanans back then is that they liked R&P because they didn't like micromanagement of driver speeds, not because they liked to drive fast.  Indeed they seemed unhappy with speed demons like me, they thought their gas taxes were too high already and didn't want to spend more on their highways to accommodate fast drivers.  I don't have a sense of current public attitudes in Montana, but would not be shocked if there isn't much support for following the lead of neighboring states (just as, in R&P days, they went their own way in the opposite direction). 

I think that sums it up pretty well. Of all the states I've lived in, and at this point I've lived in a good chunk of the west, Montanans generally take personal responsibility more seriously than any other people I've met. They don't want to be told what to do, but they take that responsibility very seriously and behave themselves.

Hardly anybody in Montana thought of R&P as "let's drive as fast as we can"- that mentality came from out of state. People around here today still curse Washington drivers because they tend to open up to 85-90 on the freeways, and that's deemed to be "way too fast" by a lot of people around here.

There really isn't much call around here to raise speed limits, I don't think. Unlike Idaho, where I think the 80 thing was a combination of "let's be like Utah" and "fuck you ITD for lowering speed limits over the last decade" and Wyoming where the interstates are pretty much on flatlands, there isn't the need or the demand. Montanans don't have an inferiority complex towards other states like Idahoans do, and I've never heard anybody bitch about having to drive too slow in Montana.

The other thing is that you can already go 85 in Montana without really getting a ticket. 1-10 MPH over in this state is a $20 ticket, so you probably won't be pulled over. In Idaho, 81 was (and supposedly still is) a pretty much guaranteed $75 ticket with 75 MPH speed limits. That minimizes citizen demand for the increase too.

That said, somebody could introduce an 80 MPH bill the next legislative session and I wouldn't be surprised. It could happen. It probably will happen eventually. But since there's absolutely no momentum that I know of for it to happen at the moment, I'd be very surprised if they were the next state.

Quote from: corco on September 23, 2014, 07:09:34 PM
The other thing is that you can already go 85 in Montana without really getting a ticket. 1-10 MPH over in this state is a $20 ticket, so you probably won't be pulled over.

that's a perfect good reason to sign 85mph, actually.  the speed limit as enforced should match the speed limit as signed.

here in California, we may as well sign 80, based on police behavior and speed of traffic. 

Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 23, 2014, 07:33:53 PM

Quote from: corco on September 23, 2014, 07:09:34 PM
The other thing is that you can already go 85 in Montana without really getting a ticket. 1-10 MPH over in this state is a $20 ticket, so you probably won't be pulled over.

that's a perfect good reason to sign 85mph, actually.  the speed limit as enforced should match the speed limit as signed.

here in California, we may as well sign 80, based on police behavior and speed of traffic.

I like a 10mph cushion for those moments when you're passing a potentially unsafe vehicle/driver who's traveling at the posted limit, or when going down a hill, or when unaware that the speed limit mysteriously dropped at the town/county line.

Quote from: formulanone on September 23, 2014, 08:14:03 PM
I like a 10mph cushion for those moments when you're passing a potentially unsafe vehicle/driver who's traveling at the posted limit

this could use a total reform of the passing laws.  first, left lane is for passing only.  if you are not passing, move over.  next, pass with a speed differential of 10mph or greater.  third, there is no speed limit when actively passing. 

if the average American driver were indoctrinated to believe that farther-left lanes on a road with multiple lanes in each direction were designed to act exactly like the opposite-traffic lane on a two-laner with a dashed yellow line (i.e. pass, make quick work of it, and then get the hell back over) then we would not have nearly as much trouble with bad driving.

Quoteor when going down a hill

this one is a pain indeed.  I once got a ticket for 81 in a 70 because a shitty little rental had gone into runaway down a hill.  the worst is when cruise control is engaged, and the vehicle still goes into runaway.

Quoteor when unaware that the speed limit mysteriously dropped at the town/county line.

if the speed limit is plainly posted, then it's your responsibility to obey it.  if the sign is hidden, then we have a fundamentally different problem.

Quote from: formulanone on September 23, 2014, 08:14:03 PM
I like a 10mph cushion for those moments when you're passing a potentially unsafe vehicle/driver who's traveling at the posted limit, or when going down a hill, or when unaware that the speed limit mysteriously dropped at the town/county line.

California pretty much has a "going with the flow of traffic" cushion. If you're in a pack of a dozen cars all doing 90 on I-10 through the desert, it's very unlikely anyone will get pulled over. But if you're the jerk who has to pass everyone even when they're doing the highest reasonable speed for the conditions (over the legal limit or not), that's when they pop you.

Quote from: corco on September 21, 2014, 07:43:07 PM

2) Speed limit law in Montana. Montana classifies roads by type and assigns a blanket speed limit. To get a deviation from that speed limit, substantial engineering work at substantial cost has to be done. For this reason, speed limits already often don't make a lot of sense (70 MPH on US 212 (http://goo.gl/maps/mRl0A) over the Beartooth where it's completely impossible to even come close to 70 MPH is a good example of this). Right now the Speed Limit on rural interstates in Montana is 75, including in places like Lookout Pass, Pipestone Pass, I-15 from Butte to Great Falls, I-90 East of Bozeman, etc. There might be hesitation to raise to 80 simply because they don't want those stretches to be 80 and the work that is required by Montana law to get a deviation on a rural interstate is too costly to justify raising the limit.  There's only a couple places in the state where MDT has done the engineering work to legally justify a speed limit difference (US 93 south of Missoula, US 191 by Big Sky, MT 16 just north of Glendive) because it's just not cost effective unless there's stacks on stacks of accidents.

I suspect for the limit to be raised in Montana, the legislature will either have to give MDT the discretion to post interstates at 75 or 80, which is unprecedented (and I believe would require the modification of other standing regulation), or MDT will have to be comfortable allowing for an 80 MPH speed limit over some pretty crazy mountain passes. Otherwise, the benefits of a 5 MPH limit increase would be exceeded by the burden on the taxpayer, since it would be way more complicated than a simple sign swap.

The funny thing is the Oregon speed limits, at least on highways, tend to be the same way, except we have the opposite problem here (some sections in Oregon are severely underposted, while in Montana, 75 is a bit much on some sections of I-90). Why? Because Montana is 75/70 and Oregon is 65/55. In Oregon, as long as you aren't in a urban area or some other town, with only a few exceptions, it will be 65 on the Interstate of 55 everywhere else. That's why US-20 East of Bend (which should be 70) and something like OR-242 (which in many places you won't get anywhere near 55) have the same speed limit. Also why I-84 on Cabbage Hill east of Pendleton, possibly one of the most dangerous grades in Oregon, keeps its 65 speed limit (though passenger cars can keep it close to 65 in good weather, but certainly not trucks). In Idaho, the speed limits fluctuate between 45 and 65 in places on US/state highways, where in Oregon it'd be a blanket 55. I like Oregon (and Montana's) way of doing it, as long as advisory speeds are well posted, but Oregon really just needs to bump up the maximums...

Quote from: formulanone on September 23, 2014, 08:14:03 PM
or when unaware that the speed limit mysteriously dropped at the town/county line.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 23, 2014, 08:35:22 PM
if the speed limit is plainly posted, then it's your responsibility to obey it.  if the sign is hidden, then we have a fundamentally different problem.

I've been through many small towns or rural roads where there is no "Reduced Speed Ahead" nor "Speed Zone Ahead" (or whatever the local vernacular) for a 5-10-15-20 mph drop. Perhaps that's because there was never one posted, or because it was removed/destroyed for some reason. Florida has more than a few of those her county roads, although they're still a rarity. Yes, I've been nabbed once for going eight miles per hour over the limit, while actively decelerating for a town line. Screw you, South Bay.

I suppose this is for another discussion, though.

QuoteWhy isn't Montana doing it considering their original Reasonable and Prudent speed zones?  I can see them dropping it down to 75 because the other states went 75, but when four states now have gone 80 you figure that they would reconsider raising it back up a little.

Corco went into a fair bit of detail about this upthread, if you'd read his posts.

Right, but remember, Roadman never reads the thread to see what other people have said before he posts.

Quote from: Zeffy on September 23, 2014, 01:48:37 PM

Quote from: roadman65 on September 23, 2014, 01:44:28 PM
PA does, or at least on the PA Turnpike for a stretch.

If I saw a speed limit 70 (or higher) sign in New Jersey I would think it was custom made. I think the Parkway could be 70 easily. I can't say the same about the Turnpike though, considering how many lanes it gets to as you continue north towards Newark (besides, there's VMS speed limits on the Turnpike anyway, which probably work for the best knowing how many accidents people still manage to have on it).

Actually, the lanes would benefit a 70 mph limit if it was allowed, because of the ability for traffic to travel at free-flow speeds.  After NJ allowed 65, it originally was only going to be 65 on the Turnpike from Interchange 1 - 8A.  Surprising to some, they decided to allow 65 up past Interchange 12.  At the time, NJ went from one of the few states holding onto the 55 mph limit to a state where trucks could go 65 (quite a number of states back then limited trucks to 55), and had one of the widest highways allowing 65 mph, at 14 lanes wide (albeit the roadways were no more than 4 lanes wide each). 

Quote from: doorknob60 on September 24, 2014, 12:52:02 AM
The funny thing is the Oregon speed limits, at least on highways, tend to be the same way, except we have the opposite problem here (some sections in Oregon are severely underposted, while in Montana, 75 is a bit much on some sections of I-90). Why? Because Montana is 75/70 and Oregon is 65/55. In Oregon, as long as you aren't in a urban area or some other town, with only a few exceptions, it will be 65 on the Interstate of 55 everywhere else. That's why US-20 East of Bend (which should be 70) and something like OR-242 (which in many places you won't get anywhere near 55) have the same speed limit. Also why I-84 on Cabbage Hill east of Pendleton, possibly one of the most dangerous grades in Oregon, keeps its 65 speed limit (though passenger cars can keep it close to 65 in good weather, but certainly not trucks). In Idaho, the speed limits fluctuate between 45 and 65 in places on US/state highways, where in Oregon it'd be a blanket 55. I like Oregon (and Montana's) way of doing it, as long as advisory speeds are well posted, but Oregon really just needs to bump up the maximums...

the problem with Oregon is that even if you raised the speed limit to 200, you'd get people going three-abreast at 55mph on I-5.  it's just a cultural thing.

Michigan.  There's a push in the state legislature for it, and the MSP and MDOT are not standing in the way.

Just to share, if the next state is New Mexico, here are some stretches of highway that I would think could be raised to 80 mph:

• I-25 in Sierra County.
• I-25 between Las Vegas and Raton.
• I-40 west of Albuquerque to Grants except at one curve.
• I-40 between Moriarty and Santa Rosa.
• I-40 between Santa Rosa and Tucumcari.
• I-40 from Tucumcari to Texas line.
• US 70 through White Sands.

Some may argue that I-25 between Albuquerque and Santa Fe should also be raised to 80, however this is a heavily traveled corridor, and in addition the New Mexico Rail Runner Express probably will not allow a speed limit increase due to it possibly negatively affecting their ridership.

QuoteSome may argue that I-25 between Albuquerque and Santa Fe should also be raised to 80, however this is a heavily traveled corridor, and in addition the New Mexico Rail Runner Express probably will not allow a speed limit increase due to it possibly negatively affecting their ridership.

More significant than any commuter rail is that there is topography north of Bernalillo that would likely preclude an 80 MPH limit.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 24, 2014, 02:21:59 PM

Quote from: doorknob60 on September 24, 2014, 12:52:02 AM
The funny thing is the Oregon speed limits, at least on highways, tend to be the same way, except we have the opposite problem here (some sections in Oregon are severely underposted, while in Montana, 75 is a bit much on some sections of I-90). Why? Because Montana is 75/70 and Oregon is 65/55. In Oregon, as long as you aren't in a urban area or some other town, with only a few exceptions, it will be 65 on the Interstate of 55 everywhere else. That's why US-20 East of Bend (which should be 70) and something like OR-242 (which in many places you won't get anywhere near 55) have the same speed limit. Also why I-84 on Cabbage Hill east of Pendleton, possibly one of the most dangerous grades in Oregon, keeps its 65 speed limit (though passenger cars can keep it close to 65 in good weather, but certainly not trucks). In Idaho, the speed limits fluctuate between 45 and 65 in places on US/state highways, where in Oregon it'd be a blanket 55. I like Oregon (and Montana's) way of doing it, as long as advisory speeds are well posted, but Oregon really just needs to bump up the maximums...

the problem with Oregon is that even if you raised the speed limit to 200, you'd get people going three-abreast at 55mph on I-5.  it's just a cultural thing.

On I-5, yeah probably. The Willamette Valley and Coast can be bad in terms of slow drivers, but central and eastern Oregon (where we generally drive pretty fast), including I-84, could really use it.

I hadn't previously looked at this thread. I see Maine mentioned on the poll list. I believe their legislature and governor passed a law allowing 75-mph limits on any Interstate, correct? But if I'm not mistaken, the DOT declined to post 75-mph limits on any road other than the part of I-95 north of Old Town that was already posted at 75. If that's correct, I can't imagine Maine having an 80-mph limit any time soon.

Having driven this country extensively, I don't see any reason that any state has a limit below 80.


But I would hope that Washington and Oregon would get with the program, especially given that most of the states is empty.

Quote from: Brandon on September 24, 2014, 06:37:28 PM
Michigan.  There's a push in the state legislature for it, and the MSP and MDOT are not standing in the way.

Unless something else has transpired that isn't showing up when I google it, that proposal was more than a year ago. (http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/23227106/proposal-would-raise-michigan-speed-limits-to-as-high-as-80-mph)

Quote from: TEG24601 on September 25, 2014, 09:28:51 PM
Having driven this country extensively, I don't see any reason that any state has a limit below 80.

What about Rhode Island?

Quote from: 1 on September 26, 2014, 05:14:25 AM

Quote from: TEG24601 on September 25, 2014, 09:28:51 PM
Having driven this country extensively, I don't see any reason that any state has a limit below 80.

What about Rhode Island?

The 295 looks like it could handle 80 easily. But, I've never driven it so I couldn't be certain.

FYI, there is a bill in Montana to raise the speed limit to either 80 or 85 mph:
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2014/12/03/montana-legislators-mull-85-mph-speed-limit/

Sorry to bump, but now that several states this year have approved speed limit increases to 80 mph, the only state that still has such bill pending is Michigan.  Not sure if it will pass.  Because of this, I think now is the time to revisit this subject.

If Michigan's bill fails, I think the most likely states that will be the next to increase their speed limits to 80 will be either North Dakota or New Mexico.

Montana didn't even had a real speed limit for a while so it's pretty suprising they wouldn't have the highest speed limit in the country

Looks like Michigan's bill passed, but unfortunately lowered to 75 mph.  However, North Dakota has introduced a new 80 mph bill.

I would go with Arizona.

Quote from: dvferyance on January 19, 2017, 02:41:07 PM
I would go with Arizona.

Disagree.  Arizona has a law that any speed above 85 is considered criminal, and past attempts to change that have been a tough sell for the state's lawmakers.  A 5 mph buffer is too small; it is within the margin of error of many speedometers.  I see New Mexico doing it before AZ.

With North Dakota's bill now dead, I wonder if New Mexico will be the next state to raise their speed limits to 80 mph.  Arizona is unlikely due to the 85 mph criminal speeding law. 

However, the wildcard could in fact be Colorado.  Some highways in the non-mountainous parts of the state can easily support 80 mph speed limits.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 23, 2014, 08:35:22 PM

Quote from: formulanone on September 23, 2014, 08:14:03 PM
I like a 10mph cushion for those moments when you're passing a potentially unsafe vehicle/driver who's traveling at the posted limit

this could use a total reform of the passing laws.  first, left lane is for passing only.  if you are not passing, move over.  next, pass with a speed differential of 10mph or greater.  third, there is no speed limit when actively passing. 

That is an extremely bad idea. Speed limits exist because it's dangerous to exceed them. Plus, the bigger the differential the more accidents there will be.

Quote
if the average American driver were indoctrinated to believe that farther-left lanes on a road with multiple lanes in each direction were designed to act exactly like the opposite-traffic lane on a two-laner with a dashed yellow line (i.e. pass, make quick work of it, and then get the hell back over) then we would not have nearly as much trouble with bad driving.

The reason drivers get out of the oncoming lane quickly when passing is that it's the oncoming lane, not because anyone was indoctrinated. People will continue to ignore traffic signs and regulations unless there is an obvious danger or widespread enforcement.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on March 07, 2017, 02:00:12 PM
the wildcard could in fact be Colorado.  Some highways in the non-mountainous parts of the state can easily support 80 mph speed limits.

At the rate that the consortium was raising the limit for a while there, I'd except an 80 mph limit on the E470 at some point. If only to encourage even more drivers to use it. Though it does already have one of the highest ring road speed limits in the US (75).

Quote from: bzakharin on March 07, 2017, 03:25:07 PM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 23, 2014, 08:35:22 PM

Quote from: formulanone on September 23, 2014, 08:14:03 PM
I like a 10mph cushion for those moments when you're passing a potentially unsafe vehicle/driver who's traveling at the posted limit

this could use a total reform of the passing laws.  first, left lane is for passing only.  if you are not passing, move over.  next, pass with a speed differential of 10mph or greater.  third, there is no speed limit when actively passing. 

That is an extremely bad idea. Speed limits exist because it's dangerous to exceed them. Plus, the bigger the differential the more accidents there will be.

(1) You're replying to a 2½-year-old post from a member who is no longer active and–last I knew–doesn't even remember his password to the forum.

(2) In what world is it safe enough to drive 80-85 mph on TX-130 that it's signed as such, yet is it dangerous enough to drive 80 mph on every highway in Virginia that it's automatically reckless driving?

Quote from: bzakharin on March 07, 2017, 03:25:07 PM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 23, 2014, 08:35:22 PM

Quote from: formulanone on September 23, 2014, 08:14:03 PM
I like a 10mph cushion for those moments when you're passing a potentially unsafe vehicle/driver who's traveling at the posted limit

this could use a total reform of the passing laws.  first, left lane is for passing only.  if you are not passing, move over.  next, pass with a speed differential of 10mph or greater.  third, there is no speed limit when actively passing. 

That is an extremely bad idea. Speed limits exist because it's dangerous to exceed them. Plus, the bigger the differential the more accidents there will be.

(Let's ignore the post is from 2014...)

Ha.  Well, that statement is correct in theory. In reality, one speed limit may be set for safety reasons.  The next speed limit down the road is there because a politician's younger brother didn't like the noise traffic made, so they reduced the limit to make it quieter for him.  Then his parents got another job in another state and he moved out of the house, but the limit has remained that way for the next 25 years.

Or, the limit is a state statute limit.  A highway could be 5 or 10 mph faster, but the Governor who has absolutely no engineering experience whatsoever won't permit it.

That said, "Third" is an extremely bad idea.  If I'm actively passing a line of traffic, I'm now allowed to do 120 mph in the left lane because I'm simply passing a motorist who's going 110 mph in the center lane because he's passing someone going the speed limit in the right lane?

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 07, 2017, 03:34:59 PM
That said, "Third" is an extremely bad idea.  If I'm actively passing a line of traffic, I'm now allowed to do 120 mph in the left lane because I'm simply passing a motorist who's going 110 mph in the center lane because he's passing someone going the speed limit in the right lane?

agentsteel53 has admitted that he has gone 120 mph before.

Quote from: 1 on March 07, 2017, 03:39:15 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 07, 2017, 03:34:59 PM
That said, "Third" is an extremely bad idea.  If I'm actively passing a line of traffic, I'm now allowed to do 120 mph in the left lane because I'm simply passing a motorist who's going 110 mph in the center lane because he's passing someone going the speed limit in the right lane?

agentsteel53 has admitted that he has gone 120 mph before.

I've gone 120 mph before.

Oops, didn't realize the old date somehow. What I meant is that no speed limit for passing is a bad idea and that there should be some sort of speed limit for safety reasons, not that I agree with 80 MPH (or anything else currently posted or proposed) being correct for any and all roads.

For those who bet money on West Virginia going to 80 MPH next, prepare to cash your 100-1 odds tickets at the betting window.

http://www.wowktv.com/news/politics/bill-to-increase-speed-limit-on-wv-interstates-and-highways-introduced/909274898

Quote from: thenetwork on January 11, 2018, 01:27:13 PM
For those who bet money on West Virginia going to 80 MPH next, prepare to cash your 100-1 odds tickets at the betting window.

http://www.wowktv.com/news/politics/bill-to-increase-speed-limit-on-wv-interstates-and-highways-introduced/909274898

Wow. If that somehow passes I'd be rather surprised.

Quote from: Buck87 on January 11, 2018, 01:32:37 PM

Quote from: thenetwork on January 11, 2018, 01:27:13 PM
For those who bet money on West Virginia going to 80 MPH next, prepare to cash your 100-1 odds tickets at the betting window.

http://www.wowktv.com/news/politics/bill-to-increase-speed-limit-on-wv-interstates-and-highways-introduced/909274898

Wow. If that somehow passes I'd be rather surprised.

80 MPH speeds will only be likely on downhill grades.  My 4-cylinder car would have a hard time reaching 70 on many of the uphill climbs.

Quote from: Buck87 on January 11, 2018, 01:32:37 PM

Quote from: thenetwork on January 11, 2018, 01:27:13 PM
For those who bet money on West Virginia going to 80 MPH next, prepare to cash your 100-1 odds tickets at the betting window.

http://www.wowktv.com/news/politics/bill-to-increase-speed-limit-on-wv-interstates-and-highways-introduced/909274898

Wow. If that somehow passes I'd be rather surprised.

I'll second that, and even if it did pass I would not expect them to post 80-mph limits on all roads that might be eligible. It seems like an 80-mph limit might be too fast on the West Virginia Turnpike, given the twisty segments and the truck traffic. I think speed differential between the slow-moving trucks and the car traffic would be the real hazard.

I tried hitting 80 mph on Corridor H once and it felt too fast.

Struggling to think of anywhere in WV where 80, let alone 75, would be a good idea. Only places I can think of are I-81 and the relatively straight portion of I-64 between Charleston and Barboursville, and that's a stretch due to the small size of the median.

Quote from: Thing 342 on January 11, 2018, 04:04:41 PM
Struggling to think of anywhere in WV where 80, let alone 75, would be a good idea. Only places I can think of are I-81 and the relatively straight portion of I-64 between Charleston and Barboursville, and that's a stretch due to the small size of the median.

80 is too fast for West Virginia, except for aforementioned stretch of I-64 (I said Barboursville to the St. Albans area) and that's because traffic moves around 80 mph there already.

To me, 70 is too fast for most of I-79 and also much of I-77 north of Charleston. Of course, I think 60 on the turnpike is too low.

I think 70-75 is fine in most areas of West Virginia. It's too bad my Speed Limit Sunday schedule doesn't take me there until week 40 or so (Next state Wisconsin going around the country counterclockwise, then inner states). Subject to change: Currently 50% of the milage is 70, 40% is 75 and 10% is 80.

I would be surprised if 80 passes through. 75 though is plausible if an engineering study is performed.

I think we're debating a little too much about curves and other bullshit.

Here's my idea: the speed limit should be 80 in the stretches where traffic is already going 80.

Quote from: Thing 342 on January 11, 2018, 04:04:41 PM
Struggling to think of anywhere in WV where 80, let alone 75, would be a good idea.

I-70 through Wheeling?   :bigass:

I'm already doing 80 mph on the Interstate. I even drive that speed in Detroit if traffic conditions favor it.

I have never been on an Interstate that I felt unsafe doing 80 mph in any stretch.

The only stretches of California freeway that I would feel comfortable doing 80 MPH are the rural sections of I-5, from Redding to the Grapevine, and I-10, I-40 and I-8 across the Mojave desert.  I thought about adding in I-15 east of Barstow but there's too many hills and grades.

Granted, getting speed limits raised in California is never going to happen because they would have to raise the current 55 MPH limit on trucks (80/55 is way to big of gap between limits).

Quote from: myosh_tino on January 11, 2018, 11:41:46 PM
Granted, getting speed limits raised in California is never going to happen because they would have to raise the current 55 MPH limit on trucks (80/55 is way to big of gap between limits).

While common practice in North America is to have truck limits that are [speed limit] minus 5, 10, or 15, Germany has a 80 km/h speed limit for trucks on all roads. On the non-limited sections of the Autobahn, the suggested limit for cars is 130. So it wouldn't be unprecedented.

Quote from: myosh_tino on January 11, 2018, 11:41:46 PM
The only stretches of California freeway that I would feel comfortable doing 80 MPH are the rural sections of I-5, from Redding to the Grapevine, and I-10, I-40 and I-8 across the Mojave desert.  I thought about adding in I-15 east of Barstow but there's too many hills and grades.

My driving in California is limited to Southern California, but traffic in the left lanes seem to flow at 80+ already. I-5 between LA and SD, I swear I hit 100.

Quote from: myosh_tino on January 11, 2018, 11:41:46 PM
The only stretches of California freeway that I would feel comfortable doing 80 MPH are the rural sections of I-5, from Redding to the Grapevine, and I-10, I-40 and I-8 across the Mojave desert.  I thought about adding in I-15 east of Barstow but there's too many hills and grades.

Granted, getting speed limits raised in California is never going to happen because they would have to raise the current 55 MPH limit on trucks (80/55 is way to big of gap between limits).

I would agree and these days, only Montana and California have a 15 mph differential. California as a compromise should pull an Idaho: 80T70 in flat, 75T65 in more mountainous.

Why even have a truck limit? Utah has just a flat 80 in most rural areas and seems to do fine with it.

Quote from: roadguy2 on January 12, 2018, 01:27:05 AM
Why even have a truck limit? Utah has just a flat 80 in most rural areas and seems to do fine with it.

It's a compromise. I don't have any truck limits in my plans (tier one of my Oregon speed limits exempt) except for those in curvy or mountainous areas.

Anybody guess Nebraska?  Interesting though that the most populous part of the state might be the first part to get 80... normally, it's the reverse!
http://www.omaha.com/news/legislature/i--from-omaha-to-lincoln-could-jump-to-mph/article_4b5029c2-fae4-11e7-8d3c-affe9a07d629.html

Quote from: vdeane on January 20, 2018, 05:11:04 PM
Anybody guess Nebraska?  Interesting though that the most populous part of the state might be the first part to get 80... normally, it's the reverse!
http://www.omaha.com/news/legislature/i--from-omaha-to-lincoln-could-jump-to-mph/article_4b5029c2-fae4-11e7-8d3c-affe9a07d629.html

Defies traditional logic. The only explanation would be the recent improvements there that was mentioned.