Are there any speed limits that you feel are too high, possibly because of terrain, curvature, or dense development making it hard to maintain the existing limit?
Also, what about limits that another state's DOT would have set much lower on the exact same stretch of roadway?
Generally, I am an advocate of higher speed limits, but there are cases where the limit could be set lower and a lot of acceleration/deceleration cycles could be avoided, allowing better maintenance of a consistent speed.
Sure. The speed limit in my cul de sac (25 mph) is too high for a tight street that 2 cars cant just stay in their lane when they encounter each other, one must pull over and make sure they don't tear their mirror off on a mailbox. 15 mph should be more than enough for such a short, tight street.
Other than that, I really cannot think of any "through" roads or highways where the speed limit is too high. Not in my area at least.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20198.0
I-84 Cabbage Hill. Currently at 70T65 but really should be 65T55 due to terrain and curves.
OR 219 over Chehalem mountain: currently 55 with 15 MPH advisory curves. Should be or 45. Raise the speed limit in Newberg from 35 to 45 to match this.
US 101 between Yahats and 8 miles north of Florence: currently 55, should be 45. (Most hesitent on this, I actually think 55 is fine except for advisory curves on this stretch. It is still in here for advisory purposes).
MT 135: currently 70T60 N65T55 should be 65 (no truck limit).
I-705: Currently 60 should be 55.
Main road through Leavenworth, WA (not US 2, the one next to it): current 25, should be 20.
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on July 21, 2018, 04:41:24 PM
Main road through Leavenworth, WA (not US 2, the one next to it): current 25, should be 15.
Limits below 20 are not legally allowed in WA: http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.415
I think South Westnedge Avenue through downtown and southside Kalamazoo is too high at 35. There are too many people doing 40-45 and too many pedestrians and bicycles. It should be 30 or even 25.
Speed limits are never too high. They are a limit, not a minimum qualification.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 21, 2018, 06:13:32 PM
Speed limits are never too high. They are a limit, not a minimum qualification.
They are too high if they are hard - or impossible - to maintain. This is fairly rare, but I can think of several roads with a lot of curvature that might qualify. Possibly roads with high pedestrian volumes too, although I say that a little more cautiously.
Quote from: US 89 on July 21, 2018, 04:11:36 PM
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20198.0
Oops. Let this thread signify that the Roadgeekteen era is over, lol.
Ross Ruland Rd near Cairo, NY has a 45 mph speed limit. A lot of fun, but may be a smidge high.
As for the "another state's DOT" question, I can think of a bazillion places at 65 that PennDOT would sign at 55. Namely, everything that's in an area shaded in pink on this map: https://gis3.dot.ny.gov/html5viewer/?viewer=FC
Quote from: webny99 on July 21, 2018, 06:42:14 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 21, 2018, 06:13:32 PM
Speed limits are never too high. They are a limit, not a minimum qualification.
They are too high if they are hard - or impossible - to maintain.
Nonsense. Take a look at a car's tachometer. You don't run it in the red or just below the red. Tase a look at circuit breakers. If it's a 15 amp circuit, you don't plug 15 amps of stuff into it consistency.
A limit, in theory, should be the upper echelon of what you can go. Speed Limits have long been changed into something that officials know will be exceeded by nearly everyone.
US 180/62 east of El Paso with a 75 MPH speed limit is kind of nutty at times. US 90 east from I-10 in Van Horn can be a little much at 75 MPH as well. In the case of the former I seem to recall that it had a 65 MPH night time speed limit. Either way, quite the experience to rocket down a two-lane highway at a legal 75 MPH.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 21, 2018, 11:10:02 PM
Quote from: webny99 on July 21, 2018, 06:42:14 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 21, 2018, 06:13:32 PM
Speed limits are never too high. They are a limit, not a minimum qualification.
They are too high if they are hard - or impossible - to maintain.
Nonsense. Take a look at a car's tachometer. You don't run it in the red or just below the red. Tase a look at circuit breakers. If it's a 15 amp circuit, you don't plug 15 amps of stuff into it consistency.
A limit, in theory, should be the upper echelon of what you can go. Speed Limits have long been changed into something that officials know will be exceeded by nearly everyone.
I'll take OR 219 as an example, if you drive 55 on ANY portion of the south side of Chehalem Mountain, you will not slow down enough in time to make any of the curves safely. You'll be lucky to hit 40 on that road.
Edit: I do agree though that Speed limits should be set at the upper limit of safety.
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on July 22, 2018, 12:34:11 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 21, 2018, 11:10:02 PM
Quote from: webny99 on July 21, 2018, 06:42:14 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 21, 2018, 06:13:32 PM
Speed limits are never too high. They are a limit, not a minimum qualification.
They are too high if they are hard - or impossible - to maintain.
Nonsense. Take a look at a car's tachometer. You don't run it in the red or just below the red. Tase a look at circuit breakers. If it's a 15 amp circuit, you don't plug 15 amps of stuff into it consistency.
A limit, in theory, should be the upper echelon of what you can go. Speed Limits have long been changed into something that officials know will be exceeded by nearly everyone.
I'll take OR 219 as an example, if you drive 55 on ANY portion of the south side of Chehalem Mountain, you will not slow down enough in time to make any of the curves safely. You'll be lucky to hit 40 on that road.
So it's a true limit. You've just proved his point.
Speed limit ≠ suggested speed.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 22, 2018, 12:35:50 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on July 22, 2018, 12:34:11 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 21, 2018, 11:10:02 PM
Quote from: webny99 on July 21, 2018, 06:42:14 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 21, 2018, 06:13:32 PM
Speed limits are never too high. They are a limit, not a minimum qualification.
They are too high if they are hard - or impossible - to maintain.
Nonsense. Take a look at a car's tachometer. You don't run it in the red or just below the red. Tase a look at circuit breakers. If it's a 15 amp circuit, you don't plug 15 amps of stuff into it consistency.
A limit, in theory, should be the upper echelon of what you can go. Speed Limits have long been changed into something that officials know will be exceeded by nearly everyone.
I'll take OR 219 as an example, if you drive 55 on ANY portion of the south side of Chehalem Mountain, you will not slow down enough in time to make any of the curves safely. You'll be lucky to hit 40 on that road.
So it's a true limit. You've just proved his point.
Speed limit ≠ suggested speed.
Yes and no. It is true that it is a true limit, but that doesn't mean going 55 is safe through there. If it was posted at 45 instead, it would be the fastest you can safely go under ideal conditions for that road, which is the ideal true limit. Any slower turns it into a not a true limit.
For Webny: If it is hard to maintain/hit safely: that is a true limit.
If it is impossible to hit safely then it is too high.
LG-TP260
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on July 21, 2018, 04:41:24 PM
I-84 Cabbage Hill. Currently at 70T65 but really should be 65T55 due to terrain and curves.
I wouldn't even complain if eastbound were 60T50.
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on July 22, 2018, 01:08:41 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 22, 2018, 12:35:50 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on July 22, 2018, 12:34:11 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 21, 2018, 11:10:02 PM
Quote from: webny99 on July 21, 2018, 06:42:14 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 21, 2018, 06:13:32 PM
Speed limits are never too high. They are a limit, not a minimum qualification.
They are too high if they are hard - or impossible - to maintain.
Nonsense. Take a look at a car's tachometer. You don't run it in the red or just below the red. Tase a look at circuit breakers. If it's a 15 amp circuit, you don't plug 15 amps of stuff into it consistency.
A limit, in theory, should be the upper echelon of what you can go. Speed Limits have long been changed into something that officials know will be exceeded by nearly everyone.
I'll take OR 219 as an example, if you drive 55 on ANY portion of the south side of Chehalem Mountain, you will not slow down enough in time to make any of the curves safely. You'll be lucky to hit 40 on that road.
So it's a true limit. You've just proved his point.
Speed limit ≠ suggested speed.
Yes and no. It is true that it is a true limit, but that doesn't mean going 55 is safe through there. If it was posted at 45 instead, it would be the fastest you can safely go under ideal conditions for that road, which is the ideal true limit. Any slower turns it into a not a true limit.
For Webny: If it is hard to maintain/hit safely: that is a true limit.
If it is impossible to hit safely then it is too high.
Are you challenging me to achieve 55 along the Hillsboro Hwy? Challenge accepted.
You seem to prefer nanny limits that reflect immediate geometry: 55 here, 50 here, 60 here, 45, here...that stuff's bullshit. Just have one limit (say, 55 or 60), with advisory limits on the corners. There are
many cars, especially new ones, that could easily hit any speed limit in a given area. Maybe yours can't, but many can. For the state of Oregon (or any state) to effectively say, "some cars are incapable of maintaining the limit along any stretch of this road, therefore, we shall lower the limit to make the slow cars compliant", is total crap. Those cars can go whatever speed they want. Preferably close to the limit if possible, but no harm done if below. But then, all the cars that can easily achieve the limit are now breaking the law doing what was a reasonable speed. And they're now all liable for tickets.
Common practice in this country has been for limits to be the speed that drivers should go. That needs to change. The limit needs to be the limit: it needs to feel fast.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 22, 2018, 02:43:30 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on July 22, 2018, 01:08:41 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 22, 2018, 12:35:50 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on July 22, 2018, 12:34:11 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 21, 2018, 11:10:02 PM
Quote from: webny99 on July 21, 2018, 06:42:14 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 21, 2018, 06:13:32 PM
Speed limits are never too high. They are a limit, not a minimum qualification.
They are too high if they are hard - or impossible - to maintain.
Nonsense. Take a look at a car's tachometer. You don't run it in the red or just below the red. Tase a look at circuit breakers. If it's a 15 amp circuit, you don't plug 15 amps of stuff into it consistency.
A limit, in theory, should be the upper echelon of what you can go. Speed Limits have long been changed into something that officials know will be exceeded by nearly everyone.
I'll take OR 219 as an example, if you drive 55 on ANY portion of the south side of Chehalem Mountain, you will not slow down enough in time to make any of the curves safely. You'll be lucky to hit 40 on that road.
So it's a true limit. You've just proved his point.
Speed limit ≠ suggested speed.
Yes and no. It is true that it is a true limit, but that doesn't mean going 55 is safe through there. If it was posted at 45 instead, it would be the fastest you can safely go under ideal conditions for that road, which is the ideal true limit. Any slower turns it into a not a true limit.
For Webny: If it is hard to maintain/hit safely: that is a true limit.
If it is impossible to hit safely then it is too high.
Are you challenging me to achieve 55 along the Hillsboro Hwy? Challenge accepted.
You seem to prefer nanny limits that reflect immediate geometry: 55 here, 50 here, 60 here, 45, here...that stuff's bullshit. Just have one limit (say, 55 or 60), with advisory limits on the corners. There are many cars, especially new ones, that could easily hit any speed limit in a given area. Maybe yours can't, but many can. For the state of Oregon (or any state) to effectively say, "some cars are incapable of maintaining the limit along any stretch of this road, therefore, we shall lower the limit to make the slow cars compliant", is total crap. Those cars can go whatever speed they want. Preferably close to the limit if possible, but no harm done if below. But then, all the cars that can easily achieve the limit are now breaking the law doing what was a reasonable speed. And they're now all liable for tickets.
Common practice in this country has been for limits to be the speed that drivers should go. That needs to change. The limit needs to be the limit: it needs to feel fast.
On 219, yes I have nanny limits for geography, however in my fictional tier 4 plan (which is what I'm going off of), most of the time roads are posted at 65 or 70 except in towns. In fact, I am against nanny limits changing every 5 miles (example) if there is no town most of the time. I only like to reduce it over mountain passes or in towns. 219 just seems to be a wierd highway when it comes to design. In fact I would post 219 at 65 except on the South side of the mountain (45) and this is despite numerous right angle turns. Also for reference, I would raise the Newberg limit to match this so it is one limit (35 I feel is a little slow for there, especially north of Mountain view drive). 90% of the time, I will not reduce speed limits for roadway geometrics but I do have exceptions (242, this, cabbage hill). These exceptions may not total less than 3 miles in length each for consistency purposes. Now many cars can go faster than the 2005 outback that I can drive, and I don't deny that. If I did, the limit I would've proposed would've been 40 or 35. Now for urban areas, nanny limits can work more often but it must be in the right circumstances.
The same goes with weather, and traffic conditions do not reduce the limit for different weather/traffic conditions. Let the driver decide there just like with most turns. Advisories are fine though as it can aid in those unfamiliar with the area and conditions.
Edit: When I say impossible to maintain, I normally mean over mountain passes.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 21, 2018, 11:10:02 PM
A limit, in theory, should be the upper echelon of what you can go. Speed Limits have long been changed into something that officials know will be exceeded by nearly everyone.
I'm an advocate of limits being set reasonably, and then abided by. On the Thruway, this probably means around 85-90 mph, if not higher. On a hilly, winding, and/or residential street, the existing limit is probably
already reasonable, and if it's challenging to maintain (admittedly rare) it wouldn't do anyone any harm if the posted limit more accurately reflected the (lower) upper bound of travel speeds.
Quote from: webny99 on July 21, 2018, 04:00:27 PM
Are there any speed limits that you feel are too high, possibly because of terrain, curvature, or dense development making it hard to maintain the existing limit?
Also, what about limits that another state's DOT would have set much lower on the exact same stretch of roadway?
Generally, I am an advocate of higher speed limits, but there are cases where the limit could be set lower and a lot of acceleration/deceleration cycles could be avoided, allowing better maintenance of a consistent speed.
No, I do not know of any speed limits that are too high. On roads with parts that the speed limit may be too high to safely navigate, such as curves, then advisory speeds are posted and drivers are on their own if they don't heed those advisory speeds. In general, I think speed limits are too low and those low limits allow for random taxation, as SP Cook calls it.
In terms of what other state DOTs would do to a particular stretch of road, look at US 119 between Charleston and Pikeville. It's mostly signed for 65 mph in West Virginia. Get into Kentucky and out of the South Williamson/Belfry area, and it's signed for 55 mph, even though much of that road is newer than the WV section and seemingly built to a higher design speed standard.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 21, 2018, 11:58:25 PM
US 180/62 east of El Paso with a 75 MPH speed limit is kind of nutty at times. US 90 east from I-10 in Van Horn can be a little much at 75 MPH as well. In the case of the former I seem to recall that it had a 65 MPH night time speed limit. Either way, quite the experience to rocket down a two-lane highway at a legal 75 MPH.
The night speed limits were eliminated by legislation passed in 2011. The same bill also authorized 75 mph speed limits anywhere in the state, not just the far-flung areas. Because of that, we have two-lane roads with that limit all over, outside of urban and suburban areas. Some of them are a little intense. There's one not too far from me where the road has narrow shoulders and blind hills. I don't necessarily go 75 the whole time through there. The two roads you mentioned seem like the best two-lane roads for such high limits, being relatively straight and flat and carrying little traffic. There are also narrow roads with that speed limit, including this one, with pavement 24 feet wide, but it has no traffic. I have no problem going 75 there. Maybe you just get accustomed to it.
https://goo.gl/maps/WfvDFfFhEC22 (https://goo.gl/maps/WfvDFfFhEC22)
Quote from: wxfree on July 22, 2018, 02:51:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 21, 2018, 11:58:25 PM
US 180/62 east of El Paso with a 75 MPH speed limit is kind of nutty at times. US 90 east from I-10 in Van Horn can be a little much at 75 MPH as well. In the case of the former I seem to recall that it had a 65 MPH night time speed limit. Either way, quite the experience to rocket down a two-lane highway at a legal 75 MPH.
The night speed limits were eliminated by legislation passed in 2011. The same bill also authorized 75 mph speed limits anywhere in the state, not just the far-flung areas. Because of that, we have two-lane roads with that limit all over, outside of urban and suburban areas. Some of them are a little intense. There's one not too far from me where the road has narrow shoulders and blind hills. I don't necessarily go 75 the whole time through there. The two roads you mentioned seem like the best two-lane roads for such high limits, being relatively straight and flat and carrying little traffic. There are also narrow roads with that speed limit, including this one, with pavement 24 feet wide, but it has no traffic. I have no problem going 75 there. Maybe you just get accustomed to it.
https://goo.gl/maps/WfvDFfFhEC22 (https://goo.gl/maps/WfvDFfFhEC22)
For what its worth US 62/180 had some pretty wide shoulders and lanes. Personally I'd hate to go that fast at night with the likelihood of a coyote encounter or two.
There's no longer a lower night speed limit, but slowing down isn't a bad idea. I usually do in areas that have tend to have more wildlife.
Missouri Route 18 between Adrian and Clinton is one that I drove recently that comes to mind. The speed limit is 55 mph for much of it, but the road is pretty narrow and in poor condition, and there are a lot of hills in that area.
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.
Quote from: adwerkema on July 22, 2018, 09:42:52 PM
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.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 23, 2018, 01:51:56 AM
Quote from: adwerkema on July 22, 2018, 09:42:52 PM
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.
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on July 21, 2018, 04:41:24 PM
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).
Quote from: doorknob60 on July 23, 2018, 06:50:12 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on July 21, 2018, 04:41:24 PM
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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 23, 2018, 08:54:10 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 23, 2018, 01:51:56 AM
Quote from: adwerkema on July 22, 2018, 09:42:52 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: ftballfan on July 23, 2018, 10:30:53 PM
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.
Quote from: tribar on July 24, 2018, 01:12:45 PM
"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.
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 (https://www.google.es/maps/@42.1404904,-0.4539957,3a,75y,324.13h,89.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIjdhYlX7RsLrzmBTKVXdQg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
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.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on July 24, 2018, 05:20:30 PM
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 (https://www.google.es/maps/@42.1404904,-0.4539957,3a,75y,324.13h,89.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIjdhYlX7RsLrzmBTKVXdQg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
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.
Quote from: ftballfan on July 23, 2018, 10:30:53 PM
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.
Quote from: adwerkema on July 22, 2018, 09:42:52 PM
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.
Quote from: yand on July 26, 2018, 01:20:50 PM
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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 26, 2018, 01:26:55 PM
Quote from: yand on July 26, 2018, 01:20:50 PM
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.
Quote from: 1 on July 26, 2018, 01:32:22 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 26, 2018, 01:26:55 PM
Quote from: yand on July 26, 2018, 01:20:50 PM
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?
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.
Quote from: 1 on July 26, 2018, 01:32:22 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 26, 2018, 01:26:55 PM
Quote from: yand on July 26, 2018, 01:20:50 PM
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.
Duplicate thread, see link below.