Challenges to NMSL?

[jeffandnicole]

Mostly, ADD.  Too many hobbies and interests. Today it's roads.  Tomorrow it's Vegas.  Wednesday it'll be Christmas lights!!!

[bugo]

Damn the politician who sponsors a bill bringing back the 55 MPH speed limit.  Hillary Clinton has voiced support of bringing it back, and for that reason I'll never vote for her.  (I wouldn't vote for her anyway, but this is the straw that broke the camel's back.)

[Scott5114]

Hillary Clinton is also Secretary of State and has nothing to do with speed limits anymore.

[Brandon]

Hillary Clinton is also Secretary of State and has nothing to do with speed limits anymore.

Thank goodness for that.  No politician should have anything to do with setting speed limits.  That should be the domain of a professional engineer, and only a professional engineer.

[cpzilliacus]

Hillary Clinton is also Secretary of State and has nothing to do with speed limits anymore.

Thank goodness for that.  No politician should have anything to do with setting speed limits.  That should be the domain of a professional engineer, and only a professional engineer.

If there's going to be a maximum speed limit (and I don't think that the U.S. should have freeways with no speed limit, autobahn-style), then that limit needs to be set by statute, and that means involving politicians.

Should most states have a much higher maximum speed limit for engineers to work with?  Yes, of course.  but there still needs to be an upper limit (at least for now).

[vdeane]

but there still needs to be an upper limit (at least for now).

False.  If an engineering study says a road is safe up to speed X, the speed limit should be X.  End of story.

[cpzilliacus]

but there still needs to be an upper limit (at least for now).

False.  If an engineering study says a road is safe up to speed X, the speed limit should be X.  End of story.

I vigorously disagree.

If we are going to have maximum speed limits that are enforceable by police (and the court system), those limits must be established by statute.

Once the maximum limit or limits are established (by the politicians in state legislatures, at least in the United States), then engineering studies can be used to set limits up to (but not over) those statutory maximum limits (and, for that matter, minimum limits too).

[kphoger]

If we are going to have maximum speed limits that are enforceable by police (and the court system), those limits must be established by statute.

Can you explain this?  Why couldn't speed limits which are set by the design characteristics of the highways be enforceable by police?  Go faster than the limit, get pulled over.  Only the number has changed.

[NE2]

You need to at least define in law what criteria the engineering study should use.

[1995hoo]

You need to at least define in law what criteria the engineering study should use.

I prefer this sort of thing to a blanket law. Give the DOT the procedure to use in establishing the speed limit and then let them adjust up or down accordingly.

I don't particularly like the question "what should the speed limit be" because I don't like the concept of "the speed limit." It presumes that there's a magic number that's the same everywhere (whether nationwide under the NMSL or within a given state the way most states operate today) and that is the maximum that should be allowed. I don't like that approach because I think we've already seen, with the failure of the NMSL, ample evidence of why "one-size-fits-all" doesn't work. Moreover, as many states have increased their limits over the years I think we've seen them conceding that their arguments about the sanctity of statutorily-enacted speed limits as "safety" measures are bollocks–I mean, Virginia stuck with the general 65 rural/55 urban principle from the NMSL for many years (with some minor tweaking to allow some 60-mph zones and some other adjustments), but now we have 70-mph zones on many of the same Interstates that just a few years ago the Commonwealth INSISTED could not be safely driven at speeds above 65. Obviously, both cannot be true–either the 70-mph speed limit is unsafe or the 65-mph limit had nothing to do with safety.

I think Virginia and New York are fine examples of states with a serious urban/rural divide where a large percentage of the population lives in the urban areas and has no clue how very different the road conditions (traffic, number of exits, etc.) are in the farther rural areas. Most people can accept that the speed limit in far western Texas can and should be higher than the speed limit on the Beltway around DC. Why, then, can't people accept the equally logical (in my opinion) premise that the speed limit on a US Highway in a rural part of a state can and often should be higher than the speed limit on an Interstate Highway in an urban part of the same state? Yet state legislators often assume that the Interstate has to have a higher speed limit because, well, it's an INTERSTATE! Also, what's wrong with allowing particular roads to have higher speed limits than are in place throughout most of the state if those roads are particularly well-designed, or don't get a lot of traffic, or whatever? Earlier this year Virginia finally posted 70 mph on a non-Interstate for the first time I can ever recall–a segment of US-29 near Lynchburg that's Interstate-quality (perhaps better, actually). Suppose 75 mph were reasonable on that road. Why not allow it? What's so magical about 70?

Thus, I would prefer the approach of "how should speed limits be determined," rather than "what should the speed limit be."

The other argument I've never bought is the idea that higher speed limits are always inherently dangerous. Car design evolves over time and faster speeds DO often become safer on roads that are well-designed for higher speeds. Consider that in the late 1960s/early 1970s, when pre-NMSL speed limits generally reached their highest levels, most cars in the USA were not particularly aerodynamic, had lousy brakes compared to modern cars, didn't handle terribly well, and had very skinny tires that often weren't even radials. A lot of cars had only lap belts and an awful lot of people didn't wear seat belts at all.

My first car was a 1977 Ford Granada and driving that thing at 80 mph was downright scary, whereas in either of my current cars (a 1988 RX-7 and a 2004 Acura TL) 80 mph is nothing.

[J N Winkler]

Can you explain this?  Why couldn't speed limits which are set by the design characteristics of the highways be enforceable by police?  Go faster than the limit, get pulled over.  Only the number has changed.

The difficulty with this is that in most countries a given alignment corresponds to different design speeds according to the edition of the geometric design reference that is used.  Moreover, in the US we have the additional problem that the same alignment can correspond to different design speeds in the same edition of the Green Book, depending on the choice of maximum superelevation.

One approach that could be made to work would be to have a law that fixes the speed limit as the highest value (rounded down to the nearest 5-MPH increment) such that the segment of road on which the limit applies has no curve where the side friction demand at the speed limit plus a fixed increment (say 20 MPH) exceeds a certain prescribed value at that speed.  But even this approach still affords ample latitude for manipulation by varying segment length to include or exclude difficult curves.

[PHLBOS]

Hillary Clinton is also Secretary of State and has nothing to do with speed limits anymore.

Thank goodness for that.  No politician should have anything to do with setting speed limits.  That should be the domain of a professional engineer, and only a professional engineer.

She might be eyeing a run in 2016.   

[cpzilliacus]

You need to at least define in law what criteria the engineering study should use.

I prefer this sort of thing to a blanket law. Give the DOT the procedure to use in establishing the speed limit and then let them adjust up or down accordingly.

No problem with that.  But I still assert that the state legislatures need to establish a statutory maximum (which might reasonably be as high as 80 or 85 MPH). 

I don't particularly like the question "what should the speed limit be" because I don't like the concept of "the speed limit." It presumes that there's a magic number that's the same everywhere (whether nationwide under the NMSL or within a given state the way most states operate today) and that is the maximum that should be allowed. I don't like that approach because I think we've already seen, with the failure of the NMSL, ample evidence of why "one-size-fits-all" doesn't work. Moreover, as many states have increased their limits over the years I think we've seen them conceding that their arguments about the sanctity of statutorily-enacted speed limits as "safety" measures are bollocks–I mean, Virginia stuck with the general 65 rural/55 urban principle from the NMSL for many years (with some minor tweaking to allow some 60-mph zones and some other adjustments), but now we have 70-mph zones on many of the same Interstates that just a few years ago the Commonwealth INSISTED could not be safely driven at speeds above 65. Obviously, both cannot be true–either the 70-mph speed limit is unsafe or the 65-mph limit had nothing to do with safety.

Virginia has plenty of roads that ought to have a posted speed limit of 75 or even 80 MPH.  An  excellent candidate for 80 is most of I-295 (at least the  segment between I-95 south of Petersburg and the I-95/I-295 interchange in Henrico County).

Most of I-66 between I-81 and U.S. 29 at Gainesville in Prince William County could be posted 75 (perhaps not the older, curvy section that's multiplexed with U.S. 17 near Marshall).

The Dulles Greenway should probably have a posted limit of 70.

I think Virginia and New York are fine examples of states with a serious urban/rural divide where a large percentage of the population lives in the urban areas and has no clue how very different the road conditions (traffic, number of exits, etc.) are in the farther rural areas. Most people can accept that the speed limit in far western Texas can and should be higher than the speed limit on the Beltway around DC. Why, then, can't people accept the equally logical (in my opinion) premise that the speed limit on a US Highway in a rural part of a state can and often should be higher than the speed limit on an Interstate Highway in an urban part of the same state? Yet state legislators often assume that the Interstate has to have a higher speed limit because, well, it's an INTERSTATE! Also, what's wrong with allowing particular roads to have higher speed limits than are in place throughout most of the state if those roads are particularly well-designed, or don't get a lot of traffic, or whatever? Earlier this year Virginia finally posted 70 mph on a non-Interstate for the first time I can ever recall–a segment of US-29 near Lynchburg that's Interstate-quality (perhaps better, actually). Suppose 75 mph were reasonable on that road. Why not allow it? What's so magical about 70?

Not just Virginia.  Even Maryland and Delaware, with modest-sized freeway networks, have differences when it comes to highways and the speed limits that should be posted there.  The Delaware 1 toll road (a/k/a the Relief Route) could probably be posted at 70 or 75. 

Long sections of I-70 in Maryland could be 75 or even 80 MPH.

There is nothing magic about 70 MPH.  Or 65 MPH.  Or 55 MPH.

Thus, I would prefer the approach of "how should speed limits be determined," rather than "what should the speed limit be."

Many prefer the 85th  percentile speed, which I think is reasonable, as long as design speed are considered.

The other argument I've never bought is the idea that higher speed limits are always inherently dangerous. Car design evolves over time and faster speeds DO often become safer on roads that are well-designed for higher speeds. Consider that in the late 1960s/early 1970s, when pre-NMSL speed limits generally reached their highest levels, most cars in the USA were not particularly aerodynamic, had lousy brakes compared to modern cars, didn't handle terribly well, and had very skinny tires that often weren't even radials. A lot of cars had only lap belts and an awful lot of people didn't wear seat belts at all.

Strongly agreed.  The inherently dangerous spin also comes from anti-highway groups and activists.

My first car was a 1977 Ford Granada and driving that thing at 80 mph was downright scary, whereas in either of my current cars (a 1988 RX-7 and a 2004 Acura TL) 80 mph is nothing.

We have three vehicles - a 2001 Ford F250 pickup, a 2007 Honda Pilot and a 2010 Honda Accord.  All are perfectly safe at 80 MPH on a freeway designed for that kind of speed.  All have radial tires and disc brakes on all four wheels.

[agentsteel53]

No problem with that.  But I still assert that the state legislatures need to establish a statutory maximum (which might reasonably be as high as 80 or 85 MPH). 

I disagree vehemently, because I do not believe the legislature should be in the engineering business.

then again, I also think a lot of rural roads should have no speed limit whatsoever.  this is especially sensible in states like Nevada.  they got along fine with no maximum speed limit until 1973; they enforced only reckless driving. 

[kphoger]

No problem with that.  But I still assert that the state legislatures need to establish a statutory maximum (which might reasonably be as high as 80 or 85 MPH). 

I disagree vehemently, because I do not believe the legislature should be in the engineering business.

then again, I also think a lot of rural roads should have no speed limit whatsoever.  this is especially sensible in states like Nevada.  they got along fine with no maximum speed limit until 1973; they enforced only reckless driving. 

Interstingly enough, anecdotal stories have led me to believe most people drove at around 70 mph or so.

[agentsteel53]

Interstingly enough, anecdotal stories have led me to believe most people drove at around 70 mph or so.

that's what I've heard too.  the speed limit nowadays is 70 on many rural two-laners in Nevada, and speed of traffic appears to be about 73-75. 

I generally do about 79, and have not been bothered by the police.  I'd like to do about 87 or so but I figure that is pushing it.

[cpzilliacus]

If we are going to have maximum speed limits that are enforceable by police (and the court system), those limits must be established by statute.

Can you explain this?  Why couldn't speed limits which are set by the design characteristics of the highways be enforceable by police?  Go faster than the limit, get pulled over.  Only the number has changed.

Government (in the form of police officers) enforces the law, and in some cases regulations - not engineering studies.

[agentsteel53]

Government (in the form of police officers) enforces the law, and in some cases regulations - not engineering studies.

many laws are the result of scientific/engineering studies.

just as one example - why are there agricultural inspection stations entering California?  because it has been proven scientifically that certain introduced pests will damage crops. 

[kkt]

Interstingly enough, anecdotal stories have led me to believe most people drove at around 70 mph or so.

that's what I've heard too.  the speed limit nowadays is 70 on many rural two-laners in Nevada, and speed of traffic appears to be about 73-75. 

I generally do about 79, and have not been bothered by the police.  I'd like to do about 87 or so but I figure that is pushing it.

However, if you don't post a speed limit at all, people drive in from the next state because they think it's a great place to try out their new Ferrari at 150.

[agentsteel53]

However, if you don't post a speed limit at all, people drive in from the next state because they think it's a great place to try out their new Ferrari at 150.

and if they're doing so recklessly, then pull them over for reckless driving.

[kphoger]

If we are going to have maximum speed limits that are enforceable by police (and the court system), those limits must be established by statute.

Can you explain this?  Why couldn't speed limits which are set by the design characteristics of the highways be enforceable by police?  Go faster than the limit, get pulled over.  Only the number has changed.

Government (in the form of police officers) enforces the law, and in some cases regulations - not engineering studies.

OK, I guess I (and at least one other user) misinterpreted your phrase "established by statute" to mean "arbitrarily set by statute".  A particular highway's speed limit being determined by its design characteristics does not preclude its speed limit being established by statute.  What many of us on here disagree with is a politically determined high-end cap above which no speed limit may be posted.  OTOH, most of us (I assume) would be fine with statute-established speed limits which are (a) determined by the design characteristics of the road, the study for which would be overseen and/or carried out by a government agency, and (b) not capped at an arbitrary number.

I would also be in favor of speed limits being advisory in nature, rather than a hard line the crossing of which is punishable by fine.  No harm, no foul.  If an accident is determined to be a speed-related accident (i.e., the driver was exceeding the advised speed for that road), then that should be a factor in the insurance claim and whatnot.  If a person is driving recklessly fast, then issue a ticket for reckless driving (perhaps something like 30 mph over the advised limit could be unarguable in court, or something).

[agentsteel53]

If a person is driving recklessly fast, then issue a ticket for reckless driving (perhaps something like 30 mph over the advised limit could be unarguable in court, or something).

I don't like anything being "unarguable in court".  if I'm doing 100 in a posted 70 and not harming anyone (because I'm out in the absolute middle of nowhere, for example) then I should be able to present my case to a judge.

as for being statutory, I'd be okay with roads being given particular classifications, and each classification having a given speed limit (for example: "rural two-lane road with visibility standards as established by Engineering Study XYZ shall have speed limit 90mph"), so long as it is the highway department which goes through and sets the classifications. 

I believe currently Nevada has the highway department set the zones where, rurally, the speed limit drops from 70 to 55 due to terrain.  I can't imagine Senator Numbnuts riding out in his motorcade and taking notes about when the curves were getting just a wee bit too sharp for his tastes.

[kphoger]

If a person is driving recklessly fast, then issue a ticket for reckless driving (perhaps something like 30 mph over the advised limit could be unarguable in court, or something).

I don't like anything being "unarguable in court".  if I'm doing 100 in a posted 70 and not harming anyone (because I'm out in the absolute middle of nowhere, for example) then I should be able to present my case to a judge.

as for being statutory, I'd be okay with roads being given particular classifications, and each classification having a given speed limit (for example: "rural two-lane road with visibility standards as established by Engineering Study XYZ shall have speed limit 90mph"), so long as it is the highway department which goes through and sets the classifications. 

I believe currently Nevada has the highway department set the zones where, rurally, the speed limit drops from 70 to 55 due to terrain.  I can't imagine Senator Numbnuts riding out in his motorcade and taking notes about when the curves were getting just a wee bit too sharp for his tastes.

Jake, that's why I tried to say "most people" as much as possible.  I'd be fine without numerical speed limits (at least, I think so....I keep waffling back and forth), I know you would prefer their abolition, but I think most people prefer there be some sort of numerical cap.

A Uzi submachine gun harms nobody until it's actually used to shoot someone, yet most people are OK with not being allowed to go out and buy one.  Similarly, a car going 150 mph harms nobody until it actually hits another person, yet most people are OK with not being allowed to drive that fast.

[agentsteel53]

eh, most people suck

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

[kphoger]

Oh, that Man, keeping you down!