Current state speed limit increase proposals

[corco]

At today's hearing of Nevada's Assembly Transportation Committee, the director of Nevada DOT spoke in opposition to the increase from 75 mph to 80 mph:

Representatives from the Nevada Department of Transportation, the Nevada Highway Patrol and the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office opposed the bill.

“Our goal is zero fatalities and we feel that the negatives outweigh the positives when people are driving faster on our roadways,” said Rudy Malfabon, the director of the Nevada Department of Transportation.

“While increasing the speed limit may save some time, our concern is that an increase in severe injuries and fatalities will also result,” Malfabon said.

The legislature does not set speed limits in Nevada; NDOT does.  It certainly sets up a confrontation if the Assembly passes the bill and the governor signs it.

The Governor won't sign it if his DOT and Highway Patrol (who are appointees of the governor) oppose it. Heads of state agencies don't get up and express public opposition/support of bills unless the governor's office directs them to. That's why you'll never see two state agencies toe different lines (e.g. DOT in favor, highway patrol not), unless that state's governor has no control over what is going on or somebody is going rogue.

[jakeroot]

From above...

"Our goal is zero fatalities"

Shit like this drives me up a fucking wall. Zero fatalities? Really? Aim for something realistic, something achievable.

When you're dealing with elected officials, you have to say something totally ridiculous but politically popular.

Welcome to democracy.

[J N Winkler]

The Governor won't sign it if his DOT and Highway Patrol (who are appointees of the governor) oppose it. Heads of state agencies don't get up and express public opposition/support of bills unless the governor's office directs them to. That's why you'll never see two state agencies toe different lines (e.g. DOT in favor, highway patrol not), unless that state's governor has no control over what is going on or somebody is going rogue.

Yup, this sort of thing is usually coordinated by policy advisors working out of the governor's office.  By the same token, a state DOT will not exercise any discretionary powers it has to increase speed limits if the governor opposes higher limits.  I suspect this is why Oregon has stayed at 65 under Kitzhaber.

[gonealookin]

Back on the first page of this thread I mentioned that

an 85 bill came up in the last Nevada legislature.  It passed in the Senate and passed an Assembly committee but then died without an Assembly floor vote.  I never saw a good explanation, but reading between the lines it sounded like the governor didn't want to sign it because he's the one who gets blamed the first time some kids die.

Agreed that Mr. Malfabon is probably speaking for the governor here, so Nevada's 75 maximum will most likely not be increased during this governor's tenure.

[froggie]

It's not that easy, especially when it comes to legalese and today's litigatious society...

Have you heard of a state being sued due to a higher speed limit?  I have not seen any such news along those lines but if you have, please do share!

Rick

Not sure about other states, but in both Minnesota and Virginia (with VERY few exceptions, mostly related to school zones), the DOT is required by law to perform a traffic and engineering study before raising or lowering a speed limit on a given road segment.   If they were to raise or lower the limit without said study, that would easily be justification for a lawsuit.

[cl94]

It's not that easy, especially when it comes to legalese and today's litigatious society...

Have you heard of a state being sued due to a higher speed limit?  I have not seen any such news along those lines but if you have, please do share!

Rick

Not sure about other states, but in both Minnesota and Virginia (with VERY few exceptions, mostly related to school zones), the DOT is required by law to perform a traffic and engineering study before raising or lowering a speed limit on a given road segment.   If they were to raise or lower the limit without said study, that would easily be justification for a lawsuit.

New York might be the same. I know that, in this state, ALL speed limits are set in law by NYSDOT and nobody else can change them. Does a lot to prevent some of the stupid speed traps.

[Pink Jazz]

Not sure about other states, but in both Minnesota and Virginia (with VERY few exceptions, mostly related to school zones), the DOT is required by law to perform a traffic and engineering study before raising or lowering a speed limit on a given road segment.   If they were to raise or lower the limit without said study, that would easily be justification for a lawsuit.

I believe Texas requires a study to raise any highway above 75.  Used to be for any speed above 70, but now the state has a blanket default speed limit of 75 mph.

[6a]

It's not that easy, especially when it comes to legalese and today's litigatious society...

Have you heard of a state being sued due to a higher speed limit?  I have not seen any such news along those lines but if you have, please do share!

Rick

I don't even know what the argument would be- you'd have to argue that the state legislature somehow acted contrary to the U.S. or state constitutions when raising the speed limit. No earthly idea what the argument in the US constitution would be, and unless a state constitution had some weird public participation clause that requires certain types of bills to go to the voters or something I don't know what that would be either.

One of the things cited in Ohio's failure to go to 75 was the "design speed" of  the rural freeways is 70. Concern was raised that a limit higher than that would open up the state to lawsuits.

[corco]

It's not that easy, especially when it comes to legalese and today's litigatious society...

Have you heard of a state being sued due to a higher speed limit?  I have not seen any such news along those lines but if you have, please do share!

Rick

I don't even know what the argument would be- you'd have to argue that the state legislature somehow acted contrary to the U.S. or state constitutions when raising the speed limit. No earthly idea what the argument in the US constitution would be, and unless a state constitution had some weird public participation clause that requires certain types of bills to go to the voters or something I don't know what that would be either.

One of the things cited in Ohio's failure to go to 75 was the "design speed" of  the rural freeways is 70. Concern was raised that a limit higher than that would open up the state to lawsuits.

That's nice rhetoric, but did they elaborate on the how?

Yes, if your speed limit increase bill says "raise the speed limit pending a traffic investigation," the state would have to do so in order to raise the limit- it would be like Oregon where the DOT can but isn't required to raise the limit to 70, and therefore doesn't. But if the state conducted a reputable traffic investigation and raised the limit, that would pretty much ward off lawsuits. The only way the state would be liable is if it were required to conduct a traffic investigation prior to raising a speed limit and then either raised it without doing a traffic investigation or didn't perform one using reasonably accepted standards.

If the law says "the speed limit on rural intestates is now 75," there's just no way to hold the state liable for enforcing the laws its citizens passed, unless the law isn't constitutional. If you're the governor and you have freeways that can't be safely navigated at that speed, you lobby to have the bill amended to give your DOT the discretion (but NOT the mandate) to raise speeds as possible. If you fail at that, then you post at 75 and maybe that's dangerous from an accident standpoint but it's more legal than ignoring the new law.

There's no precedent requiring speed limits to correspond with design speeds- it's good practice, but there's thousands of exceptions to that in the country, including most of Montana (and the entire country from 73 to 95). Ive never heard of a case where a state government got in trouble for posting a legally authorized speed limit. There are cases involving local government like New rome, Ohio, but those became constitutional issues in the way they were enforced, and also violated state law. Since the feds no longer legislate speed limits, state law is supreme in regards to speed limits. (Even under NMSL, state speed limit law was supreme, but not worth the funding hit to overpost)

[6a]

It's not that easy, especially when it comes to legalese and today's litigatious society...

Have you heard of a state being sued due to a higher speed limit?  I have not seen any such news along those lines but if you have, please do share!

Rick

I don't even know what the argument would be- you'd have to argue that the state legislature somehow acted contrary to the U.S. or state constitutions when raising the speed limit. No earthly idea what the argument in the US constitution would be, and unless a state constitution had some weird public participation clause that requires certain types of bills to go to the voters or something I don't know what that would be either.

One of the things cited in Ohio's failure to go to 75 was the "design speed" of  the rural freeways is 70. Concern was raised that a limit higher than that would open up the state to lawsuits.

That's nice rhetoric, but did they elaborate on the how?

From here

In addition, the Ohio Department of Transportation told lawmakers that when many Ohio highways were constructed decades ago, they were designed for traffic to travel at a maximum of 70 mph, according to ODOT spokesman Matt Bruning.

If the speed limit was raised to 75 mph, ODOT claimed, people who got into highway accidents could potentially sue the state for allowing traffic to go faster than what the roads were built to handle.

In this instance I think it's more "anyone can sue for anything" than actual science, but it does go back to Rick's question regarding whether or not a state has been sued for such a thing. No, they haven't in this case but there was a stated fear.

This might be getting off topic, but how closely is design speed related to the actual ideal safe speed? Meaning, suppose a curve has an advisory speed of 20 but everything except a fully loaded tractor trailer can handle it at 30; how is the design speed related (or is it?)

[J N Winkler]

That's nice rhetoric, but did they elaborate on the how?

Yes, if your speed limit increase bill says "raise the speed limit pending a traffic investigation," the state would have to do so in order to raise the limit- it would be like Oregon where the DOT can but isn't required to raise the limit to 70, and therefore doesn't. But if the state conducted a reputable traffic investigation and raised the limit, that would pretty much ward off lawsuits. The only way the state would be liable is if it were required to conduct a traffic investigation prior to raising a speed limit and then either raised it without doing a traffic investigation or didn't perform one using reasonably accepted standards.

If the law says "the speed limit on rural intestates is now 75," there's just no way to hold the state liable for enforcing the laws its citizens passed, unless the law isn't constitutional. If you're the governor and you have freeways that can't be safely navigated at that speed, you lobby to have the bill amended to give your DOT the discretion (but NOT the mandate) to raise speeds as possible. If you fail at that, then you post at 75 and maybe that's dangerous from an accident standpoint but it's more legal than ignoring the new law.

There's no precedent requiring speed limits to correspond with design speeds- it's good practice, but there's thousands of exceptions to that in the country, including most of Montana (and the entire country from 73 to 95). Ive never heard of a case where a state government got in trouble for posting a legally authorized speed limit. There are cases involving local government like New Rome, Ohio, but those became constitutional issues in the way they were enforced, and also violated state law. Since the feds no longer legislate speed limits, state law is supreme in regards to speed limits. (Even under NMSL, state speed limit law was supreme, but not worth the funding hit to overpost)

Corco, your argument is essentially that the state legislature has a limited form of parliamentary sovereignty, so it cannot be held liable for negligence if it decides to increase speed limits--even to values well in excess of the design speeds for the roads involved--and there is a subsequent increase in accidents.

I don't disagree with this reasoning, but I do not think it is the whole story.  By similar reasoning you could claim that a state legislature cannot be sued for inadequately funding public schools because adequate funding is whatever state legislators, duly elected and acting on behalf of the general public, say it is.  Yet it is not at all uncommon for state legislatures to be sued for precisely this; in Kansas we have had such a lawsuit working its way through the courts for several years now.  The Kansas case hinges on a constitutional provision giving the legislature the responsibility to "suitably" fund public education.  There has been talk of removing this provision, or attempting to nullify it by passing a law saying that adequate funding is whatever the Legislature chooses to spend, but neither approach has come to fruition--one would require an amendment to be submitted to the voters while the other is constitutionally suspect and would likely be struck down by the courts.

It is likely that some state constitutions have a provision charging the legislature to direct "responsible" management of the highway system that could be used as a hook for a lawsuit against increased speed limits.

This issue is of course separate from what occurs if a state DOT improperly exercises discretionary powers it has been given to increase speed limits.  State legislatures pass laws which sharply limit the circumstances under which a state DOT can sue and be sued; this is the residue of sovereign immunity and its reach varies from state to state.  In principle any attempt to shield a public agency from lawsuits is open to challenge under the constitutional provision that there shall be no taking without compensation, but I am not aware that court precedent is well developed in this regard.  It is conceivable that a state DOT in one state could be found negligent for increasing the speed limit on a given road without carrying out a traffic engineering study, while the DOT in a neighboring state, exercising an identical discretionary power to increase the speed limit and also not performing a traffic engineering study, would not be found negligent.

The bottom line is that I have no confidence that neither the legislative nor the administrative aspects of changing speed limits are justiciable.

[J N Winkler]

This might be getting off topic, but how closely is design speed related to the actual ideal safe speed? Meaning, suppose a curve has an advisory speed of 20 but everything except a fully loaded tractor trailer can handle it at 30; how is the design speed related (or is it?)

This is an extremely controversial question and there is no simple answer.  One traditional definition of design speed is that it is the highest speed the ordinary driver will choose on a given road when the conditions are so favorable that only the geometric characteristics of the road govern speed choice.  The one that is generally accepted nowadays is that design speed is simply an uniform speed that is used to choose geometric design elements (horizontal and vertical curvature, superelevation, provision of curbs or shoulders, side slope steepness, clear zone width, guardrail length and terminal treatments, etc.) that are functionally consistent with each other.

For a given design speed, the specific elements associated with that speed will vary from one jurisdiction to another.  For example, most US states have used a maximum horizontal curvature of 3° (which corresponds to a curve radius of 1,910 ft) for a 70 MPH design speed, while Britain used a maximum horizontal curvature of 2° (curve radius of 2,865 ft) for the same design speed.

Moreover, in a given jurisdiction the elements will vary with the ruling edition of the principal design reference.  In the US this is now the AASHTO Green Book and has been since the mid-1980's, but in the heyday of Interstate construction in the 1960's it was the AASHO Blue Book for rural roads and AASHO Red Book for urban arterials, which themselves succeeded a series of pamphlet-sized Policies on Geometric Design that were published beginning in 1940 and were updated through 1954.  The stylized fact is that standards changed much more between the earlier editions than between the later ones, with the US ones essentially stabilizing at close to their current values around 1965.  However, step changes are still possible in more recent editions of the Green Book, such as the major change in vertical curvature standards (resulting from abolition of the "dead dog in road" criterion) in the 2004 edition.

I-235 in Wichita is one example of how obsolescent standards can play out in practice.  Most of it was opened to traffic around 1961, built to a design speed of (if memory serves) 60 MPH.  I don't know what the original speed limit was, but during the NMSL it was posted at 55 and never went to 65 because it was considered urban in location.  When the NMSL was abolished, the speed limit did go up to 65.  The freeway-to-freeway interchange at Kellogg is due for conversion from a cloverleaf to a stack/turban hybrid, and as part of that macro project, a curve about half a mile to the north will have to be relocated and regraded since it is too sharp to meet current standards even for a 55 MPH design speed.  In the dry, it can be taken at speeds of up to 75 MPH (and perhaps even more) without seriously challenging tire adhesion.

Although it seems compelling to argue that the speed limit should never be higher than the design speed because the latter is the maximum speed for which the road has been designed, there are two main problems with this position.  First, inferring the design speed for a length of road with a given set of geometric characteristics is a matter not just of choosing a manual, but also the edition of that manual.  It can border on intellectual dishonesty to say that the design speed that should govern choice of speed limit is just whatever was printed on the title sheet of the construction plans set way back when the road was originally built.  Second, design speed by itself is just a number, and does not indicate how much slack there is in the design, which is the crucial factor in choosing a higher limit and deciding what parts of a road should be exempted from that increase.  A road built to a 70 MPH design speed can have lengths with very easy curvature followed by other lengths with sharp curves, with both the easy and sharp curves meeting the criteria for 70 while the sharp curves merit some special treatment (such as advisory speed signing or a reduced limit) if the speed limit is later increased to 80 or even 85.  (Neither example is abstract.  SH 130 in Texas has a title-sheet design speed of 70 but the limit throughout is now 85, while I think Idaho should have exempted the length of I-84 around the Sweetzer Road exit from the 80 limit.)

[oscar]

Corco, your argument is essentially that the state legislature has a limited form of parliamentary sovereignty, so it cannot be held liable for negligence if it decides to increase speed limits--even to values well in excess of the design speeds for the roads involved--and there is a subsequent increase in accidents.

I don't disagree with this reasoning, but I do not think it is the whole story.  By similar reasoning you could claim that a state legislature cannot be sued for inadequately funding public schools because adequate funding is whatever state legislators, duly elected and acting on behalf of the general public, say it is.  Yet it is not at all uncommon for state legislatures to be sued for precisely this; in Kansas we have had such a lawsuit working its way through the courts for several years now.  The Kansas case hinges on a constitutional provision giving the legislature the responsibility to "suitably" fund public education.  There has been talk of removing this provision, or attempting to nullify it by passing a law saying that adequate funding is whatever the Legislature chooses to spend, but neither approach has come to fruition--one would require an amendment to be submitted to the voters while the other is constitutionally suspect and would likely be struck down by the courts.

It is likely that some state constitutions have a provision charging the legislature to direct "responsible" management of the highway system that could be used as a hook for a lawsuit against increased speed limits.

That's really the key point. Unless there is a state constitutional provision that at least implicitly restricts the legislature's ability to enact statutes regulating speed limits, or to modify what is ordinarily the common law of torts (including liability for negligence), the legislature is free to override common law to allow higher speed limits. That kind of modification of tort liability, rather than some kind of legislative immunity, is probably how a statutory speed limit increase would avoid the risk of lawsuits.

Of course, if speed limits are subject to discretionary decisions by a state DOT (especially if the DOT has to take some action to increase a speed limit, rather than refrain from taking action to set a limit lower than a statutory default), then those decisions could be challenged. And given how some courts have been, uh, creative in interpreting state constitutions, I'd hesitate to just do a quick read of Montana's or any other state's constitutions to conclude that there's no limit on legislative control of speed limits, or modification of tort liability. 

[Tarkus]

The Governor won't sign it if his DOT and Highway Patrol (who are appointees of the governor) oppose it. Heads of state agencies don't get up and express public opposition/support of bills unless the governor's office directs them to. That's why you'll never see two state agencies toe different lines (e.g. DOT in favor, highway patrol not), unless that state's governor has no control over what is going on or somebody is going rogue.

Yup, this sort of thing is usually coordinated by policy advisors working out of the governor's office.  By the same token, a state DOT will not exercise any discretionary powers it has to increase speed limits if the governor opposes higher limits.  I suspect this is why Oregon has stayed at 65 under Kitzhaber.

Actually, the Oregon State Police supported 2001 SB 564, sponsored by Sen. Lee Beyer (D-Springfield), which would have raised Oregon's interstate speed limits to 75mph, and established a 65mph statutory limit for other highways.  Curiously, shortly after that bill came into being, Kitzhaber decided to appoint Beyer to be a utility commissioner, which took him out of the Senate (he's since returned).  ODOT, however, was very much under Kitzhaber's control, and they've come out against the current proposals.  The neutered bill that allowed ODOT the ability to post 70mph limits actually went through during Kulongoski's time, and the current ODOT head (Matthew Garrett) is a Kulongoski appointee that Kitzhaber kept (and so far, Kate Brown's shown no inclination toward replacing him).

I think the only way we'd actually get the speed limit raised is with a ballot initiative that sticks it to ODOT and mandates an increase.

[6a]

This might be getting off topic, but how closely is design speed related to the actual ideal safe speed? Meaning, suppose a curve has an advisory speed of 20 but everything except a fully loaded tractor trailer can handle it at 30; how is the design speed related (or is it?)

This is an extremely controversial question and there is no simple answer.  One traditional definition of design speed is that it is the highest speed the ordinary driver will choose on a given road when the conditions are so favorable that only the geometric characteristics of the road govern speed choice.  The one that is generally accepted nowadays is that design speed is simply an uniform speed that is used to choose geometric design elements (horizontal and vertical curvature, superelevation, provision of curbs or shoulders, side slope steepness, clear zone width, guardrail length and terminal treatments, etc.) that are functionally consistent with each other.

The latter is what I had in my head. It does seem silly, other factors notwithstanding, for a room full of engineers to say "hmm, yes, let's make the speed limit 70."

For a given design speed, the specific elements associated with that speed will vary from one jurisdiction to another.  For example, most US states have used a maximum horizontal curvature of 3° (which corresponds to a curve radius of 1,910 ft) for a 70 MPH design speed, while Britain used a maximum horizontal curvature of 2° (curve radius of 2,865 ft) for the same design speed.

Moreover, in a given jurisdiction the elements will vary with the ruling edition of the principal design reference.  In the US this is now the AASHTO Green Book and has been since the mid-1980's, but in the heyday of Interstate construction in the 1960's it was the AASHO Blue Book for rural roads and AASHO Red Book for urban arterials, which themselves succeeded a series of pamphlet-sized Policies on Geometric Design that were published beginning in 1940 and were updated through 1954.  The stylized fact is that standards changed much more between the earlier editions than between the later ones, with the US ones essentially stabilizing at close to their current values around 1965.  However, step changes are still possible in more recent editions of the Green Book, such as the major change in vertical curvature standards (resulting from abolition of the "dead dog in road" criterion) in the 2004 edition.

Thanks for the additional info. The curve design part is interesting given the size of cars in the 1960s. One would think a car today could handle the same curve deemed perfectly safe then at a greater speed. Can't necessarily same about a driver today, but still...

Although it seems compelling to argue that the speed limit should never be higher than the design speed because the latter is the maximum speed for which the road has been designed, there are two main problems with this position.  First, inferring the design speed for a length of road with a given set of geometric characteristics is a matter not just of choosing a manual, but also the edition of that manual.  It can border on intellectual dishonesty to say that the design speed that should govern choice of speed limit is just whatever was printed on the title sheet of the construction plans set way back when the road was originally built. 

Looking over Ohio, who was quick to fall back on the design speed argument,   I'm having trouble identifying a current 70 zone that has a geometry limiting the extra five mph. I-77 was my first thought, given its hilly nature, but even there I can't find enough areas to say it should set the policy for, say, I-70 between Dayton and Indiana.

Second, design speed by itself is just a number, and does not indicate how much slack there is in the design, which is the crucial factor in choosing a higher limit and deciding what parts of a road should be exempted from that increase.  A road built to a 70 MPH design speed can have lengths with very easy curvature followed by other lengths with sharp curves, with both the easy and sharp curves meeting the criteria for 70 while the sharp curves merit some special treatment (such as advisory speed signing or a reduced limit) if the speed limit is later increased to 80 or even 85.  (Neither example is abstract.  SH 130 in Texas has a title-sheet design speed of 70 but the limit throughout is now 85, while I think Idaho should have exempted the length of I-84 around the Sweetzer Road exit from the 80 limit.)

I know exactly what you mean. I-70 immediately east of downtown Columbus has a curve that had a 55 advisory speed when the limit was 65. Trucks kept rolling down the embankment after losing traction on a bumpy bridge joint and hitting a substandard guardrail. They lowered the speed limit to 55, fixed the joint and built a concrete barrier. However, he speed limit is still 55 but there is no more advisory sign, just a warning of a curve. Again, thanks for the info.

[vdeane]

No disagreement that agency heads tend to espouse the governor's position on things.  The current NYSDOT commissioner is actually stepping down because she had an argument with Cuomo over the snow removal in Buffalo.

It's not that easy, especially when it comes to legalese and today's litigatious society...

Have you heard of a state being sued due to a higher speed limit?  I have not seen any such news along those lines but if you have, please do share!

Rick

Not sure about other states, but in both Minnesota and Virginia (with VERY few exceptions, mostly related to school zones), the DOT is required by law to perform a traffic and engineering study before raising or lowering a speed limit on a given road segment.   If they were to raise or lower the limit without said study, that would easily be justification for a lawsuit.

New York might be the same. I know that, in this state, ALL speed limits are set in law by NYSDOT and nobody else can change them. Does a lot to prevent some of the stupid speed traps.

There's actually a reference route that a municipality wants to take over with one of the reasons they want it being a desire to reduce the speed limit from 40 to 30.  Of course, NYSDOT is OK with the idea of spending less on maintenance, so no friction there, but neither party wants to maintain the bridge on the road so it's been in limbo for a while.

[Tarkus]

From above...

"Our goal is zero fatalities"

Shit like this drives me up a fucking wall. Zero fatalities? Really? Aim for something realistic, something achievable.

All this "Vision Zero" crap is just about the dumbest thing I've ever seen.  Of course, a lot of it is just a thin veneer over a desire to rake in the bucks off enforcement.  Nevada's Chief Supreme Court Justice did recently say that they need to be writing more traffic tickets to cover Justice Dept. salaries [source], and I suspect this may have something to do with the holdup with the 80mph bill.

[roadfro]

From above...

"Our goal is zero fatalities"

Shit like this drives me up a fucking wall. Zero fatalities? Really? Aim for something realistic, something achievable.

One can argue that zero fatalities is actually realistic and achievable (if unlikely).

Back on the first page of this thread I mentioned that

an 85 bill came up in the last Nevada legislature.  It passed in the Senate and passed an Assembly committee but then died without an Assembly floor vote.  I never saw a good explanation, but reading between the lines it sounded like the governor didn't want to sign it because he's the one who gets blamed the first time some kids die.

Agreed that Mr. Malfabon is probably speaking for the governor here, so Nevada's 75 maximum will most likely not be increased during this governor's tenure.

The Governor won't sign it if his DOT and Highway Patrol (who are appointees of the governor) oppose it. Heads of state agencies don't get up and express public opposition/support of bills unless the governor's office directs them to. That's why you'll never see two state agencies toe different lines (e.g. DOT in favor, highway patrol not), unless that state's governor has no control over what is going on or somebody is going rogue.

Yup, this sort of thing is usually coordinated by policy advisors working out of the governor's office.  By the same token, a state DOT will not exercise any discretionary powers it has to increase speed limits if the governor opposes higher limits.  I suspect this is why Oregon has stayed at 65 under Kitzhaber.

I haven't heard Governor Sandoval's position on Nevada's higher speed limit bill one way or the other. It is worth noting that the Governor, by virtue of his position and SOPs, sits on the NDOT board of directors. I haven't looked in meeting minutes to see whether the bill has been discussed.

It was also mentioned previously that the bill as presented and amended just increases the allowable maximum speed limit in state law. There are no state laws prescribing speed limits on certain stretches of highway, so NDOT is free to not post any higher speed limits even if the bill passes the legislature and if the Governor were to sign it.

[Scott5114]

I would imagine that any suit seeking to prove a state liable for their speed limit would run into the problem that a driver has their own discretion in setting a speed. The Texas 85 mph speed is a cap, not a mandate; a driver that feels unsafe at 85 can always drive slower. Now, if that was a minimum speed limit, there would be an argument. 

[jakeroot]

From above...

"Our goal is zero fatalities"

Shit like this drives me up a fucking wall. Zero fatalities? Really? Aim for something realistic, something achievable.

One can argue that zero fatalities is actually realistic and achievable (if unlikely).

Setting near-unobtainable goals goes hand in hand with failure to reach said goals. I'd rather states cut fatalities by, say 3 to 4% each year instead of 100%. The goal of these fatality reductions really is so a state can look good on paper (heartless, sure, but true), and states will look better on paper if they consistently meet goals. A long-term goal of zero roadway fatalities by 2100 (or so) is fine (that might even be the point of "vision zero") but, because most of us will be dead by then, why not set achievable goals in the interim?

[cl94]

I would imagine that any suit seeking to prove a state liable for their speed limit would run into the problem that a driver has their own discretion in setting a speed. The Texas 85 mph speed is a cap, not a mandate; a driver that feels unsafe at 85 can always drive slower. Now, if that was a minimum speed limit, there would be an argument.

At this point, I fully expect Texas to do like Germany and have an 80 mph recommended speed with no speed limit at some point in the relatively near future. It's getting to the point where the speed limit is approaching the max speed of many cars on the road because of the tires. Heck, even on the Autobahn, the average speed of cars on unlimited sections in 2006 was approximately 88 mph. Yeah, the crazy cars can go much faster, but the typical motorist won't get much above 90-95.

[oscar]

At this point, I fully expect Texas to do like Germany and have an 80 mph recommended speed with no speed limit at some point in the relatively near future. It's getting to the point where the speed limit is approaching the max speed of many cars on the road because of the tires. Heck, even on the Autobahn, the average speed of cars on unlimited sections in 2006 was approximately 88 mph. Yeah, the crazy cars can go much faster, but the typical motorist won't get much above 90-95.

Montana once tried the "reasonable and prudent" approach. It didn't work out. Maybe if Texas used black-on-yellow advisory speed limit signs (which Montana didn't), it would have better luck. There'd still be some risk of confusing drivers used to the standard practice in North America of taking their guidance (and expecting cops to take their guidance) from black-on-white fixed speed limit signs.

[cl94]

At this point, I fully expect Texas to do like Germany and have an 80 mph recommended speed with no speed limit at some point in the relatively near future. It's getting to the point where the speed limit is approaching the max speed of many cars on the road because of the tires. Heck, even on the Autobahn, the average speed of cars on unlimited sections in 2006 was approximately 88 mph. Yeah, the crazy cars can go much faster, but the typical motorist won't get much above 90-95.

Montana once tried the "reasonable and prudent" approach. It didn't work out. Maybe if Texas used black-on-yellow advisory speed limit signs (which Montana didn't), it would have better luck. There'd still be some risk of confusing drivers used to the standard practice in North America of taking their guidance (and expecting cops to take their guidance) from black-on-white fixed speed limit signs.

"Reasonable and prudent" provided zero guidance. At least Germany provides some guidance. If the yellow advisory signs were used, it would probably work a lot better.

[jakeroot]

At this point, I fully expect Texas to do like Germany and have an 80 mph recommended speed with no speed limit at some point in the relatively near future. It's getting to the point where the speed limit is approaching the max speed of many cars on the road because of the tires. Heck, even on the Autobahn, the average speed of cars on unlimited sections in 2006 was approximately 88 mph. Yeah, the crazy cars can go much faster, but the typical motorist won't get much above 90-95.

Montana once tried the "reasonable and prudent" approach. It didn't work out. Maybe if Texas used black-on-yellow advisory speed limit signs (which Montana didn't), it would have better luck. There'd still be some risk of confusing drivers used to the standard practice in North America of taking their guidance (and expecting cops to take their guidance) from black-on-white fixed speed limit signs.

"Reasonable and prudent" provided zero guidance. At least Germany provides some guidance. If the yellow advisory signs were used, it would probably work a lot better.

Indeed. Though a bigger issue is at what point police write speeding tickets, since that general vagueness is how Montana lost their unrestricted speed limit in the first place. Theoretically, police shouldn't write tickets for speeding at all, but that's a huge fish to tackle (and one I have no clue how to tackle).

[cl94]

At this point, I fully expect Texas to do like Germany and have an 80 mph recommended speed with no speed limit at some point in the relatively near future. It's getting to the point where the speed limit is approaching the max speed of many cars on the road because of the tires. Heck, even on the Autobahn, the average speed of cars on unlimited sections in 2006 was approximately 88 mph. Yeah, the crazy cars can go much faster, but the typical motorist won't get much above 90-95.

Montana once tried the "reasonable and prudent" approach. It didn't work out. Maybe if Texas used black-on-yellow advisory speed limit signs (which Montana didn't), it would have better luck. There'd still be some risk of confusing drivers used to the standard practice in North America of taking their guidance (and expecting cops to take their guidance) from black-on-white fixed speed limit signs.

"Reasonable and prudent" provided zero guidance. At least Germany provides some guidance. If the yellow advisory signs were used, it would probably work a lot better.

Indeed. Though a bigger issue is at what point police write speeding tickets, since that general vagueness is how Montana lost their unrestricted speed limit in the first place. Theoretically, police shouldn't write tickets for speeding at all, but that's a huge fish to tackle (and one I have no clue how to tackle).

How many speeding tickets do they even write on the fast sections? It's not like people will go as much above there as they do in a 65 zone.