Most inappropriate speed limits

[cl94]

Any 55mph "State Speed Limit" in NYS outside of immediate downtown areas is inappropriate.

NY 17 disagrees. The 55 section through Delaware County is quite warranted. Trucks can't take the curves above 55 and I'd only go 65 on those curves in a car with good handling in dry weather during the day. The stretch between Deposit and Roscoe is quite dangerous, but it meets the "mountainous" criteria for the Green Book and it does (mostly) meet Interstate standards outside of the at-grade. I'm a fast driver and I take this curve at 55.

[exit322]

Most of Norton, Ohio.

In particular, OH 261 within Summit County.  It's signed for 35 MPH, but is most ly rural and could easily be 45 or 55.  Norton must be using it as an ATM...

Not sure any of Norton beyond 76 and 21 have a speed limit over 35.  The whole city is a speed trap.

[cl94]

Most of Norton, Ohio.

In particular, OH 261 within Summit County.  It's signed for 35 MPH, but is most ly rural and could easily be 45 or 55.  Norton must be using it as an ATM...

Not sure any of Norton beyond 76 and 21 have a speed limit over 35.  The whole city is a speed trap.

No Ohio discussion would be complete without New Rome. Ohio actually passed a law so the state would have an excuse to take away the village charter and let Columbus annex it. Only a couple blocks large and funded solely by speeding tickets. Limit dropped by 10 mph without warning and for no reason other than to issue tickets. This portion of the street grid is larger than the former New Rome village limits.

[tribar]

All Chicago freeways should be 10-15 mph because that's as fast as you'll be going on them anyways.

[74/171FAN]

A local road was partially dropped from 55 to 50 a few years ago. Everyone still goes at least 55 on the 50 section.

Are you referring to VA 106 between US 460 and SR 634?  I can't think of any other roads that would fit that offhand but I know this has been 50 for about 10+ years at this point.

EDIT: Never mind, I forgot about the US 460 reduction in PG for a minute.

[Greybear]

I've always thought the speed limit of 70 on US 67 from west of Glen Rose, Texas, to FM 203 was too high.  That road has repeating curves and hills and in the past several years has picked up quite a bit of traffic, including a lot of trucks.

As an old example, for about a year after the national speed limit went away, the limit on FM 933 for about a mile from TX 174 was left at the state default of 70, in spite of the short distance having an S-curve with an advisory speed of 35 and a rough rail crossing with an advisory speed of 25, and the whole stretch was narrow and included a narrow bridge.  After about a year a reasonable speed limit of 55 was set.

There are some 75 mph speed limits on roads for which such speed is scary due to a combination of narrow roads, curves, and too much traffic.  I think 75 is a good maximum limit for straight two-lane roads, even narrow roads with no traffic and few intersections, but in some areas they went overboard.

On the other side, after the national speed limit went away, the 55 mph speed limits were kept on a couple of west Texas highways, SH 54 and SH 118, for no apparent reason.  That part of SH 118 now has a speed limit of 75, which is reasonable.  SH 54 had its 55 mph limit for almost 20 years before it was increased to a reasonable 70.

I'd have to agree.  Another stretch of highway I question the posted speed limit on is that of SH 24 beginning with its junction with I-30 east of Greenville.  Even though most of the rural parts of SH 24 are four lane divided but not controlled access, a posted speed limit of 75 is not safe on that high way, IMHO.  The speed limit should be at least 65 or 70. 

[wxfree]

I saw a new one today.  In Bosque County, Texas, County Road 1175 has always had a speed limit of 40, and I'd always thought it should be raised to 50 and that most of the way 60 was reasonable.  The road has very little traffic.  It has a curve, but it's treeless so you can see around the curve and slow appropriately for approaching traffic.  I wouldn't have mentioned this one, except that they just lowered the speed limit to 30, and posted "no thru trucks."  I can understand the truck restriction, since it's the only bridge over the Brazos River in the area and near quarry and gas related trucking activity, but to combine it with a lower speed limit is redundant, since the truck restriction itself should improve safety.  Lowering the already too-low limit is unreasonable.

[pumpkineater2]

Kind of random, but this street:https://goo.gl/maps/W7co4FaL4Ys in Alpine, CA is posted at 50. I thought it was odd, because it passes through a residential area and just doesn't look like a road that you'd expect to have a 50 mph limit.

[mrsman]

Kind of random, but this street:https://goo.gl/maps/W7co4FaL4Ys in Alpine, CA is posted at 50. I thought it was odd, because it passes through a residential area and just doesn't look like a road that you'd expect to have a 50 mph limit.

You might be the first person on this thread to complain about the speed limit being too high, but I agree with you.  A road like this would fit better as 40 mph.

[xcellntbuy]

30 mph on the South Mall in Albany, NY.  Highly frustrating.

Come to think of it, 30 mph on US 9W south of the Thruway, too.  State Police love to pull people over on that short stretch where the city speed limit is still in effect before the bridge over Norman Kill and the speed limit goes up to 45.

And, to get silly local, there's also the 15 mph speed limit on Northway Mall Road.  Sure, it's an access road to a few big boxes (separated from the parking lots), but no one goes 15 on it.  No one even goes 25 on it.  I've seen Colonie PD pull people over on it occasionally, though.  Wonder what it must feel like to get a ticket for going the speed people usually go on it (30 or so).

These have always been ridiculous speed limits and speed traps in New York's capital district.

[Buffaboy]

Kind of random, but this street:https://goo.gl/maps/W7co4FaL4Ys in Alpine, CA is posted at 50. I thought it was odd, because it passes through a residential area and just doesn't look like a road that you'd expect to have a 50 mph limit.

Interesting. Yes, this seems to be a good example of a speed limit on the other end of the spectrum.

[slorydn1]

Ugh Lake Shore Drive/US 41.  The expressway portion north of Downtown Chicago is posted at 40.  It leaves drivers with a choice:

a) Be legal, but not safe, or
b) Be safe, but not legal.
c) Take a different road.

Option A (doing the speed limit of 40) will keep the cops away from you, but you'll anger other drivers to the point where they'll honk, shine their brights, and/or yell and gesture at you.  You will also get run off the road, tailed, and passed like you're standing still.  You'll also be fearing you'll be hit at any time. Option B (going with traffic flow) is much safer and won't anger drivers.  You're far less likely to be hit and other drivers won't be on your case.  However, at any point, a cop could be following you and asking why you think this you can drive like this is the Kennedy.  It's a no win situation.

I've tried both A and B, then stuck to option B, and got to meet the Chicago police.  I now pick option C.  I will not go on there again unless I absolutely have to.

My experience is to simply stay in the flow.  Never had a problem with the CPD doing that, and have been passed by them many times on LSD.

Driving safely while on LSD is indeed a talent.

Driving down LSD whilst on LSD is can be quite a trip, man.

[jeffandnicole]

Ugh Lake Shore Drive/US 41.  The expressway portion north of Downtown Chicago is posted at 40.  It leaves drivers with a choice:

a) Be legal, but not safe, or
b) Be safe, but not legal.
c) Take a different road.

Option A (doing the speed limit of 40) will keep the cops away from you, but you'll anger other drivers to the point where they'll honk, shine their brights, and/or yell and gesture at you.  You will also get run off the road, tailed, and passed like you're standing still.  You'll also be fearing you'll be hit at any time. Option B (going with traffic flow) is much safer and won't anger drivers.  You're far less likely to be hit and other drivers won't be on your case.  However, at any point, a cop could be following you and asking why you think this you can drive like this is the Kennedy.  It's a no win situation.

I've tried both A and B, then stuck to option B, and got to meet the Chicago police.  I now pick option C.  I will not go on there again unless I absolutely have to.

When you say legal, does that mean staying in the right lane?  Many people think staying legal means as long as they're doing the speed limit, they are legal, while ignoring every other law that exists.

[Joe The Dragon]

Ugh Lake Shore Drive/US 41.  The expressway portion north of Downtown Chicago is posted at 40.  It leaves drivers with a choice:

a) Be legal, but not safe, or
b) Be safe, but not legal.
c) Take a different road.

Option A (doing the speed limit of 40) will keep the cops away from you, but you'll anger other drivers to the point where they'll honk, shine their brights, and/or yell and gesture at you.  You will also get run off the road, tailed, and passed like you're standing still.  You'll also be fearing you'll be hit at any time. Option B (going with traffic flow) is much safer and won't anger drivers.  You're far less likely to be hit and other drivers won't be on your case.  However, at any point, a cop could be following you and asking why you think this you can drive like this is the Kennedy.  It's a no win situation.

I've tried both A and B, then stuck to option B, and got to meet the Chicago police.  I now pick option C.  I will not go on there again unless I absolutely have to.

My experience is to simply stay in the flow.  Never had a problem with the CPD doing that, and have been passed by them many times on LSD.

Driving safely while on LSD is indeed a talent.

Driving down LSD whilst on LSD is can be quite a trip, man.

also while playing LSD

[Super Mateo]

Ugh Lake Shore Drive/US 41.  The expressway portion north of Downtown Chicago is posted at 40.  It leaves drivers with a choice:

a) Be legal, but not safe, or
b) Be safe, but not legal.
c) Take a different road.

Option A (doing the speed limit of 40) will keep the cops away from you, but you'll anger other drivers to the point where they'll honk, shine their brights, and/or yell and gesture at you.  You will also get run off the road, tailed, and passed like you're standing still.  You'll also be fearing you'll be hit at any time. Option B (going with traffic flow) is much safer and won't anger drivers.  You're far less likely to be hit and other drivers won't be on your case.  However, at any point, a cop could be following you and asking why you think this you can drive like this is the Kennedy.  It's a no win situation.

I've tried both A and B, then stuck to option B, and got to meet the Chicago police.  I now pick option C.  I will not go on there again unless I absolutely have to.

When you say legal, does that mean staying in the right lane?  Many people think staying legal means as long as they're doing the speed limit, they are legal, while ignoring every other law that exists.

Yes, stay in the right lane if you're going to do the speed limit or slower. Chicago drivers are awful about lane usage. Many times I've had to pass vehicles in the center or left lane on I-57 going significantly slower than the right lane and clearly not attempting to pass anyone.  There's also I-80/94 near the IN border, which has signs saying "no trucks in 2 left lanes" that some trucks completely ignore.

When I wrote that, though, I was only referring to speed alone, but of course other driving laws need to be followed.  Many of those laws have a bigger effect on our safety than how fast the vehicle is moving.

[Max Rockatansky]

This may sound like a misnomer given that these are mountain roads in the middle of nowhere but CA 1 San Simeon to Big Sur and CA 41 from Oakhurst to almost the Yosemite National Park boundary are both 55 MPH.  It's pretty clear that the crowds that usually hit those roads can't handle 55 MPH and drive much slower sometimes 30-35 MPH through those sections.  Worse is that the signage is very poor with very few reassurance 55 MPH markers in place.  I'm assuming most people think the yellow speed signs in corners are the actual speed limit or are just in sheer terror, it's difficult to discern which.  Maybe adding 40, 45 and 50 MPH sections on top of some 55 MPH would be better justified.  Basically in California CALTrans usually gives you one 55 MPH on a two lane mountain road and you never see another one for about an hour.  Most roads that's justified but the two described carry a lot more tourist traffic.

[Takumi]

A local road was partially dropped from 55 to 50 a few years ago. Everyone still goes at least 55 on the 50 section.

Are you referring to VA 106 between US 460 and SR 634?  I can't think of any other roads that would fit that offhand but I know this has been 50 for about 10+ years at this point.

EDIT: Never mind, I forgot about the US 460 reduction in PG for a minute.

Neither. Woodpecker Road in Chesterfield County between SR 600 and SR 634.

The only speed limit I can think of that could be lowered is Prince George/Sussex SR 638 south of VA 35, which is an implied 55. North of VA 35 it's posted at 40. Both sections should be 45.

[mrsman]

This may sound like a misnomer given that these are mountain roads in the middle of nowhere but CA 1 San Simeon to Big Sur and CA 41 from Oakhurst to almost the Yosemite National Park boundary are both 55 MPH.  It's pretty clear that the crowds that usually hit those roads can't handle 55 MPH and drive much slower sometimes 30-35 MPH through those sections.  Worse is that the signage is very poor with very few reassurance 55 MPH markers in place.  I'm assuming most people think the yellow speed signs in corners are the actual speed limit or are just in sheer terror, it's difficult to discern which.  Maybe adding 40, 45 and 50 MPH sections on top of some 55 MPH would be better justified.  Basically in California CALTrans usually gives you one 55 MPH on a two lane mountain road and you never see another one for about an hour.  Most roads that's justified but the two described carry a lot more tourist traffic.

It would be helpful on curvy roads to see a regular speed limit sign after passing through the section governed by the advisory sign.

[corco]

This may sound like a misnomer given that these are mountain roads in the middle of nowhere but CA 1 San Simeon to Big Sur and CA 41 from Oakhurst to almost the Yosemite National Park boundary are both 55 MPH.  It's pretty clear that the crowds that usually hit those roads can't handle 55 MPH and drive much slower sometimes 30-35 MPH through those sections.  Worse is that the signage is very poor with very few reassurance 55 MPH markers in place.  I'm assuming most people think the yellow speed signs in corners are the actual speed limit or are just in sheer terror, it's difficult to discern which.  Maybe adding 40, 45 and 50 MPH sections on top of some 55 MPH would be better justified.  Basically in California CALTrans usually gives you one 55 MPH on a two lane mountain road and you never see another one for about an hour.  Most roads that's justified but the two described carry a lot more tourist traffic.

It would be helpful on curvy roads to see a regular speed limit sign after passing through the section governed by the advisory sign.

I don't know that that's practical - that would be dozens of regular speed limit signs over the span of 30-40 miles on a lot of mountainous roads in the west. At some point, people need to know what an advisory speed limit is.

That said, I agree that California posts speed limit signs very infrequently - I drove CA 36 from Fortuna to CA-3 the other day, and there were only two or three signs. It's probably worth posting a few on at least the longer straightaways.

[vdeane]

It doesn't have to be fear or thinking the advisory speed is the legal speed limit.  Many people are probably thinking "what's the point of accelerating back to 55 if I'll have to brake again the second I get there?" (why waste fuel?).  I know I do (compounded by driving a standard, so I'd have to manually upshift and downshift to move between those speeds; I'll often think "might as well stay in this gear as it won't be long before the next curve").

[kefkafloyd]

US 3 from Tyngsborough to Burlington. 55 MPH is criminal on that road post-reconstruction.

[Max Rockatansky]

It doesn't have to be fear or thinking the advisory speed is the legal speed limit.  Many people are probably thinking "what's the point of accelerating back to 55 if I'll have to brake again the second I get there?" (why waste fuel?).  I know I do (compounded by driving a standard, so I'd have to manually upshift and downshift to move between those speeds; I'll often think "might as well stay in this gear as it won't be long before the next curve").

It's really, really, REALLY excessive the distance you see a speed limit sign out in rural California.  They definitely could use more than 2 or 3 in that 70 mile stretch of Highway 1.  But to your point....rather actually what is the point of something like Highway 1 if you aren't going to try to push it on one of the best driving roads in the entire country?  I mean....to me that's unfathomable, but then again I'm used to mountain roads.  You have to keep in mind these really aren't "through" roads in the sense like you mean, nobody in their right mind would take CA 1 over US 101 as a point A to B route.  You can always spot someone from a city or the east coast on that highway which is why I tend to go early weekdays as opposed to the weekends with the tourist crowd.

[corco]

It doesn't have to be fear or thinking the advisory speed is the legal speed limit.  Many people are probably thinking "what's the point of accelerating back to 55 if I'll have to brake again the second I get there?" (why waste fuel?).  I know I do (compounded by driving a standard, so I'd have to manually upshift and downshift to move between those speeds; I'll often think "might as well stay in this gear as it won't be long before the next curve").

As a fellow standard driver, the most fun to be had when driving a manual is doing so when driving as fast as possible around windy mountain roads. Even then, it's almost easier with a stick because you can gun it up to a high RPM without shifting and then let your foot off the gas and slow down much faster than in an automatic.

[cl94]

It doesn't have to be fear or thinking the advisory speed is the legal speed limit.  Many people are probably thinking "what's the point of accelerating back to 55 if I'll have to brake again the second I get there?" (why waste fuel?).  I know I do (compounded by driving a standard, so I'd have to manually upshift and downshift to move between those speeds; I'll often think "might as well stay in this gear as it won't be long before the next curve").

As a fellow standard driver, the most fun to be had when driving a manual is doing so when driving as fast as possible around windy mountain roads. Even then, it's almost easier with a stick because you can gun it up to a high RPM without shifting and then let your foot off the gas and slow down much faster than in an automatic.

I felt the same when I mostly drove a standard. I loved taking my dad's car into the mountains and the transmission did most of the braking for me.

Living in Troy (and watching my parents replace a clutch twice) made me decide against purchasing a car with one. I've found that my CVT, if used properly, isn't much different. I keep my Civic in "S" on mountain roads in sections where there's a lot of accelerating and decelerating because it has the same effect.

[Roadgeekteen]

Speed limits really need to go up in mass.