Why are US freeways speed limits generally lower than European counterparts?

[SkyPesos]

Something I noticed when looking at GSV and a max speed limit per country (or US state) map is that European countries generally have higher speed limits on their rural freeways than US states. For example, US Midwest states generally sign rural freeways at 70 mph (112 km/h). An equivalent freeway in the equivalent flat terrain in Europe is generally 120 or 130 km/h (75 or 81 mph) in most countries, 140 km/h (87 mph) in Poland, and no speed limit (though 130 advisory) in Germany. From my limited time driving on the road, I notice that most drivers seem to go at least 80 mph on rural freeways in Ohio and Indiana anyways, which despite being 10 above the speed limit here, matches the speed limit on an equivalent European freeway. And it seems like our interstate standards are even more strict, notably the wide left shoulders, which a lot of European freeways have little of.

So why are we stuck with lower speed limits on rural freeways despite having some higher design standards compared to European counterparts, and what's holding back the roads from getting their artificial speed limit raised? Worse drivers? Wider cars?

[CoreySamson]

My guess is that maximum speed limit by country generally correlates with driver license requirements (in some cases, the size of the country or province matters, too). I personally believe that if America increased its driver license requirements (with mandatory defensive driving classes every 5 years or so, more initial training to get a license, and maybe a background check), then we would have more experienced drivers. If drivers got better, then perhaps lawmakers would be more willing to make higher limits possible, especially in Midwestern or Southeastern states. Also, with the advent of electric cars and semi-autonomous driving, cars at higher speeds would be more efficient and more safe, meaning speed limits could be set more reasonably.

Sadly, "reasonable" to much of America (and politicians) is 55 mph or less.

[mrcmc888]

Simplest reason for it is bureaucracy.  These speed limits were set decades ago back when legislators were pearl clutching about how high speed limits would lead to wrecks and deaths, and it takes so much effort to change them that many legislatures in America don't bother to change them since they've got better things to do with their time.

[kalvado]

I suspect major part of it is workaround for constitution stuff. "No unreasonable searches" are not a problem when everyone is breaking a law.

[kalvado]

Simplest reason for it is bureaucracy.  These speed limits were set decades ago back when legislators were pearl clutching about how high speed limits would lead to wrecks and deaths, and it takes so much effort to change them that many legislatures in America don't bother to change them since they've got better things to do with their time.

There is a pretty strong wave of speed limit increases. There were a few threads on this very site with recent increases. Not to the actual driving speed, but yet

[Road Hog]

Depends on the state, of course. But before I go on, the idea of there being no speed limit on the German autobahns is somewhat of a myth. There are speed limits in urban areas and also in selected rural areas. In fact, the Polizei will set up speed traps in certain speed-limited locations and will mail you a ticket. I got caught out that way once.

Speed limits on British motorways are generally 70 mph.

[skluth]

Let's not forget the 55 mph limit that was imposed by Nixon after the 1973 OPEC oil embargo. That insanity, all to reduce oil imports because cars used slightly less gas at 55 mph than higher speeds, was still going on well into the 80s.

[kalvado]

Let's not forget the 55 mph limit that was imposed by Nixon after the 1973 OPEC oil embargo. That insanity, all to reduce oil imports because cars used slightly less gas at 55 mph than higher speeds, was still going on well into the 80s.

If you think about it, NY had to increase speed limit to match that 55 mph mandate

[HighwayStar]

Largely stupidity. US limits can and should be much higher than they are, but every time you try and raise them a large number of people who don't understand how they work comes out of the woodwork to scream that it will "kill all them childrens" or something like that.
Bureaucratic inertia is also part of it, as is the funding that tickets generate for some jurisdictions.
The best approach would be to eliminate speed limits entirely and just enforce keep right laws instead, ie. Germany.

[ran4sh]

My guess is that maximum speed limit by country generally correlates with driver license requirements (in some cases, the size of the country or province matters, too). I personally believe that if America increased its driver license requirements (with mandatory defensive driving classes every 5 years or so, more initial training to get a license, and maybe a background check), then we would have more experienced drivers. If drivers got better, then perhaps lawmakers would be more willing to make higher limits possible, especially in Midwestern or Southeastern states. Also, with the advent of electric cars and semi-autonomous driving, cars at higher speeds would be more efficient and more safe, meaning speed limits could be set more reasonably.

Sadly, "reasonable" to much of America (and politicians) is 55 mph or less.

This is part of it, but there's also the effects on the economy in general. Most Americans have to drive to be able to work, so increasing the driver license requirements would put a large number of people out of work which affects the economy. For denser countries where more people have access to mass transit, this is less of an issue, so basically they can afford to have higher requirements.

the idea of there being no speed limit on the German autobahns is somewhat of a myth. There are speed limits in urban areas and also in selected rural areas.

Three posts later,

The best approach would be to eliminate speed limits entirely and just enforce keep right laws instead, ie. Germany.

[SP Cook]

There are three groups that generally oppose rational speed limits.  Two have a financial interest, the remaining one are just useful idiots for the other two.

- Cops, and the jurisdictions that the work for.  Policing for profit via randomly taxing motorists enriches and empowers these individuals, and it is far easier, and safer, than serious useful police work. 

- Insurance companies, under their political lobby the "insurance institute for highway safety". which spent millions of $$ and spew years of idiocy about how "55 saves lives" employing dozens of junk scientists.  When, finally they were defeated, and, of course, they were proven dead wrong about 55, they continue to this day, to work to keep speed limits too low, all over the country.

- The people, noted above are just stupid.  People, so ill informed, that they do not understand that SL rationality actually has saved thousands of lives.

[HighwayStar]

My guess is that maximum speed limit by country generally correlates with driver license requirements (in some cases, the size of the country or province matters, too). I personally believe that if America increased its driver license requirements (with mandatory defensive driving classes every 5 years or so, more initial training to get a license, and maybe a background check), then we would have more experienced drivers. If drivers got better, then perhaps lawmakers would be more willing to make higher limits possible, especially in Midwestern or Southeastern states. Also, with the advent of electric cars and semi-autonomous driving, cars at higher speeds would be more efficient and more safe, meaning speed limits could be set more reasonably.

Sadly, "reasonable" to much of America (and politicians) is 55 mph or less.

The issue is not that America needs "more experienced drivers", on the contrary, we drive far more than most countries and are more experienced then they are. Just pulling the first numbers I can find, the average American drives 13.5k per year, versus 7.6k for Norway, and 6.4k for the UK. We are plenty "experienced" that is not the issue.
If we restrict the subject to highway speed limits, this argument makes even less sense. The safest roads in the country are the limited access highways that we want to raise speed limits on, and those are roads that newer drivers spend proportionally less time on.
Drivers education certainly should be improved, learning how to navigate without a GPS in particular should be a mandatory subject, and we really should drop the memorization of what distance every light has to be visible at. But driver education is not the main issue here.

[kalvado]

There are three groups that generally oppose rational speed limits.  Two have a financial interest, the remaining one are just useful idiots for the other two.

- Cops, and the jurisdictions that the work for.  Policing for profit via randomly taxing motorists enriches and empowers these individuals, and it is far easier, and safer, than serious useful police work. 

- Insurance companies, under their political lobby the "insurance institute for highway safety". which spent millions of $$ and spew years of idiocy about how "55 saves lives" employing dozens of junk scientists.  When, finally they were defeated, and, of course, they were proven dead wrong about 55, they continue to this day, to work to keep speed limits too low, all over the country.

- The people, noted above are just stupid.  People, so ill informed, that they do not understand that SL rationality actually has saved thousands of lives.

"lower speeds save lives" has some sense, honestly speaking.
It's a matter of risk vs benefit and a compromise (would 40 save lives compared to 55?). There is a pretty good data showing that 55 -> 65 increase in NYS resulted in increase of fatalities on rural interstates.  Whooping 13 more fatal accidents over 3 years ( and would be closer to 30 if Thruway didn't have a decrease in fatalities over same time. better maintenance or what?).
One thing for sure - modern cars are much safer for occupants compared to older ones. Should we re-negotiate acceptable conditions?  Especially since speed limits are not obeyed at all?

[Rothman]

There are three groups that generally oppose rational speed limits.  Two have a financial interest, the remaining one are just useful idiots for the other two.

- Cops, and the jurisdictions that the work for.  Policing for profit via randomly taxing motorists enriches and empowers these individuals, and it is far easier, and safer, than serious useful police work. 

- Insurance companies, under their political lobby the "insurance institute for highway safety". which spent millions of $$ and spew years of idiocy about how "55 saves lives" employing dozens of junk scientists.  When, finally they were defeated, and, of course, they were proven dead wrong about 55, they continue to this day, to work to keep speed limits too low, all over the country.

- The people, noted above are just stupid.  People, so ill informed, that they do not understand that SL rationality actually has saved thousands of lives.

"lower speeds save lives" has some sense, honestly speaking.
It's a matter of risk vs benefit and a compromise (would 40 save lives compared to 55?). There is a pretty good data showing that 55 -> 65 increase in NYS resulted in increase of fatalities on rural interstates.  Whooping 13 more fatal accidents over 3 years ( and would be closer to 30 if Thruway didn't have a decrease in fatalities over same time. better maintenance or what?).
One thing for sure - modern cars are much safer for occupants compared to older ones. Should we re-negotiate acceptable conditions?  Especially since speed limits are not obeyed at all?

Three years?  It's been 65 much longer than that.  Isn't just looking at a three year period cherry picking?

[Rothman]

My guess is that maximum speed limit by country generally correlates with driver license requirements (in some cases, the size of the country or province matters, too). I personally believe that if America increased its driver license requirements (with mandatory defensive driving classes every 5 years or so, more initial training to get a license, and maybe a background check), then we would have more experienced drivers. If drivers got better, then perhaps lawmakers would be more willing to make higher limits possible, especially in Midwestern or Southeastern states. Also, with the advent of electric cars and semi-autonomous driving, cars at higher speeds would be more efficient and more safe, meaning speed limits could be set more reasonably.

Sadly, "reasonable" to much of America (and politicians) is 55 mph or less.

The issue is not that America needs "more experienced drivers", on the contrary, we drive far more than most countries and are more experienced then they are. Just pulling the first numbers I can find, the average American drives 13.5k per year, versus 7.6k for Norway, and 6.4k for the UK. We are plenty "experienced" that is not the issue.
If we restrict the subject to highway speed limits, this argument makes even less sense. The safest roads in the country are the limited access highways that we want to raise speed limits on, and those are roads that newer drivers spend proportionally less time on.
Drivers education certainly should be improved, learning how to navigate without a GPS in particular should be a mandatory subject, and we really should drop the memorization of what distance every light has to be visible at. But driver education is not the main issue here.

The average might not be an appropriate summary statistic here, given how much larger our country is.  We probably have a much broader spectrum between strict commuters and long-distance driving.  The distribution of the data being collected in terms of miles driven would be helpful.

[kalvado]

There are three groups that generally oppose rational speed limits.  Two have a financial interest, the remaining one are just useful idiots for the other two.

- Cops, and the jurisdictions that the work for.  Policing for profit via randomly taxing motorists enriches and empowers these individuals, and it is far easier, and safer, than serious useful police work. 

- Insurance companies, under their political lobby the "insurance institute for highway safety". which spent millions of $$ and spew years of idiocy about how "55 saves lives" employing dozens of junk scientists.  When, finally they were defeated, and, of course, they were proven dead wrong about 55, they continue to this day, to work to keep speed limits too low, all over the country.

- The people, noted above are just stupid.  People, so ill informed, that they do not understand that SL rationality actually has saved thousands of lives.

"lower speeds save lives" has some sense, honestly speaking.
It's a matter of risk vs benefit and a compromise (would 40 save lives compared to 55?). There is a pretty good data showing that 55 -> 65 increase in NYS resulted in increase of fatalities on rural interstates.  Whooping 13 more fatal accidents over 3 years ( and would be closer to 30 if Thruway didn't have a decrease in fatalities over same time. better maintenance or what?).
One thing for sure - modern cars are much safer for occupants compared to older ones. Should we re-negotiate acceptable conditions?  Especially since speed limits are not obeyed at all?

Three years?  It's been 65 much longer than that.  Isn't just looking at a three year period cherry picking?

That was the paper I could find. First hand sifting through the data is pretty hard.
Besides - like any study with large number of people - it is difficult to isolate other factors, especially over long timeframe. Improvement of safety standards is one obvious factor, for example.

[kalvado]

My guess is that maximum speed limit by country generally correlates with driver license requirements (in some cases, the size of the country or province matters, too). I personally believe that if America increased its driver license requirements (with mandatory defensive driving classes every 5 years or so, more initial training to get a license, and maybe a background check), then we would have more experienced drivers. If drivers got better, then perhaps lawmakers would be more willing to make higher limits possible, especially in Midwestern or Southeastern states. Also, with the advent of electric cars and semi-autonomous driving, cars at higher speeds would be more efficient and more safe, meaning speed limits could be set more reasonably.

Sadly, "reasonable" to much of America (and politicians) is 55 mph or less.

The issue is not that America needs "more experienced drivers", on the contrary, we drive far more than most countries and are more experienced then they are. Just pulling the first numbers I can find, the average American drives 13.5k per year, versus 7.6k for Norway, and 6.4k for the UK. We are plenty "experienced" that is not the issue.
If we restrict the subject to highway speed limits, this argument makes even less sense. The safest roads in the country are the limited access highways that we want to raise speed limits on, and those are roads that newer drivers spend proportionally less time on.
Drivers education certainly should be improved, learning how to navigate without a GPS in particular should be a mandatory subject, and we really should drop the memorization of what distance every light has to be visible at. But driver education is not the main issue here.

The average might not be an appropriate summary statistic here, given how much larger our country is.  We probably have a much broader spectrum between strict commuters and long-distance driving.  The distribution of the data being collected in terms of miles driven would be helpful.

A somewhat random find - for plugin electric cars, i.e. strictly urban commute

Pure mileage may not be the best metic for experience, though. I suspect percentages of alcohol related aaccidentsmay be an eye opener

[1995hoo]

There are three groups that generally oppose rational speed limits.  Two have a financial interest, the remaining one are just useful idiots for the other two.

- Cops, and the jurisdictions that the work for.  Policing for profit via randomly taxing motorists enriches and empowers these individuals, and it is far easier, and safer, than serious useful police work. 

- Insurance companies, under their political lobby the "insurance institute for highway safety". which spent millions of $$ and spew years of idiocy about how "55 saves lives" employing dozens of junk scientists.  When, finally they were defeated, and, of course, they were proven dead wrong about 55, they continue to this day, to work to keep speed limits too low, all over the country.

- The people, noted above are just stupid.  People, so ill informed, that they do not understand that SL rationality actually has saved thousands of lives.

"lower speeds save lives" has some sense, honestly speaking.
It's a matter of risk vs benefit and a compromise (would 40 save lives compared to 55?). There is a pretty good data showing that 55 -> 65 increase in NYS resulted in increase of fatalities on rural interstates.  Whooping 13 more fatal accidents over 3 years ( and would be closer to 30 if Thruway didn't have a decrease in fatalities over same time. better maintenance or what?).
One thing for sure - modern cars are much safer for occupants compared to older ones. Should we re-negotiate acceptable conditions?  Especially since speed limits are not obeyed at all?

This is one reason why the raw number of accidents or fatalities can be misleading. Proponents of lower speed limits like to focus on that sort of thing. Proponents of raising speed limits generally focus more on the fatality rate–the number of fatalities per overall miles driven and the number of people on the road. Even if the raw number of fatalities goes up, it usually turns out to represent a smaller percentage of the number of people driving and the total distance they drive over the course of a year.

[SP Cook]

Every SL increase has been followed by a decrease in traffic mortality and morbidity.  That simple.  Pure science.  Advocates of irrational SLs are simply wrong.  That simple.

[hotdogPi]

irrational SLs

"Speed limit 40√2"

[SEWIGuy]

Every SL increase has been followed by a decrease in traffic mortality and morbidity.  That simple.  Pure science.  Advocates of irrational SLs are simply wrong.  That simple.

I really don't know how you can say this.  There are plenty of studies that suggest otherwise.

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa1304/Resources3/08%20-%20The%20Relation%20Between%20Speed%20and%20Crashes.pdf

Not that I want speed limits to decrease, your claims run counter to most of what is out there.

[hotdogPi]

Every SL increase has been followed by a decrease in traffic mortality and morbidity.  That simple.  Pure science.  Advocates of irrational SLs are simply wrong.  That simple.

I really don't know how you can say this.  There are plenty of studies that suggest otherwise.

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa1304/Resources3/08%20-%20The%20Relation%20Between%20Speed%20and%20Crashes.pdf

Not that I want speed limits to decrease, your claims run counter to most of what is out there.

That article is about actual driving speeds, not speed limits.

As an example of a low speed limit being a problem, if free-flow speed is 70, a speed limit of 55 causes a few people to drive much slower than surrounding traffic, which causes problems (both congestion and accidents).

[sprjus4]

Every SL increase has been followed by a decrease in traffic mortality and morbidity.  That simple.  Pure science.  Advocates of irrational SLs are simply wrong.  That simple.

I really don't know how you can say this.  There are plenty of studies that suggest otherwise.

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa1304/Resources3/08%20-%20The%20Relation%20Between%20Speed%20and%20Crashes.pdf

Not that I want speed limits to decrease, your claims run counter to most of what is out there.

That article is about actual driving speeds, not speed limits.

Exactly. Because in many cases, increased speed limits do not cause the 85th percentile speeds on a given roadway to rise by much. It merely is an adjustment to the legal limit to match the reality of what is already happening.

If anything, it improves safety by eliminating speed differentials between those traveling much higher speeds and those traveling close or at the limit. Vehicles traveling a similar speeds in one direction is safer than having variances because it cuts down on the amount of lane changes, passing, etc. which reduces the likelihood of accidents.

Drivers will drive what is comfortable based on roadway conditions, not what is on the sign. Often times, speed limit increases are bringing the number closer to what the roadway can safely handle, not actually speeding traffic up more.

[english si]

the idea of there being no speed limit on the German autobahns is somewhat of a myth.

Given the comparator is a rural midwestern freeway, the equivalent in Germany would have no limit.

Speed limits on British motorways are generally 70 mph.

Lets not forget that England, if it were a US state, would only be beaten on population density by New Jersey and DC despite having some rather remote areas. The motorways aren't really the same as a rural midwestern freeway that has the same speed limit - it's more like a North Eastern rural freeway that has a lower one.

They also tend to run at a much lower level of service than rural freeways in the US, and the speed limit is not particularly enforced in places where it doesn't need to be - you'd be unlucky to be done for doing 80mph on an empty rural motorway unless you have an incident (though check and see if local police are looking to make money through fines). They'll will get you if you are doing 90, and come down quite hard.

It's a matter of risk vs benefit and a compromise

There's the issue that a slower speed limit might create more risk of collisions of a lower severity. Do you want 10 collisions with a 10% chance of death, or 2 collisions with a 50% chance of death?

I always thought the "kill your speed, not a child" phrase accompanied by stats showing that hitting children at higher speeds meant they were more likely to be killed (well, obviously) that was really common road safety term 15-20 years ago (when the decrease in UK road fatalities slowed down) was a bit silly. The focus was on numerical speed to mitigate the impact of the collision, not in decreasing the risks of having such a collision (and given that the accompanying stats used 30mph and 20mph and assumed that you just flat out drove into them, they seemingly denied any agency of the driver to watch the road and seek to avoid the collision or reduce speed). Are you more likely to have an incident at 30mph than 20mph? I'm not so sure - depends on whether 20mph is so safe-feeling and slow that you lose focus, depends if you are obsessed with numerical speed and checking your speedo more often than you otherwise would. "Don't watch the speedo, watch the road" would be a slogan that would have been much more beneficial to road safety, especially after a few years of an obsession over the number on your speed.

One obvious case of the law of unintended consequences on this is when Portsmouth went to a blanket 20mph limit, having had a few 20mph zones and the national urban default of 30mph before. The vast majority of people felt 30mph was unsafe and so drove cautiously. Then with the 20mph limit they felt that that was about right and safe, so drove with a bit more confidence. (there's also the whole 'default' vs 'specific' of "they haven't put effort into working out what's safe" to "well they must think this speed is safe" - also seen on rural roads that went from NSL to a specific number) Average traffic speeds in the city rose from 16mph to 17mph despite a 10mph drop in the legal limit, and collisions went up. Its not always like that, but Portsmouth's experiment with 20mph without doing other stuff beyond lowering the speed limit (ie putting obstacles in your way - chicanes, humps, etc - to help keep your speed down and concentration up) wasn't successful.

[kalvado]

It's a matter of risk vs benefit and a compromise

There's the issue that a slower speed limit might create more risk of collisions of a lower severity. Do you want 10 collisions with a 10% chance of death, or 2 collisions with a 50% chance of death?

My opinion is much more nuanced. But that's not what I am talking about.
This is about number on a sign being a result of some sort of compromise between all parties involved. And that compromise should be open to being reconsidered once things change.
What I don't like, though, is that compromise regarding actual speeds results in a pretty different number. If you will, people vote with their feet on athrottle - and they vote for the higher number. But the ruling class doesn't accept the opinion of unwashed masses.