Arizona proposes bill to have no speed limits on rural section of AZ Interstates

[I-57/Route 66 Fan]

I saw a report on it this morning, I don't that it would work. What are your thoughts?

[kphoger]

I saw a report on it this morning, I don't that it would work. What are your thoughts?

They tried and failed in Montana, so I expect the answer to be no.

[SP Cook]

It will save many lives and free law enforcement to do useful things.  Do it now.

[I-57/Route 66 Fan]

It will save many lives and free law enforcement to do useful things.  Do it now.

Is this sarcasm or no?

[kphoger]

It will save many lives and free law enforcement to do useful things.  Do it now.

Is this sarcasm or no?

Knowing him, it wasn't sarcasm.

I agree that it could free up law enforcement to more useful things.  But I fail to see how removing speed limits would actually save lives:  I imagine that any lives saved would be more than offset by other resultant deaths.

[Max Rockatansky]

SP and sarcasm are two things that don't intermingle often.

I forget which thread we talked about this proposal in before.  During the conversation I had mentioned that in the long ago past had a Camaro up to 138 MPH on I-10 west of the Hovatter exit.  On I-10 and I-8 west of Phoenix I can possibly see a case for lifting the passenger vehicle limit. 

For me I-40 is too presently beat up to sustain higher speeds.  Crossing over the Colorado Plateau makes 40 subject to all the hazards of winter maintenance. I-17 is pretty maxed out as is with all the curved and steep grade climbs. 

[kphoger]

I forget which thread we talked about this proposal in before.  During the conversation I had mentioned that in the long ago past had a Camaro up to 138 MPH on I-10 west of the Hovatter exit.  On I-10 and I-8 west of Phoenix I can possibly see a case for lifting the passenger vehicle limit. 

For me I-40 is too presently beat up to sustain higher speeds.  Crossing over the Colorado Plateau makes 40 subject to all the hazards of winter maintenance. I-17 is pretty maxed out as is with all the curved and steep grade climbs. 

Of course, removing the speed limit wouldn't force you to drive faster.

I remember reading an account of Ken Taylor's from back when he used to take drive-away vehicles between Illinois and Oregon before the advent of speed limits.  He and his college friends would drive till nighttime, then just pull over and sleep behind a guardrail till morning.  Anyway, in this account, he mentioned that there were no speed limits at that time, and that 70 mph seemed about right, so that's the speed they drove.  And I remember my grandpa saying something similar about when he was young.

In the absence of signs, it's still possible to determine an appropriate speed to go.

[The Ghostbuster]

Every road needs a speed limit. Not that anybody obeys it, but it still is needed.

[1995hoo]

I saw a report on it this morning, I don't that it would work. What are your thoughts?

They tried and failed in Montana, so I expect the answer to be no.

Technically, Montana didn't try having "no speed limit." It did have a speed limit—"reasonable and prudent"—but their supreme court threw it out as void for vagueness because it gave motorists no guidance as to what speed might put them at risk of a ticket, especially when the state's witness had testified that it was a matter of the police officer's discretion (meaning that two different policemen on the same road under identical conditions might have completely different ideas about what speed warranted a ticket). While unfortunate, the result was probably correct in terms of the underlying legal principles.

Montana did briefly have no daytime speed limit at all as a result of that decision until a few months later when the general assembly passed, and the governor signed, a bill establishing a 75-mph speed limit.

The potential problem I see with having no speed limit is the effect of lack of lane discipline. If you want to have no speed limit, it becomes that much more important to have, and strictly enforce, a keep-right-except-to-pass law.

[Max Rockatansky]

Every road needs a speed limit. Not that anybody obeys it, but it still is needed.

Florence Lake Road over Kaiser Ridge seemed fine without one this past Sunday.  If you can achieve speeds higher than 25 MPH you're braver than I am.

[kphoger]

Technically, Montana didn't try having "no speed limit." It did have a speed limit—"reasonable and prudent"—but their supreme court threw it out as void for vagueness because it gave motorists no guidance as to what speed might put them at risk of a ticket, especially when the state's witness had testified that it was a matter of the police officer's discretion (meaning that two different policemen on the same road under identical conditions might have completely different ideas about what speed warranted a ticket). While unfortunate, the result was probably correct in terms of the underlying legal principles.

Yes, I figured someone would give a fuller explanation. 

I do wonder if that basically voids all sorts of state laws that include the same 'reasonable and prudent' language.  For example, the UVC includes such things as these:

"The driver of a vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent..."

"The driver of vehicle approaching a yield sign shall in obedience to such sign slow down to a speed reasonable for the existing conditions..."

"No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions..."

"The driver of a vehicle overtaking upon the right any streetcar stopped or about to stop ... may proceed past such car at a speed not greater than is reasonable and proper..."

Montana did briefly have no daytime speed limit at all as a result of that decision until a few months later when the general assembly passed, and the governor signed, a bill establishing a 75-mph speed limit.

Oh, now that is interesting.  If I knew that, then I had forgotten it.

[1995hoo]

Montana did briefly have no daytime speed limit at all as a result of that decision until a few months later when the general assembly passed, and the governor signed, a bill establishing a 75-mph speed limit.

Oh, now that is interesting.  If I knew that, then I had forgotten it.

It was essentially a practical matter. The state supreme court invalidated "reasonable and prudent" as a basis for giving a speeding ticket (although in a separate case involving the same driver it did allow for reckless driving tickets). The governor didn't call the general assembly into special session to deal with the issue. Instead, they took it up in the next regular session. So as a practical matter, there was no daytime speed limit during the period between the invalidation of "reasonable and prudent" and the governor's signing the 75-mph limit into law several months later. But a driver could still be prosecuted for reckless driving during that period. If I recall correctly, the facts of the case in which the supreme court affirmed Rudy Stanko's reckless-driving conviction involved his driving 121 mph on a hilly two-lane road.

[kphoger]

If I recall correctly, the facts of the case in which the supreme court affirmed Rudy Stanko's reckless-driving conviction involved his driving 121 mph on a hilly two-lane road.

13 AUG 1996 — SB US-87, near mile marker 33 — citation = "Reckless Driving! 117 mph over Crest of Hill on Narrow Road Moderate Traffic"

01 OCT 1996 — NB US-87, near mile marker 31 — citation = "operate a vehicle in a reckless manner 121 mph coming over crest of hill"

[Tendies]

I saw a report on it this morning, I don't that it would work. What are your thoughts?

Was proposed last year, currently stuck "Held in Committees" since February.
https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview/83621
Just raising the limit to 80 or even 85 seems much more realistic than full Arizonabahn. I do recall reading once (but have no source) that the main opposition against higher speed limits actually comes from insurance companies.

[Max Rockatansky]

I saw a report on it this morning, I don't that it would work. What are your thoughts?

Was proposed last year, currently stuck "Held in Committees" since February.
https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview/83621
Just raising the limit to 80 or even 85 seems much more realistic than full Arizonabahn. I do recall reading once (but have no source) that the main opposition against higher speed limits actually comes from insurance companies.

That is a more pleasing made up word to the ears than I thought it would be. 

[ElishaGOtis]

First off, this bill was pushed to the next session.

Second, I'm personally strongly favorable of this (as discussed in the SL bill thread), although my opinions have shifted slightly. There's five things this bill should have done imho:
- Clarified that it also removed the minimum cap for urban area speed limits (presenting itself as a compromise, almost?)
- Removed the mandate for a test section
- Provide a 75-80mph advisory speed during the derestricted times & treat speeding-related crashes as if they violated a 75-80mph speed limit
- Analyzed or predicted the change in speeding ticket and insurance surcharge revenue as a result of the derestricted speed zones
- Allow derestricted zones only on freeways

Technically, Montana didn't try having "no speed limit." It did have a speed limit—"reasonable and prudent"—but their supreme court threw it out as void for vagueness because it gave motorists no guidance as to what speed might put them at risk of a ticket, especially when the state's witness had testified that it was a matter of the police officer's discretion (meaning that two different policemen on the same road under identical conditions might have completely different ideas about what speed warranted a ticket). While unfortunate, the result was probably correct in terms of the underlying legal principles.

Yes, I figured someone would give a fuller explanation. 

I do wonder if that basically voids all sorts of state laws that include the same 'reasonable and prudent' language.  For example, the UVC includes such things as these:

"The driver of a vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent..."

"The driver of vehicle approaching a yield sign shall in obedience to such sign slow down to a speed reasonable for the existing conditions..."

"No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions..."

"The driver of a vehicle overtaking upon the right any streetcar stopped or about to stop ... may proceed past such car at a speed not greater than is reasonable and proper..."

Montana did briefly have no daytime speed limit at all as a result of that decision until a few months later when the general assembly passed, and the governor signed, a bill establishing a 75-mph speed limit.

Oh, now that is interesting.  If I knew that, then I had forgotten it.

The problem that Montana ran across is that "reasonable and prudent" was being enforced on a PRIMARY offense basis, not as a secondary offense. The "reasonable and prudent" or related statutes are usually used to justify fault after a crash, but variations of such can and are still used on a primary offense basis (even for speed in many cases, I've heard of this APPARENTLY being used to justify a ticket for violating an advisory speed). For some stupid reason, the government of Montana was not OK with simply keeping business-as-usual for a secondary offense provision.

Regarding the move-over standards, this brings a valid point. Some states like Texas, Florida, and Michigan (among other states) have countered this by defining how far below a speed limit constitutes "reasonable." Those are REGULARLY enforced on a primary offense basis.

I saw a report on it this morning, I don't that it would work. What are your thoughts?

Was proposed last year, currently stuck "Held in Committees" since February.
https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview/83621
Just raising the limit to 80 or even 85 seems much more realistic than full Arizonabahn. I do recall reading once (but have no source) that the main opposition against higher speed limits actually comes from insurance companies.

I have a hunch why. It's not due to crashes, but rather due to decreased revenue since increasing your rates after a speeding ticket would no longer be an option. Could be wrong, but still...

[triplemultiplex]

The most dangerous thing one can have on a road is vehicles driving wildly different speeds.
A few yahoos weaving around 62 mph semis at 100 mph is a recipe for disaster.

It's really hard to notice someone coming up from behind that fast and also difficult to judge their speed.  People screw it up all the time when there's just a 10 mph difference in speed.

To a person, you've all had the experience of getting passed by someone going so goddamn fast, you didn't see them until they were past you.  It's startling.  Especially when you were in the middle of deciding when to move over to pass the slightly slower vehicle in front of you that you're closing in on.

Also, the two times I drove across Arizona, (once on 40, once on 10) I never felt like any stretch was so desolate with so little traffic that it would at all be tolerable to have yahoos zooming around at 100 mph.
At least Montana had and continues to have the lowest traffic count on a mainline interstate in the country.

[kphoger]

The most dangerous thing one can have on a road is vehicles driving wildly different speeds.

I've heard that said many times on the forum.  Is it actually backed up by any studies?

[Rothman]

The most dangerous thing one can have on a road is vehicles driving wildly different speeds.

I've heard that said many times on the forum.  Is it actually backed up by any studies?

Absolutely.  FHWA used to have a big online library with all sorts of studies on safety and whatnot.  Wonder if it's still there.  Did a lot of research with it when I was in grad school...

[Scott5114]

The real hazard here is that ADOT is so shitty at maintaining their pavement that someone might hit a bump at a high rate of speed and go flying in an unpredictable direction. My understanding is that the Autobahn is only possible because Germany actually invests the money into keeping the pavement in condition that supports that speed. Likewise, Las Vegas Boulevard gets repaved every year right before the Formula One race to ensure it can safely support those kind of speeds.

[ElishaGOtis]

The real hazard here is that ADOT is so shitty at maintaining their pavement that someone might hit a bump at a high rate of speed and go flying in an unpredictable direction. My understanding is that the Autobahn is only possible because Germany actually invests the money into keeping the pavement in condition that supports that speed. Likewise, Las Vegas Boulevard gets repaved every year right before the Formula One race to ensure it can safely support those kind of speeds.

Although this holds water, the Autobahn retains its infinite speed zones purely due to it being politically beneficial to uphold it. The speed limits were originally rescinded because you-know-who was the first to ever establish a speed limit, and undoing that was seen as a beneficial step to undo his regime's relics. The slogan that was used roughly translated to "free driving for free citizens" (before the AfD tried to hijack it completely forgetting about its origins). Nowadays, that argument has been mostly forgotten, and is instead attributed to (albeit prima facie valid) arguments like maintenance, driving culture, training, etc when in reality those are significantly blown out of proportion...

Although yes, ADOT could step up their game on some of the desert roadways, but I will admit the yearly chip sealing helps out a ton.

The most dangerous thing one can have on a road is vehicles driving wildly different speeds.

I've heard that said many times on the forum.  Is it actually backed up by any studies?

It can be backed up by simple physics. KE=0.5mv^2, with velocity effectively being the [I forgot which] resultant of two individual vectors of each vehicle's speed and direction. ALL THAT SAID, much of the risks associated with speed differentials presented here can be minimized with lane discipline enforcement, and unlike the issues presented in cases with an artificially low speed limit, here it's not possible for left lane campers to be "going too slow but also too fast" (speeding + impeding left lane)—the only charge being impeding the left lane. The combo charge risk in my opinion makes this differential far worse and harder to justify enforcing...

(if any of this sounds stupid, it's 4 AM and I got 5 hours of sleep the night before, imma probably edit parts of this later today lol ).

[Plutonic Panda]

Every road needs a speed limit. Not that anybody obeys it, but it still is needed.

I disagree. There are plenty of roads where you could have no speed limit limits on. It's more about driving etiquette than anything. That's the one reason it won't work here.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

My problem is people who drive recklessly often end up killing people other than themselves, whether that's their passengers or people in other cars. That's my biggest argument for traffic enforcement. I'm not interested in giving my life for your stupidity because you couldn't control your toy out on the road.

[Henry]

75 sounds about right here. I'd prefer that to no speed limit at all.

[The Ghostbuster]

At least they're not trying to revive the National Maximum Speed Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law. I still don't want any freeways in the US to become like the German Autobahns.