Speed Limit Signs Without "Speed Limit"

[oscar]

Regarding the OP:

Aside from some of the examples looking too much like New Mexico route markers, they also try to do two things at once, which is throwing too much at motorists:

(1) change the fixed speed limit to an advisory limit, essentially; and

(2) fundamental change in how speed regulation signs look.

Tryign to do both at once is just going to confuse motorists.  If you want to go with advisory limits (which I generally like on highways, maybe not on residential streets and other non-highways), use standard black-on-yellow advisory speed signs, like we use for curves, so we're only switching from one familar model to another that our motorists can quickly grasp. 

Plus, using a dashed circle instead of the solid one used internationally (which doesn't bother me) will confuse motorists of all nationalities.

[sammi]

Plus, using a dashed circle instead of the solid one used internationally (which doesn't bother me) will confuse motorists of all nationalities.

jake really likes dashed borders on his signs. (Seriously, check his other posts.)

[oscar]

Here's my idea of a Vienna/US hybrid.

I color coded the different speed limits:

Green= Current maximum speed (outside of work/school zones, etc.)

Yellow= School maximum speed

Red= indication that the current maximum speed is ending. This would only appear on speed transition signs (bottom two).

Orange= Construction zones

How does this work for color-blind drivers?  At least with traffic lights, light location usually provides a visual cue in addition to light color.

A yellow-on-white circle is going to be nearly invisible to everybody.  Contrasting colors, please.

Also, red-on-white and orange-on-white circles are hard to distinguish at speed.

Green-on-white circles might look like black-on-white circles at speed (maybe depending on what prolonged sun exposure does to the shade of green you use), but since you're not using black-on-white for anything that shouldn't be a problem.

[agentsteel53]

it's not without precedent...

[jakeroot]

Plus, using a dashed circle instead of the solid one used internationally (which doesn't bother me) will confuse motorists of all nationalities.

jake really likes dashed borders on his signs. (Seriously, check his other posts.)

Oh yeah. I've spent enough time in BC to start loving them, though I use it waaaaay too much. I only used dashed borders here to not completely rip off the Vienna convention. Ideally, you could use a dashed border to indicate a different meaning from a solid border. One of those things I don't believe has been used to its full potential.

[jakeroot]

If you want to go with advisory limits (which I generally like on highways, maybe not on residential streets and other non-highways), use standard black-on-yellow advisory speed signs, like we use for curves, so we're only switching from one familiar model to another that our motorists can quickly grasp.

I think that my whole idea is based on the idea of an advisory speed limit. Not sure how I forgot about said signs. Definitely areas that aren't freeways should keep the basic speed limit, but freeways should just be advisory. Though my idea is that police could ticket those who are driving ridiculously fast, and set a court date where the offender could argue his case. The law is intentionally vague so that the motorist still has some movement. I personally believe that more freedom for the individual is the only way to crack down on those who purposely break laws (Anarchy movement sound familiar?).

[1995hoo]

I'm surprised that nobody has yet mentioned the Oregon model:

You know what that sign made me think... you speed has to be 65 MPH... not 64... not 66... but *exactly* 65! (or 55 if you're a truck driver)

That's how the sign reads to me as well. Funny thing, though, I know a fair number of people who think the number under "SPEED LIMIT" is the number you must go (and one of my college roommates used to refer to driving at the speed limit as "doing the minimum"). I have no beef with someone going slower than the speed limit as long as he stays in the right lane and isn't going so slowly as to be a hazard.

This is not a new concept.  It's been around in California since the mid 70's...


These types of speed limit signs were in use all over California up until about 10 years ago and were a result of the implementation of the NMSL which conflicted with California's Basic Speed Law.  While some "MAXIMUM SPEED" signs are still in use, they're slowly being phased out.

Since I've never been to California, I've never seen these. What's the background on that? I take it, based on your comment, that "speed limit" must have had a definition along the lines of a prima facie speed limit, so rather than amend state law they created a different type of sign to say, in essence, "this number is a hard cap"?

[KEK Inc.]

I'm surprised that nobody has yet mentioned the Oregon model:

Sort of mentioned in the OP.  But I do think if we ever adopt metric, we should use a circumscribed number with 'SPEED' on top rather than 'SPEED LIMIT'.

[US71]

Parts of Illinois once used Speed Zone signs.

[hotdogPi]

How about a sign that says "40-60 MPH"?

(The lower limit can be ignored in traffic, in heavy rain/snow, and in construction.)

[KEK Inc.]

California also uses SPEED ZONE signs.



Disclaimer:  While RaymondYu is known to be a fraud in many of his photos, having lived in California for most of my life, I can attest that these signs do indeed exist.

How about a sign that says "40-60 MPH"?

(The lower limit can be ignored in traffic, in heavy rain/snow, and in construction.)

that sign was slightly tall ~S

[Scott5114]

While the Vienna Convention speed sign is nice, and roadgeeks would probably appreciate it, it would look too much like a route marker to be used in the US.

The tolerance for speeds slightly over the speed limit is not usually due to any official desire for leniency for speeders, but rather due to the limitations in speedometers' accuracy. (Pulled over for 71 in a 70–you could probably get the ticket tossed by saying that with the information available to you, you were doing 70.)

[Truvelo]

While the Vienna Convention speed sign is nice, and roadgeeks would probably appreciate it, it would look too much like a route marker to be used in the US.

I don't buy that. Route markers don't have a red border and there would be no confusion. And besides, I've driven Indiana SR-55 and I feel the current speed limit signs are easier to mistake for a route marker. How many times have I driven that road and seen a sign with 55 thinking it's the speed limit only to hit the brakes as I'm still in a 35 limit

[hotdogPi]

It's close to New Mexico's design.

[SidS1045]

my idea is that police could ticket those who are driving ridiculously fast, and set a court date where the offender could argue his case. The law is intentionally vague so that the motorist still has some movement. I personally believe that more freedom for the individual is the only way to crack down on those who purposely break laws (Anarchy movement sound familiar?).

More freedom for the individual is always a good thing in my book, but in this case it has approximately zero chance of ever seeing the light of day.

The current system of speed enforcement in the US (and, I suspect, in other countries too) has only one primary purpose: raising revenue.  That revenue pays for police officers, police cars, speed measurement equipment, courts, clerks and judges, and also figures into state, county and municipal budgets (IOW, they expect that drivers will break the law).  It's also a boon for insurance companies, which get to raise the rates of drivers cited for "speeding" when many of them were cited for driving at safe and reasonable speeds.

Yes, it's a thoroughly corrupt system, but with so many jobs and so much money on the line, it's not going to change anytime soon, and you can count on all those who profit from the system to rigorously defend it.  You said it yourself:  "Speeding" (actually, traveling at a speed excessive for conditions and the capabilities of the car and driver) accounts for a tiny percentage of crashes.  Therefore, there has to be another reason why police agencies pay so much attention to "speeding" offenses.  "Jerry Maguire" said it best:  Follow the money.  It has often been said that if only half of the drivers cited for "speeding" would not just roll over and pay the fines, but force the jurisdiction that cited them to prove the charge, the traffic courts would grind to a halt and *maybe* the system would change.

[MikeTheActuary]

my idea is that police could ticket those who are driving ridiculously fast, and set a court date where the offender could argue his case. The law is intentionally vague so that the motorist still has some movement. I personally believe that more freedom for the individual is the only way to crack down on those who purposely break laws (Anarchy movement sound familiar?).

More freedom for the individual is always a good thing in my book, but in this case it has approximately zero chance of ever seeing the light of day.

The current system of speed enforcement in the US (and, I suspect, in other countries too) has only one primary purpose: raising revenue.  That revenue pays for police officers, police cars, speed measurement equipment, courts, clerks and judges, and also figures into state, county and municipal budgets (IOW, they expect that drivers will break the law).  It's also a boon for insurance companies, which get to raise the rates of drivers cited for "speeding" when many of them were cited for driving at safe and reasonable speeds.

Two thoughts:

1.  The problem with a no-speed limit system in the US is the principle that laws and regulation cannot be "unconstitutionally vague".  That is officially what did in the Montanabahns of the late 90's.  It would take significant legislative wordcraft and probably a test case or two to craft a "reasonable & prudent" style law that wasn't deemed too vague, especially given the availability of fixed, defined speed limits.

2.  Insurers'  interest in speeding tickets is waning.  Telematics is where it's at now.  We evil insurance guys want your ODB2 data. 

[cl94]

You could throw in the New York-standard "END XX MPH LIMIT" sign and its predecessor "END XX MILE SPEED". It's a complicated way to say that the speed limit reverts to the default speed limit of 55 mph. I know Erie and Saratoga Counties love these, with their numbers greatly exceeding the amount of "STATE SPEED LIMIT 55" signs under their jurisdictions.

[The Nature Boy]

my idea is that police could ticket those who are driving ridiculously fast, and set a court date where the offender could argue his case. The law is intentionally vague so that the motorist still has some movement. I personally believe that more freedom for the individual is the only way to crack down on those who purposely break laws (Anarchy movement sound familiar?).

More freedom for the individual is always a good thing in my book, but in this case it has approximately zero chance of ever seeing the light of day.

The current system of speed enforcement in the US (and, I suspect, in other countries too) has only one primary purpose: raising revenue.  That revenue pays for police officers, police cars, speed measurement equipment, courts, clerks and judges, and also figures into state, county and municipal budgets (IOW, they expect that drivers will break the law).  It's also a boon for insurance companies, which get to raise the rates of drivers cited for "speeding" when many of them were cited for driving at safe and reasonable speeds.

Two thoughts:

1.  The problem with a no-speed limit system in the US is the principle that laws and regulation cannot be "unconstitutionally vague".  That is officially what did in the Montanabahns of the late 90's.  It would take significant legislative wordcraft and probably a test case or two to craft a "reasonable & prudent" style law that wasn't deemed too vague, especially given the availability of fixed, defined speed limits.

2.  Insurers'  interest in speeding tickets is waning.  Telematics is where it's at now.  We evil insurance guys want your ODB2 data. 

Here's a tip to fix #1:

There's nothing that says that a road must have a numerical speed limit. You simply eliminate the designation of "speeding" from the code and create an all encompassing "reckless driving" statute that includes driving at speeds deemed dangerously high and low. This places a greater burden on the officer to show that the offender was driving at a speed that would be deemed dangerous under the circumstances.

[jakeroot]

There's nothing that says that a road must have a numerical speed limit. You simply eliminate the designation of "speeding" from the code and create an all encompassing "reckless driving" statute that includes driving at speeds deemed dangerously high and low. This places a greater burden on the officer to show that the offender was driving at a speed that would be deemed dangerous under the circumstances.

I would agree that could work. My only concern would be cops that end up getting greedy because they aren't meeting their quota, who then deem 5-over reckless driving.

The police would need to meet a higher standard for any of my proposal to work.

[The Nature Boy]

There's nothing that says that a road must have a numerical speed limit. You simply eliminate the designation of "speeding" from the code and create an all encompassing "reckless driving" statute that includes driving at speeds deemed dangerously high and low. This places a greater burden on the officer to show that the offender was driving at a speed that would be deemed dangerous under the circumstances.

I would agree that could work. My only concern would be cops that end up getting greedy because they aren't meeting their quota, who then deem 5-over reckless driving.

The police would need to meet a higher standard for any of my proposal to work.

Then the police have to prove to the judge that it actually is dangerous. It could be a boon for local attorneys since any reasonably competent attorney could beat a police officer in a case where statutory ambiguity is at issue.

You could also attach a rider to the bill that bans the use of quotas by local and state police agencies.

[corco]

There's nothing that says that a road must have a numerical speed limit. You simply eliminate the designation of "speeding" from the code and create an all encompassing "reckless driving" statute that includes driving at speeds deemed dangerously high and low. This places a greater burden on the officer to show that the offender was driving at a speed that would be deemed dangerous under the circumstances.

I would agree that could work. My only concern would be cops that end up getting greedy because they aren't meeting their quota, who then deem 5-over reckless driving.

The police would need to meet a higher standard for any of my proposal to work.

Then the police have to prove to the judge that it actually is dangerous. It could be a boon for local attorneys since any reasonably competent attorney could beat a police officer in a case where statutory ambiguity is at issue.

You could also attach a rider to the bill that bans the use of quotas by local and state police agencies.

Montana tried this, the courts hated it, they had to go numerical speed limits.

[roadman]

As I recall, the courts forced Montana to adopt numerical speed limits after an individual claiming to be a professional racing driver was stopped while driving a supercar 1996 Camaro at about 150 mph on a public highway.  He tried to beat the charges by arguing that, because he was a professional racing driver AND because the car was designed to attain such speeds, that he was driving at a "reasonable and proper" speed.

[roadman65]

As I recall, the courts forced Montana to adopt numerical speed limits after a professional racing driver was stopped while driving a supercar at about 150 mph on a public highway.  He tried to beat the charges by arguing that, because he was a professional racting driver AND because the car was designed to attain such speeds, that he was driving at a "reasonable and proper" speed.

It takes one idiot to ruin it for the rest of us.

[1995hoo]

As I recall, the courts forced Montana to adopt numerical speed limits after a professional racing driver was stopped while driving a supercar at about 150 mph on a public highway.  He tried to beat the charges by arguing that, because he was a professional racting driver AND because the car was designed to attain such speeds, that he was driving at a "reasonable and proper" speed.

It takes one idiot to ruin it for the rest of us.

I'll just copy and paste the summary of that case I had previously posted in a different thread:

Afterwards, they went back to "reasonable and prudent" for a few years. But speedlimits were reintroduced in 1999. My guess is they wanted the revenue.

The problem was that "reasonable and prudent" is too ambiguous. It was deemed unenforceable.

The Montana Supreme Court's opinion throwing out "reasonable and prudent" was State v. Stanko, 974 P.2d 1132 (Mont. 1998). The court ruled that the idea of ticketing someone under that statute merely for speeding was unconstitutional because the statute was too vague in that it did not advise the motorist at what speed they might be subject to ticketing. It didn't help that the cop (who had stopped Stanko for going 85 mph) refused to opine as to what speed would have been reasonable and prudent under the conditions; instead he said it's up to the cop's judgment, and the Court ruled that it's impermissible to give a cop that sort of "arbitrary and discriminatory" power.

I recall at the time there was some debate as to whether the whole thing had been trumped up by the State in order to come up with a situation that could allow them to enact a numeric speed limit without the legislature doing it on their own–that is, because their Supreme Court threw out the non-numeric limit, they could say with a straight face "we can't have NO speed limit at all."

What's interesting is that the Stanko opinion was issued on December 23, 1998. The very next day the same court issued another opinion in a separate case involving Stanko (State v. Stanko, 974 P.2d 1139 (Mont. 1998)). In that case he'd been convicted on two counts of reckless driving for (a) going 117 mph as he crested a hill on US-87 near milepost 33 and (b) going 121 mph as he crested a hill on US-87 near milepost 31. Stanko raised various procedural issues and also argued that he couldn't be convicted of reckless driving based on speed alone where nobody was injured. The Court upheld both tickets because they said that it's unreasonable for someone driving on a two-lane road to be going over a hill in excess of 100 mph when other people might be on the road. This passage is pretty funny:

Contrary to Stanko's assertions, Officer Lobdell did not base her citation solely on the fact of Stanko's speed. Indeed, the citation itself states: "Reckless Driving! 117 mph over Crest of Hill on Narrow Road Moderate Traffic." (Emphasis added.) Furthermore, Officer Lobdell testified at trial that she cited Stanko for reckless driving because he was endangering everyone on the road due to the high speed, the narrow road, and the hill crest. She also testified that although traffic in the area was moderate on the day she cited Stanko, there was the potential for tourist traffic such as campers and boats as well as ranch and farm vehicles and trucks.

Stanko's argument that speed alone may not constitute reckless driving is beside the point. Neither officer cited Stanko for reckless driving based solely on speed. Rather, both officers considered speed plus the other factors referred to above. Other jurisdictions have long held that excessive speed under some circumstances may constitute willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others. See State v. Lunt (R.I.1969), 106 R.I. 379, 260 A.2d 149, 152; State v. Pruett (Idaho 1967), 91 Idaho 537, 428 P.2d 43; Norfolk v. State (Wyo.1961), 360 P.2d 605. We agree with these authorities. While "[t]here may be a point at which the speed becomes so excessive, the danger of injury to the passenger so probable, that such extreme speed alone might be held to be willful misconduct," People v. Nowell (Cal.App.Dept.Super.Ct.1941), 45 Cal.App.2d Supp. 811, 114 P.2d 81, 83(quoting Fisher v. Zimmerman (Cal.Ct.App.1937), 23 Cal.App.2d 696, 73 P.2d 1243, 1246), that is not the fact situation here and our decision is not premised on Stanko's speed alone.

In addition, and again contrary to Stanko's contentions, § 61-8-301, MCA, does not require that there be an actual injury before the conduct may be considered reckless.

        (1) A person commits the offense of reckless driving if he:

        (a) operates any vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property....

        Section 61-8-301, MCA (emphasis added).

Finally, Stanko imagines himself to be a "champion race-car driver" because he won a few stock-car races in Oregon almost twenty years ago. He testified that he was consciously driving 117 mph and 121 mph at the times he was cited, but that this conduct was not reckless because he is accustomed to driving at high speeds. While Stanko's driving abilities may be legend in his own mind, we are not impressed. Unfortunately, Stanko fails to realize that racing conditions are far different from highway conditions and that Montana highways are not controlled racetracks. While Stanko may be willing to risk his own life and property traveling the highways at grossly excessive speeds as though he is still on a racetrack, other motorists do not assume the risk of driving in racetrack conditions when they travel Montana's highways. In point of fact, Montana's highways are used by senior citizens, parents hauling small children, farmers and ranchers moving machinery, school buses, commercial vehicles, and bicyclists, all of whom typically drive at less than "racetrack" speeds. Other motorists, as well, in driving and in overtaking and passing vehicles rightfully expect that following and oncoming traffic will be moving at a reasonably prudent and safe speed. Few would gauge their driving in anticipation that coming over the crest of the next hill will be a car traveling at well over 100 mph being driven by one who believes that he is on the Autobahn. Moreover, even if Stanko were to only injure or kill himself in a high-speed crash, his conduct still would be responsible for putting on the highway and at risk the emergency personnel and vehicles that would most surely have to respond. Furthermore, any person who drives in this State is aware that wild and domestic animals frequently cross Montana's roads and highways. It is common experience that trying to avoid wildlife or livestock on a road, without crashing, is difficult enough while driving at a reasonable and prudent highway speed; it is nearly impossible while driving at speeds well over 100 mph.

In short, it is clear that, under the conditions at issue here, Stanko unquestionably operated his vehicle "in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property." Section 61-8-301, MCA. Accordingly, we hold that the District Court was correct in denying Stanko's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Establish the Necessary Elements of the reckless driving offenses with which he was charged.

Stanko II, 974 P.2d at 1146—47 (boldface added).

Edited to add: Stanko was driving a 1996 Camaro. Seems he's spent his share of time in prison, too.

[roadman]

@1995hoo - Appreciate the clarification - have modified my original post accordingly.