Current state speed limit increase proposals

[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).

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.

I mean in the US. We can adopt an unrestricted speed limit, but when do police write tickets for speeding? As I said, not at all, hopefully.

[J N Winkler]

I don't think the Autobahnpolizei write many, if any, tickets for speed (even when the speed is unsafe for conditions) on derestricted lengths, though they do police lane discipline aggressively.  In my experience, the liability flip at 130 km/h and fuel economy considerations are enough to keep typical cruising speeds at around that value.

The problem with having an Interstate system built by 50 state DOTs instead of a central authority is that, inevitably, some of the DOTs chose the "do the minimum" approach to claim the 90% federal funding, and did not have expertise in higher-level considerations such as design consistency.  As a result, considerable lengths of the Interstate system have very little slack in their design.  The design criteria were also rather loose to begin with.  Our original flat-country horizontal curvature standard was 1,190 ft minimum radius at 70 MPH, whereas the equivalent German standard was 2,000 m (about 6,600 ft) minimum radius at 160 km/h.

I don't object to German speed limit policy on a highway built to German standards, but that is not the case we are dealing with here except in certain parts of the country where design speed is less of an issue owing to long lengths of tangent alignment.

[jakeroot]

I don't object to German speed limit policy on a highway built to German standards, but that is not the case we are dealing with here except in certain parts of the country where design speed is less of an issue owing to long lengths of tangent alignment.

Are you personally aware of any states that were a bit more stringent with design standards?

[relaxok]

Are these very high speeds for interstates/divided highways only?

The force from a large car/truck going by on a two-lane road at 80-85, no matter how rural, can easily destabilize a small car or motorcycle.

[corco]

Montana's 80 MPH bill (in final form: http://leg.mt.gov/bills/2015/billpdf/SB0375.pdf) is on the governor's desk. No reason to think he won't sign it.

[cl94]

Are these very high speeds for interstates/divided highways only?

The force from a large car/truck going by on a two-lane road at 80-85, no matter how rural, can easily destabilize a small car or motorcycle.

Yes. Germany's max on non-Autobahn roads is 100 (62 mph).

Most states cap around that for undivided roads, with a few relatively undeveloped western states at 70 and Texas at 75.

[froggie]

I don't object to German speed limit policy on a highway built to German standards, but that is not the case we are dealing with here except in certain parts of the country where design speed is less of an issue owing to long lengths of tangent alignment.

Time to break out this old page (scroll to the bottom)...

http://www.ajfroggie.com/roadpics/autobahn/index.html

The only area where it appears German Autobahns have a higher standard than U.S. Interstates is in rural design speed.  Though that particular aspect does line up with the point you were making earlier.

[Big John]

Wisconsin legislative GOP leaders reach agreement on 70 MPH for limited-access freeways: http://fox6now.com/2015/04/28/lawmakers-reach-deal-on-raising-speed-limit-to-70-mph/

[cl94]

Wisconsin legislative GOP leaders reach agreement on 70 MPH for limited-access freeways: http://fox6now.com/2015/04/28/lawmakers-reach-deal-on-raising-speed-limit-to-70-mph/

So who does this leave at 65 or under? AK, CT, DE, HI, MA, NJ, NY, OR, RI, and VT, correct?

[roadfro]

"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?

Coming back to this side conversation: As I was watching the news tonight, they ran a story about the top dangerous intersections in Reno. During this, they mentioned that the Nevada  "zero fatalities" goal is hoped to be achieved by 2030. So that kind of aligns with your post here, just not nearly as long range as you suggested.

[Scott5114]

"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?

Coming back to this side conversation: As I was watching the news tonight, they ran a story about the top dangerous intersections in Reno. During this, they mentioned that the Nevada  "zero fatalities" goal is hoped to be achieved by 2030. So that kind of aligns with your post here, just not nearly as long range as you suggested.

So they're planning on outlawing cars in 2029?

[jakeroot]

"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?

Coming back to this side conversation: As I was watching the news tonight, they ran a story about the top dangerous intersections in Reno. During this, they mentioned that the Nevada  "zero fatalities" goal is hoped to be achieved by 2030. So that kind of aligns with your post here, just not nearly as long range as you suggested.

So they're planning on outlawing cars in 2029?

The root of my irritation. Washington is also doing a zero in 2030 thing.

[The Nature Boy]

It reeks of some bureaucrat seeing the decrease in traffic fatalities, running some math and saying "AHA! if we keep reducing deaths at this rate, we'll be at zero in 2030." The number will eventually plateau and then start going down at a slower rate.

[jakeroot]

It reeks of some bureaucrat seeing the decrease in traffic fatalities, running some math and saying "AHA! if we keep reducing deaths at this rate, we'll be at zero in 2030." The number will eventually plateau and then start going down at a slower rate.

At least in Washington, they even want to eliminate "serious injuries". Not sure how they plan to curb real issues such as suicide, but I'm sure increased speed enforcement is on the interim agenda.

EDIT, FWIW: the "Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), 23 USC 148" requires each state to have a Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

[nexus73]

Here's my strategy.  Traffic regulates itself.  No one is speeding during rush hour.  If the roads are empty who cares?  Anything in between will see most folks moving at the comfortable speed and if someone gets crazy, a smartphone/cellphone call will alert the authorities. 

What more is needed?  Oh right, bureaucrats are involved.  They will find a way to shoehorn more sh*t where it is not needed or appreciated.

Rick

[cl94]

Here's my strategy.  Traffic regulates itself.  No one is speeding during rush hour.  If the roads are empty who cares?  Anything in between will see most folks moving at the comfortable speed and if someone gets crazy, a smartphone/cellphone call will alert the authorities. 

What more is needed?  Oh right, bureaucrats are involved.  They will find a way to shoehorn more sh*t where it is not needed or appreciated.

Rick

From an engineer's perspective, I can tell you that it's safer to have everyone on the road drive 75-80 than it is to have some going 80 and others going 60-65. Raising the speed limit decreases the standard deviation of travel speeds on the road.

[corco]

Here's my strategy.  Traffic regulates itself.  No one is speeding during rush hour.  If the roads are empty who cares?  Anything in between will see most folks moving at the comfortable speed and if someone gets crazy, a smartphone/cellphone call will alert the authorities. 

What more is needed?  Oh right, bureaucrats are involved.  They will find a way to shoehorn more sh*t where it is not needed or appreciated.

Rick

I've often wondered if it might be useful to not only eliminate speed limits but also remove speedometers from cars, so that people would be forced to drive at a comfortable speed to them.

[The Nature Boy]

Speed limits are useful on some roads, particularly winding mountain roads. Imagine some idiot taking a curve too fast, driving into the other lane and smashing into someone head on. People are not good at judging their own skill at anything. Speed limits are supposed to mitigate this somewhat.

[cl94]

Speed limits are useful on some roads, particularly winding mountain roads. Imagine some idiot taking a curve too fast, driving into the other lane and smashing into someone head on. People are not good at judging their own skill at anything. Speed limits are supposed to mitigate this somewhat.

Speed limits are also good around schools. I have no issue with a 15 mph limit in front of a school during arrival/dismissal. Same with residential neighborhoods, again because of children. It just isn't safe to drive fast in areas of high pedestrian activity. Freeways, however, are often set way too low, especially because they're typically designed at minimum for the largest vehicle to drive a consistent 70.

[jeffandnicole]

Here's my strategy.  Traffic regulates itself.  No one is speeding during rush hour.

When traffic is moving, I actually find that travel speeds can be *higher* during rush hour.  If there's a large group of traffic going 80, 85 mph in a 65 zone, the cops - at least here in NJ - appear to be fairly reluctant to pull anyone over, knowing that traffic would instantly congest traffic.  If I was going 85 in a 65 in the lighter traffic during the middle of the day, I'd be a dead duck.

[bzakharin]

Raising the speed limit decreases the standard deviation of travel speeds on the road.

Has this been proven? I haven't seen this happening myself when they raised the speed limit from 55 to 65. Maybe at first when there was more enforcement, but not long term. Maybe if it's high enough, like 85, people will hesitate to drive 100, but not 55 vs 65

[cl94]

Raising the speed limit decreases the standard deviation of travel speeds on the road.

Has this been proven? I haven't seen this happening myself when they raised the speed limit from 55 to 65. Maybe at first when there was more enforcement, but not long term. Maybe if it's high enough, like 85, people will hesitate to drive 100, but not 55 vs 65

If the speed limit gets high enough, most likely. I know that the SD on NY 33 decreased when the speed limit went from 50 to 55, because geometry constraints effectively limit maximum speeds. It gets to a point where people won't drive any faster no matter the speed limit because they don't feel safe doing so. Michigan published a study last year related to differential speed limits showing that the SD does decrease ever so slightly when a uniform 65 increases to a uniform 70 (5.7 mph vs 5.4 mph), yet it really isn't enough to be statistically significant. The difference between 65 and 75, however, is probably much greater.

[Bickendan]

IIRC, the Netherlands found similar findings when they raised their speed limits.

[J N Winkler]

I've often wondered if it might be useful to not only eliminate speed limits but also remove speedometers from cars, so that people would be forced to drive at a comfortable speed to them.

I would keep speedometers.  Some people need them to gauge efficient operation of their cars, and in general they are a useful corrective to speed adaptation.

[kkt]

Speedometers also help if you change cars.  Get used to how much noise = 65 in old jalopy, then switch to a new car that's quiet and have trouble gauging speed.