80 MPH speed limit coming to South Dakota

[Scott5114]

I personally think the 75 mph speed limit on Oklahoma's turnpikes with small grassy median humps is too high. I-35 and the turnpikes with barriers can be 85, but those grassy humps should only be 70, IMO.

Is a 5 MPH speed difference really going to produce a measurable change in outcome in a crossover incident?

[Alex]

Right place at the right time Cullen!

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

Right place at the right time Cullen!

Yes indeed.

[kphoger]

I personally think the 75 mph speed limit on Oklahoma's turnpikes with small grassy median humps is too high. I-35 and the turnpikes with barriers can be 85, but those grassy humps should only be 70, IMO.

Is a 5 MPH speed difference really going to produce a measurable change in outcome in a crossover incident?

No, but I do think it can make a crossover incident less likely. Honestly, I get the heebie jeebies passing a truck after dark just doing 70 on those roads.

[jakeroot]

I personally think the 75 mph speed limit on Oklahoma's turnpikes with small grassy median humps is too high. I-35 and the turnpikes with barriers can be 85, but those grassy humps should only be 70, IMO.

Is a 5 MPH speed difference really going to produce a measurable change in outcome in a crossover incident?

No, but I do think it can make a crossover incident less likely. Honestly, I get the heebie jeebies passing a truck after dark just doing 70 on those roads.

How fast do folks drive on the turnpike at present? (Ignoring the speed limit).

[Scott5114]

On the three I-44 turnpikes, there's a wide range of speed, mostly due to trucks. I want to say that 60—80 MPH is the range most people are in. Doing 75 you will pass a lot of trucks (especially going uphill; the Turner Turnpike has a lot of hills) and occasionally be passed.

On the Indian Nation and Bailey Spur, there's not enough traffic for any generalization to be meaningful. I've never been on the Cimarron, Muskogee, or Cherokee. The Chickasaw has a 65 MPH limit because it struggles to even be a Super-2. And, of course, the Kilpatrick and Creek are entirely different animals because of their urban nature.

Personally, I think the 75 limit on turnpikes is a fantastic bit of marketing. It gives you a very reason to choose a turnpike instead of a shunpike route (and most Oklahoma turnpikes are trivial to shunpike). If the Turner were 70, using SH-66 (SL 65) to bypass it would be very attractive. But at 75, the time savings are difficult to pass up.

[SD Mapman]

And yet more controversy:

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/claims-about-stats-in-other-mph-states-gloss-over-reality/article_86b87ec2-3b80-5e6e-abfd-0e4bede4fb4a.html

It's only been 4 days, people.

[kkt]

And yet more controversy:

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/claims-about-stats-in-other-mph-states-gloss-over-reality/article_86b87ec2-3b80-5e6e-abfd-0e4bede4fb4a.html

It's only been 4 days, people.

It would be nice to know if speed increases do correlate with more accidents and fatalities, and if so by how much... but you won't find out from reading that article.  How about studying just the roads where the speed increased and accounting for number of vehicles on the roads?

[corco]

And absolute stupidity, regarding I-15 in Utah in 2012:

"He found that crashes on 80 mph roads were 14 percent more likely to cause an injury or death; roads with 80 mph zones were "over-represented in crashes,"  because 0.5 percent of all the state's crashes happened on those roads, even though they make up only 0.3 percent of the state's total road mileage; and 80 mph zones were prone to higher crash severity on a five-point scale, with an average of 1.73 in 80 mph zones compared with 1.49 for all crashes."

Well no shit, I-15 in Utah has a lot more cars on it than most of the state highway system's road miles. The fact that .5% of crashes occurred on it and it's .3% of the road mileage probably means it's one of the very safest roads in Utah.

[Scott5114]

And the average crash severity is 1.73/5...

[jeffandnicole]

And yet more controversy:

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/claims-about-stats-in-other-mph-states-gloss-over-reality/article_86b87ec2-3b80-5e6e-abfd-0e4bede4fb4a.html

It's only been 4 days, people.

The numbers shown are meaningless because they seem to be simple year-to-year variations.  The percentages shown seems to be extremely close, and they cited the one state where fatals actually went down before going up...which is common.

In some cases, the differences didn't even occur on 80/85 mph highways.  They are simply representing state-wide figures.  If crashes in 80 mph zones went down, but in 70 mph zones they went up, would that indicate 80 mph zones are safer than 70 mph zones?  I'd bet that if that info was available, they would simply say "In State A, crashes went up" to further their agenda.

[jakeroot]

"It's simple physics,"  he said. "The faster you're traveling when you get in a crash, the more damage and more injury will happen."

Everyone clap for Captain Obvious.

[J N Winkler]

On the Indian Nation and Bailey Spur, there's not enough traffic for any generalization to be meaningful. I've never been on the Cimarron, Muskogee, or Cherokee. The Chickasaw has a 65 MPH limit because it struggles to even be a Super-2. And, of course, the Kilpatrick and Creek are entirely different animals because of their urban nature.

I have driven on the Cimarron, Muskogee, and Cherokee--the last times being 2013, 1995, and 2013 respectively.  The original cross-section for the first two featured the same narrow grass median with curbs at left edge line that was used for all the first-generation Oklahoma turnpikes.  (I agree with Kphoger that this is not really safe at 75, but more because of the curbs than the median width:  more below.)  On the Cimarron I set the cruise control at 75 and was not often passed.  The NMSL was still in effect the last time I drove the Muskogee, but I suspect current conditions are now more or less the same as on the Cimarron.  The Cherokee is really in the Ozarks and is a no-slack design.  I vaguely recall long lengths posted for speeds less than 75 (65, maybe?) and not really feeling comfortable driving (let alone setting cruise control) even at that reduced limit, though of course there was the odd crazy who zipped past at a ridiculous speed.

The traditional AASHTO Green Book rule has been not to use barrier curbs on any road with a design speed greater than 50 MPH.  I suspect the Oklahoma turnpikes have gotten around this by either (1) pre-dating the Green Book (IIRC, there was a collection of Policies, not even the Blue Book, at the time the Turner Turnpike was being designed, and most of the other first-generation turnpikes were designed and built during the Blue Book era; of course, none of these design references would have been binding since the turnpikes did not receive federal funding), or (2) using a rolled curb design that technically classifies as "mountable."  But a curb is a curb, mountable or not, and is seen by the driver as unavailable for use in an emergency, and as such can prompt decisions that turn a survivable accident into a fatal one.

In recent years the OTA has been removing the curbs and grassed medians and replacing them with cable barrier set in paved concrete shoulders level with the traveled way.  Considerable lengths of the Cimarron had already lost their grassed medians when we drove it in 2013.

[corco]

And yet more controversy:

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/claims-about-stats-in-other-mph-states-gloss-over-reality/article_86b87ec2-3b80-5e6e-abfd-0e4bede4fb4a.html

It's only been 4 days, people.

The numbers shown are meaningless because they seem to be simple year-to-year variations.  The percentages shown seems to be extremely close, and they cited the one state where fatals actually went down before going up...which is common.

In some cases, the differences didn't even occur on 80/85 mph highways.  They are simply representing state-wide figures.  If crashes in 80 mph zones went down, but in 70 mph zones they went up, would that indicate 80 mph zones are safer than 70 mph zones?  I'd bet that if that info was available, they would simply say "In State A, crashes went up" to further their agenda.

The Idaho State Police has been doing similar data manipulation to support their claim that 80 is dangerous- claiming that they're giving more citations now that the speed limit is 80 because people are driving too fast.

The reason is because in 2012 they didn't ticket 82 in a 75, but they ticket 82 in an 80.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/welcome_page/?shf=/2014/08/28/3344943_idahos-80-mph-brings-more-speeding.html

[jakeroot]

And yet more controversy:

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/claims-about-stats-in-other-mph-states-gloss-over-reality/article_86b87ec2-3b80-5e6e-abfd-0e4bede4fb4a.html

It's only been 4 days, people.

The numbers shown are meaningless because they seem to be simple year-to-year variations.  The percentages shown seems to be extremely close, and they cited the one state where fatals actually went down before going up...which is common.

In some cases, the differences didn't even occur on 80/85 mph highways.  They are simply representing state-wide figures.  If crashes in 80 mph zones went down, but in 70 mph zones they went up, would that indicate 80 mph zones are safer than 70 mph zones?  I'd bet that if that info was available, they would simply say "In State A, crashes went up" to further their agenda.

The Idaho State Police has been doing similar data manipulation to support their claim that 80 is dangerous- claiming that they're giving more citations now that the speed limit is 80 because people are driving too fast.

The reason is because in 2012 they didn't ticket 82 in a 75, but they ticket 82 in an 80.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/welcome_page/?shf=/2014/08/28/3344943_idahos-80-mph-brings-more-speeding.html

Wow. I don't even think their radar guns are that accurate.

[intelati49]

And yet more controversy:

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/claims-about-stats-in-other-mph-states-gloss-over-reality/article_86b87ec2-3b80-5e6e-abfd-0e4bede4fb4a.html

It's only been 4 days, people.

The numbers shown are meaningless because they seem to be simple year-to-year variations.  The percentages shown seems to be extremely close, and they cited the one state where fatals actually went down before going up...which is common.

In some cases, the differences didn't even occur on 80/85 mph highways.  They are simply representing state-wide figures.  If crashes in 80 mph zones went down, but in 70 mph zones they went up, would that indicate 80 mph zones are safer than 70 mph zones?  I'd bet that if that info was available, they would simply say "In State A, crashes went up" to further their agenda.

The Idaho State Police has been doing similar data manipulation to support their claim that 80 is dangerous- claiming that they're giving more citations now that the speed limit is 80 because people are driving too fast.

The reason is because in 2012 they didn't ticket 82 in a 75, but they ticket 82 in an 80.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/welcome_page/?shf=/2014/08/28/3344943_idahos-80-mph-brings-more-speeding.html

Wow. I don't even think their radar guns are that accurate.

That's not shady at all 

[SD Mapman]

And yet more controversy:

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/claims-about-stats-in-other-mph-states-gloss-over-reality/article_86b87ec2-3b80-5e6e-abfd-0e4bede4fb4a.html

It's only been 4 days, people.

The numbers shown are meaningless because they seem to be simple year-to-year variations.  The percentages shown seems to be extremely close, and they cited the one state where fatals actually went down before going up...which is common.

In some cases, the differences didn't even occur on 80/85 mph highways.  They are simply representing state-wide figures.  If crashes in 80 mph zones went down, but in 70 mph zones they went up, would that indicate 80 mph zones are safer than 70 mph zones?  I'd bet that if that info was available, they would simply say "In State A, crashes went up" to further their agenda.

The one thing I've noticed over the years is that the Journal definitely has an agenda, whatever it is, and they will push it on the people.

None of the other newspapers in the state even care about this.

[Molandfreak]

A speed limit's job isn't to be low for the sake of idiots who can't stay on the road. A speed limit's job is to provide a reasonable top speed for the geography of the area, taking into account reaction time and stopping distances.

[Bickendan]

And yet more controversy:

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/claims-about-stats-in-other-mph-states-gloss-over-reality/article_86b87ec2-3b80-5e6e-abfd-0e4bede4fb4a.html

It's only been 4 days, people.

The numbers shown are meaningless because they seem to be simple year-to-year variations.  The percentages shown seems to be extremely close, and they cited the one state where fatals actually went down before going up...which is common.

In some cases, the differences didn't even occur on 80/85 mph highways.  They are simply representing state-wide figures.  If crashes in 80 mph zones went down, but in 70 mph zones they went up, would that indicate 80 mph zones are safer than 70 mph zones?  I'd bet that if that info was available, they would simply say "In State A, crashes went up" to further their agenda.

The Idaho State Police has been doing similar data manipulation to support their claim that 80 is dangerous- claiming that they're giving more citations now that the speed limit is 80 because people are driving too fast.

The reason is because in 2012 they didn't ticket 82 in a 75, but they ticket 82 in an 80.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/welcome_page/?shf=/2014/08/28/3344943_idahos-80-mph-brings-more-speeding.html

Wow. I don't even think their radar guns are that accurate.

That's not shady at all 

Don't speedometers have a variance of -+3 MPH? Because if my cruise control is set at 80 and that trooper dings me for 83...

[JREwing78]

And yet more controversy:

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/claims-about-stats-in-other-mph-states-gloss-over-reality/article_86b87ec2-3b80-5e6e-abfd-0e4bede4fb4a.html

It's only been 4 days, people.

The numbers shown are meaningless because they seem to be simple year-to-year variations.  The percentages shown seems to be extremely close, and they cited the one state where fatals actually went down before going up...which is common.

In some cases, the differences didn't even occur on 80/85 mph highways.  They are simply representing state-wide figures.  If crashes in 80 mph zones went down, but in 70 mph zones they went up, would that indicate 80 mph zones are safer than 70 mph zones?  I'd bet that if that info was available, they would simply say "In State A, crashes went up" to further their agenda.

The one thing I've noticed over the years is that the Journal definitely has an agenda, whatever it is, and they will push it on the people.

None of the other newspapers in the state even care about this.

It's obvious from the tone of other articles they've written on the subject. They're labeled as "news", but they read like editorials.

[jakeroot]

And yet more controversy:

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/claims-about-stats-in-other-mph-states-gloss-over-reality/article_86b87ec2-3b80-5e6e-abfd-0e4bede4fb4a.html

It's only been 4 days, people.

The numbers shown are meaningless because they seem to be simple year-to-year variations.  The percentages shown seems to be extremely close, and they cited the one state where fatals actually went down before going up...which is common.

In some cases, the differences didn't even occur on 80/85 mph highways.  They are simply representing state-wide figures.  If crashes in 80 mph zones went down, but in 70 mph zones they went up, would that indicate 80 mph zones are safer than 70 mph zones?  I'd bet that if that info was available, they would simply say "In State A, crashes went up" to further their agenda.

The Idaho State Police has been doing similar data manipulation to support their claim that 80 is dangerous- claiming that they're giving more citations now that the speed limit is 80 because people are driving too fast.

The reason is because in 2012 they didn't ticket 82 in a 75, but they ticket 82 in an 80.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/welcome_page/?shf=/2014/08/28/3344943_idahos-80-mph-brings-more-speeding.html

Wow. I don't even think their radar guns are that accurate.

That's not shady at all 

Don't speedometers have a variance of -+3 MPH? Because if my cruise control is set at 80 and that trooper dings me for 83...

All the more reason SDHP is out of line.

[jeffandnicole]

And yet more controversy:

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/claims-about-stats-in-other-mph-states-gloss-over-reality/article_86b87ec2-3b80-5e6e-abfd-0e4bede4fb4a.html

It's only been 4 days, people.

The numbers shown are meaningless because they seem to be simple year-to-year variations.  The percentages shown seems to be extremely close, and they cited the one state where fatals actually went down before going up...which is common.

In some cases, the differences didn't even occur on 80/85 mph highways.  They are simply representing state-wide figures.  If crashes in 80 mph zones went down, but in 70 mph zones they went up, would that indicate 80 mph zones are safer than 70 mph zones?  I'd bet that if that info was available, they would simply say "In State A, crashes went up" to further their agenda.

The Idaho State Police has been doing similar data manipulation to support their claim that 80 is dangerous- claiming that they're giving more citations now that the speed limit is 80 because people are driving too fast.

The reason is because in 2012 they didn't ticket 82 in a 75, but they ticket 82 in an 80.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/welcome_page/?shf=/2014/08/28/3344943_idahos-80-mph-brings-more-speeding.html

Wow. I don't even think their radar guns are that accurate.

That's not shady at all 

Don't speedometers have a variance of -+3 MPH? Because if my cruise control is set at 80 and that trooper dings me for 83...

Officially, no.  While a speedometer may not be exact, that's an issue to take up with the manufacturer of the vehicle.  Unless state law specifies a tolerance, a limit is a limit.  (PA for example requires a tolerance when officers use VASCAR, I believe)

A cop can pull you over for being just 1 over the limit, based on his radar gun.  But if the state cares, they will step in and tell the police departments to knock off the minor speeding tickets.

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

If I had my way politically, any speed of less than 15 over the posted limit would be secondary enforcement only.

Basically, pulling someone over to the side of the road creates an unnecessary hazard.  Arguably, an unnecessary hazard that is far greater than the one posed by someone going a few over the posted limit.

So, if someone was pulled for a more severe offense, such as texting while driving, and they happened to be going 7 over while doing it, they could then be written up for the 7 over; but pulling someone over for 7 over alone would not be allowed.

[intelati49]

If I had my way politically, any speed of less than 15 over the posted limit would be secondary enforcement only.

Basically, pulling someone over to the side of the road creates an unnecessary hazard.  Arguably, an unnecessary hazard that is far greater than the one posed by someone going a few over the posted limit.

So, if someone was pulled for a more severe offense, such as texting while driving, and they happened to be going 7 over while doing it, they could then be written up for the 7 over; but pulling someone over for 7 over alone would not be allowed.

Honestly I don't care. However! I just want you to be consistent. If you catch a person doing 82 in an 80 and pull them over, then pull over the guy doing 72 in a 70.

But yes, that sounds good to me as well.

[J N Winkler]

In the case of Idaho, it would not surprise me if (effective) zero-tolerance enforcement of the 80 limit is justified within police departments on the basis of the sorry state of I-84, which has sharp curves near the Sweetzer Road exit and a length near Burley and the I-86 wye where through traffic is urged to use the left lane because of poor pavement condition in the right-hand lane and limited merging area.

Personally, I would trade complete pavement reconstruction on the entire eastern two-thirds of Idaho I-84 for the 80 limit.  It is not a lot of fun to drive fast if you are worried about the health of your bushings and control arms.

South Dakota has put serious money into rebuilding I-90 and it may very well be the first state to have 80 on long lengths of untolled and freshly reconstructed pavement, though Texas does have 85 on the relatively fresh new-build but tolled SH 130.