Is the era of speed limit increases over?

[The_Ginger]

Meh, I like the thrill of seeing how fast I can get away with better.

  I don't drive yet, but I just don't agree with this statement, for some strange reason. [/sarcasm]

[Rothman]

Doesn't Kansas or Oklahoma add "Zero Tolerance" to its speed limit signage in some instances (Turnpikes?)?  Always wondered if that was to say they'll nail you for 1 mph over.

I know they do in Oklahoma:  https://maps.app.goo.gl/2AyvSq5uedP8V3AU6

I don't have a whole lot of experience with enforcement there, but I do have two instances to share:

One was as I was leaving Tulsa in, oh, 2009 or 2010 or something.  I heading west on US-412 through Sand Springs, so it wasn't even technically the turnpike yet.  A police officer was going exactly the speed limit in the left lane.  I started to i-i-i-inch by him at about 1mph over the speed limit in the right lane.  As I got neck-and-neck with him, he revved his engine, stared at me, and pointed at his radar gun.  So I slowed down to match his speed.  Then, a couple of minutes later, he sped way up, darted over across my lane in front of me, and got off at an exit.

Another was sometime around that too, maybe the next year or something.  I was driving west on the same turnpike, but closer to I-35 at this point.  If memory serves, I was going about 7mph over the limit.  And a turnpike highway patrol car coming the other direction flipped a u-turn across the grassy median (back when it was still grass) to pull me over.  No ticket, fortunately.

Makes me feel lucky due to recent trips I've taken out there, despite getting a deserved ticket out in western Kansas (missed a speed limit reduction).  Sped around like usual everywhere else without much trouble.  Not sure how many patrol cars I came across, though.

[Revive 755]

ETA:  Doesn't Kansas or Oklahoma add "Zero Tolerance" to its speed limit signage in some instances (Turnpikes?)?  Always wondered if that was to say they'll nail you for 1 mph over.

Arkansas has separate, general signs for it.
On SB I-55 near the Missouri border
On SB I-49 near the Missouri border
On NB I-49 near the Louisiana border

[The_Ginger]

ETA:  Doesn't Kansas or Oklahoma add "Zero Tolerance" to its speed limit signage in some instances (Turnpikes?)?  Always wondered if that was to say they'll nail you for 1 mph over.

Arkansas has separate, general signs for it.
On SB I-55 near the Missouri border
On SB I-49 near the Missouri border
On NB I-49 near the Louisiana border

Arkansas has violated the positive-contrast rule for the Clearview typeface as well, according to these signs.

[interstatefan990]

... an absolute limit means even 1 mile per hour over is a violation, no questions asked;

This is not how speed limits are enforced.  Most places, cops almost always let people go plenty more than 1mph over the limit.

Is this sarcasm? I thought it was pretty obvious I was talking about things strictly from a legal perspective, not a practical one.

Doesn't Kansas or Oklahoma add "Zero Tolerance" to its speed limit signage in some instances (Turnpikes?)?  Always wondered if that was to say they'll nail you for 1 mph over.

It's the same as those "STRICTLY ENFORCED" signs attached to speed limit posts, which is to say- mostly performative BS.

Meh, I like the thrill of seeing how fast I can get away with better.

For me I'd (in theory) like the legal thrill of being able to prove in court that my speed was reasonable and prudent anyways. "No your honor, I got the ticket while I was on a wide, long straightaway. I could've been going twice as fast and it would still be legal!" Especially if it was that stretch of highway in Texas where they ran state-sanctioned tests of it with a racecar driver at 200mph before opening it to the public.

But I'd rather not deal with all that mumbo jumbo anyways. 

[jeffandnicole]

For me I'd (in theory) like the legal thrill of being able to prove in court that my speed was reasonable and prudent anyways. "No your honor, I got the ticket while I was on a wide, long straightaway. I could've been going twice as fast and it would still be legal!" Especially if it was that stretch of highway in Texas where they ran state-sanctioned tests of it with a racecar driver at 200mph before opening it to the public.

But I'd rather not deal with all that mumbo jumbo anyways. 

Of course, the judge would quickly respond...are you a professional racecar driver, wearing a helmet and wearing a flame-retardant suit while driving a vehicle with tires and safety car that is designed to travel at twice the speed limit...

[interstatefan990]

For me I'd (in theory) like the legal thrill of being able to prove in court that my speed was reasonable and prudent anyways. "No your honor, I got the ticket while I was on a wide, long straightaway. I could've been going twice as fast and it would still be legal!" Especially if it was that stretch of highway in Texas where they ran state-sanctioned tests of it with a racecar driver at 200mph before opening it to the public.

But I'd rather not deal with all that mumbo jumbo anyways. 

Of course, the judge would quickly respond...are you a professional racecar driver, wearing a helmet and wearing a flame-retardant suit while driving a vehicle with tires and safety car that is designed to travel at twice the speed limit...

That's what pleading the 5th is for. 

[1995hoo]

For me I'd (in theory) like the legal thrill of being able to prove in court that my speed was reasonable and prudent anyways. "No your honor, I got the ticket while I was on a wide, long straightaway. I could've been going twice as fast and it would still be legal!" Especially if it was that stretch of highway in Texas where they ran state-sanctioned tests of it with a racecar driver at 200mph before opening it to the public.

But I'd rather not deal with all that mumbo jumbo anyways. 

Of course, the judge would quickly respond...are you a professional racecar driver, wearing a helmet and wearing a flame-retardant suit while driving a vehicle with tires and safety car that is designed to travel at twice the speed limit...

That's more or less part of how the Montana Supreme Court responded to Rudy Stanko when he cited racing experience as a reason why his speed wasn't reckless. They were not impressed.

[kphoger]

... an absolute limit means even 1 mile per hour over is a violation, no questions asked;

This is not how speed limits are enforced.  Most places, cops almost always let people go plenty more than 1mph over the limit.

Is this sarcasm? I thought it was pretty obvious I was talking about things strictly from a legal perspective, not a practical one.

If the law is not strictly enforced, then I don't see what the big problem is with the law.

According to state and local law, it's also illegal to use the left half of a crosswalk.  But I'm not about to start a petition to have that law changed, because no cop in the history of forever has ticketed a pedestrian for using the wrong half of a crosswalk.

There are all sorts of laws on the books that aren't enforced strictly.  Because of that, they aren't a problem.  Another example here in Wichita is that it's illegal for a pedestrian to cross the street at anywhere other than an intersection or marked crosswalk, anywhere within the area bounded by Washington St, the Arkansas River, Central Ave, and Kellogg Dr.  This means that, when I parallel-parked next to the railroad here during the recent Wichita city meet, I was breaking the law by crossing over to the parking lot.  But that doesn't actually matter, because no cop is ever going to ticket anyone for getting out of their car and walking over to the other side of the street there.

[vdeane]

... an absolute limit means even 1 mile per hour over is a violation, no questions asked;

This is not how speed limits are enforced.  Most places, cops almost always let people go plenty more than 1mph over the limit.

Is this sarcasm? I thought it was pretty obvious I was talking about things strictly from a legal perspective, not a practical one.

If the law is not strictly enforced, then I don't see what the big problem is with the law.

According to state and local law, it's also illegal to use the left half of a crosswalk.  But I'm not about to start a petition to have that law changed, because no cop in the history of forever has ticketed a pedestrian for using the wrong half of a crosswalk.

There are all sorts of laws on the books that aren't enforced strictly.  Because of that, they aren't a problem.  Another example here in Wichita is that it's illegal for a pedestrian to cross the street at anywhere other than an intersection or marked crosswalk, anywhere within the area bounded by Washington St, the Arkansas River, Central Ave, and Kellogg Dr.  This means that, when I parallel-parked next to the railroad here during the recent Wichita city meet, I was breaking the law by crossing over to the parking lot.  But that doesn't actually matter, because no cop is ever going to ticket anyone for getting out of their car and walking over to the other side of the street there.

It's a problem if the enforcement is not consistent, and speed limit enforcement is the furthest thing from consistent.  On some roads, 10 over is safe.  On others (such as the 80 mph zones in Wyoming), even 5 mph can get you pulled over.  Cameras add another dimension to this.  In NY, there's a required 10 mph buffer, but to be safe with speedometer and camera calibration, I stick close to the speed limit in construction/school zones anyways.  In other places, like Edmonton, there is famously no tolerance at all, and then other places where the tolerance is unknown but fairly low (Roosevelt Blvd around Philadelphia, all of Washington DC).  Then there's Québec, which has speed cameras that will flash for even 1 km/h over (whether you'll get a ticket for that is another matter, though I've heard the police give a lower tolerance for camera violations than when they're doing speed enforcement).

In short, since memorizing the policies for every location you're going to do non-local travel is impossible, the only way to guarantee you won't get a ticket is to stick to the speed limit all the time.  As such, it would be best if the speed limits were set for typical travel speeds, not significantly lower on the theory of "everyone will just go 10 mph faster anyways" or "we want a big buffer before we ticket the people who we consider to be a problem".

[kphoger]

... so there should be an subjective standard when it comes to speed restrictions. This would also help make police officers use more discretion in determining whether a car's speed is unlawful, instead of sticking to an exact miles per hour figure.

It's a problem if the enforcement is not consistent, and speed limit enforcement is the furthest thing from consistent.

You two seem to be on opposite ends of this debate, because I don't see how "consistent" enforcement can be "subjective" with "more discretion".

[interstatefan990]

... an absolute limit means even 1 mile per hour over is a violation, no questions asked;

This is not how speed limits are enforced.  Most places, cops almost always let people go plenty more than 1mph over the limit.

Is this sarcasm? I thought it was pretty obvious I was talking about things strictly from a legal perspective, not a practical one.

If the law is not strictly enforced, then I don't see what the big problem is with the law.

According to state and local law, it's also illegal to use the left half of a crosswalk.  But I'm not about to start a petition to have that law changed, because no cop in the history of forever has ticketed a pedestrian for using the wrong half of a crosswalk.

There are all sorts of laws on the books that aren't enforced strictly.  Because of that, they aren't a problem.  Another example here in Wichita is that it's illegal for a pedestrian to cross the street at anywhere other than an intersection or marked crosswalk, anywhere within the area bounded by Washington St, the Arkansas River, Central Ave, and Kellogg Dr.  This means that, when I parallel-parked next to the railroad here during the recent Wichita city meet, I was breaking the law by crossing over to the parking lot.  But that doesn't actually matter, because no cop is ever going to ticket anyone for getting out of their car and walking over to the other side of the street there.

There's also the problem of selective enforcement. It's not an either-or situation. There can be varying levels of enforcement for certain laws, especially from region to region. Cops nationwide may not care about using the wrong side of the crosswalk, but there's a police department in one state/city who will stop cars for 5 mph over the limit, where a department in another won't care until you're pushing 15-20 over. A subjective, nationwide prima facie standard would give more protections to those who can safely exceed the limit instead of just hoping that whatever "absolute limit" jurisdiction they're in will rely on what's reasonable instead of what's on a sign.

You two seem to be on opposite ends of this debate, because I don't see how "consistent" enforcement can be "subjective" with "more discretion".

I don't know if we're on opposing sides, or even having the same debate. I'm advocating for prima facie speed limits, while vdeane seems to be advocating for higher absolute speed limits, but it looks like we both agree that current absolute limits and their enforcement are too intolerant of otherwise safe speeds.

[vdeane]

There's also the issue that laws that are rarely enforced and seemingly always broken given the police justification to stop just about anyone they want - after all, if they want to stop someone but would otherwise be barred from doing so, they just have to wait for the person to violate one of those unenforced laws and then enforce it.

I'm advocating for prima facie speed limits

I do suspect that the burden of proof on showing that your speed was reasonable might be higher than you think.  In the pleading the fifth on the question of whether you're a race car driver example, the judge can then say "as you declined to answer the question, this court finds that there is insufficient proof that your speed was reasonable and thus the presumption that it is not for driving faster than the speed limit holds".

[ElishaGOtis]

OK this is just a crazy theory but might not be true, but I noticed that the increases Pennsylvania, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Maine, Maryland, and New Hampshite all happened during the 2010s during the Obama years. This is when the GOP gained control of many governor and legislature chambers from the Democrats in the big red waves of 2010 and 2014. For many of these states, they boosted their limits after new Republicans came in. But during the 2018 blue wave Democrats took partial or full control of many of these states and we've barely seen increases since in the Northeast and Midwest.

Since 2018:
Arkansas- went up from 70 to 75 mph in 2020
Oklahoma- went up from 70/75 mph to 75/80 mph in 2020
North Dakota- went up from 75 mph to 80 mph in 2025
Missouri- might be going up from 70 mph to 75 mph this year

all in GOP trifectas. And even then 4 in 8 years is waaay lower than 2010 to 2018.

Florida has entered the chat.

There's also the issue that laws that are rarely enforced and seemingly always broken given the police justification to stop just about anyone they want - after all, if they want to stop someone but would otherwise be barred from doing so, they just have to wait for the person to violate one of those unenforced laws and then enforce it.

I'm advocating for prima facie speed limits

I do suspect that the burden of proof on showing that your speed was reasonable might be higher than you think.  In the pleading the fifth on the question of whether you're a race car driver example, the judge can then say "as you declined to answer the question, this court finds that there is insufficient proof that your speed was reasonable and thus the presumption that it is not for driving faster than the speed limit holds".

There are some people who believe that these types of selectively enforced laws are necessary to make it easier to catch the more serious offenders...

[interstatefan990]

I do suspect that the burden of proof on showing that your speed was reasonable might be higher than you think.  In the pleading the fifth on the question of whether you're a race car driver example, the judge can then say "as you declined to answer the question, this court finds that there is insufficient proof that your speed was reasonable and thus the presumption that it is not for driving faster than the speed limit holds".

Well, let's say I wasn't going the full 200mph that the racecar driver was (which I definitely wouldn't be). I can still claim, for example, going 95 in an 85 is a "reasonable speed", and back it up with the fact that the race car safely went 200mph in that 85 zone. If the speed is much lower, I don't need to meet the same standard in terms of equipment and driving experience, but I can still use the racecar example as evidence.

[kphoger]

So, in this hypothetical bizarro world, any speeding ticket at all could end up being left up to a judge to decide.  That sounds like a horrible use of the judicial system—and also not at all consistent from one place to another, because judges are no less human than traffic cops.

[interstatefan990]

So, in this hypothetical bizarro world, any speeding ticket at all could end up being left up to a judge to decide.  That sounds like a horrible use of the judicial system—and also not at all consistent from one place to another, because judges are no less human than traffic cops.

I didn't know you consider Texas a "hypothetical bizarro world".

Speeding tickets are already left up to judges (and to a great extent, cops) to decide, so what's the difference anyway? This would simply allow a legal ground, in all states, on which to safely drive in excess of the posted "limit".

[Scott5114]

I didn't know you consider Texas a "hypothetical bizarro world".

Anyone who has been there does.

[Max Rockatansky]

I didn't know you consider Texas a "hypothetical bizarro world".

Anyone who has been there does.

Most of Texas is just Florida slightly repackaged with a cowboy theme.  The actual Texas that popular culture would have you believe exists is actually New Mexico.  Seems to me that fits the definition of "hypothetical bizarro."

[ElishaGOtis]

I didn't know you consider Texas a "hypothetical bizarro world".

Anyone who has been there does.

Most of Texas is just Florida slightly repackaged with a cowboy theme.  The actual Texas that popular culture would have you believe exists is actually New Mexico.  Seems to me that fits the definition of "hypothetical bizarro."

Last I checked this is a thread about speed limits and let me tell you DO NOT compare Texas with Florida regarding such...
 

(Seriously Florida restricting speed limits by design speed is hella stupid imho)

(Yes ik your comment was regarding the general culture of Texas compared to Florida; I was just making fun of the speed limits lol 😂)