Practices in One State You'd Like to See in Other States

[CrossCountryRoads]

The increases in speed limits recently in Texas is something I would like to see on rural Interstates in other states.  Wisconsin's 65 mph speed limit is much too low for rural Interstate there.  Same with Illinois being 65 mph and Iowa's being 70 mph.  I think they should be bumped up to 70 mph in WI and IL, and 75 in Iowa.

[agentsteel53]

The increases in speed limits recently in Texas is something I would like to see on rural Interstates in other states.  Wisconsin's 65 mph speed limit is much too low for rural Interstate there.  Same with Illinois being 65 mph and Iowa's being 70 mph.  I think they should be bumped up to 70 mph in WI and IL, and 75 in Iowa.

there are roads in all three of those states which would make sense at 80.  I-64 in Illinois comes to mind, as does I-90 west of the I-94 split in Wisconsin.  as for Iowa, oh just about every rural interstate could be 80.

[kphoger]

I-64 in Illinois comes to mind

I would prefer this highway at mach 1.2 or thereabouts.  I once drove it from Grayville (near Keensburg, actually) to Mount Vernon at 48 mph, in order to prevent my truck's turbo hose from blowing off again.  Not fun.

[roadman65]

Also, FDOT does not like to post information signs letting motorists know about the nature of the project.  Many states tell you what the new road will be, or the type of improvements that are being made.  When FL 429 was constructed, no large project signs letting you know what was being done or what the new highway will be, as my home state of New Jersey will tell you what interstate or state route is being constructed and the costs, project summary, etc.

WTF? I see FDOT (and Orange County) signs all the time with completion date. SR 429 is OOCEA.
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=28.450797,-81.392151&spn=0.017206,0.033023&gl=us&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=28.450797,-81.392151&panoid=moOGECrDBUDIqWaOzyLtiQ&cbp=12,232.13,,2,-0.2

Only in rare cases do they do that.  I do not see signs for FL 429 while it was under construction or even the extension of FL 451 across from US 441 if that is what it is.   Is there a sign where Destination Parkway meets John Young?  No this is county, but FL 414 never did when a direct ramp was made to SB US 17 & WB US 92 in Maitland, as well as the FDOT section of FL 414 did not have signs and is there any signs along OBT where they are doing the safety improvements between Oakridge and Landstreet?  I know the answer is no, as I travel that stretch very frequently.

The SR 482 sign is the exception and not the norm. 

[CrossCountryRoads]

The increases in speed limits recently in Texas is something I would like to see on rural Interstates in other states.  Wisconsin's 65 mph speed limit is much too low for rural Interstate there.  Same with Illinois being 65 mph and Iowa's being 70 mph.  I think they should be bumped up to 70 mph in WI and IL, and 75 in Iowa.

there are roads in all three of those states which would make sense at 80.  I-64 in Illinois comes to mind, as does I-90 west of the I-94 split in Wisconsin.  as for Iowa, oh just about every rural interstate could be 80.

I completely agree with you, although just bumping them up even just 5 mph would be a good start.  But if they bumped them all up to 80, you certainly wouldn't hear me complaining.

[agentsteel53]

I think 80's just a "good start".  rural roads should, generally speaking, not have speed limits.  just pull people over for reckless driving if they're doing something stupid.

[roadman65]

I think 80's just a "good start".  rural roads should, generally speaking, not have speed limits.  just pull people over for reckless driving if they're doing something stupid.

Montana tried that and failed. 

[NE2]

Only in rare cases do they do that.  I do not see signs for FL 429 while it was under construction or even the extension of FL 451 across from US 441 if that is what it is.

Those are OOCEA projects, you dumb ass.

[roadman65]

Only in rare cases do they do that.  I do not see signs for FL 429 while it was under construction or even the extension of FL 451 across from US 441 if that is what it is.

Those are OOCEA projects, you dumb ass.

Oh really I did not know that!  Thanks for telling me.  You mean FL 408 is not FDOT?  Oh, I am so upset. 



Read on bub, I mentioned other FDOT projects.  So I left out the fact the OOCEA does not sign its roads along with other road agencies, big deal.  Can't win em all, but the point was that alot of  places in this state do not sign their projects.  Yeah, I am aware that FL 429 is not state maintained. 

Not to get into an argument with you as I was not trying to get your goat with the last post, just to politely say that its more normal to not post projects than to post them, at least in the Orlando area.


What are you so upset for anyway?  I did not call you names? Nor was I at all insulting your post either.

[agentsteel53]

Montana tried that and failed.

yeah, let's never try it again.  quitting is awesome.

[roadman65]

Montana tried that and failed.

yeah, let's never try it again.  quitting is awesome.

Actually I am surprised by the fact that it did not work in Montana.  I think you are right about having no speed limits in rural areas at least with small traffic counts and no wildlife.  People will travel what they want anyway.

I have to read up again on that.  I have heard so many stories to why it never worked.

[agentsteel53]

I have to read up again on that.  I have heard so many stories to why it never worked.

basically, they never defined "reasonable and prudent" in an enforceable manner.

given that "reckless driving" is defined in an enforceable manner, I think it should be easy enough to invert that definition to come up with "reasonable and prudent".

[doorknob60]

Cap the speed limit on all two-lane highways at 55 max, and on non-interstate highways at 60 max, which are the maxes on SC's highways. Interstate speed limits should be 85 mph, or whatever Texas implements should they increase the speed limit even higher.

Why?? I came to this thread to say the opposite thing. Come out to central/eastern Oregon, and drive on US 20 between Bend and Burns. I dare you to keep it at 55. Not only is it unreasonable and difficult, it's dangerous, because everybody else is going 10-15 or more mph faster than you.

What you're basically saying, is that the speed limit on an interstate should be up to 30 more than any two lane highway. You haven't been on many two lane highways out west, have you?

I'm sure there are plenty of 2 lane highways that should stick to 55, but not all of them. I think DOTs shouldn't be able to be "racist" about route types. In Oregon, Interstates can hit 65 mph, but an Interstate grade US route like US 26 east of Portland, or OR-22 west of Salem, is stuck at 55, no matter what. That makes no sense. Base speed limits on the road, not on the color of the shield.

I think the max speed limit (if any needs to be set at all) should be raised to 75, and have that be the "default" speed limit on all (rural) freeways (Interstate or US/State). 65 should be the default for two laners, but can be raised (or lowered if needed) up to 75 depending on conditions (like parts of US 20, 395, 95, etc.).

Also, I like the California style city limit signs, that list the elevation and population. That's info I always like to know, and it bugs me that states like Oregon omits all of that from the standard signs (local municipalities sometimes have it though).

Yes, I know this one, and the last one, have been mentioned, but I'm just adding what I'd like. I'd really like to see California style cutout shields used in other states, they're so pretty

[agentsteel53]

Yes, I know this one, and the last one, have been mentioned, but I'm just adding what I'd like. I'd really like to see California style cutout shields used in other states, they're so pretty

says the guy whose icon is a '70 spec black shield.  at least use '61 spec 

and yeah, I just did that Burns-Bend drive... at night and in pretty heavy snow; I was going about 45 and getting passed constantly.  never mind the prevalence of tow trucks every so often pulling someone out of the ditch.

[doorknob60]

Yes, I know this one, and the last one, have been mentioned, but I'm just adding what I'd like. I'd really like to see California style cutout shields used in other states, they're so pretty

says the guy whose icon is a '70 spec black shield.  at least use '61 spec 

This is the only high quality image I could find in the 10 seconds I felt like looking for an image when I registered. It was just the one from the Wikipedia page. I'll fix it at some point

and yeah, I just did that Burns-Bend drive... at night and in pretty heavy snow; I was going about 45 and getting passed constantly.  never mind the prevalence of tow trucks every so often pulling someone out of the ditch.

Yeah, snow completely changes things. I've never driven from Bend to Burns in snow, but usually when a road is packed snow, I don't like going much more than about 45-50 (or less depending on how bad it is). (Speaking specifically about Bend to Burns here) In dry conditions at night, I feel good at 65, and if it's dry during the day, 75+. This is a good argument for variable speed limits, they could work very well in these situations. Just don't overspend on them like Washington. I'd be find with a lowered nighttime speed limit, and especially in bad weather. But this shouldn't be needed, people should be smart enough to adjust their speed based on conditions. They aren't, but they should be.

[kkt]

A two-lane highway is necessarily less safe than a divided, access-controlled route.  There's the possibility of other drivers passing or losing control and crossing the centerline.  There also may be driveways where a slow vehicle may be pulling out (I know, not so many out by Bend, but it still can happen).  Depending on the state, bicycles and mopeds may be allowed on the road.  I'm not saying the speed limit on two lane-highways should never be higher than 55, but other things being equal a freeway is safer and is justified in having a higher speed limit.

I think speed limits of 80 or higher are unreasonable given the minimal driver's training in the U.S., the "warm body" approach to drivers' licensing, and minimal to nonexistent vehicle inspections.  If we want to have unlimited speed sections of freeway like Germany, we need to have drivers' training and hard drivers' license testing like Germany.  But that would cost more.

[agentsteel53]

But that would cost more.

have people pay for it, then.

[kphoger]

In a vain attempt to bring this thread back to topic, I wish other states would follow Texas' lead and actually post different speed limits in different parts of the state.  People would respect the lower limits more, while still allowing higher ones in more wide-open places.

[Alps]

Not to get into an argument with you as I was not trying to get your goat with the last post

God, does Alanland have to invade EVERY thread?

[sp_redelectric]

Montana tried that and failed.  [/quote]
I'm pretty sure if Montana "tried that and failed", a speeding ticket would not be equivalent to a parking citation (with a $20 fine).

In fact, a parking ticket in downtown Portland, Oregon costs 350% more than a Montana speeding ticket.

[kphoger]

God, does Alanland have to invade EVERY thread?

Yes.  As of January 1.

[Darkchylde]

Back on topic.

California's internal exit "tabs." That's all I want to see.

[1995hoo]

In a vain attempt to bring this thread back to topic, I wish other states would follow Texas' lead and actually post different speed limits in different parts of the state.  People would respect the lower limits more, while still allowing higher ones in more wide-open places.

Agreed. Just about every state approaches the issue from the standpoint of "What should the speed limit be?" That lends itself to the procedure of using the same number everywhere. I think a better way to approach the question is "How should speed limits be set?" Let the state legislature establish a statutory framework for setting speed limits, a framework that ought not include a blanket maximum number. Then let the appropriate regulatory agency established the limits on roads throughout the state.

[hbelkins]

God, does Alanland have to invade EVERY thread?

Yes and no, unless Newegg, Nimbya or the Perkins Union are involved. Then it's no and yes.

[agentsteel53]

Back on topic.

California's internal exit "tabs." That's all I want to see.

I think you might be the first person to like the internal tabs.  I don't mind them, but definitely prefer external ones.