The Law Is Wrong!

So, do you agree? Are the speed limit laws wrong? I assert that they are and that there is scientific data to back it up. I'd like to see what others feel about this.

Let's debate it but, please, let's not get angered or argue about it.

Best,

Dan

PS: The other thread about ticket avoidance got me to thinking that this thread might be interesting. smile.gif

Limits are mostly too low. pissed.gif

Bikes should be allowed an extra 20 MPH at least. warranty.gif

VFR4Lee, Aug 12 2006, 05:54 PM
Limits are mostly too low. pissed.gif

Bikes should be allowed an extra 20 MPH at least. warranty.gif

Well, that is a different topic, now, isn't it? To be honest, if the speed limits are set correctly bikes won't need an extra 20.

Best,

Dan

VFR4LEE is correct. No matter how high the speed limit is fo cages, it should be 20mph higher for all bikes, excepting VFRs.

The speed limit for VFRs should be limitless. tongue.gif


But seriously, they should stick a radar gun out on the road, and the average speed of drivers should be the posted limit. Of course, they have to throw out the data for old ladies, mini vans, and trucks. (I refuse to use stereotypes of the good folks from the Asian continent) biggrin.gif

The problem is most traffic limits are based upon the lowest percentile driver in the worst conditions. i.e. An idiot driving in the rain at night.
That being the case, most of us, at times ignore these low speed limits and are put in a position to receive a citation for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
I always considered getting a ticket the price of doing business though...but it suks to get taxed twice in a month eh?

OK,

Having spent the time in the trenches with highway construction, SUPPOSEDLY, the speeds were ORIGINALLY set by opening the road, seeing what the MAJORITY of traffic was moving at, and setting the speed limit at about 85% of that. I said supposedly.

Of course, this was the 50's, when the first national highways were designed and built.

Now, we all know the speed limits are, in all reality, a political decision having absolutley nothing in common with reality.

You want debate, the real issue is a TRAINED population where graduated licenses and speed limits COULD exist.

Most of our speed limits are set ridiculously low, kind of least common denominator kind of thing. Just like the most common driver, slow.

Modern cars and bikes CAN handle it much faster, but our driver system guarantees the average driver who can afford to go fast is least qualified to do so. Case in point, 17 YO on a GSXR1000 at 149. Or rich idiot in a Ferrari Enzo at 215 and cuts it in half.

So, can the speed limits be raised, sure. Would we all pay for it in accidents and insurance costs, yes. That is unless we do something about the incredible ease in which any teen gets a license these days. idea3.gif

Larry
30+ years in the safety profession, and sure its only going to get worst.

That is unless we do something about the incredible ease in which any teen gets a license these days.

I say do it. Of course, there's plenty of drivers here that don't have a license or insurance in the first place.
Get them off the road first. pissed.gif

I thought the law was that whatever the speed limit is set, motorcycles take it per wheel. so, cages @ 60, bikes @120. Have I been misinformed?

Jon, Aug 12 2006, 05:11 PM
I thought the law was that whatever the speed limit is set, motorcycles take it per wheel. so, cages @ 60, bikes @120. Have I been misinformed?

Let us know what the nice officer says when you get stopped, and try that defense. laugh.gif

vfrrider, Aug 12 2006, 03:41 PM
OK,

Having spent the time in the trenches with highway construction, SUPPOSEDLY, the speeds were ORIGINALLY set by opening the road, seeing what the MAJORITY of traffic was moving at, and setting the speed limit at about 85% of that. I said supposedly.

This is exactly what a motor officer that was a speaker at one of the HRCA club meetings said.

Here's a wierd one for you.......surprisingly, the speed limit was raised from 45 to 50 on the main street that I live off of. Makes much more sense obviously, but I was very suprised to actually see it put into practice fing02.gif

There was a thread a while back concerning driver ability. Drivers should be required to take a test on a closed course to determine there ability. If they can't do a slalom or breaking exercise then no pass. As the speed limit now stands I feel a little safer as there a tons of drivers that don't have a clue for reaction times and acident avoidence maneuvers.

I am shure if competant drivers were the only ones on the highway speed limits could safely be raised.

Tell me if I am wrong but I think Montana has no speed limit once you are out of town limits.

Just my $20.00 worth.

Pat

I'd say do some research and find out how many serious injury/fatal crashes are caused by excessive speeds. I'd guess quite a few.....that and people running red lights b/c they are late for work or something stupid that gets one of us killed.

Raise the speed limits and now we have to dodge the 5000lb "cages" that will be moving much much faster....no thanks. I'll stick with our current system and go to the track for real fun.

Studies have shown that the road itself governs the speed. Its speed is almost a natural reaction to the conditions.

There will always be a zoomer and a drag butt but the average speed generally has nothing to do with the posted limit.

When visiting South Dakota a few years back, I was doing 5 above the posted limit of 75 when I first hit the state. In short order, I got strafed by a number of cars about 5 to 10 above me.

Vast openness and views that go forever coupled with almost no traffic and a long way to go called for higher speeds and that is what the locals did ----- go fast. It was as if the signs were a mere suggestion.

When I lived in N.J; the 50 MPH speed limit at rush hour meant 65-70. The people there were used to it and I could go for months in nearly bumper to bumper traffic and not be slowed by an accident but when there was one, it was usually a beaut.

Here in Tennessee, on a clear day and for no apparent reason, there are often 3 or more "wrecks" on the interstates around Knoxville. They are often blamed on "foreign substances" but who knows.

Construction zones are important areas to keep a reasonable speed like the posted limit for obvious reasons.

When the boyz are out fishin' you could get nailed at 5 over the limit if they see fit to do some carpentry. Great revenue making situation.

When it's moving (big caveat), traffic routinely moves above the posted limits in LA, and I go with the flow.
80+ is typical Fwy speed, if traffic volume allows. biggrin.gif

So what's with the signs that say 65? Good excuse to stop whoever you want. goofy.gif

And tooslow, I think Montana changed back to having limits a while back.
Probably too many tourists coming just to go WFO. Send 'em to the Autobahn. rolleyes.gif

Brown81, Aug 12 2006, 05:12 PM
But seriously, they should stick a radar gun out on the road, and the average speed of drivers should be the posted limit.

They actually did that on a street in Topeka a handful of months ago. I think they ended up raising the limit on that street to 45mph from 35mph.

Didn't help all the people that got speeding tickets in the months before the limit was changed though. They still had to pay up.

I just wish the LEOs could take into consideration what type of vehicle you're driving. A new Corvette can handle situations much better than your grandma in her '76 Pinto wagon. Some sort of graduated license that would allow higher speeds would be good too but that is a HUGE can of worms.

I know that black/white speed limit signs are "regulatory" and black/yellow speed signs such as off ramps are "suggestive". My suggestion is to double it and add ten! Thats what curves are for.

VFR4Lee, Aug 12 2006, 09:23 PM
When it's moving (big caveat), traffic routinely moves above the posted limits in LA, and I go with the flow.
80+ is typical Fwy speed, if traffic volume allows. biggrin.gif

And tooslow, I think Montana changed back to having limits a while back.
Probably too many tourists coming just to go WFO. Send 'em to the Autobahn. rolleyes.gif

I was only in the LA area for about a week, but I found many many people doing well above 80. Many doing well over 100, my experience was that most of those over 100 were driving new 7 series BMW's.


I don't think Montana ever had NO speed limit. There may be no posted speed limit, but it was left to the officer's discretion and interpretation of "reasonable and prudent" for the conditions.

Same goes for Germany's Autobahn's (many of which have posted speed limits. Autobahn simply means motorway or highway) they have suggested speed limits, and the decision is left to the polizei.

That said, I did make two top end runs from Munich to Amsterdam bouncing off the rev limiter nearly the entire way and I didn't encounter a single officer.

The first was in a 9 passenger DIESEL bus with a top speed of about 94 mph. I was passed by everything on the road.

The second was in a 5 series BMW with one of those small engines which are in abundance in europe. Top speed of 134 mph and I got passed by many an Audi station wagon.

The greatest thing I encountered there (as many of the different autobahn's are only two lanes) was how fastidious the drivers were, specifically with regard to the left lane being FOR PASSING. They would be out of your way BEFORE you had to even think about removing the strategically placed brick on the accelerator. That goes both ways though, as I quickly learned. After passing a car or two on the right, I had at least four cars cursing at me and trying to teach me that passing on the right in Deutschland is VERBOTEN!!!

[font=Arial]What a topic! Numerous pages could be devoted to just the posts presented so far.

a. Speed limits are initially determined by (and periodically updated by) the 85th percentile speed (the speed at which 85% of the cars travel on that stretch of road.)

b. During the "Oil Crisis" of the early '70's the speed limit was lowered to 55 to conserve fuel. The largest lobbies in Washington that pushed this measure through were the Insurance lobby and the Lodging lobby. THe hotel guys motivation is easy to understand, 10 hour days used to get you 700-750 miles now you can only go 450-500 miles, more hotel nights. Yeah! You would think the insurance lobby was doing because slowere speeds save lives but no! Slower speeds mean more speeding tickets issued, more tickets mean an excuse to raise your premium.

c. Non legislated tax. A local town that is known as a speed trap (Tyrone, GA) had an article in their paper last year where the city council discussed in open session that revenue was down because fewere people were speeding. They voted to lower the speed limit by 5MPH in all areas of town!

d. Driver training is definately lacking. The tiered licensing structure and thorough training that I propose is not "doable" in the mind of many because it would create more work for the parents to ensure that these measures are met and it is infinately easier to turn junior loose with the Explorer or Camry or whatever 4,000 lb, 100 mph vehicle they choose.

vfrrider, Aug 12 2006, 03:41 PM
So, can the speed limits be raised, sure. Would we all pay for it in accidents and insurance costs, yes. That is unless we do something about the incredible ease in which any teen gets a license these days. idea3.gif

Agreed about drivers' education, virtually non-existant in the US. I've done several club track days in my car (hopefully on the bike soon as well), and will require my daughters do the same when they get their licenses (wife is too far gone).

As far as increased accidents and insurance costs with raised limits, I'm not so sure. I don't know that raising the limit to the 85% speed would make much difference to the average speeds, or accident rate. As far as increased insurance prices, you're making the assumption that insurance fees are somehow related to the cost of claims. I liken insurance to organized crime.

Not only is there almost no lane discipline most places I've driven, I'm convinced most drivers either: a] were never told "drive right, pass left", b] can't figure out that it's a good idea for themselves, or, c] can't be bothered.

I also believe that motorcyclists are much better than average drivers whether on the bike, or in the cage. To survive long on a bike, you learn to be 100% attentive. If you're then only 80% attentive in your cage, that's still much better than almost everyone else on the road. Most of us also pride ourselves on our riding/driving skills, and work on improving them. So reallly, there's no way we can extrapolate our attitudes, experience, and skills to the masses who would never think of driving anything but their insulated, air-conditioned, cell-phoned, heavily padded, motorized coffins.

These threads are just venting; I'm preaching to the choir, I'm sure.

Perhaps everbody should have to learn to ride a motorcycle in moderate traffic before being granted their license? Teach respect and skills to those capable and weed out those are that aren't. goofy.gif

Wow. You guys sure are on top of this topic. I'm duly impressed.

TRUE: Traffic flowing with all or most cars moving at roughly the same speed is the safest scenario. It isn't speed that kills. It's two vehicles at different speed colliding that kills.
CONCLUSION: Higher doesn't mean more dangerous. In fact, in our country, on most road, HIGHER = SAFER = LESS DANGEROUS.

TRUE: The design of the road sets the speed. The engineers determine what the speed of 85% of trafffic is and then make that the design speed. Said speed is the opimum - read SAFEST - speed for the road.


CONCLUSION: Any speed set other than the design speed is actually MORE DANGEROUS and harms more people.

TRUE: We need better drivers ed in this country.
QUESTIONS: Do our under-design-speed limits allow for less attentive driving? Does an unchallenged driver quit using his abilities to the best he can?
CONCLUSION: Better education is always nice BUT safer spped limits (those set to design speed) may very likely force drivers to be more alert when driving.

TRUE: Lane discipline in this country sucks. In other countries with higher or no limits it is near perfect.
CONCLUSION: Higher speed limits contribute significantly to lane discipline.

FALSE: Motorcycles don't get a "per wheel" exemption with speed limit signs.
CONCLUSION: As was already stated, let us know how the office responds to your explanation. smile.gif

FALSE: Raising the speed limits will cause cars to move much much faster.
TRUE: Traffic already tends to move at the design speed, regardless of the signs. Raising the limit will move those who "follow the signs" to move their speed up to the level that most people intuitively know is already thee safest speed to drive.

FALSE: People will always add 10 mph to the limit.
TRUE: People will always add the amount of speed necessary to be inside of the design speed of the road. Make that match the limit and 85% of traffic will theoretically drive that speed. Of course, there will be exceptions to every rule however, having 10-15% being in a state of non-compliance is safer than having 85% of us (our current situation) being in non-compliance.

Great work, gang. Again, I'm impressed by how well researched all of you are on this.

Best,

Dan

basicly what it comes down to s programing
some people will acept that 70 is a deasent speed most will go about 80 to 85
and there are some that will blatiently do more
almost all bikes can cruse at 90 usuly higher with no problem whatsever
but take into consideriation that the number of bikes in the us will double in the next 10 years
as gas increases so will be the number of bikes
hopfuly more people will realise what we already have
but untill people organise and fight for higher limits it wont happen
also there are so many peopme that mention somone they knew died on a bike
guess what how many people do you know that got killed in a car
you have alot better chance of avoinding a crash on a 500 lb bike than a 3000 lb car

VFR4Lee, Aug 13 2006, 01:23 AM

Probably too many tourists coming just to go WFO. Send 'em to the Autobahn. rolleyes.gif

Yes Montana has speed limits now because the federal government threatened to withhold federal highway money if they didn't post a legal speed limit. I think it is 75mph on the Interstates now...can't exactly remember.

Even the autobahn has speed limits in different sections....I have been on it several times. I actually thought it was kind of dangerous.



Tony

i think the main reason I would want the speed limit raised to about 80mph is so that I wont have to worry so much about getting ticketed, but having to worry about it makes me a little more safe because I'm watching out for cops all the time so I'm constantly scanning.

Design speed fing02.gif I'll bet that most of us (when traveling two lane roads) don't use the spedo, but instead travel in a comfort zone. It might be 50 or 90. The speed is not relevant, we all know when we are pushing it.

CrazyInNYC, Aug 12 2006, 09:30 PM

Same goes for Germany's Autobahn's (many of which have posted speed limits. Autobahn simply means motorway or highway) they have suggested speed limits, and the decision is left to the polizei.

It has been a long time... so correct me if I am wrong...

Just as many Autobahn's have 4 diagonal stripes, which does indeed mean "no posted limit". You are correct that there are nationally "suggested speeds", but when I was there they were not posted in unlimited areas. Maybe things have changed. WhenI was there, ADAC lobbied the government heavily to maintain the sections that were "non limited". About like the NRA does here against gun control.

Your post is absolutely correct about lane heirarchy. Other Polzei pet-peeves are following distance and signaling, and as you stated, passing on the right.

Drivers are VERY engaged in the act of driving on the autobahn. No sandwiches or chicken nuggets in hand, no cell phone to the ear, no make-up being applied, no fooling with the cd player; for the most part. It is a whole different mindset.

I met many the same Audi driver while in Germany. I usually set the throttle stop (not a cruise, it would not hold speed, just limit it) on the C130 at 125mph. Audi's would consistently pass me doing 150+. Once I had a sportbike (that is all I can tell you) pass me; I can guarantee he was doing 165. We were on one of those five mile radius turns and he looked like he was about to touch a knee down.

When I was there the government had launched a huge campaign against sportbiker's ludicrous speeds on the autobahn. The signs had a vulture perched on them and read something to the effect of "Hey racer, we are waiting."

Americans could learn so much about interstate highway driving from the Germans; actually Europeans in general.

I was in the SF Bay area last summer, freaking out about gettign a ticket on the 101. I was trying to catch up with the rest of the group. They kept hitting seams in traffic that would close as soon as I got there, leaving me 1/4 mile behind them.

So there I am freaking out about tickets going 85 in a 55, and I realize that I am in the middle lane keeping up with most of the traffic and there is a steady stream of SUV's flying past me at 100mph+. Insane speed!

Lee 2002, Aug 13 2006, 04:39 PM
Drivers are VERY engaged in the act of driving on the autobahn. No sandwiches or chicken nuggets in hand, no cell phone to the ear, no make-up being applied, no fooling with the cd player; for the most part. It is a whole different mindset.

Set the speed at a rate which requires attentiveness and you get attentiveness. The Autobahn is just one example. When I'm tapping triples in my cage I'm not on the phone or doing any other thing else besides paying attention to my driving.

Dan

How does the 85% hypothesis take into consideration vehicle mass?

It has always seemed irrational to me that riding a bike which can accelerate, decelerate, and turn better than virtually all of the four wheel vehicles on the road should be expected to have the same "legal" limits as a two-trailer truck train.

It surely is for ease of enforcement (monetary collections) that the speed rule is fixed. In court, there is no need to explain any discretionary decisions - the rule was broke or it was not. Simple and effective, yes. Logical, no.


But, no one who is sensible will disagree that the level of driver skill/knowledge/courtesy is inadequate for certain people on the highways of this continent. It is hard to go out for any extended period of time, say an hour, without seeing a significant error on the roads.

Still, think about it, the majority of people make it to their destination safely - wouldn't that be the definition of adequate? Even those fools who make bonehead moves get away with it most of the time. I suspect that there is very, very little money to be made from actively trying to weed out the poor drivers. Yes, lives are at stake - but money rules. So sad. sad.gif

In Canada, we recently had a "Worst Driver" television show - I believe that it was one of a series of worldwide similar efforts. The stories of these drivers were truly appalling. I recall one woman who was totalling approximately a car a year over the past fifteen years, IIRC. None of these were speed related. In fact, except for one bozo, speed wasn�t an issue � skill was.

Not being a LEO with facts, I suppose in all cases without an accident trying to get a ticket for a skill related issue to stick comes down to a �he said/she said� plea to the judge. I wouldn�t want to draw down on that bank account too often� particularly if judicial/policing relations aren�t so good to begin with.

Dan, Aug 12 2006, 04:52 PM
So, do you agree? Are the speed limit laws wrong? I assert that they are and that there is scientific data to back it up. I'd like to see what others feel about this.

Let's debate it but, please, let's not get angered or argue about it.

Best,

Dan

PS: The other thread about ticket avoidance got me to thinking that this thread might be interesting. smile.gif

You're very right, the law is wrong. If it were right, ONLY VFR's and my "other" bike would be exempt from speed limits. It's perfectly logical but goes against government fund raising tactics. wheel.gif