Talk:Speed limits in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Note about Speed Limit Chart

The chart about speed limits is not accurate and does not have sources. The Insurance Institue for highay safety presents a chart with this information at http://www.iihs.org/laws/state_laws/speed_limit_laws.html

Indeed it is not consistent. I'll update it accordingly.--Analogue Kid 17:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Kentucky is now 70mph. Just wanted to throw that in. Thelatchkeykid 15:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is already on the page and map.--Analogue Kid 17:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Note about Texas photos in Environmental Speed Limit section

Please note that the photos of Texas roads in the Environmental Speed Limit section are not meant to illustrate anything about traffic conditions. They are just to show that the speed limit signs were changed. Nothing more, nothing less. Novasource 16:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

TxDOT vetoes 80 mph zones???

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA021906.02B.Then_Now_speed.2e2ef60.html

Looks like TX will not get the 80 mph zones now.

I have been monitoring Texas Transportation Commission minutes off and on, and I wouldn't say that it's dead for sure until the TTC comments on it. Nova SS 17:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely not dead. The TTC only recently got around to approving rules to establish 80 MPH speed zones[1] (search for speed in that document, it will show up in a few hits). And here's the section of the Texas Administrative Code that contains this language (and the expanded list of counties that are eligible for 75 MPH speed limits): [2] Nova SS 04:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to further refute this misinformed anonymous poster, the 80 mph speed limits are a mere bureaucratic step from being approved.[3] Nova SS 17:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The bureaucratic step has passed, and the signs should have been posted by now. Nova SS 02:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it has. Apparently the signs are to be posted on 5/27/06.[4]Ufwuct 21:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I just drove part of it last Sunday (and yes, the police are still pulling over speeders there (not me)). I'll change this section title accordingly? Ufwuct 20:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Delaware discrepancy

The Delaware section contains content that contradicts stuff in the summary table above. Which is correct? Nova SS 03:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Signs at beginning of the article

The signs are beautifully done svg but are somewhat unrepresenative of what is seen in practice. 80 mph and night limits are Texas (and then only part of it) only. Could they be replaced with a "median" sign showing a typical speed limit, so that the article reflects it's scope better. I would suggest a 65 mph sign on its own (but a little larger than now). A 55 mph sign could be placed in the Federal speed limit controls section to provide visual interest to that section. Softgrow 04:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Night speed limit occur in other states. I know for a fact they occur in Florida (not by statute, but as needed) in addition to the other four states mentioned in the article. As for the 80 mph sign, it replaced a 75 mph sign, which if measured in % of person-miles traveled is about as unrepresentative as 80 mph signs. Nova SS 05:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have the data handy, can you let us know what is the breakdown by limit measured in % of person-miles traveled? Softgrow 06:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be really time consuming to crunch the numbers. I'm sure they are available, though. I am going off of intuition partly based on my understanding of VMT in each state. Either way, though, you're certainly going to get a small number when held up to the total US VMT. Nova SS 15:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Notability of Clinton (Hillary) speech

The following text has been inserted by two editors and deleted by one (twice):

On 23 May, 2006 Senator Hillary Clinton in a speech to the National Press Club on energy policy called for the reinstatement of the 55 mph national Maximum Speed limit in "most of the country" in an effort to slash fuel consumption [5]. Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey has called for a 55 mph speed limit in New Jersey as well as Self Serve Gasoline which is illegal also in Oregon.

I would argue this is notable and worthy of inclusion on the evolving history of Federal intervention in speed limits (and it's not just a senator, possibly) Softgrow 06:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Only 2% of our governors (one governor) and 1% of our senators (one senator) do not count as a credible movement. If this gains traction, then sure, let's put it in. But the comments of two east coast left wing politicians, who would naturally be in favor of lower speed limits, may be noteworthy on a news page but not in an encyclopedia article. If this movement gains traction, then by all means, let's add it. Until then, adding them is just promoting a particular POV. Nova SS 15:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ironic that Corzine was recently involved in a much publicized traffic accident where his vehicle traveled in excess of 90 mph -- typical of a "do as I say, not as I do" politician. 4.232.195.222 03:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, so they want to enact something that will bring about maybe a 20% improvement in fuel economy at best, but are quiet on the idea of improving actual vehicle efficiency standards (which could mean 50% or more with the thirstiest types, regardless of speed)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.180.56 (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

1974/1987 Speed Limit Signs

I have found 2 photos of speed limit signs being changed to 55 in 1974 (one is from the Fed highway Admin sight and another is from some university sight. I would like to see some more photos and have them added to this section.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.80.201.142 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 1 June 2006 .

I added the FHWA one and linked to the Wayne State University one. Nova SS 03:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Those are the only two photos I also found of signs in 1974 being replaced. I hope somebody may have some more to contribute.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Enigma229 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 3 June 2006 .

Montana Speed Limit Sign (1995-1999)

I created a graphic of a Montana SL sign from this period and added it into the Montana section this afternoon. Enigma229 04:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

New Jersey Urban Speed Limits

New Jersey's average population density is about 1000 people per sq mile and driving in the state I found many interstates posted at 65mph. I changed the data in the chart for NJ Urban Interstate limits from 55 to 55, 65. Enigma229 04:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd recomend droping it back to 55MPH. The 65 MPH sections probably are on the lower densities (note that for this purpose states tend to use census tracts in order to get much more precise data than they would by county) than the 55 MPH sections. (Or at least that area was less dense the last time they've updated the speed limits for population; states often do get behind the population growth curve on changing speed limits.) Jon 18:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Missouri Discrepancy

While the chart says the maximum speed limit in Missouri for a 4 lane rural highway is 65 MPH, in fact US-54 between Jefferson City in the West and Mexico, MO in the east is signed 70 MPH (except in Kingdom City) dispite being mostly 4 lane divided and portions not quite up to interstate standards. (Mostly unprotected access, but also a very unsafe exit left at southbound US-54 onto 54 Bussiness at Fulton) Jon 21:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The chart is meant to show the typical speed limit. It sounds like this could be an exception to the rule. Nova SS 21:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Rural 2 lane roads in Virginia

The chart says that these roads are posted at 65 mph. This can't be true. Can anybody verify this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigma229 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I lived in VA from 1995-1999, and NEVER saw a two-lane highway posted higher than 55. In fact, I'm pretty certain that the statutory limit for such roads IS 55, and I believe that it has been such since even before the 1974 Federal mandate. 72.151.152.162 (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Texas Night Speed Limits on Rural Interstates

Are they really enforced, or is it just one of those obsolete law no longer enforced but not removed? I would think the state troopers would something more important to do than pull over vechicles driving 75 MPH as the sun sets on the rural expressways. Jon 18:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

They really are enforced. I have a documented case of a person getting ticketed for doing 74 in a 65 in April 2006. This was a TxDPS trooper near San Angelo. The night speed limit has just gone into effect 9 minutes before the time on the ticket (30 minutes after sunset); 9 minutes earlier it would have been 74 in a 70, or in other words, no trooper would have bothered with it. Nova SS 20:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Minimum Speed Limit Enforcement

For residential roads, it's generally belived that minimum speed limits are an enforcement tool against sometime trying to "case out" the neighborhood; e.g. look to see who is obviously gone for the purpose of robbing them later. Jon 18:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What kind of rubbish are you talking about? There is no minimum speed limit in residential areas. Nova SS 20:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

In the 1980's, I saw minimum speed limits posted in suburban Miami. It was an upmarket neighbourhood and I assumed that it was to stop people "casing out" premises. I don't know what the current situation is but it's wrong to describe it as "rubbish" Signor Eclectic 23:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

For other purposes, it's mostly there as an advisory; if your car is unable to go at least that speed, your vechicle would be a major traffic obstruction for that road and so you should take another route. (In many expressways merely going 5 MPH before the max speed limit for the automobiles is just asking to be rear ended.) Jon 18:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What? Nova SS 20:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

AZ Suburban Speed Limits

In Arizona there are 3 categories of speed limit for controlled access freeways:

Urban: 55mph Suburban: 65mph Rural: 75mph

For instance: In Central Phoenix the speed limit is 55mph (everyone goes 75 or 80 though :p) -- about 6 miles outside of downtown, it goes up to 65... And then as soon as you get out of the city it jumps back up to 75 (where everyone proceeds to drive about 90).

I've added 65mph as "65^suburban" under "Freeway (urban)"

I know it might be kinda questionable ... But it'd be kinda nice to have a category saying something like "Speed people actually drive" ... In other words: a De Jure and De Facto column

Also:

The majority of freeways in the Phoenix metro area aren't interstates most technically... They're state roads. (AZ Loop 101, 202, (eventually) Loop 303, AZ-51... US 60)

I strongly oppose a "speed people actually drive" column. It's actually surprisigly consistent across all road types, and average speeds are usually far lower than what people think. Nova SS 16:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm opposed to a "speed people actualy drive" as well. It would border on original research. And that is actually highly traffic conditions specific. (e.g. when the road is much more crowded than normal, the average speed is lower.) It does appear to corelate more with traffic volume when weather is not a factor than the posted speed limits. Jon 15:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I might be in favor of such data if it were to come a reliable source (and just ONE source, no mixing and matching). However, the best place for such information might be a different article (maybe "Effectiveness of speed limits" ??). There is information regarding compliance with speed limits, such as the 4% compliance with New York's 55mph speed limit in 1994[6]. I think there's also limited information available about the 85th percentile speed for some roads, although I haven't found much myself. Again, I think another article would be a good place for this type of information, if the information is reliable and verifiable. Ufwuct 20:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Didn't the rural interstate speed limit use to be 80 in Arizona? I remember going a few years back and seeing 80. I went last summer and it was down to 75. The only reference to 80 mph speed limits is in West Texas. --Holderca1 19:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The only other state besides Texas that has ever had an 80 mph speed limit is Kansas on the Kansas Turnpike. These days, Kansas's highest speed limit is 70 mph. Nova SS 04:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It's never been 80, not at least as long as I've been driving. There was some legislation put up to try and change I10 between Phoenix and Tucson from 75 to 80 (seeing as few cars do speeds under 80, and not that many do speeds considerably above 80) but it died before it became law. Interestingly enough, the legislation was also clear that the existing 20-over or 85mph, whichever is lower guideline for 'criminal speeding' would still apply, making that one of the harshest 5-over tickets in the states! Ayocee 16:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I could of sworn it was 80 mph on parts of I-17 and I-40 during the summer of 2001, but I guess I remembered wrong. --Holderca1 14:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It might just be that everybody was driving 80+, I-40 in Arizona is mostly very sparsely populated. Jon 22:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Time to delete the Interstate (urban) column?

The interstate urban column is full of misinformation. There is a major difference between a state (and or city) which codifies into law a maximum speed limit in densely populated areas and a road commission setting a speed limit lower than the maximum for safety (or other) reasons. Only the former should be listed. In fact seeing as very few states have this "urban" speed limit in law, I feel almost this entire column is purely speculation based on seeing a few choice speed limits in urban settings. -- KelleyCook 21:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What if we clarified it:

This is the speed limit applicable to most miles of urban freeways. Speed limits in urban cores or congested areas may be lower, and speed limits in suburban areas may be higher.

My experience is there is usually a favored urban speed limit in a state, so I think this column provides useful information.

Nova SS 13:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine. The main thing I don't want to see is 55 in Bismark, 60 in Fargo, etc that I just removed. -- KelleyCook 21:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about other states, but Missouri does not seem to currently have a "favorite" urban speed limit on interstates. For instance, On I-70 driving eastbound in the STL Metro area, the speed limit drops from rural 70 to 65 a couple of miles east of the St Charles county line right before the main Wynesville [sp] exit. There is generally a noticable increase in trafic just past that exit. A few miles later it drops to 60 right before the main Lake St Louis exit. Several miles later in St Louis County (roughly near the airport & the inner belt, don't recall which side) it drops yet again to 55 and stays there until crossing into IL. Jon 13:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Accordingly I have added 55 and 65 to that line. Jon 13:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

TN/NC/OK/VA Correction

I live in Shelby County, TN, where the County Commission and TDOT recently reduced several miles of freeway from 70 to 65 for cars and to 55 for trucks in an effort to reduce auto emissions. This new zoning is well within the Memphis metropolitan area and city limits, therefore the URBAN Interstate limit is actually for cars 55-65, and trucks 55. I can tell you that, despite draconian attempts to enforce the new "environmentally friendly" limits, average speeds are still exceeding 70 for all vehicles. It's not that the resources aren't there (this area is heavily patrolled); it's just not being enforced. This is a ridiculous attempt to mirror Houston's disastrous experience.

On the bright side, there is a bill in the Legislature worth noting (SB 3713, with it's companion House bill 3851) which was tabled this year, but will be brought up again in 2007. This bill will require that TDOT, except in cases of "special hazard zones", must comply with the 85th percentile rule. While TN has a statutory maximum limit of 65 on two-lane rural highways, TDOT has been unwilling to raise those limits. This bill may force them to take another look.

I also lived in North Carolina for a while (1999-2000), and at that point, rural expressways were often posted at 65 for all vehicles (by expressways, I mean divided highways with non-controlled access). This category should be 55-65 for NC, unless the law has changed.

Per Oklahoma, if I remember from my travels through there, some (or maybe all) of their rural divided, non-controlled access roads are posted at 70.

As to Virginia, I lived there as well, and have NEVER seen a two-lane highway posted at 65. They are all 55, and I know of no exceptions (in agreement with the comment above about VA). [unknown anon editor]

I used to live in Shelby County, TN myself, it appeared to me that the police were by far the fastest vechicles on the road on the expressways. Jon 13:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Dates delinked

Please note the following from date guidance from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers).:

There is consensus among editors that month and day names should not be linked unless there is a specific reason that the link will help the reader to understand the article.

The linked dates provide absolutely nothing of significance that helps the reader understand the article. Therefore, they should not be linked.

Nova SS 20:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You quoted the Style Guide out-of-context. That statement is only for bare month and day or names (or years) as it is obviously under the topic Partial Dates. Please read the section above the one you quoted.

If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should normally be linked in order to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format. The day and the month should be linked together, and the year should be linked separately if present.

I added the word any to the Style page to prevent any further confusion on this topic. -- KelleyCook 21:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I see your point now. Sorry for the confusion. Nova SS 03:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

55 mph moved

It seemed that 90% of recent edits were in the previously small National 55 mph section. I created a new article named National Maximum Speed Law. Ya'll have at it. -- KelleyCook 20:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hispanic Drivers

In the Southwest United States, what is deemed as driving below the minimum speed limit would pertain to immigrants - primarily Hispanics. In Mexico (incl. Europe, Asia, and Third World nations), the speed limit is measured using the metric system (KPH) and there is a usual rash of those who cannot know the difference between 55 MPH vs. 55 KPH. One that is doing 55 KPH on the highway is actually driving 35 MPH.

Not every speed limit sign is translated into 2 languages these days - some suggest the spending of taxpayer $$$ for an education campaign.4.230.54.9 08:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Interstates in Hawaii

I know there is an old joke about interstates in Hawaii, but it actually does not have highways that are even called interstates. Therefore, the highest speed limit of 60 is really not an anomoly at all (see mention of this in the introduction). Hawaii has three major highways, all on Oahu, designed similarly to interestates--they are called H-1, H-2, and H-3 (not I-#). This was all true as of last time I was there anyway... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.113.48.2 (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

They'll remain H-1, H-2, H-3 so those numbers remain adviable without conflict to the lower 48 portion of the interstate system. And those roads are almost exclusively in urban areas. Jon 13:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody know where metric speed limits signs are used?

I have never seen one... is there a certain area of the U.S. in which they are used? A recent edit changed "not common" to "not used in the continental United States". Does that mean maybe Hawaii uses them? I'm very curious, and I'm sure the readers are too, about where they are used. --Shadowlink1014 07:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's possible although I have absolutely no confirmation that they are/were used on Interstate 19, although that article seems to say it's only the km posts. I know there are metric distance signs around Ohio, but I can't say I've ever seen a metric speed limit in the US. Perhaps only on the Blue Water Bridge and other such border crossings will you find english and metric signs. The bridge is jointly owned by the US and Canada. --Analogue Kid 14:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There are combination signs along Interstate 5 for the first 2-5 miles south of Canada, as well as the alternate route on Washington highway 543 (49.001985°N 122.735267°W / 49.001985; -122.735267, a popular border crossing. I'm pretty sure there was at least one on Interstate 15 also just south of the Canadian border. —EncMstr 15:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Then that would mean that "not used in the continental United States" is wrong... but I'm not going to fix it without a source or two. I've looked everywhere for sources about where they are, but can't find any. Do you know of any that will back up this? --Shadowlink1014 23:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A ha! Found an example here. It's towards the bottom of the page, in a place nobody here has mentioned. --Analogue Kid 02:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll update the section. This would actually be a good picture to show what the standard used to be (I wrote a sentence in there detailing that), too bad the picture's not free. I suppose you could make the "historical fair-use" argument since they are no longer around... but I don't feel like arguing today  :) --Shadowlink1014 03:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all that is a picture, not using the Circle thing. Secondly, the point is that no place in the US defines speed limits in metric. Re-Reverting. -- KelleyCook 18:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As it says in the section, the old standard did not use the circle thing... that's why the picture is like that. As for the speed limit definition, the MUTCD, says plainly that the speed limit can be defined by either km/h or mph. --Shadowlink1014 02:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I know for sure that at major international airports (Houston's Bush Intercontinental) the signs are marked with mph and in small print near the bottom km/h is also marked.MBK004 21:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

May 3 reversion on speed limit chart

I reverted the May 3 revision to the speed limit chart.

It is rare now to find a state that treats true limited access roads differently just because they have different designations. Therefore, it is kind of meaningless to change "4 lane (rural)" to "other limited access"--by doing that, you're going to have the same number in those two columns in most states.

Also, "2 lane (rural)" was really meant to be that way. Only Texas doesn't treat 2 lane rural roads differently.

Finally, the mass revision had errors. E.g., California has no 75 mph roads, Arizona does not max out "other limited access roads" to 55 mph, New Mexico generally does not have 75 mph urban interstates, etc.

68.95.137.150 23:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

New Jersey

New Jersey was previously listing as 65 MPH rural; 65, 55 urban. This was the only state with multiple urban limits listed in which the highest duplicated the rural, so I've changed it to 55 urban. Undoughtingly, there is a dispute over weather portions of the 65 MPH zone in New Jersey are urban or rural in nature between the NJ highway department (or whoever is responsible for setting the speed limits in NJ) and the editor who attached 65 to the urban. Jon 14:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Map needs updating

The color coded map of the states needs to be updated. Kentucky's color needs to be changed, as it now has 70 mph speed limits, but is still colored as if 65 were still the highest there.

It's updated now. Nova SS 14:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised that they changed the limit so quickly. I had originally added that it was due to be changed, but it sounded like it would take a while. Sure enough, this link shows the new signage being installed. Just in case anyone was curious.--Analogue Kid 17:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Tennessee's colors need to be changed to reflect the 65 mph interstate environmental speed limits referenced in your text (like what you've done for Texas). Also, Has I-85 in Virginia gone to 70 yet? Can't find any info on this, but you have it colored so. FYI- As to Minimum Speed Limits, Tennessee has a LEFT LANE minimum law on its Interstate system of 55 mph.

60 CR 74 In Glades County, Generally 55 Elsewhere

Could someone translate the following into English please. Florida: "60 CR 74 In Glades County, Generally 55 Elsewhere". My understanding is that the limit is 60mph under some circumstances and 55mph elsewhere. Glades county is some region, but what on earth does "CR 74" mean. When someone edits the article, at the same time could they fix the excessive capitalisation in this sentence. -- SGBailey 13:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Link 78 - large truck / passenger vehicle interaction

This link is broken. More recent research puts the fault of the critical reason of the crash on the passenger vehicle driver in 55% of truck-passenger vehicle crashes. See the Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS) for more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bravo25 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Pre-NMSL Speed Limit page

I propose a section that deals with speed limits in the United States prior to the enactment of the National Maximum Speed Limit in early 1974. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.17.141 (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ohio minimum speed limit

The mention of Akron minimum speed limits are incorrect/incomplete. I have certainly seen 40mph minimum speed limits there, I think in a 55mph maximum limit zone. 198.30.80.11 (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Here We Friggin Go Again...

Here We Go Again...

Check out the following website. I knew this was coming. Just a matter of time. Probably time to go out and find a good radar detector. I'm NOT going to drive the Double Nickel again. http://www.drive55.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.199.147 (talk) 04:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Check out the following website. I knew this was coming. Just a matter of time. Probably time to go out and find a good radar detector. I'm NOT going to drive the Double Nickel again, and neither is anyone else. We've got to stop these people. http://www.drive55.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwyhawg (talk • contribs) 05:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Improper use of "posted"

We need to be careful using the word "posted."

"Posted" is not the same as "in effect." It merely means signs are erected. E.g., "posted speed limit" means the speed limit indicated by a sign.

Speed limits do not need posting (signs) to be effective. For example, many states have statutory speed limits are effective unless otherwise posted.

Only use "posted" in conjunction with "speed limit" if you are literally referring to signs that appear next to the road. If you are referring to a speed limit in a general sense, it is better not to use the word "posted" because you may be implying something about the effective limit that is not true.

Nova SS (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Should variable speed limit be included?

In St Louis County, recently some electonic variable speed limit signs went up on I-270 covering at least the western leg of I-270 from I-44 to I-70; probably more. It's purpose is to at times lower the offical speed limit below the pre-electonic limit of 60 MPH during heavy traffic and could lower it even below 55 MPH listed as the lowest max speed limit for urban interstates in MO. (In theory it could lower it all the way down to the min speed limit during a major traffic jam). Assuming I find that link to the article on the St Louis Post Dispatch web site, would that be approative or is this article only concerned with the normal max speed limits? Jon (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Right now it's covered at Speed_limit#Variable speed limits. Until we can find more examples of its use in the US, I think variable speed limits are left to the state-by-state notes section. Nova SS (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

75 mph expansion in Texas

Does anybody have any news of the 75 mph limit actually being implemented in Texas counties with 15 people per sq mile? Enigma229 04:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Enigma229 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 3 June 2006 .

Offhand, I am not aware of any. Somewhere on the internet I found a map of Texas with counties with 10 people per square mile and 15 people per square mile highlighted. Surprisingly, 15/sq mi added very few counties, and in many cases, these counites still have many adjacent counties that have too high of populations. E.g., there is one county between San Angelo and Ballinger that has fewer than 15 persons per square mile, but TxDOT standards probably would not allow a 75 mph speed limit there because it would mean a 75 mph zone for just a few miles. Nova SS 01:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Aha, I present you the Texas county population density graph. See how 15/sq mi hardly made a difference? Nova SS 02:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. Makes one wonder why they even bothered to include the 75 mph for counties with 15 pl per sq mile in last years bill. :) Enigma229 04:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

States tend to use census tract level for this purpose, not the county averages. Depending upon where the population centers are within the counties, it could make a big difference. Jon 18:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Texas law specifically mentions county population density. It's simply residents divided by square miles. Census tracts or population centers don't directly factor into this. Nova SS 19:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps they're expecting population growth (or reduction) in some key areas in the coming years, and this bill is either to prevent current 75 limits from having to be lowered on a basis of rather arbitary reasoning, or to allow expansion of the 75 zone as population density dips below this now higher limit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.180.56 (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe it was convenient to the legislators? Nova SS (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, to address the prior comment, the law only allows, not requires, use of 75 mph limits. So in effect, this law is in essence an arbitrary path around the general restriction of 70 mph max limits. I say "arbitrary" because I believe that road conditions and actual speeds of motorists are far, far more important factors in determining a speed limit than county population density. It does nothing to prevent already-present use of arbitrary standards ("engineering judgment" even when there is no demonstrated safety problem) in determining speed limits. Novasource (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Texas does have a large number of counties that are projected to increase in population (mostly outer counties and counties adjoining to existing Metros) and also a large number that are predicted to decrease in population (mostly in rural West Texas & then Panhandle) Jon (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Given how little difference the 10 to 15 jump made, and given that no county adjacent to a major urban area has >70 mph limits, I am not sure that these gradual population shifts will do much. Novasource (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

National Speed Limit

I came here looking for info on the National Speed limit imposed, what was it, by Carter? For the oil crisis? I think it was repealed 1995ish. Might be worth including as a historical note. Thomas B 17:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's on the page. Click on Federal Speed Limit Controls in the TOC. Nova SS 19:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. I remember seeing Nixon's face—must have been in 1972 or 1973—as he told us we would all go 50 mph to save fuel. Less than a month later, at the insistence of Oregon's representatives, 55 mph was adopted. (Oregon had long before determined 55 for economy and safety reasons.) Originally trucks were to go 60, but it was politically undigestable for them to be faster. Sorry I don't have a reference, but maybe it will be easier to find with these tidbits? —EncMstr 17:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I cannot find any credible documentation of a proposed 60 mph limit for trucks or Oregon's intervention to get 55 mph limits. Can you? If this bit about Oregon is true, it would be ironic given Oregon's current anti-automobile fanaticism--at least in Portland--and the fact that it is one of the very last 65 mph holdouts west of the Mississippi. Nova SS 19:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked around, but couldn't find anything either, though I was impressed by the existence of a 1971 paper as PDF, so a few things pre-Internet are available. I doubt many newspaper articles from before 1990 are available online, and that's probably the best place to find it.

The 65 hold out is probably because of the bunch of very timid or conservative folks in the state legislature. Or maybe because they have bigger fish to fry. Oregon 65 was authorized quite a while after it was federally permitted, like 3-5 years. I expect they'll get around to it, eventually; some less-congested city freeways were raised to 60 about a year ago. —EncMstr 22:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Oregon's population center, Portland, is known for its explicitly anti-automobile stances. Until those hippies are defeated, I don't see Oregon's speed limit going up anytime soon. Nova SS 02:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

While Portland does have a few reasons to avoid using an auto, I have one and drive it everywhere I want. Mostly I choose to bicycle in the downtown Portland area because of planned parking hassles ($1.25/hour from 8am to 7pm and a 3-10 minute hunt for a place) versus excellent bicycle lanes/paths/parking, so there's one anti-auto stance. Another is the bus mall on much of SW 5th and 6th avenues which has excluded autos since the late 1970s. I'm not sure what those might have to do with state speed limits though.

But consider the many factors favorable to autos: auto insurance is less expensive than most states[7], no toll roads, almost no toll bridges, registration renewal is $54 for two years[8] (including DEQ certification), renewing a drivers license costs $34.50 every 8 years [9], (arguably) a really good road system, traffic congestion is limited to a few dozen miles of highway (and is highly predictable). Why do you say there is an anti-auto stance? —EncMstr 03:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have understood that Portland officials have intentionally sunk money into nonproductive or questionable mass transit developments for the sole purpose of spending down funds that could have been spent on roads. Nova SS 04:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Funding sources are typically different for public transit than for highways and road construction, so spending on one wouldn't reduce spending on another. Also, Wikipedia discussion pages are for helping develop the main article, not for policy debates or opinions. 67.100.126.41 (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Tautology?

The article says: "Most speed-related crashes involve speed too fast for conditions" and has a citation, like this specific claim is validated somewhere. But doesn't the term "speed-related crash" MEAN that driving too fast was part of the reason for the crash? So isn't this a tautology? Is it supposed to mean something else? MrVoluntarist 18:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No. NHTSA's "speed-related" category also includes "exceeding the posted limit." Since most rural speed limits are arbitrarily capped by legislatures, it is difficult to argue that exceeding them is unsafe per se, therefore the distinction. "Too fast for conditions" implies a demonstrably unsafe speed, and that can happen at speeds below the limit. Nova SS 19:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? I thought that a speed limit is a government's signal that it deems all higher speeds to be unsafe. That is, the speed limit means: "you must drive a speed appropriate for the conditions. That speed will never be more than the posted limit." Or at least that's the position of some authority relevant to this topic. That's why I assumed it meant "unsafe for the conditions as we decree it" rather than "unsafe for the conditions by some objective metric". So, I think this subtle shift in definition needs to be clarified, or the phrase eliminated. MrVoluntarist 20:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we're on the same page. Here's my view: When a legislature sets a speed limit or a speed limit cap, a bunch of business leaders and lawyers, both of which are probably the vast majority of legislators, have made an engineering judgment. Business leaders and lawyers may be great at their respective fields, but they are minimally qualified to make engineering judgments about traffic safety. That's why there is little correlation between any speed limit and the "maximum safe speed."

Could you propose alternate wording?

Nova SS 21:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, to propose an alternative wording, I need to know what that clause with the footnote means. "Most speed-related crashes involve speed too fast for conditions ..." Does that mean most crashes classified as "speed related" (after an investigation) involved speeds under the posted limits, but nevertheless unsafe? If that's the case, it should say "Most speed-related crashes involve speed under posted limits yet nevertheless unsafe". If on the other hand, "speeding" literally means "driving above posted limits, or below posted limits but too fast for conditions", and "speed-related crash" means "crash in which speeding (as defined previously) was a significant factor", that clause is a tautology and should be removed. MrVoluntarist 21:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there are at least two forms of speed-related crashes. Something tells me there is a third, but I cannot recall it off the top of my mind. The two are:

1. Speed unsafe for the conditions, which may be a speed that is too fast or even too slow, and it has nothing to do with the speed limit. Examples include:

• 1 MPH on a rural freeway. That might be legal under the applicable speed limit, it would be an unsafe speed.
• 79 MPH on an iced-over rural freeway with an 80 MPH limit. Speed is under the applicable limit, but still likely very unsafe.
• 175 MPH on a freeway. Obvious.

2. Speed over the maximum numeric limit (or under the minimum numeric limit, if applicable--many roads have no minimum numeric limit) with no distinction of whether the speed was unsafe per se. This is where the cynicism steps in; compliance rates suggest few drivers trust the validity of most speed limits.

This may be "original research," but I'll bet the crash factor designation largely depends under which law the offending driver is charged.

I am nearly certain that all states have a "reasonable and prudent" law which requires a reasonable and prudent speed at all times; this law can require speeds lower or higher than than the applicable maximum or minimum speed limits, respectively. A charge under this may be a easy "speed unsafe for the conditions" factor.

The second crash factor may be if the offending driver is charged under the speed limit laws, which say "thou shalt not drive faster than the speed limit (or slower than the minimum speed limit)."

Nova SS 00:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Good points. Now that you mention it, maybe that passage means, "most speed-related crashes involve speed too fast [as opposed to too slow] for the conditions". Though I strongly doubt that statement is true. Thoughts? MrVoluntarist 01:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hum, A rear-end collision undoubtly involves both someone driving too fast & too slow for the conditions. A head on collision would be highly unlikely if both drivers in the collision were going very slow, so those would be credited to "too fast" and a side swipe occurs when the person going sideways misjudges the cross traffic and either arrives either too soon or clears too late which could be either "too fast" or "too slow" but is more likely to be too fast. Jon (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

New Mexico Speed Limits

Should the designation of specific roads in New Mexico be deleted?

Responding to unsigned comment: Section should be condensed and standardized. 75.161.70.53 (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The big speed limit table

I'd like to suggest we get most of the exceptions out of the big speed limit table and move them to each individual section. The table probably should just be a guideline on the typical daytime speed limit in a given state.

Better yet, instead of that big table, should we move to individual color-coded graphics of the US to designate each different type of limit, like what used to be done at Reasonable Drivers Unanimous?

Nova SS (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would support (even applaud) introducing more similar graphics for each type of limit, but would prefer the big table is retained so the information is available by state name as well as graphically. Alex Sims (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

A blank template map is now to the right. Novasource (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"Prima facie" limits?

The section on prima facie limits makes no sense whatsoever. I can't offer to improve it, since I don't understand what it's saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A10brown (talk • contribs) 16:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

75 mph urban speed limits

What is an urban freeway? There are official definitions and observations and there are personal ones. Most states have separate speed limits for officially designated urban freeways, New Mexico and North Dakota do not. New Mexico does have Interstate standard urban freeways with barriers and left hand emergency lanes and exits approximately every mile ... and they do have reduced speeds, but all of this mileage is in Albuquerque, the state's largest city. Some of this urban freeway mileage is still posted at 75 mph. Other freeways that serve urban, or built up areas in New Mexico but are not designated urban freeways usually have 75 mph limits and the chart should reflect that, it's a unique distinction. It doesn't need explanation as an exception in the chart -there are still three exceptions!- since the reduced speed limits ARE the exception. But for accuracy it should say "65, 75". This link can confirm this [10]. Synchronism (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Truck speed limit chart

The truck speed limit chart ought to be merged with the main chart.

Since truck speed limits are only usually seen on rural freeways, the rural freeways column could be split into two and the truck limit put on the right hand side.

There are some exceptions, but they could be placed below in the state-by-state section.

Novasource (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I support that. But it might be (too) complicated (for me) to undertake. Synchronism (talk) 05:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That's very nice. Synchronism (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Night speed limit definition

Where in the statues for TEXAS does it indicate what the NIGHT definition is? It is my understanding they go by day break and sunset times.. however, where does am or pm figure into that equation? I was ticketed at 645am... that is MORNING not NIGHT..... please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schitjian (talk • contribs) 17:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a place in the Transportation Code that defines night as 30 minutes after sunset or 30 minutes before sunrise. It's impossible that the night limit was applicable at 6:45 AM this time of year. Novasource (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

removed chart

Road type	Speed Limit	Trucks
Interstate (rural)	75
Interstate (urban)	55-60
4 lane (rural)	70
2 lane (rural)	65
County (rural) Paved	50-65	30-65
County (rural) Gravel	50-55	30-55
Residential	15-25
School Zones	15-25
Surface Streets	30-40

This is the chart I removed from North Dakota's section. It did not really explain anything new or different and actually made the section more confusing in my opinion. It would be neat if editors voluntarily:

Do not create a state specific chart, or any other chart unless it’s verifiable, comprehensive and necessary for quick explanation. Synchronism (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

truck chart remove

And here is the truck chart that has been removed, I think everything has been synthesized, but please check:

The following states or territories have different statutory speed limits for cars and trucks.

State or territory	Statutory car speed limit	Statutory truck speed limit
Alabama	70	55, only for vehicles carrying hazardous materials
Arkansas	70	65
California	70	55
Idaho	75	65
Illinois	65	55
Indiana	70	65
Michigan	70	60
Montana	75	65
Ohio	65	65 on Ohio Turnpike, 55 on all other freeways.
Oregon	70* never implemented, 65 or less still in effect	5 mph less, effectively 60 although 55 is still posted in most locations
Puerto Rico	up to 65	10 mph less, but not less than 15
Texas	70-80 day/65 night	70 day/65 night
Texas (Farm-to-Market roads only)	70 day/65 night	60 day/55 night
U.S. Virgin Islands	20,35,55	10,30,40
Washington	70	60

For some reason I can't seem to get both of these charts on the talk page as they previously appeared.Synchronism (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This is better than before.Synchronism (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

References

The inevitable?

Even though this article can only grow to a finite size, it is approaching 100K and splitting may be necessary. I would rather it not be though. It could be trimmed, but I don't think that will significantly reduce its length. How would it be split? Perhaps 4 ways: List of speed limits in the United States, Speed limits in the United States and individual articles for Texas and Montana? Or just a few of those? Something else? Not at all?Synchronism (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If we have to split, then yes, let's take off the larger states. But I am not convinced a split is necessary. The 100K think is a guideline, not a rule. Novasource (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Speed limit, residential, Alabama

I don't know how to add to the table but the speed limit for residential in Alabama should be 25 mph. Here is cite http://www.dps.alabama.gov/HighwayPatrol/speedlimits.aspx Could someone fix that?? 12.233.12.114 (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Done.Synchronism (talk) 06:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop the practice of rounding metric equivalents

I don't really see any logic in rounding converted values to the nearest ten. It has some merit for making comparison simpler but also makes comparison less straightforward. In the end it's just plain inaccurate; no state currently uses metric speed limits consistently and most of the state laws I've seen make no provisions for their use, let alone describe a method for conversion. Especially where metric limits are never used, the actual converted speed limit should be used.Synchronism (talk) 07:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a guess here, since I haven't dealt with the metric stuff on this page, but I imagine the rationale would be the same as the one used in the MUTCD, in which they're rounded (65 mph is incorrectly listed in there as 100 km/h): The MUTCD requires that metric speed limits be posted in 10 km/h increments only. So if the speed limit is 65 mph under the old system and you decide to change all the signs to metric, you either have to round it down to 100 km/h (BOOOO) or round it up to 110 km/h. (As an aside, I have several friends who oppose metric conversion solely on this basis. They figure speed limits will go down and that you'll hear the agitators say, "Why do you need to go faster than 100?") There's currently a dual-unit sign set on southbound I-87 just after you cross the border from Quebec where the sign on the left says "English Speed Limit 65 MPH" and the sign on the right says "Metric Maximum Speed 105 km/h." I suppose this sort of sign is an exception to the MUTCD guidelines. But anyway, I tend to agree that the point of this article is not to say what the speed limit WOULD be if the US ever finally switches to using real measurements; rather, it's to say what the limit is NOW, and that calls for conversion to the actual number.

I've occasionally seen signs that violate the MUTCD guideline of 5 mph increments, so I guess it's not implausible that the 10 km/h rule might be violated as well. (Most of the violations were on private property, however. I used to work at a place with a "Speed Limit 9" sign. The weirdest one I saw on a public street was in Durham, North Carolina, where there was a street posted with "Speed Limit 27.") 1995hoo (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Albuquerque has 18 mph limits on all of one street, Silver Avenue. It's designated "Bicycle Boulevard".Synchronism (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "actual?" There are about 1.609344 km in a mile. Should 60 mph be converted to 96.56064 kph? At _some_ point you're making a decision about how many digits are called for. 24.92.48.137 (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I think you get the idea. I meant stop the practice of rounding to the nearest five or zero, and round to the nearest whole number, this has been more or less done.Synchronism (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Utah Speed Limit

On the speed table the LEGAL speed limit in testing phase is 80 MPH in two key sections of interstate 15 in Utah. Therefore a notation is informational in the speed by state table. We do not have to be so anal over our articles that updates cannot be updated because they only involve a total of 34 miles. Have you ever been to Utah? It is a large state. Long distances are common and higher speed limits are favored. So please leave the 80 MPH limit alone in the table. Thanks Staplegunther (talk)

My impression is that user "Synchronism" is arguing that because the 80-mph limit is being "tested," the implication is that there is no way to know whether it will be a lasting change, and a 34-mile stretch out of a "large state" is what the legal system would call "de minimis." I deleted Virginia's 70-mph limit on I-85 from the table under the theory that since it only applies on 60 miles of our Interstates, out of well over 500 miles of Interstate highways in Virginia, it wasn't notable enough to include in the table, even though it's an apparently permanent change (I say "apparently" because the General Assembly might amend the statute again). Texas's 80-mph limit is far more extensive than either Virginia's 70-mph limit or Utah's 80-mph limit; also, it's apparently permanent (again, via statute). I think "Synchronism" is rightly concerned about listing a speed limit in the table that has been applied to a small stretch of road on a basis that, on its face, is not permanent. If the table starts to include every exception or other nuance, it defeats the purpose of a summary table.

Either way, there ought to be some sort of consensus one way or the other on how the table would operate. It appears that right now it's primarily three people editing this page (you, Synchronism, and me), and I could go either way on this issue. I do find the Texas section of the summary map to be somewhat amusing. Virginia has massively screwed-up speed limit laws that could lend itself to a multicolored map of the same sort if someone were talented enough to try to draw it (but I think it would be a big waste of time). My feeling is that if Utah makes an 80-mph maximum permanent, as opposed to a "test" limit, then it ought to be listed on the table. I guess under that rationale I ought to add Virginia's 70-mph limit back in, but then, I'd wager that 95% of our state's residents don't know that we have a 70-mph limit anywhere.... I'd like to see speed limits of 130 km/h or higher on a lot of our highways here! 1995hoo (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Staplegunther, First your incivility (WP:CIVIL) is growing to be more than a nuisance, please just comment on the topic and not the contributors. Your assumptions that anyone disputes the higher speed limit in Utah's purpose or legality is silly (especially since I think that it is somewhat good news). Constantly changing one minor chart entry without ever considering the rest of the chart, not even its introduction, makes the chart inconsistent. And that's more or less why I keep reverting this.

The current chart doesn't strive for a high level of accuracy in terms of the range of speed limits, and the reasons are that it is bound to be inconsistent or show a meaninglessly large range of values. It does strive to always include, if applicable, the default statutory speed limit. The chart shows the most common speed limit(s) for a certain area in an attempt to provide quick comparison between and within states and a link to the text section where there is more detail. The introduction to the chart tells interested readers that they are reading values that are not necessarily extremes. We could change the chart's scope —and let readers know— to be the maximum-to-normal speed limit, but then the urban speed limits would have to show ridiculously large ranges of speed limits to reflect smaller towns where cars don't have to slow down that much on through roads. But why would the chart show normal-maximum when it could just show highest and lowest? And the answer is that it would obscure the most usual, generalized information by showing a large range of speeds. That there is an 80 miles an hour test limit for just 34 miles on I-15 is represented in the lead and in the Utah section of the article. Keeping it out of the chart is about consistency throughout the article, not about disputing the limit itself. Keeping it out of the chart doesn't make the chart any less accurate, with the current chart it actually restores accuracy.

I don't really think it's a good idea to change the chart's criteria. As I said above it will show a range of values so large (in many cases) that the default speed limits will often be obscured and the chart will grow cluttered. If the scope of the chart is to change I think it should go in a somewhat different direction, towards only showing the default speed limit Synchronism (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Fiscal Concerns Section

I'm a bit concerned with how this was written, it seems to me that it was written in an entirely biased manner, treating the opinions of several people as fact. It is my opinion that the section should be written so that it expresses the concerns of some people while maintaining that it is still an opinion. Actually, upon reading some more, I also find that the "Arbitrariness" section to be written with a bias. Neither examples are cited, and they aren't conclusive on their own. The first example mentions a discrepancy on an interstate road between the two states, which doesn't necessarily mean anything without context. The second example is a logical fallacy, it assumes that two lane high ways should have the same limits, regardless of the context of the roads; the lane in Texas which is less maintained could be in a less busy area (hence the lack of need to maintain it as much) and can have a higher speed limit than the "highest standards" roads in Louisiana and Arkansas, which may be in busier areas that require lowered limits. As with the fiscal concern section, I don't think the section should be removed, but simply written (and cited) so that it states the possibility of such an occurrence. Pyrotics (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I had similar thoughts after reading this article. I'm going to throw the POV-section tag into the Political Considerations section. Archons (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Referenced text could be added to balance it out, but speed limits are sometimes used to generate revenue. Speed limits are also arbitrary, though, it would be nice to have references to that effect. Be bold and edit the article, Synchronism (talk) 03:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Illinois Split Speed Limits

In Mid August Governor Quinn signed legislation abandoning separate speed limits for trucks in Illinois, I made a quick edit to the Illinois section, but I am unsure how to edit the table properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.205.72 (talk) 10:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ohio truck speed limits

Does any one know if the 55mph signs been removed yet?Synchronism (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The new speed limit for trucks and other large vehicles doesn't take effect until July 1st, so no, the signs haven't been removed yet. Also, the speed limit on interstates in Ohio varies from location to location. For instance, more urban sections of I-75 in Cincinnati and Dayton are 55mph, while the suburban and rural stretches are 65mph. I-71 is 55mph between the Ohio/Kentucky border and the Montgomery Road exit, at which point it's 65mph well past Wilmington. I-74 is 65mph for all but the first few miles near I-75. Oldiesmann (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. At one point there was text in the article that said something like 'technically the law is effective immediately'. I think they meant that 'there is an effective law that raises the speed limit this summer'. I'm aware that speed limits vary from location to location as they do almost everywhere else, but were there any 60mph limits , or was the speed differential always supposed to be 10 mph?Synchronism (talk) 03:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Portions of the law that included the speed limit changes went into effect immediately on an emergency basis, but the speed limit parts were specifically excluded. They went into effect on July 1, 2009. The truck limit provisions were very specific: The speed limit only goes to 65 on Interstates (not state or US routes) where the car speed limit was already 65. On all other roads, including the 60mph zones near Cleveland, the truck limit stays at 55. Even if the car limit was increased there to 65, it looks like the truck limits would still stay at 55 unless state law were changed. Brian Powell (talk) 03:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

To that end, I think we probably need to clarify the article where it currently says that trucks can travel 65 MPH on interstate highways. I am going to add a clarification. GoodbyeDave (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have seen rural divided highways in Ohio with 60 speed limits, certain sections of U.S. 50 and Ohio 33. That was in 2001. -Jasonc65 (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The 60mph stretches of divided highway are still quite common in the eastern and southern parts of the state. Brian Powell (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of SI equivalents

I apologize for deleting the SI equivalents. I didn't realize it was part of the Wiki style manual to include them for US speeds, and most of the page entries did not have them. Personally I think the US should have gone Metric decades ago but there should be a consistent style on this.

Just curious, should (and do) the discussions of speed limits in Europe, Canada and other Metric locales have MPH equivalents? 24.13.205.72 (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

An anonymous user is apparently on a crusade against the inclusion of SI equivalents to the miles-per-hour figures in this article, as last night he went through deleting many of the km/h figures with the claim, in an edit summary, that "Metric speeds are not posted or used in this jurisdiction, there is no need to list them." The Wikipedia Manual of Style states that "in US-specific topics, the primary units are generally US customary units, with conversions given into SI and related units" and "Generally, conversions to and from metric units and US or imperial units should be provided." There is an exception for when units are part of the subject of the topic, such as yards in an article about football, such that it would be unwieldy to convert them every single time. Obviously, articles on Wikipedia are intended for a broader audience than simply Americans, and there is only one country in the world (the USA) that generally refuses to adopt normal measurements (although the UK has stuck with miles per hour for speed limits). The question is, do we maintain the SI equivalents throughout the article, do we remove them, or do we try to find a compromise where they're used once as an introductory thing and then not mentioned again? I note that the article is somewhat inconsistent as written now; some sections include the SI equivalents, others do not. I think there ought to be some sort of consensus on this, rather than just letting some anonymous crusader who had never edited anything until last night suddenly dictate what is or is not "needed."

We've already discussed the rounding of SI equivalents to the nearest 5 km/h; this question is distinct from that. 1995hoo (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The IP is missing the point you make, that while MPH is generally all you'll see on the signs, readers more familiar with the metric system might be interested to know what that translates to without having to multiply or divide by .6 or whatever it is. If he persists, turn him in. P.S. The US "refuses" to adopt European measurements in situations where there is no reason to do so. There's nothing inherently superior about the metric system, and in some ways it's inferior. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I should have clarified that I am indeed American (I live in Virginia) and have never understood the US measuring system. 1995hoo (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It has a certain elegance to it. You see the elegance once you understand why there are 43,560 square feet in an acre. And there's the fact you can easily divide a foot into thirds. Not so easy with a meter. They actually tried to do metrics back in the 70s, when they started posting highway distances in both, especially when one or the other was a round number. But since they made it voluntary, it didn't catch on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the state laws, at least those I've seen, are expressed exclusively in miles per hour, I'm not sure that metric equivalents actually have any legal basis. I suppose it would depend on if each state had defined a miles-to-kilometers conversion in their state laws. Brian Powell (talk) 03:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The states can't legally define a conversion because the Constitution gives the feds exclusive authority to define weights and measures. Congress has done that. For what it's worth, the American measurements (at least for distance, anyway) are legally defined in terms of SI measurements. The legal definition of an inch under US law, for example, is 2.54 cm. 1995hoo (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not about a "legal basis", it's about wikipedia explaining what 30 MPH means to someone who is only familiar with KM/HR. Wikipedia is not the Rules of the Road, it's just information. If someone wants to add an explanation that the metric equivalents are informational only and are not or may not be specifically written into the speed laws, that would be fine. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't read what the comment before mine said. I was specifically responding to his comment about "I'm not sure that metric equivalents actually have any legal basis. I suppose it would depend on if each state had defined a miles-to-kilometers conversion in their state laws." I was responding to that comment to say that the states cannot do that. But yes, as should be evident from my comment starting this whole section, I agree that the point is not what the states post on their signs, as I stated that from the beginning. This article SHOULDN'T need an explanation saying the SI numbers are for reader convenience only, but evidently some people don't understand that....perhaps, as I noted earlier, a solution might be to put in the correlations once at an earlier stage, perhaps somehow near the big table, and then not mention the correlations again?

I was actually responding to him, not to you. Sorry about the confusion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Come to think of it, the metric signs I've seen in the US are typically informational themselves, such as this one on I-87 just south of the border. (Ideally the sign would omit the word "speed" to conform better to Canadian signs, which just say "MAXIMUM" because it is the same in both languages.) There are a few others in South Dakota that are non-MUTCD compliant in that the SI number should be rounded to the nearest 5 km/h increment, but they underscore the "informational" aspect. 1995hoo (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I checked the codes of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Virginia. All of them had sections that specifically addressed the legality of the metric system within that state and referred back to the NIST standards as to the actual values of the metric weights and measures. I doubt those state codes all included similar sections just for the heck of it.

Beyond that, I think a single section in the article discussing customary/metric conversions would be most concise than having the same conversions repeated all over the place throughout the article. Brian Powell (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

As long as there is some satisfactory way for the reader not to have to get his calculator out, that would be good. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The showable legends on either end of the table include conversions from five to eighty mph. One or both of them could be changed to show by default. A little blurb could be added to explain that these are informational. But perhaps there's a better way of doing things.

It shouldn't need explanation that converted values in parenthetic are informational. Every value shouldn't need to be converted either, just often enough so that nearby it has been in order to, like BBBugs said, avoid forcing people to take out their calculators.Synchronism (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As to the apparent weirdness of what we used to call the English system, such as the mile being 5,280 feet and the acre being 43,560 square feet, start with the concept of the Furlong and everything falls into place. One advantage of it is that many of the measurements are easily divisible by 2, 3, and 4. Metrics don't divide by 3 very well. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Split out state articles

Several articles were split out of this article, such as Speed limits in Mississippi. There was a consensus to not split out any of the by state sections, and even then to do so only to mature (referenced and long) sections. I undid these splits, that were carried out several months ago. In that time there has been no effort to summarize the content removed.Synchronism (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Attempting to list the speed limits on a class of roads in a state....

is probably not the best idea. There are articles on most state highways and all federally numbered roads, such as NM-4 or I-25 in New Mexico. These are the most appropriate places for that kind of information. If you have references for the speed limits of individual roads, consider adding them there. Mentioning of specific roads in this article should generally be confined providing examples and not comprehensive listings.Synchronism (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)