A morning rumination on speed limts

[Cormanus]

In another thread I made mention of ‘speed-limited corners’. Rolls asked me:
My short answer was no, but I answered it in a reflective frame of mind early in the morning and found I’d written a great deal more than was relevant to that thread. I didn't post it at the time, but it occurred to me it might amuse northern hemisphere members, confined by snow and filthy weather to their haciendas, to ponder the question of speed limits.

So, with a warning that this is a ramble, my longer answer to Rolls’ question went something like this:

Australian Police services and traffic management agencies have got it into their heads that speed is the cause of nearly every traffic accident. I suppose, in a way, there's a rational basis for this view: if you weren't moving, you couldn't have an accident. From that, I suppose it follows that, given you were moving, had you been moving more slowly, the consequences of crashing would have been less severe. It’s not altogether persuasive.

As a result Australian police and traffic regulators have for years been very focussed on keeping speed down. Patrols and radars are used lots and anything much more than 2 or 3 kph over the limit will earn you a fine and a loss of demerit points. The more over the limit drivers are travelling, the greater the penalty. There’s not the tolerance US riders report for breaches of the speed limit.

Recently there seems to have been a rash of reducing speed limits on any section of road where there have been accidents. When it happens on a popular motorcycle road, there are howls of protest from motorcyclists. The change is effected by signage and there is then also increased enforcement activity, usually via patrols or mobile speed cameras. On roads around cities—like the Old Pacific Highway north of Sydney and the Mt Nebo Road near Brisbane—frequent patrols are said to spoil the fun of riders who want to race through the corners as quickly as they can. On country roads, there's less enforcement than on the freeways where there are lots of speed cameras, both fixed and mobile. As an aside, while, by law, motorists must be advised of the presence of fixed speed cameras—presumably so they can slow down and not offend—curiously the cameras still seem to catch an awful lot of speeding drivers.

There is another school of thought common amongst motorcyclists: any set of corners sufficiently attractive to motorcyclists in numbers and in or on which there are consequently lots of accidents must immediately have the speed limit reduced to spoil everyone else's fun. A happy by-product for authorities is that speed traps can then be used to raise much-needed revenue. That view tends to hold that any form of traffic law enforcement is more about revenue raising than road safety.

I'm not sure I buy either thesis. It's asserted from time to time that there’s not really any good evidence about the nexus between speed and accidents. But I really don’t know; I’ve not really looked into it. Many accidents—whatever the cause—may have been less severe if people had been going more slowly. But that’s a statement of the bleeding obvious rather than having any form evidence base.

It’s also the case that many of those who argue they are being inconvenienced in some way tend to assume they’re the only person who’s view matters. They’re competent to drive the road higher than the posted speed limit, so why should it be so low? They forget, I think, that road usage is a complex system involving drivers, their behaviour and ever-changing conditions that authorities must address as best they can.

I’m also not persuaded police consider only revenue raising. Traffic offences are seen by the community as serious. If you think that’s a joke, see the levels of fines and demerit points for many breaches of traffic regulations. Police have a job to do it’s fair for them to get on and do it. Do they exercise enough discretion? Who knows? Such questions are difficult: we’ll never really know how much discretion is exercised. Are the laws unreasonable and silly? Yes, many of them are, but that’s hardly the police’s fault. There are many others involved in that policy process. Ultimately the politicians need to take responsibility for the state of the statute book.

Police and emergency services workers constantly have to deal with the hideous consequences of road accidents. They deserve some sympathy in all this. If they can reduce the number of times they have to clean up accident sites and then tell some poor person their child or significant other won't be coming home, it’s reasonable to expect they will do so.

Whether all this is the over-zealous encroachment of the nanny state is, if course, another consideration. I’m not going there on an international forum as there are too many cultural considerations to make much sense of it. I know it’s a faint hope, but it would be nice if anyone who feels the urge to respond to this ramble could stay away from this tricky question.

 

[noroomtomove]

Thank you for your rumination on speed limits

I'll resolve to be more courteous and conscientious on the road.

Regards

 

[the Ferret]

That was very well written Cormanus, well thought out and presented.

I am a law abider for the most part, it's just my nature. If the sign says "Don't walk on the grass" well guess what? I'm sticking to the sidewalk, even if it would be straighter and quicker to walk across the lawn. On my motorcycle, I will slighly exceed the speed limit but it's never by much more than 5-7 mph. If it's a 45 zone I try hard not to go over 50. My last ticket was 30 in a 25. ( I know, right? ..btw that was in my car)

However being involved with motorcycle forums over the years I have noticed that motorcyclists in particular don't think that safety laws, speed limits, passing zones etc, pertain to them. They feel because motorcycles accelerate faster and brake quicker, that anything the individual rider does should be ok. Pass on a double yellow? No prob, because we can do it very quickly. Double the speed limit? No problem " I have the skills" . The manufacturers don't help by building sub 500 pound bikes with 125, 150 or even 175 horsepower, when even an experienced rider on a modern 250 with 35 horsepower can easily break any speed limit in this country ( our highest speed limit is 85 mph in the U.S.) Some modern liter bikes can break any speed limit in this country in FIRST GEAR. We seem to have the attitude that laws are for the other guy, and if "I" can handle it (say going 75 in a marked 45 zone) why shouldn't I be allowed to do it? I read many posts from motorcyclists that claim to exceed 100 mph many times every day on 2 lane back roads. I also read many posts from motorcyclists who have no compunction about running from the law if caught and lit up by the police while doing that.

I'm not a part of car forums and truthfully, since I retired, rarely drive a car.. (out to the grocery, or to dinner with my wife in the evening) and have no idea if the drivers of those vehicles share the same attitude, but I can tell you from an association with thousands of motorcyclists, they as a group, have very little respect for traffic laws.

On the other side of the coin, I also have very little respect for some of the bullies in blue, who could do a whole lot more educating and warning, than ticket writing and revenue enhancing on common folks, just trying to get to work and back home again. Cops just doing their jobs I am told. How about a little compassion for the people just trying to make a living and survive? There are enough really bad people out there that could use their attention. I don't believe it is necessary to hide around a corner or behind the bushes with a laser gun and nail people on their way home for doing 5 over. I have 2 nephews in law enforcement (well one just quit). One is really a nice guy, the other a typical jerk cop. Guess which one just quit? Hint: He said he was tired of working with jerks. Respect is a two way street imo. Oh, the stories I could tell you, told at family reunions from those two.

 

[Scoobynut_imp]

I read once that "Speed doesn't kill. Running into things does." Kind of a bumper sticker slogan I suppose, but I have used it as a rebuttal to the safety nannies before, more to pull their chain than anything else. Despite this I am generally law-abiding and, like Ferret, don't push too far beyond posted limits.

I think what is overlooked in the U.S. is that most drivers are borderline incompetent when it comes to most aspects of driving. I'm continually amazed when I point out to other drivers that they are disregarding traffic rules-- either by beeping the horn or lifting my hand (not my middle finger) to say, "What are you doing?" -- how often they actually get mad at ME when they are obviously in the wrong. I don't do this often, but when it's blatant, sometimes I can't resist. I honestly think the biggest problem is that most drivers (and some riders) simply don't take driving or vehicle control seriously. I have a libertarian bent when it comes to government intruding into our lives, but this is one case where I think the agencies that administer licensing rules and regulations fail the citizens. What I mean is that you need only demonstrate the barest competence to become licensed in this country. And law enforcement I believe is a little too focused on speed when they seem (at least where I live) pretty lax when it comes to the other rules. On any given day where I live I'd be surprised if even half the other drivers even use their turn signals, seriously.

So it's not just speeding that is a problem in my view, it is all aspects of driving that are problematic. If I thought speed enforcement was the solution to all of this I would be behind it more forcefully, but unfortunately I have strong doubts that mere speed enforcement is actually improving overall safety to any real extent. Catch all the speeders you like, but you will still have the same amount of incompetent drivers on the road ignorant of proper driving etiquette and skills. If you get a license when your driving skills are poor, they will likely remain poor for the rest of your driving life. Maybe more thorough testing, regular 'refreshers' on the rules of the road, that you must pass each time every, say, 2-3 years, and a way to test people's actual competence behind the wheel at initial licensing. I say throw them out on a wet skidpad and make them demonstrate they know how to recover from an opposite-lock skid, when to release the brakes in a skid and etc. I know some will say 'Oh, the government won't go to that kind of trouble to license people.' I say why not? If we're serious about improving driving habits it would help a great deal and it would create more competent, SAFER drivers, though I realize some people wouldn't be able to pass such tests. The dilemma is that we in effect are saying that poor drivers will remain the norm, not the exception. I think a lot of non-alcohol related crashes are the result of people simply not knowing what to do in an emergency situation -- and ultimately, preventing crashes should be the goal. And again, I think this single-minded focus on speeding only masks all the other potential problems out there.

This is all simply my opinion and you are free to disagree. I think the single most important thing we can all do as riders is acknowledge that the 'other guy' is our potential deadliest enemy when we are on the roads and ride accordingly. Riding (and driving) is a deadly serious business and we should approach it like that, even though our fellow citizens in most cases don't.

 

[736cc_imp]

I just returned from a cross-country car trip from NY to California. From South Dakota westward the speed limit on most main roads was 80 MPH. Cruising at 85 for hours was not boring!

 

[Rolls_imp]

Very thoughtful comments on the very complex topic of speed limit enforcement. Excellent reading.

 

[Django]

I think, just blame speed for every kind of accident, like I observe in Australia, is to easy thinking.

Here in Germany, in 2015 about 31% of all car traffic mileage was done at the Autobahn, but there happened only 6.4% of all traffic accidents, causing 8.3% of all traffic casualties in Germany.

Per 1 billion car traffic km we have 1.63 casualties in Germany. That is less than the USA with 3.43 casualties per 1 billion car km.

We have also speed limits, 50 km/h in town, 100 km/h out of town and many speed limits also at the Autobahn, when conditions do require lower speeds, mostly between 80 km/h and 130 km/h.

While it is also enforced in Germany, it is not such restrictive like in other European countries. Normally you are good, if you don't exceed more like 5 km/h. From 5 - 10 km/h to much it costs 15 Euro, 10 - 20 km/h to much cost 30 Euros. Over that it gets expensive and you may experience loss of driver licence.

Here is the last German statistic:
https://www.adac.de/_mmm/pdf/statistik_4_5_unfallgeschehen_strassenarten_42780.pdf

 

[emptysea]

I view the speed limit as more of a suggestion than a rule. The suggestion borders on a demand when adverse traffic, weather, or road conditions are present, but it remains a suggestion to me.

Unless I'm riding with my wife.

Then the "5 over or be prepared for fight" rule kicks in.

 

[JustCruising_imp]

This topic will always bring up differing opinions. We all hear of claims that the police should be concentrating efforts and resources on catching 'real criminals'. I am acutely aware that there are far more innocent people killed every day on UK roads than are killed unlawfully by so called 'real criminals' committing manslaughter, murder etc.

Speed limits are, for the whole, there for a reason. Our highways are just that. They are not racetracks, and regardless of self perceived skill and/or technical attributes of our motor vehicles, these highways are full of people of all ages and abilities who have the absolute right to travel in a safe environment.

Yes we all push and stretch the limits a little, but just imagine if there were none ??

 

[emptysea]

This topic will always bring up differing opinions. We all hear of claims that the police should be concentrating efforts and resources on catching 'real criminals'. I am acutely aware that there are far more innocent people killed every day on UK roads than are killed unlawfully by so called 'real criminals' committing manslaughter, murder etc.

Speed limits are, for the whole, there for a reason. Our highways are just that. They are not racetracks, and regardless of self perceived skill and/or technical attributes of our motor vehicles, these highways are full of people of all ages and abilities who have the absolute right to travel in a safe environment.

Yes we all push and stretch the limits a little, but just imagine if there were none ??

I imagine this every time I ride.

[By the way, I'm not as aggressive as my comments above might make me seem. Right, Ferret?? Ferret? Anyone? Bueller? ]

 

[ClassicVW_imp]

JustCruising's comments are equally valid for U.S. roads too.

There's no doubt that speed is the #1 cause of crashes and always has been, but catching up fast is distracted driving and texting. Some new figures are out for U.S. traffic fatalities.. DUI deaths are down as are DUI arrests in general, (without crashes), BUT, traffic deaths overall are UP quite a bit. Texting or being otherwise distracted by your phone now accounts for over 20% of all traffic crashes. IDK if that figure is actual or estimated.

 

[emptysea]

I don't want to hijack Cormanus' thread here, but I think this is relevant.

Ask yourself this question: Do I always ride at or below the posted speed limit?

If your answer is no, then you speed. Period. Once we determine that you are a speeder, we are just haggling over the price (to paraphrase an old joke).

We may agree that there is some "no-man's land" between the posted limit and a speed which is clearly unsafe, but who decides the width of that zone? 5mph? 10? And is it OK if your no-man's land is narrower than the guy who just passed you or is that guy necessarily unsafe?

Ultimately, we all pick and choose which traffic laws to obey or disobey and when it is appropriate to do one or the other. I do not think that obeying every law makes us a safe rider nor does disobeying some laws make us unsafe. I think that our decisions on when to obey or disobey a particular traffic law is what differentiates us.

 

[aschem_imp]

Speaking of speed limits, anyone remember when the national speed limit was 55 and all vehicles , including motorcycles, had a 85 mph speedometer?
Here in Idaho, the current speed limit on the interstate is 80 mph.

 

[LongRanger_imp]

Great discussion. Here in the western US (and I imagine in other parts of the country), highway departments are employing a very effective speed deterrent for motorcyclists: tar snakes (pavement filler). On more and more of our wonderfully sinuous roads, you'll find tar snakes at perpendicular or longitudinal intervals across the roadway, mainly on the curves. In the summer, as they heat up from the sun, tar snakes become very slippery and conspire against aggressive leaning, thus reducing one's speed accordingly. Most discouraging is finding the application of tar snakes on sections of fresh pavement, where there are no cracks.

 

[the Ferret]

Speaking of speed limits, anyone remember when the national speed limit was 55 and all vehicles , including motorcycles, had a 85 mph speedometer?
Here in Idaho, the current speed limit on the interstate is 80 mph.

yep but 2 separate times in our history.

Joan Claybrook I think her name was, was head of the Highway National Traffic Safety dealie in Washington from maybe 81-85 ish and mandated 85 mph speedos, thinking no one would exceed that if they couldn't see how fast they were going. HA! Once, in my woolier days, I was riding a CBX and came to a corner, I had apparently been doing 85 cause the speedo said so. I down shifted 3 times and the dang speedo STILL said I was going 85. Nearly missed the corner, had to flat track it around then pull over and stop the knees from shaking. Not sure how fast I had been going but it was obviously more than 85. Thanks Joan.

 

[Scoobynut_imp]

Ferret, I remember the dreaded double nickle speed limit very well. I always felt it was more dangerous than the old speed limit -- out here on the endless prairies, 55 was literally enough to put you to sleep. With the higher speed limits I always feel more alert.

As for your 85mph speedo adventure, a classic case of government nannyism leading to unintended consequences!

 

[flynrider]

Speaking of speed limits, anyone remember when the national speed limit was 55 and all vehicles , including motorcycles, had a 85 mph speedometer?
Here in Idaho, the current speed limit on the interstate is 80 mph.

yep but 2 separate times in our history.

Joan Claybrook I think her name was, was head of the Highway National Traffic Safety dealie in Washington from maybe 81-85 ish and mandated 85 mph speedos, thinking no one would exceed that if they couldn't see how fast they were going. HA! Once, in my woolier days, I was riding a CBX and came to a corner, I had apparently been doing 85 cause the speedo said so. I down shifted 3 times and the dang speedo STILL said I was going 85. Nearly missed the corner, had to flat track it around then pull over and stop the knees from shaking. Not sure how fast I had been going but it was obviously more than 85. Thanks Joan.

Joan was a Carter appointee and thankfully was replaced before she could implement more of her wacky ideas about motorcycles. The motorcycle seatbelt was one of them. There was also the experimental "safe" motorcycle with front wheel drive and rear wheel steering. It was unrideable without training wheels and a roll cage.

As I recall, she was the sworn enemy of most motorcyclists of the day.

I was thinking about the 55 mph speed limit just the other day. While riding home on city streets, where traffic moves between 50-55mph, I was recalling the days when that was the same speed was as fast as you could go (legally) on a four lane, divided Interstate highway. Ughh!

 

[the Ferret]

My dad was a 55 devotee. Even after the speed limit went to 70 he would drive 55.

I remember going on vaca to Florida every year in the 1950s in the family Packard, and Dad would plod along at 55 while the same cars would pass us time and time again. He'd say look there goes the same car that passed us earlier and he's no further along than we are even though he's driving 70, and we'd say yea, but he's had time to stop and pee and eat. My dad just drove..no stops. If we had to pee, he'd pull over to the side of the road, mom would open the front and rear car doors and we'd have to stand between them and do our business while cars whizzed by at 70 mph. Ahhh childhood memories. No wonder I am such a mess lol.

 

[rboe]

Public roads; you have to share them with everyone. So, like having roommates, once you have to share then you have to have rules or else there be trouble.

I've been cruising along I-95 and I-90 and have come across ag equipment (tractors, combines, etc.). While the freeways have a lower limit of 45mph these guys still have to get the fields to grow our food so we can eat (push come to shove, I place eating above driving - call me silly).

Anyway, you get the picture, what and who we have to share the road with means that we need to have rules - and drivers that observe those rules or else we'll have more problems than we have already.

Sidebar regarding the police, emt's etc. Yarnell hill is a stretch of 89A between Wickenburg and Prescott with a posted limit of 45mph with many bikers ignoring it. This hill kills a fair amount riders (not sure about drivers), including a cop a couple years ago. Going too fast into nasty decreasing radius corners and then tend to center punch a guard rail on the exit of the turn (I was talking to a deputy about this). They patrol this section of road heavily because they are people like us but they don't like cleaning up bloody messes that can be prevented if folks just followed the rules.

Be careful out there. Cell phones have really changed things and I think that is still being worked out.

 

[johnf514_imp]

I speed. I speed on roads I know, and I speed when following someone I trust on roads I don't (which amounts to less than a handful of riders). I speed on the highway to make my way through traffic, and I speed through corners under good conditions to enjoy motorcycling.

I do not speed on roads I do not know. I do not speed in sub-ideal conditions, and I do not speed when following riders I do not trust. I have sped in all of those conditions, and each time I have ended up learning a lesson, whether by kissing the dirt or have a pucker moment. Not worth the risk.