DOT proposes 80 mph limit on West Texas interstates

[brooklynite]

SAN ANTONIO — Speed limits would increase to 80 mph on two West Texas interstate highways under a proposal by the Texas Department of Transportation.

The Texas Transportation Commission could take up the proposed change, which would apply to Interstate 10 and Interstate 20 in West Texas, when it meets in Austin next week.

Some advocates for fuel conservation and safety have questioned the wisdom of boosting speed limits, but transportation officials said most drivers are already cruising at nearly 80 mph.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/3863416.html

Sort of like NSA spying -- change the law to match what people are doing already.

[MemphisTiger]

1. I guess they haven't heard about the ongoing oil crisis

that is gripping our nation. If prices keep up, I won't be surprised that we go back to 55mph on highways.

[MADem]

2. Well, if they're cruising at NEARLY 80, make the limit 70

Only jerk cops bag you if you're going less than ten over.

But seriously, is this the way to encourage that "personal virtue" of conservation???

[Robb]

3. DOT's biggest mandate is moving traffic

Conservation doesn't figure into it. :(

[MindPilot]

13. Keeping traffic moving IS conservation.

Nothing wastes gas and creates pollution like a few million vehicles sitting in traffic getting zero MPG.

[Bridget Burke]

17. You will NOT see "a few million vehicles"...

ANYWHERE in West Texas. You might find a few million rattlesnakes.

[MindPilot]

22. That's fer damn sure!! And maybe a couple of armadillos.

I was speaking in national terms not just about TX.

Edit for spellosity

[Bridget Burke]

23. Very flat armadillos, at that.

Their "speed limit" is pretty slow.

[TheFarseer]

48. if you want to conserve

fix the fricking traffic lights in Houston so that not everyone has a red light about 70% of the time.

[MindPilot]

54. Absolutely right about that!!

There's a study--I'll try to find it--wherein one city set about solving it's red-light-running problem by working on the light timing instead of just handing out more tickets.

Well guess what? Not only did the red-light-running drop to almost zero, there were fewer accidents, and traffic flowed much more smoothly--which means less wasted fuel and less pollution.

Additionally one would have to factor in those "soft costs" like less domestic problems because people aren't so stressed out from traffic, more productivity at work, lowered health costs, emergency vehicles move more efficiently, police are freed up to fight real crime, etc etc.

[chapel hill dem]

66. There was a study done in the 70's that showed about 20% of all of our gas

consumption is due to mis-timed or needless traffic lights. The study was used to support the right-turn-on-red laws.

I cannot find that study on-line and it probably needs updating anyway, but the best way to create an immediate savings in fuels consumption is to lobby your local town for more intelligent traffic lights and more traffic circles.

[Phoonzang]

55. Amen....

I complain about that every damn morning. What happened to Mayor White's promise to deal with that anyway?

[teknomanzer]

65. Accidents are notorious for slowing traffic...

I wonder how many there would be at 80 mph?

[jmowreader]

73. Not as many as you'd think

West Texas is a fairly low-population area with fairly straight roads. This won't be a problem.

[reality based]

4. There is a need to cut down on time spent between stops at gas stations

in West Texas. Is our children learning yet?

[CanSocDem]

69. That's funny.....

...in an ugly truthful sort of way. Not to mention "Brilliant!"

[Kolesar]

5. "Texas is like Mississippi, with great highways" -- Molly Ivins

[Ezlivin]

6. Another reason why we should go metric

Leave the speed limit at 70 MPH but go metric.

Now we have a speed limit of 112 KPH. Won't that look impressive on the signs and on your speedometer?

Simple psychology would seem to work out well in this instance.

[Big_Mike]

7. Well, I've spent enough time driving from Odessa to El Paso

and would welcome an increase in the speed limit. That road generally has between 5 and 10 miles visibility, and is straight as in arrow in most places. It is one thing to consider speed limits when towns are 3 - 5 miles apart, it is quite another when they are 30 - 50 miles apart! So regardless of the cost, I am in favor of this.

[mbperrin]

40. Only trouble on I20 from Odessa west is that the right lane is

no longer drivable - no maintenance for years, and the lane is simply broken up into large chunks. State highways are crumbling as well since Goodhair Perry hijacked the gas tax from roads to general revenue - they're not even mowing most smaller roads any more.

Drive 80 if you can, but it's off-road now!

[JPZenger]

8. Comedian on West Texas

A heard a comedian do a great routine on visiting West Texas.

He said it looked like God had used a belt sander on the landscape - and then didn't clean up the dust.

He said the only way he could tell he was moving forward while driving was because he could see the telephone poles going past.

He said he was so bored, he fell asleep while driving and ran off the road. With his bad luck, he managed to hit their only tree. Boy were the locals pissed.

[Tempest]

9. Remember Montana's no speed limit?

Traffic deaths went up sharply after Montana removed speed limits, and they dropped sharply when speed limits were reintroduced.

I'm willing to bet the same thing is going to happen in Texas.

80 is too fast for the vast majority of drivers.

[Nihil]

10. So let natural selection take over ...

OK, call it "God's Will" if you'd prefer but the result is the same.

[Tempest]

11. I'd agree except for one thing

Too many innocent victims.

Just yesterday in my city a speeding driver killed a family of four after he ran a stop sign.

[MindPilot]

16. So the problem wasn't speed was it?

It was running the stop sign.

[Tempest]

27. The problem was speed

According to the police report, the driver was going too fast and didn't see the stop sign in time.

The skid marks started approx. 10 feet before the stop sign and the family was broadsided by the car going approx. 50 miles an hour on a 35 mile per hour road.

[MindPilot]

35. Nobody is talking about eliminating speed limits on surface streets

So the guy ignored two traffic signals--the stop sign and the speed limit--and if your figures are correct--he had to be near 80 mph when he hit the brakes (too bad he can't be charged with felony stupid) and you think another law or lower speed limit would've prevented the accident?

[Tempest]

42. This sub-thread is not about speed limits

Go back to the top of the sub-thread if you're lost.

[MindPilot]

53. OK, now I'm really confused. What exactly IS this sub-thread about?

You mean the one where you said "80 is too fast for the vast majority of drivers."
or the one where you said "Just yesterday in my city a speeding driver killed a family of four after he ran a stop sign."?

Which one of those posts is not about speed limits or the exceeding thereof?

[Mithras61]

19. Comparing West Texas to your city...

is a little bit odd in this case. In West TX, there are extremely long stretches of freeway with absolutely nothing near them except for grass (it can be sort of frightening, actually, if you've never seen anything like it before).

I was on a section out west of San Angelo a few years back where I could see oncoming traffic for nearly 20 miles and the only other thing around was dirt & rocks (not even grass!). In areas like that concern for other traffic is a non-thing (there usually is NONE!)...


Edited to add one other thing...

Texas subscribes to the 80% rule. That is, 80% of drivers are competant and prudent (by law, this is so - doesn't have anything to do with reality). In West Texas, if 80% or more are driving at 80MPH, the speed limit pretty much HAS to be changed to 80MPH...

[Tempest]

28. Not odd at all

I live in the rural central valley in California and there too are extremely long stretches of freeway with absolutely nothing near them except for grass.

I've driven the 285 mile trip to San Diego seeing only a handful of cars until I hit Riverside.

You can drive Hwy 166 without seeing a single car for 100 miles.

[Mithras61]

29. Okay, so where was the stop sign on those freeways?

We aren't proposing that the speed limit for surface level streets be raised, only the speed limit on the interstate freeways with nothing around them...

[Tempest]

32. Huh?

You're comparing apples to oranges.

The accident I mentioned was brought on by another poster who said to let natural selection take its course and I said it doesn't work that way because innocent people can be involved.

In effect, we got off of the subject of speed limits and onto the subject of accidents caused by speeding.

[Mithras61]

33. It isn't me making that comparison...

YOU'RE the one who alluded to an accident related to running a stop sign in a discussion of speed limits. Nihil's post alluded to natural selection taking it's toll on fast driving Texans on West Texas freeways. You redirected the discussion to one of running stop signs in an urban setting. My calling it odd was specifically in reference to citing a run stop sign (be it as a result of speeding or not) in a discussion of freeway speeds.

[Tempest]

43. In that case

There was an accident two weeks ago on I5 where a speeder hit a semi-truck and the truck veered into another lane and wiped out a family of three.

Happy now?

[Weembo]

34. What grass??

[Mithras61]

38. Indeed! :)

There are parts (like near Big Bend) that there isn't even grass (I even noted that in my comments about west of San Angelo).


One of these days I'll have to go back to Big Bend...

[TomInTib]

39. I have a friend in Lubbock who is a sales rep in West Texas..

She always buys cars with long wheelbase so they will track true so she can read a book while driving 80-90 mph.

[Bill McBlueState]

60. the 80% rule

Is that really written into law? I think this is a great idea, and I wasn't aware that any jurisdictions were actually doing it. No need to make lawbreakers of >20% of the population.

[MindPilot]

12. Not true -- the numbers show just the opposite

The Montana experiment showed that removing speed limits actually increased safty and reduced accidents. Most traffic safety information you see is bankrolled by the insurance industry who of course have an intrinstic interest in fostering as much congestion as possible.


Summary of the effects of no daytime speed limits:
1. Fatal accident rates on these highways reached an all time low in modern times.

2. On 2 lane highways with no posted limits the frequency of multiple vehicle accidents dropped 5 percent.

3. Seat belt usage rose to 88% percent, with only a secondary enforcement law.

4. Posted limits and their enforcement, had either no or a negative effect on traffic safety.

5. As predicted by the engineering models, traffic speeds did not significantly change and remained consistent with other western states with like conditions.

6. The people of Montana and its visitors continued to drive at speeds they were comfortable with, which were often speeds lower than their counterparts on high density urban freeways* with low posted limits.

7. The theory behind posting speed limits on this classification of road is to reduce conflicts in traffic flow, thereby reducing accidents.

MONTANA PARADOX: Is that the desired safety effect from posting speed limits was achieved by removing them.

*Interesting side bar: During this 6 year period, Montana’s rural interstates daytime speeds (no speed limit) were consistently lower (on average 5–10 mph and more) than the speeds being reported on many sections of Southern California’s 65 mph posted urban interstates.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Credits: Special thanks to Jack Williams, Research & Evaluation Bureau Chief, Traffic Safety Bureau, Montana Department of Transportation, for his assistance in collecting the highway accident data.

full article at: http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana.htm

[Tempest]

30. I stand corrected

I was going from what I was told by my friends who have lived in Montana their entire lives.

They said there was an big increase in the number of accidents and deaths, maybe they meant just in their area.

[ovidsen]

14. A myth

You can argue that lower speed limits on highways in the middle of nowhere save energy. You'd be right. A good reason not to put the hammer down.

But traffic deaths in Montana didn't rise sharply when the law substituted "reasonable and prudent" for numbers. In fact, it was just the opposite They rose sharply when speed limits were reimposed.

The study shows the safest period on Montana’s Interstate highways was when there were no daytime speed limits or enforceable speed laws.

The doubling of fatal accidents occurred after Montana implemented its new safety program; complete with federal funding, artificially low speed limits and full enforcement.

http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm

[catabryna]

18. I was in Montana when speed limits were eliminated...

On Interstate 90, most people were driving about 70-75, including myself because I had an older 4 cylinder. Who was I passed by? Other than a few sports cars thrown into the mix, they were usually older people in big old caddys. That, indeed, can be a deadly combination; and I say this after driving around yesterday with my 60 year old mother whose driving skills have declined rapidly in the last couple of years; a woman who has never had a traffic ticket in her life. But, she is aware of it and now only takes routes that she is familiar with.

Having driven those long, dusty highways in Texas, I'd leave the speed limit at 70 because everyone drives 80 anyway. Just don't cite those drivers. The limit is 75 in most of New Mexico.

Edited to add: Most of those who were zooming past me in Montana also had out-of-state plates; it was a novelty.

[MindPilot]

21. Non-enforcement sends the wrong message.

I can't believe I just wrote that right wing talking point phrase. :D

Point is if you tell people "ignore the speed laws", then it's a short logical jump to ignoring the stop sign. The laws have to be changed to reflect reality.

[catabryna]

24. Consoling you on that rw talking point...

But, you do make a point which I completely understand. I don't drive 70 when that's the limit. I drive 79 because that is what you can get away with before being pulled over. At any rate... I do agree that 70 is much too slow on those long, boring, desolate highways! And, if the speed limit were 80, I'd be right there because I don't like to drive faster than that. It seemed as if I was always with the flow of traffic if I was driving around 80 and the smooth flow of traffic does more to reduce traffic accidents than lower speed limits, IMHO.

[shanti]

41. exactly

most people drive about 10mph OVER the posted speed limit, which would make the speed limit a de facto 90.

would you want your teen driver going 90?? i sure wouldn't!

[AnneD]

68. There is a big difference between Montana and West Texas....

you car see far into the horizon in West Texas and roads are fairly straight. Trust me on this (I say this as a native Texan), you want to get through it as soon as possible. We are talking miles of nothingness. Yeah, God DID use a sander to paint the landscape. I have driven (flying low as we euphemistically call it) many a time without problems. It is not uncommon for motorists to signal if a patrol car is on the road ahead.

[TX-RAT]

15. I thought parts of 10 were already 80

[catabryna]

20. It's been a couple of years since I've driven I-10

but, at that time, the speed limit in Texas remained at 70, but increased to 75 in New Mexico.

[Gman]

25. I did too

I had heard (I haven't driven that way in a few years) 80 mph started at about Junction headed West.

Another stretch of road that should be 80 is I37 between San Antonio and Corpus and I10 between Houston and San Antonio. As with I10 in West Texas, everyone's already driving 80 anyway on these stretches.

[0007]

26. Why have speed limits? Remember when Nevada didn't have

a speed limit? "Under Safe Conditions" was the law.

Ration gas, that will slow most drivers down.

[Blue_Tires]

31. that's gonna burn up some fuel

especially for the heavier, non-aerodynamic vehicles

[boobooday]

36. Let's factor in human pschology here

If you make it 80, people are regularly going to be doing 90-100mph. We have a highway here that is 70mph, and people are already doing 90.

[MindPilot]

47. Not true. People will drive at what they consider safe.

The human factor is that if the speed limit is set somewhere around what everyone is comfortable with--85th percentile--then the driver doesn't have to be on the lookout for cops. One less distraction makes a safer driver.




Report No. FHWA-RD-92-084 October 1992

U.S. Department of Transportation Research, Development, and Technology
Federal Highway Administration Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center
6300 Georgetown Pike
McLean, Virginia 22101-2296

The objectives of this research was to determine the effects of raising and lowering posted speed limits on driver behavior and accidents for non-limited access rural and urban highways. Speed and accident data were collected in 22 States at 100 sites before and after speed limits were altered. Before and after data were also collected simultaneously at comparison sites where speed limits were not changed to control for the time trends. Repeated measurements were made at 14 sites to examine short - and long-term effects of speed limit changes.

The results of the study indicated that lowering posted speed limits by as much as 20 mi/h (32 km/h), or raising speed limits by as much as 15 mi/h (24 km/h) had little effect on motorist' speed. The majority of motorist did not drive 5 mi/h (8 km/h) above the posted speed limits when speed limits were raised, nor did they reduce their speed by 5 or 10 mi/h (8 or 16 km/h) when speed limits are lowered. Data collected at the study sites indicated that the majority of speed limits are posed below the average speed of traffic. Lowering speed limits below the 50th percentile does not reduce accidents, but does significantly increase driver violations of the speed limit. Conversely, raising the posted speed limits did not increase speeds or accidents.

full article at: http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html

[JesterCS]

37. My Idea

lower all highway limits to 55. and stiffen penalties and fines for speeding.

Do you think there will be repeat offenders if the first offense is $1000 fine?

[jkappy]

45. 1970s --was 55 mph & saved thousands of lives

During the oil crisis in the 1970s, the speed on all US highways was reduced to 55mph. Result: a startling drop in road fatalities--in tens of thousands--like 8,000 each year. And man was it relaxing. I was young then, but still enjoyed it once i got used to it.

In windy, hilly, bad roads Vermont, the speed limit is 50, but it should be 45. (not talking throughways here, of course but state roads)

[TheCowsCameHome]

46. Yup. That was was before the days of "Nobody's gonna tell me what to do"

BTW, a hearty welcome to DU, jkappy!

[jkappy]

62. thanks. millions of am.s hated to see the law revert

i think the trucker lobby was the big factor, but i'm sure the whole business world did to. speed==money

reminded me of traffic calming practice of bicyclists in urban areas. was too good to be true

[MindPilot]

51. Again not true. Correlation, but no cause...

Fatality rates were already declining steeply beginning in the mid-sixties largely due to more crash-worthy cars, seat belts and the public awareness about using them. The decline continues to this day. The facts that a.) most people ignored the double nickle anyway, and b.) there was no increase in fatalities when the 55 mph limit was repealed discount the myth that the 55 mph limit saved lives.

http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch9en/appl9en/usfatalities.html

[jkappy]

58. "Don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

I swear on a pile of bibles---and after logging over 500,000 miles in a nyc cab, and another 300,000 on US thru-ways--that speed is a major factor in 30% of all fatal accidents. Just one example is the difference in exiting a highway at 72mph and 59 mph---many one-car accidents occur at such exits---and in same vein the killing of drivers of disabled vehicles on the interstates. I mean if you know there are deer or moose on the state roads, do you speed up or slow down, esp at night or dusk.

The stress of high speed driving is doubled for most human beings who care about themselves and others lives to. I mean speed means no exit when error occurs, and all kinds of errors do occur out on the road. Driving slowly gives you multiple options in a squeeze situation.

[Castilleja]

63. That's reasonable

[MindPilot]

52. More laws! Tougher penalties!!! Law and Order!!

Just what we need, another excuse for law enforcement to check your papers, search your person, monitor your movements and extort some cash from the working class. Are you sure you're on the right board?

[TheCowsCameHome]

44. Hell, make it 120. That way the wrecks will be easier to clean up.

The pieces will be able to be vacuumed.

[peaches2003]

49. Make it 100 mph!

Apologies to all Texans on this board who I'm sure are nice folks, but the only thing we want to do when forced to drive through TX is to get the hell out of Bushland as fast as possible. We refuse to spend a dime in TX. We fill up before we hit the border on I-40, have a cooler with food, and hit the gas pedal. We want nothing to do with the state that sent us this fool.

[rppper]

56. problem here is on I 10/20, it is about 900 miles from......

louisiana to new mexico.....better strap a 50 gallon barrel of high octane to the roof......

[lakercub]

59. It's also just an awful place to have to look out the window.

The first place my father ever let me practice driving was West Texas. He looked around and said that it was almost impossible to do any damage out there. If I got a few thousand yards off-course I might have run into one of those oil contraptions...but that was about it. It was just a hellhole. Lubbock, Amarillo, et al...it never seemed to end. Things improved drastically as soon as we got east of Dallas.

Normally I am a fan of conservation, but I think a speed limit of 150 mph is just about right for this hideous piece of real estate. You can't get through it fast enough.

In all seriousness there are very few major highways that can't be handled at 75-80 MPH. If you lack the ability to drive a straight-away at 75 MPH you really need to stop driving.

[bmbmd]

67. Well, thank God you are more civilized

being from Georgia and all.

[yellowcanine]

50. Should help to cull the deer herd in Texas. Not to mention armadillas.

Car insurance rates will go up accordingly as more Texas motorists mow down Bambi and need collision repairs.

[LeftyMom]

57. That;'s not unreasonable on long straight roads with light traffic

I go that fast on some of the really rural roads around here, like when I had to go out to Caleveras County (which is the middle of fucking nowhere) a few weeks ago. Someplace like Texas or Nevada where it's even flatter and emptier than parts of the valley, that's not even slightly unreasonable or unsafe. It takes no great skill to point your car where you're headed and set the cruise control and in an area like that there's plenty of warning when there's an obstacle in the road since you can see so far off.

[WinkyDink]

61. Fewer Texans is their goal?

[RebelOne]

64. The speed limit should be changed to 80 mph

on I-75 and 285 around the Atlanta. Everyone is going that fast anyway. Even if you are traveling 75, someone is tailgating you.

[noonwitch]

70. The limit is 70 here, but everyone drives at least 80

Except on 696, which is our autobahn.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

71. That'll guarantee that people will drive 105.

And not just on the Interstates...Any divided highway will do.

[jerry611]

72. They do that now anyway....nm