Talk:Speed limits in the United States

Archive of this page

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)

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)

Ohio truck speed limits

Does any one know if the 55mph signs been removed yet?Synchronism (talk) 00:57, 27 April 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. Pyrotics (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Actually, to 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)