StromTrooper banner

No speed limit?

5K views 56 replies 29 participants last post by  GSA-Dawg 
#1 ·
today at a motorcycle dealership one of the salespersons was saying there is gonna be no speed limit law in some of California freeways , staring I- 15.Like the German autobahns,wouldn't be cool?
Ride safe/ride long:surprise:
 
#6 ·
Waste of resources. That's cute. Anybody not driving to work, school, the doctor, or grocery store is wasting resources. Also anybody running a boat on a lake. Additionally, a truck at 65mph isn't getting near the gas mileage as my wee at 85.
I think the waste of resources thing is just an extra charge in case they can't make speeding stick. They always over charge in case some stuff gets dismissed or reduced.
 
#4 ·
I don't think there is any US road with no speed limit.

Portions of the Idaho, Montana, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming road networks have 80 mph (129 km/h) posted limits. The highest posted speed limit in the country is 85 mph (137 km/h) and can be found only on the Texas State Highway 130.
 
#5 ·
Montana had "reasonable and prudent" but succumbed to federal pressure back in the 90's. Speed is held at 80 or 85.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ennsync
#7 ·
Back when I was a kid (right after the last ice age) there wasn't any speed limits in a lot of the rural west. Nobody cared if you had your big V8 wide open out in the middle of nowhere.

It's still kind of like that unofficially in my experience. Get off the interstate and take the old highways that might have a town/gas station every 150 miles or so. Any police officer you pass doesn't seem to care about how fast your going. Well in my experience anyway. I used to throttle back when I saw the rare approaching car, don't bother anyone.

My opinion is that California is way too congested and drivers too aggressive to eliminate speed limits. Heck they drive 25+miles over the speed limit now on the freeways. Well when they can!
 
#8 ·
"there has to be a wholesale reworking of how drivers' licenses are issue"

Nope, not even. You can get your international drivers license and run the autobahns of Germany.
In Calif central valley Hwy 5 and 99 would get two extra lanes in each direction and be open for speed.
May not work with the pinhead mentality of people that feel they have a right to run in the left lane all the time.
Traffic would flow more bettah if folks would just use the left lane for passing only and give a bit of room between cars.
 
#13 ·
"there has to be a wholesale reworking of how drivers' licenses are issue"

Nope, not even. You can get your international drivers license and run the autobahns of Germany.
In Calif central valley Hwy 5 and 99 would get two extra lanes in each direction and be open for speed.
May not work with the pinhead mentality of people that feel they have a right to run in the left lane all the time.
Traffic would flow more bettah if folks would just use the left lane for passing only and give a bit of room between cars.
Just because you can get an international drivers license doesn't mean you know how to drive.

It takes Germans up to a year of very intensive training and costs in the neighborhood of $2,000 before they are allowed to get a drivers license. Their driving and written exams are extremely difficult, unlike ours. Their cars are inspected like we have no experience with. When they put new tires on the car it gets inspected. New exhaust, get it inspected. New shocks and/or springs, get it inspected. Rebuild the engine, get it inspected. Every single inspection is recorded on their registration (they look like those old accordion photo holders you used to get in wallets). That helps to insure their cars are as capable and safe as possible at the speeds available on the autobahn and their drivers are trained to handle it.

A little over 11%-12% of all road deaths in Germany are on the autobahn but almost 70% of those deaths are on the unrestricted sections. Their total deaths per mile travelled is less than deaths per mile travelled in the USA even with our restricted speeds. What happens to our death rate if limits are lifted with no additional training?

I for one would most likely avoid heavily travelled roads in the USA where there are no limits of any kind.
 
#9 · (Edited)
  • Like
Reactions: ptcaflyer
#11 ·
Enforcement

From what I've seen, Germany has very strict traffic enforcement, to make the speed limits feasible. Tailgating is considered to be the primary cause of accidents, and it strictly enforced. They have real-time traffic cams and LEO's ready to find offenders.

I doubt that anyone here has lost a license on points in the last 20 years. Enforcement is nonexistent, except for speeding and weedhauling. So really bad drivers are still on the road. This week, saw a young lady weaving between three lanes on the Interstate, doing 50MPH in a 75MPH traffic flow. As I passed her, saw she was engrossed in her phone. She definitely needed to be stopped and cited, before she kills herself or someone else. Lately the major cause of traffic fatalities is people 'losing control', crossing into oncoming traffic lanes, and causing head-ons. Hard to say if distracted, careless, or incompetent.

I'd be all for higher limits, or no limits on rural Interstates. Have a car that would comfortably cruise at 120. But local drivers are just not up to it. Fatalities would skyrocket (Darwin in action), families would make a big media circus of it, and we'd probably end up with lower, not higher, limits.
 
#12 ·
I remember about 10 years ago descending a long straight 2 lane road from a pass in Nevada traveling at about 90 mph. Saw a car slowly coming up behind me and then passed me. It was a Nevada Sheriff car. Didn't even give me a look going past. Me, I was thinking a big ticket....:confused:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spec
#17 ·
Studies have shown time and time again that most drivers will drive at speeds that are safe and realistic for the conditions. The few that don't do so would ignore any limits anyway.

..Tom
 
#16 ·
"Doesn't sound like something Cali would do, if anything I'd see them decreasing the limit"

It is an idea put forth by an Orange Co GOP guy. His rationale is that since the Bullet train to nowhere is not going to be built as conceived letting folks go like a bat out of hell from Bakersfield to Modesto would speed up the getting there.
On hwy 99 't's flat, relatively straight and agricultural so that a bit of land may be available to make the widening possible. About 200 miles. Gas is available along the way so WFO won't leave you stranded.
Ditto goes for Hwy 5 on the West side of the valley.

As far as other countries licensing requirements, fugitaboutit. This is LA-LA Calif. You don't even have to be able to read or understand english to pay for someone else to test for you!
I appreciate some of you take this seriously and don't think most drivers or vehicles are good enough for such speeds but this is America and we don't need no stinking rules and regs to slow down freedom and progress.
 
#20 ·
I have ridden and driven extensively on the German autobahns, Italian autostradas and the Spanish toll hiways. You do have to pay attention but what is so nice is that virtually everyone else is paying attention as well. Great lane discipline, always use signal lights, only on inside lanes to pass, etc etc. Yes, you do have to watch for those who are going 60-70 pulling out to pass someone who is going only 50-55 but because you are anticipating such moves, it is not a big deal. Rarely, does anyone pull out when it is unsafe to do so. Sure, someone who is running 120+ will have to brake hard to avoid someone who pulls out at 60-70 but if that is something that causes you angst, then perhaps you should not be on there in the first place. I find it much safer than navigating our "freeways".

Like I said in an earlier post, before unlimited roads become a reality here, there has to be a wholesale revamping of driver training and licensing.
 
#22 ·
Speaking of the wasting resources subject. My Wee and my latest car have gas mileage indicators. I then realized after all the rules the government puts on car manufacturers to make cars get better fuel economy, the governments failure to provide more travel lanes actually wastes massive amounts of fuel. Every time we sit in congested traffic, we are burning much more fuel than is needed to get from point A to point B. The state DOT's have failed big time causing us to "waste resources" and waste our lives sitting in traffic. At least up here in WA. Been to CA once. First time I had seen so many lanes on a freeway (between the airport and Disneyland). And the peeps were hauling @#$! But, probably have congestion there too. Not enough lanes for the population, IMO.
 
#23 · (Edited)
I drove a VW T5 van through Germany a few years ago, cruising at 140 kph (86mph) I would regularly get passed by cars going so fast that it shook the van. Everyone drives so safely that it makes it possible, and safe driving is enforced.

I would welcome this in North America. Driver training, vehicle inspections, all of it. It would stop goof balls from cruising in the left lane at or below the speed limit, with shitty worn out ball joints and tires, waving you to go around on the right when you flash your high beams at them. Get those dummies without turn signals, and those others who don't use them off the road.
 
#24 ·
Man, i had a great time traveling without fear of a ticket at 80+ in the us. Don't know how comfortable i'd be doing it all the time though.


Then again, summer is coming, once on the bike i'd prob just gun it with music on blast.
 
#27 ·
It's not a biggy if your bike is setup okay for you. Your bike just sucks gas way faster than at lower speeds and it can be kind of boring.

..Tom
 
#30 ·
In a lot of places freeway traffic already runs at ~80 mph. So another 20 mph isn't such a big deal. Bad for fuel economy, though. I wonder what the range of a Tesla is at 100 mph? Or that new Zero DSR? Probably about 50 miles for the latter.

I'd sure love to see a significant higher speed limit on certain roads. For example, many sections of the 401 between Toronto and Montreal. With a 140 km/h (85 mph) speed limit and cruising at say 150-155 I could knock an 1.5 - 2 hours off that trip compared to now with the 100 km/h speed limit (ludicrously low for a 4 lane divided highway in rural areas) and me running at 114 (staying off the cop radar). Of course, I'd have to make at least one extra stop for gas driving at that speed...
 
#31 ·
I remember at the dawn of the internet having discussion about speed limits in a USENET forum. I went to several libraries and came across some papers about the original design of the 401 between Toronto and Kingston. The basic design was for the curves and the grades/sight-lines over hills for cars of the late 50's and early 60's to safely drive at 80 to 90 mph. (That's 145 kph) and we are talking about cars with bias ply tires, drum brakes etc.!!!

When I started driving (in 1973) speed limits were 70 mph and the intent was to go to 80 mph in the near future.

But then the "energy crisis" hit and speeds were reduced to 60 mph. Later with metric they increased marginally to 62 mph (100 KPH.)

There is no real reason for the 401 speed limits to be that low away from built up areas although the congestion makes it unlikely to matter much of the time. (It is, after all, the busiest highway in North America.)

..Tom
 
#33 ·
Crossed Montana last year

Posted limit was 85 everyone cruised at 100

All speed limits are to give tickets, to get revenue, to pay for government waste and ridiculous pensions
after 20 years. Ridiculous pensions are what keep the police loyal to the politicians

Ask almost any LEO they can tell you to the hour when they can retire
 
#35 ·
Statistically speeding is the leading cause of accidents.

Ridiculous pensions huh? You must not know any police officers or have an understanding of what their job entails.
 
#38 ·
".....Statistically speeding is the leading cause of accidents......"

I have to disagree. I think the leading cause of accidents is the inability of the driver to maintain control within the parameters of their skill/training and the conditions they are driving in. Speed is just one of the conditions.

There are many who like to state that speed is the leading cause as it gives them grounds to impose more and more strict limits. Whether this is simply for revenue generation or to satisfy some inner need to impose their social beliefs (ie. I think speed is bad so you shouldn't be able to do it) is hard to determine.
 
#39 ·
OK I was wrong distracted driving is the #1 cause of accidents, speeding is #2.

Leading Cause of Car Accidents

Of course distracted driving could be any number of things. Phones get more of the blame but any attempt to quantify isn't reliable because most won't admit to using their phone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big B
#44 ·
Did you happen to see where that info came from? Not surprising that an organization, whose revenue is dependent on increasing premiums if you have speeding tickets, would say that speeding is a leading cause of accidents. Nowhere does it mention where, or how, that conclusion came about. Maybe I missed it.

Just as an example of how things can be skewed: if a car goes off a curve was it result of too much speed, or poor car control? Pretty easy to say speed since it is the "go to" reason nowadays. Unfortunately there is no "being a dumbass" box to check off in the accident report.:frown2:

The end result is that we all pay the price of poor driving habits with high insurance premiums, and traffic laws that have been dumbed down to the lowest common denominator (not unlike our "news").
 
#42 ·
Back in the day, early 80's, I was going home to Kalispell on leave and got pulled over just out of Livingston. The cop was cool about it, I was doing 85 and he wrote me the "waste of resources" ticket. I gave him the $5 bill, he tucked it under a pet rock on his dash with the rest of the stack and we went our separate ways. There's an old NYT story on Montana's resource ticketing, but I can't put the link in as I'm such a noob....
 
#43 ·
"...A waste of resources… total bs. If I bought the gas, it's mine and I get to choose how to use it, wasteful or not....."

Take a deep breath. They do not have it anymore.

The "waste of resources" ticket was Montana's response to the imposed national 55 speed limit. The states had to demonstrate a certain level of enforcement or their federal funding would be curtailed. Montana decided to give DC a bit of a finger and instituted the $5 fine, payable at the roadside, waste natural resource ticket and used that to demonstrate the needed level of enforcement.

That being said, they do enforce a speed limit a little different than most other jurisdictions. I got a legitimate citation for 90+ in a 70. Fine was $20, payable on the side of the road and no, he did not take Visa or MC. This was in 2007. Not sure how they do it now since you can travel at most sensible speeds with relative impunity.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top