how come the speed limit in california is so low when nobody even follows it?

Racer4life

Well-known member
it seems like most states have higher freeway speed limits than california and that californians dont really follow the posted limit anyways. why dont we have higher speed limits allowed?:confused

on a side question, why dont CHP pull over people in the fast lane talking on their cell phones driving 10-15mph slower than everyone else, isnt that illegal? i feel like they should get a warning for obstructing normal traffic flow. :laughing
 

Kasha1

Well-known member
Seems to me that they designate the speed limits based on what they consider to be the safe speed to go when on that highway. Just becuase everyone goes faster doesnt mean its safe to do so.

BUT anyone who tries to go the speed limit will be eaten alive by the cars behind them, so it doesnt seem right that they should be subject to recieve a ticket for going over the speed limit since they are just doing so to stay alive.
 

Brash47

Brigand
I'm probably wrong here, but depending on who funds the money for the road in question....ie...an interstate, highway, town road...is most of the time who determines the speed limit.

The reason I say this is because:
1. speed surveys are done for that area
2. average speed is usually taken into account along with number of accidents
3. if the number of accidents is unusually high, then the limit is set lower than the average speed
4. depending on who funds it, there is already a max speed set for that road that will not be changed even though the average speed is higher, because there is a set high limit

that is a very ambiguous answer, I know, but the best I can do without some more research.

brash
 

christofu

Pavement Inspector
OK, I'm going purely on conjecture here. I'm sure Brash has good insight into how things work but I'd also like to add my $0.02 worth:

  • Revenue. Don't scoff. Revenue from speeding tickets is an important part of the budget for cities and counties (and state?). If that revenue were to go away, taxes would have to go up to pay for the shortfall. So would you rather have taxes go up across the board, or continue with the current system which is effectively a tax on speeders?
  • Lobbying by Insurance Companies. Studies have shown that drivers who drive faster than average tend to be safer, better drivers. It's only when you get to the 90 percentile of lunatics that you see accident rates higher than the 0-50 percentile. In other words, statistically, if you're in the 51-89 percentile (i.e. you drive faster than at least 50% of people, but not as fast as the fastest 10%) then you have the lowest chance of being in an accident. And yet the Insurance Companies continue to target this group as being "high risk" (and raise their premiums) even though statistically there is less chance that the insurance company will ever have to pay out on that policy. The Insurance Companies have a vested interest in keeping limits low -- more speeding tickets = more revenue for them. (also, they provide underfunded police departments with radar guns).
  • By Federal Law, speed limits must be set as a result of an engineering survey by a trained traffic engineer, and set to the speed that the 80th percentile can travel. So... if you're traveling at the speed limit on 101, say, are only 20% of the drivers going faster than you? Nope. Therefore, I'd say that at some point there's going to be a huge lawsuit by some rich dude who just got a ticket against the cities, counties and state for setting speed limits to be artificially low in violation of Federal law.
  • You think you have it bad. See those signs that have the speed limit set to 55 for trucks and vehicles with trailers? I haven't traveled America much, but I only see that in CA. In NV, there's one speed limit (65, 70 or 75) on the highways and that's for everyone.
 

bluenoser

Well-known member
Man, I hope I don't drag this too off-topic, but christofu's last point is a major one.

I feel that one of the most hazardous conditions on any freeway has to be the slow drivers (stupid drivers are the most dangerous, but the two groups often intersect). If traffic is all moving at the same pace, then it's easy to gauge what the car next to you is doing. You can even work to do things like staggering. Once a slow driver enters the mix, the whole thing falls apart. The slower moving vehicle is the start of an "accordian effect" to all traffic behind them, and not just in the lane their in, but to the adjacent lanes as the drivers behind them look to get by them.

As for trailers, the variety of trailers and vehicles towing them aren't computed in that speed limit. I understand that a U-Haul packed with cement bricks needs more time to stop, but I sure hope the driver is aware of it too! However, I have seen drivers who were towing a motorcycle on a single-rail trailer pulled over for speeding.

The worst aspect of it all is that the way the laws are set up, the people towing trailers are going slower than the majority of traffic, and are forced to use the right-most lane (that whole "slower traffic keep right" thing). This becomes a great hazard to those merging onto or exiting a freeway.
 

motorman4life

Well-known member
bluenoser said:
Man, I hope I don't drag this too off-topic, but christofu's last point is a major one.

I feel that one of the most hazardous conditions on any freeway has to be the slow drivers (stupid drivers are the most dangerous, but the two groups often intersect).

In Germany, on the Autobahn for instance, they can drive much faster and have fewer accidents per capita. Why?

As I see it, there are 3 major facotrs:
1) Their highways are engineered for higher speeds. For the most part, ours are engineered for lower speeds. The design of the highway has as a significant impact on the designated speed limit.
2) They have different laws on passing. You cannot pass on the right and must move over to the right unless you are actively passing someone. The fast lane is for passing only. You pass and get back over to the right as soon as possible.
3) They generally don't have the congestion we have here.

There are other factors relating to skills, vehicle design, strict enforcement and heavy penalties, but these major factors all tend to make their roads safer at higher speeds..

Why don't we do it here?
1) We cannot afford to maintain our roads in the condition they do there. Potholes, ruts and uneven surfaces can be deadly at high speeds. American lawyers have done a good job of making the state our mother. When people screw up, they want to sue. They aren't going to sue themselves!
2) Our highways are chaos compared to German Autobahns. Our laws are much more lax and people already balk at them. People don't want to believe more enforcement and new laws could help to fix our problems, but I believe Germany has proven otherwise.
3) Our congenstion problems are getting worse and the trend toward agressive driving is clearly making it more dangerous.

There are no easy solutions. As I have said before.. use your advantage of maneuverability to get away from the 4-wheeled morons in their minivans and ride in control. Be alert and ride like they are out to get you and you MIGHT make it home alive!
 

christofu

Pavement Inspector
Congestion is a funny one. I did a lot of queueing theory at university, so my steam really gets going when I watch people behaving in such a way as to actively slow traffic down when they think that they're being smart by (for example) changing lanes into a faster flowing lane.

Sure, if it was just one person, perhaps that would be a successful tactic. However, when half the people are doing it, all they're doing is slowing down the traffic in the lane they change into.

What REALLY kills me is when there's a queue of people getting around a slow moving vehicle (e.g. a truck going 55) and someone zooms down the inside and merges back in right behind the truck. Don't they know that the reason the traffic is moving so slowly in the first place is PRECISELY because of people doing that? Grrr.

Perhaps we should look at Variable Speed Limits, like on the M25 in England.

The speed limit signs vary, according to the conditions. Motorists are repeatedly (every 1/4 mile) reminded DO NOT CHANGE LANES. STAY IN YOUR LANE.
The speed limit is set to a speed that everyone can do. Therefore, there are no fast movers and no slow movers. Just people moving at the same rate, in every lane. Oh, the variable speed is enforced every 1/4 mile by speed cameras (I know, I know, let's not get stuck on that, though).

There ARE ways to reduce congestion. I just don't believe our politicians, nor our general public have the balls to enact them.
 

bluenoser

Well-known member
We need all the lanes set up like the carpool lanes in Southern California (or better yet, Seattle). Wide "barriers" to prevent lane-jumping.

As for the Autobahn, I caught the Discovery-channel piece on it, and I was surprised and pleased to hear the police force was more active in ticketing tailgaters than speeders. Sounds like they got their priorities right!
 

Racer4life

Well-known member
very good point all. i have another point about the ticketing of the speeders. do counties place more police control units out on ticket missions when the county is needing funds? cause i seem to notice alot more chp units out at the end of the month.

just a thought.
 

deaconblues

Roads Scholar
seattle does one better - the 'express' section of I-5 from Northgate to Downtown, only has a couple of exits, and switches directions to match up with commute hours.

The idea is, if you don't need to get off the road right away, you can take the bypass lanes. Means there's a lot less cross traffic coming in and out.

I'd disagree with the issues between slow traffic staying to the right interfering with traffic coming onto and getting off of a freeway. Given a few design considerations, there shouldn't be too much conflict.

1) Each ramp should be designed to allow traffic to merge onto the freeway, or exit, without having to decelerate drastically while still on the freeway, or accelerate drastically once on it. None of these 100-foot 15mph hairpin ramps!

2) There should be enough room for traffic getting off to maneuver to the rightmost lane and then exit without having to slalom their way through other vehicles. If each lane gets progressively slower from left to right (which should happen if you're only allowed to pass on the left) this shouldn't be an issue - as you slow down for your exit, you change lanes progressively. The same goes for people coming on - as you speed up, you move to the left to pass slower vehicles.

3) Multiple highway interchanges should not be combined with normal exit/entrance ramps where possible - since you're making two highways out of 1, or joining 2 into 1, there'll be lots of lane changes, and worrying about drivers tring to merge on or off to a ramp is just complicating things.

4) The number of lanes should be as constant as possible, and consistent with the amount of traffic. It makes absolutely no sense to squeeze 6 lanes down to 3 in the space of less than 2 miles, unless you want to create a perpetual traffic jam.

5) Placing metering lights at the END of the entrance ramp, right where it joins with the highway, is abysmally bad. If you need to meter traffic coming onto the highway, do it either at the cross street, or no further than halfway up the ramp. People need time to get up to highway speed before they get to the highway-speed traffic.


OK, now, I'm done ripping on the designers. Now for the drivers.


1) it is NOT stylish to camp out in the #1 lane. Yes, it is the lane furthest away from the entrance and exit ramps, but if you're paying attention, you should have the skill to either allow traffic to merge around you, or change lanes to make room. Again, lanes should get progressively SLOWER left to right.

2) Be aware of the road and where the exits are. The time to change lanes for your exit is NOT immediately beforehand, but a mile or two back. Same for entrances. You shouldn't dawdle up the ramp and then accelerate once you've succeeded in having people jam their brakes. That entrance ramp is designed to get you up to highway speed by the time you get to the highway - use it!

3) If you speed, you'll have to stick to the leftmost lane, or close to it. Take your lumps if you get caught.

4) because there's the slower traffic keep right progression, you should decelerate when changing lanes to the right, and accelerate as you change lanes to the left. Because traffic is moving slower than you to the right, you might want to time your slowing down so you can duck into an available spot without having to slow drastically (thereby making people behind you go batshit). As for moving to the left, accelerate such that you move into gaps behind faster cars.
 
Last edited:

Sprinklerhead

Ruining biker reputations
AFAIK CHP doesn't get any money from tickets. That all goes to the county and then the state gets a little bit from them.
 

morthrane

Help I'* being Oppressed!
Brash47 said:

1. speed surveys are done for that area

I've heard rumors that many municipalities conduct speed surveys, they post police units in order to artificially slow down traffic during the survey. Lower speed limit, more people "auto" speeding, more tickets issued down the road (no pun intended!).

Any truth to that one?
 
Z

zrxjake

Guest
so why dont we impose a sticker program which participants could pay an up front fee and allow us to drive faster than peopel who dont pay the sticker fee. I would be happy to pay a reasonable fee and even take a driving test at higher speeds for the privledge. I frequently travel to la and san diego and 70 mph on highway 5 is ludicris. I'd rather pay a fee and drive faster legally than be ticketed when you run at a decent speed you can really save some time on long drives. not only that I pay more than my share of highway taxes levied in the cost of fuel.
I have driven between 60 and 100k per year for the last 25 years and have never had an at fault accident.
 

b.rock

Well-known member
deaconblues said:
seattle does one better - the 'express' section of I-5 from Northgate to Downtown, only has a couple of exits, and switches directions to match up with commute hours.

The idea is, if you don't need to get off the road right away, you can take the bypass lanes. Means there's a lot less cross traffic coming in and out.

I'd disagree with the issues between slow traffic staying to the right interfering with traffic coming onto and getting off of a freeway. Given a few design considerations, there shouldn't be too much conflict.

1) Each ramp should be designed to allow traffic to merge onto the freeway, or exit, without having to decelerate drastically while still on the freeway, or accelerate drastically once on it. None of these 100-foot 15mph hairpin ramps!

2) There should be enough room for traffic getting off to maneuver to the rightmost lane and then exit without having to slalom their way through other vehicles. If each lane gets progressively slower from left to right (which should happen if you're only allowed to pass on the left) this shouldn't be an issue - as you slow down for your exit, you change lanes progressively. The same goes for people coming on - as you speed up, you move to the left to pass slower vehicles.

3) Multiple highway interchanges should not be combined with normal exit/entrance ramps where possible - since you're making two highways out of 1, or joining 2 into 1, there'll be lots of lane changes, and worrying about drivers tring to merge on or off to a ramp is just complicating things.

4) The number of lanes should be as constant as possible, and consistent with the amount of traffic. It makes absolutely no sense to squeeze 6 lanes down to 3 in the space of less than 2 miles, unless you want to create a perpetual traffic jam.

5) Placing metering lights at the END of the entrance ramp, right where it joins with the highway, is abysmally bad. If you need to meter traffic coming onto the highway, do it either at the cross street, or no further than halfway up the ramp. People need time to get up to highway speed before they get to the highway-speed traffic.


OK, now, I'm done ripping on the designers.
I can probably tell you why these things are done.
:nerd
Your express point is well taken, there is a spacing limit on interchanges, about a mile in between local streets. Back in the day they didn't follow it, hence nightmares like 80/680/12 interchanges. There is also such thing as a dual-divided freeway which has things like that. Check out the 110 Transitway in LA, that's like that.
Reversible lanes are very expensive to operate and a lot of the areas around here, while having a peak direction, have really heavy flows both ways. Anyone who's had to wait for the damn Caldecott Tunnel when you're on the single tunnel direction knows about that.
1. Ramps - there are standards for such on decel/accel. They just didn't always follow them back in the day. Often doing it totally right is super expensive. But really, if you don't like those ramps, avoid them. 99% of the time there's another way very close.
2. That's interchange spacing and bad drivers.
3. You sound like the Federal Highway Administration - that's what they say too. mostly the result is that the local access will have to go away and the next interchange up will pick up the extra cars. It's a tradeoff. I'm assuming you're talking about things like the exits in the middle of the MacArthur maze and so on.
4. Pretty much what you are saying is that the other 3 lanes should be closed. That's the only way that will happen. Lane drops are bad. But almost all projects are done in segments. Perferably lane drops are done at exits.
5. That I actually think is a terrible idea. If you do that the local intersection will immediately and catastrophically fail. There is a standard for acceleration length after lights, and really, if the lights are on, traffic probably isn't going 80 either. It should be at about 30-40 mph if the lights are working as designed. Imagine those 100 cars or however queued up on the street, clipping off 2 lanes for 300 feet, through the intersection, blocking turns, etc... it's no good. Look again, those lights are not at the immediate end (unless they've bollocksed them up). There should be a couple hundred feet afterward.

I agree with the drivers things.

A road's limit cannot be enforced if the 85 percentile speed is above the speed limit.

christofu, I couldn't agree more. Everytime I drive I-5 and some fuckass zips around me as I'm going 85, on the right, then darts in right before a truck. Actually it happens a lot. Then everyone follows 10' apart from eachother to prevent it. Those fuckers make the trip take a lot longer and more stressful. I had someone do that to me one time bad enough to where I got the brakes in the cage locked and on the shoulder at ~85. I was furious - could have cheerfully shot that fucker in the face.
 

b.rock

Well-known member
zrxjake said:
so why dont we impose a sticker program which participants could pay an up front fee and allow us to drive faster than peopel who dont pay the sticker fee. I would be happy to pay a reasonable fee and even take a driving test at higher speeds for the privledge. I frequently travel to la and san diego and 70 mph on highway 5 is ludicris. I'd rather pay a fee and drive faster legally than be ticketed when you run at a decent speed you can really save some time on long drives. not only that I pay more than my share of highway taxes levied in the cost of fuel.
I have driven between 60 and 100k per year for the last 25 years and have never had an at fault accident.
It's coming, it's called a HOT lane [High occupancy / Toll]. What'll happen is that you can drive in the carpool lane by yourself. I think 680 is trying that soon. Not I-5 though. Not enough room. I-5 needs a 3rd lane...
Personally I think it sucks - if you're rich you get to ignore some laws! Yeah! :laughing
 

Sprinklerhead

Ruining biker reputations
I think that would pretty much ruin the HOV lanes. If they're going to do that, they should add on a couple of HOV lanes, raise the limit and have fewer exits. Make them actual high speed freeways, not just another lane that's going to get filled up with people getting on and off.
 

b.rock

Well-known member
Way back in the 50s LA considered that - they were thinking they'd double-deck a bunch of freeways, the top being 100 mph speed limit, very few exits.
I too like the divided HOV like LA has, but caltrans here does not. Oh well.
 

Sprinklerhead

Ruining biker reputations
Biggest problem with the HOV lanes up here compared to So Cal is that you can change lanes anywhere. I prefer Northern Cali, but give me Southern Cali freeway engineers.
 

silversvs

Lean, Twist, repeat.....
morthrane said:
I've heard rumors that many municipalities conduct speed surveys, they post police units in order to artificially slow down traffic during the survey. Lower speed limit, more people "auto" speeding, more tickets issued down the road (no pun intended!).

Any truth to that one?

None that I am aware of. The City traffic engineering folks conract for the surveys. We aren't told when or where they are being conducted. There is no way we could expend the resources to even make an effort to effectively limit people's speeds in order to skew the survey.

As for revenue coming to the City from tickets, it ain't much. Last I heard the percentage we get is in the mid to high teens. The courts, county, and state get the rest.
 

Racer4life

Well-known member
ahh so all the main orders are comin from the man, lol.

seems like when the state or county need funds like at the end of the month we pay the penalty if we are unluckily speeding.
 
Top