# Highway Speed Limits!



## Nephasto (Feb 6, 2004)

OnurT said:


> In Turkey;
> max: 120km/h
> min: 40km/h
> 
> low, eh...


In Portugal it was exactly like that until some 3 or 4 years ago, when they changed the minimum to 50.



OnurT said:


> low, eh...


Why do you say that? The maximim speed is ok, and the minimum, although it might be low, is higher than in all the countries that doesn't have a minimum, so...


----------



## Aokromes (Jan 5, 2005)

If i don't remember bad, on Spain the minimum speed is 50% of max speed for autovias and autopistas, if max speed 100 KM/h minimum 50 and if max 120 minimum 60.


----------



## Reivajar (Sep 3, 2003)

Aokromes said:


> If i don't remember bad, on Spain the minimum speed is 50% of max speed for autovias and autopistas, if max speed 100 KM/h minimum 50 and if max 120 minimum 60.


Not exactly. If I don't make a mistake the minimum speed is 50% of maximum speed on autovías and autopistas but the 50% of general speed limit on that kind of ways, 120 kph, so the minimum speed is 60 kph.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

FallenGuard said:


> They don't need to make much effort, the camera automatically reads out the License Plate, the ID is looked up in a Database, and the next Week you get an automatized Fine sent home.
> 
> That's why there have already been formed Groups who attack these cameras, they spray their Lenses or destroy them copmletely, etc...


Do they pursue *every single* infraction in your jurisdiction? I hardly think they'll make a case in court if someone challenges a fine for being 1 km/h over the limit.


----------



## FallenGuard (Nov 2, 2006)

hkskyline said:


> Do they pursue *every single* infraction in your jurisdiction? I hardly think they'll make a case in court if someone challenges a fine for being 1 km/h over the limit.


I don't know that, in Luxembourg there are none of these Speedtraps. I'd imagine they fine 99% of Infractions, since it is a very good Source of Income for Police...

But I know if you speed on French Highways, you can get your fine sent Home to you even if you live in Luxembourg... already happened a few times. So they seem to enforce this rather strict.


----------



## Hochatas (Apr 23, 2006)

Mexico 

Min:40km/h
Max: 110km/h

Usually everybody drives around 110km/h and 140km/h and is not hard to see people driving over 220km/h.


----------



## hkth (Sep 15, 2005)

What I know for HK is min 25 km/h and max 110km/h, where 80km/h is the most common. Macau min 40km/h and max 80 km/h for Bridges from Macau to Taipa and vice-versa.


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

In California, the minimum speed on I-5 is 72 km/h which is not bad all. But then it is hard to drive slower than 130 km/h on this freeway, especially in Northern and Central California (from Oregon border all the way down to Bakersfield).


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

*Speed limits*



> Additionally most US states require drivers to not exceed safe speeds. A driver may not drive faster than conditions permit, regardless of speed limit.


source: wikipedia.

So, if you have an empty interstate you're driving on, you can pick any speed you feel comfortable with, without getting a fine? So if you drive 80MPH on an interstate in California, that's okay, if traffic is low?


----------



## earthJoker (Dec 15, 2004)

I think it goes in the other direction!

allowed_speed <= min(speed_condition_permit, speed_limit)


----------



## eurogator (May 31, 2006)

eh, it just means that if the speed limit is 70mph but its raining really hard, you can get pulled over for "speeding". it's a bit subjective, so im not the biggest fan of it.


----------



## ADCS (Oct 30, 2006)

Chris1491 said:


> source: wikipedia.
> 
> So, if you have an empty interstate you're driving on, you can pick any speed you feel comfortable with, without getting a fine? So if you drive 80MPH on an interstate in California, that's okay, if traffic is low?


Yeah, there's actually two different kinds of laws dealing with this. In most states (California included, I believe), the statute is an absolute speed limit, which means that _per se_ driving faster than 70 mph is illegal. In other states, like Texas, the law is a _prima facie_ statute, meaning that driving over the speed limit is usually conclusive evidence that you were breaking the law, which is "driving at an excess speed". However, I believe that once or twice a speeder successfully argued that driving faster than the posted speed limit actually was not excessive.

At the same time, most provisions indicate that in the _per se_ states, there are other violations for going too fast for conditions. In the _prima facie_ states, conditions are factored in as other evidence for driving at an excess speed.


----------



## The Westerner (Feb 25, 2007)

AFAIK there are not speed limits in Montana's highways. Am I wrong?
But police officers can decide if the speed is not reasonable and apply a fine.
In the other states the speed limits ar always well communicated (and ridiculously low!)


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

The Westerner said:


> AFAIK there are not speed limits in Montana's highways. Am I wrong?


Yep. There used to be no daylight speed limit on Montana's interstates. Now, there is a speed limit of 120 km/h. Actually, they reinstated the speed limit quite a while back - on 28 May 1999. I drove in Montana in August 1999, and was surprised at how often people disregarded the limit by driving 150 km/h or even faster.


----------



## The Westerner (Feb 25, 2007)

Good to know! So now is Germany the only developed country without a speed limit?


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> I drove in Montana in August 1999, and was surprised at how often people disregarded the limit by driving 150 km/h or even faster.


What do you think :lol: 

miles and miles, hours after hours flat out driving (eastern Montana), you put the pedal to the metal :lol:


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

The Westerner said:


> Good to know! So now is Germany the only developed country without a speed limit?


A few public roads still have no speed limit:

* The German intercity Autobahn, two-thirds of which have only advisory limits (Richtgeschwindigkeit).
* The Isle of Man has no speed limit on many rural roads. A 2004 proposal for 70 and 60 mph (112 and 96 km/h) speed limits was very unpopular [10].
* Some roads in India have no speed limits.
* Nepal has average traffic speeds of 40-50 km/h and has no statutory speed limits set on most of its roads.


----------



## The Westerner (Feb 25, 2007)

Chris1491 said:


> A few public roads still have no speed limit:
> 
> * The German intercity Autobahn, two-thirds of which have only advisory limits (Richtgeschwindigkeit).
> * The Isle of Man has no speed limit on many rural roads. A 2004 proposal for 70 and 60 mph (112 and 96 km/h) speed limits was very unpopular [10].
> ...


OK, thus Germany is the only developed country without speed limit!
Besides, the world's highest limit (when existing & not considering experimetal sections) is 150kph in the italian highways.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

The Westerner said:


> Besides, the world's highest limit (when existing & not considering experimetal sections) is 150kph in the italian highways.


No.

The United Arab Emirates have speed limits of 160kph, and Austria has a stretch which has 160kph too.

I've never seen a sign in Italy that says 150kph. Does anyone have a picture?


----------



## Bartolo (Sep 20, 2004)

I find speed limits redundant in a way. I myself drive at a speed that I feel comfortable with. So that means doing 100 in an 80, id still do 100 even if the limit was set to 100. Not like that'll ever happen. And on the 400 series doing 140 isn't all that outrageous, IMO.

I find that in Ontario at least that the cops won't pull over unless you are doing well over the limit, and even then, they may still not pull you over. I drove by cop coming in the opposite direction doing 90 in a 50 and never got pulled over


----------



## ADCS (Oct 30, 2006)

gladisimo said:


> Yea, I understand why they do it, people say the energy involved in an accident is exponential compared to the speed (1/2 mv^2), and everything happens at a faster rate, plus your car is closer to the limit of its performance envelope, that's why you keep very alert when you drive fast, and only do it when there's very little traffic. Insensible driving and fast driving are not necessarily the same thing, and no doubt that's why the speed limits are the way they are.


Or, it isn't speed that kills, it's speed differentials that kill... usually, most freeways are designed for much higher speed than is used (I've heard the number is 100mph (160 km/h) in the US), however, it's the fact that people are too uncomfortable to go that fast that brings the speed limit down. And don't get me started on those who go slower than the speed limit. To me, they are pretty much the most selfish ones on the road, clogging up the traffic behind them.


----------



## Marek.kvackaj (Jun 24, 2006)

*new proposal *

part of highways in *Czech rep. *and *Slovakia *max speed in future 160 km/h for now still 130 km/h
 freeways still 110 km/h

btw..*.Austria *new proposal for part of highways *160 km/h* from this year


----------



## LordMandeep (Apr 10, 2006)

(sydney) is the worst place to drive on a highway...those Aussies but cameras everywhere. Plus i read in a paper while i was thre that they want to be a sensor on a highway that tracks a car while it enters from one area. If it reaches the other end of these speed zone area in less then 20 mins or so, he was speeding and would be fined. Just increase property taxes!!


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

LordMandeep said:


> (sydney) is the worst place to drive on a highway...those Aussies but cameras everywhere. Plus i read in a paper while i was thre that they want to be a sensor on a highway that tracks a car while it enters from one area. If it reaches the other end of these speed zone area in less then 20 mins or so, he was speeding and would be fined. Just increase property taxes!!


Same here, plus they put very slow limits on motorways, say 50mph on an urban motorway. We have a dozen of these "trajectcontroles".


----------



## Bartolo (Sep 20, 2004)

Ive heard that they do that in the states, if you are on a tollway and go from point A to point B in to fast a time you can get a speeding ticket. An easy highway to do it on would be the 407, but the people would never allow it


----------



## ZZ-II (May 10, 2006)

Marek.kvackaj said:


> *new proposal *
> 
> part of highways in *Czech rep. *and *Slovakia *max speed in future 160 km/h for now still 130 km/h
> freeways still 110 km/h
> ...


that would be great, 160 in Czech and Austria


----------



## Fern (Dec 3, 2004)

gladisimo said:


> Yea, I understand why they do it, people say the energy involved in an accident is exponential compared to the speed (1/2 mv^2), and everything happens at a faster rate, plus your car is closer to the limit of its performance envelope, that's why you keep very alert when you drive fast, and only do it when there's very little traffic. Insensible driving and fast driving are not necessarily the same thing, and no doubt that's why the speed limits are the way they are.


Exactly. One other problem that some people are faced with is the low quality and design of their cars. For example I can cleary feel the enormous difference between driving my mother's sports car and my grandfather's laguna. The laguna was definitely not designed to ride at the same speeds as a sports car, i.e. the speed limit is set so low also because we don't all have the same ability or cars.


----------



## Minato ku (Aug 9, 2005)

*In France*
We love the speed limit (look at this)
130 km/h in motorways (160 km/h)
110 Km/h in expressways (130 km/h)
90 km/h in rural highways (110 km/h)
70 Km/h in rural highways (90 km/h)
50 km/h in roads and streets urban area (70 Km/h)
30 Km/h in some narrow streets in city center (50 Km/h)
:lol:

One of biggest exeption is the peripherique (Paris inner beltway)
The Drivers run lower than the limit speed but it is because...


----------



## ADCS (Oct 30, 2006)

minato ku said:


> *In France*
> We love the speed limit (look at this)
> 130 km/h in motorways (160 km/h)
> 110 Km/h in expressways (130 km/h)
> ...


Is that

Posted speed (average speed)?

If so, 100 mph is crazy! I guess if I were paying for the Autoroutes' tolls, though, I'd get my money's worth!


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

ADCS said:


> If so, 100 mph is crazy! I guess if I were paying for the Autoroutes' tolls, though, I'd get my money's worth!


It is exactly how it works overs there. In Europe, motorways are much faster than extra-urban highways. Of course, it is true for every country, but in Europe local highways are significantly slower than state highways in America. Europe has a very large population density, so local highways run through towns every 10 km and the speed limit is always 50 km/h there. So, there is really no alternative to motorways no matter how expensive they may be. But then, like you said, you get what you pay for - high speed limits (130 and up), perfect pavement quality and no police in sight. 

Actually, it is funny how I feel guilty speeding down the motorway after I come from America. After couple of days, the guilt goes away and I can fully enjoy European driving environment  It only applies to motorways though because urban areas have lower speed limits than in America, and they are enforced.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

In The Netherlands, it isn't even possible in some cases to travel to another city without using the motorway. 
But the motorways here aren't made for so much traffic. We have up to 200.000 vehicles a day on a 2x3 motorway, or even 120.000 on 2x2.


----------



## ADCS (Oct 30, 2006)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> It is exactly how it works overs there. In Europe, motorways are much faster than extra-urban highways. Of course, it is true for every country, but in Europe local highways are significantly slower than state highways in America. Europe has a very large population density, so local highways run through towns every 10 km and the speed limit is always 50 km/h there. So, there is really no alternative to motorways no matter how expensive they may be. But then, like you said, you get what you pay for - high speed limits (130 and up), perfect pavement quality and no police in sight.
> 
> Actually, it is funny how I feel guilty speeding down the motorway after I come from America. After couple of days, the guilt goes away and I can fully enjoy European driving environment  It only applies to motorways though because urban areas have lower speed limits than in America, and they are enforced.


Yeah, I knew the limit was high to start with, but figured people didn't speed as much. It's nice when you have people with decent driver education.


----------



## gladisimo (Dec 11, 2006)

and cars that can safely go 100 mph, I know some of the cars around America shouldn't go faster than 70-80 mph...


----------



## ADCS (Oct 30, 2006)

gladisimo said:


> and cars that can safely go 100 mph, I know some of the cars around America shouldn't go faster than 70-80 mph...


I saw plenty of cars in London in '05 that wouldn't qualify as well... haven't been on the Continent since '00, so I'm not sure on that one, but there were some beaters there, too.


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

gladisimo said:


> I'm just glad they dont have speed cameras here in America yet... I hear horror stories about Britain... =/


what?? are you sure?? they do have those cameras here in California, maybe in ur state,


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

alex537 said:


> *they do have those cameras here in California*, maybe in ur state, *but not here in California*.


:nuts:


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> :nuts:


oh my bad haha


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

It wold be better if u guys put the speed limit in miles and kilometers.


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

Speaking of which....I wonder if we'll ever convert. I think we're just holding out pretending we don't have to...well I guess we don't HAVE to. It'd still be easier to work on a global level.

I normally just take the MPH, and multiply it by 1.5, add a few more, and you basically have the KM equiv.


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

i know but it is easier in miles :tongue3:


----------



## JoKo65 (Feb 28, 2007)

The right car for german autobahns:


----------



## caco (May 25, 2006)

Brazil: 60-120 km/h


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*Autobahn Speed Limits to Fight Global Warming?*

*Call for highway speed limits meets little enthusiasm in Germany *
11 March 2007

BERLIN (AP) - An EU official called on Germany to give up the famous freedom of its highways and impose speed limits on the autobahn to fight global warming -- a demand that drew angry responses on Sunday in a country that cherishes what it calls "free driving for free citizens." 

The call came as the German government makes action against climate change a priority of its current presidencies of the EU and Group of Eight. 

Still, the German environment minister showed little enthusiasm for EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas' suggestion and a group representing the country's auto industry said it needed "no coaching on efficient climate protection from Brussels." 

Many stretches of German autobahn lack speed limits -- traditionally a cherished freedom in a rule-bound country. However, the growing concern over carbon dioxide emissions is putting that tradition under renewed scrutiny. 

"There are so many areas in which we waste energy in a completely senseless way and burden the climate," Dimas told the Bild am Sonntag newspaper. 

"A simple measure in Germany could be a general speed limit on highways," he added, according to the newspaper. "Speed limits make a lot of sense for many reasons and are completely normal in most EU states, as in the U.S.A. -- only in Germany, strangely, is it controversial." 

The commissioner did not suggest a specific speed limit for Germany but in most European countries the highway speed limit is either 75 and 80 miles per hour. Britain, Latvia and Sweden have the strictest speed limit with 70 mph, according to an official EU Web site. 

Dimas' comments drew a slew of largely negative responses Sunday on the daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung's Internet site. One respondent described the debate as a "farce" and questioned the environmental record of Dimas' native Greece. 

Another demanded "free driving for free citizens" -- quoting one of Germany's most popular and well-known slogans. 

Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has said Europe should take a leading role in combating climate change to set an example to the U.S., China and others, last week steered an EU summit to a bold set of measures to fight global warming. 

Among several initiatives, the EU is planning to push for an increased use of energy-saving light bulbs to slash energy consumption and reduce the effects of greenhouse gases. 

In Britain, the opposition Conservative Party said Sunday it is considering new taxes on air travel. In the Bild interview, Dimas also said that the EU Commission wants to raise the rates for European and trans-Atlantic flights. 

However, Merkel has brushed aside previous suggestions -- most recently last month -- that a general speed limit on the autobahn would help fight climate change. 

Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said Sunday that he has "nothing against (a limit) for reasons of traffic safety" but argued that the restriction would not encourage manufacturers to produce more environment-friendly engines. 

"This is a secondary front and a trivialization of the climate problem," he said at an event in Hamburg. 

The German Association of the Automotive Industry, which represents an industry that includes such famous names as Volkswagen, BMW, Porsche and DaimlerChrysler, said Germany needed "no coaching" from Brussels on how to protect the climate -- "above all when the proposals are only symbolic." 

"The German auto industry will act on climate change where there is real potential for savings" of vehicle emissions, the group said in a statement. 

A spokesman for the Transport Ministry, Dirk Inger, said a study by a federal agency had found that an overall autobahn limit of 100 kilometers per hour -- or 62 mph -- would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by only 0.6 percent. 

Each 5 mph a car drives over 60 mph reduces fuel economy by 10 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. 

Inger also contended that, among European countries, only Germany had succeeded in reducing vehicle emissions. 

"Symbolic politics doesn't help us move forward on climate protection," Inger said. "That goes for Mr. Dimas too." 

Germans may be becoming receptive to the idea, however. Last month, a survey by the Forsa institute for Stern magazine found that 60 percent would favor autobahn speed limits to cut emissions, while 38 percent would oppose them. 

The Feb. 1-2 survey of 1,001 people gave a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. 

"I like to drive fast on the autobahn -- sometimes I drive up to 200 (125 mph) -- but if it is for the sake of the environment, I don't mind slowing down," said Thorsten Einig, 36, an information technology product manager in Karlsruhe who owns a BMW. 

"I think anyone with half a brain understands that we all have to change our habits in order to limit the greenhouse gases."


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Such a limit is just nonsens, it wouldn't matter. But many of those politicians never drove in Germany obviously. Only a few people on the German Autobahn drive faster than 150km/h. 

If it REALLY matters to those politicians, they'd better do something about the traffic jams, because driving in a traffic jam is still more polluting than driving 150km/h on a Autobahn.

Compare that to the few people who drive actually very fast, and the millions of people in traffic jams every day, and you'll see where you really have to do something about it.


----------



## czm3 (Dec 4, 2004)

If they want to tax people on the basis of speed and emissions, they'd be foolish to go after car drivers when there are so many people in Germany using airplanes.

This type of nonsense needs to stop. If the govt really wants to control pollution, they should go after the big industrial concerns and power generators. This burdun should not be placed on private citizens....


----------



## Rohne (Feb 20, 2007)

exactly...
a general speed limit is nonsense! stupid idea...
but sadly there are some left-wing politicians and environmentalists who start this discussion every 3 weeks nowadays.


----------



## Naga_Solidus (Mar 29, 2005)

This is wrong on numerous front, which I won't bother mentioning since the most impostant ones already have.


----------



## ZZ-II (May 10, 2006)

Chris1491 said:


> Only a few people on the German Autobahn drive faster than 150km/h.


that's definitely wrong ^^. i come from germany and i really know how many people drive over 150. in december i've driven on the autobahn with 170km/h.....and i've only override the trucks and the cars with trailers!!


----------



## Grotlaufen (Mar 2, 2007)

The reason politicians like speed limits is because they love to cash in the speed tickets from the drivers, plus insurance companies don´t mind if they don´t have to pay out because the driver drove too fast.


----------



## DanielFigFoz (Mar 10, 2007)

NO it would'nt make any difference cause it's the in-town drivin that makes a differnce.


----------



## DragonHRuffy (Aug 10, 2005)

you guys are funny... it is true that only a few people use to drive more than 150-170km/h....

I live in Germany and I know it better than you guys ^^


My friends and I use to drive 200 - 230 if it is possible... and the car is only using 11litres on 100km.... some cars like big limousines or others use to use 15litres with a speed of 100km/h...


----------



## FM 2258 (Jan 24, 2004)

DFM said:


> NO it would'nt make any difference cause it's the in-town drivin that makes a differnce.


Yeah, doesn't a car emit more pollutants as it has to use more fuel to compensate for stop and go acceleration?


----------



## DanielFigFoz (Mar 10, 2007)

Exatly


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Isn't the most efficient speed for fuel consumption near 100 km/h?


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

hkskyline said:


> Isn't the most efficient speed for fuel consumption near 100 km/h?


That is correct.


----------



## pwalker (Feb 19, 2007)

*Oregon Speed Limit...what is it really?*

Here is an interesting one...Oregon, until recently was the only Western U.S. state with a freeway speed limit of under 70mph (It was 65). They changed it to "allow for" increases to 70 a couple years back, but as I understand it, the procedures for increasing specific sections to 70 are so complex and time consuming, nobody has bothered. So Oregon remains at 65, even though they could possibly be 70. Do I have this correct? Someone in Oregon please chime in...


----------



## ZZ-II (May 10, 2006)

JoKo65 said:


> The right car for german autobahns:


:lol:, exactly


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Why such a low speed limit? Location: I-95 in Miami, FL


----------



## zivan56 (Apr 29, 2005)

^^ It would depend on the car/engine/transmission.


----------



## Patrick (Sep 11, 2002)

A limit will not help the environment so much, because there are also many people who shift the gears very late even in towns, and so, it makes no difference if I drive 170km/h in the 6. gear at 4000 rpm on the autobahn or 60km/h in the 2. gear at a similar rpm in towns.
Actually, I guess more than 2/3 of the autobahn network DO have speed limits.

I think we already (try to) do a lot for the environment when I think of waste separation, deposit on bottles and cans, lots of windmills and solarcalculators all over the country, green tax on pollution respectively eco-tax and so on.

So, please NO general limits on the Autobahn!


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

^^ Yeah, talking about ambiguity  This sign actually says "Minimum Speed" although from distance it appears exactly as the maximum limit. International sign would have a round shape and blue background with white letters on it. Would be hard to confuse it with the tempo limit.


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

1. If they implement a speed limit, where am I going to drive my Enzo Ferrari???

2. Going a bit off topic, maybe they should put in different speed limits for different lanes. Like 100km/h for the far right lane, 115 km/h for the next lane, 130 for the lane after that...

Everyone knows the further left you go, the faster the flow of traffic gets. So why keep the same speed limit throughout??? I find here in Ontario most motorists go about 130km/h in the far left lane, and going any slower will mean people passing you on a regular basis.


----------



## gladisimo (Dec 11, 2006)

^^ Rich bastard. Curbing emissions from driving fast is total bs, there are so much more other stuff that can be done. Totally Retarded.



zivan56 said:


> ^^ It would depend on the car/engine/transmission.


Exactly. Most cars are built with the idea that 100km/h is the optimal driving speed, but it varies. I've found I get the best mileage around 70-75 mph. A way of measuring this is to calculate your engine rpm vs. your speed (very rough estimate). For example, revving at 2000 rpm @ 60 mph, vs. revving at 2300 rpm @ 75 mph means you get 25 percent more speed for 15 percent more consumption. 

Of course, there are huge amounts of variables, but I've found this (from experience) to be a reasonable good rule of thumb.


----------



## pwalker (Feb 19, 2007)

I agree, minimum and maximum speed signs need to look different, especially in Florida what with the an older population. 

Interesting that in the U.S., most western states have a 70 or 75mph limit in rural areas. Oregon is the exception. Montana does not have an 80mph limit, although it did have no limits for a time in 1990's. A big increase in fatalities prompted them to put a limit back on. 

My experience is that most will drive 5-8 mph over the posted limit. So most in the 75mph states go 80, and those in a 65 state go 70. However, the lower the limit, the more frequent number of speeders is noted. Americans, in general, don't want the government telling them how fast to drive. But, with a few rare exceptions, will stay within reasonable limits.


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

pwalker said:


> Montana does not have an 80mph limit, although it did have no limits for a time in 1990's. A big increase in fatalities prompted them to put a limit back on.


No, it was not a big increase in fatalities that made them put back the limit. 



Wikipedia said:


> Montana Speed limit
> 
> On March 10, 1996 [35], a Montana Patrolman issued a speed ticket to a driver traveling at 85 mph (140 km/h) on a stretch of State Highway 200. The 50 year-old male driver (Rudy Stanko) was operating a 1996 Camaro with less than 10,000 miles (16,000 km) on the odometer. Although the officer gave no opinion as to what would have been a reasonable speed, the driver was convicted. The driver appealed all the way to the Montana Supreme Court. The Court reversed the conviction in case No. 97-486 on December 23, 1998; it held that a law requiring drivers to drive at a non-numerical "reasonable and proper" speed "is so vague that it violates the Due Process Clause ... of the Montana Constitution".
> 
> Due to this reversal, Montana scrambled to vote in a numerical limit as it technically had no speed limit whatsoever in the meantime. In June 1999, a new Montana speed limit law went into effect. The law's practical effect was to require posted limits on all roads and disallow any speed limit higher than 75 mph (120 km/h).


When I drove in Montana in August 1999, I was surprised that most drivers were driving 140 km/h and up while the speed limit was set to 120 km/h. Little did I know that as recently as 3 months before my trip there had not been any daylight speed limit at all


----------



## pwalker (Feb 19, 2007)

*Wikipedia is a questionable source*

Wikipedia, in many cases, is a good source of information. But, the site is mainly builit upon posters adding information that cannot always be confirmed.
While I do not deny this epidsode happened, I believe there was an increase in fatalities w/o speed limits and from a political standpoint, this is was prompted the resumption of the limit, albeit, I will concede this case may have been brought up. But I frankly don't believe one case caused the limits to be reistanted. Perhaps, a Montanan can confirm or deny this. Not that it really matters, the bottom line is Montana has had a 75 MPH limit for many years, despite misconceptions among many around the world.


----------



## Nicolás (Dec 17, 2005)

General Speed Limit would be very nice here in Germany. I always enjoy driving on motorways in other European countries - less stressful.
I am also tired of these tailgating drivers in the left lane which are always AUDI or BMW ...


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Nicolás said:


> General Speed Limit would be very nice here in Germany. I always enjoy driving on motorways in other European countries - less stressful.


Non-Germans would said the opposite thing :lol: 

I heard Dutch people saying all the time driving in Germany is so much better than here, in The Netherlands the roads are often overcrowded, busy and stressed with low speed limits.

A while ago someone said this to me, about their trip to Italy;
"My holiday starts when i'm entering Germany!"


----------



## RKS (Sep 14, 2002)

Nicolás said:


> General Speed Limit would be very nice here in Germany. I always enjoy driving on motorways in other European countries - less stressful.
> I am also tired of these tailgating drivers in the left lane which are always AUDI or BMW ...


wtf?
there a lot of VWs, Opels and other "smaller" cars like toyotas etc., it seems that you are one of those guys who overhaul a truck with 120kph and if you think the left lane is to dangerous--> drive right!!!


----------



## Nicolás (Dec 17, 2005)

RKS said:


> you are one of those guys who overhaul a truck with 120kph


So? No, unfortunately I can't do so and I have to drive very fast, too, to manage driving on a German motorway. 
It seems you have never been to one of our neighbors (I really enjoy driving there) and that you are just one of those LICHTHUPENDRÄNGLER who drive AUDI or BMW (and it's a fact that they are often involved in forcing others to move to the right side while they are overtaking another car).

Left lane wouldn't be dangerous if there weren't all these 200++++ kph (idiot) drivers who think they are on a racing track.


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

Nicolás said:


> Left lane wouldn't be dangerous if there weren't all these 200++++ kph (idiot) drivers who think they are on a racing track.


Nicolás, I am sure that with your driving abilities you would fit in on American motorways just fine. Here, you don't have to overtake another car to drive in the fast lane. Hell, you even need not drive more than 110 km/h to be in the left lane! And on top of this, if you drive faster than 120 km/h (on the West Coast), you are very likely to get cited by police. Would be a heaven for you.


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

Nicolás said:


> Left lane wouldn't be dangerous if there weren't all these 200++++ kph (idiot) drivers who think they are on a racing track.


The left lane would be less dangerous if all these slow drivers stay on their right lane. The left lane is for fast driving.


----------



## Nicolás (Dec 17, 2005)

goschio said:


> The left lane is for fast driving.


Yes, it is - there is no denying (and I drive there, too, sometimes, when I don't care about gas), but if there was a speed limit around ~130 - 140 kph that speed would be the fastest and less dangerous for everybody. 

Good thing in Germany is, that there are lots of areas with speed limits - on most of the 'tracks' it's technically impossible to drive faster than ~130 kph.


----------



## Nicolás (Dec 17, 2005)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> Nicolás, I am sure that with your driving abilities you would fit in on American motorways just fine.


Do you want to say that I am not able to drive high speed? No, that's wrong - but I often don't do that because gas is expensive in Germany and not that cheap like in the US.


----------



## Grotlaufen (Mar 2, 2007)

But who is going to benefit most from a speed limit do you think?
My experiences from how it works in the states (where they have a ridiculous 55-65 mph limit)

Insurance companies: "Haha, he drove a little too fast, now we don´t have to pay anything to that sucker!"
Police: "Hey, we are sooo bored now, how about putting up a speed trap on the Autobahn and then we´ll have a great party after collecting the fines?"

And as someone said earlier, what makes a big difference for the envoirment is where you drive (inner city, countryside), the traffic volume and if there are any traffic jams and so on.


----------



## czm3 (Dec 4, 2004)

Nicolás said:


> So? No, unfortunately I can't do so and I have to drive very fast, too, to manage driving on a German motorway.
> 
> 
> Left lane wouldn't be dangerous if there weren't all these 200++++ kph (idiot) drivers who think they are on a racing track.





Nicolás said:


> Do you want to say that I am not able to drive high speed? No, that's wrong - but I often don't do that because gas is expensive in Germany and not that cheap like in the US.


Sounds like you're talking in circles.... :bash: 

Alex is spot on, you'd fit in perfectly on the Interstates. :lol: 

BTW if you think Germans are agressive on the Autobahn, you've obviously never driven on the Autostrada which has a speed limit.


----------



## GASpedal (Apr 10, 2005)

goschio said:


> The left lane is for fast driving.


No. It's for overtaking. Nothing else, primarily.
Where did you get your driving licence?

E.g., if there are several trucks. You normally would take your time and overtake the whole convoy at once - with, let's say 150kph.
But those idiots can't accept that and will push you back between the slow trucks halfway the convoy...

I've got nothing against people driving fast. But they definitely have to take care and can't expect to drive 250kph without ever having to brake. That's the problem.

Italy is a special topic. But driving in France e.g. is much, much more relaxed than in Germany.

I guess a moderate speed limit would be a good thing. 180kph, 160kph... would be enough - or even less, I don't care.


----------



## Nicolás (Dec 17, 2005)

czm3 said:


> Sounds like you're talking in circles....


Why? I have never said that I don't like driving fast - 160-170 kph is an acceptable speed (but still costs a lot of fuel if I compare this with 120 kph) - I just don't like the ones who can't get enough and drive with 200+++ kph on the left lane (and it is always AUDI or BMW), see a slower car in front, brake... and force it with the headlamp flasher. Sometimes, on a two-lane-motorway even slower cars have to use the left lane to overtake a truck or whatever...


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

I don't understand what the problem is. Almost every year I drive on the Autobahn (mostly on A9) and really enjoy my driving experience there. It is true that sometimes it might be tough if you are stuck behind a lory and fast cars don't let you get in the left lane, but sooner or later you will be able to do so. And if one of those BMW or Audi come up at me while I am overtaking another vehicle, I will turn on my right signal to let them know that I will change the lane as fast as I can. The bottom line is that I know capabilties of my small Octavia, and therefore, will use the left lane only if I think that I can overtake slower vehicle in a reasonably short time and not force faster cars to brake.


----------



## Nicolás (Dec 17, 2005)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> And if one of those BMW or Audi come up at me while I am overtaking another vehicle, I will turn on my right signal to let them know that I will change the lane as fast as I can.


And that's it what I originally meant by saying that it's _stress_.


----------



## acorn (Apr 18, 2007)

MSP said:


> Here's a map of the US speed limits(mph) by state as of 2002. Texas has raised their limit to 80mph on some roads since then.


A couple of little errors ; 

Iowa , Kentucky( as of June 7 , 2007 ) & Indiana now have legally posted maximum limits of 70 mph . Oregan & Virgina have passed a 70 mph law but have not yet posted it . North Dakota has a maximum of 75 mph posted now also .

Several western US states ( Colorado , Wyoming , Utah , Montana , New Mexico & Nevada ) on rural stretches of interstates have a defacto/enforced daytime in good weather limits of 85 mph . 

In Nebraska , Oklahoma ( 75 mph posted ) , Missouri , Tenn , Arkansas , Georgia , South Caroline , North Carolina & a few others that have a 70 mph max posted around 80 +- mph is the tipping point for a ticket or not . 

Kansas which has 70 mph as the max posted 75 & above can get you nabbed .


----------



## pilotos (Jan 24, 2007)

In Greece the speed limit on highways just got a 10km/h increase, from 120km/h to 130km/h for cars, and for trucks from 90 to 100 km/h.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

75 mph should be on every non-urban freeway... That's only 120kmh.


----------



## pwalker (Feb 19, 2007)

Chris1491 said:


> 75 mph should be on every non-urban freeway... That's only 120kmh.


Tell Oregon that. They can't seem to get past 65. 70 was approved, but for whatever reason, everything is still posted at 65, making Oregon the ONLY western state at that limit. 

As an aside, try driving from Eastern Oregon into West Central Idaho. Same geography, same ruralness, same freeway, 10 MPH difference. Why???


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

Chris1491 said:


> 75 mph should be on every non-urban freeway... That's only 120kmh.


What about 130 or 150km/h? Those roads could handle higher speeds.


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

acorn said:


> Several western US states ( Colorado , Wyoming , Utah , Montana , New Mexico & Nevada ) on rural stretches of interstates have a defacto/enforced daytime in good weather limits of 85 mph .


Can you clarify this? Is that a posted speed limit, implied speed limit or just an unofficial one that is not enforced by police?


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

LtBk said:


> What about 130 or 150km/h? Those roads could handle higher speeds.


I agree, but raising the general limit to 75mph should be a good first step.


----------



## acorn (Apr 18, 2007)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> Can you clarify this? Is that a posted speed limit, implied speed limit or just an unofficial one that is not enforced by police?


All these are during the day & in good weather ,

On interstates Eastern Northern & Extreme Southern Colorado 85 mph is the normal tipping point for a ticket . A little slower between Denver & Pueblo ( low 80s mph ) with a couple of stretches where speeds of around 90 to 100 mph are common , 95 % of which is posted @ 75 mph .

There are sections of I-25 north of Denver where 90+ to 100 mph is the normal flow speed , posted @ 75 mph . The CHP makes it known that speeds below 90 mph are below the threshold of being pulled over on thi9s stretch of freeway . But they do use laser guns to focus on drivers following too close & failing to signal when changing lanes @ high speeds ( a 4 point violation ) .

In most western states you are much more likely to get a ticket for failing to signal when changing lanes or for following too close than for traveling 20 mph over the posted limit .

In Utah on southern sections on I-15 85 mph is also the tipping point . Interstates in most sections of rural New Mexico & Wyoming low 80s mph are ok . 

Many rural section of Montana & Arizona interstates 85 mph is the normal flow speed .


These are the speeds where a judge will not dismiss so less than/below these mph numbers are pointless for the police to pull over . The cops know that a judge will throw the ticket out below these speeds in general .


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

That's pretty cool. I wish they enforced turn signals in California too. I was pulled over four times on motorways (one time in ID and three times in CA) for speeding, and every time my speed was 130-140 km/h.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Man they have over 1000 fixed speed traps over here, automatic ticket systems on motorways with a ridiculous speed limit of 50 MPH and a lot of random traps. 

You'll even get a ticket if you drive 3 miles too fast...


----------



## acorn (Apr 18, 2007)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> That's pretty cool. I wish they enforced turn signals in California too. I was pulled over four times on motorways (one time in ID and three times in CA) for speeding, and every time my speed was 130-140 km/h.


ID & CA both have split speed limits ( cars { CA-70 }{ ID-75 mph } trucks 55 or 65 mph ) which make getting pulled over much more likely @ higher speeds in a car . The states that generally allow higher flow speeds have the same limit for cars as they do for heavy trucks . 

Montana (75 mph day & night for cars on freeways is posted ) & Texas (70 to 80 mph day cars - 65 mph night for all on all roads in the state is posted ) . Both have split speed limits for cars & trucks along with a day & night time limits . Their lax enforcement during the daymakes them exceptions to that rule as they pretty much let you drive as fast as you want to on many stretches of rural highways during the day . Night time however is a differnet story in both , so you had better obey the limit @ night if you want to avoid a ticket .


----------



## philvia (Jun 22, 2006)

where i live in TN, the general rule is you can do 5 over the speed limit and you usually won't get pulled over. only time i've ever been pulled over for speeding was 73mph in a 55mph. but we do have traffic cameras all over the place in the city, if you do something wrong they'll mail you a ticket >_<


----------



## Geokioy (Mar 29, 2007)

Greece:
In highways the maximum speed is 130 km/h (usually on signs the maximum written speed is 120 km/h or 100 km/h)
In roads out of towns and villages the maximum speed is 90 km/h.
In urbun areas the maximum speed is 50 km/h. However in avenues the maximum speed can be 70 or 90 km/h and in residential areas, near schools and playgrounds the maximum speed is 30 km/h.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> That's pretty cool. I wish they enforced turn signals in California too. I was pulled over four times on motorways (one time in ID and three times in CA) for speeding, and every time my speed was 130-140 km/h.


Don't you live in Northern California? I read that the police are more strict in enforcing the limit in those parts unlike Southern California.


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

LtBk said:


> Don't you live in Northern California? I read that the police are more strict in enforcing the limit in those parts unlike Southern California.


100% true. But at the same time, I noticed that drivers in Southern California (between LA and San Diego) are better than those from the North. The worst drivers I have ever observed can be found on I-80 between Sacramento and San Francisco.


----------



## gladisimo (Dec 11, 2006)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> 100% true. But at the same time, I noticed that drivers in Southern California (between LA and San Diego) are better than those from the North. The worst drivers I have ever observed can be found on I-80 between Sacramento and San Francisco.


I find drivers in SoCal a lot more aggressive than those in NorCal. 

Anyway, now bad are the drivers on I-80? I drove on it a few times to visit UC Davis, and I found it to be ok, except for the fact that people up there, like everywhere else, hogs their lanes the entire way through. There was no way you can exceed 70 because everyone holds the same speed through the whole way. 

Then there's the speed freaks who endanger everyone and cut in and out of every lane...

Maybe I'm just used to shoddy drivers everyday I don't notice them anymore...


----------



## acorn (Apr 18, 2007)

gladisimo said:


> I find drivers in SoCal a lot more aggressive than those in NorCal.
> 
> Anyway, now bad are the drivers on I-80? I drove on it a few times to visit UC Davis, and I found it to be ok, except for the fact that people up there, like everywhere else, hogs their lanes the entire way through. There was no way you can exceed 70 because everyone holds the same speed through the whole way.
> 
> ...



How about the fact that the lane hogs that block traffic are breaking the law ( slower traffic keep right ) leading to agressive driving from the frustration their dumb illegal actions cause . 

They are the real a$$es that endanger all the other drivers on the road , not the drivers trying to deal with/ get around them .

In many states they would get a well deserved ticket for not keeping to the right as they are the slower traffic that must stay to the right . As their actions of blocking left lanes are illegal not allowing the faster traffic to pass . Not their job to try to enforce their will-( "I'm driving as fast as anyone should be ") on the rest of us


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

I always try to figure out the reasoning of left-lane hogs, but so far my attempts were futile. One middle-aged American lady was actually arguing that since she pays road taxes, they cannot prohibit her from driving in any lane she wishes  Another man said that he felt safer and more relaxed driving in an extreme left lane slightly above the posted limit. 

In Europe, Scandinavians seem to be the most relaxed drivers, and sometimes they are slow to yield. Eventually, they yield though. In California, some drivers can just keep on blocking the left lane for many many kilometres. I haven't noticed any corellation between the race, gender or age - anyone can be a hog here.


----------



## pwalker (Feb 19, 2007)

Interesting subject. In big metro areas the point is probably moot as all traffic is moving at about the same speed. But outside these areas, most drivers in the US will move over as common courtesy. In fact, being a left lane hog is probably a more aggressive move than passive. (Unless the driver is simply clueless). Yes, speed limits make sense, but those who try to slow down traffic on purpose are just creating more problems. (Seattle's I-5 between Mercer and Northgate will demonstrate this on a daily basis!)


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

In Seattle, I would just enjoy the great view and wouldn't care about slow drivers


----------



## TheCat (Apr 21, 2006)

Chris1491 said:


> Parked cars shouldn't belong on 50MPH roads.
> 
> In the Netherlands, there are no 2x2 roads without median being build. However, in other countries, it's pretty normal, but our country is a bit overreacting in traffic safety sometimes.


Hehe, if that's true, it's interesting, because pretty much all of the main streets here in Toronto are 2x2 or 3x3 (the street I live on is 3x3), and there is no median.

However, instead it is common here (and in many other North American cities) to have a very wide yellow-marked traffic island running the whole length of the road and being as wide as a whole traffic lane in the middle. These are called "simultaneous left turn" lanes, and cars from both directions can use them to turn left, and also when you are turning from a small side-street onto the main road without a traffic light, you can first turn onto this lane when the way from the left is clear, and then merge onto the normal lane, because turning left on a 3x3 road without a traffic light is almost impossible any other way during heavy hours.

The side effect of this 5th or 7th "lane" is that although it is not a true median, it is wide enough to separate traffic considerably, and can be thought of as a "soft median", which is safer than just a center line. Also, it allows cars to turn left without stopping the traffic flow on the left lane, without the need to construct a left-turn lane every 10 metres (as is the case on some main streets with many businesses on the sides). The only small safety problem is that you have to check to make sure that no one from the opposite direction is also turning left near the place where you want to turn, because then you can result in a head-on collision.


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

Hey guys, have you ever seen an 18-wheeler lorry overtaking a passenger car on a 1+1 rural highway?  After I moved to Washington state, I saw this twice. In eastern Washington the speed limits on 1+1 highways resemble Germany a lot: 50 km/h inside of build-up areas and 100 km/h outside. Some passenger cars drive even slower than the speed limit, but the good thing is that whenever you flash at them and start overtaking, they move to the right and partially drive on the shoulder.


----------



## ElviS77 (Aug 3, 2007)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> Hey guys, have you ever seen an 18-wheeler lorry overtaking a passenger car on a 1+1 rural highway?
> 
> 
> > It's not that uncommon in Norway, since our roads mainly are 1+1 and the truckers often seem to be in a hurry...


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Guess what the speed limit is here...

30km/h (18MPH).

RIDICULOUS!

location; Eindhoven-Woensel.


----------



## KIWIKAAS (May 13, 2003)

^^
Yeah.That one is definitely too low. If they really want 30kph there then they should also adjust the road to 30kph standards.


----------



## DanielFigFoz (Mar 10, 2007)

Chris1491 said:


> Guess what the speed limit is here...
> 
> 30km/h (18MPH).
> 
> ...


That's even worse than the ones I posted, ridiclous. :bash:


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> Hey guys, have you ever seen an 18-wheeler lorry overtaking a passenger car on a 1+1 rural highway?  After I moved to Washington state, I saw this twice. In eastern Washington the speed limits on 1+1 highways resemble Germany a lot: 50 km/h inside of build-up areas and 100 km/h outside. Some passenger cars drive even slower than the speed limit, but the good thing is that whenever you flash at them and start overtaking, they move to the right and partially drive on the shoulder.


18 wheelers overtaking.....it doesn't happen very often here but it does happen and since trucks have a speed limiter(95km/h, if I'm not mistaken) and our roads don't have hard shoulders, it's risky business.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

DFM said:


> That's even worse than the ones I posted, ridiclous. :bash:


The road seen in the picture is only one direction! :bash: hno:


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

A 30km/h speed limit for a 4-lane road with separated directions. How stupid is that? And then they expect people to follow that limit.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

^^ Now you know how we feel about driving 80km/h on some motorways hno: 
It really makes no sense at all. Ofcourse, the 80 limit comes with automated speed checks the whole stretch.


----------



## Jeroen669 (Nov 29, 2006)

Rebasepoiss said:


> 18 wheelers overtaking.....it doesn't happen very often here but it does happen and since trucks have a speed limiter(95km/h, if I'm not mistaken) and our roads don't have hard shoulders, it's risky business.


In Holland it happens a lot but (fortunately) not on 1+1 rural roads. It's really frustrating; however driving only 70km/h behind some caravan in a truck can be very frustrating too.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

^^ The worse thing is, the caravan driver thinks he drives 80km/h because of the generally 5 - 10km/h disorder on car speedometers. Dutch trucks are mostly limited at 87km/h, and most foreign trucks at 95km/h, causing a lot of elephant races when overtaking. But i can understand the truck drivers. They want a lot of 2x3 lanes too, so they can overtake without getting in the car's way.


----------



## Jeroen669 (Nov 29, 2006)

Chris said:


> Dutch trucks are mostly limited at 87km/h


I've had 95km/h on the speedmeter of my lesson truck.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 25, 2007)

on motorways, i usually go 120-130 km/h when i'm paying for the fuel, otherwise it's 170-180 km/h. speed limits are 130 km/h [croatia] and 120 km/h [serbia].
in republic of srpska (BiH) there are still no motorways [one is u/c, while a netrwork of motorways is planned], and limits on 1x1 roads are 80 km/h, but i drive 90-100-110 km/h. in the city, i don't care for the speed limits, i usually drive about 80 km/h on 1x1 roads, and 100 km/h on 2x2 roads. 

so basically, i don't care about speed limits, unless i know that there's police somewhere near...
the only case i care about speed limits is when i'm trying not to spend too much fuel


----------



## KIWIKAAS (May 13, 2003)

Great. Another idiot


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 25, 2007)

another idiot? first, there's no need for you to be rude. second, why am i an idiot?


----------



## TheCat (Apr 21, 2006)

Kalimero said:


> another idiot? first, there's no need for you to be rude. second, why am i an idiot?


Because you drive 100km/h inside the city. Not sure about the layout of the cities you drive in, but generally that cannot be safe, even on 2x2 roads (however, I did not call you an idiot ).


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 25, 2007)

i have a fine car, fine breaks, fine tires, and this is how most of those city roads looks like:










therefore, i don't think driving at that speed is dangerous. driving 60 km/h there is waste of time, IMO.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Most urban limits are 50km/h and sometimes 70km/h here. I guess when you drive that style here, you're entire monthly income would go to the state within one day, because of the speed checks.


----------



## invincible (Sep 13, 2002)

I don't think the limits in Australia are particularly bad, except for maybe sections of rural highway which are divided.

The limits are:
40km/h in high street shopping areas
50km/h in residential areas (or if unsigned)
60km/h for most major undivided roads
70km/h for less busy undivided roads, plus busier sections of divided roads
80km/h for divided roads
90km/h on less busy sections of divided roads (rare)
100km/h urban freeways, all rural roads without speed signs (very dangerous when two intersect)
110km/h rural freeways.

Common sense says that the 100km/h limit on rural roads shouldn't be strictly followed because the majority of them aren't built for those speeds. That's why a significant proportion of deaths are caused by cars losing control on curves and ending up wrapped around a tree or pole. I was driving on a mountain road recently - very thick fog (5m visibility), night time, hairpin turns - I wouldn't have exceeded anything more than maybe 25km/h and the entire trip downhill was powered by gravity. The speed limit was still 100km/h, which would be unattainable even in perfect conditions unless you were a rally driver.


----------



## TheCat (Apr 21, 2006)

^^ Well the straight sections remind me somewhat of urban parkways in the Toronto area, which usually have a speed limit of 70km/h. However, there seem to be frequent roundabouts, a significant upward grade, and the road isn't very wide for a 4-lane road (like our parkways), so I think a 50-60 limit is quite reasonable.


----------



## RawLee (Jul 9, 2007)

I'd put a crashbarrier on both sides,and then maybe 70 could be reasonable.


----------



## Jeroen669 (Nov 29, 2006)

Some Arnhem examples. 

Batavierenweg, only 70km/h at this section without grade crossings.










Burgemeester Matsersingel, only 50km/h. 70km/h would be more reasonable here.










Unfortunately I don't have pictures from the Eldenseweg (with the Nelson Mandelabridge). It's hard to take good pictures there from a bicycle. Speedlimit is only 70km/h (on the bridge itself even only 50km/h) while the road looks designed for motorway standards... Traffic flows with about 90km/h.


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

^^ In the USA, they would probably post 90 km/h on the first picture and 60-70 km/h on the second.


----------



## TheCat (Apr 21, 2006)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> ^^ In the USA, they would probably post 90 km/h on the first picture and 60-70 km/h on the second.


I agree, same with Canada, the second picture looks like a normal city arterial, which is usually at least 60km/h.

It's an interesting observation overall, I think - while Europe has much higher speed limits on its motorways, I think urban speed limits in North America are generally higher.


----------



## gladisimo (Dec 11, 2006)

^^ Because America's urban model is more sparse than that of Europe in general, I think.


----------



## RawLee (Jul 9, 2007)

The 70 on this pics is because of the trolleys:bash: So it means that the road is inside city limits,in which case speed above 70 is rare(apart from motorways and expressways)








2nd pics is the same,and maybe a stop of the trolley is nearby,and 70 is much when there could be pedestrians.


----------



## Jeroen669 (Nov 29, 2006)

Both pictures are inside city limits. So indeed, a higher speed limit than 70km/h would not be possible. On the first picture there are busstops directly next to the road, but not on the second one (a bit further there is one, but that's the end of the 2X2 section without grade crossings, so speed limit is 50km/h anyway).


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

RawLee said:


> So it means that the road is inside city limits,in which case speed above 70 is rare(apart from motorways and expressways)
> .


There are no speed limits above 70km/h on non-motorways within city limits in the Netherlands.


----------



## RawLee (Jul 9, 2007)

Chriszwolle said:


> There are no speed limits above 70km/h on non-motorways within city limits in the Netherlands.


Neither here. Thats why I wrote "rare". Who knows...there could be somewhere on this continent.


----------



## DanielFigFoz (Mar 10, 2007)

Chriszwolle said:


> There are no speed limits above 70km/h on non-motorways within city limits in the Netherlands.


Portugal, especialy near Lisbon on the IC's and IP's and the N125? in Coimbra which has 90 (Forum-Bencanta-Ribeira de Frades-Taveiro-Pereira) thoses are suburbs of Coimbra (exept Forum witch is a shopping Center).


----------



## Jeroen669 (Nov 29, 2006)

The only possibility to change it is to change the city limits. It's absurd that the Eldenseweg, Batavierenweg and Nijmeegseweg are within city limits anyway.


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

In Canada it really depends on where you live. 
In Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec anything under 120 is considered crawling but in BC people actually often drive UNDER the speed limit...........its bizzare and this with a freeway max of 100km/hr. 

Vancouverites go to Tor/Mon always come back speechless about how fast people drive. 
Last time I was back in Toronto I was going 120km/hr and got passes by a Greyhound bus. It was great to be back in Ontario where freeway speeds signs are just a waste of steel and paint.


----------



## TheCat (Apr 21, 2006)

^^ lol yeah, I wouldn't say 120km/h is crawling on our freeways, but it is approximately the average speed in absence of traffic. It is also interesting to know this about BC, I'm surprised. I think it might have something to do with Vancouver's relatively small freeway network, as opposed to, say, South Ontario's 400-series or Quebec's Autoroute system. But I think the previous discussion was about non-motorway roads.

In Toronto, as far as I remember, there are urban roads with limits of 80km/h. Usually it's on separated expressways, but with at-grade intersections. For example, if I'm not mistaken, Highway 7 in Vaughan (a suburb of Toronto) has a limit of 80km/h in some parts, and 70 in most of its length.


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

He-he, I will check out Beautiful British Columbia's roads in two weeks  Since moving to Washington from California, I have developed the same habits as most of rural Washington drivers - following the speed limits! However, most of 2x1 rural highways have a limit of 98 km/h (sometimes 105 km/h), so I wouldn't call it slow anyway. Washington speed limits remind me Germany a lot - you drive 100 km/h on rural landstraßen and slow down to 50 km/h when entering a town, and then speed up to 100 km/h again.

Looking forward to seeing precious kilometres again kay:


----------



## HAWC1506 (Jun 18, 2007)

Alex Von Königsberg said:


> He-he, I will check out Beautiful British Columbia's roads in two weeks  Since moving to Washington from California, I have developed the same habits as most of rural Washington drivers - following the speed limits! However, most of 2x1 rural highways have a limit of 98 km/h (sometimes 105 km/h), so I wouldn't call it slow anyway. Washington speed limits remind me Germany a lot - you drive 100 km/h on rural landstraßen and slow down to 50 km/h when entering a town, and then speed up to 100 km/h again.
> 
> Looking forward to seeing precious kilometres again kay:


I'm a resident in Washington and in urban areas traffic speeds are generally 55-65 mph, about 93-110 km/h I believe. In the rural areas, speeds up to 80 (130 km/h) are not unusual.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

I drove down a highway at 80 mph (130 km/h) today. That was the fastest that I ever drove.

The stretch of highway that I drove had a speed limit of 55 mph (~90 km/h).

Interestingly, there were people driving even faster than me...I guess it's true, nobody really does give a damn about the speed limit! I'm not going to be doing that often though...there are too much sneaky cops around.


----------



## Czas na Żywiec (Jan 17, 2005)

^^ I'll say. I'm usually a speed demon but in my town, I know where the speed traps are so I know where to slow down and speed up. I've never gotten a speeding ticket for the 7 years I've had my license but this weekend I finally got caught. I was driving home from skiing and got caught doing 51 mph (82km/h) in a 25 mph (40 km/h) zone. The only sign I saw was 35 mph (56 km/h) after I got out of the roundabout and and I was still speeding but not by THAT much but arguing with a cop wasn't going to help me any. I was fined $120 but oh well, I learned my lesson. Never go skiing in an unfamiliar town.


----------



## Alex Von Königsberg (Jan 28, 2007)

HAWC1506 said:


> I'm a resident in Washington and in urban areas traffic speeds are generally 55-65 mph, about 93-110 km/h I believe. In the rural areas, speeds up to 80 (130 km/h) are not unusual.


Washington State Patrol is off the limits. Whenever we drive through Seattle metro area, we see at least 2-3 traffic stops on freeways. They even have very scary signs that read: "Speed laws strictly enforced", or something like this. In Canada, for instance, I have yet to see mounties.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

I drove 95 miles an hour on a 2 lane road yesterday. It was on a 30km long dike across water, mostly straight flat-out, and you loose like all points of reference there. It felt like driving 110km/h, the speed limit was 60 miles/100km an hour.


----------



## Czas na Żywiec (Jan 17, 2005)

KIWIKAAS said:


> I find it hard to believe you have speed limit signs saying 56kph in Poland.
> 
> Anyway. Why is everyone quoting mph here?


I'm currently in the States.


----------



## Jeroen669 (Nov 29, 2006)

PLH said:


> In general most Poles drive like this which will NOT change unless we have sufficient amount of highways and expressways


That's no excuse for driving so fast. 100km/h within city limits is totally insane.


----------



## PLH (Mar 9, 2007)

^^ But what do You mean by 'within city limits'?
When I said about driving 100 km/h I meant a drive-thru road, a kind of a within the city-bypass.
Ofcourse driving 100km/h on regular roads in city is stupidity

-------

And I'm PLH not PLP ;P


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

a lot of people drive 100 kmh on the ringroad of Zwolle (where 70 is allowed).


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

What about speed fines in your country?

within city limits:
+10km/h = € 39
+20km/h = € 93
+30km/h = € 170
+40km/h = € 300
+50km/h = € 430 + drivers license revoked

outside city limits:
+10km/h = € 36
+20km/h = € 88
+30km/h = € 160
+40km/h = € 280
+50km/h = € 340 + drivers license revoked

motorways:
+10km/h = € 34
+20km/h = € 83
+30km/h = € 149
+40km/h = € 234
+50km/h = € 370 + drivers license revoked


----------



## PLH (Mar 9, 2007)

POLAND:

+ 11 - 20 km/h 50 - 100 PLN (15 - 30€)
+ 21 - 30 km/h 100 - 200 PLN (30 - 60€)
+ 31 - 40 km/h 200 - 300 PLN (60 - 90€)
+ 41 - 50 km/h 300 - 400 PLN (90 - 120€)
over 51 km/h 400 - 500 PLN (120 - 150€)


----------



## Ron2K (Dec 28, 2007)

10km/h - 14km/h: R250 (US$30, €20)
15km/h - 19km/h: R500
20km/h - 24km/h: R750
25km/h - 29km/h: R1000
30km/h - 34km/h: R1500
35km/h - 39km/h: R2500
>=40km/h: court appearance


----------



## pilotos (Jan 24, 2007)

For Greece:

+20Km/h : 40 €
+20-30Km/h:100 €
>+30Km/h :350 € + Drivers license revoked for 2 months


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

In Estonia:

+20 km/h - up to 38 €
+21-40 km/h - up to 190 €
>+40km/h - up to 765 € or jail.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

American drivers are slowpokes compared to you guys.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E (Oct 26, 2007)

As far as I know, Norway has both the lowest speed limits, and the highest speeding fines of the world:
60 km/h and lower limit	
1-5 km/h	600 kr
6-10 km/h	1600 kr
11-15 km/h	2900 kr
16-20 km/h	4200 kr
21-25 km/h	6500 kr

70 km/h and higher limit
1-5 km/h	600 kr
6-10 km/h	1600 kr
11-15 km/h	2600 kr
16-20 km/h	3600 kr
21-25 km/h	4900 kr
26-30 km/h	6500 kr
31-35 km/h	7800 kr

1 NOK=0.124 EUR = 0.194 USD

Speeding above these intervals leads to a criminal case, a suspension of the license and perhaps even imprisonment.

Still, most people drive a little bit above the speed limit. Unfortunately, my only fine in my 20 years or so driving career was 6500 kr (honestly, I did not notice the sign as and this was a rural area, but I guess that's what they all say....)


----------



## Patrick (Sep 11, 2002)

Germany

explanation for these points in flensburg: if you have collected 18 of them, you'll loose your driver's license. if you have collected 14, you have to pass a test again, but if you do nothing or don't pass the test, you'll loose your license. flensburg is the location of the "Central Register of Traffic Offenders". of course you can also collect them by breaking other traffic laws.

km/h too fast.....fine.....points in flensburg.....months you're banned from driving

in the city:

1-10.....15€.....0.....0
11-15.....25€.....0.....0
16-20.....35€.....0.....0
21-25.....50€.....1.....0
26-30.....60€.....3.....0
31-40.....100€.....3.....1
41-50.....125€.....4.....1
51-60.....175€.....4.....2
61-70.....300€.....4.....3
+71.....425€.....4.....3

outside the city (all types of road)

1-10.....10€.....0.....0
11-15.....20€.....0.....0
16-20.....30€.....0.....0
21-25.....40€.....1.....0
26-30.....50€.....3.....0
31-40.....75€.....3.....0
41-50.....100€.....3.....1
51-60.....150€.....4.....1
61-70.....275€.....4.....2
+71.....375€.....4.....3

there are additional rules if you break spped limits twice or more in one year.
there is also a tolerance range of 3km/h when driving less than 100km/h and 3% of your speed when driving more than 100km/h.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Quite a difference between Germany and the Netherlands.


----------



## PLH (Mar 9, 2007)

^^ They are more or like the same as in Poland

When I see sth like this:

>+40km/h - up to 765 € or jail.
>=40km/h: court appearance
+50km/h = € 370 + drivers license revoked

I'm happy to be living in Poland


----------



## KIWIKAAS (May 13, 2003)

New Zealand

Not more than 10 kilometres an hour $30 (€17)
10 kilometres an hour -15 kilometres an hour $80 (€45)
15 kilometres an hour -20 kilometres an hour $120 (€67)
20 kilometres an hour -25 kilometres an hour $170 (€95)
25 kilometres an hour -30 kilometres an hour $230 (€129)
30 kilometres an hour -35 kilometres an hour $300 (€168)
35 kilometres an hour -40 kilometres an hour $400 (€224)
40 kilometres an hour -45 kilometres an hour $510 (€286)
45 kilometres an hour -50 kilometres an hour $630 (€353)
More than 50 kilometres an hour mandatory 28 day licence suspension and depending on circumstances a fine not exceeding $4,500 (€2520)


----------



## Cicerón (May 15, 2006)

In Spain:








Source.


Well it's in Spanish. The first row says "Limit | 30 | 40 | 50 | ...(km/h) | Fine". In the "Fine" column you can see the punishment in €uros and points. The Spanish driving licenses follow a point system. It means that you can lose your points (or even your driving license) if you are caught making traffic offences. The new drivers (< 3 years) are given 8 points, while the "normal" drivers are given 12. If you lose your driving license you need to return to the driving school in order to re-educate yourself.

For example if you are caught driving at 100 km/h in a road limited to 50 km/h, you will lose €450 and 6 points.


----------



## Patrick (Sep 11, 2002)

Cicerón said:


> In Spain:
> 
> 
> For example if you are caught driving at 100 km/h in a road limited to 50 km/h, you will lose €450 and 6 points.



wow, there are really big differences!
in germany (you'd pay 125€, get 4 points (remember that you need 18 points to redo the driving school...so theorhetically you can do it 4 times (=500€ if not done in the same year, on the contrary spain for 1 time is already 450€) without loosing your license, while in spain, your score is 0 (equivalent to german 18 points) when you do that a 2nd time.


----------



## Des (Nov 10, 2005)

How many tickets did you guys get for speeding past year? 

I got one for doing 40 km/h over the limit on a deserted highway and a bunch of tickets for going 5 - 9 km/h to fast. 40 km/h over the limit was something like 195 euro, the others between 14 and 39 euro. 

Outside the Netherlands I got two for speeding in the US, one in Lousiana and one in Texas, both for doing around 20 mph over the limit on the I-10. Both fines were about 250$ each. And I was stopped in Croatia, couldn't understand what the cop was saying and was quite sure I wasn't speeding but had to pay 75 euro anyway.


----------



## Patrick (Sep 11, 2002)

never  the only ticket I ever got was for parking too long  and it was only 5€. but I'm young, the day that they'll catch me will come someday, I know that


----------



## PLH (Mar 9, 2007)

Des said:


> How many tickets did you guys get for speeding past year?


Not a single one. But it does not mean I wasn't speeding


----------



## Eindhoove92 (Jul 20, 2008)




----------



## RipleyLV (Jun 4, 2008)

^^ That pic was already posted!


----------



## Timon91 (Feb 9, 2008)

What's the use of mentioning that your lights should be on from 1-1 to 31-12? You can just leave that out IMO


----------



## Maxx☢Power (Nov 16, 2005)

LtBk said:


> .


These boards are too complicated IMO. There's no way a driver will have the time to read and understand all of that.. The conventional signs (e.g. 50-90-110-130) are much easier to understand while driving; once you've seen one you can easily comprehend the next one with just a quick glance.


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

SeanT said:


> There was a TV-program where the police got a driver speeding up from Sweden towards Denmark in the tunnel. He was driving 217 Km/h where the limit is 80 or 90, I do not remember.
> He lost the drivinglicence and got a ticket € 1066 (DKK 8000).:bash:
> The police asked him if he was doing that often, and he answered.... last 30 days or so.
> Idiot.:nuts:


Yeah I saw that too..

I have no problem with people familiar with a stretch and the traffic at that time of day drive a little faster, but driving 217km/h in a tunnel with no emergency lanes and an 90km/h speed limit - that dude should have gone to jail for endangering others!


----------



## mapman:cz (Jan 14, 2007)

Maxx☢Power;30503136 said:


> These boards are too complicated IMO. There's no way a driver will have the time to read and understand all of that.. The conventional signs (e.g. 50-90-110-130) are much easier to understand while driving; once you've seen one you can easily comprehend the next one with just a quick glance.


This one is pretty much outdated, now we use these two:


----------



## paF4uko (Jul 12, 2008)

snupix said:


> Here's a more recent one (but not correct either):


WTF?! No yellow background on speed limitations?! Are you getting rid of the standards from Yugoslavian times? :lol:


----------



## Maxx☢Power (Nov 16, 2005)

mapman:cz said:


> This one is pretty much outdated, now we use these two:


Much better


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

Man, we in Ontario are so lame. The maximum is only 100km/h (62mph), and if you go 50km/h over that your car is impounded for a week 

(Granted, I hypermile and try to keep at a maximum of 90km/h (55mph), so I can't complain)


----------



## Timon91 (Feb 9, 2008)

The US has quite low maximum speeds, yes. In Europe, a Vmax of 80 mph is normal in most countries


----------



## Robosteve (Nov 6, 2008)

Electrify said:


> Man, we in Ontario are so lame. The maximum is only 100km/h (62mph), and if you go 50km/h over that your car is impounded for a week
> 
> (Granted, I hypermile and try to keep at a maximum of 90km/h (55mph), so I can't complain)


And I thought it was bad here, where the maximum speed limit is 110 km/h. Although because Sydney's road infrastructure is so poor, many of the most important through routes have sections with limits as low as 60 km/h, or even 50 in some places. :bash:


----------



## Schweden (Jan 5, 2008)

Robosteve said:


> And I thought it was bad here, where the maximum speed limit is 110 km/h. *Although because Sydney's road infrastructure is so poor, many of the most important through routes have sections with limits as low as 60 km/h, or even 50 in some places.* :bash:


And I thought it was bad here..... :lol:


----------



## x-type (Aug 19, 2005)

paF4uko said:


> WTF?! No yellow background on speed limitations?! Are you getting rid of the standards from Yugoslavian times? :lol:


well that's present allready 8 years :dunno:


----------



## paF4uko (Jul 12, 2008)

x-type said:


> well that's present allready 8 years :dunno:


Hmm... I've been to Croatia every year for the last few years and I've never noticed. Maybe because of the yellow signs you're using for directions on national roads and "brze ceste", I got the impression that all your signs are still on yellow background. :cheers:


----------



## 0591 (Apr 19, 2005)

PLH said:


> Holandia


:lol: and which speedlimittable has a windmill in the skyline ....


----------



## x-type (Aug 19, 2005)

paF4uko said:


> Hmm... I've been to Croatia every year for the last few years and I've never noticed. Maybe because of the yellow signs you're using for directions on national roads and "brze ceste", I got the impression that all your signs are still on yellow background. :cheers:


only national roads are yellow. expressways are blue. and motorways and main roads were the first which got white signs in 2000. i don't know what you've seen. the changing went pretty fast, i was surprised with it because i expected 5 years of multicolour signs


----------



## Qwert (Jun 25, 2006)

^^It looks like Playboy bunny


----------



## Qwert (Jun 25, 2006)

New Slovak speed limit sign valid since 1st February 2009:










Note we are introducing speed limit 50 km/h in built-up area (now it's 60). Maximal speed of trucks on motorways and expressways increased from 80 to 90 km/h as well as maximal speed of all vehicles on motorways and expressways within built-up area. You must turn your light on during whole year, now it's obligatory only from 15th October to 15th March.


----------



## Sponsor (Mar 19, 2006)

What's the speed limit on single carriageway expressway (R)? Is it really 130 km/h?


----------



## Natomasken (Apr 25, 2008)

mapman:cz said:


> This one is pretty much outdated, now we use these two:


What do the "I" and "II" mean?


----------



## Glodenox (Mar 26, 2007)

There's probably a category I and II organisation in their roads. 

Greetings,
Glodenox


----------



## mapman:cz (Jan 14, 2007)

Natomasken said:


> What do the "I" and "II" mean?


It should represent the fact that there is a toll for trucks on some 1st class roads (national roads) as well. They are signed only with blue numbers and 1 or 2 digits 

It is not very clear though...


----------



## Qwert (Jun 25, 2006)

Sponsor said:


> What's the speed limit on single carriageway expressway (R)? Is it really 130 km/h?


Theoretically yes, but speed is always limited by sign there. Usually it's 100 km/h, but it can be 90 and 110 as well.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

110 with no divided lanes? I think that's the highest in Europe, right? Although Sweden may have some 110 roads too...


----------



## PLH (Mar 9, 2007)

ChrisZwolle said:


> 110 with no divided lanes?


Is it a lot? You should visit us nore often 

Notice that normal roads in Wester and Central Europe differ from each other - we usually have wide shoulder making driving safier. 
I doubt you have such roads in the Netherlands.


----------



## Qwert (Jun 25, 2006)

Sometimes it can be pretty dangerous, mainly on slippery road. But, I guess this guy was driving much faster than 110 since he broke his car into two parts.hno:


----------



## Timon91 (Feb 9, 2008)

We have this important 2-laned roads, especially in the north (N33, N35 for instance). Most of them have Vmax 100 km/h, with a green line as a median, but no shoulders.


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

ChrisZwolle said:


> 110 with no divided lanes? I think that's the highest in Europe, right? Although Sweden may have some 110 roads too...


We used to have such speed limit on the 2-lane expressway/motorroad Maribor - Celje in times of Yugoslavia, when traffic was very light there (it was an exception, b/c the general speed limit on motorroads has always been 100 km/h).

EDIT: Hungarian 2-lane motorroads have speed limit 110 km/h.


----------



## Robosteve (Nov 6, 2008)

Verso said:


> We used to have such speed limit on the 2-lane expressway/motorroad Maribor - Celje in times of Yugoslavia, when traffic was very light there (it was an exception, b/c the general speed limit on motorroads has always been 100 km/h).
> 
> EDIT: Hungarian 2-lane motorroads have speed limit 110 km/h.


In Australia, many rural highways are 2-lane single carriageways with a limit of 110 km/h. The really pathetic thing is, if they were to put a motorway there it would still only be 110 km/h. :bash:


----------



## Michu33 (Jul 30, 2008)

>


Jest wprowadzony od nowego roku hno:


----------



## (HUN)RoGeR (Jan 20, 2008)

Hungary:









Original post


----------



## enschede-er (Oct 28, 2008)

I don't know if this is correct but on Wikipedia it says that Romania has a speed limit on Motorways and Expressways 140 . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_by_country


----------



## PLH (Mar 9, 2007)

^^ No, it's not true, maybe it's because Police catch only >140. That way many countries have higher speed limits.


----------



## 909 (Oct 22, 2003)

enschede-er said:


> I don't know if this is correct but on Wikipedia it says that Romania has a speed limit on Motorways and Expressways 140 . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_by_country


I assume it's a typo(graphical error), according to the same article: _

*Romania*

The speed limit in towns is generally 50 km/h, but on certain streets, depending on traffic, it can go up to 70 km/h for automobiles and motorcycles or as low as 10 km/h for tramways and 30 km/h for automobiles.

*Outside towns, the speed limits are: 130 km/h on and motorways*, 100 km/h on European roads or expressways and 90 km/h on other roads. However, for trucks and buses, the limits are lowered to 110, 90 and 80 km/h respectively, and for certain low weight/power motorcycles and automobiles they are lowered to 90, 80 and 70 km/h respectively. The tractors and vehicles which can travel at 45 km/h at most have a 45 km/h speed limit outside town, although inside cities they are allowed to go with the traffic at 50 km/h.

Overweight automobiles, trucks and buses or those transporting dangerous products have a speed limit of 40 km/h in town and 70 km/h outside towns. Also, drivers with less than one year of experience or learning how to drive must travel outside of town at 20 km/h less than the general speed limit for that road._


----------



## ElviS77 (Aug 3, 2007)

ChrisZwolle said:


> 110 with no divided lanes? I think that's the highest in Europe, right? Although Sweden may have some 110 roads too...


Well, the 2-lane 110 roads in northern Sweden are history pretty soon. As the Swedes have added 40-60-80-100-120 kph limits, non-divided roads will not get limits higher than 100.


----------



## Timon91 (Feb 9, 2008)

(HUN)RoGeR said:


> Hungary:
> 
> http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee119/Verso1/pa191251.jpg
> Original post


Is this the M70?


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

No.  Notice that there's no motorway sign in the other direction (Slovenian A5), so I guess speed limit is 90 km/h until the first 110-km/h sign. :lol:


----------



## Dan (Jun 16, 2007)

Just as I suspected, the fact that the motorway sign no longer means 110, developed area sign 50, etc. means that the speed limit signs technically no longer exist in Sweden.

I emailed Vägverket and they replied:
"Upplysningsmärke vid riksgräns" infördes i vägmärkesförordningen den 1 juni 2007, men redan 1 november 2008 togs det bort igen. Anledningen var bl. a. just det du påpekar, att motorväg inte längre har en enda "bashastighet". Det är ändå möjligt att det kommer att komponeras egna informationsskyltar vid gränsövergångarna."

This is saying that the signs began in June 2007 but were removed as of November 2008 because of the reason mentioned above. He also says however that maybe in the future there will be some kind of information sign at borders.


----------



## ElviS77 (Aug 3, 2007)

Dan said:


> Just as I suspected, the fact that the motorway sign no longer means 110, developed area sign 50, etc. means that the speed limit signs technically no longer exist in Sweden.
> 
> I emailed Vägverket and they replied:
> "Upplysningsmärke vid riksgräns" infördes i vägmärkesförordningen den 1 juni 2007, men redan 1 november 2008 togs det bort igen. Anledningen var bl. a. just det du påpekar, att motorväg inte längre har en enda "bashastighet". Det är ändå möjligt att det kommer att komponeras egna informationsskyltar vid gränsövergångarna."
> ...


Interesting... and somewhat confusing. Most countries have a "base limit" even if they use special limits on dangerous, poor quality or very good sections of road. I think the Swedish problem has been that most rural roads have a limit higher than the base 70, so that 90 (or 110) signposts have been in place anyway. If you'd raised your base limit to 90 (or the "new" 80), things would have been made simpler. Perhaps.


----------



## pijanec (Mar 28, 2007)

Qwert said:


> as well as maximal speed of all vehicles on motorways and expressways within built-up area.


This is unique in Europe. What's the point to have a difference between normal expressways and expressways within built-up area? Wouldn't it be just easier to post speed limit signs if section needs lower limit?


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

pijanec said:


> What's the point to have a difference between normal expressways and expressways within built-up area? Wouldn't it be just easier to post speed limit signs if section needs lower limit?


Noise pollution. Many more people are living along expressways in urban areas, so more of them "suffer" from higher noise levels. (Although it's strange trains can blast at full speed through a town, creating high Lden dB levels.)

Also, if a road is busier, it's better to "calm" traffic somewhat by lower, but not repressive speed limits. Another problem is that urban expressways often have lower design speed limits.


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

^^ He was asking why not just put speed-limit signs instead of that special urban sign.

Otherwise, Belgrade also has this sign, but it doesn't have some general speed limit, but 80-km/h sign beside.


----------



## Jeroen669 (Nov 29, 2006)

909 said:


> However, for trucks and buses, the limits are lowered to 110, 90 and 80 km/h respectively


110 km/h for trucks? That must be about the highest truck limit in europe.


----------



## bozata90 (Dec 8, 2008)

Well, most trucks are electronically limited to 93, and buses to somewhere about 100. So it's impossible to fulfill it technically (if keeping to the EU requirements). Bulgaria has limits for buses and trucks as follows:
bus truck automobile
built-up: 50 50 50
outside town: 80 80 90
motorway: 100 100 130


----------



## pijanec (Mar 28, 2007)

Verso said:


> ^^ He was asking why not just put speed-limit signs instead of that special urban sign.


Yes. Now drivers have to watch out for a sign with village name. Are at least those signs on sides of both lanes in particular direction?


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

^ I doubt any other cities have them but Bratislava and Belgrade, as far as Slovakia and Serbia are concerned.


----------



## Qwert (Jun 25, 2006)

pijanec said:


> This is unique in Europe. What's the point to have a difference between normal expressways and expressways within built-up area? Wouldn't it be just easier to post speed limit signs if section needs lower limit?


Actually, there are signs on merging lines which set 80 km/h speed limit. They are not necessary, but why not. Signs are also on the beginning of the motorway inside municipality.

The signs says Attention (80) Motorway inside municipality:

















This is entrance to Bratislava from Győr and Vienna:








Original picture: http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/2862879.jpg



pijanec said:


> Yes. Now drivers have to watch out for a sign with village name. Are at least those signs on sides of both lanes in particular direction?


Obviously they are on both sides. Nevertheless, you definitely don't have to watch out for a sign indicating you are entering Bratislava. The indication you are approaching the city looks like this and you will notice that for sure:


----------



## wdw35 (Dec 12, 2008)

*Speed limit on the motorway: right or wrong?*

edit


----------



## Robosteve (Nov 6, 2008)

My opinion:

All rural motorways should have recommended speeds posted, but no speed limit. Urban motorways should have speed limits only if absolutely necessary - for instance, to reduce congestion.


----------



## I-275westcoastfl (Feb 15, 2005)

The main reason for speed limits is to make money from speeding fines. There are few places that actually need low speed limits.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

I think there should be speed limits. Only very rural motorways with less than 35,000 vehicles per day could do without one. 

I've seen what no speed limits do on busy freeways, people constantly accelerating from 120 to 180 and forced to break down due to slower people or trucks. It also encourages tailgating. Not everybody is comfortable driving at high speeds, and many cars don't even get high speeds, especially smaller ones and vans often don't reach more than 150 km/h. The lack of speed limits also reduces capacity, the highest capacity will be achieved around 90 km/h.

That said, I think many speed limits can be higher though. 100 km/h in rural areas make no sense, as do 80 limits on freeways in urban areas. 

I've driven extensively in both France and Germany, but I felt way more comfortable in France, because in Germany you always got the feeling you're being pushed when overtaking a couple of trucks at 130 km/h.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

wdw35 said:


> This post was inspired from recent posts in the Belgium thread, about a .de driver being caught doing 246 km/h in .be and being fined 600 euro. Someone said that "[d]epending on when he did that, it could've been extremely dangerous".
> 
> I disagree with that. Going higher speeds on the motorways is not a danger factor. In fact, after having driven in .de, I believe that no speed limit actually encourages drivers to be more responsible, and, more important, MORE ALERT to what happens on the motorway. I believe one of the major factors in motorway accidents is boredom.


Are you kidding? At 250 km/h, one little pothole, or steering correction, and you'll fly into the center divided or ditch. 250 km/h = 70 meters per second. There's absolutely NOTHING safe about that, even not on deserted freeways. More alert at higher speeds, yes, but I think you're talking about speeds between 120 and 140, not 180+.


----------



## Haljackey (Feb 14, 2008)

The speed limit serves no purpose here.

Its posted at 100km/h, but everyone is going at least 115-120. If you do less than 110 you'll probably get rammed! 

IMO the speed system in France works the best. 130 in good conditions, 110 in rain, 80 in hazardous conditions (like a blizzard or something).


----------



## Deadeye Reloaded (Apr 25, 2006)

> I've driven extensively in both France and Germany, but I felt way more comfortable in France, because *in Germany you always got the feeling you're being pushed when overtaking a couple of trucks at 130 km/h*.


It´s not a feeling it´s a fact. :yes: Especially cars with yellow plates make some German drivers mad and they keep pushin´. (Holländer schubsen)

In my opinion every human being should have the right to drive as fast as he wishes (on autobahns).


----------



## wdw35 (Dec 12, 2008)

ChrisZwolle said:


> The lack of speed limits also reduces capacity, the highest capacity will be achieved around 90 km/h.


Ummm... you're wrong.
It's like in the basic flow area equation which states:
Q (m3/s) = v (m/s) * A (m2)
i.e. the flow is equal to speed times flow area section.
Obviously the higher the speed, the higher the capacity.

It's the same in the road capacity problem. Of course, one could say that increasing the speed also increases the mean inter-car distance, which reduces capacity. In a road with good flow and good driver behavior, the inter-car distance increase should be offset by the speed increase when it comes to computing flow.

Capacity of the road increases linearly with the speed of the cars. (Of course, if all drivers go at about the same speed, but this condition is necessary at any speed).


----------



## wdw35 (Dec 12, 2008)

edit


----------



## Glodenox (Mar 26, 2007)

I sort of already thought my post could spark a discussion like this one ^_^;

About capacity: it's a bit unrealistic to think everybody is actually going to drive more than 130 km/h, so you'd end up with accidents due to people driving harder and people driving slower which in the end results in a grave loss of capacity. 

Also, when driving faster you have to keep more distance between the car in front of you, which also results in less capacity.

I do agree with the speed difference depending on the weather conditions. There's only one problem: when exactly do you describe the weather as rainy? Some people say it's rainy when a drop of water falls from the sky, some say it's rainy when water is pouring down the sky. Only with a dynamic display system on the motorway that could become an objective system. Otherwise you'll only get discussions about whether it's rainy or not.

Greetings,
Glodenox


----------



## marki (Nov 23, 2007)

Those complaining about the speed limits in Europe should spare a thought for Australians. The maximum in most rural areas is 100km/h, with far fewer motorways and outback roads at 110km/h (and 130km/h only in the Northern Territory). And every time a speed limit changes, it gets slower. Its true the roads, drivers and vehicles are bad here. But this is in a country that is vast with long driving distances and few people or traffic in remote areas.

Mark.


----------



## Republica (Jun 30, 2005)

Driving on most German autobahns you have the choice of going either slow, or VERY fast, and moving between the two lanes is extremely dangerous. And if you drive at what is considered to be normal in the UK (130-140km/h) you have big mercs and audis up your arse. The autobahns are too busy on the whole to not have speed limits. I think only rural motorways in off peak periods with 3x3 lanes should have no limit.


----------



## Majestic (Jan 22, 2007)

wdw35 said:


> Ummm... you're wrong.
> It's like in the basic flow area equation which states:
> Q (m3/s) = v (m/s) * A (m2)
> i.e. the flow is equal to speed times flow area section.
> ...


Not true. Your model does not include safety issues, like spacing, and human factor. You cannot expect drivers to drive tight with little spacing at 200 km/h! Usually at very high speeds you have to mind greater spacing than at lower speeds, just for the sake of safety. Greater spaces means that you can squeeze less cars on the given stretch thus reducing capacity.

Another thing. Think of emergency braking. At higher speeds you are going to expect much more of that than at consistent but lower ones. Now when one driver just brake a little bit, another driver behind him is going to brake even harder, the same for all the drivers behind him. This will cause a chain reaction which will make cars decelerate drastically or even make them stop and create a jam. With lower speeds, driving is more predictable, which means less braking and more consistent flow of the highway.

Besides, there were several scientifical surveys carried out which revealed that optimal capacity is at around 80-90 km/h, as Chris mentioned.


----------



## Robosteve (Nov 6, 2008)

carewser said:


> ^they probably need to remind Americans because most Americans probably can't believe how slow we have to drive here.
> 
> I've never seen a speed limit higher than 110km/h (about 65 mph) anywhere in Canada and it's a joke, especially in the prairies where the limit should be 150km/h but as long as the government keeps convincing everyone it's about safety (which is bullshit), we will all keep driving too slowly.


We have exactly the same problem here. One catch phrase the government here likes to repeat in its propaganda is "Safe speeding. There's no such thing." Apparently this is considered a better solution to road-related fatalities than teaching new drivers how to handle a vehicle properly at high speed - it's amazing how many people here will tailgate even at speeds over 120 km/h.



carewser said:


> Robosteve, I would love to see a highway in Sydney (or anywhere) that has a speed limit of 30 km/h.


Oh, it's not a highway, it's a street with two bus lanes (one each way) and one all-purpose lane (one way only). I had just stated before that urban streets and such have 50 km/h limits, and then remembered that there are a few streets with lower speed limits, that's why I mentioned it.


----------



## Wover (Feb 23, 2009)

ChrisZwolle said:


> The first one should read "Motorways", and the second one "Expressways".
> 
> The word "Highways" is very trivial and can mean anything that's a public road, and is certainly not restricted to motorways only.


Hmm, well it's just difficult to translate:

- Autosnelwegen: max 120, min 70
- Autowegen: adaptive speed limit: 120 when 2 * 2 and divided by a concrete wall, 90 when 2*1, 50 in a centre (they exist). Tractors, cyclers and so on are not allowed on these roads and there are no intersections.
- Other roads: 90 (allthough thanks to great usage of space most roads have houses aside them, so the speed limit drops to 70 or 50).
- City centres (bebouwde kom): 50 (allthough a lot of city centres are 30)

Expressways can also be normal roads with a default 90 speed limit and intersections...


----------



## Timon91 (Feb 9, 2008)

Where do you have 70 as Vmax on a motorway. That is extremely low.

As for the Netherlands:
- within the city/town limits, mostly 50, sometimes 30
- main roads within the city/town limit, 70 or 80
- local roads between towns, 60 or 80


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

> - main roads within the city/town limit, 70 or 80


Never 80 within city limits.


----------



## Timon91 (Feb 9, 2008)

At least it used to. The Gooiseweg in Amsterdam used to be 80, but they switched back to 70 a few years ago because the road in a very bad state.


----------



## superalbanian (Mar 12, 2009)

I think the max speed limit should be 140 kmph... Anymore is going to serious danger.. I have expirienced German roads myself.


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

depend on your car. at 250 kph in supercars you have a very good handling...


----------



## Robosteve (Nov 6, 2008)

superalbanian said:


> I think the max speed limit should be 140 kmph... Anymore is going to serious danger.. I have expirienced German roads myself.


I don't agree. Personally, I would not drive more than 140 km/h or so anyway. The other day, I reached 145 on the F6, realised I was going a bit too fast for comfort, and dropped back to about 135. But that's just knowing your limits; I'm sure there are people who could handle a car quite comfortably at 180. I don't think it's the government's place to tell people how fast they can drive, but to teach them how to properly judge how fast they can drive.


----------



## PLH (Mar 9, 2007)

Let's face it - it's up to the quality of driving training that determines how fast can you drive. 

A couple of my friends have spend some tine in USA and they know how it looks like -very poor standards compared to Europe. 

I suppose people from every European country and not only Germany will handle their car up to 200 km/h, it's depends only whether they stick to limits or no.

The biggest problem is weather - it's OK do speed on a sunny day, but not during rain or snow, which is sadly very common, and creates a bad image of speeding in every conditions, which is not true, cause our nation would die out long ago


----------



## deranged (Jan 22, 2009)

Queensland, Australia:

RURAL AREAS:

Motorways - 100-110 km/h (usually 110)
Other highways - 100 km/h
Default speed limit - 100 km/h
(Lower limits apply where necessary.)

BUILT-UP AREAS:

Motorways - 80-110 km/h (usually 90-100)
Arterial roads - 60-80 km/h (usually 60-70)
Local streets - 40-50 km/h (vast majority 50)
Default speed limit - 50 km/h
School zones - 40 km/h

BRISBANE CBD (ie. city centre only):

Motorways - 60-80 km/h
Major streets - 60 km/h
Minor streets - presently 50-60 km/h, to be lowered to 40km/h
Default speed limit - 50 km/h

The default speed limit applies when the speed limit is not explicitly signed.


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

It's funny to see people saying 120 km/h (75 mph) is fast. 

Anyway, for Slovenia:
- motorways/freeways: 130 km/h (80 mph)
- expressways/motorroads: 100 km/h (62 mph)
- ordinary roads outside built-up areas: 90 km/h (55 mph)
- ordinary roads inside built-up areas: 50 km/h (31 mph), max. 70 km/h (43 mph)


----------



## carewser (Mar 12, 2005)

Robosteve said:


> Oh, it's not a highway, it's a street with two bus lanes (one each way) and one all-purpose lane (one way only). I had just stated before that urban streets and such have 50 km/h limits, and then remembered that there are a few streets with lower speed limits, that's why I mentioned it.


I guess you lost sight of the topic-_Highway_ Speed Limits.

You also said, "I don't think it's the government's place to tell people how fast they can drive, but to teach them how to properly judge how fast they can drive."

Here here! kay:


Someone driving a Porsche on a sunny afternoon should not be treated the same as a trucker driving overnight in a foggy snowstorm. One size does _not_ fit all. Some people have the vehicle, experience and conditions to prove what a joke speed limits are.


----------



## RipleyLV (Jun 4, 2008)

Latvia:

Main roads outside populated areas: 90 km/h 
Main roads inside populated areas: 50 km/h


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

superalbanian said:


> I would like to know your highway Speed Limits in your country!


In Denmark:

130km/h on freeways with 110km/h in congested urban areas


----------



## ManRegio (Jul 6, 2005)

urbanfan89 said:


> Generally in Canada:
> 
> Expressways usually 100, but can be 100 or 90.
> 
> ...


In Mexico is kind of similar. Highways can be from 90 to 120 km/h. I've never seen a speed limit greater than 120 in Highways on rural areas. In Urban Areas depends on the State, but usually in freeways the speed limit is from 70 to 80 km/h.

On Main Roads other than Freeways, the usually speed limit is 50km/h, in Neighborhood areas the speed limit is 40km/h. On a road that crosses a zone that is nearby a School, in that point the speed limit is 30km/h.


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

carewser said:


> Here here! kay:


He*ar* he*ar*.


----------



## Escher (Jan 17, 2005)

*Brazil*

120 - Motorways
110 - Double Carriageways
80-110 - Highways


----------



## superalbanian (Mar 12, 2009)

I hope in Kosovo on the new motorway they will be building and also other motorways connecting FYROM with Montenegro they will have a speed limit of at least 130km/h but I doubt it will happen! Shame! I also agree with minimum speed limits too... You cannot have somebody driving at 130 and someone else driving at 40 km/h.


----------



## superalbanian (Mar 12, 2009)

Wohoo! I have just discovered Kosovo motorways will be 130km/h!!! Here is where I found it!










Neni 56.

56.1 : The greatest speed allowed within urban areas is 50 km/h unless otherwise shown differently.

Neni 57.

Outside urban areas, drivers may not achieve speeds higher than:-

A) Motorways 130 km/h

B) On roads reserved by motor vehicles (Expressways I think) 110 km/h.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Well, 120 and 130 are the most common motorway speed limits in Europe, so it's not that much surprising


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

Robosteve said:


> Hahaha, maybe that small text says "unless signed otherwise" or something? It's too blurry to read it.


Oh maybe, I didn't think of that.



superalbanian said:


> Its something I would love to do before the end of me.


'before the end of me' :laugh:


----------



## invincible (Sep 13, 2002)




----------



## Muttie (Aug 16, 2007)

invincible said:


>


Madness, doesnt seem to be a very safe speed....


----------



## ElviS77 (Aug 3, 2007)

Muttie said:


> Madness, doesnt seem to be a very safe speed....


Agreed. That's just insane. Hopefully, the AADT is close to zero.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

100 would be okay for that road  (judging from the picture).


----------



## Jeroen669 (Nov 29, 2006)

Muttie said:


> Madness, doesnt seem to be a very safe speed....


Just one picture doesn't say too much whether the limit is safe or not. And even if it's not: you're not obligated to drive that speed, you need to adjust your speed to the road conditions...


----------



## ElviS77 (Aug 3, 2007)

Jeroen669 said:


> Just one picture doesn't say too much whether the limit is safe or not. And even if it's not: you're not obligated to drive that speed, you need to adjust your speed to the road conditions...


Sure, but on a undivided road, a limit above 70 kph is really questionable, safety-wise. It's a question of simple physics. Still, I know that 70 as an absolute limit is out of the question, and not even something I'd like to see. 80 is fine, 90 ok in certain areas, and I'm even willing to accept the sensibility of 100 kph zones on particularly good and safe roads. The road on the picture, however, though wide and straight, seems to have both a junction and exits, which are very good reasons for a lower limit.


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

ElviS77 said:


> Sure, but on a undivided road, a limit above 70 kph is really questionable, safety-wise.


:rofl: You realize that 70 km/h is incredibly slow, if the road is good? Speed limit on Hungarian M70, f.e., is 110 km/h, but I drove 130-140 km/h, and it was totally safe. Why would I crash?


----------



## ZZ-II (May 10, 2006)

:lol:, 70km/h....

look at this road ( it isn't that bad as it looks, it's only zoomed ):










and on this pic taken by my buddy:










top speed arround 160km/h, and save....


----------



## ElviS77 (Aug 3, 2007)

Verso said:


> :rofl: You realize that 70 km/h is incredibly slow, if the road is good? Speed limit on Hungarian M70, f.e., is 110 km/h, but I drove 130-140 km/h, and it was totally safe. Why would I crash?


Yes, why would you...? Why, in fact, does anyone crash, and why are high-speed, quality 2-lane undivided highways/expressways especially prone to serious incidents? The answer is very simple. Speed, in various guises:

First, because 70 kph is about as fast you can go if you want to survive a head-on in a modern car. Second, because you're travelling about 30 metres every second at 100 kph, and thus, even if you're equipped with formula one-drivers' reflexes, you will have gone 10 or 15 metres even before your body will consider the possibility of braking. Third, because breaking length increases four times when speed doubles. 

This is, of course, not much of a problem as long as nothing out of the ordinary happens. But since driving is infinitely complicated, sometimes these things happen. For all sorts of reasons: a drunk-driver veering across the road, a pick-up which has an explosive puncture, an 18-year old not experienced enough to realise the hazards of aquaplaning, an irate Audi driver overtaking recklessly, a deer in the roadway, debris which has fallen off a trailer blocking one lane, a tired driver falling asleep at the wheel, a slow-moving heavily laden lorry... Plus many other more or less dramatic events. We, the super drivers of Skyscrapercity don't make these, of course, but nonetheless, they happen all the time, everywhere, and we may be forced to deal with them.

And that's where speed plays its most dramatic part. If you're just about able to stop for an obstruction, a child running into the road or a deer whilst doing 50 kph, you'd be plowing through doing between 35 and 40 if you'd started out at 60. This is simple physics, and the faster you go, the more profound this effect becomes. Another piece of simple physics is the sentripetal forces, which makes any car more difficult to steer and control the faster you go and any emergency maneuovre equally more difficult to execute. 

As I said, I know that 70 is exceptionally slow, and thus, not even the safety-conscious people of the Norwegian road administration has proposed such a limit. But I do believe that if you're going to singpost an undivided road with a higher speed than 80 or 90, make sure the AADT is really, really low. Unless you're out to promote serious road accidents, that is...


----------



## ElviS77 (Aug 3, 2007)

ZZ-II said:


> :lol:, 70km/h....
> 
> look at this road ( it isn't that bad as it looks, it's only zoomed ):
> 
> ...


And if the guy in the car coming in the other direction had a heart attack, you'd both be dead. If you'd both done 70 or thereabouts, at least you'd live. Again, I'm absolutely not in favour of imposing a general 70 kph limit, but the more responses I read, the more sense it makes...


----------



## Jeroen669 (Nov 29, 2006)

@ElviS77: there are so many other things that have so much more influence on road safety than just speed. Number of (at-level) junctions, number of lanes, size of the lanes, trees, etc.

I also think you underestimate the UNsafety of too low speed limits. People who are driving too slow drive often less actively than someone who drives a reasonable speed. You'll get much easier distracted doing 70km/h on a road like on the pictures above...


----------



## ElviS77 (Aug 3, 2007)

Jeroen669 said:


> @ElviS77: there are so many other things that have so much more influence on road safety than just speed. Number of (at-level) junctions, number of lanes, size of the lanes, trees, etc.


True. But as long as we're talking about roads with two-way traffic and no central divider, the be-all, end-all measuring stick of safety is head-on crashes. And you won't survive those at more than 70, no matter what kind of car you're driving. That's my main point. I'm also saying that the faster you go, the more difficult it is to avoid incidents and consequences of any mishap are more serious. You can make reasonably safe 2-lane roads with a 80 or 90 limit (but you still accept that fatalities will occur), any higher than that is only safe-ish with very low traffic volumes. These are scientific facts, not arguments.



Jeroen669 said:


> I also think you underestimate the UNsafety of too low speed limits. People who are driving too slow drive often less actively than someone who drives a reasonable speed. You'll get much easier distracted doing 70km/h on a road like on the pictures above...


It's remotely possible you're right, but you won't kill the ones you hit, at least. And again, the science is simple. Even if you're a bit less focused, the fact that you have more time to deal with any incident with a car that responds faster and is far easier to handle, will 99 times out of a 100 make up for any lapse in concentration. The belief in increased driver competence at speed never ceases to amaze me... A short anecdote: A friend of a friend of mine ended up in a ditch with his fancy car. Luckily, it was proper Norwegian winter conditions, and both the car and the man survived reasonably unscathed. His excuse? "I was in complete control all the way... until I suddenly was off." Your arguments mirror his.

Again: I don't think 70 is realistic, even though the Swedish "Zero Killed Vision" project state that to make the vision happen, no undivided road should have a higher limit. At the same time, they advocate for more central barriers or motorways. I support this wholeheartedly. Safer roads are essential, but unfortunately, drivers' attitudes are part of the problem. Everyone wants the government to fund and build roads, but when they want to impose laws and controls, the very same people get ticked off. Quite amazing, really, particularly when you compare with the same public's attitude to rail or air safety. There, noone accepts a single mistake, and even the sub-1000 annual air crash fatalities worldwide (few of which occur in developed countries) are considered too many. The same goes for rail. On the roads, any attempt to reduce fatalities which is also seen as limiting driver freedom is frowned upon (even seat belts have been a problem...). The result? 250 dead each year... in Norway alone. Put the Scandinavian countries together, and you "outclass" global air travel. 

As I've said before, I think we need to accept certain restrictions. Not just because of safety concerns, but in order to avoid harsher legislation which will remove all driver freedom. The technology is there.


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

2×70 = 140 km/h. If two cars crash frontally, you're dead by 140 km/h. 70 km/h is way too slow for the road I posted. Minimum should be 100 km/h.

(sorry, I'm not into long posts )


----------



## deranged (Jan 22, 2009)

Verso said:


> (sorry, I'm not into long posts )


In that case, you won't like what's coming... 



ElviS77 said:


> First, because 70 kph is about as fast you can go if you want to survive a head-on in a modern car.


Really? I would have thought it would be lower than that. Or do you mean that 70km/h is as fast as you can go if you want a sufficient reaction time to reduce the effects of a head-on collision?



ElviS77 said:


> Second, because you're travelling about 30 metres every second at 100 kph, and thus, even if you're equipped with formula one-drivers' reflexes, you will have gone 10 or 15 metres even before your body will consider the possibility of braking. Third, because breaking length increases four times when speed doubles.


I know.



ElviS77 said:


> And that's where speed plays its most dramatic part. If you're just about able to stop for an obstruction, a child running into the road or a deer whilst doing 50 kph, you'd be plowing through doing between 35 and 40 if you'd started out at 60. This is simple physics, and the faster you go, the more profound this effect becomes. Another piece of simple physics is the sentripetal forces, which makes any car more difficult to steer and control the faster you go and any emergency maneuovre equally more difficult to execute.





ElviS77 said:


> This is, of course, not much of a problem as long as nothing out of the ordinary happens. But since driving is infinitely complicated, sometimes these things happen. For all sorts of reasons: a drunk-driver veering across the road, a pick-up which has an explosive puncture, an 18-year old not experienced enough to realise the hazards of aquaplaning, an irate Audi driver overtaking recklessly, a deer in the roadway, debris which has fallen off a trailer blocking one lane, (...) a slow-moving heavily laden lorry... Plus many other more or less dramatic events. We, the super drivers of Skyscrapercity don't make these, of course, but nonetheless, they happen all the time, everywhere, and we may be forced to deal with them.


This does not support your point. You will be more effectively able to react to these incidents at 40km/h than at 70km/h, and you will be more effectively able to react to these incidents at 100km/h than at 130km/h. Setting speed limits is not about minimising fatalities (for which 0km/h is the end goal), it is a tradeoff between safety and transportation efficiency. I know that you realise this, given that you do not support a 70km/h speed limit but instead believe "80 is fine, 90 ok in certain areas", but it doesn't justify _why _you believe that.



ElviS77 said:


> a tired driver falling asleep at the wheel


Why do you think many of them became fatigued and/or fell asleep? Gee, it wouldn't have anything to do with the artificially low speed limit and 50% longer journey time (at 70), would it...



ElviS77 said:


> But I do believe that if you're going to singpost an undivided road with a higher speed than 80 or 90, make sure the AADT is really, really low.


That's just hyperbole.



ElviS77 said:


> Unless you're out to promote serious road accidents, that is...


I'm not out to promote serious road accidents - why, just the other day, I was driving at 230km/h on the wrong side of a residential street with a BAC of 0.19 while talking on my mobile phone and trying to shave in the rear-view mirror. But the car had a bumper sticker which read "back off", so I was doing my bit to promote safety by discouraging tailgating.



ElviS77 said:


> True. But as long as we're talking about roads with two-way traffic and no central divider, the be-all, end-all measuring stick of safety is head-on crashes. And you won't survive those at more than 70, no matter what kind of car you're driving. That's my main point. I'm also saying that the faster you go, the more difficult it is to avoid incidents and consequences of any mishap are more serious.


That's only necessarily true when inattention and fatigue are held constant.



ElviS77 said:


> You can make reasonably safe 2-lane roads with a 80 or 90 limit (but you still accept that fatalities will occur), any higher than that is only safe-ish with very low traffic volumes. These are scientific facts, not arguments.


But if that's the case, you have to back them up.

Anyway, since we're talking about 70km/h again:



ElviS77 said:


> It's remotely possible you're right,


"Remotely possible" indeed...



ElviS77 said:


> but you won't kill the ones you hit, at least.


If you're more likely to be distracted at 70km/h than at 100km/h:
(1) Your reaction time will be worse than an alert driver at 70km/h;
(2) You are more likely to brake from 100km/h;
(3) If you encounter an extraordinary event (such as a deer or a veering drink-driver), your reaction time _on average _may be worse than at 100km/h, given that you are more likely to be distracted.



ElviS77 said:


> And again, the science is simple. Even if you're a bit less focused,


"Bit less focused"? We're talking about 70 vs 100 here, not 90 vs 100.



ElviS77 said:


> the fact that you have more time to deal with any incident with a car that responds faster and is far easier to handle,


So why not a speed limit of 40km/h?



ElviS77 said:


> will 99 times out of a 100 make up for any lapse in concentration.


More hyperbole.



ElviS77 said:


> The belief in increased driver competence at speed never ceases to amaze me... A short anecdote: A friend of a friend of mine ended up in a ditch with his fancy car. Luckily, it was proper Norwegian winter conditions, and both the car and the man survived reasonably unscathed. His excuse? "I was in complete control all the way... until I suddenly was off."


So?



ElviS77 said:


> Safer roads are essential, but unfortunately, drivers' attitudes are part of the problem. Everyone wants the government to fund and build roads, but when they want to impose laws and controls, the very same people get ticked off.


Depends on whether the laws and controls are reasonable and justified.



ElviS77 said:


> Quite amazing, really, particularly when you compare with the same public's attitude to rail or air safety. There, noone accepts a single mistake, and even the sub-1000 annual air crash fatalities worldwide (few of which occur in developed countries) are considered too many. The same goes for rail.


Irrelevant. You're comparing apples with oranges.

(In any case, most people realise that mistakes can happen. But more importantly, in rail and air travel those "single mistakes" can often _each _be responsible for dozens or hundreds of deaths.)



ElviS77 said:


> On the roads, any attempt to reduce fatalities which is also seen as limiting driver freedom is frowned upon (even seat belts have been a problem...). The result? 250 dead each year... in Norway alone.


I don't know about the Norwegian situation, but this doesn't look like a rational argument.


----------



## ElviS77 (Aug 3, 2007)

Verso said:


> 2×70 = 140 km/h. If two cars crash frontally, you're dead by 140 km/h. 70 km/h is way too slow for the road I posted. Minimum should be 100 km/h.
> 
> (sorry, I'm not into long posts )


Actually, no. According to Swedish research, the energy involved in a 70 kph head-on collision is survivable... just. Which would be the short answer.


----------



## ElviS77 (Aug 3, 2007)

deranged said:


> Really? I would have thought it would be lower than that. Or do you mean that 70km/h is as fast as you can go if you want a sufficient reaction time to reduce the effects of a head-on collision?


See above.



deranged said:


> This does not support your point. You will be more effectively able to react to these incidents at 40km/h than at 70km/h, and you will be more effectively able to react to these incidents at 100km/h than at 130km/h. Setting speed limits is not about minimising fatalities (for which 0km/h is the end goal), it is a tradeoff between safety and transportation efficiency. I know that you realise this, given that you do not support a 70km/h speed limit but instead believe "80 is fine, 90 ok in certain areas", but it doesn't justify _why _you believe that.


Speed limits are most certainly a trade-off, but if the aim is zero dead, they shouldn't and can't be. The reason why I accept 80-100 kph limits is simple: 70 won't happen. Double standards perhaps, but since 80 is far safer than 110, I'll take that any day.



deranged said:


> Why do you think many of them became fatigued and/or fell asleep? Gee, it wouldn't have anything to do with the artificially low speed limit and 50% longer journey time (at 70), would it...


Lower limits does not justify not making responsible choices regarding your own driving. BTW, a Norwegian study showed that virtually everyone who fell asleep whilst driving did so on short trips or quite early on.



deranged said:


> I'm not out to promote serious road accidents - why, just the other day, I was driving at 230km/h on the wrong side of a residential street with a BAC of 0.19 while talking on my mobile phone and trying to shave in the rear-view mirror. But the car had a bumper sticker which read "back off", so I was doing my bit to promote safety by discouraging tailgating.


Well, your position is one that in reality accepts thousands of dead each year, so the consequence is just that. Even when not doing as stated above.



deranged said:


> If you're more likely to be distracted at 70km/h than at 100km/h:
> (1) Your reaction time will be worse than an alert driver at 70km/h;
> (2) You are more likely to brake from 100km/h;
> (3) If you encounter an extraordinary event (such as a deer or a veering drink-driver), your reaction time _on average _may be worse than at 100km/h, given that you are more likely to be distracted.


In most cases, no. There is no difference, that's why a 70 kph road where drivers obey the limit (because of police presence, speed cameras, attitude etc) is far safer than a similar road with 100 kph. Accident rates dropped by 15% on Norwegian roads where the limit was reduced from 80 to 70 (about 10% of the road network, I believe).



deranged said:


> So why not a speed limit of 40km/h?


Because 70 is survivable. But of course, a 40-50 rural limit, with 30 in towns and walking speed in residential areas with GPS tracking systems is the only way to avoid serious injuries. As of now, not realistic, and hopefully both drivers and authorities make choices so that it never will be either.



deranged said:


> More hyperbole.


I prefer arguments to mediocre literary critique.



deranged said:


> Depends on whether the laws and controls are reasonable and justified.


What better justification can you get than saving lives?



deranged said:


> Irrelevant. You're comparing apples with oranges.


The same apples and oranges people are very fond of comparing regarding i.e. effective transport systems and environmental issues. So an irrelevant comparison when it comes to safety? I think not.



deranged said:


> (In any case, most people realise that mistakes can happen. But more importantly, in rail and air travel those "single mistakes" can often _each _be responsible for dozens or hundreds of deaths.)


Yes. But neither governments nor the public accept air or rail crashes. The stated objective is no dead, and people found responsible for negligence when a crash happens are likely to face criminal charges. And, as I said already: Yes, a single plain crash may claim 100+ lives... which is about the same as roads in Germany kill in a week. Globally, air travel takes about 800 lives a year. Roads kill hundreds of thousands. And why? Because too many people accept it as an unavoidable consequence of individual mobility. 



deranged said:


> I don't know about the Norwegian situation, but this doesn't look like a rational argument.


Why not? If you don't feel like debating, fair enough, but then I can't really see the point of commenting my arguments.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E (Oct 26, 2007)

ElviS77 said:


> Actually, no. According to Swedish research, the energy involved in a 70 kph head-on collision is survivable... just. Which would be the short answer.


Although this in theory probably is true (if, and only if, the two vehicles in question have similar weight), there are a few other issues that in my opinion makes the wiseness of 70 km/h limits questionable.

1. Some people actually (think) they obey the 70 km/h rule. That is, they assure that they speedometer always is below the posted limits which usually means that their real speed is at least 10 % below. Other people (in my experience most) don't think that the new limits do make any sense, and drive more or less as before. Hence, the speed differences between vehicles, and amount of reckless passing, in my experience have increased in zones with 70 km/h. As far as I remember the average speed decrease was only 3-4 km/h after the new limits were introduced.

2. Unfortunately, it is also my experience that some people due to the new limits lose confindence to the speed limit system altogether, and starts to drive correspondingly faster on other roads as well. Hence the possible safety gain on high traffic 70 km/h roads may be eaten up by higher speed at other roads. This may explain why the accident rates in Norway has not developed as positively as in many other countries lately (although they are still on a very low level). It is quite strange to observe that the speed on for instance Norwegian and (northern) Italian motorways are quite similar, although the speed limit in Italy is 30 km/h higher (and the fines in Norway are extremely high, and the licence is lost already at 35 km/h (if I remember right) above the posted speed limit)

3. If my memory serves me right, I also I read somewhere that the Norwegian road authorities admitted that the accident rate actually was higher after reducing the speed, although they maintained that the number of fatalities decreased.

4. Also low speed limits have a cost, in terms of a less efficient society/economy. Although its effect is more indirect than road fatalities, it is not neccessarily less serious. A less effective economy means less welfare, and for instance makes it more difficult to maintain good health care. This is a factor that is seldom discussed publicly.

Having said that, I think Elvis77 was one of the most sensible participants in the debate above. I have not been in NT, but 130 km/h across a hilltop does not look very smart, although the AADT up there is usually really, really low. In NSW, at least, I found it more puzzling that they actually had 70 km/h on some urban Sydney streets, with parked cars, driveways, and sidewalks, wheras their motorway speed limits were comparably quite low (110 km/h).


----------



## deranged (Jan 22, 2009)

ElviS77 said:


> See above.


Ok.



ElviS77 said:


> The reason why I accept 80-100 kph limits is simple: 70 won't happen. Double standards perhaps, but since 80 is far safer than 110, I'll take that any day.


I see.



ElviS77 said:


> Lower limits does not justify not making responsible choices regarding your own driving.


I know, but speed limits can influence attitudes towards driving and driving behaviour.



ElviS77 said:


> BTW, a Norwegian study showed that virtually everyone who fell asleep whilst driving did so on short trips or quite early on.


Ok, but the point is not only about falling asleep, it's also about fatigue and alertness.



ElviS77 said:


> Well, your position is one that in reality accepts thousands of dead each year, so the consequence is just that.


Can you demonstrate that having very few 100km/h zones will save thousands of lives each year?



ElviS77 said:


> In most cases, no. There is no difference, that's why a 70 kph road where drivers obey the limit (because of police presence, speed cameras, attitude etc) is far safer than a similar road with 100 kph. Accident rates dropped by 15% on Norwegian roads where the limit was reduced from 80 to 70 (about 10% of the road network, I believe).


But that is the difference between 70 and 80. You can't extrapolate that to the difference between 70 and 100 and assume everything else to be constant.



ElviS77 said:


> I prefer arguments to mediocre literary critique.


Still doesn't change the fact that it was hyperbole, not a serious argument.



ElviS77 said:


> What better justification can you get than saving lives?


You've already made it clear by supporting 80-90km/h that a promise of "saving lives" is not a justification for all and sundry, whatever the costs. As I said, if the laws are reasonable and justified, there is no problem.



ElviS77 said:


> The same apples and oranges people are very fond of comparing regarding i.e. effective transport systems and environmental issues. So an irrelevant comparison when it comes to safety? I think not.


But who cares whether apples and oranges comparisons are made elsewhere? It's not as though escalators are comparable...



ElviS77 said:


> Yes. But neither governments nor the public accept air or rail crashes. The stated objective is no dead, and people found responsible for negligence when a crash happens are likely to face criminal charges. And, as I said already: Yes, a single plain crash may claim 100+ lives... which is about the same as roads in Germany kill in a week.


Yes, but as I said, I'm talking about the consequence of _each _mistake, hence the different acceptance and penalties.



ElviS77 said:


> Globally, air travel takes about 800 lives a year. Roads kill hundreds of thousands. And why? Because too many people accept it as an unavoidable consequence of individual mobility.


Yes, to an extent, that's true.



ElviS77 said:


> Why not? If you don't feel like debating, fair enough, but then I can't really see the point of commenting my arguments.


Because it read like a vague generalisation. If you elaborate upon it, then fair enough.


----------



## ElviS77 (Aug 3, 2007)

54°26′S 3°24′E;34035218 said:


> Although this in theory probably is true (if, and only if, the two vehicles in question have similar weight), there are a few other issues that in my opinion makes the wiseness of 70 km/h limits questionable.).


Yes, it is a theoretical issue, but I think a theoretical study concerning how to get no road fatalities is long overdue.



54°26′S 3°24′E;34035218 said:


> 1. Some people actually (think) they obey the 70 km/h rule. That is, they assure that they speedometer always is below the posted limits which usually means that their real speed is at least 10 % below. Other people (in my experience most) don't think that the new limits do make any sense, and drive more or less as before. Hence, the speed differences between vehicles, and amount of reckless passing, in my experience have increased in zones with 70 km/h. As far as I remember the average speed decrease was only 3-4 km/h after the new limits were introduced.


Again, I don't think a 70 kph limit everywhere there isn't a central barrier is realistic, at least not yet, and it's just as important with alert drivers in 70 zones as anywhere else. 



54°26′S 3°24′E;34035218 said:


> 2. Unfortunately, it is also my experience that some people due to the new limits lose confindence to the speed limit system altogether, and starts to drive correspondingly faster on other roads as well. Hence the possible safety gain on high traffic 70 km/h roads may be eaten up by higher speed at other roads. This may explain why the accident rates in Norway has not developed as positively as in many other countries lately (although they are still on a very low level). It is quite strange to observe that the speed on for instance Norwegian and (northern) Italian motorways are quite similar, although the speed limit in Italy is 30 km/h higher (and the fines in Norway are extremely high, and the licence is lost already at 35 km/h (if I remember right) above the posted speed limit)).


41 above on motorways. Interestingly enough, the 30-year trend of reduced road deaths has come to an end in many countries with low fatality rates. Many explanations have been proposed, the most common is related to the perceived and real safety of modern cars. People drive faster because the cars are safer but also easier to drive at higher speeds. 



54°26′S 3°24′E;34035218 said:


> 3. If my memory serves me right, I also I read somewhere that the Norwegian road authorities admitted that the accident rate actually was higher after reducing the speed, although they maintained that the number of fatalities decreased.)


I do believe that was related to the 90 to 80 reduction, not the 80 to 70. But I might be very wrong... Besides, my main point concerns "zero dead", and holds still.



54°26′S 3°24′E;34035218 said:


> 4. Also low speed limits have a cost, in terms of a less efficient society/economy. Although its effect is more indirect than road fatalities, it is not neccessarily less serious. A less effective economy means less welfare, and for instance makes it more difficult to maintain good health care. This is a factor that is seldom discussed publicly.)


Certainly, and that's one of the reasons for maintaining higher limits, even when politicians and public alike know fatalities will occur as a result. The main problem, though, is the fact that the regular driver never thinks anything can happen to him or her. That makes us reluctant to accept any government interference in our freedom to move, even when it's very sensible (seatbelt laws, for instance). The tide may be turning, because in the security-craze that's been with us since 11 Sep, 2001, virtually anything goes... We may very soon face far stricter laws than simply reduced speed limits and a speed camera or two.



54°26′S 3°24′E;34035218 said:


> Having said that, I think Elvis77 was one of the most sensible participants in the debate above. I have not been in NT, but 130 km/h across a hilltop does not look very smart, although the AADT up there is usually really, really low. In NSW, at least, I found it more puzzling that they actually had 70 km/h on some urban Sydney streets, with parked cars, driveways, and sidewalks, wheras their motorway speed limits were comparably quite low (110 km/h).


Yes, I think it's important that limits actually reflect road safety. Denmark has one of the better systems, I think, 50 urban, 80 rural, 130 on motorways.


----------



## ElviS77 (Aug 3, 2007)

deranged said:


> I know, but speed limits can influence attitudes towards driving and driving behaviour.


Yes. Your point being?



deranged said:


> Ok, but the point is not only about falling asleep, it's also about fatigue and alertness.


The argument that people doing 100/110/120 are more alert than those doing 60/70/80 is very old and very popular among speed enthusiasts. There isn't a single study which supports this claim, though. It is merely an opinion.



deranged said:


> Can you demonstrate that having very few 100km/h zones will save thousands of lives each year?


As a start: Compare Dutch and German accident rates, for instance.



deranged said:


> But that is the difference between 70 and 80. You can't extrapolate that to the difference between 70 and 100 and assume everything else to be constant.


No, the advantage will most likely increase expotentially, given that the limits are observed, police precense remain constant and the road is maintained the same way.



deranged said:


> Still doesn't change the fact that it was hyperbole, not a serious argument..


Either comment on the argument or leave it alone. 



deranged said:


> You've already made it clear by supporting 80-90km/h that a promise of "saving lives" is not a justification for all and sundry, whatever the costs. As I said, if the laws are reasonable and justified, there is no problem..


Huh?



deranged said:


> But who cares whether apples and oranges comparisons are made elsewhere? It's not as though escalators are comparable...


Sure they are, in certain ways. But not as comparable as road, rail and air transport. And, once more, my main concern in this thread is how to make roads safer and to start thinking differently regarding road fatalities. They aren't necessarily just a tragic, but unavoidable, consequence of individual mobility.



deranged said:


> Yes, but as I said, I'm talking about the consequence of _each _mistake, hence the different acceptance and penalties.


Your point, regarding my point, being?



deranged said:


> Yes, to an extent, that's true.


Which I think is an approach worth changing. And you can rest assured, the worst alternative to high, unregulated speed limits isn't lower limits, safer road construction and a greater police precence...



deranged said:


> Because it read like a vague generalisation. If you elaborate upon it, then fair enough.


Again, either evaluate and comment on the argument or leave it alone. According to you, "but I do believe that if you're going to singpost an undivided road with a higher speed than 80 or 90, make sure the AADT is really, really low" is hyperbole. Which it isn't. It's my actual opinion, like it or not. Furthermore, "the fact that you have more time to deal with any incident with a car that responds faster and is far easier to handle, will 99 times out of a 100 make up for any lapse in concentration." is apparently also hyperbole. It may be so, but why not comment on the content? Finally, "on the roads, any attempt to reduce fatalities which is also seen as limiting driver freedom is frowned upon (even seat belts have been a problem...). The result? 250 dead each year... in Norway alone" is apparently not a rational argument. Why not? Both points I've made are factual, both deal with traffic safety. Feel free to dismiss my points, but try to avoid the simplest rhetoric, at least...


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

ElviS77, have you driven on a straight, wide road like the one I posted? Even better, imagine there are hard- instead of soft shoulders, and tell me what speed limit you'd sign there.


----------



## deranged (Jan 22, 2009)

ElviS77 said:


> The argument that people doing 100/110/120 are more alert than those doing 60/70/80 is very old and very popular among speed enthusiasts. There isn't a single study which supports this claim, though. It is merely an opinion.


I can't comment on that without examining the studies that have been conducted into the topic.



ElviS77 said:


> And you can rest assured, the worst alternative to high, unregulated speed limits isn't lower limits, safer road construction and a greater police precence... (...) No, the advantage will most likely increase expotentially, given that the limits are observed, police precense remain constant and the road is maintained the same way.


Depends on the above.



ElviS77 said:


> Huh?


Even you have indicated that "saving lives" is not to be achieved whatever the cost.



ElviS77 said:


> Your point, regarding my point, being?


Your "comparison with the same public's attitude to rail or air safety."



ElviS77 said:


> Either comment on the argument or leave it alone. (...) Furthermore, "the fact that you have more time to deal with any incident with a car that responds faster and is far easier to handle, will 99 times out of a 100 make up for any lapse in concentration." is apparently also hyperbole. It may be so, but why not comment on the content?


Because you made this 99% claim without any support.



ElviS77 said:


> Finally, "on the roads, any attempt to reduce fatalities which is also seen as limiting driver freedom is frowned upon (even seat belts have been a problem...). The result? 250 dead each year... in Norway alone" is apparently not a rational argument. Why not? Both points I've made are factual, both deal with traffic safety.


You have not listed the attempts that failed, the reasons for their failure, their predicted outcomes, etc.



ElviS77 said:


> Again, either evaluate and comment on the argument or leave it alone. According to you, "but I do believe that if you're going to singpost an undivided road with a higher speed than 80 or 90, make sure the AADT is really, really low" is hyperbole. (...) Feel free to dismiss my points, but try to avoid the simplest rhetoric, at least...


Some of your points were made without justification, which is why dismissing those equates to rhetoric.


----------



## Jeroen669 (Nov 29, 2006)

ElviS77 said:


> True. But as long as we're talking about roads with two-way traffic and no central divider, the be-all, end-all measuring stick of safety is head-on crashes. And you won't survive those at more than 70, no matter what kind of car you're driving. That's my main point. I'm also saying that the faster you go, the more difficult it is to avoid incidents and consequences of any mishap are more serious. You can make reasonably safe 2-lane roads with a 80 or 90 limit (but you still accept that fatalities will occur), any higher than that is only safe-ish with very low traffic volumes. These are scientific facts, not arguments.


What I mean to say is: there are so many things to improve traffic safety without making people dumb. Most people have had a decent driving education, so they know the limits of the road _and_ the limits of the car. Saying 80-90 km/h is always a good limit on 2-lane roads doesn't make sense. No road is the same, no car is the same, and even the weather conditions are (of course) not always the same. There will never be a perfect limit. But do you need to base limits on bad driving conditions...?


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

The Dutch driver is not to think himself, that's done for him, by signs, markings and speed limits in every situation that's different from straight-out driving.... hno: 

Give people back their responsibility! Make a believeable speed limit and road layout...


----------



## ElviS77 (Aug 3, 2007)

deranged said:


> I can't comment on that without examining the studies that have been conducted into the topic.


Then I can't see why you introduced the argument in the first place...



deranged said:


> Even you have indicated that "saving lives" is not to be achieved whatever the cost.


Again, huh??? I have said that I don't think a global 70 kph zone is realistic or even desirable at the moment, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in working towards such goals. The "Zero Killed Vision", which I support, requires more than just 70 kph undivided roads, but that's an important part of it. Given time, maybe in a decade or two, such ideas will be part of road traffic policy in many countries.



deranged said:


> You have not listed the attempts that failed, the reasons for their failure, their predicted outcomes, etc.


What failed attempts? What reasons? What predictions? In short, what..? My claim is that the average driver historically hasn't been all that keen on traffic safety measures. Do you disagree, and if so, on what grounds?


----------



## ElviS77 (Aug 3, 2007)

Jeroen669 said:


> What I mean to say is: there are so many things to improve traffic safety without making people dumb.


I'm not out to make people dumb, I'm stating facts. 



Jeroen669 said:


> Most people have had a decent driving education, so they know the limits of the road _and_ the limits of the car.


Yes and no. I have not said that it's impossible for a driver to control a car on a 2-lane road at 100-120 kph. What I have said and repeated is that if we're interested in NO road fatalities and not just fewer, 70 kph on undivided roads is necessary. Still, it's not the only measure we need to introduce to achieve such a goal, but since this thread is about speed limits, I think I'll start a new one about road safety...



Jeroen669 said:


> Saying 80-90 km/h is always a good limit on 2-lane roads doesn't make sense. No road is the same, no car is the same, and even the weather conditions are (of course) not always the same. There will never be a perfect limit. But do you need to base limits on bad driving conditions...?


I've never talked about bad or worst-case driving conditions. I've talked about survivability, and that's very different from what feels safe.


----------



## ElviS77 (Aug 3, 2007)

Verso said:


> ElviS77, have you driven on a straight, wide road like the one I posted? Even better, imagine there are hard- instead of soft shoulders, and tell me what speed limit you'd sign there.


Since I'm from the country of quality 2-lane roads wherever there really should have been a motorway and in a few other places, the answer is yes, many times... They used to be 90 all over the place, now they're mostly 80. The former is ok, the latter too low.


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

So what do you really want, 70 km/h, or 90, or what?


----------



## ElviS77 (Aug 3, 2007)

Verso said:


> So what do you really want, 70 km/h, or 90, or what?


Here goes, yet again:
1. 70 kph should be a future ideal for undivided highways. 
2. That future would have many more divided highways and motorways (with higher speed limits) dealing with the bulk of traffic.
3. Today, neither are within the bounds of reality.
4. Even in the current climate, I believe 90 kph is a reasonable max limit on most undivided highways.
5. In rare cases, quiet rural highways could reasonably get 100 kph.

OK?


----------



## Robosteve (Nov 6, 2008)

ElviS77 said:


> Here goes, yet again:
> 4. Even in the current climate, I believe 90 kph is a reasonable max limit on most undivided highways.
> 5. In rare cases, quiet rural highways could reasonably get 100 kph.


This might work in some European countries with high population density, but the vast majority of long-distance highways in Australia are undivided 1+1 roads with at-grade junctions. Even 110 km/h (the maximum limit throughout most of the country) gets extremely boring at times on these roads. If you were to reduce all these limits to 90 or 100, not only would most people continue to drive 110 anyway, but for those who did stick to the new limits you would massively increase journey times in rural areas (keep in mind that in rural Australia, adjacent towns on highways are sometimes separated by a hundred kilometres or more), resulting in exceptional driver fatigue problems.


----------



## He Named Thor (Feb 15, 2008)

Anyway...

In Wisconsin, 

Divided Motorways (no cross traffic): 65mph (105km/h)
Divided Motorways (cross traffic and/or urban): 55mph (88km/h)
Non-Divided Roadways (Rural): 55mph (88km/h)

Obviously speed limits can vary.


----------



## Timon91 (Feb 9, 2008)

In Alaska you can drive up to 65 mph on some non-divided main roads. But that's a little different story I guess


----------



## deranged (Jan 22, 2009)

ElviS77 said:


> Then I can't see why you introduced the argument in the first place...


Once again, because you made a claim without providing support. If you backed up some of your claims, there wouldn't be a problem.



ElviS77 said:


> Again, huh??? I have said that I don't think a global 70 kph zone is realistic or even desirable at the moment, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in working towards such goals. The "Zero Killed Vision", which I support, requires more than just 70 kph undivided roads, but that's an important part of it. Given time, maybe in a decade or two, such ideas will be part of road traffic policy in many countries.


Others have already addressed this in the safety thread.



ElviS77 said:


> What failed attempts? What reasons? What predictions? In short, what..? My claim is that the average driver historically hasn't been all that keen on traffic safety measures. Do you disagree, and if so, on what grounds?


I am referring to your following comment.



ElviS77 said:


> On the roads, any attempt to reduce fatalities which is also seen as limiting driver freedom is frowned upon (even seat belts have been a problem...). The result? 250 dead each year... in Norway alone.


----------



## ElviS77 (Aug 3, 2007)

deranged said:


> I am referring to your following comment.


Since I'm NOT deranged:nuts:, I realised this... And please, either comment on the content or leave it alone.


----------



## Cacodemon (Mar 24, 2009)

in Victoria, Australia

freeways: 100km/h (some are even 80km/h :bash
divided highways, rural: 110km/h
single lane highways: 100km/h
urban arterial roads: 70-80km/h
residential streets: 50-60km/h


----------



## ElviS77 (Aug 3, 2007)

Robosteve said:


> This might work in some European countries with high population density, but the vast majority of long-distance highways in Australia are undivided 1+1 roads with at-grade junctions. Even 110 km/h (the maximum limit throughout most of the country) gets extremely boring at times on these roads. If you were to reduce all these limits to 90 or 100, not only would most people continue to drive 110 anyway, but for those who did stick to the new limits you would massively increase journey times in rural areas (keep in mind that in rural Australia, adjacent towns on highways are sometimes separated by a hundred kilometres or more), resulting in exceptional driver fatigue problems.


Well, driving 500 kms at 110 kph takes about 4.5 hours. At 100 kph, 5 hours, at 90 kph, 5.5 hours. Not that much of a time difference, and given the fact that driving faster requires more concentration, I seriously doubt any real changes. That said, there are some regions of the world (like rural Australia, Canada or northern Sweden)where roads are reasonably quality and so quiet, head-on collisions are exceptionally rare. Thus, higher speed limits makes sense. Still, I'm reluctant to accept higher limits than 100 kph, not least since drivers tend to go a bit over the limit anyway. I also believe that central guardrails might be introduced on main roads in Australia - the Swedes have such systems in place on rural roads with at-grade junctions.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E (Oct 26, 2007)

*54°26′S 3°24′E*

Actually, in some places in NSW at least used to be 120 km/h in some rural roads, and as we have seen, 130 km/h on rural highways in NT. (The default rural speed limit in NSW at least used to be 100 km/h). I don't really think Sweden compares with interior Australia. Interior/desert Australia is mostly very flat, with little vegetation, and tiny towns with just one gasoline pump that are hundreds km apart. The main highways are still fairly well kept. Hence, driving at 120-130 at daytime should not be any more dangerous than a similar speed at a European motorway, as long as you slow down every time you see another vehicle. (It can be an hour or more in between....). However, there is still this rule about reckless driving, and driving at 130 at dusk or dawn, with plenty of moving wildlife, would certainly be dangerous, at least for the poor Kanga...


----------



## ElviS77 (Aug 3, 2007)

54°26′S 3°24′E;34116738 said:


> Actually, in some places in NSW at least used to be 120 km/h in some rural roads, and as we have seen, 130 km/h on rural highways in NT. (The default rural speed limit in NSW at least used to be 100 km/h). I don't really think Sweden compares with interior Australia. Interior/desert Australia is mostly very flat, with little vegetation, and tiny towns with just one gasoline pump that are hundreds km apart. The main highways are still fairly well kept. Hence, driving at 120-130 at daytime should not be any more dangerous than a similar speed at a European motorway, as long as you slow down every time you see another vehicle. (It can be an hour or more in between....). However, there is still this rule about reckless driving, and driving at 130 at dusk or dawn, with plenty of moving wildlife, would certainly be dangerous, at least for the poor Kanga...


I've never been to Australia, and I certainly don't know all that much about AADT figures. Still, I guess they've got a number of rural 2-lane roads with comparable traffic volumes to northern Swedish roads. And, as you know, the Swedes are very fond of their central guardrails - and they work.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E (Oct 26, 2007)

^^ They certainly have a few roads that compare with Northern Sweden or Norway in terms of AADT, but not with 120 or 130 km/h. However, these rather "normal" country roads unfortunately are much more similar to the Norwegian than Swedish counterparts, and building rails will be expensive. In my opinion, 100 km/h is a bit too much on these roads, the number of rotting road kills (mostly kangaroos) is appalling in many places.....


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

I think 90 is a good limit on roads with limited to no driveways and separated cyclepaths (or no cyclists anyway). On busier roads, parallel roads should be constructed for agricultural traffic.


----------



## Robosteve (Nov 6, 2008)

54°26′S 3°24′E;34116738 said:


> Actually, in some places in NSW at least used to be 120 km/h in some rural roads, and as we have seen, 130 km/h on rural highways in NT. (The default rural speed limit in NSW at least used to be 100 km/h). I don't really think Sweden compares with interior Australia. Interior/desert Australia is mostly very flat, with little vegetation, and tiny towns with just one gasoline pump that are hundreds km apart. The main highways are still fairly well kept. Hence, driving at 120-130 at daytime should not be any more dangerous than a similar speed at a European motorway, as long as you slow down every time you see another vehicle. (It can be an hour or more in between....). However, there is still this rule about reckless driving, and driving at 130 at dusk or dawn, with plenty of moving wildlife, would certainly be dangerous, at least for the poor Kanga...


I agree, it's all about driving to conditions. I feel safe driving 130 km/h on the Kamilaroi Highway (speed limit 110), but will slow down for corners or if I see an oncoming vehicle or anything else that might make it less safe to drive that speed.


----------



## deranged (Jan 22, 2009)

ElviS77 said:


> Since I'm NOT deranged:nuts:, I realised this... And please, either comment on the content or leave it alone.


Okay. If/when you actually back up some of your claims, I will comment.


----------



## ElviS77 (Aug 3, 2007)

deranged said:


> Okay. If/when you actually back up some of your claims, I will comment.


Way OT, but you see, when I'm logged on to this forum, I'm here to discuss things I consider important, interesting or preferbly both. I'm not here to dig up musty old facts to support every claim I make, most certainly not for the benefit of someone who doesn't show an interest in debating. Thus: My claim is that safety measures introduced over the past 50 years have gotten a less than favourable reception amongst general motorists. My example was seat belt laws. Do you disagree? Do I need to present corraborating evidence for this, rather uncontroversial, claim? The other aspect is that I don't know any safety measures that didn't work, so it's rather difficult for me to a) say anything about such animals or b) document their excistence...


----------



## deranged (Jan 22, 2009)

^^ I have already pointed out the claims, including those you are using to support your argument.


----------



## scotdaliney (Dec 1, 2006)

ElviS77 said:


> Well, driving 500 kms at 110 kph takes about 4.5 hours. At 100 kph, 5 hours, at 90 kph, 5.5 hours. Not that much of a time difference, and given the fact that driving faster requires more concentration, I seriously doubt any real changes. That said, there are some regions of the world (like rural Australia, Canada or northern Sweden)where roads are reasonably quality and so quiet, head-on collisions are exceptionally rare. Thus, higher speed limits makes sense. Still, I'm reluctant to accept higher limits than 100 kph, not least since drivers tend to go a bit over the limit anyway. I also believe that central guardrails might be introduced on main roads in Australia - the Swedes have such systems in place on rural roads with at-grade junctions.


As someone who often has to drive for hours on the Australian country roads, it's that extra concentration at higher speeds that keep you awake, when you get stuck behind a slow truck the mind starts to wonder and fatigue seems to set in much quicker. Thats my experience anyway. Just make sure to slow down if advisory signs suggest it (usually very well signed), some of the curves are harsh with only inches away from very slipper soft shoulders.
Believe me when I say central guard rails are not coming, the distances are huge and most of the roads only JUST have enough room for two vehicles. I still believe 110 min is the safe speed, any less and people will fall asleep.


----------



## ElviS77 (Aug 3, 2007)

deranged said:


> ^^ I have already pointed out the claims, including those you are using to support your argument.


It's perfectly ok not to be interested in this discussion. If you want to contribute, let me know.


----------



## deranged (Jan 22, 2009)

^^ I can't see the point in debating if you're not going to back up your claims.


----------



## Cacodemon (Mar 24, 2009)

Robosteve said:


> I agree, it's all about driving to conditions. I feel safe driving 130 km/h on the Kamilaroi Highway (speed limit 110), but will slow down for corners or if I see an oncoming vehicle or anything else that might make it less safe to drive that speed.


on a road like that, 130 would be the minimum speed I'd be doing


----------



## ElviS77 (Aug 3, 2007)

deranged said:


> ^^ I can't see the point in debating if you're not going to back up your claims.


You've as yet refused to debate anything in this thread. Thus, not a great loss.


----------



## tvdxer (Feb 28, 2006)

*Minnesota, USA*

Rural

Interstate Highways and some other rural highways with more than two lanes (e.g. US-2 north of Duluth): *70 mph* (112 kph)

Standard rural "highway" (two lanes): *55 mph* (90 kph)

County highways with a lot of houses on them: *35 - 50 mph* (~55 kph - 90 kph)

Urban

Freeways (limited access, often multi-lane): *between 50 mph and 70 mph* (90 kph to 112 kph) 

Major city streets: *30-35 mph* (around 50 kph), faster in outer areas

Minor city streets (e.g. one lane for parking, one lane for driving): Don't know the limit, but anything above 20-30 mph (35-50 kph) seems unreasonable.


----------



## deranged (Jan 22, 2009)

ElviS77 said:


> You've as yet refused to debate anything in this thread.


Incorrect. But I have made it clear why I have not continued to debate.


----------



## wdw35 (Dec 12, 2008)

*Germany no speed limit motorway map*

Can anyone please provide a map of the German motorway network showing the sections that are not subject to speed limitations? (Yes, I did do some searching before posting this, albeit not very thorough).


----------



## the_amir (Aug 20, 2008)

On this site are some interesting maps of German autobahns:
http://www.autobahnatlas-online.de/Karte_e.htm
Speed limit map is also there.


----------



## Seppl (Aug 3, 2008)

Here is a very good site about the Autobahn in Germany including information about the speed limit.

Patricks Autobahnatlas

The page is in german or in english respectively. On the left side on the top you'll find the link "routes" which will show you all the speed limits for all the motorways.

I hope this map helps.


----------



## Winston (Nov 19, 2003)

*Ridiculous Speed Limits*

Post your photos of ridiculous speed limits here . To start things off, here's some from Australia (where I live).

Minor backroad: 100km/h (~60MPH)









Major highway: 50km/h (~30MPH)









School zone: 80km/h (~50MPH)









Town centre: 60km/h (~40MPH)









Narrow residential street: 60km/h (~40MPH)


















Three speed limits in less than 100 metres:









Dirt tracks: speed de-restriction


















=)


----------



## Timon91 (Feb 9, 2008)

In the Netherlands speed limits are generally seen as too low. Some villages have a 30 km/h speed limit within the town limits, which is too low IMO. It should be 50 or 60. Furthermore, when the A2 has been widened to 2×5 the speed limit will be 100 km/h. Insane hno:


----------



## bleetz (Feb 13, 2009)

Nice. Like the first one most


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

The main problem in the Netherlands is that perfectly good speed limits are downgraded from 100 to 80 and from 80 to 60 "because they don't fit within the system", without actually paying attention to what the road looks like. 

60 km/h on straight roads with good vision and cyclists physically separated from traffic is just not realistic. 

They always want to lower the traffic fatalities, which is a good thing, but we have now gotten into the field that you have to take unpopular, unrealistic and drastic measures to achieve that, for instance by lowering speed limits, turning every intersection into a roundabout and impose passing bans on straight wide roads.


----------



## pijanec (Mar 28, 2007)

The speed limit on first picture is nothing special and widely seen on European roads (90 or 100 km/h). Is just general speed limit outside build areas.

Problematic aren't high/general speed limits but speed limits which are set too low.

In general Slovenia have appropriate speed limits. In last years we finally moved away from typical eastern European extremely low and unrealistic speed limits and adopt 90-50-90 system.


----------



## MAG (Sep 24, 2004)

My pet-hates are:

- 'Let op drempels' (Caution - speed bumps) in the Netherlands, together with a restriction to 50 km/h or less, in places where there is practically infinite visibility and only cows and fields of grass for company. The Dutch extra-urban speed limit of 80 km/h is also out of line with rest of Europe while the 120 km/h autosnelweg limit is only observed by virtue of having capacity traffic near most towns. Where traffic volume is low, everyone drives at 130+ km/h anyway.

- no speed limit on some stretches of the German autobahn network. To me this is lethal! You have to watch your back more than your front in case some Audi/BMW/Merc owner is late for a business meeting and decides to drive at 200+ km/h. Angela Merkel once supported a speed limit of 130 km/h but now she's done a political U-turn and says that the holy 'no speed limit' law will not be abolished on her watch.

- the Polish dual 50/60 km/h urban speed limit. Not only do you have to remember it exists but also you have to remember between what hours it is in force. The Parliament in their infinite wisdom decided that at night the human body is able to withstand a 60 km/h impact with the same consequences as a 50 km/h collision during the day. Nice one, guys!



.


----------



## pijanec (Mar 28, 2007)

60 km/h during the night is OK. I never see anyone walking around at 2am (except in city centers).


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

90km/h in winter(read: from October to April) on expressways in Estonia is too little. A perfect solution would be variable speed limit signs, but that costs money, of course.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

^^ France has a nice solution: dry = 130 km/h, wet (rain, snow whatever) = 110 km/h.


----------



## transport21 (May 6, 2009)

Any national secondary road in Ireland. The speed limit is 100km/hr. Most of them are crap.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

On the Toulouse périphérique (freeway/motorway circling around the city), they have lowered the speed limit to only 90 km/h, which is utterly ridiculous in my opinion (it used to be 110 km/h, which was already slow enough). So you arrive from the outer suburbs at 130 km/h on the 6-lane (2x3) toll motorways around Toulouse, and you end up on the 6-lane périphérique where you can drive only 90 km/h.

Other annoying speed limits:
- all the speed limits on US freeways which are too slow and which nobody respects (in LA I was told "don't pay attention to speed limit, just follow the flow")
- the 50 km/h speed limits that come out of nowhere in the Moroccan countryside. Pay great attention, the Moroccan gendarmerie has been equiped with French speed radars, and they love to set up traps in the 50 km/h zones in the middle of desert areas to get you, the tourists, to fork out money (it's a 40 euros fine if you are in excess of just 1 km/h, but you can usually manage to pay less if you give the gendarme some money under the table). I met a Dutch guy who had been caught 6 times in just one week. Personally I was caught only twice in one week. :lol: (the first time I paid the official 40 euros fine, the second time I had more "experience" so I only gave 20 euros to the gendarme under the table, and no fine)


----------



## I-275westcoastfl (Feb 15, 2005)

^^In the US only speed limits under 60mph/100kmph are ridiculous, perhaps at high traffic periods it might make sense but other times it doesn't. Speed limits should be adjustable depending on time of day and conditions.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

brisavoine said:


> On the Toulouse périphérique (freeway/motorway circling around the city), they have lowered the speed limit to only 90 km/h, which is utterly ridiculous in my opinion (it used to be 110 km/h, which was already slow enough). So you arrive from the outer suburbs at 130 km/h on the 6-lane (2x3) toll motorways around Toulouse, and you end up on the 6-lane périphérique where you can drive only 90 km/h.
> 
> Other annoying speed limits:
> - all the speed limits on US freeways which are too slow and which nobody respects (in LA I was told "don't pay attention to speed limit, just follow the flow")
> - the 50 km/h speed limits that come out of nowhere in the Moroccan countryside. Pay great attention, the Moroccan gendarmerie has been equiped with French speed radars, and they love to set up traps in the 50 km/h zones in the middle of desert areas to get you, the tourists, to fork out money (it's a 40 euros fine if you are in excess of just 1 km/h, but you can usually manage to pay less if you give the gendarme some money under the table). I met a Dutch guy who had been caught 6 times in just one week. Personally I was caught only twice in one week. :lol: (the first time I paid the official 40 euros fine, the second time I had more "experience" so I only gave 20 euros to the gendarme under the table, and no fine)


Its mean 55mph like that on Baltimore's beltway since forever, but nobody pays attention to it. You could easily do up to 75-80 mph on it except in some sharp turns.


----------



## pijanec (Mar 28, 2007)

brisavoine said:


> Pay great attention, the Moroccan gendarmerie has been equiped with French speed radars


How do those French speed radars look like?


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

I-275westcoastfl said:


> ^^In the US only speed limits under 60mph/100kmph are ridiculous, perhaps at high traffic periods it might make sense but other times it doesn't. Speed limits should be adjustable depending on time of day and conditions.


What about 65 mph in all of Illinois? Imagine driving I-57 all the way with a sleeping 65 mph :nuts:


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

Rebasepoiss said:


> 90km/h in winter(read: from October to April) on expressways in Estonia is too little. A perfect solution would be variable speed limit signs, but that costs money, of course.


In addition, the projected Tallinn ringroad(which will have 2x2 lanes with SOS-lanes and no at-grade junctions) will have a speed limit of 90km/h(!!!), because 
They claim it's a populated area. It makes me laugh because most of the time the route goes through fields and forests. The ringroad will even have an ecoduct. 

Which also upsets me in Estonia, is that we don't bother to put extra speed limit signs on rural roads. Which means that a dirt road with a 90km/h speed limit can have sharp, blind 90-degree turns which are trouble already at 60km/h.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

pijanec said:


> How do those French speed radars look like?


They are hand speed radars. They look like cameras. The Moroccan gendarmes usually hide behind bushes, or at the turn of the road, hold their speed cameras at shoulder height, and wait for a speeding driver. They usually hide in places where they are sure people will be speeding (the second time I was caught, it was at the end of a long slope coming down from a mountain; suddenly at the bottom of the mountain there was a 50 km/h sign; it's just impossible to slow down to 50 km/h in 2 seconds when you've been going downwards for so many kilometers; the gendarme hid just after the 50 km/h sign because he knew it was nearly impossible to be respecting the speed limit there, so he knew he could catch everybody, and make lots of money under the table; I hate those kind of traps on Moroccan roads).

That's the kind of French speed cameras they use (I was told France offered the speed cameras to them 3 or 4 years ago):


----------



## wdw35 (Dec 12, 2008)

brisavoine said:


> Pay great attention, the Moroccan gendarmerie has been equiped with French speed radars, and they love to set up traps in the 50 km/h zones in the middle of desert areas to get you, the tourists, to fork out money (it's a 40 euros fine if you are in excess of just 1 km/h, but you can usually manage to pay less if you give the gendarme some money under the table). I met a Dutch guy who had been caught 6 times in just one week. Personally I was caught only twice in one week. :lol: (the first time I paid the official 40 euros fine, the second time I had more "experience" so I only gave 20 euros to the gendarme under the table, and no fine)


It sucks to have people that support corruption on this forum.


----------



## pijanec (Mar 28, 2007)

^^We all know that in developing countries they put speed limit signs intentionally on places where a lot of money will be generated, especially from tourists.


----------



## Aokromes (Jan 5, 2005)

brisavoine said:


> They usually hide in places where they are sure people will be speeding (the second time I was caught, it was at the end of a long slope coming down from a mountain; suddenly at the bottom of the mountain there was a 50 km/h sign; it's just impossible to slow down to 50 km/h in 2 seconds when you've been going downwards for so many kilometers; the gendarme hid just after the 50 km/h sign because he knew it was nearly impossible to be respecting the speed limit there, so he knew he could catch everybody, and make lots of money under the table; I hate those kind of traps on Moroccan roads).


They do the same on Spain


----------



## WalkTheWorld (Aug 1, 2007)

ChrisZwolle said:


> What about 65 mph in all of Illinois? Imagine driving I-57 all the way with a sleeping 65 mph :nuts:


I-15 2x2 between LA and Vegas has 65 and it's boring, but I guess that the old cracked concrete with metal studs for lane markers and windblown grit don't encourange driving much faster...the US must also take care of road conditions on a continent basisi...


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Aokromes said:


> They do the same on Spain


I've driven in Spain, I've driven in Morocco. There is simply no comparison possible.


----------



## FM 2258 (Jan 24, 2004)

I-275westcoastfl said:


> ^^In the US only speed limits under 60mph/100kmph are ridiculous, perhaps at high traffic periods it might make sense but other times it doesn't. Speed limits should be adjustable depending on time of day and conditions.


I don't understand the speed limit I saw on Interstate 95 in Miami....55mph almost halfway to Ft. Lauderdale it seemed. I was averaging 80 while people were still passing me.


----------



## Red-Lion (Apr 15, 2009)

In norway: 

speed limit = 60 even with good traffic lighting, separated driving lines, own bicycle roads, 
while on narrow, humpy and swining roads are 80km/h... also 60km/h through the automated tollboots on the motorways even though there is not technical need for the speed reduction. Police even stands here and fines or jail people.

That is very typical for Norway. 

No logic between road standard and traffic vs speed limits


----------



## shpirtkosova (Jun 7, 2009)

In Kosovo a speed limit of 35km/h is quite common in sharp bends and narrow roads... There is one in my village ... Not as unusual in the US but in Europe it can be very unusual to not have a speed limit ending with 0.


----------



## TheCat (Apr 21, 2006)

I find it interesting that in general it seems that in Europe speed limits on motorways are really high whereas inside cities they are very low, whereas it is the opposite in North America. Well, at least that's what I find in Canada, but I think the US is usually the same.

For example, I find that in general the speed limits on the streets of Toronto are reasonable. Most of our main streets have a limit of 60 km/h, and some streets (in fact, many in the suburbs) have a limit of 70 km/h. Most people go about 10 km/h over the limit and it's usually fine. Limits of 50 and 40 usually occur on small residential streets (usually 50, with school zones having 40; there are also places where a flashing sign indicates that 40 applies when the sign flashes, during school hours, and otherwise it is 50). Limits of 30 km/h or below are almost non-existent. I don't think I've ever seen a street with such a limit in the Toronto area.

On the other hand, on the motorways, the situation here is the same as in the US. It's 100 km/h on all of them (110 in some provinces), including on long straight sections of high quality roads. The only exception are urban expressways, where the limit is usually 90 km/h.

The reason for this is probably related to Europe's older cities, which have smaller streets that often wind and go up and down slopes. Also, in Europe there is much more multi-modal transportation (bicycles, trams, etc.). But the side effect of this is that newer streets that are of much higher standards automatically get marked down.

I think the motorways/freeways here in Canada (well, in Ontario) should have a default limit of 120 km/h. I would not support anything higher, because it is just an unfortunate fact that the standards of our freeways are lower than the ones in many European countries in terms of pavement quality (the construction/design is good I think, but due to bad weather and lack of investment the pavement usually deteriorates to very bad levels, and it is not rare to have serious bumps on the 400-series freeways, which are of the highest class in the province of Ontario). While people do go faster (I've driven 130 and even 140 before), 120 is the most optimal one IMHO. The current 100 limit is too low however, and like some people mentioned about the US, is never followed even closely ("going with the flow" in Ontario usually means 120-130).



Rebasepoiss said:


> Which also upsets me in Estonia, is that we don't bother to put extra speed limit signs on rural roads. Which means that a dirt road with a 90km/h speed limit can have sharp, blind 90-degree turns which are trouble already at 60km/h.


I think a curve warning sign is enough in this case, since it is the driver's responsibility to reduce the speed in this case. It wouldn't make much sense to place speed limit signs before each obstacle in the road, but it is VERY important to let drivers know that an obstacle exists, especially in the dark.

What they actually do in North America (and I believe in Europe it is not common?) is to place advisory speed limits (number on yellow background) under signs warning of various curves or on on-/off-ramps. I actually like these, because I find that they provide a good safety margin on some blind curves, especially when the car you drive doesn't handle like a sports car. They are usually about 10-20 below the comfortable speed, but it's fine to go a bit above because they are just advisory and have no legal restriction. I find that following them approximately prevents the feeling of the centripetal force on the vehicle's occupants


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

An interesting thing about the U.S. and Canada is that rural two-lane highways do have higher speed limits in the west. Above 60 mph is no exception, while Germany has 100 km/h as a general non-urban limit, which is the highest in Europe. (though I thought some remote Swedish roads allow up to 110). Some two-lane roads in Texas allow 75 mph (120 km/h).


----------



## shpirtkosova (Jun 7, 2009)

.... Another thing, I hate the dramatic speed change you get sometimes, I once went from a 100kmh to 50kmh what the hell is that!?!


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

shpirtkosova said:


> In Kosovo a speed limit of 35km/h is quite common in sharp bends and narrow roads... There is one in my village ... Not as unusual in the US but in Europe it can be very unusual to not have a speed limit ending with 0.


It's even worse in Albania with ridiculous 20 km/h before curves.



ChrisZwolle said:


> An interesting thing about the U.S. and Canada is that rural two-lane highways do have higher speed limits in the west. Above 60 mph is no exception, while Germany has 100 km/h as a general non-urban limit, which is the highest in Europe. (though I thought some remote Swedish roads allow up to 110). Some two-lane roads in Texas allow 75 mph (120 km/h).


Or 130 km/h in the Northern Territory (Australia). Hungarian 2-lane motorroads also allow 110 km/h (I think Croatian too, or just 4-laned, not sure).


----------



## shpirtkosova (Jun 7, 2009)

Verso said:


> It's even worse in Albania with ridiculous 20 km/h before curves.


I guess not that bad when you consider the landscape difference in Albania and Kosovo. Albania is more mountainous and another thing is in Albania they have less crash barriers than in Kosovo. 35kmph should really be 30, it is just giving people a chance to go 40 and get away with it in dangerous situations.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

The Northern Territory state used to have no speed limits.


----------



## I-275westcoastfl (Feb 15, 2005)

shpirtkosova said:


> .... Another thing, I hate the dramatic speed change you get sometimes, I once went from a 100kmh to 50kmh what the hell is that!?!


That's called a speed trap lol.


----------



## NCT (Aug 14, 2009)

In Britain the convention is this:

- built-up area single carriageway - 30 mph (~50 km/h)
- built-up area dual carriageway - 40 mph (~60-70 km/h)
- rural single carriageway - 60 mph (~100 km/h)
- rural dual carriageway and motorway - 70 mph (~120 km/h)
There are those in-between roads, for example grade-separated urban dual carriageways with fairly narrow lanes, short acceleration lanes and heavy traffic that usually have a 50 mph limit, as well as winding rural roads with heavy traffic (the A6 in the Peak district for exampls).

Most of the times such rules are applied logically but there's a bit of A610 between Nuthall and Heanor which used to be national speed limited (70) but got downgraded to 40 and 50 - very annoying.


----------



## WalkTheWorld (Aug 1, 2007)

LtBk said:


> The Northern Territory state used to have no speed limits.


or cars...


----------



## Winston (Nov 19, 2003)

shpirtkosova said:


> .... Another thing, I hate the dramatic speed change you get sometimes, I once went from a 100kmh to 50kmh what the hell is that!?!


Lol, in my state (New South Wales), we go from 100km/h straight to 40km/h for school zones which are like a few hundred metres long. It used to go down to 60km/h but then this person who runs "The Pedestrian Council" (not a government body) complained and got it down to 40km/h. He was also the one who got school zones implemented in the first place. Now there are 40km/h school zones which run for several kilometres, enforced by speed cameras on major arterial roads :\.


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

TheCat said:


> I think a curve warning sign is enough in this case, since it is the driver's responsibility to reduce the speed in this case. It wouldn't make much sense to place speed limit signs before each obstacle in the road, but it is VERY important to let drivers know that an obstacle exists, especially in the dark.
> 
> What they actually do in North America (and I believe in Europe it is not common?) is to place advisory speed limits (number on yellow background) under signs warning of various curves or on on-/off-ramps. I actually like these, because I find that they provide a good safety margin on some blind curves, especially when the car you drive doesn't handle like a sports car. They are usually about 10-20 below the comfortable speed, but it's fine to go a bit above because they are just advisory and have no legal restriction. I find that following them approximately prevents the feeling of the centripetal force on the vehicle's occupants


This is a good example. The blue squared sign means advisory speed.


----------



## Red-Lion (Apr 15, 2009)

In norway they now wants to reduce all speeds to max 70km/h except on the motorways/separate lane roads.


----------



## pijanec (Mar 28, 2007)

^^Obsession with lowering number of accidents is really going to far. Modern vehicles are superb machines but soon people would have to travel with the speeds they traveled 50 years ago.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

I agree. While I think reducing traffic fatalities is a very good thing, it has to remain realistic. The number of traffic fatalities dropped threefold in most countries in the past 30 years, while traffic increased like threefold too.


----------



## pijanec (Mar 28, 2007)

In my opinion, further reduce in number of accidents is only possible with extreme (and stupid) measures.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

They could give some more attention to driving under influence. But many police departments choose for the easy speed camera. Traffic safety is there to generate revenue :nuts:

The Polish police detained 86,000 people last year for DUI. That's quite something. All potential traffic accidents.


----------



## pijanec (Mar 28, 2007)

They detained a lot of people in Slovenia too. But police is never around on Fridays or Saturdays when a lot of people are driving under influence. They have to take serious offenders back to police station and that means police loose around 30 minutes-1 hour of traffic patrol. So on those "busy" days they are never around.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

On the subject of low speed limits in IL, not only its too low for a midwestern state(even 70 is low IMO), but they strict on enforcing it on what I read, but OH and VA is much worse.


----------



## zivan56 (Apr 29, 2005)

We have tons here. A flat, strait, and separated 2x2 or larger highway is usually 80km/h (50mph) max. On Vancouver Island, there is a highway that is basically a flat line for the most part...the maximum speed is 110km/h (68mph)...ridiculous hno:


----------



## christos-greece (Feb 19, 2008)

In school zones and some other "Dangerous" areas speed limit of 40 or 50 km seems O.K. (btw in the photos of the first page are km or miles ?)
But 100 km speed limit in a narrow street, sorry but its really dangerous. Might cause deaths


----------



## Metalus (Apr 22, 2008)

LtBk said:


> On the subject of low speed limits in IL, not only its too low for a midwestern state(even 70 is low IMO), but they strict on enforcing it on what I read, but OH and VA is much worse.


You drive 75mph in IL = keeping up with traffic. I take I90 from UIC campus to Roselle exit at least once a week and can honestly say the average traffic speed is 5-10+ limit. Also happens to be my favorite urban highway ever, all the bridges, turns, grade changes, views. ... every time

When I travel down to SUI Carbondale along 57 from Chicago I average 80mph~ non issue.


----------



## TheCat (Apr 21, 2006)

christos-greece said:


> (btw in the photos of the first page are km or miles ?)


Kilometres. Australia uses km.


----------



## Wover (Feb 23, 2009)

Rebasepoiss said:


> In addition, the projected Tallinn ringroad(which will have 2x2 lanes with SOS-lanes and no at-grade junctions) will have a speed limit of 90km/h(!!!), because
> They claim it's a populated area. It makes me laugh because most of the time the route goes through fields and forests. The ringroad will even have an ecoduct.
> 
> Which also upsets me in Estonia, is that we don't bother to put extra speed limit signs on rural roads. Which means that a dirt road with a 90km/h speed limit can have sharp, blind 90-degree turns which are trouble already at 60km/h.


I kind of like the speed limits in Estonia. Except for the real 2 * 2 roads, they should be 130 in summer (instead of 110).

I visited my girlfriend last week and she let me drive her mother's car from Tallinn (N6mme) to Lahemaa National Park (around Loksa). After that we also drove to Rakvere. Some pictures:



















Tallinn - Narva road around Lahemaa National park; Speed limit: 110 for cars and motorcycles










Tallinn - Narva road around Rakvere; Speed limit: 100 for cars and motorcycles










Some road in Lahemaa; Speed limit: 90 (very nice roads to drive to be honest )


----------



## NCT (Aug 14, 2009)

I would prefer 120 km/h as the top speed limit, and wouldn't be too upset about 110 either. I'm a bit weary about 130 though, as you've got to allow for about 10% over the speed limit as human nature usually dictates. Chances are on a 120 road a lot of people would be doing 130 anyway. On a road limited at 130 you risk inviting people doing over 140.


----------



## nerdly_dood (Mar 23, 2007)

Wover said:


> Some road in Lahemaa; Speed limit: 90 (very nice roads to drive to be honest )


The speed limit on unmarked rural roads in Virginia like that one used to be 55 mph, since the only road signs indicate the names or route numbers of intersecting roads, and only the most pressing hazards - speed limits are often not posted. But on July 1 last year 2008, a new law took effect reducing the speed limit to 35 mph. Although this increases safety, I have to say that it's not nearly as fun to drive those roads at a slower speed. (although you do get to enjoy the scenery more thoroughly, and there is quite a lot of it in rural areas of western Virginia)


----------



## pijanec (Mar 28, 2007)

35 mph is ridiculous. There are no pedestrians or bicycle users on that kind of roads.


----------



## Seagull (Dec 28, 2007)

Here on the 15-km highway connecting Split, Croatia and the A1 motorway the speed limit ist 80 km/h. No one drives 80, the most drive 90-110 km/h.


----------



## MDguy (Dec 16, 2006)

edit


----------



## Timon91 (Feb 9, 2008)

That's in miles though. 80 mph = 128 km/h, which is normal for a motorway.


----------



## MDguy (Dec 16, 2006)

oh i guess i misunderstood the thread, my b :nuts:


----------



## Seagull (Dec 28, 2007)

Timon91 said:


> That's in miles though. 80 mph = 128 km/h, which is normal for a motorway.


Not miles, kilometers per hour.


----------



## Sr.Horn (Jun 11, 2006)

Almería - Spain









:lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

In France it's forbidden to drive more than 50 km/h on the sea.


----------



## shpirtkosova (Jun 7, 2009)

If you go to the Kosovo forum at the moment on the page before the last page, you will see a usual 80kmph road under construction and the speed limit is set at 20kmph!

Here is the picture Buddy Holly took:


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Narrow country roads with 1 lane with passing places with a limit of...50mph!


----------



## sophiaa11 (Sep 5, 2009)

you have shared some intersting shots.Thanks for it.


----------



## christos-greece (Feb 19, 2008)

shpirtkosova said:


> If you go to the Kosovo forum at the moment on the page before the last page, you will see a usual 80kmph road under construction and the speed limit is set at 20kmph!
> 
> Here is the picture Buddy Holly took:


The limit of 20km its because the road its u/c. That's why the limit speed its in white-red shape...


----------



## x-type (Aug 19, 2005)

shpirtkosova said:


> If you go to the Kosovo forum at the moment on the page before the last page, you will see a usual 80kmph road under construction and the speed limit is set at 20kmph!
> 
> Here is the picture Buddy Holly took:
> 
> http://i665.photobucket.com/albums/vv19/prishtinakomerc2/aeroport - malisheve/_DSC0281.jpg


i don't see anything weird here, it is just normal for all over the world


----------



## shpirtkosova (Jun 7, 2009)

^^

You think 20km/h is normal!?! Thats walking pace, How annoying would it be cyclists overtaking you!!!! I would be furious!


----------



## ir desi (Dec 9, 2007)

Well, normal if you are a considerate person. After all, isn't it normal to avoid running over construction workers who often have to work close to moving traffic?


----------



## da_scotty (Nov 4, 2008)

I think one of the best plans I heard on this toppic is the plan in Italy:

This is normal:
130 on Autostrada (motorway)
110 on Superstrada (Lower standard motorways/dual carriageway)

 Pilot with the following exception
150 on Autostrada with 3 or more lanes, where it is reasonable (straigth stretches), not on mountain climbing lanes.

_The only thing I can't remember is the fact if they ever continued with this plan_

I think this brings the best of both worlds, a higher speed limit where possible an d a reasonable limit on the other stretchtes!


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

I think 130km/h is actually a pretty reasonable speed limit on motorways but it could be a bit higher in good conditions. You won't win much when going faster than 130. You'll burn a lot more fuel, create more noise, more pollution, the difference in speed between trucks(and slower vehicles) and cars will increase, hence decreasing road safety etc.
One can be a great driver and know his/her limits when driving fast but other drivers can't possibly know that one is driving at such high speed. 

One example: a year or so ago, there was an accident in Tallinn where a man, who drove from one side street to another while crossing the main street, was crashed into by a guy driving (at least) 140km/h in a 70km/h zone. Who's guilty? The guy going 140km/h or the man who should've given way to the car coming from the main street? Well, the court decided that speeding ,in this case, was the main cause of the accident and the guy was punished. The other driver was lethally injured in the accident...

Imagine a similar situation when one is overtaking a truck at 110km/h with a Smart, for example, and the other is coming from the back with an s-class Mercedes going at 250km/h.... That's why the have speed limits on pit lanes in motosport.

The roads are for everybody and it's all about making a compromise. If you want to take you car to the limit, take it to a race track.


----------



## verum (Apr 6, 2010)

Here's a copy of something I posted on the USA Interstates thread a day or two ago. Please enjoy.



verum said:


> I know that the design speeds of some of the urban Interstates are super-low, and for the amount of traffic they handle a lack of a speed cap (Autobahn-like) would be a disaster. But for some of the rural interstates, especially out in the desert, even a speed limit of 120 (75 mph) seems unreasonable. In my opinion, the speed limits could be safely removed along some stretches of the Interstate system. Take the stretch of the 8 from El Centro to Yuma, for example. The highest speed limit along it, on the Californian side at least, is 110 (70 mph)!
> 
> Look at this picture: straight, flat, wide, and well-paved. A real American Autobahn, all that they need to do is knock down the speed limit signs.
> 
> ...


----------



## 1000city (Sep 8, 2007)

wdw35 said:


> So I was quietly going at ~ 150, and then two white vans (from Belgium) overtook me. I slowly accelerated to keep up with them (as they were providing cover from potential cops). The vans were going 180 km/h


Once in ex. DDR I was doing 160, reasonable and quite comfortable speed at this place and moment (my car's V-max is 180). Then the Mercedes Sprinter Maxi appeared in my mirror and overtook me. I accelerated to 170, but couldn't keep up. It was doing 180 (on the clock), no less. Those modern vans are damn fast :lol:

As for me highways shouldn't have speed limits. But considering other drivers, ecological issues etc. I think the most reasonable would be 160 on 2x2 and 180 on 3x3. From what I've seen in Germany few people go faster, as these speeds are comfortable and safe. Going faster is fun, but may be dangerous in regular traffic, as speed difference between slow and fast lane gets too big. My record is 200 in Fiat Barchetta and Porsche Cayman in low traffic and it's nothing breathtaking, but a bit dangerous and inconvenient in regular conditions.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

My proposal;

no speed limit;
rural 2x2 motorways with <50,000 AADT 
rural 2x3 motorways with <90,000 AADT and less than 20,000 trucks

speed limit;
motorways: 130 km/h
expressways: 110 km/h
rural: 90 km/h
urban: 50 km/h (occasionally 70 and 30 km/h)


----------



## Dr.Mabuse (Jun 6, 2009)

i say wrong. there are some areas on the autobahn i drive with 120, 130 and even 100 km/h speed limit and that is often too slow i have to say. of course as faster you go as more potential risk you have, but you should always pay attention to the street and traffic whats going around. 

And i say speeding with more than 200 km/h like 220, 230, 250, 260 and more km/h can be safe when there is almost no car sharing the lanes with you. 

But speaking of Speed limits. the reality in germany imo is that only few people doing more than 180 km/h. 

And during rush hour you often doing between 90 and 110 maybe 120 km/h, even on the left "fast" lane. 

When speed limit than on city-motorways or withing tracks with high accident rates.

But i still say, general speed limit WRONG.

*edit* just for the lulz


----------



## I-275westcoastfl (Feb 15, 2005)

ChrisZwolle said:


> My proposal;
> 
> no speed limit;
> rural 2x2 motorways with <50,000 AADT
> ...


For the US I'd propose..

Rural Interstates 75mph for somewhat heavily traveled ones and up to 90-100mph on fairly empty ones.(Sorry I can't support no speed limits with how stupid people can be.)
Rural Highways 2x1: 55mph to 65mph
Rural Highways 2x2: 60-65mph
Urban Highways: 65-75mph
Expressways: 60-75mph
Urban Roads
2x1: 25-40mph
2z2: 35-50mph
2x3: 45-50mph
Suburban Roads
2x1: 30-40mph
2z2: 45-55mph
2x3: 50-60mph
2x4: 55-65mph


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

Yes, nobody should go faster than 200 km/h. That is where it gets dangerous and uncontrollable. Not everybody has Porsche or Mercedes and some people will drive 200km/h with their volkswagen golf or tuned van. Really dangerous. 

A speed limit of 180km/h is quite resonable for me.


----------



## Skyway727 (Apr 11, 2010)

It's not really even what kind of car people have rather their driving skills, car maintenance, and how much they pay attention.


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

Skyway727 said:


> It's not really even what kind of car people have rather their driving skills, car maintenance, and how much they pay attention.


Of course it is a huge difference. 

Driving 200km/h with large Mercedes or BMW is relaxed cruising but driving the same speed with a Van or small car requires much more attention because you are pretty much at the cars limit. This becomes especially relvant during emergency situations. The larger cars are designed for such and even higher speeds and are controllable even under adverse conditions.


----------



## Morjo (Sep 10, 2006)

goschio said:


> Of course it is a huge difference.
> 
> Driving 200km/h with large Mercedes or BMW is relaxed cruising but driving the same speed with a Van or small car requires much more attention because you are pretty much at the cars limit. This becomes especially relvant during emergency situations. The larger cars are designed for such and even higher speeds and are controllable even under adverse conditions.


The Mercedes vans mentioned in this thread seem to cope ok at high speeds, so I want one :lol:


----------



## Oslo 5 (Nov 29, 2006)

*Sorry to say, but there are many reason for speed limits*










To have no speed limits on an interstate as this would not have been safe at all. It should have been elementary physics, but it seems to be not commonly understood, not even on forums as this where on should think that people had some basic knowledge about roads and road safety. One major problem is that the human body don’t survives a crash and sudden stop in more than 70km/h. If you crash at higher speeds and this result in a sudden stop, your internal organs will be torn to pieces regardless of any safety equipment in the car, and you will die of internal bleedings even if you crash right outside a hospital. To prevent such a sudden stop, the side of the road has to be designed to and kept at a very high safety standard which is not the case in this example. And still there will be the problem of rear end collisions which is extremely dangerous when the speed difference is high, ghost riders, potholes, oil spills and so on.

The days of no speed limits are numbered, and the concept is just as sane as not using seatbelts


----------



## Morjo (Sep 10, 2006)

^^ There are similar dual highways and motorways in rural Australia and on the outskirts of our major cities very similar to that. The speed limit on them is 100-110kmh. I think if the limit were to be increased the road needs to be upgraded, and the number one factor is introducing crash barriers.

You make a very valid point about open speed limits.


----------



## Dr.Mabuse (Jun 6, 2009)

Interessting Subject

*Jerks actually reduce the risk of traffic jams*

http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2009/07/jerks-actually-reduce-risk-of-traffic.html

The next time someone cuts you off on your morning commute, don't be so quick to call the driver a jerk; you may have a reason to say thanks.


----------



## shpirtkosova (Jun 7, 2009)

goschio said:


> Yes, nobody should go faster than 200 km/h. That is where it gets dangerous and uncontrollable. Not everybody has Porsche or Mercedes and some people will drive 200km/h with their volkswagen golf or tuned van. Really dangerous.
> 
> A speed limit of 180km/h is quite resonable for me.


Very interesting you say that, I have actually been on a Volskwagon and the person driving was going 200km/h and it really felt unsafe (BTW this was in Germany so perfectly legal). Speed limits are there for a reason in most parts of the world. Sadly there is no limit on how stupid people can be on the road.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

shpirtkosova said:


> Very interesting you say that, I have actually been on a Volskwagon and the person driving was going 200km/h and it really felt unsafe (BTW this was in Germany so perfectly legal). Speed limits are there for a reason in most parts of the world. Sadly there is no limit on how stupid people can be on the road.


Yes. usually I drive around 170-180 with our Volkswagen, it's a good speed.


----------



## shpirtkosova (Jun 7, 2009)

Chrissib said:


> Yes. usually I drive around 170-180 with our Volkswagen, it's a good speed.


I think nightime maybe but a normal busy highway 170-170kmh is dangerous in my book.


----------



## Uppsala (Feb 26, 2010)

I think speed limits is good at the motorways. I think they should have that in Germany too. Maybe we should have a European standard of speed limits. Thats means the speed limits could be higher in Sweden at some motorways in the countryside and in the forests. And a little bit slower in Germany.


----------



## shpirtkosova (Jun 7, 2009)

Uppsala said:


> I think speed limits is good at the motorways. I think they should have that in Germany too. Maybe we should have a European standard of speed limits. Thats means the speed limits could be higher in Sweden at some motorways in the countryside and in the forests. And a little bit slower in Germany.


Speed limits are usually calculated by lane width, condition and the size of bends, it cannot be possible as motorways themselves are not designed or built up to a "european standard".


----------



## Bartolo (Sep 20, 2004)

I think that a reasonable speed limit would be 130-140kmh. It would be a big improvement from the 100kmh speed limit in Ontario. The flow though at many times is anywhere from 120 to 130. The police here are very lenient for the most part. So long you are doing within 20 kmh or not travelling faster than flow of the limit you are good.


----------



## Uppsala (Feb 26, 2010)

shpirtkosova said:


> Speed limits are usually calculated by lane width, condition and the size of bends, it cannot be possible as motorways themselves are not designed or built up to a "european standard".


I think it's maybe possible to to have a sort of European standard to calculate them. If some of the motorways in Sweden with the speed limit 110 km/h were in Italy, they should be faster. So if the speed limits were more standardized they should have more of same sort of speed limits.


----------



## Ni3lS (Jun 29, 2007)

I-275westcoastfl said:


> For the US I'd propose..
> 
> Rural Interstates 75mph for somewhat heavily traveled ones and up to 90-100mph on fairly empty ones.(Sorry I can't support no speed limits with how stupid people can be.)
> Rural Highways 2x1: 55mph to 65mph
> ...


The issue with American drivers and their highways is that they don't have an ordered driving style. That's why the speed limit is so low. I'm trying to say that in Europe it's normal that you drive on the right side at all times unless you wanna pass another car. Here in the USA people drive on the left side all the time and they also drive on the right side. What you get is that you have to slalom between cars and switch lanes all the time. There is no space or time to speed up. It's annoying as fck and I can completely understand that it's not a pleasure for most Europeans to rent a car in the USA and drive on their highways. My family is coming over tomorrow night, let's see how they like it..


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

Uppsala said:


> I think speed limits is good at the motorways. I think they should have that in Germany too. Maybe we should have a European standard of speed limits. Thats means the speed limits could be higher in Sweden at some motorways in the countryside and in the forests. And a little bit slower in Germany.


If there will be an European standard, then Germany will for sure leave the EU .


----------



## Dr.Mabuse (Jun 6, 2009)

Chrissib said:


> If there will be an European standard, then Germany will for sure leave the EU .


:dance:

There are several 120, 130 and even some 100km/h zones on the three lane A3 for example between Cologne and Franfurt. 100 km/h is too slow. There should be more Free-Speed/unlimted zones.

I repeat, but that's just my opnion.

But i agree that trucks doing 100 km/h and cars doing 200 km/h can be a risk. Maybe one reason why the authorietes decided to build up speed limits "everywhere"

http://www.autobahnatlas-online.de/A3.htm


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

Whre there are dangerous road sections a speed limit is useful, but general speed limit is wrong.


----------



## Nima-Farid (Jul 13, 2010)

Freeways in Iran:
Max:120 km/h
Min:60-70 km/h
But the freeways are designed for more than 120


----------



## ElviS77 (Aug 3, 2007)

Bartolo said:


> I think that a reasonable speed limit would be 130-140kmh. It would be a big improvement from the 100kmh speed limit in Ontario. The flow though at many times is anywhere from 120 to 130. The police here are very lenient for the most part. So long you are doing within 20 kmh or not travelling faster than flow of the limit you are good.


I sort of agree. I like speed limits that actually reflect travel speed - at least when that travel speed can be considered safe. 120 kph is sensible on rural motorways, I think, and that seems to be the conclusion of the safety-minded people developing "Nollvisjonen" (Zero Fatalities Vision) in Sweden as well. Even though going 180+ might *feel* safe on high-quality motorways, it's certainly not a safe travel speed...


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Worst situation, IMO, is that in which a unreasonably low speed limit is in place, but most drivers ignore it.

I've driven dozens of thousands of km outside my country. I do my job searching for national regulations and particular road signs in the country before seating into a car there. Nonetheless, I don't know local specifics like "in Ontario policemen are lenient, but in Quebec they are strict", and because a 20 km/h speeding can lead to anything from a verbal "slow down" waving to a multi-thousand euro fine, I have a principle: when abroad, ALWAYS obey the posted/general speed limit no matter what.

So, even if people complain about US drivers, I must say that the US, particularly the Western states, is where I've got less honking and tailgating when I obey 45 MPH signs or so.

On the other side, Austria and Portugal are among the worst places I've been. I ALWAYS stick to posted limits when abroad, and I disregard the "flow" as I never know whether a speed trap is just around the corner. So in countries like Portugal and Austria sometimes everyone stick to 60 km/h signs, sometimes they ignore me and I was even passed on the shoulder (e.g., me driving on the right lane, someone cutting me by the shoulder) in Portugal more than once.

So unreasonable speed limits either means nobody respects them, or are set up as cash cows for law enforcement. Because foreign drivers are vulnerable (can't contest fines, if car is a rental there will be hefty admin fees etc.), I'd advise them to always stick to the speed limit.


----------



## El Tiburon (Mar 21, 2010)

Speed limits should be calculated using the 85th percentile of free-flowing traffic method, rounding them to the nearest multiple of 5.

In real life, however, speed limits are calculated taking into account extraneous and non-engineering factors such as neighbors' political pressures, politicians' erroneous notions about driving behavior (for example, that drivers always drive 5 miles above the posted signs even though that's not so) and the need to raise revenue through speed traps (if you use the 85th percentile method, only 15 percent of drivers will disobey it, but if if you set the limit too low, you'll create yourself a captive market of 85 percent of drivers for your speeding tickets and you'll make out like a bandit).


----------



## ElviS77 (Aug 3, 2007)

Suburbanist said:


> Worst situation, IMO, is that in which a unreasonably low speed limit is in place, but most drivers ignore it.
> 
> I've driven dozens of thousands of km outside my country. I do my job searching for national regulations and particular road signs in the country before seating into a car there. Nonetheless, I don't know local specifics like "in Ontario policemen are lenient, but in Quebec they are strict", and because a 20 km/h speeding can lead to anything from a verbal "slow down" waving to a multi-thousand euro fine, I have a principle: when abroad, ALWAYS obey the posted/general speed limit no matter what.
> 
> ...


To some extent, I agree. OK, I don't obey any limit anywhere, and - particularly on motorways - I go with the flow. On motorways in most of Europe, that speed translates to 120-140 kph, which is my preferred travel speed anyway... In addition, I have also done a considerable amount of driving around Europe, and I generally look into police attitude towards moderate speeding in various countries. My experience is that as long as I employ my Norwegian methods - observing town and city speed limits, maxing out at 10-20 kph above on rural roads or motorways - I'm safe.


----------



## ElviS77 (Aug 3, 2007)

El Tiburon said:


> Speed limits should be calculated using the 85th percentile of free-flowing traffic method, rounding them to the nearest multiple of 5.


In theory, the 85th percentile is a good idea. The problem is, however, that it is a theoretical paper-figure that on any given stretch of actual road is subject to change - for instance if the speed limit is lowered or increased. Even seemingly unrelated things like the global financial situation may affect driving speeds, and on some roads - for instance close to schools - there may be sensible to force a reduction in driving speed. That said, the 85th percentile very often makes more sense than other criteria.


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

ElviS77 said:


> To some extent, I agree. OK, I don't obey any limit anywhere, and - particularly on motorways - I go with the flow. On motorways in most of Europe, that speed translates to 120-140 kph, which is my preferred travel speed anyway... In addition, I have also done a considerable amount of driving around Europe, and I generally look into police attitude towards moderate speeding in various countries. My experience is that as long as I employ my Norwegian methods - observing town and city speed limits, *maxing out at 10-20 kph above on rural roads or motorways - I'm safe.*


This wouldn't work in Estonia. Police patrols are sure to pull you over if you're doing more than 10km/h over the limit(even though you might get away with a warning). Furthermore, speed cameras start taking photos at already +7km/h over the limit(and this includes the measuring error).


----------



## ElviS77 (Aug 3, 2007)

Rebasepoiss said:


> This wouldn't work in Estonia. Police patrols are sure to pull you over if you're doing more than 10km/h over the limit(even though you might get away with a warning). Furthermore, speed cameras start taking photos at already +7km/h over the limit(and this includes the measuring error).


But 20 kph above on the speedo translates into 10 in real life, right? Also, if I realise there are speed cameras (I assume they are signposted in Estonia as well..?), I reduce my speed adequatly. 

Warnings are, btw, very unlikely to happen if you are caught speeding in Norway. Even 10-15 above will set you back 300 euros...


----------



## nerdly_dood (Mar 23, 2007)

I-275westcoastfl said:


> For the US I'd propose..
> 
> Rural Interstates 60-65mph for somewhat heavily traveled ones and up to 70mph on fairly empty ones. (You can actually drive however fast you want, at the risk of getting pulled over or eating your windshield)
> Rural Highways 2x1: *45-55 mph*
> ...


Fixed for Virginia. 70 is a recent addition, and is the exception rather than the rule on rural Interstates - 65 is the norm.

You really really shouldn't do more than 5 MPH over the speed limit, particularly in a speed trap where a radar-wielding cop might be hiding. Never drive faster than 75 miles per hour! You'll have a cop on your ass in a heartbeat. Speeds on Interstate 81 are about the same as the speed limit (65), but other interstates are less crowded so the speed is usually about 70 with a 65 MPH speed limit.

People nearly always obey, or almost obey, the speed limit, so if you obey the speed limit everyone's happy, but if you drive too fast you'll have problems. I haven't been very far from Virginia, but from what I've found on teh interwebs, Southern drivers are mostly very safe and courteous, with a tiny minority of extremely dangerous drivers; I think that's safer from what I perceive to be the norm in NJ, where most drivers are moderately unsafe.

Note that in Falls Church, speed limits are excessively low and the _entire town_ is a speed trap. I tend to drive 2-3 MPH under the speed limit there.

(*)Anything from tractors to ********, which might or might not have a cop after them.


----------



## Capt.Vimes (Jul 15, 2009)

nerdly_dood said:


> Fixed for Virginia. 70 is a recent addition, and is the exception rather than the rule on rural Interstates - 65 is the norm.
> 
> You really really shouldn't do more than 5 MPH over the speed limit, particularly in a speed trap where a radar-wielding cop might be hiding. Never drive faster than 75 miles per hour! You'll have a cop on your ass in a heartbeat. Speeds on Interstate 81 are about the same as the speed limit (65), but other interstates are less crowded so the speed is usually about 70 with a 65 MPH speed limit.


I get depressed even by reading that. I feel most comfortable at about 90 mph/140-150kmh. That's my cruising speed on restricted German Highways. Why is speed limit so low in USA? I'm just curious, sorry if you've discussed it already.


----------



## DanielFigFoz (Mar 10, 2007)

In the 1973 oil crisis, the Americans introduced a federal maximum speed limit of 55! In the 1990's this was undone, and American speed limits are slowly growing.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

DanielFigFoz said:


> In the 1973 oil crisis, the Americans introduced a federal maximum speed limit of 55! In the 1990's this was undone, and American speed limits are slowly growing.


Yes, that is true. Fortunately, they American didn't go the way of some northern European countries where gas stations were closed on Sundays an, in cases like Italy and Denmark, even non-essential traffic was forbidden on Sundays hno: Advantages of being dependent on cars is that your country will make everything to keep people and goods moving by them :cheers:

As for limits: the blank rural Interstate limit is really growing. Almost every non-coastal state already have a 75 mph limit.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> As for limits: the blank rural Interstate limit is really growing. Almost every non-coastal state already have a 75 mph limit.


Not exactly....

Here's a map (Virginia recently increased speed limits on rural Interstates to 70 mph.)


----------



## urbanlover (Feb 14, 2005)

Is there anywhere else besides Michigan where speed limits are posted with the max through urban areas? I-75, 96, 94 , 696 and 275 are posted at 70 through Metro Detroit. With the exception of within a few miles of downtown where it drops to 55 but unless you have a death wish I wouldn't advise you going anywhere near 55.


----------



## CNGL (Jun 10, 2010)

Only 70 km/h in half the US? _(Just kidding, I know it's 70 mph (112 km/h))_

As I know, the A-23 Huesca's bypass is limited to 100 km/h (62 mph)


----------



## bogdymol (Feb 4, 2010)

I remember driving in FL last year on I75, on an endless straight line with 70 mph. It was so boring. I missed European speed limits that day.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^Chirs, my typo. I meant 70 mph on almost all non-coastal state, not 75. In any case, that dark-green area could spill throughout the rest of the map like the Deep Horizon oil spill (bad joke, I know).


----------



## I-275westcoastfl (Feb 15, 2005)

Ni3lS said:


> The issue with American drivers and their highways is that they don't have an ordered driving style. That's why the speed limit is so low. I'm trying to say that in Europe it's normal that you drive on the right side at all times unless you wanna pass another car. Here in the USA people drive on the left side all the time and they also drive on the right side. What you get is that you have to slalom between cars and switch lanes all the time. There is no space or time to speed up. It's annoying as fck and I can completely understand that it's not a pleasure for most Europeans to rent a car in the USA and drive on their highways. My family is coming over tomorrow night, let's see how they like it..


That is indeed a problem, generally I'd say about half obey the keep right rule but most people don't. I'm the person usually weaving through cars and thats going only 5mph faster on the rural highways we have here.



bogdymol said:


> I remember driving in FL last year on I75, on an endless straight line with 70 mph. It was so boring. I missed European speed limits that day.


Honestly 75mph or 80mph is really the average speed on I-75, for most parts its tough to go faster and I wouldn't recommend it. 



nerdly_dood said:


> Fixed for Virginia. 70 is a recent addition, and is the exception rather than the rule on rural Interstates - 65 is the norm.
> 
> You really really shouldn't do more than 5 MPH over the speed limit, particularly in a speed trap where a radar-wielding cop might be hiding. Never drive faster than 75 miles per hour! You'll have a cop on your ass in a heartbeat. Speeds on Interstate 81 are about the same as the speed limit (65), but other interstates are less crowded so the speed is usually about 70 with a 65 MPH speed limit.
> 
> ...


I agree here in Florida we have all kinds of drivers the southern drivers either drive like you said or fast. The northern drivers drive all over the place and however they want(usually slower).


----------



## Bartolo (Sep 20, 2004)

I'm going to be driving from Hamilton, ON to Lethbridge, AB going through the States at the end of August. I'm just curious as to what the general travelling speed through Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota and Montana are?


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

Local road in western Ukraine. The speed limit is almost as high as on most US Interstates (68 mph):









_http://www.panoramio.com/photo/24555885_


----------



## DanielFigFoz (Mar 10, 2007)

Thats nearly as fast as the British motorway speed limt(112), and not to far off the Portuguese and Spanish motorway speed limit(120)


----------



## 909 (Oct 22, 2003)

My experience is Ukraine is that speedlimits (and some other rules) have no meaning at all. Most people, except the ones with a Lada of truck, ignore the limits and like to race.


----------



## nerdly_dood (Mar 23, 2007)

The reason speed limits are lower in America is that in the 1970s, the speed limit was nationally limited to 55 (90) to conserve fuel. Since the law was repealed in the 1990s it's been slowly creeping up and I'm sure at some point American speed limits will be more similar to European ones.


----------



## Bartolo (Sep 20, 2004)

I really wish Ontario speed limits were more like Europe. At least the cops here are pretty lenient. As long as you are doing no more than 130 in 100 your pretty much okay. In 80 zones 100-110 is okay for the most part.


----------



## nerdly_dood (Mar 23, 2007)

Bartolo said:


> I really wish Ontario speed limits were more like Europe. At least the cops here are pretty lenient. As long as you are doing no more than 130 in 100 your pretty much okay. In 80 zones 100-110 is okay for the most part.


In Virginia, doing 80mph in ANY speed limit would get the fuzz on yo ass quicker than you could say "Wuh--?"








They might let you get away with no more than 10mph over the limit, and you're safe doing no more than 5 over. There are a few places I know of where, if you're doing anything at all over the speed limit (26 in a 25 zone that would reasonably be posted as 30 or 35) you'll get a ticket. (They're called "speed traps" for a REASON!)

15 mph over the limit and you've got a guaranteed police escort, whether you want it or not.

And they're generally not seen as strict at all... I guess it's just because if you do more than 10mph over the speed limit you're going significantly faster than other traffic and you stand out like a sore thumb. I guess that's why cops don't seem to exist until you REALLY don't need them.

Oh yes, and radar detectors are illegal too.

I actually think that cop car above is from Madison, Wisconsin.


----------



## Bartolo (Sep 20, 2004)

nerdly_dood said:


> In Virginia, doing 80mph in ANY speed limit would get the fuzz on yo ass quicker than you could say "Wuh--?"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Radar detectors are illegal here... and are in most places in Canada. And thanks for bringing that up. I'm going to get one of those for when I go to the States. They are legal in most states right. I'm going to be going through Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota and Montana.


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

Bartolo said:


> Radar detectors are illegal here... and are in most places in Canada. And thanks for bringing that up. I'm going to get one of those for when I go to the States. They are legal in most states right. I'm going to be going through Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota and Montana.


When I was first driving 20-odd years ago, they were illegal only in Virginia, Connecticut and I think D.C. (Sign seen at Connecticut's borders: "The Installation and Use of Radar Detectors is _ILLEGAL IN CONNECTICUT_")

EDIT/UPDATE:
They're *not* illegal in Connecticut, and haven't been since 1992. I feel old. (Learned this while looking for one of the famous signs.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_detector


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

nerdly_dood said:


> In Virginia, doing 80mph in ANY speed limit would get the fuzz on yo ass quicker than you could say "Wuh--?"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are the first person to say Virginia cops aren't strict. Virginia, along with Ohio, are the strictest enforcing states in the country based on all the stuff I read over the years from other people's experiences.


----------



## nyoma (Jul 23, 2010)

*Ukrainian speed limits*

Common Ukrainian speed limits are:
Living and pedestrian zone - 20 km/h
City/town/village - 60 km/h
Roads outside cities (single carriageways) - 90 km/h
Roads outside cities (dual carriageways) and freeways (same to Italian superstrada) - 110 km/h
Highways (same to Italian autostrada) - 130 km/h

Near schools and some other potentially dangerous places the police usually put the 40 km/h sign or even 20. Sometimes if the police consider a road to be safe, they may allow to do 80 on this road inside a city or 110 (130) outside, but this year they didn't.
Besides, entering a town which name is written on a blue sign you may continue to drive 90 or 110 (depends on the type of a road), but only on this road. So, if you take another street of this town, you will have to do 60.


----------



## nerdly_dood (Mar 23, 2007)

Bartolo said:


> Radar detectors are illegal here... and are in most places in Canada. And thanks for bringing that up. I'm going to get one of those for when I go to the States. They are legal in most states right. I'm going to be going through Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota and Montana.


As far as I know they're only illegal in Virginia and (not sure about) Delaware. You should be pretty safe, but Virginia doesn't care where you're from, NOBODY can have them.


----------



## nerdly_dood (Mar 23, 2007)

LtBk said:


> You are the first person to say Virginia cops aren't strict. Virginia, along with Ohio, are the strictest enforcing states in the country based on all the stuff I read over the years from other people's experiences.


I didn't say they're not strict, I said people don't think of them as being strict. (At least I don't...)



nerdly_dood said:


> And they're generally not *seen as *strict at all... I guess it's just because if you do more than 10mph over the speed limit you're going significantly faster than other traffic and you stand out like a sore thumb. I guess that's why cops don't seem to exist until you REALLY don't need them.


----------



## nerdly_dood (Mar 23, 2007)

LtBk said:


> You are the first person to say Virginia cops aren't strict. Virginia, along with Ohio, are the strictest enforcing states in the country based on all the stuff I read over the years from other people's experiences.


I didn't say they're not strict, I said people don't think of them as being strict. 



nerdly_dood said:


> And they're generally not *seen as *strict at all... I guess it's just because if you do more than 10mph over the speed limit you're going significantly faster than other traffic and you stand out like a sore thumb. I guess that's why cops don't seem to exist until you REALLY don't need them.


The main thing with cops being strict is that they tend to pick out places where people are likely to speed a lot, like at the bottom of a hill, and hide with a radar gun. These areas quickly become known as speed traps and the name stays even if a cop hasn't been hiding there for some time. For the most part they let you get by at about 5mph over, 5-10 is iffy, 10+ is dangerous, and 15+ is a guaranteed ticket; in speed traps I always try to go 1mph under the speed limit. If every single car is going faster than the speed limit they'll usually let you by if you're just keeping up with traffic; they pick the ones that stand out as being particularly fast.

It is perfectly legal for a cop to give you a ticket for doing 56 in a 55 speed zone.


----------



## Ingsoc75 (Jul 1, 2011)

I just found this site and thought I'd revive the conversation on speed limits.

In Texas, the speed limit is 75 mph (120 kph) on some two lane roads.









From 1995 to 1999, Montana's Reasonable and Prudent speed limit.


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

I believe Maine just decided to establish 75 as the speed limit on the lightly-traveled northern reaches of I-95 (from a bit north of Bangor to the Canadian border).

There may be a post in the Interstates thread.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Penn's Woods said:


> the lightly-traveled northern reaches of I-95


The least traveled section of any Interstate Highway to be accurate. (1 900 vehicles per day)


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

^^ So if you wanna drive more than 120 km/h, you have to clog up the leftmost lane (possibly with 121 km/h).


----------



## alserrod (Dec 27, 2007)

they should write minimun speed too!!!.

You can go slow in the right and seems you are OK


----------



## Ingsoc75 (Jul 1, 2011)

Xorcist said:


> no speedlimit in germany...so why not driving 310kmh (192mph)...
> 
> http://youtu.be/yEwCh4_ClMs


The driver should clean the windshield better.


----------



## Escher (Jan 17, 2005)

Verso said:


> ^^ So if you wanna drive more than 120 km/h, you have to clog up the leftmost lane (possibly with 121 km/h).


The problem I see on different speed limits like this is that it precludes a continuous flow of the thru traffic, a key factor of safety concerning high speed roads.

Another issue is that in case of speed traps present, even the driver who chooses to drive slower will often choose a higher speed lane. It´s VERY VERY common here in Brazil, commonly resulting on left lanes full and right lanes empty!!


----------



## Surel (May 5, 2010)

I got a question that might fit this thread. In some lands like Czech rep. and the Netherlands, Germany, etc. are signs other then zone signs automatically considered cancelled after first intersection. Thus if you drive on a road with speed limit 70 km/h and the overall outside the city limit is 90 km/h and you come to a intersection, then if there is no sign after the crossing you are free to go back to 90 km/h. (motorway interchange is considered an intersection also in this case).

I wonder how is this rule around the world. I guess in Austria the sign stays valid all the way till another sign cancels it. How is it elswhere?


----------



## jeremiash (Apr 4, 2011)

In poland speed limits are cancelled by intersections, and I believe it makes sense. Say two roads with different speed limits cross, and someone turns from one of them into the other. Even if intersections wouldnt cancel speed limits, a speed limit sign would have to be repeated after the intersection so that the turning driver knows how fast he can go. So what you get, effectively, is the need to repeat speed limits after intersections which works exactly as though intersections cancelled the limits.


----------



## bogdymol (Feb 4, 2010)

Same in Romania: speed limits are canceled at first intersection (but I think that this applies only inside towns, not in rural areas - I'm not really sure).


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

In the Netherlands speed limits are only canceled after the next intersection if 1) it's a different speed limit than the general non-urban or urban speed limit (say 70 km/h inside urban areas or 100 km/h on motorways) and 2) if the non-general speed limit is not repeated. So if there is a 70 km/h road inside an urban area with traffic lights, the 70 km/h sign has to be repeated after every traffic light. The same goes for a 100 km/h speed limit on motorways, it has to be repeated after every interchange.


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

ChrisZwolle said:


> In the Netherlands speed limits are only canceled after the next intersection if 1) it's a different speed limit than the general non-urban or urban speed limit (say 70 km/h inside urban areas or 100 km/h on motorways) and 2) if the non-general speed limit is not repeated. So if there is a 70 km/h road inside an urban area with traffic lights, the 70 km/h sign has to be repeated after every traffic light. The same goes for a 100 km/h speed limit on motorways, it has to be repeated after every interchange.


I don't know if this is the official Dutch explanation or not, but your whole post doesn't make sense, Chris. 

1) Of course a speed limit is cancelled after the next intersection only if it's non-general. Why would a general speed limit be cancelled? That would mean no speed limit at all.

2) Why would a repeated non-general speed limit be cancelled? Isn't that why it was repeated and a speed-limit sign erected?


----------



## Road_UK (Jun 20, 2011)

ChrisZwolle said:


> In the Netherlands speed limits are only canceled after the next intersection if 1) it's a different speed limit than the general non-urban or urban speed limit (say 70 km/h inside urban areas or 100 km/h on motorways) and 2) if the non-general speed limit is not repeated. So if there is a 70 km/h road inside an urban area with traffic lights, the 70 km/h sign has to be repeated after every traffic light. The same goes for a 100 km/h speed limit on motorways, it has to be repeated after every interchange.


Reminder signs are good. They are lacking this in the UK, which copped me a few times receiving penalties in my mailbox. Especially the Lincolnshire Police are arseholes for that. I am in favour of the French style reminder signs, with Rappel written underneath. You can't really go wrong then... I find that tiny little detail really helpful!


----------



## Falusi (Mar 14, 2009)

In Austria speed limits aren't cancelled neither by intersections nor by town borders unless there is a cancelling sign. It took about 10 min to discover this while driving there (I wondered why were there cancelling signs after intersections, but then I saw that on cross roads the speed limit of the other highway is marked with two-directional arrows)


----------



## tompaw (Mar 14, 2007)

Isn't this canceling of limits a part of Vienna Convention?


----------



## TheCat (Apr 21, 2006)

In Canada there is no such automatic cancellation at intersections. Speed limits apply until a different sign is encountered (there are no cancellation signs here either, like the European white circle with a black line). It indeed sometimes makes it unclear what the speed limit is on a road one turns to, although the signs are quite frequent.


----------



## AnOldBlackMarble (Aug 23, 2010)

I wish they had this in the USA. The #1 thing that drives me craziest on US roads is that people here drive parallel to each other as if they are holding hands. Even if you have five lanes of traffic there will be five cars side by side driving the same exact speed, many times below the speed limit, and you can't flash them to get out of the way because they won't. :bash:

Almost everyday I drive, especially on two lane roads, I get stuck behind these kind of people driving as much as ten miles under the limit and you can't pass them, while the road ahead of them is empty and behind them there is a cluster. Having different limits for each lane would solve this problem and I wish it was applied in this country. 




Escher said:


> I was always against different speed limits for different lanes on freeways. But I definitely saw I was right after seeing this in Argentina:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## kubam4a1 (Oct 28, 2009)

If your Highway Code would require driving to the right whenever possible and using the inner lane for overtaking and driving with a way that doesn't handicap others and the authority would be capable of effective enforcement, that wouldn't be required.

I think the AutobahnPolizei in Germany would take guys you describe (at least the left one) for affecting the traffic flow even if both broke no other laws. 
In Poland such ways of behavior start to disappear, a few years ago it was a bit more often, someone nervous would eventually flash them out being i.e. 20 m behind them or less at 90 km/h and honking (that includes vans) but this is *absolutely not good nor recommended*


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

A major highway has different speed limits for each lane. I wonder what the advantage and disadvantages for this.


----------



## bogdymol (Feb 4, 2010)

Many drivers would drive just on the left-most lane just to drive legaly with 130 km/h.


----------



## OriK (May 1, 2007)

Here in Spain it isn't strange to find someone driving on the left, but when you approach at a higher speed they move to the right almost always without making you brake.

If not, flashing or turning on the left indicator works 70% of times during daytime and 100% during the night (invented stadistic haha).

Honking is not allowed unless for avoid accidents (althought it might work if they aren't looking backwards).


----------



## AnOldBlackMarble (Aug 23, 2010)

^^ Absolutely DOES NOT work in the USA. People here mostly refuse to get our of the way, because the mentality is "I have the right to drive as I feel". :nuts: If you flash them they will ignore you, or even slam their brakes, but NEVER change lanes. :nuts: It's beyond ridiculous.


----------



## OriK (May 1, 2007)

^^ haha, I only do that when somebody freaks me out tailgating me while I haven't finished my overtaking. Sometimes I flash them with my fog lights instead as I consider it much safer.

I had the chance to drive in the US and it didn't seem that bad (I suppose it deppends on the area like here as the driving styles might be different)... but I got shocked when in a jam I saw a driver eating a sandwich with one hand while texting or changing the song on the phone with the other... and she was wearing headphones!! I think I do prefer tailgaters and left lane turtles...


----------

