In a speech last week before the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), a road safety expert argued that speed limits should be based on engineering, not political considerations. Chad Dornsife, executive director of the Best Highway Safety Practices Institute made his case to an ITE annual meeting in Denver, Colorado. “The solution is to properly engineer our roadways to facilitate the optimum flow of traffic, a prescription that would reduce our total vehicular carbon footprint and improve roadway safety,” Dornsife said. “The future is in educating motorists to drive safely via safety campaigns that promote keep right except to pass, yielding, courtesy, and safety practices that are based in fact. Programs that create jobs, reduce our carbon footprint, pollution, and improve the safety and efficiency of our infrastructure.”
Dornsife opened his presentation by explaining the federal role in setting consistent standards for road signs to prevent 80,000 local and state authorities from creating confusion as motorists travel across the country. The speed limit sign falls under the rules laid out in the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices which specifies that the sign should reflect a limit determined by accepted principles of engineering. In a 1985 report, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) defined the most effective way to determine the number to print on the sign.
“Based on the best available evidence, the speed limit should be set at the speed driven by 85 to 90 percent of the free-moving vehicles rounded up to the next 5 MPH increment,” FHWA’s report, Speed Limit Synthesis, explained. “This method results in speed limits that are not only acceptable to a majority of the motorist, but also fall within the speed range where accident risk is lowest… No other factors need to be considered since they are reflected in the
drivers speed choice.”
The federal agency’s studies confirm that when speed limits are lowered or raised, the average speed of traffic does not change by a significant amount. Dornsife emphasized the point by citing the experience of Montana between 1995 and 1999.
“What happens when you have no daytime speed limits outside of the city limits, on every classification of roadway, paved or otherwise?” Dornsife asked. “Nothing. Motorists continued to drive at speeds they were comfortable with. Not one fatality was brought to our attention that was attributed to no daytime speed limits.”
The fatal accident rate on Montana highways dropped to an all-time low when the state had no posted daytime speed limit. A speed monitoring site at Great Falls registered a change in average speed of just 1 MPH when the posted daytime limit was eliminated.
Dornsife argued that “politics, power and empires” changed federal policy in the mid-90s to dilute the influence of engineering in the setting of speed limits. New campaigns focused on issuing citations and imposing “zero tolerance” policies. As a result, most speed limits today are set unreasonably low and enforcement resources are misallocated to focus on drivers who are driving at speeds least likely to cause an accident.
Dornsife recommended that the situation could be corrected by undertaking regular surveys of driving speeds so that most roads could be re-posted at the measured 85th percentile speed. The exception would be work zones and school zones that should have 50th percentile speeds.
“Placing an invented number on a sign will not make you safer, but fact based laws that are uniformly applied, and making sure best safety practices are followed will,” Dornsife concluded.
The BHSPI presentation is available in a 1mb PDF file at the source link below.
Speed Limits Presentation to ITE District 6 (Best Highway Safety Practices Institute, 7/15/2009)
A little repetitive, but it makes sense. My understanding is that the prevailing federal legislation does not actually require a posted speed limit, but merely offers it as one of many ways to meet safety objectives.
I like the 85th percentile idea a lot, but as long as there is revenue to be collected, it isn’t going to happen.
“Keep Right Except to Pass” needs to be emphasized, and dedicated lanes
need to be built on grades for slow moving vehicles because slow vehicles
represent a clear and present danger
Yes, cruising in the left lane would have to be a punishable offense in order to greatly raise speed limits or reduce them (safely). Perhaps punishments would gradually become more severe until people understand that the left lane is for passing only. For example:
1st offense: written and documented warning
2nd offense: minimum fine and citation
3rd offense: maximum fine and citation
4th offense: 30 day suspension of driving privileges
I agree on the sentiment that driving at speeds that are below a driver’s comfort zone is more tiring than driving within their comfort zone. At work we are not supposed to exceed 55 and driving is almost always a tiring chore on a straight dry highway.
Of course this is only my opinion and there are a number of people on this website that would disagree with me.
Very simple; the Feds can only use the withholding of Fed highway funds as leverage for states to implement a speed limit. That’s why some states used to not have a speed limit; and some actually passed on fed funds, or at least threatened to, in order to raise the double nickle limit.
All speed limits are set by states, and are the domain of states, not the feds, but they (feds) know how use their money to get their way.
I’d love to see America have the 85th percentile rule be the default speed limit nationwide but ***sigh*** another ranting from a random graduate of the Self-Taught Correspondence School of Law.
Mr. Random Guy who is the self-appointed executive director of his institute should do a little bit of research on wikipedia re. speed limits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law
Remeber that income tax also is illegal and please contribute to my charity, “The Human Fund.”
I would not mind no speed limits outside of towns, as Michigan had as late as some time in the 1950’s (I believe, but can’t confirm an exact year or even decade – though I know at some point in approximately that timeframe, speed limits were put into place outside of cities/towns).
EXCEPT that we would truly verily obviously needfully have to have a full retraining of every driver on the American road, to increase their competence.
The typical level of competence of the British would be adequate; the Germans, even better. In the hopes of realism, we’ll say “as good as the average Brit”. This will entail one terrifically difficult driver’s test.
Driving is not a “right” – it is a privilege.
As things stand now in Michigan, I would probably say that 70-80% of the drivers have absolutely no business on the public roadway. I hear it is even worse in other states.
In Ontario the speed limit is 100 kph= 62mph.
The average speed is about 120=75mph.If you get
caught 50kph over it going to cost you $2000 by
the time your done.The key words are “if you get
caught”. Enforcement is not nearly what it is in
the United States.
So your driving in the middle lane at 120. Its
not uncommon to be passed on the right by someone
doing 140+. In the far right lane the speed is 95-
100, near misses are only too common. The left lane is “anything goes”. As I stated “lousy enforcment”
I much prefer driving in the US. Maybe its better
enforcment,maybe its the more liberal gun laws.
I have driven thousands of miles in the US and the courtesy American drivers never ceases to amaze me.
Everyone drives the same speed,5 maybe 10 mph over.
You guys have a great driving experience down there. Don’t f—k with it.
This sentence alone shows the guy doesn’t know squat, “The future is in educating motorists to drive safely via safety campaigns that promote keep right except to pass, yielding, courtesy, and safety practices that are based in fact…”
Safety campaigns are totally useless, in and of themselves. This has been proven over decades of carefully controlled studies.
Mikey, I have to say that when I go through Ontario on the way back & forth to New York, (or used to*) I noticed that Canadians didn’t bother following their own speed limits and in fact yes, I noted the extreme speed in the “hot” lane which reminded me of pre-speed camera Britain.
*I don’t bother going through Canada on the way to New York from Michigan any more since the border hassles are just too much of a pain in the ass. Sorry, Canada; your loss!
“…based on engineering…”
Engineering: An applied science pursuit intellectually unattainable by politicians.
Setting speed limits based on the 85th percentile makes far too much sense.
It’s far better to set speed limits based on the people who drive at 60 mph in the left lane and squawk about “speeders”.
I’m amazed we were able to get through last year’s fuel-price spike without any lowered speed limits. Traffic fatalities still dropped dramatically, without lowering the speed limit to 55 mph, primarily because of a reduction in discretionary driving.
Which puts the big drop in fatalities during the very first fuel crunch into perspective – it wasn’t because of the enactment of the 55 mph speed limit.
@menno.. I hear ya it seems we are going out
of our way,to piss off visitors.Come up to Toronto
if you can get past the stink of a four week garbage strike.
Hey there is no fear of exceeding the speed limit
in Toronto. The far loony left wing, car hating council,have created permanent grid lock.
DarkSpork
Here in Colorado, about two years ago, a law was passed that for multi-lane roads with 65 ot 75 limits, keep right except to pass is the law. If you are just driving along in the left lane on an empty road, you can be cited. I think it is a 3 point violation and a $35 fine, but don’t quote me on that one. Lane discipline has improved, although during tourist seasons it generally declines due to out of staters. In my expereince Californians are some of the most persistent left-laners.
Didn’t TTAC run an article about a town in Europe that dropped all traffic laws, and it resulted in greater safety and more efficient traffic flow? ( cannot recall the town, seems it was a northern European nation)
The real point here is that Mr. Dornsife took his own time and $ to appear at the Institute of Traffic Engineers. The ITE guys basically know this stuff anyway, but hear presentations also from Scamera folks and the Insurance Institute for Higher Premiums talk about lower limits in attempts to legitimize their behavior.
What Mr. Dornsife proposes is no less than what the highway engineering community regards as best practices. I’ve seen highway engineers here in NY State stand up for 85th percentile limits on some state roads when local groups want to drop that 45 mph feeder road to 25 mph.
I once attended an ITE presentation. One IIHS presenter was firmly against the 85th percentile. This guy is now his own lobbying agency and is pulling for more redlight scameras and speed scameras in NYC. While a very clear minority, these guys exist and lobby. People like Mr.Dornsife counterbalance such quackery.
DarkSpork
Here in Colorado, about two years ago, a law was passed that for multi-lane roads with 65 ot 75 limits, keep right except to pass is the law. If you are just driving along in the left lane on an empty road, you can be cited. I think it is a 3 point violation and a $35 fine, but don’t quote me on that one. Lane discipline has improved, although during tourist seasons it generally declines due to out of staters. In my expereince Californians are some of the most persistent left-laners.
Sounds like a good start. Seems there are more “left-laners” up here in NoDak. Having grown up in California, I found that most “left-laners” will eventually get out of the left lane if you flash your high-beams enough. Some people will tail-gate, I’d rather not cause an accident.
I much prefer driving in the US. Maybe its better
enforcment,maybe its the more liberal gun laws.
I have driven thousands of miles in the US and the courtesy American drivers never ceases to amaze me.
Everyone drives the same speed,5 maybe 10 mph over.
I agree with the first two statements, but in my experience in the SF Bay area and southern California, the 3rd sentence is dead wrong. When I was in the Bay Area a few weeks ago, I was passed several times by “maniacs” (my opinion) in beat up family sedans doing 100+ mph. I’m cruising along with the flow of traffic at 70 mph (55-65 mph speed zones), and getting passed like you’re standing still, literally, is quite disconcerting when you are going 70 mph, especially when it happens on the right (these are multi-lane freeways there were lanes on either side of me).
P.S. the idea of setting speed limits based on sound engineering is a great idea, so it will never be allowed by the politicians. It would require them to relinquish a measure of power to the people. I seem to remember that Nevada enforced the 55 speed limit in name only. It was something like a $5 fine unless you were exceeding 80 mph. I also believe one reason for eliminating the no speed limit laws were several cases of drivers who were exceeding 100 mph, 160 in one instance that I read about, and got off at trial because they demonstrated that the road was dry, visibility was good, and the car was built for high speeds ( the guy going 160 in Wyoming was driving some variant of a Porsche 911). For this reason, I can see the wisdom in setting some speed limit, but just set it where it belongs nto at some arbitrary number.
Yay! Science! Rationality!! This guy’s got MY vote. All the way, baby. In my business we adjust our specs to what the supplier CAN achieve reliably and cheaply, not what we THINK we need. Everyone benefits in the long run.
What this world needs is more science!
“Driving is not a “right” – it is a privilege.”
Menno, you just pushed one of my buttons. The ability to move about, wherever one wants, by whatever means one finds appropriate, is a RIGHT. The government is not in business to dispense priveleges.
My father drove a truck in Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts in the 1920’s and 1930’s, with no license – none of those states required them, and two didn’t even issue them. There were laws requiring a minimum age for drivers, ability to operate a motor vehicle and knowledge of traffic rules, and all were based on the concept of public safety.
In Massachusetts, there was massive opposition to drivers’ licensing, but the existing laws were unenforceable without a licensing requirement. The argument that won the debate was public safety, and nothing more.
I’ve heard many well-meaning people make the “privelege” claim, but they’re wrong. Any government that can restrict the freedom of movement of its citizens, in any way, without a compelling public interest justification, is a totalitarian state.
Mennos comment… “Driving is not a “right” – it is a privilege.”
Really? Can you back that up with the Constitution that gives me the RIGHT of Free Travel? Did you have to have a license to exercise your “privilege” of operating a horse, horse and buggy, early cars?
Driving is only a “privilege” if you live in a Communist country.
Outside of cities, the only purpose of a speed limit is revenue generation. The MAIN purpose of 25 mph speed limits is revenue generation. The ONLY purpose of licensing is revenue generation. The MAIN function of traffic police is revenue generation.
If we eliminated speed limits outside of cities, ridiculously low (25 mph) speed limits in cities, electronic enforcement devices, and all traffic police… the guv’ment would be much poorer and WE would be wealthier, and happier.
How does whether driving is a “right” or a “privilege” influence speed limits?
Even if we decide that it is a right, it doesn’t necessarily follow that government can’t impose speed limits.
And if it is a privilege, it doesn’t mean that all speed limits make sense, or that a “lower is always better” mentality is the correct one to take regarding speed limits.
I agree with the first two statements, but in my experience in the SF Bay area and southern California, the 3rd sentence is dead wrong. When I was in the Bay Area a few weeks ago, I was passed several times by “maniacs” (my opinion) in beat up family sedans doing 100+ mph. I’m cruising along with the flow of traffic at 70 mph (55-65 mph speed zones), and getting passed like you’re standing still, literally, is quite disconcerting when you are going 70 mph, especially when it happens on the right (these are multi-lane freeways there were lanes on either side of me).
You partly just made an argument for “keep right except to pass”. I spent my first few years driving down I580, I880, I80, US101, and I680. If you don’t like being passed from the right, don’t drive on the left, simple as that. I understand that most of the highways in the bay area are multi-lane highways (I grew up in the bay area), but is there really a need to do 65 in #1-2 lanes when people are doing a similar speed in lanes #3-4? Is it that bothersome to have a speeding driver pass you? You can see it coming in your mirrors (assuming you watch them as you should) a considerable amount of time before they actually pass you. I’m not condoning speeding in traffic or trying to call you out, just saying most places could use a strict “keep right except to pass” policy.
The MAIN function of traffic police is revenue generation.
I disagree. This may be the case in small towns where you’ll have a patrol car waiting near a sign where the speed limit drops to pull over speeders. But traffic enforcement officers help to pull over drunk drivers and get them off the road for some time. Traffic stops also help to find persons with warrants for their arrest. There’s a myriad of reasons for traffic enforcement officers, if it were just for revenue they would be entirely replaced with traffic enforcement cameras which don’t care about things like health insurance, a pension, pay, time off, etc.
Driving is not a “right” – it is a privilege.
For all intents and purposes, driving is a conditional right. The right to drive can’t be arbitrarily denied or taken away, and the state would have to have a very good reason to bar someone from driving.
You can liken a driver’s license to a library card. As a resident in a given jurisdiction, you have the right to get one once you’ve established a few basic things, such as your understanding the rules of using the library. The right is not absolute: If you violate the rules, you can be fined, and if your violations are habitual or egregious, then they can go further and revoke your card. Yet at the same time, anyone who meets the criteria must be issued a card, and they can’t revoke privileges randomly or without cause.
A “privilege” is something that you receive completely at the leisure and discretion of another. For example, unless you’re a cop with a warrant, you don’t have the right to demand entry to a private home; you have to be granted permission by its rightful occupants, and then that permission to enter can be withheld or revoked for pretty much any reason that they like, fair or not.
By that measure, driving isn’t close to being just a privilege. The DMV can’t deny you a license just for kicks, and in a free society, we wouldn’t want them to.
Menno,
How is a public library like the byways of a community? I don’t need to go to the library to get to work or to get food or to be with my friends, family or elected officials.
I lived in Colorado when the interstate highways went from 65 to 75 mph. I recall the objections, including state patrol officers with children saying that we were all going to die.
What happened? As I read about five years later in a Colorado newspaper, that accidents not only went down due to the traffic flowed at more common speeds, but as well that the highways were actually able to handle more traffic. I also noticed that too.
I just suspect that any lowering of speed limits is just so that they can write larger speeding tickets. It’s all about revenue baby!
re: mikey
I much prefer driving in the US. Maybe its better
enforcment,maybe its the more liberal gun laws.
Er, better not to talk to those in the LA area who lived through the RoadRageKiller in the late 80s. If someone cut him off on the freeway, he would follow them and shoot them in the head. Steve Martin lampoons this little bit o’ history in the beginning of LA STORY.
I have driven thousands of miles in the US and the courtesy American drivers never ceases to amaze me.
Having driven thousands of miles in various countries around the world, I will have to agree with you with the exception of Germany being the most driver courteous. Kosovo/Bosnia and Iraq/Kuwait would qualify for the worst driver’s on the planet award though South Korea and Guatamala come in a close second.
re: 210delray:Safety campaigns are totally useless, in and of themselves. This has been proven over decades of carefully controlled studies.
Which/whose studies? I’d like to read them.
re: Airhen
As a fellow Coloradean(ite?) I too remember the battle of the highway speeds, but remember the argument wasn’t about safety so much as it was environmentally not good; i.e., semis would be going faster and thereby tearing up the road faster; gas mileage would go down steadily and pollution from cars would increase, and the roads would have to be widened and improved, etc. However, this didn’t keep me from hitting 85 mph when I could.
Driving is not a “right” – it is a privilege.
I have to jump on this as well, even though Lorenzo, and Pch101 have already done so.
As they both point out, the state can’t deny a license for arbitrary and capricious reasons. Basically, a license can only be denied if you can’t pass the eye test, the rules of the road test, or the actual road test.
A privilege is when you’re 16 and ask dad for the car keys and he’s in a bad mood and says no. You ask why, and his reply is “Because I said so”.
I think Pch’s description of driving as a conditional right is how it should be thought of.
This privilege idea was drummed into everyone in Driver’s Ed. We were 15, and wanted our license, so we didn’t argue. But it simply isn’t true.
I’m of mixed feelings on making the testing harder. I’m not at all sure that it will make a difference.
These are the kind of laws that they have in Germany on the Autobahn. People there are taught certain road rules, such as always keep right, unless to pass. If you dont, you get a ticket. Also, there are areas on the Autobahn with no speed limits, because German drivers know how to drive safe, traffic laws are very strict and are heavily enforced. Those are some of the reasons that Germany has lower traffic fatalities even though the Autobahn has no speed limits in places.
@slateslate:
Mr. Random Guy who is the self-appointed executive director of his institute
Too right. We have here a rather large credibility gap between the messenger and the message. I elected several years ago no longer to devote time to Mr. Dornsife’s phone calls and e-mails; my discretionary time for pointless folly is limited and I find it more productively spent watching “The Simpsons” or something. A couple years ago, a NHTSA lighting compliance enforcement engineer gave a presentation at the SEMA show, the intent of which was to give a general overview of what kinds of lighting equipment are illegal and why; there’s always an enormous amount of unsafe, noncompliant lighting gear at SEMA, and this engineer—who happens to be quite knowledgeable and personable—was trying to bring vendors onside rather than just nuke ’em with the full weight of his agency. The presentation was no high-handed “because we say so” kickaround, it was clear and detailed and educational.
Nevertheless, Dornsife threw a grand mal temper tantrum — no exaggeration; he was hollering and screaming, red in the face, up out of his chair and pounding his fist on the conference table we were all sitting around, belligerently interrupting, baselessly but repeatedly insisting he’s right and everyone else in the room is wrong, mocking the NHTSA guy in elementary school playground fashion, responding to reasonable offers like “If you will show us data to support your assertion that the rule is wrong, we’ll probably change it” with “I don’t have to show you any data! I’m right! Use your freakin’ eyes!“. It was a hell of a display of utterly misdirected hystrionics; the NHTSA guy was in the enforcement division, not the rulemaking. Even if he’d completely agreed with Dornsife, he was utterly powerless to change the rule. Dornsife was doing exactly the equivalent of abusively ranting about a speed limit to a cop trying to decide whether or not to write a ticket. At the time he was a vendor of unsafe lighting equipment (gee…) living near Las Vegas. Now it looks as though he’s moved to Portland and rebranded himself.
He’s right, of course, that V85 is the right way to set speed limits if the goal is to maximise compliance and flow and minimise crashes. There’s decades’ worth of data, a mountain of it from all over the world, robustly demonstrating that to be the case. It’s likewise completely plain that speed limits set arbitrarily or artificially low are the right way to maximise revenue and/or advance political careers (think of the children!).
But as has been amply pointed out in this discussion, Dornsife didn’t tell the ITE assembly anything they don’t already know well enough to recite it backwards in their sleep. He didn’t “argue” anything. He didn’t persuade anyone. I’d bet money everyone in the room tuned him out and caught up on email while he talked. All he did, as it seems, was some self-promotion. Judging by the presence of this “news” article here on TTAC, it worked.