Talk:Speed limits in the United States/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Insurance Company Revenue

I have deleted the paragraph claiming that lower speed limits increase insurance company revenue because it is incorrect. Insurance companies calculate calculate their premiums in order to achieve a specific margin; more speeding fines means the speeders pay higher premiums, but as a result, the non-speeders end up paying lower premiums the next time premiums are readjusted (at least, they should - the insurance company might take this as a good excuse not to lower the premium, but that's just speculation). In fact, one of the sources (#52 at the time of writing) even states clearly that increased speeding fines increase efficiency (as in pricing efficiency) for the insurance company, not revenue. Pirsq (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I restored that section can you add some referenced text to the article?Synchronism (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I take exception to the initial paragraph's argument, because of its reliance on the terms "speeders" and "non-speeders". Since insurance companies base their rates partially on number of speeding tickets received, then it is a logically true statement that an increase in the number of cited speeders will raise revenues for them. "Speeders" is defined by those who have exceeded the "speed limit" and been issued a citation. Therefore, as the number of individuals receiving citations increases, the revenue of the insurance companies increases. If a particular jurisdiction were to lower their speed limit, then someone who previously would not have been eligible for citation as a speeder would now become eligible, and the insurance premium revenue would increase. Therefore, the only way for it NOT to happen that lowering speed limits increases insurance company revenues is for everyone to obey the lowered speed limits (drive slower). The argument here is not that the lower speed limits NECESSARILY increases insurance company revenues - it surely does in fact do so, as people do not adjust their driving habits accordingly. The argument is whether the states have a conflict of interest in requiring motorists to provide business to the very companies who benefit from ARBITRARY lowering of speed limits contrary to the will of the driving public. It is essentially a forced compliance mechanism, which is a different issue altogether than simple speed limits. And arbitrary actions have little place in a factual discussion, as we are assuming intent. In an extreme example, if the jurisdiction lowered their limits within the state to 5mph for every road, then everyone would be a speeder in all cases, and revenue for insurance companies would indeed skyrocket - but this is only an aftereffect of the much broader issue of why that lowering was done. The fact is that government can and does impose many restrictions on its citizens' lives, and the voters by their actions decide whether or not such impositions are acceptable. But if the intent of the original writer is to suggest that this situation has created a self-perpetuating, growing governmental animal, then it is suitable for a different discussion. However, the article implies something else as a fact - that governments do this on purpose to help sustain their coffers. We should not confuse one type of intent with another, even if the outcomes are the same! "Safety" and "security" are concepts that are appealed to with amazing regularity by regulatory agencies, in order to justify all kinds of actions which have hugely inconvenient adjunct effects. But those discussions are better left for another page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.67.45.226 (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement on Delaware I-95 speed limit is wrong

Article states: "All 51 miles (82km) of I-95 in Pennsylvania are posted at 55 mph, while in neighboring New Jersey and Delaware, the speed limit on I-95 is primarily 65 mph, all in suburban environments, with the exception of the city of Wilmington, Delaware, where the speed limit is 55 mph."

That is incorrect. All of I-95 in Delaware is 55 MPH. The I-495 bypass around Wilmington is 65 MPH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.123.84.210 (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Review of USA section in the Speed limit enforcement article?

There is a load of detail in the United States section of the Speed limit enforcement article some of which is pretty out-of-date. Could someone review it and possibly reduce its bulk by moving some of the content to this article? thanks. PeterEastern (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

reducing limits to most economical speed...

I'm most amused by Sen. John Warner's idea. If my experimental measurements using my own car and its trip computer are any judge (2000-model year, 1.6L/106hp engine, manual-shift 5-door), said speed will be around 25-30mph (yes, this means running in a 20mph zone is no more efficient, or even worse than running at those speeds). Maybe 40-45, with larger, less efficient (require more power just to keep running, therefore takes longer for air resistance to reach sufficient equilibrium that economy starts falling again) engines and automatic transmissions.

Either way, the idea will probably not gather much support. Presumably he thinks it's going to be somewhere in the 60-70mph zone, somehow up from 55 but down from 65~80... Oh dear. Sorry John. Not happening. Physics, yknow? It's most likely gone down, if it was ever ~55 in the first place.

And if we start talking electrics or diesels, well, it'll be very definitely 25 (much more efficient than gasoline engines at low running speeds and loads) if not even lower. For motorcycles, it'd be "however slow you can go in the highest gear before your helmet gets noisy", which is about the same; the same pace as a fast pedal cyclist. Or less than them, if you're on a moped-type bike, where it's more like 15-20.

Sure, you can almost certainly improve overall efficiency by reducing and then severely enforcing the highway limit, but the gains will be offset by greater accidents and road-rage incidents from frustrated, bunched-up, distracted drivers. 77.102.101.220 (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Virginia

Its my understanding that some roads in Virginia are now 70MPH (110KmH) limit now, due to a new law signed by the Governor recently. Should the map now be updated?RebelKnightCSA (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Change Virginia to 70mph on the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigma229 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded a new version of the file to Commons with all of Virginia at 70. VDOT has begun signing 70 MPH zones throughout the state. Wthrwyz (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Speed limit chart and the Texas section

I have not read the entire article but the many notes under the speed limit chart "not" to add differential, or night speed limits, needs attention. ||70||55-65||70-75||70-75||30-60||30||||20-35

Conclusion:

• A note or reference needs to be included in the chart to reflect the above to "show" what is being ordered, apparently by the "owner". I realize the desire to have a clean chart but if I am wrong in my opinion and observations please include the WP: amended "rules" that protects this chart so I will know.

The section I read on Texas could use organizing. I became bored will all the running around of the article. I was hesitant to add information, although important, because it would just add to the jumble. Normally I would perform some clean up but "Do not" intend to bump heads with anyone, especially the apparent "owner" of an article. I am NOT trying to be rude but wish my point to be considered or the reasoning for allowance to be explained.

If there are no exceptions or amended rules I would like to see "orders" replaced with requests for consensus before edits. I do not mind the "STOP" sign to call attention to an issue but after that I would like to request please be bold but not dictatorial. If this section needs protecting there are avenues for that. Thank you --- Otr500 (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Utah speed limits on I-15

The speed limit on I-15 increases from 65 mph to 75 mph at the Utah County Line, not in Spanish fork. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.114.255 (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Colours out of order

The colours in the chart do not form a good chromatic sequence. Better to have red/peach/ochre rather than peach/red/ochre.Ordinary Person (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

New Mexico Safety Corridor

Going West from Texas on Interstate 10, New Mexico has a "Safety Corridor" that states 65 MPH Speeding Fines Doubled for next 15 miles. These signs also appear East of Lordsville while still traveling I-10 but being 20 miles in length. What is the definition to "Safety Corridor"? If anyone has a definition, then please add this under the NEW MEXICO section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.179.96 (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

LA DOTD announces speed limit increase along I-49 in DeSoto Parish

http://www.dotd.la.gov/pressreleases/release.aspx?key=1666 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.149.12 (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Texas 85 mph limits

The section about the 85 mph speed limits in Texas is no longer accurate. The bill was amended before passing the House so that the 85 mph provision really would only apply to new roads built to new standards and which opened to traffic on or after June 1, 2011. See http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=HB1201.

There is no telling what the final shape of the bill will be in before it emerges from the Senate, so we probably should refrain from mentioning it until it's passed and signed by the governor.

173.172.51.3 (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, there's another bill to raise all limits to 75 mph. Wait until they're passed! 129.119.62.61 (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The 75 and 85 mph bills passed. The 85 mph bill was loosened so that any road is eligible for it as long as it is "designed to accommodate travel at that established speed or a higher speed". Main page being updated now. 76.186.121.17 (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Utah

I can't find anything online to back up and reference what I saw driving I-15 in Utah the other day... but there are 2 new "test" sections of 80 mph. There is a 22 mile section north of Cedar City and a 20 mile section north of Beaver. I was not paying 100% attention but inside one of those test zones there was a sign for a reduced 70 mph zone for some unknown reason. I did not want to update the main article yet with this information.

Sbhipp (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Texas speed limits

There will likely be many changes in store for this page that will greatly simplify the description of Texas speed limits. Here are three main reasons:

HB 1201, mentioned above for its 85 mph speed limit, was passed by both houses of the Texas Legislature and sent to the governor on 5/23/11. Its main purpose wasn't to set an 85 mph speed limit (the limit already existed, but no eligible roads were built yet), but to remove the concept of the Trans-Texas Corridor from Texas statutory code. However, the Legislature decided that they wanted to keep the option of an 85-mph road available if such a road were built to appropriate standards. It appears that the bill has the necessary 2/3 vote to make it effective immediately upon the governor's signature; otherwise it would take effect on 9/1/11.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext/html/HB01201F.htm

HB 1353 was also passed on 5/23/11 and awaits signature. It essentially removes all differential speed limits for nighttime conditions and for trucks, and raises the maximum prima facie speed limit to 75 mph for all highways on the state highway system not already covered by the special conditions established for 80 mph and 85 mph. It will take effect on 9/1/11.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext/html/HB01353F.htm

Finally, the general notation about environmental speed limits seems to be a bit out of date, though the Texas-specific notation further down the page is pretty good. TxDOT is no longer allowed to set environmental speed limits, though the existing ones haven't exactly been repealed (see subsection (j) in Section 545.353 at the link below). However, HB 1201 would seem to permit their repeal if the Commission chooses to do so.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/TN/htm/TN.545.htm#545.353

By the time September 1 rolls around, this page will be ready for a lot of editing!

Mbrewer41 (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The bill banning environmental speed limits (ESLs) explicitly exempted ESLs that existed before the bill's effective date. ESLs still exist, and will continue to exist, in at least 17 Texas counties around DFW and Houston. TTC can't repeal them without EPA threatening to withhold highway funds, although the recent improvement of DFW's smog remediation plan may be a gateway towards repealing them. 76.186.121.17 (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I will be awaiting the rewrite. The section; Texas#75 mph and 80 mph limits, lists 583 miles that are covered under the 80 mph speed limit for I-10 and I-20. A reference here is showing 521 miles being affected. Is there a reference to clear this up or one to show the breakdown as provided?

IT'S TIME TO UPDATE THE MAP

I tried to update the svg map but it won't let me upload it. So, whoever has the power to make changes to the map, please do the following:

• Make Texas 80
• Make Louisiana 75
• Make Kansas 75 (07/01/2011) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigma229 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The highest speed limit seen by the vast majority of Texas freeway motorists on a given day remains 70 mph. 80 mph only exists in some remote Interstates in far west Texas. 76.186.121.17 (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

True, but then shouldn't we change Utah back to 75 mph and Ohio back to 65 mph on the map? Utah only has a few stretches of 80 mph on it's highways and Ohio's turnpike is the only highway with a 70 mph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.149.12 (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If the state speed limits are 75 and 65 mph, with just exceptions, then yes the map should reflect the state speed limit color and certainly if multiple speed limit colors are not an option. Otr500 (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I have updated the map. Per the description, the map is for describing limits broadly applicable across a state. Therefore, I have reverted Utah back to 75mph since the two 80 zones are relatively short and in one area. I have also increased Kansas to 75mph, since that will be a state-wide change come July 1st. I've kept Louisiana at 70mph for the same reason I reverted Utah. I left Ohio at 70mph because the Turnpike stretches across the entire state -- however, Ohio should probably be broken down by county to show this. --Shadowlink1014 (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You can now add Maine to that list with 75mph coming to parts of I-95. I think best way to handle these exceptions is just to use multiple colors no need for a county by county breakdown that states section should be enough to explainSt8fan (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with St8fan. Make all of Texas 80 mph. If users want to know what areas of Texas are 80 mph they can view it in the TX section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigma229 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

LOUISIANA

Louisiana should be colored by county like Texas is, since only three parishes in Louisiana--DeSoto, Evangeline and St. Landry--have a 75 MPH speed limit, and that is only on a single road, Interstate 49. Nowhere else in Louisiana is the speed limit greater than 70 MPH, and in a few parishes, the speed limit actually is no more than 60 MPH since long stretches of Interstate 10 are elevated over water, and state law in those areas limit roads to 60. DavidSteinle (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Then the same should be done for:

• Ohio (counties that the turnpike go through)
• Maine (counties that will have the 75mph section of I-95)
• Utah (counties that have the 80mph section of I-15)
• Oklahoma (counties that have the 75mph turnpikes)

Or, just leave them as be and look for the details in each state's section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigma229 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

ONLY THREE OF LOUISIANA'S 64 PARISHES HAVE A 75 MPH SPEED LIMIT. LOUISIANA SHOULD BE COLORED AT 70 WITH THE EXCEPTION NOTED BELOW. IF YOU PEOPLE WANT TO LEAVE COMMENTS, HAVE THE GUTS TO SIGN YOUR NAME TO THE POST. DavidSteinle (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't read comments written in all caps, but from what I understand of the Louisiana and Maine situations, the highways with the higher speed limits represent a minuscule part of the states' road systems. Back when Virginia had only a single road with a 70-mph limit (I-85 from 2006 to 2010), Virginia was colored as a "65" state on the map because the 70-mph limit was in such a minute area. At one point there was a tiny bit of the 70-mph color on the Virginia part of the map roughly approximating I-85's location. I tend to think that Maine and Louisiana ought to be shown the same way, either as 65/70 respectively or as 65/70 with a 75 stripe roughly approximating the locations of the two routes in question, given that the map and the table are intended to show the "usual" prevailing speed limits on Interstate Highways in each state. But I'm not going to edit the map because I'm not certain how exactly images of that sort function on Wikipedia and because I tend to agree with "Enigma29" that you can just look at the summary table. I think a county-by-county breakdown becomes impractical, though, especially when you start getting into situations where but a single road in a county has a higher speed limit or where that road has multiple speed limits (I live in Fairfax County, Virginia, for example, and I-395 is posted at 55 mph in the local lanes and at 65 mph in the express lanes; meanwhile, I-66 is posted at 55 mph east of Centreville and 60 mph west of there, going to 65 mph and then 70 mph in the next county to the west). It's just too much of a nuisance and it presents a level of detail that is not needed in this sort of overarching article. 1995hoo (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Texas section update

This is what I propose be done with the section on Texas, to simplify and shorten the section. Sections of the Texas Transportation Code are included in parentheses. Please note the difference between "found to be reasonable and safe" and "an engineering and traffic investigation." I found errors in the existing text. Also, the default speed limit is still 70. The introduced text of House Bill 1353 would have raised the default limit to 75, but it was amended to keep the default limit at 70 and allow 75 if that's found to be reasonable and safe.

I suggest replacing the first section with the text below, and removing the sections on night speed limits, truck speed limits, 75 and 80 mph speed limits, and 85 mph speed limits. This article should be limited to current general speed limit laws. The historical information and examples of limits on specific roads are better left for the separate article on Texas speed limits. I included some historical information about the Trans-Texas Corridor, because I thought it was relevant to show why statute allows a speed limit of 85, even though it isn't posted anywhere. I'd leave in the two sections on environmental speed limits because it's still relevant, as there are still roads with those lower limits. I copied the first paragraph and wrote the rest myself. I've never edited here before, so I don't know the protocol. I don't want to make such a drastic revision myself, but I think it's time to simplify the section on Texas, and I submit this to accomplish that goal.
---
Texas is the only state that does not prescribe a speed limit for each road type. Any rural road—two lane, four lane, freeway, or otherwise—that is numbered by the state or federal government has a 70 mph (113 km/h) default speed limit.(545.352) The law allows reducing the 70 mph limit if an engineering and traffic investigation shows a lower limit to be necessary.(545.353) A county can request a lower speed limit for a farm-to-market or ranch-to-market road within that county if the road does not have improved shoulders, in which case a lower limit can be established without a traffic and engineering investigation.(545.3535)

Prior to September 1, 2011, a speed limit of 75 mph (121 km/h) could be set on a numbered highway in a county with a population density of fewer than 15 persons per square mile if that speed was found to be reasonable and safe. As of that date, the 75 mph speed limit can be applied to a numbered highway in any county if that speed is found to be reasonable and safe.(545.353 as amended by HB 1353)

The speed limit on Interstate Highways 10 and 20 can be set as high as 80 mph (129 km/h) in certain counties named in the statute.(545.353) The qualifying stretches of roadway include I-20 from the Ward/Crane county line to its terminus at I-10, and I-10 from the El Paso/Hudspeth county line to Kerr County. Between southeastern Kerr County and northwestern Kerr County, I-10 crosses the southwest corner of Gillespie County, where the 80 mph limit is not authorized The statute allows the 80 mph limit anywhere in Kerr County, but it has been posted only west of Gillespie County, and not in southeastern Kerr County.

Tollway authorities are authorized to post speed limits as high as 75 mph on toll roads.(545.354 as amended by HB 1353) Rural roads not numbered by the state or federal government and not part of a turnpike project have a statutory maximum speed limit of 60 mph.(545.352) An exception is that a county with a population over 2.8 million, which includes only Harris County, may establish a speed limit as high as 75 mph on a road with limited or controlled access.(545.355 as amended by HB 1353)

When the Trans-Texas Corridor was written into statute, a speed limit of 85 mph (137 km/h) was authorized. Later statutory revision removed references to the Trans-Texas Corridor, but left in place the authority to establish a speed limit of 85 mph.(545.353 as amended by HB 1201) This limit can be applied on a part of the state highway system that is designed to accommodate that speed or a higher speed, and only after an engineering and traffic investigation finds the speed to be reasonable and safe. At this time the 85 mph speed limit is not used, and no section of road other than the specified sections of Interstates 10 and 20 have limits higher than 75 mph. [I have no reference for this, but I think it should be pointed out.]
---
This would be followed by the two sections on environmental speed limits. I'd remove the rest of it. This historical information and examples of speed limits are in the "speed limits in Texas" article. I believe the web site showing statutes is updated in February. It's probably better to link to bills as citations until that site is updated, if a statutory amendment makes the information there outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.68.195.102 (talk) 07:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

"Financial Concerns" section does not follow Wikipedia neutrality guidelines

The first paragraph of this section makes several sweeping claims without providing any cited references to back them up. S. Neuman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC).

Obvious editorializing, possibly based on personal experience - and, frankly, out of date. Certainly true when they dropped speeds to 55 and a cottage industry of evading "Smokey" began. But it's back up to 65, 70, 75, 80, 85... certainly fast enough for most drivers and undermines the user's argument. I say whack it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That's also based on your opinion that speed limits are high enough. Fact is, revenue continues to be a huge motivation behind speed limits and enforcement. Don't believe it? Check out all the stories that www.thenewspaper.com keeps finding on that subject. 76.186.11.86 (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Residential divided vs. undivided?

What the heck is a residential divided street? That is more of a collector street, and it's not residential. The residential divided category needs to be removed from the table at top. All you need is residential. 76.186.11.86 (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Colonial Boston inflation template

As of March 18, 2012, the 2012 equivalent to 10 shillings in English currency in 1757 is equivalent to $89.36 USD. See http://www.xe.com/ucc for the current exchange rate.Bill S. (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

City of New York

Parkway traffic limit is 50 MPH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwyfuzz (talk • contribs) 19:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Stop censoring open records request-sourced documents

User:Baseball_Bugs and User:Alex_Sims: what the user posted, that you two keep deleting, are clearly the result of open records requests to government entities.

You are wrong to cite WP:SELFPUBLISH as justification for your censorship. WP:SELFPUBLISH is about the work of the self-published person. These items are not the work of the person who hosts them. Rather, the person who hosts them just happened to scan and post the works, obtained through open records requests, of government entities. Where he hosts this is irrelevant and is not a justification for taking them down.

Government entities generally do not host copies of open records requests on their own equipment. Therefore, according to your policy, the raw result of open records requests, as posted here, would never be admissible.

Now, if you believed the documents were FORGED or FAKED, you may have an argument. But they look legit.

76.186.14.65 (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The game goes on! Now User:Alex Sims and User:Ohnoitsjamie appear to be censoring facts they don't agree with using illegitimate arguments. 129.119.62.74 (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This is about our WP:RS policy, not censorship. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Complain to your local paper about your speeding tickets, not Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"Pending" entries in the table

I've deleted a bunch of references to "pending" speed limits in the summary chart because I think they don't belong there, they're misleading, and they open too much of a can of worms. As best I can determine, a well-intentioned editor became aware that in a number of states' legislatures there have been bills introduced to allow higher speed limits than are now in place and so the editor felt those proposed limits should be included in the table as "pending." I don't think this is the right approach. For one thing, it violates WP:CRYSTAL because there's no way to know whether the bills will pass. Indeed, speed limit bills are introduced in just about every state every year and the vast majority are quickly dropped in committees. Many stand no chance at all of passing (for example, this year we had a bill in Virginia that would have allowed an 80-mph speed limit on toll roads; it went nowhere and it never stood a chance of going anywhere). If we're going to start revising the table to reflect every time a bill is introduced, it would become unworkable. I think it would also violate WP:NOTNEWS because Wikipedia's role isn't to report every time a state legislator somewhere introduces proposed legislation. State government websites exist for that purpose. Finally, I think saying "xx pending" is misleading because it suggests to the reader that the higher speed limit is to take effect at some point, when in fact the higher limit is merely proposed. When a speed limit increase is actually pending, it's been indicated in the table by including the effective date (such as the New Hampshire increase taking effect in January). I think that's a better way of conveying accurate information. 1995hoo (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Pennsylvania 70 MPH

I don't know if it should wait until it is signed along roadways, but the PA general Assembly recently approved a speed limit increase to 70 mph as part of a larger infrastructure funding bill. The Governor is expected to sign it later this week, but PennDot is already preparing to study where the speed limit increase is feasible.

Speed Limits Going Up on Some Highways

PennDOT Prepares to Study Higher Speed Limits

--L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This article is turning into a monster

I won't have time to undertake a massive revision to this article in the coming weeks due to a vacation, but as I look at it this morning I feel like it's becoming out of control. A large part of this is the natural tendency many Wikipedia editors have to strive to include as much information as possible in the name of accuracy, which means that when an article contains a general statement along the lines of, say, "Virginia's Department of Transportation has declined to post 70-mph speed limits on non-Interstates," someone would add the Lynchburg–Madison Heights Bypass on US-29 because it's an exception. That's fair enough as a general matter, but where does one draw the line? I think this article is becoming so completely larded up with trivia and exceptions and the like that it's becoming unwieldy and of limited use to the casual reader. Who cares about every little exception to a state's general rules? There are always going to be exceptions. I think the California and Colorado subsections are pretty well-written overviews of those states' laws that refrain from delving into minutia. But then I look at the Mississippi subsection and I see a list of links to articles about specific roads that allegedly reflect the state's "typical" speed limit on four-lane divided highways. If it's "typical," then we don't need examples, do we?

I guess what I'm getting at here is that I think there's a ton of trivia and unnecessary detail in this article that ought to be removed, but I'm not sure how best to attack the issue and where to draw the line on minutia because there are obviously some exceptions that are worth noting. The 85-mph speed limit in Texas is a good example. While it's only posted on a portion of one road and thus represents an utterly minuscule portion of the Texas highway system (let alone the entire highway system across the United States), it's the highest posted speed limit in North America and deserves mention for that reason. Similarly, New Hampshire's 70-mph speed limit applies on only one road (I-93), but New Hampshire is a small state without many Interstates or "Interstate look-alikes" and the 70-mph limit deserves mention because it's unusual in that part of the country. Fair enough. But where do we draw the line between a legitimate exception worthy of mention on the one hand and unnecessary minutia on the other? 1995hoo (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@1995hoo:, I'm not a regular editor to this page, but my first inclination would be to split the section Jurisdictional distinctions into a new page entitled Speed limits in the United States by state. Any thoughts? Zeus ^{t | u | c} 10:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I think most of the states' individual sections have enough information for separate articles in their own right. I would tend to gravitate towards separating these multiple articles, especially for the states that have multiple sections (Montana, Missouri, Texas...) I'll do some work in my sandbox and probably separate all these articles eventually. Molandfreak (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Responding here to both Zeus and Molandfreak. I like the idea of separating out the discussion of the separate states because on the whole, they're not all that relevant to the principle of how speed limits are handled on a national basis. It'd be easy to summarize the general principle that since December 1995 the states have been able to set their own speed limits and that, since then, as a general matter the Plains and Rocky Mountain states generally have higher speed limits than the states along the coasts and that the Northeast generally has the lowest speed limits. Having the summary table remain here, and the discussions about factors applicable in numerous states (arbitrariness and the like), probably makes sense. But the idea of splitting off all the states into either one article or separate articles probably makes sense. It'd also help avoid the annoying problem of people trying to lard this article up with allegedly "pending" speed limit increases every time some state legislator introduces a bill that would allow higher limits. That's not "pending" because Wikipedia is not, and cannot reasonably become, a bill-tracking service. (Put it this way: This past winter a member of the House of Delegates in Virginia introduced a bill that would have allowed an 80-mph speed limit on toll roads and HO/T lanes. It never stood any chance of going anywhere and it didn't make it out of committee. That sort of thing is not notable enough to warrant mention here.)

As far as whether to do one article for all the states or separate articles for each state, I don't know what's best, but obviously there are some states that don't seem to merit much discussion (such as Vermont or Delaware or the like, small states with no major distinctions) and there are others with fairly complex speed limit regimes (Texas comes to mind). Might it be feasible to combine them all and then break out the few states that have more detailed discussions. I still feel fairly strongly that even in a state-specific article it's not necessary to list every last exception (e.g.: "Four-lane highways with at-grade intersections are normally posted at 65 mph except for a six-mile segment of XYZ Road that passes a toxic waste dump with a large amount of truck traffic turning in and out"....who cares?), but I also know it's a never-ending battle to keep that stuff out of the articles. At least in a state-specific article it's easier for an interested person (preferably one from the state in question who is more familiar with the roads) to keep an eye on it. (As you may have guessed, I'm from Virginia. I'd have a hard time saying anything worthwhile about California's speed limits because I've never been to that state.) 1995hoo (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

To help combat the large article size, we can split some of the states with more information (such as Texas) into separate articles (such as Speed limits in Texas), with this article only providing a brief summary of those states' speed limits. However, not all states have enough detail to necessitate their own articles and those states should continue to be covered in full here. Dough4872 02:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Saw that someone created the separate article. Would still like to see Texas in particular with it's own article, but I think this is good. I took the liberty of creating a template for all speed limit-related articles in the U.S. Molandfreak (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Maryland 70 MPH

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2015/02/19/md-senate-oks-speed-limit-boost-to-70-on-state-highways/

This page needs an update for MD soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.158.173 (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Article title

A well-intentioned user who split off all the state-specific sections (a move I applaud) also moved this article to "Speed limits in the United States of America." I've moved it back because the move was made without consensus on the talk page. I think that's the sort of change that ought to be discussed first. For what it's worth, I oppose the change because I do not believe the use of the "of America" suffix is standard on Wikipedia. The main article about the country itself, for example, is called United States. While the country to our south is sometimes (rarely) referred to as the "United Mexican States," that usage is so rare that nobody is ever going to confuse "United States" with Mexico. I think moving the article is unproductive at best and possibly pretentious at worst. But, again, let me note I applaud the user for taking the bold step of moving the state- and territory-specific stuff to a new article. I renamed that new article, incidentally, for consistency. 1995hoo (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia has the article about the country as United States and not United States of America so any articles about topics peertaining to the U.S. should have it spelled as "United States". Dough4872 03:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Wyoming undivided highway speed limit

Rural undivided highways are listed with a speed limit of 70 mph for Wyoming. Wyoming Statues 31-5-301(b)(iv) states that paved roads not otherwised classified shall have a maximum speed limit of 65. My anecdotal experience is that the speed limit on rural roads is 65 mph at most.76.115.59.64 (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Wisconsin now has 70

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/news/releases/299-co-exec.htm - Doesn't discuss the US-routes they claim will get 70 though  — master son^{T - C} 22:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

scratch this - just noticed edits underway :(  — master son^{T - C} 22:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Updated Map for 2016

I have attempted to create my own map, but I am having trouble getting the SVG to render properly. The major adjustments are to update Washington to 75, and Oregon to 70. I originally modified the map as created by Andros 1337, but I do not want to overwrite his file (though I have attempted, and failed each time). Thus, either the original map has to be edited by the owner, or I will make my own map, presuming I can figure out how to render the SVG properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakeroot (talk • contribs) 21:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the map should show speed limits that have not yet been implemented. Nevada has authorized 80 mph but has not posted any sections yet. Washington has not implemented any 75 mph sections either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingsoc75 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't completely disagree, but the map should reflect the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakeroot (talk • contribs) 21:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Speed limits in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060925141425/http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speed_manage/brochure.htm to http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speed_manage/brochure.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060524220351/http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speed_manage/docs/speeding_counts.pdf to http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speed_manage/docs/speeding_counts.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

5 miles to kilometers; 8 vs. 9 as difference

The speed limits are in multiples of 5 mph. Their kph equivalents should be formed by adding 8 for every group of 5 mph. But one of them (added at 55 mph) differs by 9, not 8. Why?? Suppose the sequence is extrapolated to numbers like 5000?? What are the chances that the differences between 2 mph numbers that are 5 times consecutive integers have their kph equivalents differ by 9 rather than 8?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Speed limits in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060613083358/http://tfhrc.gov:80/safety/speed/speed.htm to http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Reverts

Okay, @Magnolia677:, @RoadFan2015: - why shouldn't I block the pair of you for edit-warring? Discuss. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

"All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed", per WP:V. This was my reason for both removing and reverting. As well, an editor who continues to add unsourced material, despite warning, makes that editor a disruptive one. There are steps for dealing with a disruptive editor, the first being to "revert uncited or unencyclopedic material", per WP:DDE. If the reverting continues, "and they are inserting unsourced information: revert, and request an administrator". This occurred here and here. The policy states "these steps do not necessarily have to be done in this sequence", nor does the policy put a limit on the number of reverts. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

None of that is covered by the exemptions in WP:3RRNO, and "my edits were right so I wasn't edit warring" is the oldest excuse in the book. I got the impression RoadFan was updating the article based on personal knowledge; perhaps the sources used are now out of date? The flip-side of "all material must be verifiable" is "all sourced information must be accurate". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Maximum posted vs Maximum legislated

Some aspects of the article appear to be confusing: some states have passed statutes authorising higher speed limits but have not posted them. Washington State is a prime example where the legislature permits 75 mph but nowhere is it posted above 70. Should the article map reflect what is posted rather than what is legislated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smrgeog (talk • contribs) 06:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Speed limits in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080314144851/http://www.state.nj.us:80/mvc/manuals/chap_04_01.html to http://www.state.nj.us/mvc/manuals/chap_04_01.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-862

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)