Hey, there! Log in / Register

Suburban state rep feels the need, the need for speed

State Rep. Dan Winslow (R-Norfolk) has proposed increasing the speed limit from 65 to 70) on sections of the turnpike, I-95 and I-91.

Winslow tells WBZ most people drive faster than 65 anyway and raising the limit would bring some consistency back to police enforcement of speed limits.


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

So Winslows idea is that since most drivers break the law, change the law? How about tell cops to enforce the law, you know, do their job.

up
Voting closed 0

The speed limit should be the speed that the median drives (no pun intended), assuming its safe (which 70 is, relatively speaking to 65), not what grandma drives in the far right lane. Tractor trailers fully loaded going up a hill in the right lane don't even do 65 mph. I can't even tell you how many times I've passed cops, leg out of their cruiser holding their radar gun, going 70-75 and they don't pull me over. Not cause they're lazy, but because 70mph is safe on the pike. 80 isn't. They already patrol realistic speeds, the speed limit signs/laws just haven't caught up.

up
Voting closed 0

The speed limit should be the 85th percentile, not the median (which is the 50th percentile).

up
Voting closed 0

No, his idea is that since most people can drive 70mph without ending up in a fiery crash, it's probably a relatively safe speed. But hey Mr. Law & Order, I get it. I bet you're one of those guys who applauded cops "doing their jobs" back when it was illegal to drink and women couldn't vote. Never saw a law you didn't like, eh?

up
Voting closed 0

Awesome response ... Cops cut people some slack for doing 5 mph over the limit and they aren't doing their job ... Id rather a little common sense did discretion rather then ticky tack crap like you seem to be upset over .

up
Voting closed 0

So if the speed limit is raised to 70, people will do 5-10 miles over the new limit, like they did when they raised the limit from 55 to 65, leading to Winslows current issue, that people drive faster than the latest speed limit. So will 70 be a hard limit, or will you ask cops to cut people some slack and let them go 75? What about just 5mph more than that, 80mph?

up
Voting closed 0

No, they won't. People will drive at a speed that they consider reasonable and safe, and cops will continue to allow people to drive at a speed that is reasonable and safe. People are not generally speed demons, they just want to get where they're going at a reasonable pace. The staties are usually the only people going absurdly fast on the highway anyway.

up
Voting closed 0

So you dont think there should be any speed limits, people will just drive at a speed they feel is safe? There were 10,591 speeding related deaths in the US in 2009 according to the US Census. Where are you getting your facts that speeding is safe?

up
Voting closed 0

We need speed limits so cops can pull people over for going 95, not 75.

up
Voting closed 0

There are no speed limits on portions of the German Autobahn, and yet, there are fewer fatalities per mile than in the US.

The right statistics to examine are crashes and deaths per 100,000 miles. These numbers are lowest on Interstate highways.

Next, look at Massachusetts statistics which are far more relevant than national statistics. The numbers you quote are meaningless to the issue, anon. Also try comparing Massachusetts roadway deaths with other causes, like drug overdoses. Also consider the productivity loss of slower travel speeds vs. possible mortality reduction. Its hugely costly to reduce transportation speeds, much cheaper to reduce drug overdoses. One way is distribution of Narcan injection pens.

The safest speeds for highways is the 85% percentile speed used by traffic. Use that statistic.

What is most missing on multilane roads are signs reading Slower Traffic Keep Right.

up
Voting closed 0

There is a highly integrated emergency system on the Bahns, and very strict seatbelt laws.

up
Voting closed 0

It is also significantly harder to get a drivers license in Germany than it is here.

up
Voting closed 0

lane dicipline and tailgating very seriously, which is another reason that traffic moves safer at the higher speeds.

You should also note that an increasing portion of the Autobahn network is speed zoned. Although a recent effort to establish a national speed limit for the Autobahn was shot down in flames.

up
Voting closed 0

What is most missing on multilane roads are signs reading Slower Traffic Keep Right.

Because we all know how conscientious Mass. drivers are about reading signs.

up
Voting closed 0

The lack of signs seems deliberate so all lanes are clogged with slower drivers, thus reducing speeds. The unintended consequence is more zombie hypnosis or multi-tasking by most, and for those needed to get somewhere: frustration, unhealthy stress, road rage, and weaving in and out of slower traffic blocking the left lane. Often people use the left lane to not let driving distract from their phone conversations.

up
Voting closed 0

Education attempts are better than ignorance

LOL. Maybe you should try it yourself sometime.

up
Voting closed 0

What are these signs of which you speak? There are certainly none that provide street names ... we'd hate for people from away to get the idea that they would know where they're going.

up
Voting closed 0

I was waiting for this argument. There are sections of the Autobahn system with only a "safe and reasonable" speed limit. That said, if the police think that you are driving recklessly in a "safe and reasonable" area, they can pull you over. Additionally, many sections of road have nighttime speed limits, speed limits for inclement weather, speed limits in one lane of a three-lane road, and/or speed limits for trucks.

Additionally, the police have the ability (via a system of overhead electrical signs) to create or change a speed limit immediately on any section of road that needs it. But here's the most important part: German drivers actually follow the rules, and are, in my experience, a lot more orderly than your average American driver.

If you applied German-type speed limits to the highways in Eastern Mass, I don't think there would be a stretch of "safe and reasonable" road anywhere within 495.

up
Voting closed 0

Speeding is driving at an unreasonable speed. 75 is not unreasonable. 95 is unreasonable. The majority of people will drive at a speed that is safe. The others will get pulled over and ticketed. It will be the same as it is now, without the farce of a 65MPH speed limit that nobody, least of all the police, obey.

It's really not that difficult to understand. If a cop thinks someone is driving recklessly or dangerously, he/she can pull said driver over even if the driver is traveling at 60MPH.

up
Voting closed 0

Speed limits are posted for a legitimate reason; they're the fastest that one can drive on a given roadway/highway under ideal (meaning on a dry, sunny day, with the roads bone dry, and no precipitation coming down, and no snow and/or ice on the road.) One of the things we were taught while on our learners' permits (which still holds true today.) is that the majority of accidents occur while operating a vehicle at too great a speed for existing conditions.

up
Voting closed 0

Are you really incapable of safely driving over 65 MPH on 95 on a clear day with no traffic?

up
Voting closed 0

When the speed limit was 65, most traffic was going 75 to 80, and enforcement was largely non-existent (likely because it was impractical). Since the speed limit was raised to 70, most traffic goes 70 to 75, and there's much more enforcement.

So, there's at least one example of where raising the speed limit both slowed the average speed of traffic down and made better enforcement possible.

up
Voting closed 0

that speed limits on highways should be arbitrarily set to be lower than what the design of said highways can safely accommodate. Because that's exactly what we have on most of our Interstates and other roads (and not just the ones that Winslow's proposing - think US 3 north of Burlington for starters).

I'm all for greater enforcement. But let's start by posting realistic limits that the majority of drivers are safe and comfortable driving at. This is the proper way to insure safe and efficient traffic flow. It will also make enforcement easier for the police.

As for legislation, instead of this "increase to 70 on certain Interstates", we should encourage legislation that retains the basic "reasonable and proper" speed law, but gets the politicians out of the business of speed zoning entirely and leaves it up to MassDOT.

Google "85th percentile speed" and read some of the results. Then you might get an idea of why Winslow is advocating for this.

up
Voting closed 0

Yeah, many interstates are designed for 75 mph.

That doesn't mean that it is always a good idea to drive those speeds - like, when it is icy, for example, or when the road is near capacity (and we all know there is never any congestion on MA roads ...).

Many city streets are a fine to drive at 30 mph by design - but that doesn't mean that you can safely do so. The design speed does not account for conditions and environment - like, schools and train stations and other pedestrian zones along the way.

Statements about "design speed" are why we are seeing increasing traffic calming measures in congested areas. Traffic calming lowers the design speed to an appropriate level for the environment - like those nifty new 25mph speed humps going in on Winthrop St. in Medford to keep motorists from regularly hitting 40 mph on the straight away in a heavily pedestrian neighborhood.

So much fun to see one of those totally lowered down Hondas driven by a totally oblivious git going 40mph hit the crosswalk hump going uphill the other day. Shower of sparks! Wheeee!

up
Voting closed 0

Nobody ever said that the speed limit is the speed you should always drive. It is always incumbent on the driver to adjust for non-ideal conditions. And you're confusing "design speed" with practical speed. Nobody is advocating posting 45MPH through a school zone.

Essentially none of what you're saying is germane to the question of why, on a clear, dry day with no congestion, the speed limit on the Pike is 65 MPH.

up
Voting closed 0

When speed limits dropped, roadway deaths plummeted: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/17/scie...

Note that there are an order of magnitude more traffic deaths every year in the US than there were people killed by terrorists 12 years ago today.

Oh, and you should really look up what "design speed" means. I'm not the one who is confused here - I first encountered the term when I was a kid and my dad was building interstates through remote areas without speed limits, but still wouldn't drive over 75 mph. That's easy when you have flat, open spaces to work with. Many stretches of interstate in MA were built much earlier and weren't even built to the 70mph design speed.

up
Voting closed 0

Fatalities did fall in 1973-1974 when the 55 mph limit was enacted.

But fatalities fell more than twice as much between 1974 and today, including when the national limit was raised to 65 in 1987, and repealed in 1995.

The generally accepted conclusion is that new safety features in cars were the biggest factor in reducing fatalities, not speed limits.

up
Voting closed 0

Cars, tires, headlights, and brakes of today have improved since Interstate highways designed 50 years ago. One step back is the shift from concrete to asphalt, which is more slippery, especially when wet.

Yes, the many Mass roads used heavily like circa 1935 parkways are in severe need of modernization to make them safer and handle increased traffic since then.

About 2x as many people die in Mass from drug overdoses than all roadway deaths. We have fewer road deaths than most other states.

up
Voting closed 0

While the absolute death toll reduction with lower speeds might be different with better technology cars today, reducing speed reduces crash severity, and reducing crash severity reduces the death toll.

up
Voting closed 0

Car design has most advanced in the area of crash survival. Crumple zones and occupant safety cage concepts coupled with air bags didn't exist 50 years ago. They have been more responsible for crash death reduction than speed limits, radar guns, speed cameras, or police enforcement. Ever notice in Germany how many fewer police cars you see on the roads? Amazing how this feels like a police state in comparison.

up
Voting closed 0

Just because better, safer cars are being manufactured these days doesn't excuse people speeding and driving so as to endanger other people. Airbags and other things like that do save lives. Don't kid yourself.

up
Voting closed 0

What the fuck? Nobody is saying everyone should be driving around at 90 MPH. 65 is unreasonably slow and nobody follows it anyway. It's actually an illegal speed limit because it's not set based on the established laws and standards for setting speed limits. But you're right, it's much better to have posted speed limits that are ridiculously low rather than speed limits that can be reasonably enforced.

up
Voting closed 0

For many years now, Massachusetts has been using an asphalt pavement called open-graded friction course (and, recently, it's cousion - gap-graded friction course) on its Interstates and freeways.

These pavements, often called "popcorn mix", are more coarse and have larger voids than tradtional pavements. The result is that, during heavy rainstorms, water runs off more freely and doesn't build up.

up
Voting closed 0

implement 15 mph speed limits in ALL bike lanes......

up
Voting closed 0

...55 mph was implemented? Ugh. I was driving to western MA a lot then and 55 on the pike, especially west of I-495, was just downright painful.

edit: oops sorry - didn't mean to reply to you....

up
Voting closed 0

I do miss being able to go Right On Red, which Carter also imposed to reduce fuel consumption.

up
Voting closed 0

See NYT article, above.

up
Voting closed 0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Spee...

Reports that Mass made the speed limit 50mph, and while fuel savings were projected to be 2.2%, results were less than 1%.

No information in the Wiki entry on lost productivity and ecconomic harm from increased time wasted in travel.

"A Cato Institute report showed that the safety record worsened in the first few months of the new speed limits, suggesting that the fatality drop found by the NRC was a statistical anomaly that regressed to the mean by 1978.[18] After the oil crisis abated, the NMSL was retained mainly due to the possible safety aspect.[citation needed]"

up
Voting closed 0

On a fifteen mile commute, assuming that you might be able to go 55 instead of 50 mph for 10 miles of that, lost productivity would be, well, a negligible two minutes. You can't even argue that it would have any huge impact across the population, either, because two minutes is most certainly less than the variance that day to day traffic and light cycles would cause before and after leaving the highway.

When your absolute effect is less than your variance, that's not a statistically distinguishable difference.

Even in the 1970s, most people generally didn't have such long commutes that it would matter. The exurbs didn't build out until the 1990s. Still, the "rolling roadblocks" that the state police would set up were legendary and still infuriating for the old timers in the retelling.

Also, be aware that the Cato institute does research for hire to please their patrons. They don't perform and report rigorous peer reviewed science.

up
Voting closed 0

That kind of math works both ways. Driving the Pike at 75 versus 55 saves about 35 minutes.

And even if we assume there's a safety benefit to driving slower on highways at all speed ranges, it would be a negligible improvement to go 50 instead of 55 for 10 miles.

up
Voting closed 0

Cato Institute report quote being "citation needed" noted at the end.

up
Voting closed 0

Not even reasonable and proper! Mass Law limits speed limits to motor vehicles! How stupid is that? No wonder so many cyclists operate recklessly, its allowed.

up
Voting closed 0

... on that "ignore" button. ;~}

up
Voting closed 0

Honestly I could get behind raised speed limits on the highways; but another change that needs to happen is lower speed limits on the local roads... high-speed traffic does not belong on local roads with pedestrian activity.

I realize road design plays a role here; too many roads were rebuilt for high-speeds that are inappropriate for the environment and they should be calmed.

up
Voting closed 0

If it's raised to 70 then people will go 80. Most people are going to want to drive 5 to 10 miles per hour faster than the limit no matter what. The faster you go, everything becomes just a little more dangerous. And here is the fundamental problem with Dan Winslow's argument:

“Our roads are designed for 70. Our cars are designed for faster than 65,” Winslow told the Committee on Transportation Tuesday.

Because we know that raising the limit to 70 means people will drive above 70, then that means they will be driving faster than the roads are designed for.

up
Voting closed 0

No they won't, that's a fallacious argument. People will generally drive at a reasonable and safe speed. Many studies support this, and that's why the standard for setting speed limits is the 85th percentile of free flowing traffic speed. The problem is that we haven't done speed studies in over 50 years to adjust the speed limits on our highways.

up
Voting closed 0

Andy Griffith Show reruns again, eh?

up
Voting closed 0

People who go faster than you are assholes.

People who go slower than you are dumbasses.

up
Voting closed 0