Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

...In Texas.

TX, which currently is tied with UT for the fastest roads in the country at 80 mph, is considering opening a stretch of the new SR-130 (intended to relieve congestion on I-35) at 85 mph, which would place it as the second fastest signed limit in the Western world (behind Poland's 86 mph). Of course, the German Autobahn is still unsigned for passenger vehicles. MT and NV apparently had Autobahn rules on many roads before the mid-'70s national 55 mph speed limit. (I knew about MT, but not NV.) TX has had 85 authorized for new roads for awhile, but the one toll road the law was designed for never came to fruition. The state says that people routinely do 85 on SR-130 anyway. Critics don't like it because they think more and nastier crashes happen at higher speeds, but the state speed management director says that the safest roads are the ones where people are doing roughly the same speed (presumably even when said speed is high).

Thoughts?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47729089/ns/us_news-life/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SuperHornet wrote:...In Texas.

TX, which currently is tied with UT for the fastest roads in the country at 80 mph, is considering opening a stretch of the new SR-130 (intended to relieve congestion on I-35) at 85 mph, which would place it as the second fastest signed limit in the Western world (behind Poland's 86 mph). Of course, the German Autobahn is still unsigned for passenger vehicles. MT and NV apparently had Autobahn rules on many roads before the mid-'70s national 55 mph speed limit. (I knew about MT, but not NV.) TX has had 85 authorized for new roads for awhile, but the one toll road the law was designed for never came to fruition. The state says that people routinely do 85 on SR-130 anyway. Critics don't like it because they think more and nastier crashes happen at higher speeds, but the state speed management director says that the safest roads are the ones where people are doing roughly the same speed (presumably even when said speed is high).

Thoughts?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47729089/ns/us_news-life/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I believe that is correct. Everyone doing 75 is safer than some people doing 65 and others doimg 55. If you're going to raise the speed limit, you should raise and enforce the minimum speed limit.

86 is spot on here, IMO. There is nothing worse than a fogie doing 35 on a freeway signed for 65.

Of course, I ONCE got pulled over (got off with a warning) for doing five under on I-5 in San Diego. I just got fiercely questioned about why I was in SD when I was stationed in 29 Palms. Nowadays, I try to keep to the limit, though that's not enough for some. I DO tend to get frustrated after a while when I'm getting the bird for "only" doing five over....

We should not have a speed limit except in town.

Montana's was officially "reasonable and prudent" from 1995-1998, when they decided it was too vague. BMW and other car companies would bring their cars to the eastern part of the state to test them out, IIRC. Also, Germany apparently now has posted speed limits on about 50% of Autobahn routes.

polsongrizz wrote:We should not have a speed limit except in town.

I'm not sure I'd go THAT far, pols, but I get your point. Many people, particularly testosterone-laden men, would love that. But by no means would men be the ONLY ones. I have a female former Marine friend (an MP, no less) who scared me to death in her Mitsubishi sportscar, doing triple digits on this curvy portion of the old US-66 leading to the base in Barstow.

It's kinda hard to determine what in-town limits should be. In Lodi, they'll change the limits without telling anyone. Now you can go faster on certain stretches of Lodi Avenue (a main-drag surface street) than on Kettleman Lane (which is technically part of SR-12). A 35 mph limit on a highway when you can do 45 or 50 on other streets in town? It was set up like that to rip people off on speeding tickets. I should know because I got nailed. Dude waited two or three lights before he pulled me over, too. On Kettleman Lane, those new 35 signs are covered by trees, too, so they can get more people. It's CRAZY!

SuperHornet wrote:86 is spot on here, IMO. There is nothing worse than a fogie doing 35 on a freeway signed for 65.

Of course, I ONCE got pulled over (got off with a warning) for doing five under on I-5 in San Diego. I DO tend to get frustrated after a while when I'm getting the bird for "only" doing five over....

Get the f@ck out of the left lane jackazz!

So you're saying that to be in the left lane, a guy has to risk a reckless driving beef, Cluck?

No, the left lane is for faster traffic. When you are the slower vehicle you should move to the right and gtfo of the way

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2