Azazello1313 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 pay no attention to the speed limit The speed limit on Route 3 is 55. The speed limit used to be 60. It was raised to 60 over 40 years ago when a study found 55 was too slow. There was never an engineering study supporting a reduction back to 55. It was reduced by executive order in 1973 to comply with the national speed limit. When the national speed limit was repealed in 1995 the highway commissioner ordered the low limit retained because he was afraid the state would be sued or otherwise embarrassed. So the speed limit is known to the transportation department not to be about safety. It gets better. Route 3 was completely rebuilt a decade ago. The design speed for the project was 110 km/h (68 mph). The design speed is like a warranty: nothing in the road design requires a driver to go slower than 68 mph, not even on a wet road at night (the design conditions). The average speed is not far from the design speed. The 85th percentile speed, which is supposed to be used for setting speed limits, is around 75 mph. A little over by my measurement, which found 1% compliance with the speed limit. Eventually the absurdity of the 55 mph speed limit sunk in and in 2006 MassHighway traffic engineers recommended a speed limit increase. State Police vetoed the change, preferring the 99% violation rate that let them write tickets at will. Police have no legal role in setting speed limits. Somebody in the Romney administration weighed the risk of losing ticket revenue against the risk of being blamed for accidents. Police won. After engineers lost that fight people began to worry about the high accident rate on Route 3. The state hired a consultant to do a Road Safety Audit. The consultant’s report blamed the low speed limit, among other factors, for the high crash rate. The report explicitly recommended raising the speed limit. Three years later, state officials have not followed the advice of their engineers, their consultant, or 100,000 drivers per day. State police are still out there running speed traps and helping keep the road as dangerous and profitable as they can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Thank Reagen for the 55 .. that liberal tree huger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 Thank Reagen for the 55 .. that liberal tree huger. huh. I didn't realize he was president in 1973. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Thanks Romney . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Don't see why Route 3 should be singled out. Every city in every state runs the same scam, pretty much. Wisconsin has it down to a fine art with armies of troopers out there busting people for breaking the insanely low speed limit on I-94 for example. The limit is set to make money, it's that simple. All they need to do is bust enough people to cover the wages of the troopers and voila! free money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Don't see why Route 3 should be singled out. Every city in every state runs the same scam, pretty much. Wisconsin has it down to a fine art with armies of troopers out there busting people for breaking the insanely low speed limit on I-94 for example. The limit is set to make money, it's that simple. All they need to do is bust enough people to cover the wages of the troopers and voila! free money. +1 Sconny does have it down to a science. When i cross the border I set the cruise control immediately. Speed trap central. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 huh. I didn't realize he was president in 1973. he made those that did not want to change it change it in the 80's, along with raising the drinking age . you are welcome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 The profits are massive. Let's say $200 for a ticket (probably more in f'n WI ). One trooper might cost $50 / hour fully burdened, so two busts pay for his entire working day. Everything after that is gravy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 (edited) he made those that did not want to change it change it in the 80's, along with raising the drinking age . you are welcome the change to 55 was imposed nationwide by executive order in 1973, and codified in the law by congress later the same year, signed into law by nixon in january 1974. the only change under reagan was to allow states to raise the limit on rural highways to 65. I think at this point you probably just want to admit you were talking out of your hindquarters on this one. then of course, the stupid law was repealed completely in 1995 as one of the first acts of the 104th congress. thank you, newt gingrich! Edited September 22, 2011 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 the change to 55 was imposed nationwide by executive order in 1973, and codified in the law by congress later the same year, signed into law by nixon in january 1974. the only change under reagan was to allow states to raise the limit on rural highways to 65. I think at this point you probably just want to admit you were talking out of your hindquarters on this one. then of course, the stupid law was repealed completely in 1995 as one of the first acts of the 104th congress. thank you, newt gingrich! well sconny and mn and i think lousina / montana were forced to change theirs along with the drinking age in the 80's .. but you new that didn't you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 well sconny and mn and i think lousina / montana were forced to change theirs along with the drinking age in the 80's .. but you new that didn't you Don't confuse Az with Republicans at the federal level using extortion to limit states rights. This is an anology about how inefficient the federal government is using the state government as an example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 well sconny and mn and i think lousina / montana were forced to change theirs along with the drinking age in the 80's .. but you new that didn't you umm, no, they were forced to change it when it became federal law in 1974. from 1974 until 1986, no speed limit in the united states exceeded 55 mph. that is a fact, readily confirmed across the innernets with minimal effort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 This thread failed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 umm, no, they were forced to change it when it became federal law in 1974. from 1974 until 1986, no speed limit in the united states exceeded 55 mph. that is a fact, readily confirmed across the innernets with minimal effort. 1987. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 1987. I put 1986 for good reason. On June 1, 1986, Nevada ignored the NMSL by posting a 70 mph (110 km/h) limit on 3 miles (5 km) of Interstate 80. The Nevada statute authorizing this speed limit included language that invalidated itself if the federal government suspended transportation funding. Indeed, the Federal Highway Administration immediately withheld highway funding, which automatically invalidated the statute by its own terms. I wasn't going to let myself be made a liar on a technicality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.