Speed Limits Rise to 70 Effective July 1 (Cleveland, Cincinnati: 2013, inspections, live)

[hensleya1]

John Kasich Signs Bill Raising Speed Limits to 70

Gov. John Kasich on Monday signed the state's two-year, $7.6 billion transportation budget, which includes a provision to raise the speed limit on rural Ohio highways to 70 mph, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports.
House Bill 51 quickly worked its way through the general assembly last month, with Kasich signing it into law Monday at Tendon Manufacturing Inc. in Warrensville Heights, outside Cleveland.

My thoughts:

1) Three cheers to John Kasich for a job well done. It's about freaking time Ohio joins every neighboring state (except Pennsylvania) in raising the top speed limits.

1a) I wonder what effect this will have on the sheer number of Highway Patrol cruisers and the number of cars they pick up for speeding? It seems to be unique to Ohio, I've never seen nearly as many cruisers parked in the median of the Interstate in any neighboring state (and consequently, fewer people being picked up for speeding).

2) Extracting a guarantee that 90% of the bond money goes to roads within a hundred miles of the Turnpike is unusual - on one hand, Turnpike money should be spent on purely the Turnpike - but I wonder if the remaining 10% can be used to fast-track needed projects elsewhere in Ohio (such as widening I-70 in parts of Preble, Montgomery, and Clark Counties - or I-75 through Cincinnati?)

[natininja]

No one was ever ticketed for going 70, so I really don't see the point. I'd be curious to see a study showing changes in tickets issued, average driving speeds, accident rates, injury rates, fatality rates, and emissions in a few years.

[Cleveland_Collector]

Everybody already goes 75-80. I guess he needs these little moral victories after the thrashing he took on SB5.

[cali3448893]

Originally Posted by Cleveland_Collector

Everybody already goes 75-80. I guess he needs these little moral victories after the thrashing he took on SB5.

True every rural freeway has drivers going 75-80 except for 1-75...

[hensleya1]

Originally Posted by natininja

No one was ever ticketed for going 70, so I really don't see the point. I'd be curious to see a study showing changes in tickets issued, average driving speeds, accident rates, injury rates, fatality rates, and emissions in a few years.

Hi natininja--

The true test wouldn't be Ohio (which is a serious laggard: they're behind Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Michigan in raising their top speed limits to 70; only Pennsylvania has failed to raise it in recent years) but rather State Route 130 in Texas where the speed limit is 85.

Similarly, Nevada might go to 85 as well.

Now, are there some rust buckets that I believe are unsafe at any speed - much less 85+ MPH? Sure. Find me a way to ensure decent statewide yearly inspections that aren't simply shakedowns for local mechanics (like Pennsylvania's is) and I'll gladly get on board.


Almost nobody will get a ticket for 70 in a 65 unless the cop is a real SOB. But as a couple other posters accurately say, if you raise the speed limit to 70, cars would likely be pushing 80 before they get picked up for speeding.

Me, I have no complaint with going 80. It means I can get to Cincinnati in forty minutes.

[natininja]

Pennsylvania had 70 mph limits on the Turnpike until recently, when they brought the limit down to 65. Maybe these other states are going in the wrong direction and lagging behind PA in recognizing the mistake.

Safety is an issue (which I'd like to see data on in a few years), but so is emissions, which I can say with greater certainty will be a bigger problem if people start going faster. I wouldn't mind it, if they installed speed cameras to make sure people were actually going under 73 or 75 or whatever to go along with the increased limit. Give people a higher limit in exchange for making the limit actually meaningful, that would make sense.

[hensleya1]

Originally Posted by natininja

Pennsylvania had 70 mph limits on the Turnpike until recently, when they brought the limit down to 65. Maybe these other states are going in the wrong direction and lagging behind PA in recognizing the mistake.

Safety is an issue (which I'd like to see data on in a few years), but so is emissions, which I can say with greater certainty will be a bigger problem if people start going faster. I wouldn't mind it, if they installed speed cameras to make sure people were actually going under 73 or 75 or whatever to go along with the increased limit. Give people a higher limit in exchange for making the limit actually meaningful, that would make sense.

Hi natininja--

I've been on the Turnpike regularly going back to at least 1998 and I never recall the posted speed limit being any higher than 65 - and there are wide stretches in western PA that are still 55, even though cars regularly do 70 (and the road is clearly designed with that in mind, especially the portions that have been built out to six lanes).

So I'm not sure what you're defining as "recently", but certainly not in my memory was the speed limit higher.

---

As far as emissions and environmental concerns, I'm on board with saving fuel but I believe there are far more gains to be made in improving vehicle efficiency (which the automakers have improved markedly in recent years and have served to more than offset the increase in speed).

I remember as a kid the old man driving an Olds Toronado with the 350 Rocket V8 engine in it, it was a 325hp beast that could accelerate from 30 to 70 in what felt like two seconds. But it also got about ten miles per gallon, maybe twelve on a good day.

Today's base model Ford Mustang has 305 HP and delivers 31 MPG highway - or about a 250% improvement in efficiency. You'd have to try pretty hard to get 12 MPG in today's Mustang (and the Mustang I'd probably trust at higher speeds more than the Toronado).

In short: put the pedal to the metal with a more efficient engine. I love the idea of getting to Cincinnati in forty minutes.


---

Lastly, as far as speed cameras go, I have no problem with them if they (1) are treated as a criminal violation like they should be; (2) force the State to prove you're guilty (and a calibrated speed camera is pretty good evidence) rather than forcing you to prove you're innocent; and (3) affords you the full Constitutional rights to defend yourself, including the right to confront the witness and the right to a trial.

My problem with places like Elmwood Place and others using speed cameras is their methods: they go through mayor's courts, they handle them as civil violations, etc. - all to bypass the rights and guarantees people are supposed to have - and in the case of armpits like Elmwood Place - just a way to raise more money.

[Buckeye in SC]

Should have happened years ago...would argue some parts (like I-77 south of Canton to WV line) could easily be 75-80 that are light traffic areas.

And for those of you who say everyone was going 75-80 already, I was pulled over 3 or 4 years ago about 9 miles across the river for going 75 MPH (had the car on cruise through WV and just kept on at that speed into Ohio), thankfully, the trooper let me off w/a warning, but ever since, I won't go above 71 or 72 when driving on I-77 in Ohio. Might go up to 75-77 w/this increase, will save me 5-10 minutes anyway on that trip anyway!

[Ohiogirl81]

I don't have a problem with it, as long as the car I'm driving doesn't shake apart at 70 mph.

Originally Posted by natininja

Pennsylvania had 70 mph limits on the Turnpike until recently

No, not since the national speed limit was established at 55 in 1974. The Pa. Turnpike speed limit has been 65 since the mid-90s. You're thinking of some other state.

[rrtechno]

Unless my math is messed up, on a trip of 50 miles, an increase in the AVERAGE speed of 5 miles per hour will cut roughly 6 minute off the trip.

Personally, I can't see a normal situation where that is a critical factor. Heck a trip from Cincinnati to Cleveland would only be about 30 minutes shorter.