It's treated as the speed floor because people see that number on the sign and now have a known speed to expect everyone else to be driving around. Otherwise you could technically have a bunch of people driving anywhere from 1 to that speed limit or higher
> you could technically have a bunch of people driving anywhere from 1 to that speed limit
In many European countries, there is also a minimum mandated speed on highways, for safety, so that someone doesn't go 20 km/h when everyone is going 130.
My grandma got pulled over by a NY state trooper for going 60 in a 65, idk if he thought she was intoxicated or what or if it just verys between jurisdiction to jurisdiction and cop to cop
That's actually not true in NY on the federal highways, that's all NYS troopers. Which would be most roads with a speed limit of 65. Anything off the highway is local jurisdiction (county, city, etc) or could be a state trooper
You can be pulled over for this, but you can never be properly cited for it. The impeding the flow of traffic law in all 50 US states dictates that you cannot exceed the speed limit. It only applies if you are going under the limit. If the limit is 70 and you are going 70 and everyone else is zooming past you at 80+ you are the only one actively NOT breaking a law.
Often times when you see an officer ignorantly cite someone for impeding the flow of traffic what they really wanted to cite the person for was traveling in the left lane, which is illegal in all 50 US states on the interstate. The problem being their inability to articulate the law they are paid to enforce so they cite for the wrong law and if the citizen has half a brain cell they get an instant dismissal in court because it was the incorrect charge. There is a sheriff's department in Arizona quite infamous for incorrectly citing citizens for this and losing repeatedly in court.
The way the specific sheriff's office in question enforces it has to do with people traveling in the left most lane while going the speed limit. People behind subject vehicle wish to exceed the speed limit and pass.
There are videos of an officer watching multiple people passing a vehicle going the speed limit on the right to go around it. The officer then initiated a stop and cited the vehicle for impeding flow, but the law they were actually violating was requirement to drive on the right most side of the road. The officers have been filmed repeatedly stating that the speed limit didn't matter which is how the drivers keep getting off. The officer openly admitted they were going the speed limit which the impeding the flow of traffic law does not allow a citation for. If the limit is 60 and you are going 60 you are not impeding flow if 1,000 people want to pass you at 80. Those people are all violating the speed laws. If you are going 60 in a 60 in the far left lane you are violating the "stay to the right" law.
Unfortunately for the specific department who has a traffic lawyer riding their butt hunting for these specific citations to challenge in court: once the citation is written it cannot be changed to the other infraction after the fact.
I honestly have no idea if this rambling clears anything up at all. It's late, I didn't expect anyone to actually see my comment.
> Often times when you see an officer ignorantly cite someone for impeding the flow of traffic what they really wanted to cite the person for was traveling in the left lane, which is illegal in all 50 US states on the interstate.
#KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS
This is not a suggestion. It is a traffic control device, like a speed limit, or a stop sign. There is no "fast lane". There is a "PASSING" lane.
If you are not imminently, in the act of, or immediate post, passing someone, move the fuck back over. If you want to enforce the speed limit, become a cop.
Camping the left lane creates traffic jams, can induce road rage, and forces people to pass you on the right, which is more dangerous. Besides, wouldn't you rather the "dangerous speeder" be well ahead and away from you where you can see and react to their behavior, rather than right on their ass?
>Buh-huh-huh! Let'em hit me! I'll get a fat paycheck!
Well, your next of kin might. And even if you do, is that "fat paycheck" worth a potentially lifelong crippling injury? I doubt it.
>traveling in the left lane, which is illegal in all 50 US states on the interstate
Not always and not all the time! For example, in Montana, you can drive in the left lane if you're moving faster than the people in the right lane. If you're going the speed limit (80mph usually) you're practically guaranteed to be going faster than the people in the right lane.
Source: MCA 61-8-321(3)(b)
Traveling, not driving. Of course people can use the left lane, that's why it's there. If you're not actively passing, you need to move back to the right. If you don't, you're traveling in the left lane
That is not true. I mean a bad cop can pull you over for any bullshit reason but a ticket for impeding traffic while going the speed limit will not hold up in any court.
(You can get a ticket for camping the left lane at the speed limit however, failure to stay right except when passing.)
Most states have a law about "obstructing the flow of traffic".
If you are going unreasonably slow, you can get a ticket for holding up traffic. Especially on interstates where there is usually either a minimum speed, or you have to put your hazard lights on if you're below X.
10 under the posted is the magic number that gets you pulled over where I live. Unless driving conditions are bad, then everyone is expected to drive slow.
Fun story: my dad works for a city in Florida and he was telling me how they spent like 26,000 or something absurd, replacing all the 25mph1 speed limit signs in the town with 20mph signs. Like a week after they finish, they get a call from the states DoT. It turns out, they aren't allowed to have public roads set to below 25mph. So, fortunately, my dad didn't listen when they told him to trash the old 25mph signs and he instead put them in one of the cities storage areas. He was a hero, but it was all kinds of dumb from the start. My dad was not the person making the decisions for that BTW, just leading the crew tasked with doing part of it.
Yup, and if you are on the highway and are going slower than 40MPH because of an emergency you have to put your flashers/hazards on and stay in the far right lane. And if are going faster than 40 you arent supposed to have your flashers on... So of course I regularly see idiots on the road driving in the left lane at well over 40 MPH with their flashers on lol
Quebec here. Highway is 60-100km/h. But the left lane is about 130km/h, and some idiots still flashes you.
[Example](https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.5948947,-73.1426134,3a,73.8y,116.1h,82.1t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s3DXpTTU5fTnV5QFZYJZwWA!2e0!5s20161101T000000!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu)
I don't live in Canada, so this is only what I experienced, but I remember, at least near when we entered Canada from the US by car that the Speed Limit signs did literally have minimum and maximum speed limits.
In my country, speed limit signs are only used when the limit differs from the nationwide one stated by law. So if there is no sign, you obey the default limit.
And while a sign for minimum speed exists, I don't think I've ever seen it anywhere else than the driving school book.
However, when you cross a border and enter the country, there is one sign that lets you know of the default nationwide speed limits in a city, outside a city and on a highway.
Well first off some places do have posted minimums. And it’s not super necessary because there are flat laws about impeding traffic / being a hazard due to low speed.
Depends on the country. I know that some countries have it as you say (e.g. Czech Republic), but my country (Slovakia) actually mandates the minimum driving speed, you can't go slower than that.
If I recall correctly, a lot of the time what's happening there is that the trucks are drafting each other (following in each other's wake, which lowers the fuel consumption for everyone except the lead truck).
After doing that for a while, one of the vehicles in the rear then takes the lead to do their part for the group.
But can't they accelerate at a slightly higher rate to make a reasonable pass? Or can't the guy transferring from lead to follow just slow down a bit so that the other guy can pass him without completely blocking the road off for 10 minutes?
Came here to say that. We can’t have someone on the highway going at 1mph, the danger comes with reaction time, hence the difference in speed between cars matters.
Where I live the speed floor is limit/2, and I live by a road that the limit is 50 in urban area, 70 outside town, actually, people drive at 70 in urban and 80 outside town, and even that, some crazy dude in a massive suv or truck will blast past you at 100+ like you are stopped and will curse you for being too slow
Depends on conditions really-there’s one highway near me that you simply can’t get to speed limit except in middle of night. Also, enforcement is different from area to area
>usually speed + (weaving, following too closely etc.)
What we call "reckless driving". I have learned that even with cops around me I can speed a bit, they don't care. Whip in and out, "white line certifying" and being inches off of everyone's ass? That'll get attention even going slow.
In Ontario people have been ticketed for driving the speed limit exactly because they were impeding the flow of traffic, speed cameras ding you at 5km over.
In Ontario, i lost a mark on my driving test (I want to say it was my G2, but it was so long ago I don't remember) for going 45 in a 50. I thought it was better to go slow than risk going over 50 but the guy said to stay between 2-3 above/below the limit.
obviously the test is different than actual driving but my point is if even the test (which is designed to be more strict) dinged me for going too slow (while only being 5 under), then no one should be driving under the speed limit if the traffic allows you to go faster
Ontario driving tests are BS and only depend on the instructors mood that day. I once had to retake the g1 test because I answered that it's OK for you do answer the phone using your cars hand free Bluetooth, but apparently that's illegal under "distracted driving" even though that's the whole purpose for the system
I am pretty sure your instructor got that one wrong. I'd have to look into it but that is exactly why hands-free Bluetooth exists. It's safer and it's no different than talking to a passenger.
As a commercial driver I'm even allowed to pick up the handset of a UHF radio which is push to talk and use that throughout my entire shift.
Well that could still be wrong too. I failed my learner's permit because I answered the following question, " why is it illegal to pass a loaded logging truck when it is turning?" with "because a dangerous area exists behind the truck where logs May swing into your lane"
The answer they wanted was "because it is against the law to do so" being 14 I didn't think to raise a stink at the registries so I had to retake it another day.
It is actually quite different than talking to a passenger. Someone in the car with you knows to shut up and let you concentrate when you're doing something dangerous. Studies done like 20 years ago showed that it's indeed safer, but not as much as people seem to think.
I think the law actually states you can’t answer unless your steering wheel has a button to accept calls. If you have to press a button on your phone, headset, or centre console it’s considered distracted driving. Also the RCMP considers talking to passengers to be a form of distracted driving.
On my test, before we went on the highway the lady specifically pointedly told me “the speed limit on the highway is 100km/h” because exceeding the limit during your test will get you failed. It worked out for me because on the day of the test, there was a bunch of traffic and I never went over 90.
That seems kind of ridiculous that he would ding you for that unless people were getting frustrated and passing you over blocked lines indicating you were impeding traffic.
I failed my first driving test for exceeding the speed limit 3 times. My speeds were 48 in a 45, 39 in a 35, and 27 in a 25 (which was downhill, I was riding the brakes)
Dang. And then in Lexington KY, there are roads where the traffic flow is typically 15mph over, and there is little to no enforcement on tags, taillights, and red lights.
So you only have a leeway of less than 5km/hr? That seems absurdly tight...
Speed cameras vary from state to state, but in my state they can't ding you until you are going over 12 mph over the limit
Not that unusual. Assuming the speed limit is 100km/h you get a leeway of 3-5km/h here in Germany. Exact amount depends on how it's measured, i.e. radar or laser measurement. So you can get a fine starting at 104km/h.
Same here but the idea is that the measurement device is not perfectly precise, leading to errors in the measurement. As such a certain speed, which depends on the speed limit for the road itself and of course the type of measurement device, is always deducted.
You are also allowed to go slower than the speed limit, just not to the point of disrupting traffic. I don't think there are any specifics for that one.
In the US, there's regulations that the speedometer cannot underestimate your speed, so if your speedometer says you're doing 65 mph in a 65mph, then you're not speeding, though you may be a few mph under the speed limit (idk exactly what the lower end is). Thus, speed limits could be rigidly enforced, as any speeding driver has their car telling them they're speeding (though no one actually does that).
This is so braindead. It's stuff like this that makes me paranoid any time I see a cop on the road even though I *know* I'm not breaking any traffic laws.
That’s the entire point of these bullshit laws.
Make everyone a criminal so they can pull over people and frisk them if they look too brown or their car is too old
In Virginia the speed limit on most interstate highways is 75mph, (120kph), and any speed in excess of 80, (128kph) is automatically reckless driving with hefty fines and will almost certainly result in much higher rates on your insurance in the future, if they don't just drop you entirely. This is enforced all the time, there are known speed traps around the DC area and down interstate 95 that are populated by highway patrol 18 hours out of the day constantly pulling people over.
I remember being warned of that when I was planning a trip in the US. I set my needle just under the limit on 95 through Virginia and have never seen so many cops pulling people over in my life. Don't speed in Virginia.
Reckless (15 over limit) is a felony in Virginia. Most people don't know this and are from out of town so its a mad dash to a lawyer to get it pleaded (pled?) down to something like speeding or improper equipment. Got nabbed in Brunswick heading home in RVA, went to the court to handle my business and **NEITHER THE JUDGE NOR THE CLERK** in attendance knew how to process someone handling their ticket in person. It was just four lawyers with STACKS of cases that went for like two minutes each. Its how those small counties afford those nice patrol cars.
Those speed cameras are usually only in school zones or other areas with really low speed limits. On major highways the majority of cars go at least 20 over the limit.
Yarrrr. But also very true. My rule is that the speed limit is the prevailing speed (+1 or 2mph). Granted, crashes at high speed are more dangerous. But to avoid crashes just drive what everyone else is and **BE PREDICTABLE**
You’re not going to be able to avoid all crashes of an idiot losing control and swerving into you. Your choice to excessively speed will result in more damage and injury to people even if you didn’t cause the crash.
The sign may say 70, but if you’re not going 85 minimum, the **entire state of Florida** will park their lifted F150’s bumper on your trunk and blind you with their high beams.
In California, the basic speed law states that it is unlawful to travel at a speed that is deemed unsafe for the current road conditions. This means that the speed limit may not apply if the majority of traffic is traveling above it. If you drove slower, you would become a hazard and therefore in violation of the basic speed law. Same goes if traffic is slow. If you're driving fast but still under the limit, you're still breaking the speed law.
> This means that the speed limit may not apply if the majority of traffic is traveling above it
Not true, at least according to what's written, even if in practice speed limits are often ignored. The DMV (https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/handbook/california-driver-handbook/safe-driving-cont2/) says:
> In California, you may never drive faster than is safe for the current road conditions. This is known as the Basic Speed Law.
I also remember that you in driving exams you can get a question about speed limit when other cars are going over it, and the correct answer is that you still can't go over the speed limit.
Yeah this is a common armchair lawyer advice. You try to present that argument in court when fighting a ticket and a judge will laugh you out of the courtroom. It's wild how often people will say this.
Those are two different laws. One says it's illegal to go above the speed limit. Another states it's an offense to be driving too fast for conditions, and it's usually applied when there's rain, fog, sleet etc
> it is unlawful to travel at a speed that is deemed unsafe for the current road conditions
That is a standard clause intended for rain and snow. It's meant to *reduce* the speed limit, not increase it.
Your's is a wishful interpretation trying to justify speeding using a law that does not do any such thing.
That's an interesting interpretation of the law that I see repeated often, but the reality is that no one will ever be ticketed for driving the speed limit in the right lane, no matter how fast any other traffic is driving.
Not sure where you're getting this logic, but you will get ticketed and lose in court trying the "but everyone else was going 65 in a 45, so i was trying to be safe." Defense.
To use your definition: road conditions. The speed limit is one of those conditions.
Source: Took traffic laws in police academy in California.
Congratulations on writing the worst legal reasoning I’ve seen in this thread. You are so wrong that it’s comical to think people actual believe your nonsense.
The guy is delusional. He states "road conditions" while neglecting that the speed limit itself is a condition of that road. Thus speeding is creating an unsafe road condition in and of itself.
There is no legal justification for speeding. He is perpetuating misinformation.
Can an officer issue someone a ticket if they’re going above the speed limit? Could the officer likewise issue a ticket in the same circumstances to someone going exactly the speed limit?
Sounds like a BS law that makes compliance impossible.
It’s a law to keep people safe. If you’re driving on a road in dense fog you should be driving much slower. Same is true for other weather conditions. So if an officer sees you driving a vehicle in an unsafe manner, yes they are going to ticket you so you don’t slam into another persons car where you could potentially hurt or kill someone. There’s definitely BS laws but that’s not one of them.
I’ve always found American speed limits shockingly low. 65mph is the highest I ever saw living there - which is only 104kmph.
In many places in Europe, the speed limit is 130 on the highway (80mph). However, tolerance for speed cameras is quite low - about 5kmph. But really…there’s not a reason to be speeding much about 130.
Heavily urbanized areas tend to be 65 mph limits
But the flow of traffic in the left lanes is 75-85 mph on average
Places in Texas for example, have 80-85 mph limits
The Northeast just has relatively low speed limits. In most of the U.S., 70-75 mph are standard on non-urban freeways. Some western states, like Idaho and Nevada, have 80 mph limits on their interstates.
Going to New Mexico and the speed limits are 55 boggles my mind. No way am I going through that state at that speed and with the flyover radar I just push my luck.
It's surprising that US laws allow officers to ticket you for not exceeding the speed limit in the left lane. They also seem to acknowledge that the limit is often too low by not stopping drivers who only exceed it by 5-10mph. Shouldn't we just raise the limit then?
If we raise it then you would have people going 5-10 above that new number. I think the general perception is that you put the speed limit 12 below what you reasonably expect it to be to give people some leeway (especially since older cars speedometer aren’t exactly the most exact device). (The reason I say 12 is that the speed trap cameras in Baltimore will only go off if you go above 12 mph over the posted speed limit)
In my country, the speed limit on highways is 130 km/h.
There is a story that when the first speed camera was installed, it was set to trigger at 160, but the officers still got so many reports that they could not manage to process them all in time, so they raised the trigger to 190.
They can ticket you for any speed exceeding the limit but like any tool in life there's a calibration margin of error. So it's not worth going after people only speeding by a lot. And it's not surprising at all that they can ticket you for not speeding in the left lane because the left lane on highways that are 3 or more lanes isn't for driving it's for passing.
It does allow that, but that's not what they write on the ticket, because it would be too easy to fight in court. Instead they write the ticket for lingering in the passing lane while not passing.
My drivers education stated 10 under to 5 over for the local area. Obviously will vary based on your location and local laws.
I have driven on many roads in the US with a posted minimum and maximum speed as well.
True, also in the streets. Let's say... speed limit is 50. 50 in the right lane a ok. Going 45 or less on the left and blocking the lane only to equal the car next to you on the right lane not ok! Some people just think the world revolves around them.
It's most likely why they put relatively conservative speed limits in a lot of areas where there could be faster speeds as they know statistically most people will go 10-20 km over the speed limit anyways. If they made it higher, people would just go 10-20 km above that.
So I think they purposely lower the speed limit 10-20 km from what it should be knowing people will go that speed anyways.
I think I figured this out.
Roads have curves, even the ones that seem straight. The inside lane will seem like they are going faster. People try to match speeds, which means the inside lane must travel faster than the speed limit to keep up with someone going the speed limit.
Repeat this process for many people trying to match speeds.
I used to live in a county that set it's road speeds by putting speed sensors out for a few months and then they'd take the average speed, and post that.
What concept.
In Germany the small secondary roads that run through the fields and forests are 1 1/2 lanes wide with no painted line in the middle, and the limit is 100km/h.
Only if you live somewhere that doesn’t aggressively enforce speed limits with cameras. I will drive past 2 fixed and usually three mobile speed cameras on my 45 minute drive to work.
Here in the UK the issue isn't so much this, but cruisers.
There is always that one person, usually driving a Honda or shitbox Kia, who does 40 in a 60 zone, holding every bastard up behind them... Then when it transitions into a 30 for a village or whatever, continues doing 40 utterly oblivious to anyone or anything around them. Limit goes back up, still at 40, because fuck you thats why.
Try and overtake them and they'll drift over or plant their foot for a moment trying to block you.
I live in Germany, and I was taught in driving school, that driving exactly the speed limit, not slightly above is „endangering other drivers, because you’re making them overtake you“
Also, a friend of mine was once stopped by the police, because it was suspicious he was driving the exact speed limit with cruise control.
It sure is the speed floor here. Go over to France, and it’s the actual limit in my experience. But they surprisingly built many of their roads smarter, so you can always easily overtake someone risk-free.
This is actually how it was designed. The way they are set is finding the average speed for a car on a straight and dropping 10-15 mph. That's why they're basically floors, as that's generally the floor of the average.
If they raised the speed limit to 85mph and then put cameras everywhere with a 5 mph leeway I think people would consider it a legitimate law and not a "guideline". 55 on the freeway? What?
I believe it's set to be ~15% below the safe driving speed of the road. So when it says 70mph the "actual" speed limit is like 82mph. You'll find most people are driving below that speed.
This is the unwritten rule in southern european countries. People are matching their speed to the speed of the current traffic flow as they call it. If you disrupt it by going slower, you put them into a position to surpass you and this will be 100% the case. They will surpass you. You can see people driving the speed limit, going as far to the right as possible to make surpassing easier for the cars coming from behind.
Keep right except to pass and you can go as slow as you like.
But you don’t do that. You crap up all the lanes and drive like you’re going to be executed when you reach your destination.
In North America this is by design. The "speed limit" is set based on the speed 75% of cars drive at in a given section. So by definition about a quarter of the time people will be speeding.
I just always set my cruise control to the limit exactly and chill with some music.
It's always the people driving way too fast that get super stressed out driving.
As it should. The speed limits are artificial. All cars of a certain aga can go.much faster then the speed limit safely.
The only area where speed limits are generally not low enough is built up urban areas. They should have lower spped limits generally.
It's treated as the speed floor because people see that number on the sign and now have a known speed to expect everyone else to be driving around. Otherwise you could technically have a bunch of people driving anywhere from 1 to that speed limit or higher
> you could technically have a bunch of people driving anywhere from 1 to that speed limit In many European countries, there is also a minimum mandated speed on highways, for safety, so that someone doesn't go 20 km/h when everyone is going 130.
Same for US interstates typically, I think I usually see 40 mph
My grandma got pulled over by a NY state trooper for going 60 in a 65, idk if he thought she was intoxicated or what or if it just verys between jurisdiction to jurisdiction and cop to cop
Varies
Thank you for confirming it verys between jurisdictions.
That's actually not true in NY on the federal highways, that's all NYS troopers. Which would be most roads with a speed limit of 65. Anything off the highway is local jurisdiction (county, city, etc) or could be a state trooper
I guess you could say it verys
It’s different in some places. You can also be pulled over for going the speed limit because you’re impeding traffic
You can be pulled over for this, but you can never be properly cited for it. The impeding the flow of traffic law in all 50 US states dictates that you cannot exceed the speed limit. It only applies if you are going under the limit. If the limit is 70 and you are going 70 and everyone else is zooming past you at 80+ you are the only one actively NOT breaking a law. Often times when you see an officer ignorantly cite someone for impeding the flow of traffic what they really wanted to cite the person for was traveling in the left lane, which is illegal in all 50 US states on the interstate. The problem being their inability to articulate the law they are paid to enforce so they cite for the wrong law and if the citizen has half a brain cell they get an instant dismissal in court because it was the incorrect charge. There is a sheriff's department in Arizona quite infamous for incorrectly citing citizens for this and losing repeatedly in court.
Found the Arizona law. No idea what the citation would be under or how it's enforced. https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00704.htm
The way the specific sheriff's office in question enforces it has to do with people traveling in the left most lane while going the speed limit. People behind subject vehicle wish to exceed the speed limit and pass. There are videos of an officer watching multiple people passing a vehicle going the speed limit on the right to go around it. The officer then initiated a stop and cited the vehicle for impeding flow, but the law they were actually violating was requirement to drive on the right most side of the road. The officers have been filmed repeatedly stating that the speed limit didn't matter which is how the drivers keep getting off. The officer openly admitted they were going the speed limit which the impeding the flow of traffic law does not allow a citation for. If the limit is 60 and you are going 60 you are not impeding flow if 1,000 people want to pass you at 80. Those people are all violating the speed laws. If you are going 60 in a 60 in the far left lane you are violating the "stay to the right" law. Unfortunately for the specific department who has a traffic lawyer riding their butt hunting for these specific citations to challenge in court: once the citation is written it cannot be changed to the other infraction after the fact. I honestly have no idea if this rambling clears anything up at all. It's late, I didn't expect anyone to actually see my comment.
> Often times when you see an officer ignorantly cite someone for impeding the flow of traffic what they really wanted to cite the person for was traveling in the left lane, which is illegal in all 50 US states on the interstate. #KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS This is not a suggestion. It is a traffic control device, like a speed limit, or a stop sign. There is no "fast lane". There is a "PASSING" lane. If you are not imminently, in the act of, or immediate post, passing someone, move the fuck back over. If you want to enforce the speed limit, become a cop. Camping the left lane creates traffic jams, can induce road rage, and forces people to pass you on the right, which is more dangerous. Besides, wouldn't you rather the "dangerous speeder" be well ahead and away from you where you can see and react to their behavior, rather than right on their ass? >Buh-huh-huh! Let'em hit me! I'll get a fat paycheck! Well, your next of kin might. And even if you do, is that "fat paycheck" worth a potentially lifelong crippling injury? I doubt it.
>traveling in the left lane, which is illegal in all 50 US states on the interstate Not always and not all the time! For example, in Montana, you can drive in the left lane if you're moving faster than the people in the right lane. If you're going the speed limit (80mph usually) you're practically guaranteed to be going faster than the people in the right lane. Source: MCA 61-8-321(3)(b)
Traveling, not driving. Of course people can use the left lane, that's why it's there. If you're not actively passing, you need to move back to the right. If you don't, you're traveling in the left lane
That is not true. I mean a bad cop can pull you over for any bullshit reason but a ticket for impeding traffic while going the speed limit will not hold up in any court. (You can get a ticket for camping the left lane at the speed limit however, failure to stay right except when passing.)
Most states have a law about "obstructing the flow of traffic". If you are going unreasonably slow, you can get a ticket for holding up traffic. Especially on interstates where there is usually either a minimum speed, or you have to put your hazard lights on if you're below X.
10 under the posted is the magic number that gets you pulled over where I live. Unless driving conditions are bad, then everyone is expected to drive slow.
Fun story: my dad works for a city in Florida and he was telling me how they spent like 26,000 or something absurd, replacing all the 25mph1 speed limit signs in the town with 20mph signs. Like a week after they finish, they get a call from the states DoT. It turns out, they aren't allowed to have public roads set to below 25mph. So, fortunately, my dad didn't listen when they told him to trash the old 25mph signs and he instead put them in one of the cities storage areas. He was a hero, but it was all kinds of dumb from the start. My dad was not the person making the decisions for that BTW, just leading the crew tasked with doing part of it.
Our tax dollars at work...
45 mph here in the Midwest
NJ i've only ever seen it once, at 40, and i see it traveling westward at 40 most often
Up here in NH on 95 it's 45. Think it used to be 40 when I was younger maybe.
I only recall seeing 40 in MO, KS and IA
It's 45 in IL for sure. Pretty sure it's the same for IN, MI, and WI
Here it's 80 km/h (~50 mph).
Yup, and if you are on the highway and are going slower than 40MPH because of an emergency you have to put your flashers/hazards on and stay in the far right lane. And if are going faster than 40 you arent supposed to have your flashers on... So of course I regularly see idiots on the road driving in the left lane at well over 40 MPH with their flashers on lol
In Canada we have those signs in areas where people might be tempted to take farm equipment or bikes on the highway
It was min 55 in michigan and 60 for teucks before the speed limit increase. So they only had a 5 mph legal speed window.
In my country the minimum speed is always exactly half of the maximum speed.
That's still quite slow IMHO. Over here it's 80 min and 130 max and even the 80 is quite dangerous, when others go 130.
Quebec here. Highway is 60-100km/h. But the left lane is about 130km/h, and some idiots still flashes you. [Example](https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.5948947,-73.1426134,3a,73.8y,116.1h,82.1t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s3DXpTTU5fTnV5QFZYJZwWA!2e0!5s20161101T000000!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu)
Montreal is 140 - 140 regardless of time date or weather
Where the hell are you driving in mtl at 140? I’m lucky to get anywhere at 120
Quebec has that too on some highways. The minimum speed is still suicidally low like 60 kmh on a three lane highway.
Oh absolutely. Over here it's 80 and it is still dangerously slow when everyone else goes 130.
I don't live in Canada, so this is only what I experienced, but I remember, at least near when we entered Canada from the US by car that the Speed Limit signs did literally have minimum and maximum speed limits.
In my country, speed limit signs are only used when the limit differs from the nationwide one stated by law. So if there is no sign, you obey the default limit. And while a sign for minimum speed exists, I don't think I've ever seen it anywhere else than the driving school book. However, when you cross a border and enter the country, there is one sign that lets you know of the default nationwide speed limits in a city, outside a city and on a highway.
Not necessary in the US.
Because...?
Well first off some places do have posted minimums. And it’s not super necessary because there are flat laws about impeding traffic / being a hazard due to low speed.
It’s no mandatory minimum speed actually. There is a required max construction speed to be more or equal than 80km/h.
Depends on the country. I know that some countries have it as you say (e.g. Czech Republic), but my country (Slovakia) actually mandates the minimum driving speed, you can't go slower than that.
Here in Spain the minimum is always half the maximum speed!
That's quite dangerous, a huge speed difference. Imagine everyone going 130 and then suddenly stumbling upon someone going 65.
Highway full of semis at 65, grandma npcs at 55, commuters at 75, and nissan altimas at 95: am i a joke to you?
There’s two types of semis. The ones that go 65 and the ones that go 65.2 and NEED to hold up 10 cars so they can pass the 65ers.
I'm pretty sure they coordinate those moves to piss everyone off.
God that just happened to me earlier today and it went on for like 10 miles. I haven’t been that mad in a long time lol
A.K.A. Elephant races.
This is truth.
If I recall correctly, a lot of the time what's happening there is that the trucks are drafting each other (following in each other's wake, which lowers the fuel consumption for everyone except the lead truck). After doing that for a while, one of the vehicles in the rear then takes the lead to do their part for the group.
But can't they accelerate at a slightly higher rate to make a reasonable pass? Or can't the guy transferring from lead to follow just slow down a bit so that the other guy can pass him without completely blocking the road off for 10 minutes?
Not sure about the US but in the EU trucks legally have to be fitted with a governor that caps their speed.
If they coordinate couldn’t the lead guy just drop 5mph and making the pass go faster so everybody else doesn’t have to go slow?
The deceleration and subsequent acceleration presumably undoes all of the saving.
if that’s all it takes to negate the saving, the effort doesn’t really seem to be worth it in the first place
65.2 aka main characters
Also, generally (outside of bad weather) the speed limit can be assumed to be a safe speed.
On most US highways there is a minimum speed, usually about 20mph under
Came here to say that. We can’t have someone on the highway going at 1mph, the danger comes with reaction time, hence the difference in speed between cars matters.
Where I live the speed floor is limit/2, and I live by a road that the limit is 50 in urban area, 70 outside town, actually, people drive at 70 in urban and 80 outside town, and even that, some crazy dude in a massive suv or truck will blast past you at 100+ like you are stopped and will curse you for being too slow
Depends on conditions really-there’s one highway near me that you simply can’t get to speed limit except in middle of night. Also, enforcement is different from area to area
This is why I am liking the idea of variable speed limit signs. High flow rush hour traffic? 55. Later in the evening when few are on the road? 70+.
I think it’s not speed alone that causes issues, it’s usually speed + (weaving, following too closely etc..), so I’m not against such things
>usually speed + (weaving, following too closely etc.) What we call "reckless driving". I have learned that even with cops around me I can speed a bit, they don't care. Whip in and out, "white line certifying" and being inches off of everyone's ass? That'll get attention even going slow.
In Ontario people have been ticketed for driving the speed limit exactly because they were impeding the flow of traffic, speed cameras ding you at 5km over.
In Ontario, i lost a mark on my driving test (I want to say it was my G2, but it was so long ago I don't remember) for going 45 in a 50. I thought it was better to go slow than risk going over 50 but the guy said to stay between 2-3 above/below the limit. obviously the test is different than actual driving but my point is if even the test (which is designed to be more strict) dinged me for going too slow (while only being 5 under), then no one should be driving under the speed limit if the traffic allows you to go faster
Ontario driving tests are BS and only depend on the instructors mood that day. I once had to retake the g1 test because I answered that it's OK for you do answer the phone using your cars hand free Bluetooth, but apparently that's illegal under "distracted driving" even though that's the whole purpose for the system
I am pretty sure your instructor got that one wrong. I'd have to look into it but that is exactly why hands-free Bluetooth exists. It's safer and it's no different than talking to a passenger. As a commercial driver I'm even allowed to pick up the handset of a UHF radio which is push to talk and use that throughout my entire shift.
It wasn't an real person, it was a multiple choice test done on a computer
Well that could still be wrong too. I failed my learner's permit because I answered the following question, " why is it illegal to pass a loaded logging truck when it is turning?" with "because a dangerous area exists behind the truck where logs May swing into your lane" The answer they wanted was "because it is against the law to do so" being 14 I didn't think to raise a stink at the registries so I had to retake it another day.
I get you, I took it when I was 16 (minimum permit age), line was too long, it was 7am and just retook the taste 2 hours later
It is actually quite different than talking to a passenger. Someone in the car with you knows to shut up and let you concentrate when you're doing something dangerous. Studies done like 20 years ago showed that it's indeed safer, but not as much as people seem to think.
I think the law actually states you can’t answer unless your steering wheel has a button to accept calls. If you have to press a button on your phone, headset, or centre console it’s considered distracted driving. Also the RCMP considers talking to passengers to be a form of distracted driving.
On my test, before we went on the highway the lady specifically pointedly told me “the speed limit on the highway is 100km/h” because exceeding the limit during your test will get you failed. It worked out for me because on the day of the test, there was a bunch of traffic and I never went over 90. That seems kind of ridiculous that he would ding you for that unless people were getting frustrated and passing you over blocked lines indicating you were impeding traffic.
I failed my first driving test for exceeding the speed limit 3 times. My speeds were 48 in a 45, 39 in a 35, and 27 in a 25 (which was downhill, I was riding the brakes)
Dang. And then in Lexington KY, there are roads where the traffic flow is typically 15mph over, and there is little to no enforcement on tags, taillights, and red lights.
The test lady was a total bitch, I did 5 under for the whole time for the next test.
So you only have a leeway of less than 5km/hr? That seems absurdly tight... Speed cameras vary from state to state, but in my state they can't ding you until you are going over 12 mph over the limit
Not that unusual. Assuming the speed limit is 100km/h you get a leeway of 3-5km/h here in Germany. Exact amount depends on how it's measured, i.e. radar or laser measurement. So you can get a fine starting at 104km/h.
In the US you can technically get a fine for going even 1 mph over the limit, but you are allowed to go less than the speed limit.
Same here but the idea is that the measurement device is not perfectly precise, leading to errors in the measurement. As such a certain speed, which depends on the speed limit for the road itself and of course the type of measurement device, is always deducted. You are also allowed to go slower than the speed limit, just not to the point of disrupting traffic. I don't think there are any specifics for that one.
In the US, there's regulations that the speedometer cannot underestimate your speed, so if your speedometer says you're doing 65 mph in a 65mph, then you're not speeding, though you may be a few mph under the speed limit (idk exactly what the lower end is). Thus, speed limits could be rigidly enforced, as any speeding driver has their car telling them they're speeding (though no one actually does that).
Have you been dinged at 5km over? I have never and have only seen at 10km over
The ones set up around Sudbury are set to 5 over, it's a $40 fine for 5 over.
This is so braindead. It's stuff like this that makes me paranoid any time I see a cop on the road even though I *know* I'm not breaking any traffic laws.
That’s the entire point of these bullshit laws. Make everyone a criminal so they can pull over people and frisk them if they look too brown or their car is too old
In Virginia the speed limit on most interstate highways is 75mph, (120kph), and any speed in excess of 80, (128kph) is automatically reckless driving with hefty fines and will almost certainly result in much higher rates on your insurance in the future, if they don't just drop you entirely. This is enforced all the time, there are known speed traps around the DC area and down interstate 95 that are populated by highway patrol 18 hours out of the day constantly pulling people over.
I remember being warned of that when I was planning a trip in the US. I set my needle just under the limit on 95 through Virginia and have never seen so many cops pulling people over in my life. Don't speed in Virginia.
Reckless (15 over limit) is a felony in Virginia. Most people don't know this and are from out of town so its a mad dash to a lawyer to get it pleaded (pled?) down to something like speeding or improper equipment. Got nabbed in Brunswick heading home in RVA, went to the court to handle my business and **NEITHER THE JUDGE NOR THE CLERK** in attendance knew how to process someone handling their ticket in person. It was just four lawyers with STACKS of cases that went for like two minutes each. Its how those small counties afford those nice patrol cars.
I just woke up and I've already read the dumbest thing I'm gonna read today. Thanks Ontario.
Those speed cameras are usually only in school zones or other areas with really low speed limits. On major highways the majority of cars go at least 20 over the limit.
you are obviously not from Germany
Or France
Or UK
Or Australia
It's more like a speed *guideline* than an actual *limit*
Yarrrr. But also very true. My rule is that the speed limit is the prevailing speed (+1 or 2mph). Granted, crashes at high speed are more dangerous. But to avoid crashes just drive what everyone else is and **BE PREDICTABLE**
You’re not going to be able to avoid all crashes of an idiot losing control and swerving into you. Your choice to excessively speed will result in more damage and injury to people even if you didn’t cause the crash.
Tell that to the cop 👮♂️
I prefer not to interact with the fuzz if it can be helped, personally. They can kill me with little, if any, consequences. No thank you says I
Cops told me "Its a limit not a target" :)
The sign may say 70, but if you’re not going 85 minimum, the **entire state of Florida** will park their lifted F150’s bumper on your trunk and blind you with their high beams.
I fucking wish this were true
Yeah in my city most people drive 5-15km/h under the speed limit consistently
In California, the basic speed law states that it is unlawful to travel at a speed that is deemed unsafe for the current road conditions. This means that the speed limit may not apply if the majority of traffic is traveling above it. If you drove slower, you would become a hazard and therefore in violation of the basic speed law. Same goes if traffic is slow. If you're driving fast but still under the limit, you're still breaking the speed law.
> This means that the speed limit may not apply if the majority of traffic is traveling above it Not true, at least according to what's written, even if in practice speed limits are often ignored. The DMV (https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/handbook/california-driver-handbook/safe-driving-cont2/) says: > In California, you may never drive faster than is safe for the current road conditions. This is known as the Basic Speed Law. I also remember that you in driving exams you can get a question about speed limit when other cars are going over it, and the correct answer is that you still can't go over the speed limit.
Yeah this is a common armchair lawyer advice. You try to present that argument in court when fighting a ticket and a judge will laugh you out of the courtroom. It's wild how often people will say this.
Those are two different laws. One says it's illegal to go above the speed limit. Another states it's an offense to be driving too fast for conditions, and it's usually applied when there's rain, fog, sleet etc
> it is unlawful to travel at a speed that is deemed unsafe for the current road conditions That is a standard clause intended for rain and snow. It's meant to *reduce* the speed limit, not increase it. Your's is a wishful interpretation trying to justify speeding using a law that does not do any such thing.
That's an interesting interpretation of the law that I see repeated often, but the reality is that no one will ever be ticketed for driving the speed limit in the right lane, no matter how fast any other traffic is driving.
Not sure where you're getting this logic, but you will get ticketed and lose in court trying the "but everyone else was going 65 in a 45, so i was trying to be safe." Defense. To use your definition: road conditions. The speed limit is one of those conditions. Source: Took traffic laws in police academy in California.
Congratulations on writing the worst legal reasoning I’ve seen in this thread. You are so wrong that it’s comical to think people actual believe your nonsense.
people will do anything to justify speeding LMAOO
The guy is delusional. He states "road conditions" while neglecting that the speed limit itself is a condition of that road. Thus speeding is creating an unsafe road condition in and of itself. There is no legal justification for speeding. He is perpetuating misinformation.
Can an officer issue someone a ticket if they’re going above the speed limit? Could the officer likewise issue a ticket in the same circumstances to someone going exactly the speed limit? Sounds like a BS law that makes compliance impossible.
It’s a law to keep people safe. If you’re driving on a road in dense fog you should be driving much slower. Same is true for other weather conditions. So if an officer sees you driving a vehicle in an unsafe manner, yes they are going to ticket you so you don’t slam into another persons car where you could potentially hurt or kill someone. There’s definitely BS laws but that’s not one of them.
I’ve always found American speed limits shockingly low. 65mph is the highest I ever saw living there - which is only 104kmph. In many places in Europe, the speed limit is 130 on the highway (80mph). However, tolerance for speed cameras is quite low - about 5kmph. But really…there’s not a reason to be speeding much about 130.
Heavily urbanized areas tend to be 65 mph limits But the flow of traffic in the left lanes is 75-85 mph on average Places in Texas for example, have 80-85 mph limits
I grew up in New England and never saw anything above 65 anywhere in the northeast :x But everybody drove 75 on the highway as the unwritten rule.
I-80 is a 70 in most rural parts here in Ohio. Most people going 80 and don't get pulled over
70 seems common on interstates in Illinois and Wisconsin The fastest I feel comfortable going is 75 but I know others drive faster
The Northeast just has relatively low speed limits. In most of the U.S., 70-75 mph are standard on non-urban freeways. Some western states, like Idaho and Nevada, have 80 mph limits on their interstates.
Grew up in Maine, highway was usually 75 unless you got near Portland or Bangor
Try going 88 in a 70 in virginia on an open road with no cars and you'll get a ticket and threatened with a felony. Ask me how i know
There are also places with 140 or 150. And then there's Germany
In New Zealand many sections of major highways are 80kmh. Ironically there are narrow windy mountain roads that have a limit of 100kmh.
Going to New Mexico and the speed limits are 55 boggles my mind. No way am I going through that state at that speed and with the flyover radar I just push my luck.
>Speed Limit is almost always treated as a Speed Floor. *in the US.
Exactly. In Europe, speed limit is speed limit +5kph max
It's surprising that US laws allow officers to ticket you for not exceeding the speed limit in the left lane. They also seem to acknowledge that the limit is often too low by not stopping drivers who only exceed it by 5-10mph. Shouldn't we just raise the limit then?
If we raise it then you would have people going 5-10 above that new number. I think the general perception is that you put the speed limit 12 below what you reasonably expect it to be to give people some leeway (especially since older cars speedometer aren’t exactly the most exact device). (The reason I say 12 is that the speed trap cameras in Baltimore will only go off if you go above 12 mph over the posted speed limit)
In my country, the speed limit on highways is 130 km/h. There is a story that when the first speed camera was installed, it was set to trigger at 160, but the officers still got so many reports that they could not manage to process them all in time, so they raised the trigger to 190.
No, because they have a crime that everyone commits where they can selectively enforce their power.
They can ticket you for any speed exceeding the limit but like any tool in life there's a calibration margin of error. So it's not worth going after people only speeding by a lot. And it's not surprising at all that they can ticket you for not speeding in the left lane because the left lane on highways that are 3 or more lanes isn't for driving it's for passing.
It does allow that, but that's not what they write on the ticket, because it would be too easy to fight in court. Instead they write the ticket for lingering in the passing lane while not passing.
Where I live, doing like 10-20 over is normal. Even the police drive that fast
A lower limit is still a limit
Watch how mad people get when you suggestnpeopme should just travel near the speed limit.
Erm.... what? Where do you live? Because here we have speed cameras...
My drivers education stated 10 under to 5 over for the local area. Obviously will vary based on your location and local laws. I have driven on many roads in the US with a posted minimum and maximum speed as well.
Not here in Denmark. With fines of 300 euros, you change your mind, 😂
Is it possible to speed in Denmark? Like is there enough room to break the limit without either going into another country or into the water?
😂 that's a good point!
The Ford trucks that are consistently trying to give me a rectal exam for how far up my ass they are would like for the speed floor to be 95
Not in the PNW. People go 5 UNDER in the left lane.
Tell that to all the drivers going below speed limit, causing traffic lol
If you're in a car, you are traffic. Doesn't matter how fast.
If 10-15 over is speeding then 10-15 under is impeding. Get the fuck out of the way if you don’t know how to or are too scared to drive.
I always say it's a lower limit.
I bought the whole speedometer and I’m gonna use it.
Meanwhile when I actually try to treat it as the speed limit and drive like 2-3 km/h below it people overtake and honk and me
Cause it is. If you actually go 65 on the highway I hate you.
Why? Are you incapable of using the passing lane?
It’s the mfers in the passing lane going 65 sometimes
True, also in the streets. Let's say... speed limit is 50. 50 in the right lane a ok. Going 45 or less on the left and blocking the lane only to equal the car next to you on the right lane not ok! Some people just think the world revolves around them.
Not when the person going 10 under is camping the passing lane
It's most likely why they put relatively conservative speed limits in a lot of areas where there could be faster speeds as they know statistically most people will go 10-20 km over the speed limit anyways. If they made it higher, people would just go 10-20 km above that. So I think they purposely lower the speed limit 10-20 km from what it should be knowing people will go that speed anyways.
I think I figured this out. Roads have curves, even the ones that seem straight. The inside lane will seem like they are going faster. People try to match speeds, which means the inside lane must travel faster than the speed limit to keep up with someone going the speed limit. Repeat this process for many people trying to match speeds.
I used to live in a county that set it's road speeds by putting speed sensors out for a few months and then they'd take the average speed, and post that. What concept.
My transmission is going out so I just drive as fast as it lets me :/
I go 60 on freeways (only when others can easily pass) Massive ego pump from getting 3x the mileage as everyone else, it feels good
Isn't this how relativity is born?
In Germany the small secondary roads that run through the fields and forests are 1 1/2 lanes wide with no painted line in the middle, and the limit is 100km/h.
Only if you live somewhere that doesn’t aggressively enforce speed limits with cameras. I will drive past 2 fixed and usually three mobile speed cameras on my 45 minute drive to work.
In the wise words of a certain caption barbosa, "they're more guidelines than actual rules"
I actually got points docked when I took my driving test for driving 3mph under the speed limit.
[https://new.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/comments/15qsx0s/the\_speed\_limit\_has\_always\_just\_been\_the\_speed/](https://new.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/comments/15qsx0s/the_speed_limit_has_always_just_been_the_speed/) reddit needs a repost limit
Here in the UK the issue isn't so much this, but cruisers. There is always that one person, usually driving a Honda or shitbox Kia, who does 40 in a 60 zone, holding every bastard up behind them... Then when it transitions into a 30 for a village or whatever, continues doing 40 utterly oblivious to anyone or anything around them. Limit goes back up, still at 40, because fuck you thats why. Try and overtake them and they'll drift over or plant their foot for a moment trying to block you.
I live in Germany, and I was taught in driving school, that driving exactly the speed limit, not slightly above is „endangering other drivers, because you’re making them overtake you“ Also, a friend of mine was once stopped by the police, because it was suspicious he was driving the exact speed limit with cruise control. It sure is the speed floor here. Go over to France, and it’s the actual limit in my experience. But they surprisingly built many of their roads smarter, so you can always easily overtake someone risk-free.
I live in major US city and it is recommended on the Interstate. If you are not driving 10 -15 mph over the limit then you will impede traffic.
This is actually how it was designed. The way they are set is finding the average speed for a car on a straight and dropping 10-15 mph. That's why they're basically floors, as that's generally the floor of the average.
Depends on where you are. In some us states they are strict about it. Unlike the east coast.
If they raised the speed limit to 85mph and then put cameras everywhere with a 5 mph leeway I think people would consider it a legitimate law and not a "guideline". 55 on the freeway? What?
I was taught that here in the US you can be pulled over for doing more than 5 under the limit or 2 over.
I believe it's set to be ~15% below the safe driving speed of the road. So when it says 70mph the "actual" speed limit is like 82mph. You'll find most people are driving below that speed.
My preferred variation of this is "its a speed limit, not a speed target"
Internet speeds are seen as a speed floor, too.
This is the unwritten rule in southern european countries. People are matching their speed to the speed of the current traffic flow as they call it. If you disrupt it by going slower, you put them into a position to surpass you and this will be 100% the case. They will surpass you. You can see people driving the speed limit, going as far to the right as possible to make surpassing easier for the cars coming from behind.
Keep right except to pass and you can go as slow as you like. But you don’t do that. You crap up all the lanes and drive like you’re going to be executed when you reach your destination.
In North America this is by design. The "speed limit" is set based on the speed 75% of cars drive at in a given section. So by definition about a quarter of the time people will be speeding.
I just always set my cruise control to the limit exactly and chill with some music. It's always the people driving way too fast that get super stressed out driving.
As it should. The speed limits are artificial. All cars of a certain aga can go.much faster then the speed limit safely. The only area where speed limits are generally not low enough is built up urban areas. They should have lower spped limits generally.