Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: In other slating news…
Next Post: Quick thoughts on a massive bill signing dump
Posted in:
*** UPDATE *** He signed the bill into law.
* Action is expected today, so let’s get started on the voting…
Gov. Pat Quinn is due to make a decision on a law that would increase the state speed limit.
The legislation would raise the speed limit on rural interstates in Illinois from 65 to 70 mph starting in January. Eight counties in the congested Chicago area would be allowed to keep their limits lower.
However, the Illinois State Police and Quinn’s transportation chief are opposed, saying current speed limits should be enforced more strictly. The governor hasn’t indicated which way he’ll go.
Thirty other states have higher speed limits than Illinois. The bill is here.
* The Question: Should Gov. Quinn sign this bill? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:02 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: In other slating news…
Next Post: Quick thoughts on a massive bill signing dump
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Yes, because “I Can’t Drive 65″. But in all honesty, what would you really gain? 15 whole minutes on a drive from Chicago to Springfield? And I apologize for leading with what will be several references to Sammy Hagar’s lame song.
Comment by Knome Sane Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:05 pm
Yes. I drive through Indiana all the time and it seems to work there. Maybe I’m wrong but it doesnt seem that much more dangerous. Pretty much drive the same speed anyway so why not do it with less risk of a ticket.
Comment by Been There Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:06 pm
Yes, this way I can get to my destination a little faster and then return all of the phone calls I couldn’t make while driving.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:07 pm
Yes, it works in other states, why not Illinois.
Comment by AFSCME Steward Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:09 pm
Knome Same, thanks for getting that one out of the way. Anyone actually driving 65 would get their doors blown off in my morning commute (the rural portion, anyway).
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:09 pm
Currently drive the Illinois Tollways. If your going 70 mph, other motorists pass you like your standing still. So signing this bill really makes no difference!
Comment by Just sayin' Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:12 pm
Yes, because a lot of other states already have this, our interstates are largely rural and I don’t see it being that much more dangerous.
However, I’m surprised Gov. Quinn would sign legislation that would so clearly help Sheila Simon with her “fly-arounds.”
Comment by Ron Burgundy Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:13 pm
Yes, he should sign it because I am an excellent driv . yyyugjfj
Comment by siriusly Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:15 pm
Will Sen. Oberweis be sending “Governmental Ice Cream” to Quinn like Oberweis did all through this process?
Remember your quotes, Sen. Oberweis you used to promote this Bill, I am sure they will come back to you…
To the Question,
Voted “Yes”, wouldn’t mind an AV with Cook and Collars not being eligible, when population in an area is greater than “x”, but not a “must” obviously to secure a “Yes”, but it won’t bother me with that AV either.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:15 pm
I voted no, because it really won’t save much time.
My real answer is “He should amendatorily veto it to put Illinois highways on the metric system.”
Comment by Anon. Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:16 pm
Conflicted. I actually drive 65 in Illinois (I reserve civil disobedience for more important principles) and almost all other cars pass me. When I cross the state line and pick it up to 70, then I notice I am driving about the average speed. So my personal observation is that people are driving about the same speed, whether the speed limit is 65 or 70. So I voted “yes”. But I also see statistics that there are more deaths on the highway where the speed limit is 70 rather than 65. So–I don’t know.
Comment by jake Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:18 pm
Ever drive from Chicago to Springfield?
Comment by OneMan Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:20 pm
Guv Quinn, this is hard because why? We are surrounded by states that have 70 mph limits.
http://www.iihs.org/laws/mapmaxspeedonruralinterstates.aspx
Comment by Makandadawg Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:20 pm
Voted NO, because you can’t argue with physics, and the extra stopping distance and inertia from even a small speed increase, leads to much more energetic and deadly collisions. Especially trucks, which need an additional 100 yards to stop for a 5 MPH speed increase.
I expect Quinn to sign it though because being a populist is more important than saving actual lives, and on the surface everybody pushes this law as a populist and “safe” idea.
Comment by Gregor Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:21 pm
Yes. Sign it.
And Oberweis should also get credit for coming up with a common sense policy improvement.
Comment by Keep Calm and Carry On Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:22 pm
No.
People say it makes driving more efficient. That may be true from a time perspective, but not from a fuel mileage perspective. Also, more people will die from accidents.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/drivehabits.shtml
http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/speed_limits.aspx
Comment by Precinct Captain Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:22 pm
Yes sign it, going 65 is taking you life in your own hands and it will at 70 also. If the GA is going to pass a law and the Gov sings it then enforce it. It won’t matter if it’s signed or not, speeds will remain the same. Best you can do is go with the flow of traffic.
Comment by Dan S, a Cubs fan Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:23 pm
For those in favor of the higher limit:
If you were presented solid evidence it would lead to more traffic deaths, would you still be for it? If so, how many additional deaths make a good trade-off for the higher limit?
Comment by reformer Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:25 pm
Yes, however it is very doubtful that Quinn, being the so clueless and so incredibly non-pragmatic politician that he is, will sign this bill.
Comment by And the horse he rode in on! Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:27 pm
Yes, I doubt he will, but yes.
While often folks will argue that 5 MPH means nothing and look at a single trip over a couple of hours, in business (trucks) or in my world (driving a lot) saving 10-15 a day add up to lots of extra hours of productivity. The flip side lost time or time that has to be made up later (for the self employed).
Of course, with all the construction in Illinois lots of those 70’s wont be 70 very often!
Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:31 pm
== it is very doubtful that Quinn…will sign this bill. ==
Quinn signed the bill raising the truck speed limit to 65 mph.
The fact is that speeding accounts for a growing proportion of traffic fatalities. The Governors Highway Safety Association issued a report with the following facts:
* The share of traffic fatalities linked to speeding increased 7% since 2000.
* In 2010, 10,530 Americans died in speed-related crashes.
* The biggest obstacle to speed enforcement is public indifference to speeding.
Comment by reformer Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:32 pm
Yes, raise the limit to 70, so I can drive 79 instead of my usual 74, thus allowing me to stay under 10mph over the limit. Haven’t been pulled over yet with that strategy.
Comment by PublicServant Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:32 pm
Yes, because 35 other states have a higher speed limit and everybody drives 70 or more anyways. 65 on the open road is just too slow!
Comment by Dave G. Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:34 pm
No
Thirty other states have higher speed limits than Illinois. So what?
49 other states already had CC and we were told ad nauseaum by our leaders that this didn’t make it right
Comment by Hank Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:39 pm
Yes, most people drive 70 now, especially the State Police.
Comment by Louis Howe Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:39 pm
I am sure PQ will go for this one…wonder if BankerBilly or CousinBrucey have voiced a thought?
BTW Chase has set aside $6 billion for litigation expenses….We think that means stock holders get hosed, customers get hosed, people who let Chase manage their cash get hosed
Hmm
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:40 pm
Yes…for the love of God yes, please sign the bill. There are portions of I-55 between Chicago and St. Louis where it could legitimately be 85 mph. The same goes for I-57 south of Champaign, all the way to say Marion or Cairo. In the past decades cars have become safer, more reliable and better quipped for higher speeds. We have mandatory seat belt laws for EVERY passenger in the vehicle now.
One thing that has stayed stagnant however is our 65 mph speed limit. Seriously, the time has come for this.
I’ve seen the statistics. I could cut and paste links that go both ways on the issue. We’re talking about 5 mph here, let’s do it.
Comment by Jimmy 87 Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:44 pm
No — people already drive like bats otta hell. Why encourage them to drive even faster?
Comment by Belle Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:47 pm
No, because people are going to exceed the limit no matter how much it’s raised. Leaving it at 65 at least keeps a lot of people from exceeding 70. And there is really no need to drive any faster than that.
Comment by OldSmoky2 Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:48 pm
Yes, no big deal.
–However, the Illinois State Police and Quinn’s transportation chief are opposed, saying current speed limits should be enforced more strictly.–
Wouldn’t stricter enforcement be up to the state police? I always feel like a chump when I spot a trooper behind me, make sure I’m going the limit, and then he passes me two minutes later.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:48 pm
== Yes, raise the limit to 70, so I can drive 79 instead of my usual 74, thus allowing me to stay under 10mph over the limit ==
I appreciate the honesty. Raising the limit means speeding nine mph over the new limit, not obeying the limit any better than 65.
Comment by reformer Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:49 pm
Shouldn’t the speeds be set by the traffic professionals who know what standards the roads are built to and recognized the effects of traffic density?
Too much meddling in things the pols have no knowledge of. Should the pols decide what cholesterol levels should be before treatment? There are professionals in a myriad of fields who know what the right thing is for their sphere of knowledge. Find out what the experts say in the professional literature and move on.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:52 pm
Drive, she said.
Comment by Amalia Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:54 pm
Voted yes, but don’t think it will make any difference. I drove home from Iowa City yesterday on I-88, had the cruise control set at 72, and all I saw was red blurry taillights going by as I really felt like I was holding up traffic.
Comment by My Thoughts For Whatever Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 1:10 pm
One can’t argue with the logic of Ron Burgundy, PublicServant and OneMan on this issue.
Comment by Diogenes in DuPage Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 1:13 pm
Voted no, there seems to be enough evidence that higher speeds kill more people. As much as I want to go faster, it’s just not worth it. Besides, people already go 70 - 75, this will just increase the speeds to 75 - 80.
Comment by Ahoy! Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 1:16 pm
I voted yes because I didn’t want to be a hypocrite, but really, let’s lower the speed limit to 45 since we know it will save lives. Heck, maybe 35 mph and even more lives will be saved, minus those lost to rising incidents of road rage. Seriously though we should consider a rate of no more than 33 mph on interstate highways. At that speed, the governor’s fantasy of moderately higher speed rail upgrades to Amtrak would actually make riding faster than driving.
Comment by Downstate Illinois Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 1:24 pm
May the will of the people be the law of the land.
Comment by Commonsense in Illinois Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 1:27 pm
I voted YES. If you don’t want people to drive 75 or 80, then pull them over for that. They will stop going over the speed limit, if you actually enforce the speed limit.
Besides, the people on the Tollway system, and other Chicago area interstates already go 85, and no one pulls THEM over. So what does going 70 on a rural interstate hurt? Ever drive on some of those? There’s no one there to hit.
Comment by mythoughtis Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 1:29 pm
Vroom. Even though it may only have an affect on traffic between the hours of 9pm and 4am. Vroom = yes.
Comment by A guy... Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 1:32 pm
Since roadways are designed to be comfortable driving at their design speeds, why dont we do something different and use the design criteria for the speed limit. The downside is that there will probably be a lot fewer speeding violations.
Comment by Anon Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 1:39 pm
I voted “no” due to safety concerns, but I would probably be more supportive if the speed limit on the rural interstates through mid-size cities like Springfield was 55 or 60 mph. It can be a real challenge at times merging onto the interstate in denser areas where both lanes are occupied by high speed traffic.
Comment by Going nuclear Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 1:42 pm
Sign the bill. I’ve not seen any issues while driving in other states with higher speed limits. I’d rather he sign a bill to give people who can’t manage to drive the speed limit hefty fines. Get off the road.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 1:58 pm
What is it about the right to interstate travel that you people find confusing?
Great to see the State of Illinois finally reducing this burden on my fundamental constitutional right!
WE THE PEOPLE demand the end to speed limit tyranny!
OK, that was a joke that at the expense of the 2nd A people. Couldn’t resist.
That being said, I do believe that speed limits should be much higher, admittedly because I like driving fast. It works for me, so it should be the law.
Comment by Skeeter/World Class Golfer Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 2:39 pm
Yes. Most of the the highways in this state were originally designed for 65 mph, the Interstates for 70. President Nixon reduced them in the name of fuel efficiency. Most rural central Illinois two lanes have de facto (sic?) 64 mph speed limits; set the cruise control and go; interstates 74 mph. State Police are now enforcing a 75 limit, used to be 80, so they are out there.
Comment by downstate commissioner Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 2:40 pm
Yes - The Troopers running the Speed Traps on I-64 between the Indiana Border and Burnt Prairie can be freed up to cut grass.
Comment by x ace Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 2:41 pm
P.S. Quinn probably won’t sign it…
Comment by downstate commissioner Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 2:41 pm
He signed it
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 2:43 pm
He must have agreed with me…can’t remember where I heard that line before…hmmm
Comment by Commonsense in Illinois Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 2:59 pm
My observation when traveling in Indiana, people drive on the interstate between 70 and 75 mph with a 70 mph speed limit. They also drive those same speeds in IL with a 65 mph speed limit. 70 to 75 seems to be the mph range where the majority of drivers are comfortable on the interstate.
Comment by Endangered Moderate Species Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 3:20 pm
Yes, we should raise the speed limit to 70 MPH…..It would make it easier for me to catch up to, and convoy with the legislators going 90MPH on I-55
Comment by BobInPeoria Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 3:23 pm
No. I’m concerned with degrading levels of auto maintenance as the economy continues to deteriorate, especially tire replacement. It’s bad enough folks flagrantly disregard the posted speed limits on some roads as it is. Why give them a higher speed limit to test how far that bald eagle will go before blow out.
Comment by Cook County Commoner Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 3:34 pm
Yes, sign it. Those in the over the road trucking business refer to Illinois as a big speed bump.
Comment by the unknown poster Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 3:35 pm
Yes. We need the tax money from the extra gas everyone will have to buy so they can drive faster.
Comment by Chavez-respecting Obamist Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 3:37 pm
Of course he signed this bill.
Whether or not increasing the speed limit is “good” idea, most drivers will not connect the dots back to more serious auto accidents but will get that extra boost of adrenaline that comes from driving 79 (less than 10 mph over) rather than cursing Pat Quinn for being stuck driving 74 (less than 10 mph over).
Comment by Bill White Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 5:08 pm
Safety issues with Quinn seem to be overridden by desires of union trucking leaders. It seems the governor is more concerned with “pleasing” the unions before his upcoming election race than anything else. Six months from now the trucking unions could ask Quinn to raise it from 70 mph to 75-80 mph and the Mighty Quinn would happily oblige them (as long as he can be assured of their union’s support come the next election). I voted no.
Comment by A Casual Observer Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 5:40 pm
== Safety issues with Quinn seem to be overridden by desires of union trucking leaders ==
With only 16 percent of truck drivers being union members (BLS) this is typical right wing verbiage exaggerating organized labor’s influence in the political process.
Comment by HGW XX/7 Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 7:17 pm
The speed limit should be increased (the rural roads were designed for higher speeds, in the days of much worse automotive and tire technology).
But in order to get a drivers license, a real rigorous training course should be required … like a Bondurant course.
Comment by titan Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 9:17 am
Speed isn’t dangerous. Closing speed is dangerous.
The Autobahn has high safety without speed limits because slower traffic keeps to the right. For safer highways, the rule that needs to be enforced is to stay to the right and let faster traffic pass on the left.
Comment by Bemac Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 10:06 am