Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Today’s numbers
Next Post: It ain’t just Chicago
Posted in:
* From the new speed limit law, which Gov. Pat Quinn signed yesterday…
(d-1) Unless some other speed restriction is established under this Chapter, the maximum speed limit outside an urban district for any vehicle is
(1) 70 miles per hour on any interstate highway as defined by Section 1-133.1 of this Code;
(2) 65 miles per hour for all or part of highways that are designated by the Department, have at least 4 lanes of traffic, and have a separation between the roadways moving in opposite directions; and
(3) 55 miles per hour for all other highways, roads, and streets. The counties of Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, Madison, McHenry, St. Clair, and Will may adopt ordinances setting a maximum speed limit on highways, roads, and streets that is lower than the limits established by this Section. […]
1.5. 70 miles per hour upon any interstate highway as defined by Section 1-133.1 of this Code outside the counties of Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will;
* From Gov. Quinn’s press release…
Governor Pat Quinn today signed a new law to increase the speed limit from 65 to 70 miles-per-hour (mph) on rural four-lane highways, and to lower the limit by five mph for excessive speeding. The law will bring Illinois’ speed limit in line with 36 other states that have speed limits of 70 mph or higher on some portion of their roadways, including other large states such as California, Florida, Texas and Ohio, and neighboring states such as Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Iowa and Michigan. The bill passed with significant bipartisan support in both chambers.
“This limited five miles-per-hour increase will bring Illinois’ rural interstate speed limits in line with our neighbors and the majority of states across America, while preventing an increase in excessive speeding,” Governor Quinn said. “I encourage all motorists to continue to respect our traffic laws, avoid distractions and exercise common sense behind the wheel to protect the safety of themselves and others.”
Sponsored by State Senator Jim Oberweis (R-Sugar Grove) and State Representative Jerry Costello Jr. (D-Smithton), Senate Bill 2356 increases the maximum speed limit from 65 to 70 mph on four-lane divided highways outside of urban areas. The law allows Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, Madison, McHenry, St. Clair and Will Counties to opt-out by adopting an ordinance that sets a lower maximum speed limit, empowering counties to make adjustments based on their own local needs.
* Sen. Jim Oberweis says that’s not so…
“The governor’s press release misstated the facts,” said state Sen. Jim Oberweis (R-Sugar Grove), the bill’s chief Senate sponsor, who insisted it was his intent for the higher speed limit to apply to even clogged arteries in Chicago and suburbia.
“The bill moves the speed limit to 70 mph for all interstates and tollways in Illinois,” Oberweis said, with an aide to Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno (R-Lemont) backing up Oberweis’ interpretation.
* OK, despite the somewhat confusing county exemptions, the statute sets the new 70 mph speed limit for “any interstate highway as defined by Section 1-133.1 of this Code.” Here’s Section 1-133.1…
625 ILCS 5/1-133.1) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 1-133.1)
Sec. 1-133.1. Interstate highway. Any highway which is now, or shall hereafter be, a part of the national system of interstate and defense highways within this State.
But then there’s the line about county exemptions from 1-133.1’s definition of what an interstate highway is, so perhaps the governor is correct.
* However…
“Our interpretation is that this law does not impact our county highway system — 55 remains the maximum speed limit along the county’s roadways,” said Johnna Kelly, a spokeswoman for the DuPage County Board.
“The county doesn’t have jurisdiction over the tollway and IDOT roads,” she said.
A top Will County official echoed those sentiments.
“I think there’s a little confusion,” said Anastasia Tuskey, a spokeswoman for Will County Executive Lawrence M. Walsh. “Our county highway director said we can’t regulate any state highway speeds.”
Cleanup bill, perhaps?
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 10:31 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Today’s numbers
Next Post: It ain’t just Chicago
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Why doesn’t it mean that the speed limit is 70, except for inside one of the named counties if that county adopts an ordinance to lower the speed limit? The bill [(d-1)(3)] appears to authorize certain counties to set a lower limit. If the local authority sets a lower limit in accord with state law, then the state police could enforce that lower limit. Is that not how to read this?
Comment by Elo Kiddies Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 10:38 am
Gotta love how the whack jobs confuse everything
Speed limits already drop in metro areas … I-55 just south of Bolingbrook…why would Chopper Jim think it is different for him?
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 10:39 am
Doesn’t the language “outside an urban district” make it clear that the speed limit for urban areas like the Chicago metro area remains at 55 MPH, as designated in the Vehicle Code? I don’t see any language repealing the lower metro speed limit.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 10:42 am
I guess it’s time to get off the phone and just keep an eye out for the posted speed limit signs until further notice.
Comment by A guy... Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 10:43 am
Why am I not surprised Jim Oberweis’ “Cornerstone” legislative success is … confusing!
Looks like some Governmental Ice Cream is needed.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 10:44 am
So I guess that “Rewrite, Do it Right” applies only when Gov. Quinn needs to buff up his populist street cred.
Comment by SAP Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 10:53 am
It looks like they sped past the details on this bill.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 10:54 am
@FakeJimOberweis - Just do what… I … say!’ This “bill signing” and legislation verbiage is for the birds. #SlytherinHouseRules
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 10:58 am
So in other words, the speed limit is 70 unless it isn’t.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 10:59 am
This looks like a legislative “rookie” mistake. I agree that a trailer bill to clarify the new law’s intent is a good idea, and it can be passed and signed before this law takes effect on January 1.
But why didn’t someone notice this problem during the legislative session? The bill went through committee hearings in both chambers, and all 4 caucus staffs had ample opportunity to find the lack of clarity in Oberweis’ bill.
I suppose the Governor could have issued an amendatory veto to rectify the problem, if he was aware of it… but IDOT, which would have the technical knowledge to offer corrective language, opposed the bill outright.
Comment by cover Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 11:00 am
This legislation is long past overdue. If one can not drive at least 70+ mph (not counting ice, heavy rain etc., they really have no business on the road.
Meanwhile, turn down the radio, don’t use your car as a cafeteria or communications center, and don’t daydream.
And rural two lane highways should be 65mph like they use to be. A lot of us live in rural areas where interstates are non-existent. No reason those drivers should be penalized and made to poke along because of the rule changes implemented in the phony gasoline crisis of the early 1970’s.
Comment by Federalist Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 11:00 am
= It looks like they sped past the details on this bill. =
Nice one, 47th!
Won’t the speed limits still be 65 mph, as posted, until new 70 mph signs are installed?
Comment by cover Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 11:01 am
so you cant use your cell phone while driving, unless it is set up as a hands free device (which i hate), because it is dangerous. but you can drive faster, which idot and state cops oppose because it is dangerous, because a progressive, reformer, grass roots organizing democrat governor can read a calendar and see an election on the horizon. whatever the people want.
meanwhile, in another part of the forest, pensions, any one?
Comment by langhorne Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 11:02 am
=== 1.5. 70 miles per hour upon any interstate highway as defined by Section 1-133.1 of this Code outside the counties of Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will; ===
This language is in the section dealing with buses. If there is a restriction in the collars, it would be limited to buses. However, it’s left unsaid as to what can or should be done differently in those counties.
Of course, the main provision references ANY vehicle.
Bottom line is that it is not the best work by our dairy extremist.
Meanwhile, I’ll go with the flow of the traffic around me.
Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 11:10 am
This is not the first piece of legislation that requires further clarification, trailer bills, etc., nor the last. But the speed limit change is a good one. Recent speculation here that the Governor would not sign the bill seemed petty at the time, now that speculation is proven unfounded.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 11:12 am
Oberweis might have made a huge blunder in this legislation. Now that vehicles will be kicking it up to 80-90 mph heading west on I-88 out of Aurora, the sight of Oberweis Dairy will just be a blur and will lose the advertisement benefit!
Comment by My Thoughts For Whatever Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 11:13 am
A simple 1 item legislation & they can’t agree or get it with a single interpretation. Any wonder why they can’t get a complex issue like ‘pension reform’ done?
Comment by sal-says Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 11:16 am
This is a joke, if you go 70 now you will get passed or have cars on your bumer. It won’t be enforced, why bother?
Comment by Dan S, a Cubs fan Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 11:22 am
By my reading, counties only have the authority to set lower speed limits on “highways,” but “interstates” are statutorily distinct and counties have no jurisdiction over them. The provision covering buses provides a specific exemption for “outside the counties of Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will,” but the section covering cars and trucks does not. The only real confusion to me is the line “outside an urban district.” It’s never defined, so it’s something of a throw-away phrase. But I wonder if it wasn’t intended to be intentionally misleading.
My question is, was there ever any confusion about whether or not Oberweis intended the higher limit to apply to the roads where his company’s trucks most frequently travel?
Comment by grand old partisan Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 11:44 am
The increased speed limit was intended to and SHOULD APPLY TO METRO CHICAGO for the same reasons that it makes sense for rural areas. All the evidence indicates that there would be no negative impact on safety. In fact, the opposite is true. Our roads would be safer because most traffic is already moving at 70 or higher. The few cars going 55-60 are a danger to themselves and to others. A higher limit would help get the slower traffic up to the average.
Higher Interstate Speed Limits Would Enhance Overall Highway Safety
1. Nearly 90% of fatalities occur on secondary roads. Only about 6% of fatalities occur on rural interstates plus another 7% on urban interstates nationwide. Increased speed limits would not apply to the roads where 87% to 94% of fatalities occur (depending on whether urban interstates are included).
2. Higher speed limits on interstates helps draw traffic away from secondary highways which are more dangerous, thus increasing overall road safety.
3. For decades, traffic engineers have promoted establishment of speed limits based on 85th percentile speeds – the maximum speed at which 85% of motorists travel when unencumbered by traffic or enforcement. Well informed state police and transportation departments also advocate this approach.
4. Speed limits have very little impact on the pace of faster traffic – most drivers, including the police, ignore under-posted limits.
5. Higher interstate speed limits improve safety by reducing speed variance, road rage and weaving.
6. Under-posted speed limits breed disrespect for all laws, especially traffic laws. This leads to speeding in construction zones and on secondary roads.
7. Under-posted speed limits leave drivers bored, unengaged and distracted. Since driving does not demand their full attention, drivers talk on the phone and even text while driving…because they can. Do you think drivers text on the German autobahn? Not likely.
8. With a very few exceptions, even with increased speed limits our interstates are still posted at or below the limits which were in place in 1970 (pre-55). Since then the handling capability and safety equipment on vehicles has improved dramatically such that limits of 80 to 85 should be the norm (as they are in many other parts of the industrialized world).
9. The so-called safety advocates (insurers and others who make money from ticketing) tend to cite studies which count the raw number of fatalities rather than looking at the actual rate per mile driven. The raw number of fatalities fell under the 55 mph speed limit fell primarily because people were driving less (because of gas prices). The actual fatality rate has fallen steadily for nearly 100 years during times of both rising and falling speed limits.
10. Higher limits reduce congestion and may actually save fuel by allowing drivers to keep a steadier pace.
Please tell your county board members to increase the limit. If you don’t act, you may end up paying a $1500 fine and go to prison for 6 months. That is the penalty for going 26 over the limit (81 mph in metro Chicago).
Steve Doner
Former Illinois State Chapter Coordinator
National Motorists Association
Comment by Steve Doner Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 11:55 am
Speed Limit FAQ’s - a good rebuttal to the common arguments against higher limits…
Speed limits should be based on sound traffic-engineering principles that consider responsible motorists’ actual travel speeds. Typically,this should result in speed limits set at the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic (the speed under which 85 percent of traffic is
traveling). These limits should be periodically adjusted to reflect changes in actual traffic speeds.
Here are some frequently asked questions on speed limit policy:
Q. How should speed limits be set?
A. Traffic engineers maintain that speed limits should be established according to the 85th percentile of free flowing traffic. This means the limit should be set at a level at or under which 85 percent of people are driving. Numerous studies have shown that the 85th percentile is the safest possible level at which to set a speed limit.
Q. What are “realistic” speed laws?
A. According to a pamphlet produced by the Washington State Department of Transportation relating to speed limits, “realistic” speed limits should invite public compliance by conforming to the behavior of the most drivers. This would allow the police to easily separate the serious violators from the reasonable majority.
Q. Isn’t slower always safer?
A. No, federal and state studies have consistently shown that the drivers most likely to get into accidents in traffic are those traveling significantly below the average speed. According to an Institute of Transportation Engineers Study, those driving 10 mph slower than the prevailing speed are six times as likely to be involved in an accident. That means that if the average speed on an interstate is 70
mph, the person traveling at 60 mph is far more likely to be involved in an accident than someone going 70 or even 80 mph.
Q. Wouldn’t everyone drive faster if the speed limit was raised?
A. No, the majority of drivers will not go faster than what they feel is comfortable and safe regardless of the speed limit. For example, an 18-month study following an increase in the speed limit along the New York Thruway from 55 to 65 mph, determined that the average speed of traffic, 68 mph, remained the same. Even a national study conducted by Federal Highway Administration also concluded
that raising or lowering the speed limit had practically no effect on actual travel speeds.
Q. Don’t higher speed limits cause more accidents and traffic fatalities?
A. No, if a speed limit is raised to actually reflect real travel speeds, the new higher limit will make the roads safer. When the majority of traffic is traveling at the same speed, traffic flow improves, and there are fewer accidents. Speed alone is rarely the cause of accidents. Differences in speed are the main problem. Reasonable speed limits help traffic to flow at a safer, more uniform pace.
Q. Aren’t most traffic accidents caused by speeding?
A. No, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) claims that 30 percent of all fatal accidents are “speed related,” but even this is misleading. This means that in less than a third of the cases, one of the drivers involved in the accident was “assumed” to be exceeding the posted limit. It does not mean that speeding caused the accident. Research conducted by the Florida Department of
Transportation showed that the percentage of accidents actually caused by speeding is very low, 2.2 percent.
Q. Aren’t our roads more dangerous than ever before?
A. No, our nation’s fatality rate (deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled) is the lowest it has ever been. The total number of fatalities has also stayed relatively stable for several years. They do occasionally increase, but given that our population and the distance the average person drives are also increasing, this is not surprising, nor is it cause for alarm.
Q. If nobody follows the speed limit, why does it matter that they are underposted?
A. According to a speed-limit brochure published in conjunction with the Michigan State Patrol, inappropriately established speed limits cause drivers to take all traffic signals less seriously. The brochure also points out that unrealistic speed limits create two groups of drivers. Those that try to obey the limit and those that drive at a speed they feel is safe and reasonable. This causes dangerous differences in speed.
Q. Don’t lower speed limits save gas?
A. No, research has shown that the 55-mph National Maximum Speed Limit, which was enacted specifically to save gas, had practically no impact on fuel consumption. This is partly because people do not obey artificially lower speed limits. It is also because the differences in travel speeds that result from unreasonable limits waste gas. Most fuel is used to accelerate to a given speed. Speed limits based on
actual travel speeds promote better traffic flow, which reduces the amount of braking and accelerating on our roads. This has a positive effect on fuel consumption.
Source: http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/speed-limit-fact-sheet.pdf
Comment by Steve Doner Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 11:59 am
To the naysayers, I ask you this: If you were the mother or father of a teen driver (as I am) would you advise them to drive 55 on Chicago expressways? My answer was certainly no. I want them to be safe more than I want them to obey the letter of the law so I tell them what they probably would have decided on their own - go with the flow between 65 and 75 on the expressway. I will glady pay their ticket for anything under 70, but isnt it sad that we directly or indirectly teach our young people that laws are a joke. Most are not, but this is the only one that touches their lives every day.
Comment by Steve Doner Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 12:03 pm
Sorry about doing multiple posts, but I have some credentials in this regard and would like to support my claims with facts. Please help spread the word.
Here are some links which overwhelmingly support higher limits:
http://blog.motorists.org/reduce-road-rage-realistic-speed-limits/
http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/\
http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/studies
http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/speed-limit-fact-sheet.pdf
http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/faq
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa346.pdf
http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/guest-commentary/2013-05-26/increased-speed-limit-not-threat-public-safety.html
http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html
http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana.htm
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
http://www.donerdesigns.org/other-causes
Steve Doner
Former Illinois State Chapter Coordinator
National Motorists Association
Comment by Steve Doner Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 12:06 pm
Steve,
Your suggestion that higher limits will improve safety by reducing speed variance is directly contradicted by the fact that crashes involving trucks INCREASED after the state eliminated the speed differential for them – a measure that was sold on exactly the same argument.
Also, while you are right that interstates are inherently safer, (a) the numbers you cite ridiculously overstate the case and (b) it has much more to do with the lack of cross traffic than the speed of traffic. If you look at crashes per vehicle mile driven on each type of road the safety gap narrows considerably. And I’d be interested in seeing what evidence you have that there is a statistically significant number of people using secondary roads instead of interstates because the speed limits are too slow.
Comment by grand old partisan Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 12:39 pm
I rarely go on rural highways, where that is where the new speed limit will take effect. When I am on rural highways people seem to be going much more than 70 anyhow.
I think more of a problem, and that is anywhere would be someone in the left lane going below the speed limit. That is more of a road hazard than going fast, having people pass you on the right to get around you and drive the speed limit (or more if able)
It seems like when I am on the Stevenson late at night people keep up with traffic, with the exception of the construction area around Central Avenue, keeping with the flow of traffic no matter what the speed limit is seems to be the safest, in my opinion.
Comment by 3rd Generation Chicago Native Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 12:42 pm
When will the legislature figure out that the optimal highway speed is always five miles per hour faster than the maximum currently allowed by law.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 12:49 pm
== I think more of a problem would be someone in the left lane going below the speed limit. ==
The Millner law passed more than five years ago make it illegal for lollygaggers to stay in the left lane.
Comment by reformer Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 1:52 pm
The Millner law - had not heard of that. Nor have any of the folks who continue to drive in the left lane at much slower speeds than the rest of traffic - the same ones who resist moving over with a brief flash of headlights (on/off, high/low). I have not ever witnessed law enforcement stopping a slow driver and ticketing same. I’d love to see the stats on the uptick of tickets after the Millner law was passed. Won’t hold by breath, tho.
Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 3:05 pm
“Millner’s law” was enacted as Public Act 93-0447, effective 1/1/2004. It was sponsored by Rutherford in the Senate.
Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 3:22 pm
as dupage dan said, never seen someone ticketed for violation of Millner’s law. drive 30k or more/yr on rural interstates and those fools are out there. and also as dd says, they will NOT get out of the left lane forcing drivers to pass on the right.
Comment by blue collar Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 4:09 pm
Having lived in Germany where the Autobahn is open game for speed…I have to say, there were less crashes than in the US. However, when there was an accident there were rarely any survivors. But, it was safer. Catch 22?
Comment by Sandy Champion Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 4:27 pm
…Reminds me of the old ELO song from MANY, many moons ago by the same name: “CONFUSION”! They increase the Speed Limit, making the roads more dangerous for all–and then, as could only happen in Illinois–they can’t even agree on what and where the new Increase even IS…!!!
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 7:25 pm
I have read the bill. It was always intended to cover metro Chicago and should…
https://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130823/discuss/708239796/
Steve Doner
Former Illinois Chapter Coordinator
National Motorists Association.
Comment by Steve Doner Monday, Aug 26, 13 @ 12:01 pm
Mr/Ms GOP -
You are correct about the fatality rate per mile vs the absolute but the statement I made is still true as to interstates being the safest roads.
Concerning diversion, there have been studies about the impact of tolls which detract from the value proposition of a particular route. There is a link to one below. I maintain that speed limits and punitive enforcement would have a similar and additive impact, especially on our tollways. If 55 (or anything below 70) was enforced, I believe more traffic will be lost to the side roads.
I don’t mind paying the $200 a month I currently spend on tolls if I can drive at 75 to 80 as I and most others do now. At an enforced 55, I would look for alternate routes.
Here is an excerpt and the link.
“Because we know that secondary roads pose greater safety hazards, the safety cost of diversion will be substantial,” the study explained. “We know enough about the frequency and severity of crashes based on highway type to suggest that a substantial increase in crashes, crash severity, and fatalities in the state of Ohio probably would occur as a result of this diversion.”
http://www.motorists.org/tolls/tolldiversion.pdf
Comment by Steve Doner Thursday, Aug 29, 13 @ 11:27 am