Does anyone think a dual speed limit is a good idea? What was the rationale behind it?

Question

I don't know how many other states have one, but here in Ohio, we have one and I think it is just a bad idea.

Trucks & other large vehicles have to stay to 55 mph, while small vehicles can travel 65.

This often leads to a bottleneck in traffic. As long as there are trucks in the right (slow) lane, then you have to stay in the left lane to maintain your maximum legal speed.

That means if another driver is trying to go over the 65 mph limit, they are held up by the trucks in the right lane and the cars in the left.

I'm sure that someone thought it was a good idea when they started it, so I wanted to know, what's the logic behind it?

Answer 1

Only 11 out of the lower 48 states have some form of split speed limit.  Statistics show traffic is usually safer when all vehicles move at about the same rate of speed.  

As for Ohio's speed limit, the rumor I've heard has something to do with the governor (or a former governor) having a member of his family killed by a speeding truck.  Might be just urban legend (probably is, since I heard it from other truckers).  But when states pass laws like this, it's usually a result of them pandering to special interest groups who think truck drivers are the root of all evil, that we're all hopped up on amphetamines and trying to kill disabled children while destroying the environment single-handedly, and all our freight should be hauled by horse-drawn coaches, or something.  States shut them up by saying "Okay, we'll make the trucks go slower"....even though the statistics show it doesn't really work, and makes matters worse many times.  

Out in California, the split is even more extreme, with trucks at 55 and cars at 70 mph (and most do 80 plus).

I witnessed and gave assistance in a chain-reaction accident in California....that was triggered when a 55 mph truck moved into the left lane (to avoid a hazard on the shoulder) and caused a line of speeding cars to hit their brakes to slow down.  The guy in the very last car was pulling a U-Haul trailer (and I am pretty sure he was drinking)....and he couldn't stop in time, plowed into the BMW in front of him.  He lost control of his vehicle and went off into the ditch; my husband and I stopped to help get him out of his vehicle and get the police called.  

If that truck had been allowed to travel at a rate of speed closer to the cars (65-70 mph) he could have merged into the left lane smoothly and not caused the approaching cars to have to slow down rapidly.  I see this sort of thing all the time....in any highway scenario trucks often do have legitimate, necessary reasons to change lanes or travel in the left lanes....and when they're forced to travel considerably slower than cars, they become a hazard when they change lanes and slow everyone down suddenly.  

In some states, too....I wonder if it's just a revenue generator.  I mean, have you SEEN some of the desolate, flat stretches out in California?  Nothing but desert, no motorists, no towns....and yet, we've still got to putter along at 55 MPH.  It's all too tempting for many trucks to punch up the speed and do 70, and half the time I think that's just what the Highway Patrol is waiting for!  LOL.  In my experience the cops tend to target truckers more severely in states with split speed limits.....have seen occasions where cars are speeding about 5-10 mph over, and the truck is also speeding 5-10 mph over (but still going slower than the car)....and yet, the cop will pull over the truck instead of the car.  Other states without the split limits seem to be more equal-opportunity enforcers.   But I may be wrong :).

Answer 2

There's probably a statistic done by insurance companies that say truck drivers doing 55 are safer than ones doing 65. Also the faster a fully loaded truck goes the longer it takes to stop. I'm guessing that the 10mph on a truck makes a huge difference in the distance it takes to stop, and it adds to the drivers reaction time.