Home › News › County News
Faster cars force need to increase speed limits
Motorists using sides roads to highway worry officials
STORY TOOLS 
More from County NewsAverage speeds and traffic loads are inching up on major local streets in the Thousand Oaks area, and officials worry that zippier cars and aggressive drivers could force them to again boost speed limits on roads that are already too fast.
Motorists facing years of construction and delays on Highway 23 are using Lynn, Moorpark and Kanan roads, as well as Westlake Boulevard, as irresistible shortcuts to get to and from Highway 101. And average speeds are increasing along with traffic counts, engineers say.
Part of the problem may be California's relatively strict law that prohibits police from using radar to catch speeders unless traffic engineers can prove that the posted speed limit is met by 85 percent of traffic.
"Speed limits are creeping up as a result of those faster speeds," said Thousand Oaks Public Works Director Mark Watkins. "We're forced to post speeds that are ever-higher, and now we are getting freeway speeds on city streets."
Lynn Road went up from 45 to 50 mph several years ago, prompting loud complaints from residents and the current $530,000 city effort to slow things down.
Radar signs to warn speeders, concrete pullouts for police radar units, and increased speed-law enforcement are being implemented now on Lynn Road south of the California Lutheran University campus, and, Watkins said, similar steps may be coming soon to other major roads that parallel Highway 23.
"We do not want to find ourselves in a situation where we cannot enforce the current 50-mile speed limit, and have to go up to 55 on Lynn," Watkins said. "And we are looking at the same eventual worries on Westlake, Lindero and Kanan."
Traffic engineers in Simi Valley and Moorpark say they are not yet at the same point.
"We think our roads are engineered for the speed limits that are on them now, which are appropriate," said Simi Valley Public Works Director Ron Fuchiwaki. "Of course, none of our roads are as winding as Lynn Road."
In Moorpark, Public Works Director Yugal Lall said speeding is nearly impossible on arterial streets that are clogged with trucks filtering through town to connect to Highway 118 and bypass the weigh station on Highway 101 at Conejo Grade.
Messages from marketers
Traffic safety analysts say a major factor in the documented higher speeds may be better-performing cars coupled with aggressive styling and marketing campaigns that emphasize speed and handling and, in effect, send the message: "Drive fast."
"We know that safer and better-built cars are a contributing factor in increased speeding nationwide," said Barbara Harsha, executive director of a traffic safety lobbying group in Washington.
She said members of the Governors' Highway Safety Association believe motorists are driving more aggressively and faster as a result of car styling and capabilities.
Even once-stodgy sedans like the Honda Accord and Chevrolet Malibu are being redesigned with aggressive headlights, high rear decks and tight suspensions, which in the past were used only in muscle cars.
"Cars are much more efficient now than they used to be," noted California Highway Patrol Sgt. Mike Moriarty, who patrols out of the Moorpark CHP office. "They have better brakes and suspensions, they're quieter on the inside, and they accelerate much faster.
"It's only natural that people are feeling more secure driving faster as a result," he said.
The state radar law is fiercely protected in Sacramento by a legislature that at one time repeatedly refused to allow CHP cruisers to have radar guns.
Dennis Gillette, a Thousand Oaks City Council member who is retired from the Sheriff's Department, lobbied to give traffic engineers more leeway on speed limits based on factors like hills and curves.
"We took a bill to the Senate a few years ago to give local agencies the authority to adjust speed limits on arterials, and they killed it," Gillette said.
Pressure from neighborhoods
Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, said the bill went down to a bipartisan defeat because "we want to protect California's anti-speed trap law, which is designed to ensure that speed limits are not set by local political pressure, but are set by specific traffic engineering standards."
The senator said California traffic engineers "need to come forward with a specific formula, if they think there is something wrong with the one we are using.
"Look, the local officials are under pressure from a local neighborhood that doesn't like being near a major highway, and I don't blame them. No one wants to live next to a major highway," McClintock said.
Gillette lives two houses away from Lynn Road, and he bristles at suggestions like that because of his experience patrolling Lynn Road as a sheriff's deputy the day it opened in the mid-1960s.
"I don't think anyone foresaw this level of congestion and speeds here when that road was designed," Gillette said.
The problem may or may not get some relief soon. Thousand Oaks plans to install the radar signs and dramatically increase police presence on the road this fall and then do a new radar survey to see if speeds have dropped.
Traffic-calming efforts
Completion of the Highway 23 widening project in two years will shift patterns around again, but Moorpark's Lall notes that southbound traffic will still face a major bottleneck at the Highways 23 and 101 interchange, where the ramps are too narrow.
"That will just move the morning bottleneck down to the 23-101, and spillover traffic from Moorpark will still use Kanan, Moorpark and Lynn roads," he predicted.
Relief at the freeway interchange is on the county's wish list but not funded, and Ventura County is the only urban county in southern California without a transportation sales tax levy.
Thousand Oaks' Watkins simply hopes that the traffic-calming efforts on Lynn Road slow things down a little. "We don't want freeway-level speeds on these streets," Watkins said.
Posted by socal2310 on August 26, 2007 at 1:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I can think of a few options off the top of my head: Use radar and ticket anyway figuring you can simply dismiss the charges if the person bothers to contest them (fear of loss of eligibility for traffic school really discourages that course of action); Beefing up patrols during peak times will have everyone driving 5mph below the speed limit (if they stop harassing 9 in 10 drivers who's cars they search for non existent drugs, we won't even need to hire more cops - can you tell I've had some bad experiences?); Stop lights programmed deliberately to slow traffic.
Ryan
Posted by Tom_Johnston on August 26, 2007 at 7:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A zippy car makes you want to drive faster so that means we should up speed limits? Huh?
That is about as lame as McClintock's statement "we want to protect California's anti-speed trap law, which is designed to ensure that speed limits are not set by local political pressure, but are set by specific traffic engineering standards."
I'm all for traffic engineering to set speeds, but speed traps are one tool to ENFORCE not SET those limits.
Too many people do drive too fast, and don't pay enough attention.
Posted by rdo4JC on August 26, 2007 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hmmm, because more people are breaking the law and speeding, the speed limit should be increassed. That's stupid. I bet most of the drivers speeding don't even live in the neighborhoods affected, so why should the drivers dictate what the speed limit should be. Somehow a speed limit was set. Without and road improvements, widening, etc. the limit should not change just because cars are "better handling". Put up some bumps to slow down those drivers - nothing big just big enough to slow down those speeding.
Posted by THX1138 on August 26, 2007 at 9:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'd have to disagree Tom - I'd have to go with McClintock on this. You're assuming that law enforcement is always honest and isn't motivated by the number of tickets they write and associated money collected. Speed-traps are considered entrapment. Drivers should have some rights/protection... I do agree that many are preoccupied with their phone etc. and SHOULD be ticketed!
The point of the article is that newer cars are safely capable of higher speeds and handling. There is a difference between driving fast and driving reckless for a given situation.
I often see drivers traveling over 80 on the highway which is safe in light traffic, yet they can be cited for doing so[?!].
On a side note...
What I'd like to see is multi-level driver licensing. For example those with a sports car could take advanced training & testing which would allow some latitude in regard to speed laws. Their car & license would have a special tag to ID this capability. Unfortunately our society is too conservative to consider such an innovation.
Posted by Ventura22 on August 26, 2007 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It boils down to the courts doing their job and backing the enforcement end. Everyone likes to cry when they get caught and make excuses; it takes judges with the balls to put their feet down and impose the fines that are meant to counter the speeding problem, not sympathize with some whining jerk who got busted for speeding. If they can afford "newer, faster cars", they can certainly afford the ridiculously low fine amounts for speeding. These are residential surface streets, not freeways and they should have speed limits no higher than 45. How the retards at the state lagislature got involved in dictating speed limit policies on city streets is a new one to me; the city is responsible for those roads, not the state....they handle freeways and highways. The fines should also be adjusted to reflect one's income. It makes no sense to fine some jerk 160 bucks who drives a $60,000 car and makes over $150,000 a year. They need to come-up with a formula based on a percentage of your prior year's tax returns and reported income. That would slow everyone down and give an incentive to pay more attention, drive safely and save a lot of accidents. The bail schedule we have now is a stupid joke and needs to reflect the income of the offenders.
Posted by angrygirl8284 on August 26, 2007 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh yeah, the aggressive headlights on my Honda make me want to drive it fast *sarcasm*
Posted by luv2sail on August 26, 2007 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, government at it's finest. With statements like that we wonder why things don't work?
Years ago I owned a sports car that was capable of 185mph. Can we change the speed to accomadate that car?
Posted by bugmenot on August 26, 2007 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Part of the problem may be California's relatively strict law that prohibits police from using radar to catch speeders unless traffic engineers can prove that the posted speed limit is met by 85 percent of traffic."
ARE YOU SERIOUS? I wonder how many areas of the county have had an engineer PROVE that the posted speed limit is met by 85%. I wonder how OFTEN said engineer must PROVE this. I bet some smart speeders could use this to their advantage. Anybody know what law this is?
Posted by elgavacho on August 26, 2007 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For an officer to be able to use laser/radar, there are several things that must be in place. Unless it's a residential area or they are working the freeways, then they have to have a speed survey. If they don't have a survey they can't work the area. Period. The 85th percentile has to be within 5 mph of the posted speed limit. If I'm not mistaken, there was a law passed last year or the year before that doesn't let the traffic engineer lower the speed limit and then justify it, in the past they used to be able to do that, say for example the 85th percentile is 43, but based on the roadway conditions, on street parking, cross streets etc. etc. the traffic engineer could make the speed limit 35, not within 5 mph of the 85th percentile. The new law says that the speed limit has to be within 5 mph of the 85th percentile, so in this case it would be 40 instead of 35 like it used to be.
So..the reason they say that speeders make the speed limit go higher is when a traffic survey expires, the traffic engineer has to go out and do a new survey. If there happen to be a lot of speeders the day that the survey is done, then he HAS to raise the speed limit.
If you want to read all about speed traps and what the police have to do to be able to use laser/radar, you can read section 40802 of the California Vehicle Code.
THX, as far as your car speeding on the freeway scenario. You are mixing up two different sections that police can cite for. One is the maximum speed law, 22349 VC, which basically states that you can't go over 65. Period. If you're going 66 you're guilty.
The other is 22350 VC, which is the basic speed law. Basically what that section is is driving at an unsafe speed. The officer has to prove that the speed you are going at is unsafe. Is 36 unsafe in a 35 zone? Well..it actually depends on the conditions at the time. Is it foggy? Are there a group of kids crossing the street? Is it midnight and no one is around? Lot of different factors.
r.gyurkovitz..I'm not sure if I understood you correctly, but you think that if you go to court to contest a ticket and lose that you can't go to traffic school? If that's what you said than you are incorrect. Going to court to fight your ticket doesn't incur any other penalty, the worst you will get is the same you would get if you didn't fight the ticket.
Posted by Ventura22 on August 26, 2007 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Appartently, many people like angelz61 don't understand how the revenue thing works when it comes to fines. The fines go back into the county general fund and the agencies that do all the work enforcing the law see very little, if any of it. Most of the fine fees go towards reimbursing court and clerical time. Cops don't get payraises for writing citations, please quit spending so much time in front of your television and try educating yourself for once. The officers get paid the same whether they write tickets or not. Contrary to ignorant beliefs, they do not, and can not operate on a commission system. Last time I checked, the "self-serving interests" you referred to of the local government are motivated by public safety, which is their number one responsibility that we have "entrusted" them with! You would be the first one bawling & screaming at the local city council for not doing something sooner when you or your kid gets run over by a speeding a-hole on one of these streets. Now, tell me again what the public's "best interests" are?? They certainly don't coincide with your best interests which is most-likely being able to shirk your responsibilities as a safe driver. Try doing something noble and show some respect for the residents and other users of the roads in question the next time you drive through there. It's really simple and seems like a forgotten art. You would cry and complain bloody murder to the local police/city council when your street speed limit gets increased and we sped through your street to use as a shortcut, now wouldn't you?
Posted by watchingworks on August 26, 2007 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I haven't seen any comments on the high level of car accidents on Lynn Road. The speed limits are just too high for safe driving. There seems to be a new section of fence/wall crashed through every time you turn around. This gets better when there's a high police presence, and people are driving slower.
Posted by Old_Fart on August 26, 2007 at 6:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Raise the speed limits to 75 in town so no one will be speeding. Yeah, thats smart.
Another poorly written headline.
Enforce the laws.
Posted by socal2310 on August 26, 2007 at 7:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
elgavacho,
I intended my statement to be as ambiguous as the information on the back of the ticket.
A request to attend traffic school is automatically approved for certain citations as long as you pay the fine. If you go to traffic court and are found guilty, you have to request traffic school before you leave or you lose the right. Because of the way the information is presented on the back of the ticket, it's easy to get the impression that if you attend a hearing, you automatically forfeit the right to traffic school.
Incidentally, the problem I see with the law is that it doesn't take the type of vehicle being driven into account (though admittedly, the cops enforcing it may). There are many corners where it is clearly dangerous for me drive my E-350ext at the speed limit because of how top heavy the van is. A BMW could easily take the same corner at 10 mph over the speed limit without any trouble whatsoever and it could come to an emergency stop in about half the distance. But who is the cop going to ticket? The BMW going ten over, or me going dangerously fast but at the legal limit?
Ryan
Posted by whennaturecalls.photos on August 26, 2007 at 7:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am speechless after reading this article. That's about the dumbest thing I've read in a long time. Increasing the speed to accommodate speedy cars? So you up it to 55 and everyone will start driving 60!
Posted by imbetnonit on August 26, 2007 at 9:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We are living in bizarro world. I wonder why we never learn from the past, why do we keep trying to reinvent the wheel.
Posted by megnosis on August 27, 2007 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There are more important issues to worry about in traffic than the speeders. Go after the folks that can't stay in a lane, shift about all the time or can't get to freeway speeds on the onramps.
And don't get me started on the people who are incapable of driving the cars they own. People need to be tested on different car types to see what they individually can handle. Too many SUV drivers don't know how to handle their behemoths.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.