- Login
Lawmakers eye changing gravel road speed law
A lakes area state lawmaker is resurrecting a controversial subject on behalf of lakes area residents and officials by seeking to revise the way speed limits are set along the county’s approximately 800 miles of dirt and gravel roads.
State Rep. Eileen Kowall (R-White Lake, Highland) introduced House Bill (HB) 4037 on Thursday, Jan. 13. It would amend Public Act (PA) 300 of 1949 and applies to a speed limit that was posted as of Nov. 9, 2006 in a residence district along a dirt or gravel roadway.
The goal is to put input back in the hands of county and community officials rather than impose a prima facie speed limit (55 miles per hour) that currently applies on gravel or dirt roads if speed limits aren’t posted as provided by law.
Kowall co-authored the bill with state Rep. Hugh Crawford (R-Walled Lake, Wixom). The legislation states, “A speed limit that was posted as of Nov. 9, 2006 in a residence district on a dirt or gravel road located in a city, village or township is effective unless the city or village council or township board requests the county road commission to change the speed limit within that posted area and the speed limit is re-established.”
“We need to put more criteria into the formula to establish speeds on dirt or gravel roads,” Kowall said. “Right now they use access points and population (to set speed limits), but no topographical information like curves, hills, sight distance, or narrowness.”
White Lake Township Trustee Mike Powell, a civil engineer, concurs.
“Each road must be evaluated individually to determine speed limits,” he said. “There may be some validity to the current state guidelines but they must be based on the number of driveways tempered with traffic and the proximity of the house from the street.”
Current state law requires that speed limits on gravel roads be set according to the number of access points — driveways, side streets or intersections — located along a stretch of roadway. For a half-mile stretch of unpaved roadway with 60 or more vehicular access points, the speed limit is to be set at 25 mph; between 45 and 59 access points require a speed limit of 35 mph; and with between 30 and 44 points of access, the speed limit must be 45 mph. These prima facie speed limits aren’t in effect unless they are posted properly in the appropriate area.
If a speed limit sign isn’t present on an unpaved road, the “general speed limit” of 55 mph applies.
Kowall said that’s not always a safe scenario for motorist or pedestrians.
Crawford said his hope is that the bill will rectify a long-standing problem by giving control to municipalities and road commissions instead of the state.
“I’ve always favored local control over state control,” Crawford said. “Local folks know best what the speed limit should be.”
The issue drew dissension back in 2007, when former Gov. Jennifer Granholm vetoed a similar bill. Granholm argued that there was a conflict with the Michigan Constitution. Reportedly, the governor also vetoed the legislation because of a concern about potential litigation, since the bill was originally drafted to address license plates, not the way speed limits are established.
Many area residents and municipal officials opposed the new law, citing safety concerns associated with raising speed limits along hundreds of gravel road sections in Oakland County.
According to Road Commission for Oakland County (RCOC) Spokesperson Craig Bryson, proposals like Kowall’s have failed to pass in the past due to the lack of support around the state outside of Oakland County.
“Nearly all other counties have gravel roads with the unposted prima facie 55 mph (speed limit),” he said. “The Michigan State Police (MSP), who got this law passed in 2006, argue that when there is an unofficial low speed limit, people ignore it, and if one is posted it only encourages people to disobey the law.”
Bryson added that according to data, when a 25 mph speed limit is posted, motorists tend to drive 37 mph on average.
Currently, in order for a speed limit to change, the county road commission, the municipality, and the MSP must sign off on the change.
“Unless the road meets the access points required, MSP won’t sign off,” Bryson said.
Again in March 2008, legislation was introduced to make 45 mph the absolute limit one is allowed to travel on all non-paved or dirt roads under county jurisdiction.
The bill was met with derision and died on the House floor.
Now Kowall is trying to move her new bill forward not only for drivers, but for pedestrians, as well.
“We need to put things back to how they were before,” Kowall said.
Powell said he has a vested interest in the bill since he resides on a gravel road and travels them frequently.
“I’m in favor for the local community having control over these speed limits,” he said. “A number of these roads like Cooley Lake Road are posted at 55 mph — that’s way too high. It should be between 25 and 30 mph, which is more reasonable.”
Powell also cited concerns about the dust, noise and speeding that frequently occurs along unpaved roadways.
“Cars that travel over 25 or 30 make a lot of dust and noise, which are a major nuisance to those on the roadways,” he said. “Cars also tend to travel faster and have a greater chance of losing control.”
RCOC officials voiced reservations about the legislation by taking another perspective.
“We are concerned about it because it costs a lot of money to put up or, in other cases, take down (speed limit) signs,” Bryson said. “This would be an unfunded mandate at a time when there is no extra money.”
The bill has been referred to the House Transportation Committee, where it awaits a hearing.
10 Responses to Lawmakers eye changing gravel road speed law
You must be logged in to post a comment Login
Missy
January 26, 2011 at 5:54 pm
This is a dumb move that is all politics with no facts to back it up. It is not at all found in the world of reality and just makes people feel good while actually decreasing safety. Shame on you Coattails Kowal.
Joe
January 26, 2011 at 5:56 pm
Mike Powell calls himself a civil engineer, but what he says is based on politics and NOT engineering.
Gregg
January 26, 2011 at 6:50 pm
This is a good example of what is wrong with government. They want to be able to set a random speed limit, not post it, and then be able to give tickets to unsuspecting drivers to generate income for their locality.
This has nothing to do with noise, dust, or safety. They even say they want speed limits of 25 and know the average driver will drive 37 .. which does not meet the 25-30 that they claim is needed to limit the dust and noise to a level that they want. This 55 MPH law has been a good law since 1949 and only now our cars are too noisy, dusty and unsafe to do 30 MPH.
Parker
January 28, 2011 at 11:36 am
Lets leave setting speed limits to the traffic engineers. I live in Commerce and drive many of the lakes area gravel roads. Most drivers will drive a reasonable speed for the condition, regardless of what the speed limit sign says. And those that are driving an unsafe speed can be cited under MCL 257.627 (1), Aka “The Basic Speed Law” which states:
(1) A person operating a vehicle on a highway shall operate that vehicle at a careful and prudent speed not greater than nor less than is reasonable and proper, having due regard to the traffic, surface, and width of the highway and of any other condition then existing. A person shall not operate a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than that which will permit a stop within the assured, clear distance ahead.
So Michigan law has a provision for the very few people who are truly driving unsafely on the gravel roads.
We don’t need a new law and we don’t another “let’s keep the speed limit low for fun and profit” scheme.
James C. Walker
January 28, 2011 at 12:28 pm
There have been at least five attempts in recent years to pass legislation that would allow local authorities to set unrealistic and artificially low posted speed limits on unpaved roads. All have failed because they do NOT improve safety, they actually decrease safety for all users. The vast majority of drivers drive safely according to conditions (which change markedly on unpaved roads over time), NOT according to the numbers painted on the signs. The only actual effect of posting an unrealistically low speed limit is to increase the speed variance between the faster and slower vehicles, as a very tiny percentage of drivers will comply with an unrealistically low limit, but most will drive safely according to the conditions at speeds higher than the artificially low limit. This increases the conflicts between vehicles, increases passing, increases tailgating, and may lead to more aggressive driving. NONE of these effects are positive for safety. The National Motorists Association has testified against all five previous attempts on the basis these artificially low limits will degrade safety, and fortunately none has become law. If this bill comes to a hearing, we will be there again to testify against the bill, and we will note the history of this issue. What local residents do not accept is that the posted limit has almost no effect on the upper part of the actual speed range. People simply will NOT comply with an artificially low posted limit and no area has enough police resources to patrol all these types of roads 24/7, which is the only way an artificially low limit will get compliance. Most people did NOT comply with the posted 25 mph before 11/9/06 and they will not do so today if reinstated. Please note that when the NMA testifies for or against a bill at the same time the State Police testify, most of the time our testimony and that of the State Police are on the same side, for the same reasons. Maximizing safety and smooth traffic flow with the fewest conflicts between users are the real goals and arbitrarily low speed limits work against both goals.
Regards, James C. Walker, Board Member – National Motorists Association, http://www.motorists.org, Ann Arbor, MI
Jeff Stander
September 14, 2011 at 3:23 pm
Mr. Walker,
I am advocating reasonableness and the ability to address a problem locally. I am not taking a broad assumption that any locally set speed be “artificially low” or dangerously too high as PA 300 currently does on the road I am referring. Rather, I want it to allow those that use, pay for and are responsible for the road have the ability to set the speed limit. I have a hard time understanding what your fear could be in allowing a community to establish its own policies.
In the case I noted (Lone Tree) the Oakland County Sherrif (they patrol this road, not the State Police) sites PA 300 as the reason they have no legal ability to make the road safer and they agree something needs to be done before someone is killed.
Respectfully,
Jeff Stander
John
June 24, 2012 at 4:48 pm
The key point in this whole affair is that many Oakland county residents have purchased their homes on gravel roads because they were designated residential with a 25mph limit and the quality of life associated with that. Apart from the safety aspect, gravel roads have dust and more noise than asphalt roads. Higher speeds means a lot more of both, hence greatly affecting our quality of life.
Let’s consider the arguments for unposted speed limits.
1. Safety – What are the evidence that the change in 2006 improved safety?
2. It is not fare to motorists that want to go faster than the limit to be ticketed, because the limit is set artificially low. – If the limit was set artificially low only on gravel roads, this might be a valid point. However there are many examples of 4 lane boulevards set at 40mph and 2 lane asphalt roads set to 35 and even lower, why is your organization addressing those? Part of the law change could be that the police give only warnings. This would be a good deterrent for most speeders.
3. It gives residents a false sense of security. – We have the ridiculous situation on our one mile road, where 1/3rd is unposted and 2/3rds is 25. I invite you to observe the road for a couple of days and tell us if you see the cyclists, joggers and walkers turn around when they reach the “end of speed zone” sign because they now feel unsafe. People cross the street to get their mail and mow their lawns. Shall we stop doing these things because they removed the 25mph sign and now it’s unsafe? What does sense of security have to do with me crossing the road to get my mail and getting pinned at my letter box by a 17 year old doing 40 on a road with loose gravel and pot holes?
John
June 24, 2012 at 4:49 pm
Mr. Walker,
The key point in this whole affair is that many Oakland county residents have purchased their homes on gravel roads because they were designated residential with a 25mph limit and the quality of life associated with that. Apart from the safety aspect, gravel roads have dust and more noise than asphalt roads. Higher speeds means a lot more of both, hence greatly affecting our quality of life.
Let’s consider the arguments for unposted speed limits.
1. Safety – What are the evidence that the change in 2006 improved safety?
2. It is not fare to motorists that want to go faster than the limit to be ticketed, because the limit is set artificially low. – If the limit was set artificially low only on gravel roads, this might be a valid point. However there are many examples of 4 lane boulevards set at 40mph and 2 lane asphalt roads set to 35 and even lower, why is your organization addressing those? Part of the law change could be that the police give only warnings. This would be a good deterrent for most speeders.
3. It gives residents a false sense of security. – We have the ridiculous situation on our one mile road, where 1/3rd is unposted and 2/3rds is 25. I invite you to observe the road for a couple of days and tell us if you see the cyclists, joggers and walkers turn around when they reach the “end of speed zone” sign because they now feel unsafe. People cross the street to get their mail and mow their lawns. Shall we stop doing these things because they removed the 25mph sign and now it’s unsafe? What does sense of security have to do with me crossing the road to get my mail and getting pinned at my letter box by a 17 year old doing 40 on a road with loose gravel and pot holes?
Helen
September 13, 2011 at 12:21 pm
I’m in favor of local government setting speed limits for their roads, especially gravel roads. The local government sees the daily vehicle activity and knows traffic patterns and hears complaints from its residents. The local government has a responsibility to protect it’s citizens and if setting lower speeds does that then everyone wins. I live on a gravel road and can attest to the high speeds, dust, and noise that is a result of high speeds. Just this past winter a car was speeding on our gravel road (which turns slick and icy in the winter) and went off the road into my driveway and smashed into our boat and truck. What if someone had been standing in the driveway?? they would of died. Traffic “experts” say that most people drive reasonable according to road conditions, but they don’t realize that most people don’t drive on gravel roads and when they do they use their normal driving skills and it ends up sending them skidding off the road into ditches, mailboxes, etc..
Jeff Stander
September 14, 2011 at 9:15 am
When a gravel road serves as one of the primary access/exit points to a school and the speed limit is set by a state law (55mph) and that law is not amendable by the local community it is irresponsible and dangerous. I challenge any reasonable Michigan resident to travel Lone Tree Rd (between Milford Rd and Hickory Ridge) in the morning or afternoon and conclude that it is safe. Blind spots + washboard + young drivers + busses + 55 mph + high school athletes training on road = Bad news. Unfortunately, it will take someone being killed before reasonablness wins out. In general, I have no problem with a 55 mph speed limit on gravel roads, but where unique circumstances exist, we need to be able to address without dragging the rest of the state politics and rhetoric into it.
I agree that “more cirteria” should be allowed to be evaluated locally.