Bedlam wrote:
The foreword of this link describes what is happening:
The speed at which drivers operate their vehicles directly affects two performance measures of the highway system—mobility and safety. Higher speeds provide for lower travel times, a measure of good mobility. However, the relationship of speed to safety is not as clear cut. It is difficult to separate speed from other characteristics including the type of highway facility. Still, it is generally agreed that the risk of injuries and fatalities increases with speed. Designers of highways use a designated design speed to establish design features; operators set speed limits deemed safe for the particular type of road; but drivers select their speed based on their individual perception of safety. Quite frequently, these speed measures are not compatible and their values relative to each other can vary. This guide discusses the various speed concepts to include designated design speed, operating speed, speed limit, and a new concept of inferred design speed. It explains how they are determined and how they relate to each other.
You cannot pick and choose selected elements out of this document to support an opinion. You either need to accept all the factors involved in traveling safely or not accept a partial reference to justify speeding.
Speaking of taking only part, you forgot the final sentence of the foreword:
The purpose of this publication is to help engineers, planners, and elected officials to better understand design speed and its implications in achieving desired operating speeds and setting rational speed limits.
My point was that the 85th percentile is what most agencies refer to when determining what is rational and that's why I pointed at chapter 5. Clearly increased speeds can cause an increase of injury and death so by definition the only safe speed is zero, but that's not rational is it?
I never claimed to speed or justify speeding for others. I was only saying that some roads where I live have irrationally low limits.