OK, but was that done as a function of improving safety, or just the standard they adopted?

The Federal Highway has this to say on the subject (emphasis mine) :

> Speed is a primary consideration when evaluating potential adverse impacts of lane width on safety. On high-speed, rural two-lane highways, an increased risk of cross-centerline head-on or cross-centerline sideswipe crashes is a concern because drivers may have more difficulty staying within the travel lane. On any high-speed roadway, the primary safety concerns with reductions in lane width are crash types related to lane departure, including run-off-road crashes. The mitigation strategies for lane width presented in Chapter 4 focus on reducing the probability of these crashes.

> In a reduced-speed urban environment, the effects of reduced lane width are different. On such facilities, the risk of lane-departure crashes is less. The design objective is often how to best distribute limited cross-sectional width to maximize safety for a wide variety of roadway users. Narrower lane widths may be chosen to manage or reduce speed and shorten crossing distances for pedestrians

So I interpret that as narrower highways are more dangerous, and they have standards to reduce speed to account for that. To go back to my original point - even if you narrowed the lanes and reduced the speed limit to say 45 instead of 55 - people are still going to speed. And they're going to get into more accidents if the lanes are narrower. They already drop the speed limit on most of I-376 to 55 as opposed to the "normal" 70mph, to less than desirable effect.

The only place I see people regularly not speeding on 376 is the business loop around the airport, because International Drive is or has been the #1 speed trap in the state. I pass it daily on my commute. It actually drops down to 40mph as you approach University Blvd and they enforce it. Otherwise, to paraphrase R Kelly, speed limit ain't nothin but a number.