Speed enforcement and tolerance

[interstatefan990]

It all depends on where you are, of course.  Here in Texas, yes, you get on a rural freeway and do 9 over the speed limit, you won't get in trouble, but 10 over, you might.  Urban Freeways in the big 6 cities are almost a free-for-all.  There might be a section of freeway with a 55 mph speed limit that people fly by at 75 (20 over!) and it's expected.  Then, there are the small towns that are notorious for being ticket writers, of course, and will pull you over for anything.  So yes, I have passed a cop doing 82 in a 75 and no one cared and I got pulled over in Sanderson, TX for doing 35 in a 30.  It's like being a comedian, you have to know your room to know where the boundaries are. 

And that right there is the major reason why I don't like the American "everybody speeds so the number on the sign is lower than the speed traffic is actually supposed to go" culture.  I want a firm and nationally consistent rule where a speed limit of X means the same thing everywhere - not "speed limit X means any speed up to somewhere between Y and Z", where the actual speed you can go without getting a ticket cannot be precisely known when traveling to a new area, unless you happened to read a post here were someone mentioned it.

In an ideal world, up to 5mph would be tolerated but over that would be grounds for a ticket. That can only be the case if speed limits are posted reasonably.

The problem is that in many states, a ticket for speeding 1 over is the same class of traffic infraction (same fines, points, etc) as speeding 10 over.  For example, here in NY, the least serious speeding ticket you can get is a "1-10 MPH over" ticket. Then it's 11-20, 21-30, and so on. I think states should set aside a category of speeding tickets specifically for offenses of 5 MPH over or less. The penalty could be just a fine and no points or convictions on your record. This would allow someone to speed a little to keep up with the flow of traffic without having to fear a ticket as much.

I would still have a margin or error with the speed limit. Something like 2-3 mph.

Well then I guess that would mean up to an 8 mph tolerance before a serious speeding ticket. Like 73 in a 65, radar tolerance reduces presumed speed to 70, which is 5 over and only gets the "5 or less" offense. Kinda defeats the purpose but there's really nothing we can do about the conflict between radar accuracy and the law's requirement for evidence to be precise.

Uh yeah. How accurate are radars exactly?

Beats me. 

[allniter89]

I usually run up to 8mph above then when I get a front door I follow them far enough behind & watch my rearviews'.
I couldnt remember my last speed tic until IL got me recently on I 24 for 91 in a 70 , that lapse of attention cost $164. I think that last county in IL (Massac county) was well known for radar back when nationwide speed was 55. Remember those days aargh!!! Lucky I was in my car or I'd of been out of work.

[CoreySamson]

My two cents: I always go the speed limit (except when passing where going the speed limit would otherwise be dangerous) because I know the day I decide to speed, a cop will ticket me, and I don't want to incur that risk. I'd imagine getting ticketed for 2-3 over would be hard to fight in court, but I'd imagine being ticketed for impeding the flow the traffic by going the speed limit would be easy to fight off.

[Roadgeekteen]

My two cents: I always go the speed limit (except when passing where going the speed limit would otherwise be dangerous) because I know the day I decide to speed, a cop will ticket me, and I don't want to incur that risk. I'd imagine getting ticketed for 2-3 over would be hard to fight in court, but I'd imagine being ticketed for impeding the flow the traffic by going the speed limit would be easy to fight off.

Just make sure to travel in the right lane.

[CoreySamson]

My two cents: I always go the speed limit (except when passing where going the speed limit would otherwise be dangerous) because I know the day I decide to speed, a cop will ticket me, and I don't want to incur that risk. I'd imagine getting ticketed for 2-3 over would be hard to fight in court, but I'd imagine being ticketed for impeding the flow the traffic by going the speed limit would be easy to fight off.

Just make sure to travel in the right lane.

Of course. I nearly always stay in the right lane unless I need to pass or turn left. If the road is 3 lanes or more one way, then I choose a middle lane. Gives me more escape options.

[jeffandnicole]

My two cents: I always go the speed limit (except when passing where going the speed limit would otherwise be dangerous) because I know the day I decide to speed, a cop will ticket me, and I don't want to incur that risk. I'd imagine getting ticketed for 2-3 over would be hard to fight in court, but I'd imagine being ticketed for impeding the flow the traffic by going the speed limit would be easy to fight off.

Just make sure to travel in the right lane.

Of course. I nearly always stay in the right lane unless I need to pass or turn left. If the road is 3 lanes or more one way, then I choose a middle lane. Gives me more escape options.

Why would you need escape options on a 3 lane highway that requires staying in the middle lane, that don't exist on a 2 lane roadway?

[Roadgeekteen]

My two cents: I always go the speed limit (except when passing where going the speed limit would otherwise be dangerous) because I know the day I decide to speed, a cop will ticket me, and I don't want to incur that risk. I'd imagine getting ticketed for 2-3 over would be hard to fight in court, but I'd imagine being ticketed for impeding the flow the traffic by going the speed limit would be easy to fight off.

Just make sure to travel in the right lane.

Of course. I nearly always stay in the right lane unless I need to pass or turn left. If the road is 3 lanes or more one way, then I choose a middle lane. Gives me more escape options.

Although you live in Texas which has much more reasonable speed limits than Massachusetts.

[sprjus4]

My two cents: I always go the speed limit (except when passing where going the speed limit would otherwise be dangerous) because I know the day I decide to speed, a cop will ticket me, and I don't want to incur that risk. I'd imagine getting ticketed for 2-3 over would be hard to fight in court, but I'd imagine being ticketed for impeding the flow the traffic by going the speed limit would be easy to fight off.

Just make sure to travel in the right lane.

Of course. I nearly always stay in the right lane unless I need to pass or turn left. If the road is 3 lanes or more one way, then I choose a middle lane. Gives me more escape options.

Although you live in Texas which has much more reasonable speed limits than Massachusetts.

Except the Houston area, which he is in, where speed limits are restricted to 65 mph until well outside the metro (except Toll SH-99 which is 70-75 mph), and 60 mph on urban interstates.

In traditional Texas fashion, the 65 mph zones should be 75 mph, with 65-70 mph on the urban interstates. That's the method followed in Dallas-Fort Worth, San Antonio, and any other metro in Texas.

[webny99]

Although you live in Texas which has much more reasonable speed limits than Massachusetts.

Except the Houston area, which he is in, where speed limits are restricted to 65 mph until well outside the metro (except Toll SH-99 which is 70-75 mph), and 60 mph on urban interstates.

Not great, but still more reasonable than Massachusetts... and most of the Northeast for that matter.

[Roadgeekteen]

Although you live in Texas which has much more reasonable speed limits than Massachusetts.

Except the Houston area, which he is in, where speed limits are restricted to 65 mph until well outside the metro (except Toll SH-99 which is 70-75 mph), and 60 mph on urban interstates.

Not great, but still more reasonable than Massachusetts... and most of the Northeast for that matter.

Yes, in the northeast all those roads would be 55.

[sprjus4]

Although you live in Texas which has much more reasonable speed limits than Massachusetts.

Except the Houston area, which he is in, where speed limits are restricted to 65 mph until well outside the metro (except Toll SH-99 which is 70-75 mph), and 60 mph on urban interstates.

Not great, but still more reasonable than Massachusetts... and most of the Northeast for that matter.

Yes, in the northeast all those roads would be 55.

True, although the 65 mph outside and rural limits are similar to the Northeast, with the obvious exception of a couple freeways that change into non-limited-access highways that "act" as freeways in terms of free-flow and traffic volume maintain 65 mph (and then bump to 75 mph once far enough away from the metro, usually outside the commuter range) as opposed to lowering to 55 mph as they would in the Northeast.

[kphoger]

If the road is 3 lanes or more one way, then I choose a middle lane.

Geez, I hate it when people drive slower than everyone else, but still refuse to get into the right lane.

The right lane should be for just plain old driving.
The middle lane should be for people who need to pass those drivers.
The left lane should be for people who need to pass them.

[interstatefan990]

Although you live in Texas which has much more reasonable speed limits than Massachusetts.

Except the Houston area, which he is in, where speed limits are restricted to 65 mph until well outside the metro (except Toll SH-99 which is 70-75 mph), and 60 mph on urban interstates.

Not great, but still more reasonable than Massachusetts... and most of the Northeast for that matter.

Yes, in the northeast all those roads would be 55.

It really is too slow. I don't get how northeastern states can post 55 on undivided two lane roads and then put that same speed limit on divided, controlled-access freeways that could have been 70. What's the point of the freeway then? The only benefits are no at-grade intersections and passing lanes?

[Roadgeekteen]

Although you live in Texas which has much more reasonable speed limits than Massachusetts.

Except the Houston area, which he is in, where speed limits are restricted to 65 mph until well outside the metro (except Toll SH-99 which is 70-75 mph), and 60 mph on urban interstates.

Not great, but still more reasonable than Massachusetts... and most of the Northeast for that matter.

Yes, in the northeast all those roads would be 55.

It really is too slow. I don't get how northeastern states can post 55 on undivided two lane roads and then put that same speed limit on divided, controlled-access freeways that could have been 70. What's the point of the freeway then? The only benefits are no at-grade intersections and passing lanes?

Exactly (although most two lane roads in New England are often no more than 50). It's New York that loves 55 and plasters in everywhere.

[sprjus4]

IMO... for the Northeast, along with the Mid-Atlantic, speed limits should be at least 65 mph on urban interstates, 65 mph on rural non-limited-access highways, and 70 mph on rural interstates.

Obviously, there's faster states, but that's a reasonable start.

[jmacswimmer]

If the road is 3 lanes or more one way, then I choose a middle lane.

Geez, I hate it when people drive slower than everyone else, but still refuse to get into the right lane.

The right lane should be for just plain old driving.
The middle lane should be for people who need to pass those drivers.
The left lane should be for people who need to pass them.

You would love I-95 northeast of Baltimore, especially north of exit 77 where it reduces to 3 lanes each way - I typically stick to the right lane unless passing, and more often than not I find myself passing platoon after platoon camped in the middle lane

As noticeable as it is throughout the entire stretch, it's always especially apparent on the Tydings Bridge.

[interstatefan990]

If the road is 3 lanes or more one way, then I choose a middle lane.

Geez, I hate it when people drive slower than everyone else, but still refuse to get into the right lane.

The right lane should be for just plain old driving.
The middle lane should be for people who need to pass those drivers.
The left lane should be for people who need to pass them.

Huh? The left lane is for passing people who are in the act of passing other people?

[kphoger]

Huh? The left lane is for passing people who are in the act of passing other people?

Basically, yes.

The left lane is for passing those in the middle lane.  The middle lane is for passing those in the right lane.  Obviously, there are circumstances that interrupt this basic flow of traffic (heavy urban traffic, left-side exits, etc), but that's the general idea.

Camping out in the middle lane when nobody is in the right lane is basically saying, Pfft, I can't be bothered to actually watch out for exiting/entering traffic, so I'll just let everyone else do that instead.

[webny99]

As noticeable as it is throughout the entire stretch, it's always especially apparent on the Tydings Bridge.

I wonder if people are nervous of the right lane, even if they wouldn't admit it. That concrete barrier could certainly stand to be a bit higher.

[jakeroot]

WA requires all drivers to use the right lane on freeways unless passing. Middle lane hogging would not be permitted unless also passing. Far left is for passing those in the middle lane, who ideally are going slightly faster than traffic in the right lane.

Rural WA freeways are great places to see this in action: the right lane is 90% trucks (60mph limit) and those exiting; the middle lane are those passing trucks and other slow moving vehicles; the left lane is for those passing the middle lane traffic, who are generally going close to the limit (70mph) but are still passing the trucks who are mostly travelling near their limit.

Upon all roadways having two or more lanes for traffic moving in the same direction, all vehicles shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, except (a) when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction, (b) when traveling at a speed greater than the traffic flow, (c) when moving left to allow traffic to merge, or (d) when preparing for a left turn at an intersection, exit, or into a private road or driveway when such left turn is legally permitted.

[vdeane]

It all depends on where you are, of course.  Here in Texas, yes, you get on a rural freeway and do 9 over the speed limit, you won't get in trouble, but 10 over, you might.  Urban Freeways in the big 6 cities are almost a free-for-all.  There might be a section of freeway with a 55 mph speed limit that people fly by at 75 (20 over!) and it's expected.  Then, there are the small towns that are notorious for being ticket writers, of course, and will pull you over for anything.  So yes, I have passed a cop doing 82 in a 75 and no one cared and I got pulled over in Sanderson, TX for doing 35 in a 30.  It's like being a comedian, you have to know your room to know where the boundaries are. 

And that right there is the major reason why I don't like the American "everybody speeds so the number on the sign is lower than the speed traffic is actually supposed to go" culture.  I want a firm and nationally consistent rule where a speed limit of X means the same thing everywhere - not "speed limit X means any speed up to somewhere between Y and Z", where the actual speed you can go without getting a ticket cannot be precisely known when traveling to a new area, unless you happened to read a post here were someone mentioned it.

The problem is that you want to have some tolerance, because vehicle speedometers wear out and get miscalibrated, and so do radar guns. Even if both were perfect, going over the limit by a few mph is such a minor infraction it feels cheap to enforce it. It's easy for speed to vary by one or two mph just because you're going down a hill.

It then turns into a camel's-nose sort of problem.

Yes, but I would think 2-3 mph would be sufficient - 5 mph at the most.  I'd rather have a national consistency of reasonably posted limits with that small buffer than the current situation where the speed limit is low (in NY, most everything urban is 55 max, with only 65 for rural areas) but the actual speed of travel is often 10-15 mph over that, except for a few places like DC or those speed trap towns in VA where one better not speed or they'll get a ticket.

[ethanhopkin14]

It all depends on where you are, of course.  Here in Texas, yes, you get on a rural freeway and do 9 over the speed limit, you won’t get in trouble, but 10 over, you might.  Urban Freeways in the big 6 cities are almost a free-for-all.  There might be a section of freeway with a 55 mph speed limit that people fly by at 75 (20 over!) and it’s expected.  Then, there are the small towns that are notorious for being ticket writers, of course, and will pull you over for anything.  So yes, I have passed a cop doing 82 in a 75 and no one cared and I got pulled over in Sanderson, TX for doing 35 in a 30.  It’s like being a comedian, you have to know your room to know where the boundaries are. 

And that right there is the major reason why I don't like the American "everybody speeds so the number on the sign is lower than the speed traffic is actually supposed to go" culture.  I want a firm and nationally consistent rule where a speed limit of X means the same thing everywhere - not "speed limit X means any speed up to somewhere between Y and Z", where the actual speed you can go without getting a ticket cannot be precisely known when traveling to a new area, unless you happened to read a post here were someone mentioned it.

I agree with you with rules should be rules.  Unfortunately, police officers are humans.  With that comes leeway, and against popular opinion, leeway in your favor.  Cops take into consideration benefit of the doubt, area (speeding on a rural highway vs. through a school zone in an urban area), general overall appearance of the situation and, if they do stop you, how polite you are.  Remember, they are humans, so they make mistakes and also get into bad moods and get into good moods.  Sometimes they are less likely to pull you over during the morning rush hour commute vs. speeding at 1:30 AM on a Saturday night/Sunday morning because they take in consideration that the morning rush hour guy is just trying to make it to work on time vs the 1:30 AM guy is probably up to no good (and you can say that.  I was always up to no good at that time on a weekend night when I was younger).  I got pulled over once for going 60 in a 45.  It was a county road and I was in a company work truck.  He let me go and said slow down.  I deserved the ticket, but listening to me talk, he realized I was in a hurry because my boss wanted the job done very quickly (which was 100% true, I was on a crunch).  Now, had I been speeding for the hell of it in a Camaro, then yes, he would have given me a ticket. 
It’s no different than the strike zone being called differently from one umpire to the next in baseball.  The rulebook clearly defines the exact parameters of the strike zone, yet no umpire calls it the same as the next.  Or a football referee that doesn’t tolerate any crap between plays, while another may turn his back to comments only he can hear while everyone else in the stadium may be oblivious to it (or he will talk to them instead of flagging them).  It’s because they too are humans.  Some humans look at blanket situations differently than others.  Plus, training is different in some municipalities than others.  The local yokel in Small Town A was taught to not give anyone any leeway at all when speeding, yet the officer from Big City B was taught to not dwell too much on ticketing speeders because we have a serious murder problem in Big City B.  Just that alone makes both officers playing under different rules.  That is before you even throw in the human element.  You may have gotten a ticket for doing 1 or 2 over and a warning later in life for doing 10 over because the first instance, the officer was having fights with his wife for months and took it out on his job, where the second officer was in a very reasonable mood.  I know you are not supposed to take home to work, but we can’t help it sometimes.  Humans are flawed.  Its life.  Sometimes you take the brunt of their flaws and sometimes you benefit from their flaws.  Life isn’t fair, never has been, it isn’t now, and never will be.  Sometimes you are caught in the middle of it not being fair and you get the slap for it, yet other times you benefit largely by it not being fair.  When you benefit from it, you know there is someone else that is getting the brunt of it not being fair because you got rewarded.  It averages out.  As much as I would also like the consistency of “call it exactly like this”, as long as we have humans doing it, it will never be perfect across the board. 

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I have a friend who works in corrections. He told me different agencies set different standards, so the county sheriff might give 8 over but state patrol might only give 5 over in that same area.

[sprjus4]

I have a friend who works in corrections. He told me different agencies set different standards, so the county sheriff might give 8 over but state patrol might only give 5 over in that same area.

Usually I've found state troopers to be more relaxed as opposed to local police who may be looking to make revenue.

Granted, the city police department here in Chesapeake have jurisdiction over the two underposted 55 mph freeways that pass through, and enforcement is non existent. Seeing police traveling 15-20 mph over is normal, if they're on the highway at all. I've only ever seen them once or twice actually posted up in my hundreds of times driving here, and people passed at 10-15 over without care.

An article came out when they opened the new, wide open US-17 relocation in the southern rural part of the city, they enforced it decently, but didn't even begin stops until over 70 mph in a posted 55 mph, and usually gave warnings. The highway easily invites high speeds like that, so it's reasonable. Should be 65 mph, but that's another story.

Now, city police is more frequently seen on local streets and roadways, where enforcement is more appropriate than on the underposted highway. But if they ever truly wanted money, it's an easy source.

[Scott5114]

If the road is 3 lanes or more one way, then I choose a middle lane.

Geez, I hate it when people drive slower than everyone else, but still refuse to get into the right lane.

The right lane should be for just plain old driving.
The middle lane should be for people who need to pass those drivers.
The left lane should be for people who need to pass them.

This is a good rule of thumb, but in certain areas I find myself sticking to one of the middle lanes simply because the on-ramps have such vast amounts of traffic joining the Interstate that if I were to merge into the right lane I would be forced back into a middle lane in short order anyway. One instance that comes to mind is Johnson County KS–so many interchanges there seem to have a constant stream of cars entering bumper-to-bumper that, to reduce the number of lane changes and increase my own peace of mind, I stay in a middle lane until just before I exit.