Average cruising speeds on freeways in your area/state

[Flint1979]

Around here usually between 80 and 90 mph on like I-75, I-96, I-94, I-69, US-23 and so on.

On average?  No.

Usually you find some people doing 80-90?  Absolutely.

Yes on average. Try going 70 in Michigan and you'll get passed, you'll also get passed at 80, go 85 and you'll still get passed.

I think you're mixing up "average" and "maximum".

If out of every 100 cars, 99 go 70 mph and one goes 90... if I drive 85, I'm driving well above the average speed but I'm still getting passed.

90 is not maximum. The average is around 80 mph and not under it either.

[GaryV]

Around here usually between 80 and 90 mph on like I-75, I-96, I-94, I-69, US-23 and so on.

On average?  No.

Usually you find some people doing 80-90?  Absolutely.

Yes on average. Try going 70 in Michigan and you'll get passed, you'll also get passed at 80, go 85 and you'll still get passed.

I think you're mixing up "average" and "maximum".

If out of every 100 cars, 99 go 70 mph and one goes 90... if I drive 85, I'm driving well above the average speed but I'm still getting passed.

90 is not maximum. The average is around 80 mph and not under it either.

If we're talking true average (mean) then those 2 jerks going 130 might just raise the average to 80 for a given population of vehicles in the vicinity.

But we are probably talking about the median.  Half of traffic is faster, half is slower.

In my experience, I usually go 74-76 in a 70mph zone.  Yes, I get passed. But I pass others as well. If the average (median) was 80, I'd get passed much more often than passing others.  And that just doesn't happen.

[HighwayStar]

If you read the court's other opinion involving Mr. Stanko, issued the following day, in which they affirmed his conviction on two separate reckless driving tickets (unrelated to the 85-mph speeding charge in the other case), it might influence your thought process about him. I've read some commentary suggesting that the 85-mph case was cooked up in order to get a numerical speed limit imposed in Montana, but this second case leads me to doubt that theory.

Thanks!  Yes, I figured he probably really was a prick.  And I knew that wasn't his only case, but I hadn't bothered to look up the others.

I can't really blame him for contesting the 85-mph speeding ticket. While I feel it's a shame that the case ultimately resulted in a numeric speed limit being posted, I do think it's problematic to have a law that doesn't give you any notice beyond "cop's discretion" as to when you're subject to being stopped for speeding. While some people might argue that "cop's discretion" still applies, I think there's a difference between, say, going 65 mph in a 55-mph zone and knowing you could be pulled over for that (even if it's unlikely) versus a situation where there's nothing whatsoever indicating whether you might get stopped other than the luck of the draw as to which police officer happens to be patrolling that area on a given day.

I do, its not as if it was a large sum of money for the guy, it probabally cost him more to contest the stupid thing than it was worth.

[HighwayStar]

After that it was to 75 for the interstate highways, which was later bumped to 80 by the legislature. However, that had no net effect as the DOT used it as a pretense to lower the speed limit in may other areas, to the point where the old 75 everywhere limit was effectively higher. So back to square one.

What? No. There never was "75 everywhere" in Montana. When Reasonable and Prudent went away, it was 75 on Interstates outside of city limits, 65 on Interstates in city limits, 70 on 2-lane highways during the day, and 65 on 2-lane highways at night. And of course there are parts of the state where mountainous terrain prohibits speeds that high.

Have you ever seen how rural Montana is? There is no justifiable reason that the speed limit should be 80, at least not in most places. The population density is 1.1% of that of Germany, which has long sections of Autobahn with no speed limits. It would be perfectly safe to cruise at 100 for miles on end.

I've definitely seen Montana, as I actually live here. I have a car that does 100 MPH comfortably on straight, flat stretches of highway, and would do so for long distances. I wouldn't mind seeing the most rural parts of the state marked 85 or even 90, but 80 is absolutely a reasonable speed limit for much of the Interstate system in the state. Especially since the MHP won't even look twice at you if you're doing +5 MPH or so.

There never was "75 everywhere" in Montana I was referring to 75 everywhere on interstates, not everywhere on other roads. And yes, there was a period where all interstates were 75.

And no, 80 is not a reasonable speed limit for most of the interstate highways in the state. Given traffic counts and the geometry of the roads a speed of 110+ would not be an issue whatsoever. Its ridiculous to limit people to 80 when you could drive 20 or 30 MPH faster than that without issue. Having MT posted 80 is like having every highway in NJ posted at 40, it makes no sense.

[HighwayStar]

Unfortunately, some asshole just had to sue over a simple traffic ticket (that the prick could have easily afforded, he was in a damn Corvette) and the court struck it down.

It was a 1996 Camaro with fewer than 10,000 miles on the odometer.  Not exactly a Ferrari...

Camaro, Corvette same thing. The point is the ticket was probabaly something like $20 and that prick had to ruin it for everyone else.

And my point is that a new Camaro sold for just under $20,000 MSRP in 1996.  That's less than a Toyota Camry LE.  It doesn't exactly scream "moneybags" the way your post makes it out to.

Besides which...  Maybe he was a prick, I don't know.  But he testified in court that, with the police officer following him, he specifically began paying more attention to his driving, making sure he was driving safely.  Then he got pulled over for driving unreasonably and imprudently.  I can sure understanding wanting to fight the system that allowed such a thing to happen.  He wasn't hot-dogging it through an urban expressway full of traffic or anything like that.  He was just driving at a constant speed that he considered to be appropriate for the conditions of the road and his vehicle.

No that is less than a Camry LE today not in 1996. That is 35K today. If you have that kind of money to be driving a sports vehicle on public roads you don't need to be a stick in the mud about a $20 speeding ticket. He took it all the way to the supreme court, that just screams someone trying to make trouble.

[kphoger]

The MSRP for a 1996 Toyota Camry LE ranged from $20k to $22k, depending on engine and trim level.

The MSRP for a 1996 Chevrolet Camaro ranged from $14k to $19k, depending on engine and trim level.

[HighwayStar]

The MSRP for a 1996 Toyota Camry LE ranged from $20k to $22k, depending on engine and trim level.

The MSRP for a 1996 Chevrolet Camaro ranged from $14k to $19k, depending on engine and trim level.

It is beside the point. The guy had a $35k car in 2021 dollars, he could afford the fine, and in any case it cost far more to fight it all the way to the supreme court than to just pay it. He did it to be a prick.

[sprjus4]

What's to not say if he didn't take it to the Supreme Court, another case wouldn't come up in the future?

[HighwayStar]

What's to not say if he didn't take it to the Supreme Court, another case wouldn't come up in the future?

Maybe it would, maybe it would not. But the point is going out and driving like that right in front of the HP so you can sue and go to the state is a low move. Its honestly too bad the courts can't just take cases like this and throw them out at the start.

[sprjus4]

What's to not say if he didn't take it to the Supreme Court, another case wouldn't come up in the future?

Maybe it would, maybe it would not. But the point is going out and driving like an ass hat right in front of the HP so you can sue and go to the state his a prick move. Its honestly too bad the courts can't just take cases like this and throw them out at the start.

Well, his case was a legitimate one. You can't just "throw it out" .

[Ketchup99]

The case was legitimate, the Supreme Court's ruling was stupid. We use the "reasonable and prudent" rule all the time - when it's really dark, in bad weather, etc. Courts never have an issue with that, not sure how it can be unconstitutional to use it in the day as well.

[sprjus4]

Hell, reckless driving charges are judgement based, except the artificial speed caps many states use of course. But for other things, it's discretion.

[kphoger]

The MSRP for a 1996 Toyota Camry LE ranged from $20k to $22k, depending on engine and trim level.

The MSRP for a 1996 Chevrolet Camaro ranged from $14k to $19k, depending on engine and trim level.

It is beside the point. The guy had a $35k car in 2021 dollars, he could afford the fine, and in any case it cost far more to fight it all the way to the supreme court than to just pay it. He did it to be a prick.

My point is that, if he had been driving a Camry, I'm sure you wouldn't have said that "the prick could have easily afforded [the fine], he was in a damn Camry" as if Camry drivers are filthy rich moneybags.

[HighwayStar]

The MSRP for a 1996 Toyota Camry LE ranged from $20k to $22k, depending on engine and trim level.

The MSRP for a 1996 Chevrolet Camaro ranged from $14k to $19k, depending on engine and trim level.

It is beside the point. The guy had a $35k car in 2021 dollars, he could afford the fine, and in any case it cost far more to fight it all the way to the supreme court than to just pay it. He did it to be a prick.

My point is that, if he had been driving a Camry, I'm sure you wouldn't have said that "the prick could have easily afforded [the fine], he was in a damn Camry" as if Camry drivers are filthy rich moneybags.

No, but there is a good reason for that. You buy a Camry because you need transportation, might have kids to haul, etc. You buy a Camero if you are the type that feels the need to show off. Its not a practical car, is a status symbol car.

[kphoger]

...which has nothing to do with his ability or inability to afford the fine.

[vdeane]

If he could afford to take it to the Supreme Court, he could afford the fine.  End of story.

[kphoger]

If he could afford to take it to the Supreme Court, he could afford the fine.  End of story.

...which has nothing to do with him driving a Camaro.

[kphoger]

Besides, are you guys suggesting that anyone who can afford to fight a ticket shouldn't fight a ticket, because they can obviously afford to just pay the fine instead?  That leaves the only people who should fight a ticket as the very ones who can't afford it.

Or is your position that only non-pricks should get to defend themselves?

[webny99]

My mind is blown by the fact that, in 1996, a Camry cost(ed?) that much more than a Camaro.

Given that fact, the current 2021 connotations of the two vehicles are pretty much irrelevant.

[HighwayStar]

My mind is blown by the fact that, in 1996, a Camry cost(ed?) that much more than a Camaro.

Given that fact, the current 2021 connotations of the two vehicles are pretty much irrelevant.

Those connotations were no different in the 90's, one is a practical car you buy because you need transport, the other is something you buy to display wealth.

[kphoger]

A Camaro is intended to display wealth?  Ha!  That's news to me...

[webny99]

My mind is blown by the fact that, in 1996, a Camry cost(ed?) that much more than a Camaro.

Given that fact, the current 2021 connotations of the two vehicles are pretty much irrelevant.

Those connotations were no different in the 90's, one is a practical car you buy because you need transport, the other is something you buy to display wealth.

And yet, the practical car is significantly more expensive? That makes no sense, and that's why I don't believe the current 2021 connotations were the same in the '90's.

[HighwayStar]

My mind is blown by the fact that, in 1996, a Camry cost(ed?) that much more than a Camaro.

Given that fact, the current 2021 connotations of the two vehicles are pretty much irrelevant.

Those connotations were no different in the 90's, one is a practical car you buy because you need transport, the other is something you buy to display wealth.

And yet, the practical car is significantly more expensive? That makes no sense, and that's why I don't believe the current 2021 connotations were the same in the '90's.

Sure, there is no reason that the practical car should be cheaper, the fact that it has more utility should actually make it more expensive than a cut rate sports car. The difference is the Camry is a car you buy because you have to and it is your only car, the Camero is a weekend toy you buy on top of the other vehicles you already own.

For that matter, I cannot understand why everyone is going to such lengths to defend a guy that was clearly out to cause trouble for Montana and what was a perfectly good speed limit. Its no different than the guys that got laser jamming gear banned in Texas by blowing right past the police at high speed with them on. Some people do bad things that ruin a good system for more reasonable people, and they are not worthy of a defense.

[1995hoo]

That's a stupid argument. There's no reason why anyone "should" have to pay an unjustified ticket just because he "can" pay the ticket. It somewhat reminds me of Judge Learned Hand's famous quotation about taxes:

Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.

Just because the court's opinions give the appearance that Stanko was probably a bit of a punk doesn't mean he should have to pay the ticket just to make some guy from Philadelphia happy.

There's more I want to say, but in deference to the forum's rules about political comments, I will refrain from doing so.

[hotdogPi]

and they are not worthy of a defense.

This would fundamentally ruin how court cases work.