http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/08/14/n-j-lawmaker-wants-to-raise-turnpike-parkway-speeds/
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/08/nj_lawmaker_want_to_raise_speed_limit_to_75_on_parkway_turnpike.html#incart_river_default
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 14, 2013, 02:01:02 PM
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/08/14/n-j-lawmaker-wants-to-raise-turnpike-parkway-speeds/
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/08/nj_lawmaker_want_to_raise_speed_limit_to_75_on_parkway_turnpike.html#incart_river_default
Why not? According to Looking for America on the N.J. Turnpike, the original design speed for most (maybe all?) of the Pike was 80 MPH -
in 1951, when motor vehicles did not have seat belts or any of the other equipment that is present in the fleet today.
Turnpike, absolutely, once the widening is open. 75 mph up to Exit 9, then 65 mph up to Exit 14. I know the roadway gets crowded and urban, but hell, I-78 is 65 mph even inside Newark.
Parkway, not so much. I'd make the Express Lanes 75, but otherwise the road really isn't built with the right sightlines for that.
In both cases, keep enforcement as it is now - 80 and above gets a look, 85 and above probably gets pulled.
Quote from: Steve on August 14, 2013, 10:31:20 PM
Turnpike, absolutely, once the widening is open. 75 mph up to Exit 9, then 65 mph up to Exit 14. I know the roadway gets crowded and urban, but hell, I-78 is 65 mph even inside Newark.
Parkway, not so much. I'd make the Express Lanes 75, but otherwise the road really isn't built with the right sightlines for that.
In both cases, keep enforcement as it is now - 80 and above gets a look, 85 and above probably gets pulled.
Maybe more than the suggested increase in the posted speed limit(s) on the Turnpike and the Parkway, I
really liked the notion that he wanted to leave the actual speed limit setting to engineers and not to elected officials.
South of Atlantic City (which is where I normally travel), traffic can get by at 70 - 75 mph without a problem. The worst of it is the short accel/decel lanes at some of the interchanges.
NJ Turnpike...for now, from Interchange 1 - 5, 75 mph is easily attainable for the most part. The worst is on summer weekends when there's a large amount of travelers (and a good portion of them are left lane hogs, slowing the highway down for everyone).
Expanding south into Delaware (Yeah, this is a rant, separate from the topic): I'd like to see the DRBA which runs the Delaware Memorial Bridge raise its speed limit as well up from the current 50 mph. Even though the bridge and roadways have been made safer throughout the years, they for some reason hold onto the old 50 mph speed limit. Don't give me that there's no shoulders on the bridge as an excuse, as other tunnels/bridges with no shoulders (95 in Maryland) have 55/65 mph limits. The rest of their jurisdiction does have full shoulders and a 50 mph limit. And it doesn't explain why the DRBA maintains a 50 mph speed limit sign at the very end of their jurisdiction as one enters NJ.
Quote from: Steve on August 14, 2013, 10:31:20 PM
In both cases, keep enforcement as it is now - 80 and above gets a look, 85 and above probably gets pulled.
may as well say "speed limit 85", then.
depends on your definition of "gets a look".
I thought the NJ Turnpike had a design speed of 70
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 15, 2013, 09:28:23 AM
Quote from: Steve on August 14, 2013, 10:31:20 PM
In both cases, keep enforcement as it is now - 80 and above gets a look, 85 and above probably gets pulled.
may as well say "speed limit 85", then.
depends on your definition of "gets a look".
From my experiences...if you're just driving along, you're probably ok. But if they don't like something about you or the vehicle you're driving, they may think about going after you. And my experiences are - at 82 mph, they do nothing. Once, at night, in a group of vehicles, we all drove by a cop with his spotlight on at a 90' angle (in a way that it was completely hidden until you drove by). He went after one person in the middle of that group of vehicles. Why that person? Who knows...
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 15, 2013, 09:13:28 AMExpanding south into Delaware (Yeah, this is a rant, separate from the topic): I'd like to see the DRBA which runs the Delaware Memorial Bridge raise its speed limit as well up from the current 50 mph. Even though the bridge and roadways have been made safer throughout the years, they for some reason hold onto the old 50 mph speed limit.
That 50 mph speed limit goes back to when NMSL was 55, basically saying, "You really need to slow down here." But that was when there were two-way tolls and I-295 was narrower.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 15, 2013, 09:28:23 AM
depends on your definition of "gets a look".
They look at your skin color to see if it's awesome.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 15, 2013, 09:13:28 AM
South of Atlantic City (which is where I normally travel), traffic can get by at 70 - 75 mph without a problem. The worst of it is the short accel/decel lanes at some of the interchanges.
NJ Turnpike...for now, from Interchange 1 - 5, 75 mph is easily attainable for the most part. The worst is on summer weekends when there's a large amount of travelers (and a good portion of them are left lane hogs, slowing the highway down for everyone).
Expanding south into Delaware (Yeah, this is a rant, separate from the topic): I'd like to see the DRBA which runs the Delaware Memorial Bridge raise its speed limit as well up from the current 50 mph. Even though the bridge and roadways have been made safer throughout the years, they for some reason hold onto the old 50 mph speed limit. Don't give me that there's no shoulders on the bridge as an excuse, as other tunnels/bridges with no shoulders (95 in Maryland) have 55/65 mph limits. The rest of their jurisdiction does have full shoulders and a 50 mph limit. And it doesn't explain why the DRBA maintains a 50 mph speed limit sign at the very end of their jurisdiction as one enters NJ.
Are they left lane hogs due to the speed under the limit?
If they do Raise the speed limit to 75 on the GSP and NJTP perhaps they will need new signs that say 75 mph fines doubled,but the GSP will have 75 mph fines doubled zones are exits 100-127 and E Exit 163-NY state line and NJTP is exits 1-13 for the 75 mph fines doubled zone
Quote from: Interstatefan78 on August 15, 2013, 04:38:18 PM
If they do Raise the speed limit to 75 on the GSP and NJTP perhaps they will need new signs that say 75 mph fines doubled,but the GSP will have 75 mph fines doubled zones are exits 100-127 and E Exit 163-NY state line and NJTP is exits 1-13 for the 75 mph fines doubled zone
Huh?????? Trying to figure out what you're saying makes my brain hurt. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthebumperboards.com%2Fbumperboards%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fconfusion%2Fshrug.gif&hash=fe32896b19c06a81ac78f70be1b45af345aa08c0)
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 15, 2013, 05:35:42 PM
Quote from: Interstatefan78 on August 15, 2013, 04:38:18 PM
If they do Raise the speed limit to 75 on the GSP and NJTP perhaps they will need new signs that say 75 mph fines doubled,but the GSP will have 75 mph fines doubled zones are exits 100-127 and E Exit 163-NY state line and NJTP is exits 1-13 for the 75 mph fines doubled zone
Huh?????? Trying to figure out what you're saying makes my brain hurt. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthebumperboards.com%2Fbumperboards%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fconfusion%2Fshrug.gif&hash=fe32896b19c06a81ac78f70be1b45af345aa08c0)
If they do increase the speed limit, NJ will be raising the 65mph to 75, meaning the 65mph Double Fine signs will be replaced, and he was giving the sections with 65mph i think, that is my best guess
Quote from: SteveG1988 on August 15, 2013, 08:21:28 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 15, 2013, 05:35:42 PM
Quote from: Interstatefan78 on August 15, 2013, 04:38:18 PM
If they do Raise the speed limit to 75 on the GSP and NJTP perhaps they will need new signs that say 75 mph fines doubled,but the GSP will have 75 mph fines doubled zones are exits 100-127 and E Exit 163-NY state line and NJTP is exits 1-13 for the 75 mph fines doubled zone
Huh?????? Trying to figure out what you're saying makes my brain hurt. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthebumperboards.com%2Fbumperboards%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fconfusion%2Fshrug.gif&hash=fe32896b19c06a81ac78f70be1b45af345aa08c0)
If they do increase the speed limit, NJ will be raising the 65mph to 75, meaning the 65mph Double Fine signs will be replaced, and he was giving the sections with 65mph i think, that is my best guess
I finally figured out what he was saying too! I do not know if I need to worry now, or is he slowly getting better in his grammar? Whatever, he still has a way to go just like NJ does considering that they were one of the last holdups when the 55 mph law was repealed originally. I find it hard to believe that NJ would go that high especially when the nearest other state over 70 is Maine!
Quote from: Steve on August 14, 2013, 10:31:20 PM
In both cases, keep enforcement as it is now - 80 and above gets a look, 85 and above probably gets pulled.
Probably my favorite thing about New Jersey is that the state police are relatively generous with how much they'll allow you to speed by compared to some other jurisdictions. 85 is probably a good enforcement threshold for any freeway that's up to snuff on design standards... maybe 90 for some interstates out west. But some states *cough*Virginia*cough* will notoriously not give you that much.
The thing then is, if the enforcement threshold does not change, then raising the speed limit means little to the average driver. If they won't pull over 79 in a 65 any more than they will 79 in a 75, then it's no ticket for you either way. It does, however, have the arguable benefit of reducing the offense for people who do get pulled over. A ticket for 10 over will hit you less on your insurance than a ticket for 20 over, even if the fines are raised so that that's the same.
80 MPH and over in VA is automatically reckless driving. They do not play as you stated in VA.
What Duke87 describes is one reason why I use the HOV or HO/T lanes in Northern Virginia. They're posted at 65 while the parallel general-purpose lanes are posted at 55. Unless the pickings are REALLY slim, 70 in a 65 won't even attract a look from a cop.
In addition to not hitting your insurance the same, in many states you're assigned fewer points on your license for a ticket for 1—9 mph over the speed limit compared to 10—19 over. That may not be trivial for some drivers.
From what I understand of insurance rates in New Jersey, the premium issue would be the big one there.
TOLLROADSnews: Legislation in New Jersey to allow higher safety-based speed limits on Turnpike and Parkway - O'Scanlon Monmouth Co pol moves (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6695)
Note that this article has several quotes about Turnpike speeds from the superb Looking for America on the New Jersey Turnpike (http://www.amazon.com/Looking-America-New-Jersey-Turnpike/dp/0813519551) (should be required reading for anyone that wants to claim roadgeek status).
The assemblyman noted later on that the original source (the radio station) took his statements out of context (never heard that one before). He wasn't proposing 75 mph speed limits; he was saying revise the law to allow the engineers to decide the top speed limits of the roadways, which could mean 70 or 75 mph limits.
As for what we think Interstatefan78 meant, when they permitted the 65 mph limit in NJ, they also said those limits would have doubled fines. The actual law is a bit different than what the signs state. And when they say doubled, it's not actually doubled...an $85 fine would become $140 or something like that (there's a reason why which I forget at this point). The actual law:
65mph zones: Fines for Speeding are doubled if you're going 10 mph or more over the limit. Additionally, fines are doubled for other infractions as well.
All other zones: Fines for Speeding are doubled if you're going 20 mph or more over the limit. But since there's no baseline amount anymore, what the law is really saying is if you're going within 19mph of the speed limit, you'll get a small fine (starting at about $85 or so). 20 mph or above and they'll throw the book at you (kinda) with a $200+ fine.
FWIW, many cops will charge you with 9 mph over the limit or 14 mph over the limit, regardless of your actual speed. 9 over the limit keeps you out of the double fine zone regardless of the speed limit (except in construction zones). 14 mph and under is a 2 point violation in NJ, whereas 15mph over the limit is a 4 point violation. Then again, if you're a dick to the officer, he'll be a dick right back at you, which some people don't understand.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 15, 2013, 10:36:06 PM
80 MPH and over in VA is automatically reckless driving. They do not play as you stated in VA.
Is that why I see Virginia plates hauling a$$ up here in the "north"? Pent up demand to speed unleashed?
It is nice to see some leadership on this issue. They are leagalizeing everything else...not sure why the speed limit is last on the list?
Quote from: Duke87 on August 15, 2013, 10:03:16 PM
maybe 90 for some interstates out west.
I don't think there's any place in the US where you can blow past a cop doing 90 and expect to not get pulled over for at least a warning.
83-84 seems to be the "bat an eye" threshold for most places with speed limit 75. I don't have enough experience with speed limit 80; I go 83 there anyway.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 18, 2013, 09:55:33 PM
I don't think there's any place in the US where you can blow past a cop doing 90 and expect to not get pulled over for at least a warning.
Never said there was. My point was more that if 85 is safe in New Jersey, 90 is safe on any non-mountainous non-urban western interstate. And therefore pulling anyone over for less is pure revenue enhancement.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 18, 2013, 09:55:33 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on August 15, 2013, 10:03:16 PM
maybe 90 for some interstates out west.
I don't think there's any place in the US where you can blow past a cop doing 90 and expect to not get pulled over for at least a warning.
83-84 seems to be the "bat an eye" threshold for most places with speed limit 75. I don't have enough experience with speed limit 80; I go 83 there anyway.
You might be OK in Montana at 90.
Quote from: Steve on August 20, 2013, 07:21:01 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 18, 2013, 09:55:33 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on August 15, 2013, 10:03:16 PM
maybe 90 for some interstates out west.
I don't think there's any place in the US where you can blow past a cop doing 90 and expect to not get pulled over for at least a warning.
83-84 seems to be the "bat an eye" threshold for most places with speed limit 75. I don't have enough experience with speed limit 80; I go 83 there anyway.
You might be OK in Montana at 90.
Actually, 90 would just be pushing it. At most, I could see 85.
I've driven past cops in Montana going 84 without them batting an eye. that is alas the only data point I can provide on this topic; I've been known to go 87-88 out there, but slow down if I see anyone.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 20, 2013, 01:58:22 PM
I've driven past cops in Montana going 84 without them batting an eye. that is alas the only data point I can provide on this topic; I've been known to go 87-88 out there, but slow down if I see anyone.
For a couple years after the
NSL was scrapped, Montana actually had an
unnumbered daytime speed limit; the signs read
REASONABLE & PRUDENT. While the residents understood such, particularly those who were driving prior to 1973-74 (when such last existed), the out-of-staters took it to mean
unlimited. As a result, such was scrapped in favor of a numbered daytime limit of 75 (?).
Rumor has it that the straw that broke the camel's back on the unnumbered limit came when word got out that a Corvette Club was coming to Montana to race on the roads.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 22, 2013, 12:54:06 PM
Rumor has it that the straw that broke the camel's back on the unnumbered limit came when word got out that a Corvette Club was coming to Montana to race on the roads.
I've never heard that variant. from what I've heard, someone in a Camaro got a ticket for doing 96mph on MT-200, which was unreasonable in the eyes of the citing officer. the guy fought it, it went to the supreme court, and they decided that the law was too ambiguous.
really quite a sad result. "reckless driving" is also at the discretion of the officer; if that were the only law on the books, the Camaro driver could have had his day in court*, all without needing a speed limit... and if the Corvette club came to town and was racing on the public right of way, then I'll bet "reckless driving" could have been applied to their situation as well.
* from what I recall, visibility due to the road's curves was such that 96 was pushing it.
There were two related cases in Montana, both called
State v. Stanko. I posted about it once before, but rather than linking to that old discussion, I'll quote that post in full here, including the prior comments from other users to which I was responding. For those who might like to read further but don't know how to read legal citations, "974 P.2d 1132 (Mont. 1998)" tells you how to find the material in a law library. Cases are published in "reporters," those ubiquitous identical brown books you often see behind an attorney in his photograph. West Publishing issues various regional reporters that incorporate opinions from state courts throughout a particular area of the country (federal courts' opinions appear in separate reporters). "P.2d" denotes the Pacific Reporter, Second Series (they usually start a new series after Volume 999 to keep the numbers under control). 974 tells you the volume number of that reporter and 1132 tells you the first page of the opinion within that volume. "Mont. 1998" tells you the Supreme Court of Montana issued the opinion in 1998.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 14, 2012, 09:36:13 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on June 12, 2012, 07:20:29 PM
Quote from: flowmotion on June 12, 2012, 07:12:25 PM
Afterwards, they went back to "reasonable and prudent" for a few years. But speedlimits were reintroduced in 1999. My guess is they wanted the revenue.
The problem was that "reasonable and prudent" is too ambiguous. It was deemed unenforceable.
The Montana Supreme Court's opinion throwing out "reasonable and prudent" was State v. Stanko, 974 P.2d 1132 (Mont. 1998). The court ruled that the idea of ticketing someone under that statute merely for speeding was unconstitutional because the statute was too vague in that it did not advise the motorist at what speed they might be subject to ticketing. It didn't help that the cop (who had stopped Stanko for going 85 mph) refused to opine as to what speed would have been reasonable and prudent under the conditions; instead he said it's up to the cop's judgment, and the Court ruled that it's impermissible to give a cop that sort of "arbitrary and discriminatory" power.
I recall at the time there was some debate as to whether the whole thing had been trumped up by the State in order to come up with a situation that could allow them to enact a numeric speed limit without the legislature doing it on their own–that is, because their Supreme Court threw out the non-numeric limit, they could say with a straight face "we can't have NO speed limit at all."
What's interesting is that the Stanko opinion was issued on December 23, 1998. The very next day the same court issued another opinion in a separate case involving Stanko (State v. Stanko, 974 P.2d 1139 (Mont. 1998)). In that case he'd been convicted on two counts of reckless driving for (a) going 117 mph as he crested a hill on US-87 near milepost 33 and (b) going 121 mph as he crested a hill on US-87 near milepost 31. Stanko raised various procedural issues and also argued that he couldn't be convicted of reckless driving based on speed alone where nobody was injured. The Court upheld both tickets because they said that it's unreasonable for someone driving on a two-lane road to be going over a hill in excess of 100 mph when other people might be on the road. This passage is pretty funny:
QuoteContrary to Stanko's assertions, Officer Lobdell did not base her citation solely on the fact of Stanko's speed. Indeed, the citation itself states: "Reckless Driving! 117 mph over Crest of Hill on Narrow Road Moderate Traffic." (Emphasis added.) Furthermore, Officer Lobdell testified at trial that she cited Stanko for reckless driving because he was endangering everyone on the road due to the high speed, the narrow road, and the hill crest. She also testified that although traffic in the area was moderate on the day she cited Stanko, there was the potential for tourist traffic such as campers and boats as well as ranch and farm vehicles and trucks.
Stanko's argument that speed alone may not constitute reckless driving is beside the point. Neither officer cited Stanko for reckless driving based solely on speed. Rather, both officers considered speed plus the other factors referred to above. Other jurisdictions have long held that excessive speed under some circumstances may constitute willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others. See State v. Lunt (R.I.1969), 106 R.I. 379, 260 A.2d 149, 152; State v. Pruett (Idaho 1967), 91 Idaho 537, 428 P.2d 43; Norfolk v. State (Wyo.1961), 360 P.2d 605. We agree with these authorities. While "[t]here may be a point at which the speed becomes so excessive, the danger of injury to the passenger so probable, that such extreme speed alone might be held to be willful misconduct," People v. Nowell (Cal.App.Dept.Super.Ct.1941), 45 Cal.App.2d Supp. 811, 114 P.2d 81, 83(quoting Fisher v. Zimmerman (Cal.Ct.App.1937), 23 Cal.App.2d 696, 73 P.2d 1243, 1246), that is not the fact situation here and our decision is not premised on Stanko's speed alone.
In addition, and again contrary to Stanko's contentions, § 61-8-301, MCA, does not require that there be an actual injury before the conduct may be considered reckless.
(1) A person commits the offense of reckless driving if he:
(a) operates any vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property....
Section 61-8-301, MCA (emphasis added).
Finally, Stanko imagines himself to be a "champion race-car driver" because he won a few stock-car races in Oregon almost twenty years ago. He testified that he was consciously driving 117 mph and 121 mph at the times he was cited, but that this conduct was not reckless because he is accustomed to driving at high speeds. While Stanko's driving abilities may be legend in his own mind, we are not impressed. Unfortunately, Stanko fails to realize that racing conditions are far different from highway conditions and that Montana highways are not controlled racetracks. While Stanko may be willing to risk his own life and property traveling the highways at grossly excessive speeds as though he is still on a racetrack, other motorists do not assume the risk of driving in racetrack conditions when they travel Montana's highways. In point of fact, Montana's highways are used by senior citizens, parents hauling small children, farmers and ranchers moving machinery, school buses, commercial vehicles, and bicyclists, all of whom typically drive at less than "racetrack" speeds. Other motorists, as well, in driving and in overtaking and passing vehicles rightfully expect that following and oncoming traffic will be moving at a reasonably prudent and safe speed. Few would gauge their driving in anticipation that coming over the crest of the next hill will be a car traveling at well over 100 mph being driven by one who believes that he is on the Autobahn. Moreover, even if Stanko were to only injure or kill himself in a high-speed crash, his conduct still would be responsible for putting on the highway and at risk the emergency personnel and vehicles that would most surely have to respond. Furthermore, any person who drives in this State is aware that wild and domestic animals frequently cross Montana's roads and highways. It is common experience that trying to avoid wildlife or livestock on a road, without crashing, is difficult enough while driving at a reasonable and prudent highway speed; it is nearly impossible while driving at speeds well over 100 mph.
In short, it is clear that, under the conditions at issue here, Stanko unquestionably operated his vehicle "in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property." Section 61-8-301, MCA. Accordingly, we hold that the District Court was correct in denying Stanko's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Establish the Necessary Elements of the reckless driving offenses with which he was charged.
Stanko II, 974 P.2d at 1146—47 (boldface added).
Quoteit's impermissible to give a cop that sort of "arbitrary and discriminatory" power.
they already have it. the fact that speed limits are, say, 65 on the NJTP, yet 85 is what is enforced, is pretty damn arbitrary to me.
I'd be okay with just a "reckless driving" statute on the books. or add to that a more leniently fined "too fast for conditions" which may very well cover the 85mph citation. I don't know the road conditions associated with that one.
Hoo, thanks for providing the cites and the details of the
Stanko cases above.
QuoteThe Montana Supreme Court's opinion throwing out "reasonable and prudent" was State v. Stanko, 974 P.2d 1132 (Mont. 1998). The court ruled that the idea of ticketing someone under that statute merely for speeding was unconstitutional because the statute was too vague in that it did not advise the motorist at what speed they might be subject to ticketing. It didn't help that the cop (who had stopped Stanko for going 85 mph) refused to opine as to what speed would have been reasonable and prudent under the conditions; instead he said it's up to the cop's judgment, and the Court ruled that it's impermissible to give a cop that sort of "arbitrary and discriminatory" power.
The above was (in
my opinion) an unfortunate ruling. In a state as big (and largely empty) as Montana, "reasonable and prudent" seems, well,
reasonable. As it is even in some other states, including parts of states that have some very densely-settled areas (California comes to mind - consider I-10 between the Colorado River and Palm Springs - that's a section of freeway where "reasonable and prudent" would be appropriate, even though it would highly inappropriate on I-405 in Los Angeles and Orange Counties). Asking a cop to determine if someone is exceeding the "reasonable and prudent" speed limit is also reasonable. Law enforcement officers are not like the District of Columbia's automated speed cameras - they are hired and paid to exercise independent judgment. I like to think that most police involved in traffic enforcement know what is not reasonable and what is not prudent and what is reckless.
The Court did much better in
Stanko II.
That is the kind of law enforcement (and judicial review) that I think is what most of us desire and expect in the United States.
You can read the text of Stanko I (throwing out "reasonable and prudent") at the following link:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mt-supreme-court/1110919.html
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 22, 2013, 02:37:36 PM
Hoo, thanks for providing the cites and the details of the Stanko cases above.
QuoteThe Montana Supreme Court's opinion throwing out "reasonable and prudent" was State v. Stanko, 974 P.2d 1132 (Mont. 1998). The court ruled that the idea of ticketing someone under that statute merely for speeding was unconstitutional because the statute was too vague in that it did not advise the motorist at what speed they might be subject to ticketing. It didn't help that the cop (who had stopped Stanko for going 85 mph) refused to opine as to what speed would have been reasonable and prudent under the conditions; instead he said it's up to the cop's judgment, and the Court ruled that it's impermissible to give a cop that sort of "arbitrary and discriminatory" power.
The above was (in my opinion) an unfortunate ruling. In a state as big (and largely empty) as Montana, "reasonable and prudent" seems, well, reasonable. As it is even in some other states, including parts of states that have some very densely-settled areas (California comes to mind - consider I-10 between the Colorado River and Palm Springs - that's a section of freeway where "reasonable and prudent" would be appropriate, even though it would highly inappropriate on I-405 in Los Angeles and Orange Counties). Asking a cop to determine if someone is exceeding the "reasonable and prudent" speed limit is also reasonable. Law enforcement officers are not like the District of Columbia's automated speed cameras - they are hired and paid to exercise independent judgment. I like to think that most police involved in traffic enforcement know what is not reasonable and what is not prudent and what is reckless.
The Court did much better in Stanko II. That is the kind of law enforcement (and judicial review) that I think is what most of us desire and expect in the United States.
I'm glad you trust a police officer's judgement, but I for one do not, and therefore agree completely with the Court's decision, despite its implications.
I remember reading somewhere that the Montana state police complained that juries in different parts of the state were inconsistent in what they'd consider a violation of "reasonable and prudent"–in the eastern part of the state, you pretty much had to be exceeding 100 mph. I find the idea of juries in speeding cases to be quite novel. We don't have that here! On the one hand, I like the idea that the local citizens could determine what was "reasonable," but on the other hand, it's a valid objection that it's not fair to drivers if you're at the whim of an individual jury as to what's "reasonable." There's no assurance of consistency. At least with a fixed number if you're exceeding it, you're exceeding it.
That's not to say I don't think it was a shame the non-numerical number didn't work out. I do wonder, though, why Montana implemented 75 instead of a higher number like 85.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 22, 2013, 05:55:20 PM
I'm glad you trust a police officer's judgement, but I for one do not, and therefore agree completely with the Court's decision, despite its implications.
you already have to. again, it is
their judgement to pull you over, issue you the ticket, etc... in the first place.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 22, 2013, 06:00:39 PM
I remember reading somewhere that the Montana state police complained that juries in different parts of the state were inconsistent in what they'd consider a violation of "reasonable and prudent"–in the eastern part of the state, you pretty much had to be exceeding 100 mph. I find the idea of juries in speeding cases to be quite novel. We don't have that here! On the one hand, I like the idea that the local citizens could determine what was "reasonable," but on the other hand, it's a valid objection that it's not fair to drivers if you're at the whim of an individual jury as to what's "reasonable." There's no assurance of consistency. At least with a fixed number if you're exceeding it, you're exceeding it.
That's not to say I don't think it was a shame the non-numerical number didn't work out. I do wonder, though, why Montana implemented 75 instead of a higher number like 85.
we already have thousands of laws on the books that rely on interpretations of non-concrete concepts like 'reasonable and prudent'. what about the difference between, say, a first- and a second-degree murder? or a manslaughter? it's all dependent on the individual people within the legal system (prosecuting attorney, judge, jury) to make those determinations... so, why not, for speeding? 85 on a dead straight road in good conditions is very different from 85 around the curves, and the law should make room for people to interpret this subtlety.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 22, 2013, 06:09:28 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 22, 2013, 05:55:20 PM
I'm glad you trust a police officer's judgement, but I for one do not, and therefore agree completely with the Court's decision, despite its implications.
you already have to. again, it is their judgement to pull you over, issue you the ticket, etc... in the first place.
Yes, but, as 1995hoo alluded to above, if a police officer pulls you over for anything, they're expected to have some documented reason that you can contest if it is false (even though often they really don't). In the case of speeding, you must have exceeded the numerical limit, and if you didn't, then the cop is clearly in the wrong. It's not subjective.
Whereas with an R&P speed limit, they have even more power to arbitrarily pull you over, with nothing you can do about it.
Essentially I'd just like for them to have as little power to decide whether to be an asshole to a particular motorist or not.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 22, 2013, 06:21:48 PM
Yes, but, as 1995hoo alluded to above, if a police officer pulls you over for anything, they're expected to have some documented reason that you can contest if it is false (even though often they really don't). In the case of speeding, you must have exceeded the numerical limit, and if you didn't, then the cop is clearly in the wrong. It's not subjective.
Whereas with an R&P speed limit, they have even more power to arbitrarily pull you over, with nothing you can do about it.
Essentially I'd just like for them to have as little power to decide whether to be an asshole to a particular motorist or not.
if they want to be corrupt, they can be corrupt.
"you didn't use your turn signal."
"I wasn't turning."
"tell it to my uncle, the judge."
Most of the time, concepts such as "reasonable" appear in civil matters, such as tort law (negligence being the classic example with the "reasonable man of ordinary prudence"). Yes, you have "beyond a reasonable doubt" as a standard of proof in criminal law, but you also have a thoroughly-developed body of jury instructions and the like.
Don't get me wrong, I like the concept of "reasonable and prudent" as a speed limit, but unfortunately I think American society has become so rules-based that it is unworkable in practice and it's a damn shame. Americans as a whole are incapable of driving at all without two billion stupid signs telling you every last little thing you must or must not do (like "Do Not Block Intersection").
I'd be interested in hearing–if anyone has the data–how often New Jersey cops stop people for driving at the posted speed limit when conditions are bad (note the signs in the Garden State Parkway that say 65 "conditions permitting"). I could see someone making the same sort of arguments against "conditions permitting" that Rudy Stanko made about "reasonable and prudent."
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 22, 2013, 07:18:15 PM
Don't get me wrong, I like the concept of "reasonable and prudent" as a speed limit, but unfortunately I think American society has become so rules-based that it is unworkable in practice and it's a damn shame. Americans as a whole are incapable of driving at all without two billion stupid signs telling you every last little thing you must or must not do (like "Do Not Block Intersection").
how did things work before 1973? apparently Montana locals understood that "no posted speed limit" meant "dude, don't try to break the land speed record on the Going-to-the-Sun Road" - and they retained this understanding after 25 years of NMSL was repealed.
we
are very rules-based, but we do have precedent, in our own society (see also Nevada and IIRC several other states without posted rural speed limits) that I believe we can return to.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 22, 2013, 07:33:39 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 22, 2013, 07:18:15 PM
Don't get me wrong, I like the concept of "reasonable and prudent" as a speed limit, but unfortunately I think American society has become so rules-based that it is unworkable in practice and it's a damn shame. Americans as a whole are incapable of driving at all without two billion stupid signs telling you every last little thing you must or must not do (like "Do Not Block Intersection").
how did things work before 1973? apparently Montana locals understood that "no posted speed limit" meant "dude, don't try to break the land speed record on the Going-to-the-Sun Road" - and they retained this understanding after 25 years of NMSL was repealed.
we are very rules-based, but we do have precedent, in our own society (see also Nevada and IIRC several other states without posted rural speed limits) that I believe we can return to.
I have no idea, I haven't seen anything about how tickets worked then. A lot of people think the Stanko case was trumped up to provide a reason for posting a numerical speed limit. I certainly understand that argument.
Does anyone know, does Montana's 75-mph limit contain a "waste of energy" provision like their law did under the NMSL? (I could look it up but I'm watching baseball as I type this.) Under the NMSL, exceeding the speed limit carried a $5 fine for wasting energy, payable in cash on the spot if you wished, unless the cop ticketed you for reckless driving. I knew someone in college who had lived in Montana and she said people kept an envelope full of $5 bills in their cars for when they got stopped. Good stuff.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 22, 2013, 06:11:28 PM
we already have thousands of laws on the books that rely on interpretations of non-concrete concepts like 'reasonable and prudent'. what about the difference between, say, a first- and a second-degree murder? or a manslaughter? it's all dependent on the individual people within the legal system (prosecuting attorney, judge, jury) to make those determinations... so, why not, for speeding?
Because with a speeding ticket the accused is presumed guilty unless he can prove otherwise. Subjective interpretations don't offer the same fairness in that situation as they do in a situation where you have a trial by jury and a defendant being presumed innocent.
Also, the example you give for existing subjectivity isn't quite the same because there are defined differences between first and second degree homicide and manslaughter.
First degree homicide: intentionally killing someone who you planned to kill (e.g. I hate my ex-wife and so I strangle her)
Second degree homicide: intentionally killing someone who you did not plan to kill (e.g., I go to rob a store and the cashier pulls a gun on me, so I shoot him)
Manslaughter: unintentionally killing someone while behaving in a negligent fashion (e.g. I ran a red light and hit a pedestrian)
I also think it's easier to apply subjectivity to a yes or no question than to a gradient. If someone is killed, it either is or isn't murder. Two options. Easy.
But if you're trying to judge what speed is safe, saying "85 is the max" begs the immediate question "well, why 85 and not 84 or 86?". You also really can't judge if you weren't there. The setting of a numerical speed limit is doomed to be somewhat arbitrary but at least it's
defined, and anyone not exceeding the number can rest easy that they will not get a speeding ticket. The only practical alternative is to literally have no speed limit. Which I would certainly be in favor of for many flat, straight, wide open roads. You then have to establish that speed alone is not cause for any citation. Driving 120 MPH while doing nothing else objectionable? Knock yourself out. Driving 120 MPH and passing someone on the right in order to do so? Pull 'em over.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 22, 2013, 05:55:20 PM
I'm glad you trust a police officer's judgement, but I for one do not, and therefore agree completely with the Court's decision, despite its implications.
I suppose it depends on the police officer in question and the training they have received.
There are some police agencies around the U.S. that have deservedly bad reputations (I tend to view their officers and the actions they take with a skeptical attitude).
Other police agencies are very good.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 22, 2013, 01:29:30 PM
Quoteit's impermissible to give a cop that sort of "arbitrary and discriminatory" power.
they already have it. the fact that speed limits are, say, 65 on the NJTP, yet 85 is what is enforced, is pretty damn arbitrary to me.
I'd be okay with just a "reckless driving" statute on the books. or add to that a more leniently fined "too fast for conditions" which may very well cover the 85mph citation. I don't know the road conditions associated with that one.
New Jersey has a catch-all 'Careless Driving' (39:4-97) statute that would cover most violations where a driver was going too fast for conditions. Normally, that would be associated with an issue where the driver should have been driving slower than the speed limit, such as in rain or snow. Reckless driving in NJ is reserved for severe instances of, well, recklessness (unlike VA's 81 in a 70, for example)
I think a motorist going 40mph or greater over the speed limit (which would be 105 in a 65, 65 in a 25, etc) requires a court apparence, which is a guideline, not a state law. Other than that, there's no special clauses within NJ's laws regarding additional violations at a certain point over a speed limit.
An unusually good article about Assemblyman O'Scanlon and his bluntness towards what everyday citizens want: Decent laws, rules, and speed limits.
http://blog.nj.com/njv_mark_diionno/2013/08/jersey_drivers_have_advocate_i.html#incart_river_default
the driver of that white car could certainly use a "careless driving" citation.
Quote
O'Scanlon believes in the very democratic idea that speed limits should be determined by the people and for the people.
I personally trust math over "the people" and our ability to judge safe speeds. If an engineer does the math and determines a speed limit is safe (given average reaction times, sight lines, stopping distances, and whatever else is relevant), then I'm OK with that speed limit. I do agree with the assessment that speed limits shouldn't be set by the government just because someone feels people are driving too fast (without any sort of math to back it up).
Montana's highways actually became safer post-Stanko when there was technically no speed limit at all, so I don't think any changes in the law were needed.
I have zero experience driving on the New Jersey Turnpike, but if it's determined that 75 is reasonable, they should be allowed to post a 75 mph limit. Ripping out the cameras, purging the speed traps, enforcing lane discipline, and raising speed limits sounds like a fantastic plan.
Quote from: 31E on August 23, 2013, 01:24:18 PM
Montana's highways actually became safer post-Stanko when there was technically no speed limit at all, so I don't think any changes in the law were needed.
I have zero experience driving on the New Jersey Turnpike, but if it's determined that 75 is reasonable, they should be allowed to post a 75 mph limit. Ripping out the cameras, purging the speed traps, enforcing lane discipline, and raising speed limits sounds like a fantastic plan.
If the speed limit on the New Jersey Turnpike is 75 MPH (which, in my opinion, is reasonable and prudent most of the time), then what's wrong with having cameras to enforce that speed limit?
All or very nearly all of the speed limit signs on the N.J. Turnpike are remotely-controlled variable signs, and the Turnpike can change them "on the fly" if and when needed (in the event of a crash or other incident or bad weather). That's an even more compelling reason for 75 when conditions are good.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 23, 2013, 03:46:21 PM
If the speed limit on the New Jersey Turnpike is 75 MPH (which, in my opinion, is reasonable and prudent most of the time), then what's wrong with having cameras to enforce that speed limit?
not much, actually, but make it damn overtly public what the enforcement limit is.
in Phoenix, when there were speed cameras, I stuck to 65... even in the right lane, I was probably a danger to those going the speed of traffic (77 or so). I wondered "what do the locals know that I don't know?" and I figured that the amount of speeders was so high that only a small fraction was prosecuted, so these people were all rolling the dice.
years later I found out that the cameras were set to trigger on 80. don't ask me why that's so hard to put on a sign - perhaps rectangular, and establishing that the limit of one's speed is, legally, that number. I'd use the regulatory black-on-white color scheme, even. I think the MUTCD may have a template.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 23, 2013, 03:46:21 PM
Quote from: 31E on August 23, 2013, 01:24:18 PM
Montana's highways actually became safer post-Stanko when there was technically no speed limit at all, so I don't think any changes in the law were needed.
I have zero experience driving on the New Jersey Turnpike, but if it's determined that 75 is reasonable, they should be allowed to post a 75 mph limit. Ripping out the cameras, purging the speed traps, enforcing lane discipline, and raising speed limits sounds like a fantastic plan.
If the speed limit on the New Jersey Turnpike is 75 MPH (which, in my opinion, is reasonable and prudent most of the time), then what's wrong with having cameras to enforce that speed limit?
Everything, IMHO. Everything.
that said, sometimes the safest, most reasonable, most prudent course of action is to exceed even the high end of the speed limit. if speed of traffic is 75, it may make sense to get up to 83 to avoid causing congestion.
to that end, if we're gonna use speed cameras - have it be necessary that a driver trip two or three of them in a row before the citation is issued.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 23, 2013, 03:54:49 PM
I wondered "what do the locals know that I don't know?" and I figured that the amount of speeders was so high that only a small fraction was prosecuted, so these people were all rolling the dice.
years later I found out that the cameras were set to trigger on 80. don't ask me why that's so hard to put on a sign - perhaps rectangular, and establishing that the limit of one's speed is, legally, that number. I'd use the regulatory black-on-white color scheme, even. I think the MUTCD may have a template.
Just look out for the "Photo Enforcement Zone" yellow diamond and you're all good. That's generally what the locals did. Fly up until you see the warning sign, then slow down. I used to see that all the time in the west valley (where my parents live).
I still managed to get nailed for 70-something (forget now) in a 55 on I-10 (before they raised it to 65) by one of their roaming photo radar vans. My fault for not realizing the limit was 55 in that section. Luckily, since I was driving my mom's car, and I was an out of state license, they chose not to bother chasing me down for the ticket, and the matter was dropped. My understanding was that all the speed cameras were set to 11 over the limit.
Your point is valid, though, if your police (and other enforcement methods) are going to only enforce at a certain rate of speed, why not just make that the speed limit and make it clear (through signage) that there is no tolerance over that limit. Makes the speed "limit" more of a speed "suggestion" otherwise. That said, a cop can easily choose to ticket you for 56 in a 55 if he wanted to. I just wonder if the issue then is the accuracy of the timing mechanism. Is it less than +/- 0.5mph? I'd imagine 1 mph tickets would do more to annoy the judge (and everyone else) than do any real good.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 23, 2013, 03:46:21 PM
If the speed limit on the New Jersey Turnpike is 75 MPH (which, in my opinion, is reasonable and prudent most of the time), then what's wrong with having cameras to enforce that speed limit?
The problem is that on freeways and other high speed roadways where vehicular traffic has a monopoly on the road in practice (if not necessarily by law), speed alone is a dumb thing to go after people for unless someone is going
really blazingly fast. In developed areas where you will find pedestrians and cyclists, drivers do legitimately need to slow down for safety reasons. Out on the highway? Meh.
To that end, if you are going to put cops on the freeway, having them run radar is only productive from a revenue perspective, it's not particularly productive from a safety perspective. You want to put cops to good use on the freeway? Have them target any and all of the following:
- people driving too slowly in the left lane
- people rapidly weaving in and out of traffic
- people using their cellphone
- people passing trucks on the right
- people not using their headlights in the rain or at night
Y'know, people who are actually
creating a hazard with their behavior.
What is wrong with speed cameras in general? I'll answer that question:
1. Speed cameras greatly increase the perverse incentive to set speed limits artificially low to generate revenue, and have the ultimate effect of empowering the "safety lobby" like never before.
2. The institutional resistance to raising speed limits, even where it's warranted, will be much greater once speed camera revenues start pouring in.
3. Much like red light cameras, governments will lose money on speed cameras if speed limits are set properly (at the 85th percentile or higher). This is where the perverse incentive comes in.
4. Also much like red light cameras, there is no evidence that speed cameras improve safety. If they don't make the roads safer, what is the point?
5. A speed camera is a machine; machines malfunction, and do not possess human judgment. Thus it cannot be cross-examined in court and cannot be backed up by a human estimate, like when a policeman uses radar. This also means that faulty tickets can be issued with little or no recourse.
There are also specific objections such as driver identification and so forth, but these five points are ample reason to oppose speed cameras.
I would like for the limit to match the customary tolerance - if the limit is 65 with a 10 mph tolerance, the limit should be changed to 75 with no tolerance (well, aside form 2 mph or so to account for margins of error).
Quote from: 31E on August 24, 2013, 02:30:14 PM
What is wrong with speed cameras in general? I'll answer that question:
1. Speed cameras greatly increase the perverse incentive to set speed limits artificially low to generate revenue, and have the ultimate effect of empowering the "safety lobby" like never before.
I have no problem with the "safety lobby." Heck, I am probably part of that lobby myself.
But I have a major problem with speed limits set too low and speed cameras (or other speed enforcement) being used to raise revenue, usually from out-of-town drivers.
Quote from: 31E on August 24, 2013, 02:30:14 PM
2. The institutional resistance to raising speed limits, even where it's warranted, will be much greater once speed camera revenues start pouring in.
Speed cameras are fine - to promote speed limit compliance (when that limit is correctly set by engineers - not politicians).
And the revenue should go to something that local politicians cannot take credit for, like some sort of statewide fund.
Quote from: 31E on August 24, 2013, 02:30:14 PM
3. Much like red light cameras, governments will lose money on speed cameras if speed limits are set properly (at the 85th percentile or higher). This is where the perverse incentive comes in.
I don't care about that. If the speed limit is correctly set (and I have no problem with 25 MPH in residential areas), then perhaps automated enforcement is not so "profitable."
Quote from: 31E on August 24, 2013, 02:30:14 PM
4. Also much like red light cameras, there is no evidence that speed cameras improve safety. If they don't make the roads safer, what is the point?
That is where engineering judgement should be used. Engineers, not politicians, should decide where such devices are needed.
Quote from: 31E on August 24, 2013, 02:30:14 PM
5. A speed camera is a machine; machines malfunction, and do not possess human judgment. Thus it cannot be cross-examined in court and cannot be backed up by a human estimate, like when a policeman uses radar. This also means that faulty tickets can be issued with little or no recourse.
Though it should be possible to challenge an automated citation in a real court before a real judge, even though they are (as far as I know) always civil citations that cannot end up on a driving record.
Quote from: 31E on August 24, 2013, 02:30:14 PM
There are also specific objections such as driver identification and so forth, but these five points are ample reason to oppose speed cameras.
It's a civil ticket to the owner(s) of the vehicle, not the driver of the vehicle.
Quote from: 31E on August 24, 2013, 02:30:14 PM
I would like for the limit to match the customary tolerance - if the limit is 65 with a 10 mph tolerance, the limit should be changed to 75 with no tolerance (well, aside form 2 mph or so to account for margins of error).
Tolerances can (and should) be set by state law, so they are uniform statewide, which reduces the temptation by local governments to cheat.
Quote from: Duke87 on August 23, 2013, 10:14:55 PM
Have them target any and all of the following:
- people driving too slowly in the left lane
- people rapidly weaving in and out of traffic
- people using their cellphone
- people passing trucks on the right
- people not using their headlights in the rain or at night
Y'know, people who are actually creating a hazard with their behavior.
I have no problem with police being encouraged to stop and cite (or warn) drivers for any or all of the above.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 24, 2013, 02:45:48 PM
Though it should be possible to challenge an automated citation in a real court before a real judge, even though they are (as far as I know) always civil citations that cannot end up on a driving record.
Is this actually the case? I know in AZ the tickets carried a different fine schedule and no points (one reason why some judges threw camera tickets out of their courts -- it set a double standard based on whether the machine got you or a cop got you, something not fair in the eyes of the law); however, they are a matter of public record, aren't they? That is, if someone drove my car, got a speed camera ticket, and my insurance company found it, they could potentially use it as an excuse to raise my rates.
My understanding is that when insurance companies hike your rates based on citations they are not trawling court listings looking for convictions, what they are doing is looking at your driving record on file with the DMV. A violation which does not put points on your license (which camera citations do not) will not show up on this record and thus will not result in your insurance being raised.
Don't forget the Belgian speed camera that clocked a Mini Cooper at Mach 3 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3613715.stm). (For comparison, Concorde topped out at Mach 2.02.)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 23, 2013, 04:00:37 PM
that said, sometimes the safest, most reasonable, most prudent course of action is to exceed even the high end of the speed limit. if speed of traffic is 75, it may make sense to get up to 83 to avoid causing congestion.
to that end, if we're gonna use speed cameras - have it be necessary that a driver trip two or three of them in a row before the citation is issued.
My hometown of Newark, DE has since 1986 defined illegal crusing as passing one spot on the downtown loop three times in a two hour period between 8 pm and 4 am. (Fine $25-300, up to 90 days in jail.) The intent was to go after people cruising that loop, but early on some people got snagged by passing the checkpoint (and nowhere else on the loop) three times. I thought then, as now, that the standard should be passing two checkpoints on opposite streets three times each or a total of five times.
Incidentally, the law says that if the car's owner is in the vehicle but not driving, the owner gets the ticket.
I have no idea if that law is still enforced.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 24, 2013, 07:02:06 PM
Don't forget the Belgian speed camera that clocked a Mini Cooper at Mach 3 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3613715.stm). (For comparison, Concorde topped out at Mach 2.02.)
They malfunction. A lot more than the police departments and camera companies would like you to believe.
IMHO, red light cameras and speed cameras should be banned.
Does anyone have any facts as to how the state police decide where to patrol and how frequently? It seems pretty random to me. I drove the GSP from 440 to LBI today. I only went less than 80 for a few minutes when traffic did not allow it. There were zero cops, but plenty of lunatics making multiple multi lane changes to obtain a one car advantage.
Quote from: elsmere241 on August 24, 2013, 09:33:10 PM
My hometown of Newark, DE has since 1986 defined illegal crusing as passing one spot on the downtown loop three times in a two hour period between 8 pm and 4 am. (Fine $25-300, up to 90 days in jail.) The intent was to go after people cruising that loop, but early on some people got snagged by passing the checkpoint (and nowhere else on the loop) three times. I thought then, as now, that the standard should be passing two checkpoints on opposite streets three times each or a total of five times.
Don't get me started on anti-cruising laws... if I want to drive around the block 50 times, it's my goddamn right to do so. If you want to write citations for cruisers breaking specific laws (racing, noise pollution, illegal hardware/lighting on vehicles, whatever), fine, but don't tell me where I can or can't drive. It's a public street, for f's sake.
Quote from: elsmere241 on August 24, 2013, 09:33:10 PM
My hometown of Newark, DE has since 1986 defined illegal crusing as passing one spot on the downtown loop three times in a two hour period between 8 pm and 4 am. (Fine $25-300, up to 90 days in jail.) The intent was to go after people cruising that loop, but early on some people got snagged by passing the checkpoint (and nowhere else on the loop) three times. I thought then, as now, that the standard should be passing two checkpoints on opposite streets three times each or a total of five times.
I would have broken that law multiple times when looking for open street parking in any given city on a busy day!
Quote from: Compulov on August 24, 2013, 04:24:56 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 24, 2013, 02:45:48 PM
Though it should be possible to challenge an automated citation in a real court before a real judge, even though they are (as far as I know) always civil citations that cannot end up on a driving record.
Is this actually the case? I know in AZ the tickets carried a different fine schedule and no points (one reason why some judges threw camera tickets out of their courts -- it set a double standard based on whether the machine got you or a cop got you, something not fair in the eyes of the law); however, they are a matter of public record, aren't they? That is, if someone drove my car, got a speed camera ticket, and my insurance company found it, they could potentially use it as an excuse to raise my rates.
Such tickets are notoriously difficult to challenge in the District of Columbia, where the system is clearly designed to raise revenue for the municipal government.
But next door in Maryland, they can be challenged in District Court before a real judge. That is the right system.
Quote from: Duke87 on August 24, 2013, 04:56:26 PM
My understanding is that when insurance companies hike your rates based on citations they are not trawling court listings looking for convictions, what they are doing is looking at your driving record on file with the DMV. A violation which does not put points on your license (which camera citations do not) will not show up on this record and thus will not result in your insurance being raised.
Automated citations are against the owner of the vehicle, not the driver, and for that reason alone, they do not end up on a DMV driving record.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 25, 2013, 09:26:53 AM
Automated citations are against the owner of the vehicle, not the driver, and for that reason alone, they do not end up on a DMV driving record.
Not universally true. Apparently Arizona, California, Nevada, and the US Virgin Islands will put points on your license for an automated citation. I do believe California's cameras are designed to take a photo from the front in order to verify the driver's identity, presumably the other jurisdictions do the same.
I've also been told that in Australia they put points on the license of the vehicle owner for a camera generated ticket even without verifying who was driving! What they then do is they have a form that you can fill out and have the person who was driving sign, and then the points will be put on their license instead.
This then leads to situations where someone who already has a bunch of points on their license will have their buddy who has none sign that form and take them as a favor. :)
Quote from: elsmere241 on August 24, 2013, 09:33:10 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 23, 2013, 04:00:37 PM
that said, sometimes the safest, most reasonable, most prudent course of action is to exceed even the high end of the speed limit. if speed of traffic is 75, it may make sense to get up to 83 to avoid causing congestion.
to that end, if we're gonna use speed cameras - have it be necessary that a driver trip two or three of them in a row before the citation is issued.
My hometown of Newark, DE has since 1986 defined illegal crusing as passing one spot on the downtown loop three times in a two hour period between 8 pm and 4 am. (Fine $25-300, up to 90 days in jail.) The intent was to go after people cruising that loop, but early on some people got snagged by passing the checkpoint (and nowhere else on the loop) three times. I thought then, as now, that the standard should be passing two checkpoints on opposite streets three times each or a total of five times.
Incidentally, the law says that if the car's owner is in the vehicle but not driving, the owner gets the ticket.
I have no idea if that law is still enforced.
I want to know how such a law is even legal.
Quote from: vdeane on August 25, 2013, 05:47:22 PM
I want to know how such a law is even legal.
If a police car is stationary, presumably a license plate reader could be used to legitimately enforce such a prohibition (though I really wonder if it would pass Constitutional muster in an appeals court).
The City of Virginia Beach, Va. had an anti-cruising law at one point, but I don't know if they still do - or if it is enforced.
I wasn't thinking of enforcement so much as the legality of having an anti-cruising law at all. Doesn't that contradict freedom of travel or something?
Quote from: vdeane on August 26, 2013, 09:44:10 PM
I wasn't thinking of enforcement so much as the legality of having an anti-cruising law at all. Doesn't that contradict freedom of travel or something?
The way Newark's city council rationalized it is that "driving is a privilege, not a right". Of course, anyone with a valid license essentially has a right to drive, and besides, all the streets in the loop are state highways.
A couple of years later the same council set up strict regulations for how many unrelated individuals can share an apartment, saying that renting in the city, again, was a privilege, not a right. The one landlord on city council voted against that bill, basically saying "This is just wrong."
Quote from: elsmere241 on August 27, 2013, 09:49:09 AM
The way Newark's city council rationalized it is that "driving is a privilege, not a right". Of course, anyone with a valid license essentially has a right to drive, and besides, all the streets in the loop are state highways.
One could argue that freedom of movement trumps that, though. Already, police are being chastised (for good reason, I think this sort of thing is despicable) for random stops and searches of pedestrians. It's not much of a leap to argue that you have the same right to be left alone, even in your car. In fact, the sorts of things the police and courts have let happened in the name of driving being a privilege have annoyed me for some time. At least with car searches, you "need" probable cause to perform the search. I don't think driving in circles is probable cause enough to warrant stopping someone, let alone arresting them. I'm not a lawyer, though, just a citizen who wants to keep his country from becoming a police state.
Quote
A couple of years later the same council set up strict regulations for how many unrelated individuals can share an apartment, saying that renting in the city, again, was a privilege, not a right. The one landlord on city council voted against that bill, basically saying "This is just wrong."
Rightly so. About the only limit on occupancy that should be on the books is limits related to safety. *Living* somewhere is definitely not a privilege.
I'm curious if either of those statutes (assuming either still exist) have been challenged in court.
As I stated before, the cruising one is still on the books (and featured prominently on the police page of the town website here: http://cityofnewarkde.us/index.aspx?nid=337 ) but I don't know if it's been enforced lately. I can't find the related individuals rules in the city code but they may still be tucked in there somewhere. I think main thing they push these days is the noise ordinance.
Here's one way to handle cops cracking down on cruising; from the 1973 movie
American Graffiti (set in 1962):
Quote from: mc78andrew on August 24, 2013, 09:58:18 PM
Does anyone have any facts as to how the state police decide where to patrol and how frequently? It seems pretty random to me.
I would imagine they intend it that way.
so what's wrong with driving around aimlessly? is it an environmental thing?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 27, 2013, 12:43:04 PM
so what's wrong with driving around aimlessly? is it an environmental thing?
According to the Newark, DE law; it's a "
quality of life" issue. I'm sure some anti-crusiing statutes (elsewhere) were enacted for "
environmental and/or anti-pollution" reasons/measures.
Newark, DE is home to the University of Delaware, and their Main Street and downtown areas are filled with college students. I can't remember the specifics when this rule went into effect, but I think it had something to do with motorists that would do nothing but drive down Main St. blaring music and checking out and cat calling at the women. Those motorists would come back up a parallel street, then do the loop again. Over and over again. For hours at a time.
Knowing the area, I would have a hard time figuring out why someone would need to drive down the street 3 times in a 2 hour period between 8pm and 4am. I'm sure if someone was looking for a specific store or parking area and had to loop around a few times, they would drive by unnoticed. Assuming they aren't blaring the radio and yelling at the women, that is.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 27, 2013, 01:04:14 PMKnowing the area, I would have a hard time figuring out why someone would need to drive down the street 3 times in a 2 hour period between 8pm and 4am. I'm sure if someone was looking for a specific store or parking area and had to loop around a few times, they would drive by unnoticed. Assuming they aren't blaring the radio and yelling at the women, that is.
Except - like I first stated - at least one person got snagged because he drove past the checkpoint three times as opposed to the entire loop. (It was on Main between Newark Shopping Center and Chapel. He made the mistake of entering NSC a couple of times on Chapel and exiting it on Main.) The cruising ban came a few months after an experiment to ban night stopping/standing/parking on Main Street failed. It isn't necessarily the University students cruising Main Street - those folks tend(ed) to come from all over.
Again, I think they focus mostly on the noise ordinance these days, whether it's loud car stereos or loud parties. I think it's pathetic that they have to keep clamping down on binge/underage drinking. (That's part of why I don't live in Newark now.)
loud/obnoxious people can be prosecuted under laws against causing a disturbance, public drunkenness, etc. all well-known laws with a justified place in society.
I may drive around in weird patterns and loops looking for old signs and what have you... even at 3am, because that is when I happened to get there. in fact, at 3am I am more likely to circle around more, because I spot a sign and then have to circle around to line up a photo opportunity.
that should be my right - as long as I'm not harming anyone, and can pay for my own gas, why shouldn't I be allowed to drive around at my leisure?
I rather strongly suspect (but do not know for sure) that many anti-cruising ordinances probably stand or fall on many of the same grounds applied to anti-loitering ordinances. If a municipality (or other government) can prohibit one, more than likely they can prohibit the other. I know some anti-loitering laws have been tossed out for being vague while others have been upheld, so I highly doubt there's any universal principle applicable throughout the US.
My 2 cents: If you can prohibit trurck trarffic, through traffic, motorized vehicles, etc., you are equally free to prohibit vehicles that have already passed the same point twice. What you can NOT prohibit is minority-driven vehicles.
Quote from: elsmere241 on August 27, 2013, 01:52:42 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 27, 2013, 01:04:14 PMKnowing the area, I would have a hard time figuring out why someone would need to drive down the street 3 times in a 2 hour period between 8pm and 4am. I'm sure if someone was looking for a specific store or parking area and had to loop around a few times, they would drive by unnoticed. Assuming they aren't blaring the radio and yelling at the women, that is.
Except - like I first stated - at least one person got snagged because he drove past the checkpoint three times as opposed to the entire loop. (It was on Main between Newark Shopping Center and Chapel. He made the mistake of entering NSC a couple of times on Chapel and exiting it on Main.) The cruising ban came a few months after an experiment to ban night stopping/standing/parking on Main Street failed. It isn't necessarily the University students cruising Main Street - those folks tend(ed) to come from all over.
Again, I think they focus mostly on the noise ordinance these days, whether it's loud car stereos or loud parties. I think it's pathetic that they have to keep clamping down on binge/underage drinking. (That's part of why I don't live in Newark now.)
Looking at the law on the web, it does in fact ban passing any point more than twice, not simply driving around the whole loop over and over.
Also looking at these laws, I wonder if there's anything Newark doesn't consider a mere "privilege". They sound like parents who think we're the children who can only do what they allow.
Quote from: vdeane on August 27, 2013, 10:36:31 PMAlso looking at these laws, I wonder if there's anything Newark doesn't consider a mere "privilege". They sound like parents who think we're the children who can only do what they allow.
And yet thanks to university students running amok (part of the reason some of these laws are in place) I don't consider anything within a mile of campus safe - even as the University of Delaware pushes its way further and further out into the city and the city government gives them whatever it wants. For the student body it isn't enough - they want more bars downtown, a student seat on city council, and for students who commit crimes off campus to be subject only to University discipline.
Quote from: Steve on August 27, 2013, 08:57:36 PM
My 2 cents: If you can prohibit trurck trarffic, through traffic, motorized vehicles, etc., you are equally free to prohibit vehicles that have already passed the same point twice. What you can NOT prohibit is minority-driven vehicles.
Note to self: carry several minority disguises and license plates when cruising through Newark, DE or equivalent. :sombrero:
That's one strange law - if they're not causing any noise or trouble, why make driving around aimlessly a crime? The people who run that town must be really bored, with a good dose of arrogance with that privilege line. What are they trying to run? A slave plantation?
Quote from: vdeane on August 27, 2013, 10:36:31 PM
Looking at the law on the web, it does in fact ban passing any point more than twice, not simply driving around the whole loop over and over.
god damn, so if I'm waiting at a traffic light at the top of a hill in a stick-shift vehicle, I can be in trouble if I roll back even a fraction of an inch?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 28, 2013, 12:50:02 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 27, 2013, 10:36:31 PM
Looking at the law on the web, it does in fact ban passing any point more than twice, not simply driving around the whole loop over and over.
god damn, so if I'm waiting at a traffic light at the top of a hill in a stick-shift vehicle, I can be in trouble if I roll back even a fraction of an inch?
Fortunately that loop doesn't have hills to speak of.
Quote from: elsmere241 on August 28, 2013, 01:07:09 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 28, 2013, 12:50:02 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 27, 2013, 10:36:31 PM
Looking at the law on the web, it does in fact ban passing any point more than twice, not simply driving around the whole loop over and over.
god damn, so if I'm waiting at a traffic light at the top of a hill in a stick-shift vehicle, I can be in trouble if I roll back even a fraction of an inch?
Fortunately that loop doesn't have hills to speak of.
I think it's all of downtown, not just the loop.
Quote from: elsmere241 on August 28, 2013, 08:12:42 AM
Quote from: vdeane on August 27, 2013, 10:36:31 PMAlso looking at these laws, I wonder if there's anything Newark doesn't consider a mere "privilege". They sound like parents who think we're the children who can only do what they allow.
And yet thanks to university students running amok (part of the reason some of these laws are in place) I don't consider anything within a mile of campus safe - even as the University of Delaware pushes its way further and further out into the city and the city government gives them whatever it wants. For the student body it isn't enough - they want more bars downtown, a student seat on city council, and for students who commit crimes off campus to be subject only to University discipline.
So prosecute them for the laws they are already breaking (and creating a disturbance IS against the law), don't invent new laws that go after people that are not involved. And, best of all, these laws that were already on the books have stiffer punishments. Why fine someone $25 when you could throw them in jail for a week?
Quote from: vdeane on August 28, 2013, 08:58:18 PM
Quote from: elsmere241 on August 28, 2013, 01:07:09 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 28, 2013, 12:50:02 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 27, 2013, 10:36:31 PM
Looking at the law on the web, it does in fact ban passing any point more than twice, not simply driving around the whole loop over and over.
god damn, so if I'm waiting at a traffic light at the top of a hill in a stick-shift vehicle, I can be in trouble if I roll back even a fraction of an inch?
Fortunately that loop doesn't have hills to speak of.
I think it's all of downtown, not just the loop.
No, it is just the loop - it doesn't include any side streets.
Per the official law: Sec. 20-48(a)2:
Designated area shall mean that area of the City of Newark consisting of Main Street from Library Avenue to Elkton Road, Elkton Road from Main Street to Delaware Avenue, Delaware Avenue from Elkton Road to Library Avenue, Library Avenue from Delaware Avenue to Main Street.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 29, 2013, 09:10:26 AM
Per the official law: Sec. 20-48(a)2:
Designated area shall mean that area of the City of Newark consisting of Main Street from Library Avenue to Elkton Road, Elkton Road from Main Street to Delaware Avenue, Delaware Avenue from Elkton Road to Library Avenue, Library Avenue from Delaware Avenue to Main Street.
I've never heard of it interpreted as including any streets inside the loop, but there's no reason to nitpick here.
Quote from: elsmere241 on August 29, 2013, 08:33:37 AM
Quote from: vdeane on August 28, 2013, 08:58:18 PM
Quote from: elsmere241 on August 28, 2013, 01:07:09 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 28, 2013, 12:50:02 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 27, 2013, 10:36:31 PM
Looking at the law on the web, it does in fact ban passing any point more than twice, not simply driving around the whole loop over and over.
god damn, so if I'm waiting at a traffic light at the top of a hill in a stick-shift vehicle, I can be in trouble if I roll back even a fraction of an inch?
Fortunately that loop doesn't have hills to speak of.
I think it's all of downtown, not just the loop.
No, it is just the loop - it doesn't include any side streets.
This site (http://cityofnewarkde.us/index.aspx?NID=371) begs to differ. No mention of just being loop - heck, it's even ambiguous over whether it only applies to downtown!