http://www.popularmechanics.com/_mobile/cars/news/vintage-speed/the-5-best-and-5-worst-states-to-get-caught-speeding?click=pp#slide-1
The worst state, they claim, to get caught speeding in? New Jersey. And their reasoning? Flawed, because they didn't understanding the laws!
They state that there's a speed trap every 30 miles in the state. Not sure how that was determined. Then they say that NJ considers driving 10 mph or over as racing on the highway...which they don't! Fines are doubled for driving 10 mph or more over the limit, but even at that most speeding fines will cost you in the $200 range. Racing on the highway is entirely different, including definitions and penalties.
I can't vouch for the accuracy of other states' info, but if it's anything like their NJ info, it's probably wrong!
in NJ if you're on a 65mph road and keeping up with traffic, all is good. If you're on anything else then yeah...it can be harsh.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 27, 2014, 09:25:28 AM
http://www.popularmechanics.com/_mobile/cars/news/vintage-speed/the-5-best-and-5-worst-states-to-get-caught-speeding?click=pp#slide-1
The worst state, they claim, to get caught speeding in? New Jersey. And their reasoning? Flawed, because they didn't understanding the laws!
They state that there's a speed trap every 30 miles in the state. Not sure how that was determined. Then they say that NJ considers driving 10 mph or over as racing on the highway...which they don't! Fines are doubled for driving 10 mph or more over the limit, but even at that most speeding fines will cost you in the $200 range. Racing on the highway is entirely different, including definitions and penalties.
I can't vouch for the accuracy of other states' info, but if it's anything like their NJ info, it's probably wrong!
They got Virginia right with the harsh penalties associated with reckless driving.
Annoying that they did not bother to include the District of Columbia and its seemingly thousands of speed cameras, mostly directed at out-of-town suckers who do not know where they are.
Amusing that they used a National Park Service-spec sign for Tennessee (even though federal officers can enforce state traffic laws, agencies like the National Park Service make their own decisions about speed limit enforcement).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 27, 2014, 12:17:54 PM
They got Virginia right with the harsh penalties associated with reckless driving.
Annoying that they did not bother to include the District of Columbia and its seemingly thousands of speed cameras, mostly directed at out-of-town suckers who do not know where they are.
Maryland is a big offender on that as well. Both Maryland and D.C. should outrank Virginia, which thankfully doesn't allow speed cameras. Not that Virginia is exactly speeder-friendly (the article also forgets to mention that you can't use your radar detector there), but IMHO Maryland and D.C. are definitely worse.
The article's sources are a little thin -- NMA data on speed traps, NHTSA data on citation volume, a peek at some state laws, and "a little anecdotal evidence". Very much like something a generalist writer could do from his cubicle, without much help from actual experience (his own or others') on the road.
Quote from: oscar on November 27, 2014, 12:40:37 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 27, 2014, 12:17:54 PM
They got Virginia right with the harsh penalties associated with reckless driving.
Annoying that they did not bother to include the District of Columbia and its seemingly thousands of speed cameras, mostly directed at out-of-town suckers who do not know where they are.
Maryland is a big offender on that as well. Both Maryland and D.C. should outrank Virginia, which thankfully doesn't allow speed cameras. Not that Virginia is exactly speeder-friendly (the article also forgets to mention that you can't use your radar detector there), but IMHO Maryland and D.C. are definitely worse.
The article's sources are a little thin -- NMA data on speed traps, NHTSA data on citation volume, a peek at some state laws, and "a little anecdotal evidence". Very much like something a generalist writer could do from his cubicle, without much help from actual experience (his own or others') on the road.
Maryland is
fair. According to a post on this forum that I can't find, you have to go at least 12 over to get a ticket from the speed cameras. (And that would be about 42 in a 30 zone. There are no cameras where you would get a ticket going 77 in a 65 zone, since cameras only exist on surface roads.)
DC would probably be on the list if it was a state.
Quote from: 1 on November 27, 2014, 01:08:19 PM
Maryland is fair. According to a post on this forum that I can't find, you have to go at least 12 over to get a ticket from the speed cameras. (And that would be about 42 in a 30 zone. There are no cameras where you would get a ticket going 77 in a 65 zone, since cameras only exist on surface roads.)
But the surface roads are often underposted.
Also, speed cameras are allowed on Maryland freeways in construction zones. The one I was most familiar with (I-95 at MD 200) wasn't unreasonable, since there was no reduction in the 65 mph posted speed limit while construction was going on. But I don't know about the others.
Not that I'm all that familiar with the state routes and US routes in Virginia, but judging by their interstates alone, I'm surprised to see that state on the list for strict enforcement. I-95 between Richmond and DC is FULL of speeders, which makes for an easy drive. I-85 from Petersburg to the NC state line has very little traffic and is also a speeder's paradise even though there are lots of those turnaround areas hiding in the trees for the cops to hide in. Even I-64 from Richmond to Norfolk had very fast (speeding) traffic the few times I was there. Virginia has all those warnings about "speed checked by aircraft" and whatnot, but I think it's pretty tame. I've actually found North Carolina to be a much tougher state for speeders. I got ticketed for going 63 in a 55 on I-77 in Charlotte at maybe 10:30pm when traffic was nonexistent. Jerk.
I wonder why Arizona didn't make the list for worst. Any speed 85 mph or greater is considered criminal speeding regardless of the posted speed limit, even in 75 mph zones. This is somewhat similar to Virginia's 80 mph reckless driving law.
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on November 27, 2014, 01:47:54 PM
Not that I'm all that familiar with the state routes and US routes in Virginia, but judging by their interstates alone, I'm surprised to see that state on the list for strict enforcement. I-95 between Richmond and DC is FULL of speeders, which makes for an easy drive. I-85 from Petersburg to the NC state line has very little traffic and is also a speeder's paradise even though there are lots of those turnaround areas hiding in the trees for the cops to hide in. Even I-64 from Richmond to Norfolk had very fast (speeding) traffic the few times I was there. Virginia has all those warnings about "speed checked by aircraft" and whatnot, but I think it's pretty tame. I've actually found North Carolina to be a much tougher state for speeders. I got ticketed for going 63 in a 55 on I-77 in Charlotte at maybe 10:30pm when traffic was nonexistent. Jerk.
North Carolina belongs on that list. The cops down there have mastered hiding on I-95.
And how does one get a speeding ticket in Massachusetts? I was just there and I don't think I spotted ONE driver doing the speed limit.
The problem with Idaho is the penalties are minimal, and they frequently give warnings, but they love to use speeding as an excuse to try to search your car.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on November 27, 2014, 04:06:50 PM
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on November 27, 2014, 01:47:54 PM
Not that I'm all that familiar with the state routes and US routes in Virginia, but judging by their interstates alone, I'm surprised to see that state on the list for strict enforcement. I-95 between Richmond and DC is FULL of speeders, which makes for an easy drive. I-85 from Petersburg to the NC state line has very little traffic and is also a speeder's paradise even though there are lots of those turnaround areas hiding in the trees for the cops to hide in. Even I-64 from Richmond to Norfolk had very fast (speeding) traffic the few times I was there. Virginia has all those warnings about "speed checked by aircraft" and whatnot, but I think it's pretty tame. I've actually found North Carolina to be a much tougher state for speeders. I got ticketed for going 63 in a 55 on I-77 in Charlotte at maybe 10:30pm when traffic was nonexistent. Jerk.
North Carolina belongs on that list. The cops down there have mastered hiding on I-95.
And how does one get a speeding ticket in Massachusetts? I was just there and I don't think I spotted ONE driver doing the speed limit.
Massachusetts is usually not that bad except in certain spots that are speed traps. You won't be stopped randomly for speeding unless you are driving unsafely. However, there are a few speed traps where warning signage is sometimes treated as regulatory by the police.
Quote from: oscar on November 27, 2014, 01:29:09 PM
Quote from: 1 on November 27, 2014, 01:08:19 PM
Maryland is fair. According to a post on this forum that I can't find, you have to go at least 12 over to get a ticket from the speed cameras. (And that would be about 42 in a 30 zone. There are no cameras where you would get a ticket going 77 in a 65 zone, since cameras only exist on surface roads.)
But the surface roads are often underposted.
Also, speed cameras are allowed on Maryland freeways in construction zones. The one I was most familiar with (I-95 at MD 200) wasn't unreasonable, since there was no reduction in the 65 mph posted speed limit while construction was going on. But I don't know about the others.
A few years ago there was a work zone on I-695 with a 55 MPH construction area speed limit (and the rest of the highway was 65), so by the camera, you'd get a ticket at 67.
But you're right, I find the speed cameras in MD to be quite fair with the 12 MPH window.