New Jersey Assemblyman: 75 mph limit on Turnpike, Parkway

[Brandon]

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.

[agentsteel53]

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.

[Compulov]

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.

[Duke87]

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.

[31E]

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).

[cpzilliacus]

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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.

[Compulov]

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.

[Duke87]

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.

[1995hoo]

Don't forget the Belgian speed camera that clocked a Mini Cooper at Mach 3. (For comparison, Concorde topped out at Mach 2.02.)

[elsmere241]

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.

[Brandon]

Don't forget the Belgian speed camera that clocked a Mini Cooper at Mach 3. (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.

[mc78andrew]

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. 

[Compulov]

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.

[NJRoadfan]

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!

[cpzilliacus]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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.

[Duke87]

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.

[vdeane]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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.

[vdeane]

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?

[elsmere241]

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."

[Compulov]

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.

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.

[elsmere241]

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.

[PHLBOS]

Here's one way to handle cops cracking down on cruising; from the 1973 movie American Graffiti (set in 1962):