New Jersey Assemblyman: 75 mph limit on Turnpike, Parkway

[agentsteel53]

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.

[PHLBOS]

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.

[agentsteel53]

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.

[1995hoo]

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.

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:

Contrary 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).

[agentsteel53]

it'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.

[cpzilliacus]

Hoo, thanks for providing the cites and the details of the Stanko cases above.   

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.

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.

[1995hoo]

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

[deathtopumpkins]

Hoo, thanks for providing the cites and the details of the Stanko cases above.   

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.

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.

[1995hoo]

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.

[agentsteel53]

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.

[agentsteel53]

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.

[deathtopumpkins]

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.

[agentsteel53]

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."

[1995hoo]

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."

[agentsteel53]

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.

[1995hoo]

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.

[Duke87]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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.   

[jeffandnicole]

it'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.

[jeffandnicole]

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

[agentsteel53]

the driver of that white car could certainly use a "careless driving" citation.

[Compulov]

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).

[31E]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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.

[agentsteel53]

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.