Speed Kills Your Pocketbook

[Daniel Fiddler]

That's what happens when states enact "statutory" limits, they cannot post any road higher even, if it is in better condition than a road woth the same speed limit.  I-287 is very curvy as you head north, and even of 65 mph is still perfectly safe around those curves, the Turnpike should definitely be higher as it is even better. I have also found the Jersey Turnpike to be slightly better than the PENN Turnpike, yet that jumps to 70 almost immediately, it's like they should be swapped. The highest speed limit in Texas is 85 on Route 130, but I fail to see why that road is so much better than I-80 through the Bonneville Salt Flats,(other than its Echelon Paving Technique) where you could go "off the road" and it wouldn't feel different. But as I stated earlier, since they charge you to drive on it the only reason they make it appeal with the 5 mph extra speed is not about safety but just so they can make an extra few dollars from you.

I concur.  I've been on the NJ Turnpike and I've been on part of the PA Turnpike, and I agree the NJ Turnpike is the better road.

[kphoger]

Similar to how the National Maximum 55 limit was strong-armed by the govt threatening to withhold federal highway trustfunds from any state that had any speed limit on any road above 55. I am against that kind of bribery whether it is to lower or raise the speed limits. They should be set based on engineering guidelines only and not political elections. It got so ridiculous that governments even banned the reporting of tickets to insurance companies and instead issued $15 energy wasting fees or something (as long as the driver stayed under whatever the old speed limit was)

But the NMSL was never about safety to begin with.

[Daniel Fiddler]

Indeed.  There is absolutely no credible evidence showing that speed limits being lower improves safety.

In fact, quite the opposite.  Empirical evidence shows the safest speed limits is a MINIMUM of 120 km / h (75 mph), up to no speed limit whatsoever, if you go by European nations, which have significantly lower accident rates than we do!  Also, except for NJ (whose drivers do not obey the 65 mph speed limit), states with 75 and 80 mph speed limits have fewer accidents per capita than states with 65 and 70 mph speed limits!

Even if you take my family for example.

My mother and I drive faster (5 - 10 over) than my younger brother and late sister do / did (5 - 10 UNDER).  They drove faster than my late father did (he never got faster than 55 on the Interstates and toll roads).

I have never had an accident that was my fault in 24 years of driving and my mother has had ONE in 52 years of driving (SHIT, I just alluded to how old my mother was).

My younger brother has had 2 accidents that was his fault, and my late sister had 4 before she died.  My late father had an average of 1 per year.

Who would you say is / was the safest driver(s)?  My mother and I?  My younger brother and late sister?  Or my late father?

[Daniel Fiddler]

@Daniel

You should read this hilarious ranking of roads in the tri-state region, how he puts the Jackie-Robinson Parkway above the Jersey Turnpike is beyond me

https://jalopnik-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/jalopnik.com/all-52-highways-and-parkways-in-the-new-york-city-a-1821506061/amp?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#aoh=16296722189290&amp_ct=1629672221293&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fjalopnik.com%2Fall-52-highways-and-parkways-in-the-new-york-city-a-1821506061

LOL

[jeffandnicole]

Here's a little kicker about the NJ Speed Limit law:  It never says 65 mph is the maximum limit in the state.  The law in Section 39:4-98.1 provides for, unless otherwise signed:
25 mph in any business or residential district;
35 mph in any suburban business or residential district;
50 mph in all other locations, except as otherwise provided in the "Sixty-Five MPH Speed Limit Implementation Act," pursuant to P.L.1997, c.415 (C.39:4-98.3 et al.).

That 65 mph law is nothing more than a study (which has long since expired), and the State and its authorities are to provide locations where 65 mph should be used. Other laws regarding 65 mph zones are found in 39:4-98.3, 39:4-98.4, 39:4-98.5, 39:4-98.6 & 39:4-98.8.  And certain penalties are doubled when a person is found guilty of violating the law in a 65 mph zone.  But none of them ever say 65 mph is the highest limit permitted.

Also related: There was no law that stated 55 mph was the maximum speed limit during the NMSL.  The max limit was 55 because of the threat of losing federal funds. 

To be absolutely technical, there's nothing stopping the State or its authorities from using anything higher.  Or, for that matter, using 60 mph.  But, the laws are written in such a way where it would be absurd that a 70 mph or faster zone wouldn't have the same penalties as a 65 mph zone, so they won't be raised.

[Max Rockatansky]

Similar to how the National Maximum 55 limit was strong-armed by the govt threatening to withhold federal highway trustfunds from any state that had any speed limit on any road above 55. I am against that kind of bribery whether it is to lower or raise the speed limits. They should be set based on engineering guidelines only and not political elections. It got so ridiculous that governments even banned the reporting of tickets to insurance companies and instead issued $15 energy wasting fees or something (as long as the driver stayed under whatever the old speed limit was)

But the NMSL was never about safety to begin with.

Common 3 speed transmissions lacking an overdrive gear coupled with big V8s were never a recipe for sound fuel economy. 

[sprjus4]

^ Is the New Jersey Turnpike Authority opposed to increasing the speed limit? Or is it simply because state law doesn't "allow"  them to, in the way they may interpret it.

Legislature should amend the law to mandate at least a 70 mph speed limit on certain segments of roadway.

[jeffandnicole]

^ Is the New Jersey Turnpike Authority opposed to increasing the speed limit? Or is it simply because state law doesn't "allow"  them to, in the way they may interpret it.

Legislature should amend the law to mandate at least a 70 mph speed limit on certain segments of roadway.

It's the Governor that amends laws.

I don't agree with mandates, because things can and do change.  Look at US 130 in Burlington.  The law *mandates* that the speed limit must be 25 mph.  It's the only statute that requires a specific limit.  If something were to change in the future, the State DOT would be powerless to change the limit until the governor grants its OK.

^ Is the New Jersey Turnpike Authority opposed to increasing the speed limit? Or is it simply because state law doesn't "allow"  them to, in the way they may interpret it.

Legislature should amend the law to mandate at least a 70 mph speed limit on certain segments of roadway.

There is currently a proposed bill that would repeal the 65 mph maximum, and base all limits on the 85th percentile calculations (rounded to the nearest 5 mph). NY may have had a similar bill suggesting a raise to 75, but it's been in committee for so many years I doubt it will ever be passed.

That bill has been proposed in NJ for many years as well.  When the legislative sessions ends, the bill automatically pops up in the next legislative session.  It's not going anywhere, especially the way it's written.

[Daniel Fiddler]

Thank you, Safe.

And I agree that traffic fines should be for:

Driving below the minimum

Left lane hogging

Texting while driving

Failure to use a turning signal

Careless driving (Differentiating between "reckless driving" here because I don't want to confuse "driving 15+ mph over the speed limit" with this, I am referring to not giving regard to others)

Driving above .08 BAC or under the influence of any illegal or controlled drug not prescribed to oneself except cannabis (cannabis is legal in some states and the states it is illegal in I believe it should be legalized in, and it's difficult to tell if someone is truly driving stoned since it hangs around so long)

[jeffandnicole]

Driving above .08 BAC or under the influence of any illegal or controlled drug not prescribed to oneself except cannabis (cannabis is legal in some states and the states it is illegal in I believe it should be legalized in, and it's difficult to tell if someone is truly driving stoned since it hangs around so long)

So you're ok with someone being under the influence of prescription meds that they've overdosed on, then driving and possibly killing someone, simply because they were prescribed to them?

[Daniel Fiddler]

Driving above .08 BAC or under the influence of any illegal or controlled drug not prescribed to oneself except cannabis (cannabis is legal in some states and the states it is illegal in I believe it should be legalized in, and it's difficult to tell if someone is truly driving stoned since it hangs around so long)

So you're ok with someone being under the influence of prescription meds that they've overdosed on, then driving and possibly killing someone, simply because they were prescribed to them?

Absolutely not.  Alright, let me restate that.

If people have taken the prescribed amount of a controlled substance and NO MORE THAN THAT, they should not be judged at fault for it.

For example, I take two controlled meds.  They don't affect my driving.  If I took my prescribed dose, and no more than that, I should not be judged at fault because someone else was a moron and THEY caused the accident merely because of my prescribed meds.  Fortunately, I've not had to encounter that yet.

[Daniel Fiddler]

Any alcohol at all should be an offense. But Virginia's and North Carolinas madmndatory reckless ticket laws for a specific amount over is absurd. Prescription medication can be more dangerous than some illicit drugs. Marijuana is safer than alcohol, yet Benadryl no one should take when driving.

Mouthwash can show up on a BAC test.  And some breathalyzer tests can be skewed if the previous person was drunk.  And if no alcohol at all was allowed, that would kill a lot of restaurants that serve wine, mixed drinks, and beer.  I can agree with the BAC being lowered though, maybe to .04?  Although absolutely none if you take meds that it should not be mixed with, I agree with.

Absolutely no benedryl though.  That should count as a DUI.  They should have tests for benedryl.

[Daniel Fiddler]

.05 is DUI and .08 is DWI but I think they are equally bad charges. I take Lexapro, which I found improves my reaction time. With teens 18-19 they have 0 tolerance for alcohol in their system when driving, and for new drivers. Sleepy driving can be just as bad as having a BAC 3x the legal limit.

Hmmm, you must live in a different state than me, in Tennessee (as well as Florida and Georgia), DUI is .08 for regular drivers, .04 for CDL's, .02 if you are 20 and younger.

I take Lexapro too!  As well as other meds.  And yes, I agree, sleepy driving is horrible.

One strange thing about me is that I am the only member of my family that can safely take a benzodiazepine (I am prescribed Ativan) and still safely drive.  I've been taking it every day since 2013, and it doesn't affect my driving in the slightest, if anything, it improves it, because it calms me down (I suffer from extreme anxiety).  With my mother, late sister, and younger brother, they'd slowly drift off to sleep with a benzo and forget all their problems for a few hours.  With my late grandfather, he'd be completely knocked out cold, almost unconscious!  I remember when my grandmother and I had to CARRY him into the house after he had 1/2 a mg of Xanax after a procedure!

[hotdogPi]

Going back to a previous discussion: if you're not at fault, your insurance should completely cover the damages, plus court costs, plus a few hundred to account for the time and money spent and job hours lost for court, looking for a new car, etc., up to a couple thousand if the person suddenly starts needing to make monthly payments on a new car when the previous one was fully paid off. It should be enough that he or she would likely come out slightly ahead.

The person at fault, on the other hand, gets nothing. (Except court costs. Nobody should have to pay to go to court, especially if it's mandatory.)

[Flint1979]

I was driving a 2003 Mustang Shelby Cobra with 600 horsepower. I took it up north and got on a back road where I knew I could punch it. I got up to 162 mph. I was basically floating and took over a mile to come to a complete stop. It was the wildest ride I was ever on. Blowing through Emmet County like it was nothing.

[Flint1979]

About two weeks ago I was on M-28 in the U.P. going through the Seney Stretch. I had my 2019 Ford Fusion this time and got up to 110 mph. I held it at 100 for about 5 miles.

[kphoger]

.05 is DUI and .08 is DWI

Stating such as an absolute fact just further betrays a writer who thinks the way things are where he lives is the way things are everywhere else too.

"DWI" isn't even a thing in my state of Kansas, for example.  In neighboring Missouri, "DWI" is .08 or above, "DUI" isn't a thing, and "DUID" has to do with non-alcohol drug impairment.

[Occidental Tourist]

Whoops, I didn't realize my tortured metaphor would be rolling a grenade into the tent.  Sorry for the wasted server space.
<slowly backs out>

[jeffandnicole]

I thought those were federal guidelines and just the penalties differed by state, NVM then.

Like the NMSL, there's no federal law per se that the threshold is .08, but feds will start withholding funds if a state doesn't reduce their limit to .08.

For CDL license holders, I believe there is a federal limit of .04.  And it doesn't matter if you're driving a truck or not.  Even if you're in a regular vehicle, simply holding a CDL subjects you to the .04 limitation.

[GCrites]

Bring back R.A.D. so that we don't have to hear about this crap. I hated it when R.A.D. crap where one guy thought he was smarter than everyone else because he has a lead foot got crossposted to MTR.

[Bickendan]

Just happened upon this thread.  Reading this is like listening to my 12 year-old trying to explain to me a concept he heretofore knew nothing about, but, because he just saw a YouTube video about it, he now thinks he's an expert on the subject.

Have fun.

Only a 12 year old would say this without actually watching the videos. If you drove for even 2 minutes any of the roads where I live you would see in 3 seconds how absurdly and outrageously low the speed limits are.

Oh, you're here in Oregon? You'd know then there's a culture of drivers who are obstenantly against raising the speed limits and try to enforce it by camping the left lane.

Just happened upon this thread.  Reading this is like listening to my 12 year-old trying to explain to me a concept he heretofore knew nothing about, but, because he just saw a YouTube video about it, he now thinks he's an expert on the subject.

Have fun.

FWIW I'm gathering from the comments that the OP is a relatively young person and a inexperienced driver.

I drive anywhere from 60 to 290 miles a day, and have most likely driven around the earth multiple times in the decade I've been driving, in one of the hardest places to drive.

Wait, you've driven in India? Neat.

[Plutonic Panda]

Interestingly enough I came across which a town in New Mexico is doing:

https://highways-news.com/american-city-curbs-speeding-drivers-on-residential-street-by-using-rest-in-red-solution/

My first thought is hello increased fuel and fine particulate emissions as well as more red light runners. I feel like California does this at least LA will have lights in all direction that will be red in some areas and you are supposed to come to a full stop and wait for the green. I'm not going to comment what I do but I've certainly seen many others just disregard the light completely. I really feel as what was supposed to be a well intended idea has made the area more dangerous.

[SectorZ]

Any alcohol at all should be an offense. But Virginia's and North Carolinas madmndatory reckless ticket laws for a specific amount over is absurd. Prescription medication can be more dangerous than some illicit drugs. Marijuana is safer than alcohol, yet Benadryl no one should take when driving.

Mouthwash can show up on a BAC test.  And some breathalyzer tests can be skewed if the previous person was drunk.  And if no alcohol at all was allowed, that would kill a lot of restaurants that serve wine, mixed drinks, and beer.  I can agree with the BAC being lowered though, maybe to .04?  Although absolutely none if you take meds that it should not be mixed with, I agree with.

Absolutely no benedryl though.  That should count as a DUI.  They should have tests for benedryl.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8254857/

Ignore idiot DUI lawyers, this is actual research that shows that mouthwash does no such thing. Albeit not as scientific, Mythbusters tried it out as well and got no positive results after swigging mouthwash.

[Plutonic Panda]

Any alcohol at all should be an offense. But Virginia's and North Carolinas madmndatory reckless ticket laws for a specific amount over is absurd. Prescription medication can be more dangerous than some illicit drugs. Marijuana is safer than alcohol, yet Benadryl no one should take when driving.

Mouthwash can show up on a BAC test.  And some breathalyzer tests can be skewed if the previous person was drunk.  And if no alcohol at all was allowed, that would kill a lot of restaurants that serve wine, mixed drinks, and beer.  I can agree with the BAC being lowered though, maybe to .04?  Although absolutely none if you take meds that it should not be mixed with, I agree with.

Absolutely no benedryl though.  That should count as a DUI.  They should have tests for benedryl.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8254857/

Ignore idiot DUI lawyers, this is actual research that shows that mouthwash does no such thing. Albeit not as scientific, Mythbusters tried it out as well and got no positive results after swigging mouthwash.

I know firsthand they will show up on interlock devices. If you even drink kombucha it will show up.

[1995hoo]

Interestingly enough I came across which a town in New Mexico is doing:

https://highways-news.com/american-city-curbs-speeding-drivers-on-residential-street-by-using-rest-in-red-solution/

My first thought is hello increased fuel and fine particulate emissions as well as more red light runners. I feel like California does this at least LA will have lights in all direction that will be red in some areas and you are supposed to come to a full stop and wait for the green. I'm not going to comment what I do but I've certainly seen many others just disregard the light completely. I really feel as what was supposed to be a well intended idea has made the area more dangerous.

I wasn't able to get the article to load, but I know of a street in Alexandria, Virginia, that has a traffic light that turns red if you exceed the speed limit (note the sign on the right; the light is a midblock light visible in the distance). I tried exceeding 25 mph on that street once and the light did indeed turn red. When I was on that street a few weeks ago, I had the cruise control set at 25 mph because of that light and the jerk behind me with Maryland plates decided he was entitled to pass over the double yellow line right as we hit that midblock light. He got stuck directly in front of me at the next light, so it's not clear what he accomplished other than proving himself to be a jackass.