Charlie C

You know, I never cared that much about speeding tickets when it only involved a fine. (Kinda' like a "Ticket to Ride") But this BS with insurance surcharges, it gets ridiculous! I've had radar detectors since they put that into effect MANY years ago.

If they want the revenue, then lets drop the surcharges and keep the speeding tickets reasonable. Say about a buck for each mph. (Not likely to happen)

Wellardmac

I agree with you. It's the insurance that gets you.

As for the radar detector - I've actually stopped using mine, as it made me drive more slowly and be more paranoid. I found that if I just reverted back to using the observational skills that I used before the radar detector, then I had more fun driving, drive at a higher speed and more importantly drive more consistently, rather than reacting to every annoying beep out of the detector.

uberskier

I find that detectors aren't that great on the highways where I live, but they really pay off on the local road. I live in a somewhat rural area and the usual limits are between 35 - 45 mph. My detector has paid for itself countless times over when I'm doing for example: 45 in a 35 zone (no one is around, no driveways, etc.) and a state trooper or a county sheriff just happens to be driving towards me with his radar on. With out the detector, he may pull me over at that speed. With the detector, I'm doing 35-37mph.
Just my $0.02.
Eric

Wellardmac

Well, that's the problem here in PA is that the detectors are only good on highways and state roads, as the local police are not allowed to use radar and rely upon VASCAR - consequently we have white lines painted all over the roads.

rmillnj

The major problem with speed limits is that you never know what they really are. The true speed limit is whatever the policeman on the spot feels like enforcing on that particular day. Especially on the interstates where you normally cruise along at 70-75, you never know when there is going to be some righteous officer who is going to enforce the posted limit.

Gaspasser19

To tell you the truth, half the fun for me is turning down a road I've never been on before just to see where it takes me. To that end, take I-70W to at least Rte. 32. The further west, the more rural. Bring a decent map or GPS to consult if you get really turned around. I like Rte. 97 south to Olney or north to Westminster. Then I just head west.
There's also a Rennlister named "bull30" who is organizing a drive and dine scheduled for March 30. Ken really searches out some great back roads.

htny

Since I've gotten GPS, I've begun actually using the trip computer (have the built in porsche/audi/benz ones on my cars but never use), and the one thing I've found is that the "selective speeding" that we all do (moving with the flow of traffic interspersed with short bursts to high speed to pass) delivers absolutely no benefit to "making time" in most metro area highway systems, particularly in states like California, NY/NJ/CT where you're bound to slow down due to rubbernecking, accidents, road work, etc at some point. The luck of the draw exiting back on to surface streets, light timing, fuel stops, parking etc, is far more impactful to true "average speed". Doesn't mean I don't like to get up and go out there (I once got a ticket when Montana had no daytime limit), but unless I'm going pretty far, the difference between today's posted limit and the fastest I'm willing to go with all these pickups with junk flying around in the bed and little hondas zipping by on bald tires and colombo cars is not enough to impact my personal driving much in terms of "time to destination". I figure we all intuitively know this, but the GPS really put it in perspective for me because it's accurate. I remember after a week in LA looking at it and the top speed logged was so high I almost smacked myself, but the average: 4mph without stoppage time (and about 8mpg on the porsche trip computer)

The whole speed limit justification is just nonsense from a safety standpoint. I have a lot of trouble believing that in 60 years our cars are still as dangerous as they were when the highways were built, and while there will always be a handful of truly dangerous drivers out there, a lot of modern cars are fine at even 90mph+. Revenue is a crutch and a key driver to these haphazardly posted and enforced limits in many areas of the country, and it's silly because it generally isn't even true municipal revenue but often goes straight to the PD traffic pool's budget. I think trucks, including SUVs and other light trucks, should be relegated to lower speeds thn cars though, if only because the risks of failure or rollover from sudden dynamic changes, wind, tire blowout, even braking increase so dramatically with speed.

The novel solution, which I would gladly pay a fat flat fee per year to use, would be to have a left lane that required an ez-pass type radio device to enter, with no limit, similar to elevated toll roads in certain parts of asia but utilizing our existing infrastructure. Ticket anyone who enters that lane without a pass, and enforce a strict minimum speed limit. Of course there are challenges a plenty to anything like that (left lane exits, highway divisions etc) but I mean come on they came up with HOV lanes. Give me those! I might fly a lot less if I knew I could average 120+MPH over distance on a major interstate for a couple grand a year.

Charlie C

+1

uberskier

HT,
What were you doing to get a ticket during that situation?

I do recall seeing an article about some test drivers for Mercedes who received tickets for following too closely at 100+mph.

ElTorrente

Cool thanks.

I have a GPS, and I'll go exploring in that area - sounds like fun!

htny

too high, 150+, clocked us at 140 something, was 1994 i believe