The normal speed on I 66, I 495, I 395 is between 70 -75 miles per hour. If you do not driver that speed look out to be re-ended.

Try driving close to the 55 MPH speed and all you get is horns blowing and the finger.

But that is not unusal for any inter state. I 81 thru VA, WV, MD, PA, around Harrisburg and then I 78 in the 55 MPH zones the normal is 70-75 MPH. And in the 65 MPH zones the norm is 70-75 MPH.

People know that the faster one drives, the same amount of gas they use, and when traveling 370 miles, one gets there faster.

at higher speeds.  See here, for instance.

do you believe everything you read.

Well I believe my own records. I have a trip odometer and always check it for MPG when ever I fill up my gas tank. I will drive at or about 55 MPG and check the MPG. On my last trip to PA I checked my odometer after driving the speeds most people drive on I 81, 75 MPG and do you know what there is no difference in my MPG. Driving both speeds I average 20 MPG.

Driving in Nelson county, Charlottesville and Lunchburg I get between 17-18 MPG in stop and go traffic.

What those reports tell me after constant checking MPG for over 30 years is those reports are for people such as yourself to repeat bull so divers slow down. That is all those reports do. I find no truth in such articles.

Have you ever checked new car stickers. They say a certain MPG city and a certain MPG highway. They never say MPG at this speed on the highway or MPG at another speed on the highway.

My suggestion to you is take your time and follow up on what others preach to you.

Here is what a person who really wants to check there MPG should do.

Always have the car on a down hill lane at the pumps. Fill it till the pump shuts off then top the tank, with out over flowing the tank. Check your MPG on trips at one speed: then check the MPG at a higher speed with out getting a tickets. Bet you a steak dinner, there is very little distance, if any.

ps, don't believe what you read and only half of what you see. Do your own tests.

My car has an EPA rating of 48MPG, but there are people who own the things who routinely get higher.  50 or even 60mpg. 

One fellow I know drove from Salt Lake City to Philadelphia last year, and got 72MPG.  He even got pulled over by the State Police for driving too slow (about 48 miles-per-hour, I think).  This guy is a retired aeronautical engineer, so he knows a thing or two about wind resistance.

All of this is easily measured with onboard instrumentation.  There is a port that I can connect to my laptop to instantaneously measure MPG as you drive (although fooling with a laptop while you are driving is generally a bad idea).  There is an aftermarket tool (http://www.scangauge...) that you can use to more easily measure fuel economy as you drive.

But for cars that only get 20MPG or so, perhaps wind resistance is a smaller factor in overall fuel consumption.

from Salt Lake to Philly. What a joke. Anyone who ever drove from East to West knows that 95 per cent of the time it is a head wind. And driving from west to east there is usually a tail wind. So the engineer used the wind to get his high MPG, if he is telling the truth.

Oh, you want me to use my car that gets 27-28 around Nelson County and 30-31 on the highway and guess what the results are the same. Speed makes no difference on a long trip.

Now if you want to talk about traveling south to north the MPG is usually higher since there is usually a south west wind. And from north to south the MPG is a little less because of the south west wind.

As far as the fees/fines go. It is useless to talk any more cause Kaine put a black spot on the Democrats this fall election and the sooner we stop talking about the fees/fines the better. His blunder will cost us this fall. We may still take the senate, but forget the house.

I have done it on the beltway and on I66.  The trick is to stay way over in the right-hand lane.  There are other cars out there that drive 55 as well, so you won't be alone, and I never feel in any danger.

The only thing that gets tricky is left exits, of which there are a few in the area.  Usually I just speed up to match traffic until I get through the exit.

My Senator who voted for this legislation is now sending out e-mails saying how awful these fees are and he is introducing legislation to repeal these fees....how unique considering that many other legislators are also falling all over themselves saying "I'll be the first to fix this thing" ... never saying it was unwise of me to vote yes for it. 

Oh pulleeeze....do you think we are all dumb out here? Yup you do.  What you've told me is that you thought that these fees were a 1) viable resource for income and 2) that it would ensure that the Governor would get a Transportation Bill on his resume.  That is what you did when you voted for this bill.  You did not consider the citizens you represent (or not).

The fact that he was in uniform does not give him a pass to commit a crime.

I think you are way off base by implying that any responsible driver would ever drive 20 miles over the speed limit for any reason. I've never engaged in any form of reckless driving, including driving 20 mph over the speed limit. I've driven in 25 of the 50 states and the laws of every one of those states classifies 20 mph over the speed limit as a reckless driving criminal offense. Excusing dangerous driving because "everyone" does it (or has done it) doesn't wash. I'm not a member of that "everyone" club and I'd bet that the large majority of responsible Va. drivers aren't and won't every apply for membership.

Dangerous driving is dangerous driving, regardless of whether the driver has a a criminal record or not.

I agree that the "fees" should be fines. But the fines for criminal driving offenses should have been much higher long ago, and a $1,050 (paid in 3 increments) is certainly not too high for endangering the lives of everyone around him. What possible excuse could anyone have to be driving 20 mph over the legal limit ? Being late is certainly no defense.

I only have three problems with the new law:
  1.) The fees should be fines.
  2.) Because the legitimate penalties were made fees and not fines they apply only to Va. residents. And because of that fact the Equal Protection Under the Law problem most likely  will result in that part of the law being found to be unconstitutional. But that fact won't prevent a reckless driver from conviction of a misdemeanor crime; he just won't have to pay the fee.
  3.) Long-overdue fine increases for serious driving offenses don't belong in a transportation bill. Correction of the inordinately low penalties in Va. for serious driving offenses should be the subject of a new bill next January.

  T.C.

If so, there's no way you can say, with a straight face, that driving 75 there is dangerous.  As has been pointed out, driving the limit is likely far more dangerous at various points in the day.

If the law makes criminals out of safe behavior that most people engage in, there's something wrong with the law, not the people.

and, except when the traffic's so bad that traffic's crawling, the vast VAST majority of people are NOT staying within the speed limit.  I'd say that the average speed on 395, or 95, is about 70-75 miles per hour when there isn't traffic congestion.

Like Lowell, I've driven I-395 many hundreds of times in both directions. All hours of the day and most hours of the night. There's always some traffic, espcially truck traffic and including people driving at the 55 mph limit or only 5-10 mph over the posted max. legal limit. BUT ... there's a huge difference between driving 5-10 mph and 20 mph over the limit.

When you're approaching a car from, say, 1/4 mile back going 20 mph faster it's extremely difficult to estimate the speed of the car ahead of you -- until you're too close to slow to that car's speed long enough to check your side-view mirror to make sure it's safe to move to the passing lane. I long ago lost count of how many times I've seen cars rear-end a slower car or suddenly switch lanes and either hit a car alongside or cause the car just behind to crash into the speeding car. Safe to drive 20 mph over the 55 mph legal limit on I-395 ? Ever seen the dead or seriously injured victims of an accident caused by a driver who thinks the highway is their private NASCAR race track ? I have, and if you ever see this up close while the rescue squad is lifting the injured or dead off the road and listen to a driver try to explain to the police and rescue squad why it's safe to drive 20 mph over the legal limit you'll really understand the reason for the 55 mph speed limit.  Even more sobering is to listen to the reckless driver try to explain to family members at the hospital why it's o.k. to risk their loved-one's life because it's "safe" to ignore speed limits that were designed set for no other reason than safety of of the road users.

All these arguments about why it's o.k. to ignore reasonable speed limits are strating to sound frightengly familiar : "I violate the law because I can". Bush may well be above the law and may not be held accountable for his actions. Not the case for regular citizens.

  T.C.

the notion that we need to continue to improve traffic safety.  Nor would I argue against any of your points about the terrible consequences of accidents - for whatever reason they happened.

But the two big questions we're dealing with here are:

1. Is 75 in a 55 that bad?  I'd argue that in this case the answer is no because, as most point out, the true average speed on 395 is not 55.  Perhaps 65.  Maybe even a little higher.  Therefore, driving 75 is on the higher end, but not significantly different than the average flow of traffic.  It's not a question of everyone else does it so I can too. It's that everyone else drives above the speed limit so 20mph is not that far outside the norm - not as dangerous as the knee jerk 20mph over would seem to imply.  The speeder certainly earned a ticket, but IMO not an additional $1050.

2. Why are these fees in place?  Let's be clear - these fees were NEVER, EVER about safety.  Yeah, I know the supporters are scrambling to pretend they are now, but the fees were about the flat earth Republicans in the House avoiding the three letter word at any cost. 

Hitting a brick wall at 35mph is pretty ugly, too.  Would you like to go on about how we need to lower the speed limit to 15mph?

You definitely get better mileage going slower, your rpms are lower so you're burning less gas.
Though some of the fines like this are ridiculous, I'm doubtful Mr. Mason will get anywhere near the $1,050 fine. I was in traffic court recently and the judge was dropping everyone's fines down to lower levels. Considering his lack of a record and the fact that he was just 20 over I doubt his fine is even 1/5 of the "abuser fee"

Oh and as a side note, you can do the speed limit on the major highways around here it's called the right hand lane. So just to review if you want to be in the fast lanes prepare to go...fast. Fast means exceeding the speed limit, which is breaking the law, and if you want to get somewhere fast you do so while willingly breaking the law. The speed of traffic is only 75 ish on a 55 road because people of their own volition feel that the time saved speeding exceeds the risk of punishment.

While the terms fee and fine are synonymous in standard conversation, they are vastly different in this case.  The $1050 is a fee and the judge and/or court system have absolutely zero authority over it.  It can not be changed or appealed - if the gentleman is found guilty he will have to pay the full amount or lose his license.  Period.

As for your side note, I recently did an experiment (investigating fuel economy and speed) on 95 North and as my side note found that driving the speed limit (65mph during most of the trip) felt very unsafe.  I did the best I could to stay in the right lane and/or stay out of the way of upcoming traffic, but it was downright scary driving the speed limit.  And those who drive the speed limit in those circumstances and aren't scared are ignoring what's happening around them.

Burning less gas is not the true picture.

A car at 55 MPH has an RPM of about 1800 RPM's and a car at 70 has an RPM of about 2200. Yes sitting still a car will burn less gas at the lower RPM.

A car on a trip of 60 miles, traveling at 55 MPH, will reach its destination in about 65 minutes. A car on the same trip at 75 MPH will reach that destination in about 48 minutes. So the time between those same cars reaching the destination will burn about the same amount of gas due to time restrains.

Very simple math.

And as the state trooper was asked this question "Every one else was speeding, why did you stop me"?

And the tropper replied "Someone has to be stopped to slow the others down and this time you were the one".

an expert in the physics of this, but I'm pretty sure the simple math isn't so simple.

The most significant factor, by a long way, at highway speed is air resistance.  And that resistance increases exponentially as the speed increases - making it significantly more difficult to move through the air.  More work ==> more energy required ==> more fuel burned.

My simple experiment (not scientifically valid but still demonstrates the point) can be summarized as follows: Driving 10% slower took 10% more time and used 10% less gas.  There was not just a trade off between driving time and speed - fuel economy was clearly impacted as well.

I believe. 

"Above about 30 mph (48 km/h), wind resistance becomes a dominant limiting factor, as it increases roughly with the square of the speed. By driving at 45 rather than 65 mph (72 rather than 105 km/h), wind resistance is about half, and much greater fuel economy can be achieved. Increasing speed to 90 mph (145 km/h) doubles wind resistance again, and further decreases fuel economy. In practice, rather than doubling or halving the fuel economy, the difference is actually closer to 20-30%."

http://en.wikipedia....

I remember that they stopped running Metro trains at 70 mpg because the increased wind resistance over 60 mph caused so much more wear and tear on the trains.

When a car is traveling on an interstate, however, there are obviously more variables than speed and time.  Windows up or down. A/C on or off.  Traffic congestion and the speed of other traffic.  Air temperature.  Tire inflation.  Full gas tank or less than full tank.  Whether the engine is tuned to run most efficiently at the speed you are going.

I don't doubt that those who did their own experiments got the results they say they did. But I'm skeptical about what other variables were not controlled that might have affected the results.

Concerning the fees/fines, I don't think they are properly directed to improve road safety.  I think the wear and tear on the highways is mainly caused by trucks, and that speeding, aggressively driven trucks are the most dangerous hazard on the roads.  The speed of trucks should be limited to 55, and strictly enforced with those "superfines."  Cars, on the other hand, should be allowed to go faster.  There should be no passing on the right, and vehicles being overtaken from behind should move to the right immediately to let the faster traffic pass. 

to that question is:

"Have you ever been fishing?  Did you catch them all?

Arguments about 55 vs. 75 etc bring back memories.  I thought we settled that during the 1970's.  During most rush hours on I395 / I95 you're lucky to do an average 10 - 20 mph.  So a car is sitting, sitting, idling, sitting, idling, accelerate to 75, hit the brake, sit, idle, ....wate of time and resources.

But, it's all academic and not relevant.  It's no ones business how fast someone drives.  Mind your own business.

Back on topic:

FEES - Constitutional or not, just because our Gov CAN do someting doesn't mean that it should.

I disagree with that, in the strongest possible way. The faster someone drives, the less control they have over their car and the less time they have to react to situations ahead of them. A reckless driver doesn't just put himself in danger, he puts in danger everyone on the road around him. That's like saying a guy juggling chainsaws in a shopping mall is just minding his own business, and everybody else should mind their's.

When someone else's actions infringe on other people's life and limb I do believe the government (and therefore the people) must have a say in those actions.  And driving is a good example - done reasonably well it's a good thing, done wrong it kills people.

and make up.

I wasn't implying that speeding shouldn't be against the law, I said it is none of your business.  So, quit belly achin' and stay in the right lane.

I like that one: "I wasn't implying that speeding shouldn't be against the law, I said it is none of your business."

How I'd love to use that one the next time I get pulled over, but something tells me it wouldn't work.

Awww, you miss his point.  Gilmore is not against abuser fees, he is against all methods of raising revenue.

I was just being snarky.

The signs are clearly marked. He was going 20 MPH over the speed limit. Despite what are often exaggerated stories about how fast one must go on or inside the Beltway, the fact is he made a choice to go that fast and he was aware of the law.

If you disagree with the decision, then the proper course of action would be to petition the government to raise the speed limit on I-395, not to complain about the punishment given to somebody who knowingly breaks the law.

Moreover, the reason why so many people drive fast on these roads is because of a lack of enforcement. The new laws in effect were partnered with a mandate to have more cops on the road enforcing these rules. You make it sound like such enforcement is a bad idea, which is the only way that the status quo on these roads can change from "everyone does it" to something more safe.

So if I'm against the death penalty for murder I should petition the governor to make murder legal?

Of course not, but that's a horrid analogy.

The issue here is that Lowell, and others, believe that these fees should not be given out, because "everyone does it". That is, everyone breaks the law, so its unfair to punish *anybody* for breaking the law. And now that this person has done it, and has been punished for it, they believe his punishment should be null and void for that reason.

In this situation, it would be much more productive to petition the government to raise the speed limit than to wait until people get caught for breaking the law and arguing that they shouldn't be punished. Why? Because police officers are tasked with enforcing the law, and will continue to pull over drivers going 20 MPH over the speed limit, because that is what the law says. Even if, by some stretch of the imagination, the activist core on this site is able to make this particular fee go away, there's another one that will pop up tomorrow.

Of course, now we've stumbled upon the heart of the matter. Lowell may care that this Navy vet got a $1,000 fee, but the status of that vet's pocketbook really doesn't have a lot of bearing on Lowell. He's not rallying people to this case because he cares about the vet; he's doing so because he wants to use this as a political issue. And so there is no hope that his activism will make the fee go away. There is only hope that this particular story will make people vote in accordance with Lowell's wishes--that is, for Democrats and against Republicans. Because, as we all know, the sides on this issue are perfectly clear-cut between the two sides. The world, after all, is only black and white.

I didn't say "these fees should not be given out, because 'everyone does it'" or that "it's unfair to punish 'anybody' for breaking the law" because "everyone breaks the law."  I'm simply pointing out reality - that it's extremely common on the highway for the "flow of the traffic" to be well above posted speed limits.  Also, I believe that penalties for violating the law should be proportionate to the violation (e.g., on "unusual" punishment).  Finally, I believe that the government shouldn't use "fees" as a means of raising revenue for transportation, then pretending those fees are: a) not taxes; and b) designed to cut down on illegal behavior.  Both of those are evasions, if not outright lies.

By the way, this has nothing to do with "Lowell's wishes;" these fees have been condemned by pretty much everyone, left and right.  Also, the diary was reporting on a lawsuit brought by an Iraq vet with no criminal record.  Finally, the comment about "black and white" is strange - what are you talking about?

"Extremely common" = "everyone does it".

You're saying that, since its common for people to drive over the speed limit, he shouldn't have to pay $1,000 for it. If that's putting words into your mouth, then please correct me, and the two posts that I've responded to, because that's the message that's getting through.

You are right that aspects of these fees have been roundly condemned, in particular Governor Kaine's amendment to have the fees not apply to out-of-state drivers. My point about the black-and-white bit was an observation that you and others (mostly others) have tried to make this issue, like most others, a black-and-white partisan issue. That is, Democrats oppose these fees, which is just another reason why you should vote for them and hate Republicans, who like these fees.

as much as we have simply pointed out the facts, which is that the REPUBLICAN-controlled House of Delegates was the prime moving force behind this version of the transportation bill, without any increase in "taxes" (they call them "fees" instead).  In contrast, the more moderate State Senate Republicans wanted to increase the gas tax, but the Bill Howell House wouldn't go along.  That's pretty much the story, except that we also strongly urged Gov. Kaine to veto the "transportation monstrosity" - perhaps you weren't reading Raising Kaine this spring?

You'll see both Republican and Democratic incumbents justifying or running away from their support of the bill, and you'll see both Republican and Democratic challengers using the issue to attack their opponent. And you'll see a Democratic Governor was directly responsible for perhaps the most controversial aspect of the law, which was to make it not apply to out-of-state drivers.

because one of the core points we've been making is that the fees are excessive punishment for this sort of circumstance.  Your response to outrage over the excessive nature of these fees was to say that we should change the law.  Therefore, you're arguing that if a person doesn't like the punishment they should try to change the law, not the punishment.

No one, to my knowledge, is arguing that the gentleman deserves no punishment.  He got caught speeding and should pay a reasonable penalty.  These fees are not reasonable.  Period. 

And that is just one of the reasons they are complete crap and need to go (along with the people who voted for them).

Is based, in part or in whole, off the fact that many people drive 20 MPH over the speed limit, and this guy just happened to get caught doing it.

However, I disagree that its not reasonable. There is a posted speed limit. Most people drive above it, myself included. However, even allowing this, the law gives you 20 MPH of buffer between driving above the speed limit and driving recklessly. In my opinion, driving 20 MPH above the speed limit isn't reasonable, even the times that I've done it.

As do most people.  Now what's with this "buffer" - you can break the law this much and it's ok, but not THIIIIIS much?  Huh?  Oh, it's your "opinion," that clarifies it.  So, the law should be based on what each of our opinions is on any given subject?  Yeah, that would work really well.

How on earth did you reach that conclusion?

Yes, I do believe there is a line between breaking the speed limit and breaking the limit excessively. I think someone who goes 25 MPH over the speed limit should be punished more severely than someone who goes 5 MPH over. Where should that line be? I can't say for sure, but others have determined that line to be 20 MPH, and I'm okay with that.

However, I never said it was "okay". If I got caught going 5 MPH over the speed limit, I would be upset, but I would pay the fine because I knowingly broke the law. I'm not going to lie and say that I've never sped before. But I'm also not going to lie and say I don't believe people going 20 MPH over the speed limit shouldn't be punished.

This can't be a hard concept to grasp. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself well enough.

You've admitted to speeding more than 20.  Thank you for being honest - that's more than most who are arguing in favor of the fees.

But here's the question:  If you got caught one of the times you exceeded the speed by 20, would you feel that, in addition to the regular fine, the court processing fees, and likely mandatory drivers ed, you should have paid an additional $1000?  Do you feel your crime was so egregious that it would have merited close to $1500 in costs?

I'd choose nothing at all. In fact, I would choose a negative amount of money, so the state would pay me.

The point isn't what speeders think is fair.

So does this mean you support the outrageous fees as long as they don't apply to you? 

Or perhaps you don't support the fees when you look at 'em from this perspective but you can't justify that with your stated support?

Of course no one wants to pay a speeding ticket.  Hell, I like your idea that the state would pay me for speeding.  But since that's not going to happen, I posed the question to give the issue personal perspective. 

I can answer the question: I feel a couple hundred dollar fine is reasonable and fair for 20+.  I still wouldn't like to pay it, but it is reasonable and if I got caught I'd have nothing to complain about.  On the other hand, I feel an additional $1000 on top of that is neither reasonable nor fair and it is a punishment that doesn't fit the crime.

That was easy.  Your turn.

All this person does is dodge, weave, evade, deny the facts, and not provide any of his/her own.  Oh yeah, and he/she also puts words in peoples' mouths which they never said.  Sounds like a Republican to me!  Ha.

Where is it written that $500 for reckless is driving, but $1500 is not? There is no real point of comparison between MPH over the limit that you exceed and dollars that come from your wallet. If the fine had always been $1500 from the time you were born, then you would have a different perspective.

Given that, I don't think I can give an absolute judgement on what I think is a reasonable amount of money to pay. Obviously, there are limits. I shouldn't be fined $10,000 for speeding 20 MPH over. But why do you say the punishment doesn't fit the crime? Because it has never been that high before, and you're viewing the situation relatively, while providing an absolute judgement.

Along the same lines, if fines had only been $50 for as long as we could remember, and the GA suddenly raised them to $500, I imagine the reaction would be quite similar.

The truth is, I don't know what an absolutely fair amount would be for reckless driving. But I do know that reckless driving is illegal, even more so than just regularly exceeding the speed limit, and the behavior should be punished. I don't think $1,500 all together is unreasonable.

That first sentence should be:

"Where is it written that $500 for reckless is 'reasonable', but $1500 is not?"

Yes - you are onto something with the relative comparisons.  But I'd say it's more based on an individual's economic position than if a fine/fee had been $xxx from the beginning of time.  For a multi-millionaire a $1500 fine/fee is nothing and they wouldn't be bothered at all by such a fine/fee.

For an average income, a few hundred dollars would certainly get someone's attention but not be a significant hit in any way.  $1500?  That's quite a bit more and would probably hurt in some manner.  The lower the income the more it moves from "ouch" to devastating (which, not coincidently, is one of the other arguments against this crap).

But that doesn't matter because you're still avoiding the question.  I think Lowell is right - that you're going to keep dancing around the question until I give up.  Personally, I'd appreciate a straight up "I refuse to answer" if you don't plan on answering, but it's your call.  I won't bother with it anymore.

First, you can't have different punishments for two different people just because one has more money than the other. A poor person driving recklessly is no more dangerous than a rich person.

Second, while I sympathize with people who live paycheck to paycheck, and I'm only slightly better off than that currently, my advice to those folks would be: Don't go 20 MPH over the speed limit. There are limits to my sympathy. I don't lend money to gambling addicts, and I don't feel sorry for people who know they are breaking the law, know what the punishment is for breaking the law, and get caught doing it anyways. Yes, its tough for a person on limited income to pay $1,000 to the state, but that person should have been aware of his situation and made the conscious decision not to go 20 MPH over the speed limit. Nobody else forced him to push down on the gas pedal.

Finally, I believe I have answered your question. I don't think its unreasonable for people who drive recklessly to pay $1,500. If that wasn't your question, please restate it.

If you got caught one of the times you exceeded the speed by 20, would you feel that, in addition to the regular fine, the court processing fees, and likely mandatory drivers ed, you should have paid an additional $1000?  Do you feel your crime was so egregious that it would have merited close to $1500 in costs?

First, its hard to differentiate between my reaction as a neutral observer and a participant (namely, the offender who has to pay) because I admit to the human nature of providing a double standard when others break the law and when I do it.

Second, on the whole, I don't think its unreasonable to find people who drive recklessly that much money.

So to answer your question, while I would certainly feel in that position that it wasn't warranted, and would hope that the officer or judge was leniant or that the law would be overturned to spare me from paying money, I objectively agree with it, and if it came to it, I would pay it as punishment for knowingly breaking the law.

for the extra POPO? It isn't with money collected from the FEES.

There is no question that if caught exceeding the speed limit, you may get a ticket = FINE.  The issue is a FEE over and above the LEGAL PENALTY of a FINE.  Now all together the sheep go - BAAADD DRIVERSS MUST PAAAAYYYYY.  Sheep deserve to be eaten by wolves.

If enough people drive exactly the speed limit, it would cause such a back-up on our public roads the news would cover it.

Don't believe me.  Read this with an open mind and don't be brainwashed by what your government tells you.

http://www.motorists...

http://www.motorists...

There is always some percentage of drivers who can't drive a given road safely at a given speed.  Traffic engineers recognize this; it's why they tend to talk about setting speed limits near "85th percentile speeds" where the bulk of traffic is moving safely.  Under public or political pressure, however, there is a tendency to lower speed limits from these levels to try to idiot-proof the roads.

None of this works because most drivers don't rely on speed limits as indicators of what is safe.  They focus on physical indicators that give them a perception of safe speed, such as lane widths, road curvature, weather and the way traffic around them moves.

The real problem with the abuser fees is that it validates your cynicism.  It turns traffic enforcement into a profit center for government and threatens to turn the entire state highway system into a giant revenue speed trap.  More to the point, it gives government an incentive to start branding ordinary people as criminals for the sake of raising money.

people suck at driving too bad in NoVa to make the speed limit 70, how many muti-car fatalities would you have if the speed limit was 70 and the average speed was 80.

Also that death penalty comparison was terrible, what does increasing the speed limit have to do with abolishing  murder?

"A $400,000 federal grant will allow the Prescription Monitoring Program to go 24 hours 7 Days a week."

This is to protect us from those evil, evil Oxycodone users.  I say we use the money for Dulles Rail.

Before the federal government (with bogus studies provided by the lobbyists for the INSURANCE INSTITUTE)FORCED states to lower their speed limits to 55 during the fuel crisis of the 70's highway speeds were 70-80 mph  and highways had been designed and engineered to accomodate higher speeds that it was anticipated speed limits would be INCREASED to. 

but - the I.I. gave a "study" to congress saying 55 mph SAVED FUEL  (for a few 18 wheelers - which is no longer true with improved designs and performance)  and was NEVER true for 95% of cars, vans and trucks.
So the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT tied highway funding to states enforcing 55 mph............

who benefits ---------  the INSURANCE INDUSTRY!
Same for seat belt laws and anything else that will get you a ticket, because every ticket raises your insurance rates by hundreds of dollars per year for several years. 
The insurance industry has made BILLIONS of dollars off of the 55 mph speed limit.

highway saftey and designs have improved a great deal in the past 35 years,
car designs improved in the past 35 years.........

but  the insurance industry and federal government continue to strangle us with outdated and outmoded laws that were ridiculous in the first place

enough is enough

Montana had the right idea - telling the federal government to keep their highway funds, and Montana set limits (or not) suitable for their state, their roads, their drivers.

what happened to land of the free? 
freedoms are becoming extinct faster than any other
endangered species.

I admit I cannot muster up too much sympathy.  If you drive 75 in a 55 zone and if you are unlucky enough to get caught, then you pay the penalty.  I don't care who you are.  Within military installations, as those who were in the service know, the speed limits are usually strictly enforced.  If anyone should no better, it is this guy.

I can honestly say that I draw my personal behavior line at 10 mph over the speed limit.  I know driving 20 mph is probably putting me into "reckless" territory, and I don't want to go there.  I have too much respect for the law.  I've never gotten a ticket in my life.  I don't even answer my cell phone when I'm driving.  I use my turn signals.  I drive a car that gets 32 mpg.  Several of my friends have the same clean history, so maybe we're the few courteous drivers left? 

The problem I have with the abusive driver fees is that they only apply to Virginia drivers and they are structured in a wacky fashion.  I cannot get a lot of sympathy up for people who have numerous tickets and keep getting more.  To me, they get what they deserve and part of what they may deserve is to bankrupt themselves right out of a drivers license.  But they should get what they deserve whether they are from Virginia or from some other state.  This whole scam is fishy.  That's why I don't like it.  It's a penalty shabbily wrapped up to look like a fee that is to be applied for something we typically use taxes to pay for.

I would rather increase the fines associated with any individual driving infraction (e.g., give out $1000 speeding tickets and end it at that) than create a wacky fee structure that will clog courts and drain even more resources elsewhere.  Apparently, if people like to drive 75 in 55 zones, they haven't been made to pay enough when they are caught.  It hasn't eaten into their budgets enough.  So give out hefty tickets and make them think twice and we'll all be safer (and we will get better gas mileage).  But don't disguise it as an excessive fee that might be paid over years.  That's just silly. 

I'd rather fund transportation improvements through raising the gas tax.  People drive too damned much anyway.  And people drive inefficient vehicles too much.  I believe they have the choice to do this.  So let them pay for their choice at the pump, through higher gas taxes.  Maybe the 18 mpg SUV will morph into a 32 mpg ULEV sedan, which is also lighter and creates less wear and tear on roads - and less air pollution, too?! 

In Virginia, Reckless Driving (including exceeding the speed limit by more than 20 mph) is a class 1 Misdemeanor.  The judge can impose a fine of up to $2500, 12 months in jail and suspend your privilege to drive for up to 6 months.  Most judges don't impose such severe penalties, but I have seen judges impose 10 days in jail for speeds over 90 miles an hour on the 4-lane outside of Gate City.

What really ticks me off is that these fees don't apply to out of state drivers doing exactly the same thing as a VA driver.  Can I suggest that judges max out the fines on out of state drivers and reduce the tickets of VA drivers to 19 miles over the limit.  This would result in a lot of out of state money for the litrary fund and very little fees for transportation.