The state of Florida is attempting to crack down on the problem of drivers substantially exceeding the speed limit and performing stunts behind the wheel. House Bill 351, “Dangerous Excessive Speeding,” became law at midnight on July 1. The law, which imposes higher penalties for drivers exceeding the speed limit by 50 mph or hitting at least 100 mph, was put to the test only two minutes after it went live when a driver was clocked running 104 mph in a 70 mph zone, classifying him as a “super speeder.”
Florida regulators say the state has long had a problem with its drivers participating in street racing, street takeovers, stunt driving, and excessive speeding. Street takeovers, which have been a problem all over America, have sometimes plagued cities like Tampa, Orlando, and Miami. One of the most recent street takeovers, WKMG News reports, happened only on July 4, when drivers shut down an intersection in Orlando to perform donuts in a crowd. Of course, these folks got into that Independence Day spirit by shooting fireworks out of their vehicles..
In 2024, as NBC 6 South Florida reports, one Pompano Beach street takeover ended in tragedy when a driver fleeing from police allegedly struck and killed a cyclist. This isn’t unique to Florida, either. There are countless tragic news reports from all over the nation detailing the gruesome events that happen when street takeovers, street races, and excessive speeding go wrong.
The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles reports that nearly 10 percent of the traffic deaths in the state between 2019 and 2023 had excessive speed as a contributing factor. The state’s data further says that 84 percent of speeding-involved traffic fatalities involved male drivers, usually aged between 16 and 25.
According to a statistic quoted by a recent report by Hemmings, speed was noted as a contributing factor in 11,775 traffic deaths in America in just 2023 alone. That was 29 percent of all traffic fatalities that year. So, there are understandably a lot of people who want to curb reckless driving to save lives.
Florida’s New Speeding Law
According to Florida Politics, one of the inspirations behind the new law, nicknamed the “Super Speeder Law,” was the death of a child, from Florida Politics:
The legislation follows a measure [Sen. Jason Pizzo] successfully carried in 2024 to help law enforcement address dangerous drag racers, stunt drivers and street takeovers that in recent years have led to thousands of arrests and several deaths across Florida.
Pizzo, who lives in South Florida, said this year’s measure was inspired by a tragedy close to home. He recounted the story of 11-year-old Anthony Reznick, who on the morning of Feb. 10, 2022, was struck and killed on a Sunny Isles Beach crosswalk by a driver who had been issued more than two dozen traffic citations and had her license suspended multiple times.
The woman who killed Reznick, Samentha Toussaint, was driving without insurance. Her headlights weren’t on, Pizzo said, and she was driving at roughly 85 mph in a residential area. A judge suspended her license for eight years, ordered her to pay a $1,000 fine and court costs, and required her to perform 120 hours of community service. She was never criminally charged.
Florida’s efforts to curb reckless driving include, among other legislation, House Bill 351 and Senate Bill 1782. House Bill 351 was filed in February 2025 by Republican representatives Danny Alvarez of Hillsborough County and Susan Plasencia of Orlando, and signed into law. Democratic senator Jason Pizzo of Miami-Dade introduced his own version of the proposal, Senate Bill 1782, in February as well. House Bill 351 stated:
Section 1. Section 316.1922, Florida Statutes, is created to read:
16 316.1922 Dangerous excessive speeding.—
(1) A person commits dangerous excessive speeding if he or she operates a motor vehicle:
(a) In excess of the speed limit by 50 mph or more.
(b) At 100 mph or more in a manner that threatens the safety of other persons or property or interferes with the operation of any vehicle.(2) A person convicted of dangerous excessive speeding shall be punished:
(a) Upon a first conviction, by imprisonment for up to 30 days or by a fine of $500, or by both a fine and imprisonment.
(b) Upon a second or subsequent conviction, by imprisonment for up to 90 days or by a fine of $1,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment. A person convicted of a second or subsequent violation of this section that occurs within 5 years after the date of a prior conviction for a violation of this section shall have his or her driving privilege revoked for at least 180 days but no more than 1 year.
Senate Bill 1782 had harsher penalties. Per that bill, a first offense for reckless driving would have resulted in a $1,000 fine, revoked the driver’s driving privileges for six months, and impounded their car for 30 days. Someone offending for a second time would have seen the fine jack up to at least $2,500, plus a one-year license suspension, and a 30-day car impoundment.
House Bill 351 ended up replacing Senate Bill 1782. It passed the House 75 to 40 and won a unanimous vote in the Senate before being signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis. One of those who pushed back in the House was Orlando Democratic Rep. Anna Eskamani, who said, via Hemmings: “There continues to be a trend in the Florida Legislature of enhancing criminal penalties and/or creating new criminal penalties… statistically speaking, there is no clear data to demonstrate that enhanced penalties reduce crime.”
A Buick Envision Hits Triple Digits
Rep. Eskamani’s point might have been demonstrated only two or three minutes after the law went live on July 1. According to a body cam video (above) released by the Orange County Sheriff’s Office, an unnamed driver in Orange County was caught going 104 mph in a 70 mph zone. GM Authority clocks the vehicle in the video to be a newer Buick Envision, perhaps a 2024 or 2025 model. My eyes concur.
The driver was informed of the new law and was then arrested. Based on the provisions of the new law, the driver could face up to 30 days in jail, a fine of $500, or a fine plus imprisonment. Further details about this traffic stop have not been released at this time.
The Orange County Sheriff’s Office says that, since the beginning of the year, it has stopped at least 100 cars per month after clocking them at speeds above 100 mph.
Top graphic image: Buick
I know they are very unpopular but the only thing I’ve actually seen significantly impact speeding are speed cameras.
A couple recent examples near me: 1) A school zone near my house put in a speed camera last year covering the 20 mph zone. Over the next month after it was installed the average speed went from 35-40 down to 18-20 (after I assume basically everyone got a ticket in the mail). 2) There was a construction zone on a freeway near me where they had put up a temporary 35 mph sign for the approximately half mile of construction. Initially basically everyone was going 60+ (the normal speed limit) and if you were going less than 55 you’d get tailgated, flashed, honked at, etc. even if you stayed in the right hand lane. They put cameras in and, more importantly in my opinion, signs saying there are speed cameras in the construction zone. The average speed went from 60-70 mph to about 30-40 basically overnight.
I’ll also say we have some red light cameras near me as well and they seem to be effective in getting people to stop instead of trying to beat the yellow too.
Like I said, very unpopular, but also seem to be very effective; at least for the casual speeders and red light runners.
I see school zones as a gray area – too many schools (and I mean particularly for smaller children, not high schools) don’t have the right infrastructure around them to manage speeds. You can drop a 45mph road down to 25mph when school is letting out and put up a speed camera but but all it takes is 1 person not paying attention to kill a kid. The speed camera should be in addition to a road design suited for pedestrian crossings (lights, raised cross walk, that type of stuff). So I’m not against a camera in a problematic school zone, I’m just saying it shouldn’t be a bandaid solution.
NY implemented the mobile speed cameras for highway work zones – they are only active when the work zone is active. I don’t mind them. There are too many people who were perfectly content going 67 in the 65 that will ride your ass for slowing down to 65 when you’re in the 55mph work zone. Get out of here with that shit and put your fucking phone down.
Why are so many schools being placed right on six and eight lane major roads?
The drivers aren’t the problem.
I am fine with speed cameras in places where speeding is actually dangerous, with school zones and active construction zones being an excellent example. I am not fine with them on an empty interstate highway in the middle of the night.
It’s all about the implementation, and too often they are implemented for revenue generation and not safey. Same with red light cameras.
They violate due process.
I would fight such a ticket all the way.
Did so after I got a bogus speed trap ticket along with many others.
Prosecutor just rubber stamped anything brought in.
I proved the officers had all committed felonies before we were done.
In my state, 30 over is automatically reckless driving, which comes with an automatic arrest. So even on a wide-open stretch of Interstate with everyone hauling ass, I keep it below 29 over no matter what.
Yep, yep, yep. I have a Buick Envision. The average driver will tempted by the blinding performance. You have to learn to rein that puppy in. Squids.
That’s one hell of a way to break in the new Buick you traded in your Altima for.
Big Envision Energy?
BEE > BAE
Don’t talk about my bae like that!
I live just west of Philly, and on summer nights you can hear cars and motorcycles screaming down the Schuylkill Expressway (I-76). It was especially worse during COVID, when the roads were relatively clear; it became a racecourse. As mentioned, the problem these days is easy access to all that HP… and I’d add video cameras in our pockets and social media. All of this was a lot harder to do and organize back in the 1900s.
This is very prevalent on the west side of Columbus, Ohio as well. It’s basically a 2+ miles straight and cars/bikes run it every night. Unfortunately it’s a dead zone between Highway Patrol/Columbus PD/suburban departments and no one wants to monitor it. There’s a well-known dealership owner who runs either his Aventador or his GT-R most nights and posts videos of it to Facebook.
I lived in Philly for years and recently returned for the first time since 2016. It was a great weekend, but I’d forgotten about how manic the drivers are. There are absolutely no speed limits within the city and you’re literally risking your life in crosswalks. I watched a girl come within inches of getting hit in one, and when I was in one I had to sprint to dodge a car that was probably going full speed in reverse down a one way.
76 is completely lawless as well. I’m one of the handful of weirdos who absolutely loves that city and would happily live there again, but holy shit the drivers are appalling.
Isn’t Philadelphia fully post apocalyptic now days?
Not at all. It’s a great city. But the drivers are psychotic….
I-95 isn’t any better. I live in Bucks County. On the way to the Phillies game last Saturday afternoon witnessed a fleet of between 6 and 10 muscle and tuner cars (obviously heading to or from a meetup somewhere) fly past everybody in the leftmost lane at a rate of speed far exceeding all other traffic nearby. It’s insane.
Hasn’t been happening this week, crawling along at 6mph, goddammit, the past few days have sucked
I don’t think horsepower is new.
There is always more power.
That’s what more means!
One of those who pushed back in the House was Orlando Democratic Rep. Anna Eskamani, who said, via Hemmings: “There continues to be a trend in the Florida Legislature of enhancing criminal penalties and/or creating new criminal penalties… statistically speaking, there is no clear data to demonstrate that enhanced penalties reduce crime.”
Well she’s right about that:
“Pizzo, who lives in South Florida, said this year’s measure was inspired by a tragedy close to home. He recounted the story of 11-year-old Anthony Reznick, who on the morning of Feb. 10, 2022, was struck and killed on a Sunny Isles Beach crosswalk by a driver who had been issued more than two dozen traffic citations and had her license suspended multiple times.
The woman who killed Reznick, Samentha Toussaint, was driving without insurance. Her headlights weren’t on, Pizzo said, and she was driving at roughly 85 mph in a residential area. A judge suspended her license for eight years, ordered her to pay a $1,000 fine and court costs, and required her to perform 120 hours of community service. She was never criminally charged.”
Seems driving 85 in a residential area and killing a child aren’t a crime in Florida.
It’s also unlikely she’s going to stop driving just because they took her license.
Tell me about it. I too was the victim of a hit and run while walking by a driver who had no insurance and a suspended license. The collision shattered my shin and I had a plate in my leg for a year. The driver was arrested and I got a big payout from an obscure uninsured motorist policy (even though I wasn’t driving, I had my learner’s permit at the time and was covered by my parents’ car insurance, and because this collision involved at least one vehicle, the uninsured policy kicked in), but I don’t know if she learned her lesson
It’s always been this way in Virginia. 20 over the limit or 85 anywhere is criminal reckless driving, and the rule of thumb is 2 days in jail for every MPH over 100. Burnouts and wheelies too.
Doesn’t keep maniacs from tailgating me while I’m cruising at 80-85 in a 70 on 95 or 64 around Richmond.
The areas around Richmond are hunting grounds for Nissans. You’ve got to be careful, you’re in their territory and they tend to show up in numbers.
I know, every time I drive through Virginia, I set cruise control, stay to the right, and wonder why the people who apparently live there haven’t heard about how crazy strict their cops are. And also why they haven’t heard about the concept of moving to the left and passing if you want to drive more than 10 over the limit and the guy in front of you doesn’t. They just ride along right up on the bumper for miles and miles
Florida has been fairly assertive about enforcing slower cars to the right.
Statistically left lane bandits cause most freeway crashes, but probably think they’re the good drivers.
*citation required*
It’s old news, as are phony assertions by law enforcement.
If speed was all that really mattered, 150 mph aircraft would be safer than 600 mph planes.
Ah… the good old days of Paddy G and German Lighting Site.
GOOD. I lean left to far left on most issues but this is not one of them. Reckless driving has been normalized in our society and the fact that it’s not unusual at all to get off with a wee slap on the wrist after legitimately killing someone with your vehicle is absurd. Obviously this isn’t only a problem in red states (the Jersey Turnpike might as well be the Fury Road) but driving throughout a lot of the south is unfortunately like this.
I used to hate Virginia’s incredibly harsh speeding laws but in my advancing age/first year of fatherhood I’ve grown to respect them. Most of their highways (with 95 between Richmond and Petersburg being a notable exception) and country roads are orderly.
But I’ll never forget driving to the Smokies from DC…literally as soon as I crossed the border to Tennessee everyone was doing 20 over at minimum and I got flipped off/brake checked for having the audacity to only be doing 80 in a 55. Every other vehicle is a lifted body on frame truck moonlighting as an ICBM.
Hopefully this works for Florida, because I’ve only ever driven there a handful of times but all of them have been…well, memorable outside of driving around Longboat Key, which is one of God’s waiting rooms. Some of the state’s absurd reputation is well deserved, but there are also plenty of nice places and good people.
Take. Peoples’. Licenses. If you want to feel the limits of your vehicle go to a track attack day or a test and tune night, leave your antisocial shit for controlled environments. That being said, congrats to this fool for setting what I assume is the Buick Envision land speed record.
“Take. Peoples’. Licenses.”
That didn’t stop Samentha Toussaint, the brainless meatbag who killed Reznick,
OK, then introduce a French-style quadricycle category of vehicle that can be driven on public roads, maybe even the shoulders of public roads, without license, but is really small and light and has a strictly capped speed. (Not NEVs, they’re too restricted on what roads they can go on and are required to be electric, I’m saying open it up way beyond that, would encourage judges to be more aggressive in taking away licenses)
Toecutter? Are you listening?
Take people’s cars, too. The 30 day impoundment is my favorite part. I’d like that to escalate to destruction of the vehicle for repeated events.
And put them on a blacklist that doesn’t allow them to buy another car for a certain amount of time, although that’d be quite hard to enforce.
Can we add coal rolling to the destruction of the vehicle penalty as well?
“Can we add coal rolling to the destruction of the vehicle penalty as well?”
Only after the offender was locked in a small room and the offending vehicle’s exhaust was vented into that room while a 1970s sitcom laugh track played.
While I love your rant (and totally agree), I’m afraid the “Take. Peoples’. Licenses.” part doesn’t actually prevent these crimes. You would be shocked (or maybe not) by how often people just drive regardless of how legal it is for them to do so.
The guy who bought my wife’s E39 never registered it, and instead street-parked it in Chicago, knowing that it wasn’t he who would get the tickets, but my wife. I even messaged him, telling him that we were getting tickets. He only pretended to care. He then totaled the car while committing a hit-and-run. Surprise surprise, he didn’t have insurance, and he was driving on a revoked license. The car was still legally owned by my wife, so they made her foot the bill for towing, storage, and fines.
My wife is trying to sue him, but he’s evading service. I would not be surprised if he had warrants on top of wrecking the E39 while driving illegally.
I’m not entirely sure what the proper solution to this stuff is. Take their licenses and they’ll just drive illegally. Take their car and they’ll just buy another. I suppose there is jail. I mean, the meth enthusiasts who stole my van and turned it into a lab are still behind bars. But I guess that’s why I write about cars rather than trying to write criminal law. 🙂 But you bet I’m as angry as you are!
“Take their car and they’ll just buy another crapbox and intentionally not register it.”
But at least taking their car will be at least some impediment to them driving again because then they have to dig up the money to buy another car.
If they’re poor, sure. But if they have money, credit, or at least access to a buy-here-pay-here lot, they’ll have another car before the other one gets auctioned off. At least, that’s what I see out here where I live. It’s so bad sometimes.
It’s even worse in my state because while you cannot leave a dealership without having insurance, there’s nothing stopping you from canceling it the second you leave the lot. So you end up with people driving relatively new cars that don’t have any insurance on them.
Yep… I’m not disagreeing with you. Only saying that taking the car along with the license is more of an impediment that only taking away the license.
The only other option I see is throwing them in jail. And given that jails are already overcrowded, I don’t see that happening.
Hmm. I have an idea…
There happens to exist a former prison colony about the size of the continental US, with 1/12th the population, of whom the vast majority live on the coasts so its interior is over a million square miles of unpopulated, scorched desert Hell and is separated from the US by a moat several thousands of miles across.
Hey Australia! I have a proposal for you…
Criminals just move.
It’s people that try to be honest that go to jail.
There are so many illegal laws taking licences and even creating debtors prisons that some cities have had amnesties just so people could work again.
The system is a joke.
Taking licenses for irrelevant reasons have been responsible for locking people outside of the law permanently, even homeless, IF they stay out of prison.
Tennessee repealed all due process for revoking licenses decades ago, so a typo is all you need to lose your license.
First person Kafka experience.
This is why I’m glad Arizona’s DMV allows you to report the car as sold though their website. I sold a beater to a couple of questionable young men and I had that car reported as sold and to whom before they were out of the neighborhood.
At the bottom of every Illinois title is a white strip of paper that you send to the state to indicate that you’ve sold the car. Problem is, those little white slips either don’t make it or don’t get processed.
Sadly, wifey lost the bill of sale, so our proof that we sold the car was the text message exchange between us and the buyer, which even contained the buyer admitting to racking up tickets. Apparently, that wasn’t good enough to prove that we sold it. Ugh.
That’s why I was glad it’s not paper. I had a similar issue after selling a car in Texas then moving to Minnesota; I was getting bills from TXDOT because “my car” was blowing through toll booths.
I would return the bill stating I sold the car and was out of state, no dice, they kept coming. Shockingly once I got a human on the phone, they believed me and I didn’t get bothered again.
Reminds me of Trae Crowder’s routine about how the state of Tennessee tried to come after him for his own child support.
lol thanks for that, just watched it on YouTube..
Also reminds me of a phone call I had with the VW dealership; I was driving to Tucson from Mesa after having some recall work done. Halfway there on the Tom Mix highway (a two lane back road) it starts to pour, automatic wipers turn on and.. no wiper blades. Cue a short and hilarious side quest of getting the car to call the dealership (apparently “call Berg Volkswagen is not accepted, but “telephone” is. This was my wife’s idea because “I talk to Alexa a lot”) Service department picks up “Yeah hi I had my car in for a SW update, and I think you deleted wiperblade.BAT” What? “I had my car serviced and I’m missing my wiper blades! Maybe look in the lost and found?” Can you come by? “Not exactly, see I’m halfway to Tucson… in a rainstorm…” I’m going to have to call you back. “Hello?” Yes, sir, well reviewing the video it seems when we washed your car the wiper blades got torn off.
They sent me to the dealership in Tucson, who would back charge them if they called. The other dealership was so amazed by the story they replaced the blades without even checking..
I believe it.
Met him at his show in Bowling Green, KY back in Feb. Awesome dude!
If there’s no proof you sold it why not declare it stolen? That should get the deadbeat buyer to act. Or go over to the guys house and slash your own tires.
Depends on the state.
So very odd.
I bought a trailer with an actual title, and the previous owner was being hassled for some tax charge for owning it still.
He was begging me to fix it.
Somehow we satisfied the DMV there that he no longer owned it by text.
After the first ticket perhaps you should have declared the car stolen.
“Take. Peoples’. Licenses”
And the vehicle they are driving… because not having a valid license won’t physically stop someone from driving.
I also love the idea of installing limiters in the cars of repeat speeders.
It’s a nice idea in theory. But in practice? For the type of person that drives an unregistered car without a license, I have a hunch that person will also not install or remove any speed limiters.
Yeah, because they already pay somebody sober to start their car for them outside the bar when they have breathalyzers installed
Like an ankle bracelet the limiter would be installed by the court and have anti tampering features.
We needed a truly untraceable car for painting over gang territory markings.
It can be done.
Agree with all of this and having lived in Jersey for 20 years I can say the Turnpike is the sane option – the Parkway between exits 116 and 145 consistently has the most aggressive drivers I have ever seen – 55mph speed limits and people going anywhere from 45-95, passing on shoulders and exits, and a general level of road rage I can’t explain.
“a general level of road rage I can’t explain.”
I can. It exists because its allowed to and sometimes its enabled.
True I guess more specifically I can’t explain why it is in that area. Further north or south and the Parkway is (relatively) civilized but that stretch is just chaos 24/7/365.
Maybe a gap in LEO coverage?
Ain’t nothin’ faster than a rental.
(All Buick crossovers are rentals at heart. All of them. Search deep within yourself; you know this to be true.)
Don’t be gentle, it’s a rental
But then you’ll be in a world of HERTZ when you return it, they scan the car and charge you $1000 from a microscopic paint blemish because you ran into a piece of dust too hard…
The problem still comes back to how easy it is to speed in modern cars. When 95 feels like 55, it makes it easier to be stupid. Jail time? Ok. Fines? Ok. But take it a step further and issue each of these people a 1985 Dodge Aries so they finally understand how terrifying 70mph really is.
Make sure at least one of the tires is grossly unbalanced too.
I’m going COTD here because I’ve thought of this for years but never found a way to articulate it.
Also, fines based on momentum calculations. That way people going 100 in a large SUV get twice the penalty of a sports car. If public safety is the real risk, that only makes sense.
I remember at 16 my dad let me take his Cadillac STS to homecoming. I was driving down the freeway and thinking damn this car is slow… only to look down and see I was doing 100. It was that smooth compared to my S10.
That happened to me in a mid ’90s Fleetwood once, 100 really didn’t feel or sound any different from 55, and that thing tended to creep up on you
While not going that fast, it even happens to me in my Honda Fit, even after 11 years. More like 55 in a 45.
This is another reason why I like smaller, cheaper, simpler cars: they feel like you’re going faster than you are or at least as fast as you are. Even the GR86, while certainly being capable of arrest-me speeds without issue, feels more like the speed I’m going than some giant, sound-deadened, isolated land whale, especially if it’s one with “Nurburgring tuned” suspension. I think the perspective of sitting up higher also makes it seem like you’re going slower. I can cruise in the right lane at 70-75 and not feel impatient or angry and this was brought into tight focus when I had an Equinox rental which, while slower and only large in comparison to my car, was almost a road rage generator when driving so “slow”. Another component is that most of these vehicles people buy aren’t enjoyable to drive, so people are likely even more impatient to get to their destination.
My old early ’80s Subarus could do “P” on the speedo (about 110 by gearing, which was redline in a 3-speed auto or 4th in the 5 speed and it topped out sooner in 5th), which fully engaged all concentration in a way that was tiring. You could feel wind resistance, lift causing the front to get lighter, cross winds moving it around, and the noise of everything was an assault. At normal highway speeds, it still had an element of danger and was actually fun. Those shitboxes taught me a valuable lesson (figuratively and literally as it saved me from spending a lot more money on cars) that what actually makes something fun to drive has little to no relationship to its performance numbers. They also helped teach me to be happy with what I had, but that’s getting off track.
Finally, real solutions to real problems!
Chances the average person knows the penalties for speeding is about 20%.
What may have more effect is making the fine a percentage of income based on tax returns. Also garnishing wages or government benefits if they don’t have liquid income to pay.
“What may have more effect is making the fine a percentage of income based on tax returns.”
Factor in net worth including all real estate. Some folks might think twice if faced with the threat of another mortgage to pay fines and impound fees
Either way it would be a bit more of a deterrent. If people know they have to pay, say, 5% of their income for 10 mph over and it increases from there, it ought to have an impact. But, trusting police to be just and impartial has to be addressed along with this. Setting 85th percentile speed limits based on traffic studies and not revenue generation has to be done. Towns/cities also need stiffer penalties for policing for revenue.
I have no problem with that.
As if I needed another reason to never go to Florida again. 100 per month> 100 mph. WTAF
Probably the most embarrassing vehicle possible to be caught doing this in.
This is pretty much the only type of vehicle you see this in. You rarely see a Vette, a Porsche, a Benz (aside from the stray 10 year old C class anyway) doing this. It’s always something pedestrian that has no business whatsoever at triple digit speeds. Minivans, contractor vans, pickup trucks, Altima’s etc. I’ve been driving here for over 20 years and our interstates still scare me.
But having said that, the modern minivan has better all-around performance than Corvettes and other sports cars of the past… definitely better than anything from the 1980s and earlier.
That’s true, but by my observation, it matches modern sports cars as well. For every contemporary Corvette or Porsche I see driving like a dick, there are dozens in the right lanes going more or less only a little over the limit getting passed by Priuses and pickups or tractor trailers (some of these guys lately seem to think they’re the ones in the sports car, weaving through traffic and tailgating in the passing lane behind a line of cars doing 80+). Exotics are the same, but the last time I saw one going any faster than the flow of traffic was probably 25 years ago (Lotus Esprit V8 and he wasn’t being a dick about it).
There are certain parts of I75 and I4 where 100mph is normal. It’s absolutely out of control. If I’m doing 80 (10 over in most areas) I’m the slow guy holding up traffic, so I need to be in the neutral or right lane at all times, and I’m getting passed like I’m standing still by Chevy Malibu’s and lifted F150’s pegging the limiter in the left lane.
I lived in Florida for a number of years (Panhandle) and driving on 95, especially the stretch south of Jacksonville was always an eye opener. There are some long uninterrupted stretches where 100 is “slow”. Many years later I was on a road trip in my Honda Element (five-speed) and I was working it hard in 5th (we always said it needed a 6th) to keep up with traffic and not get run over. Florida is wild, man.
There’s a few reasons why I4 is the deadliest highway in the US…
Here in Fort Worth, 90+ on highways is often the norm even with a lot of traffic.
Dallas in particular has a lot of highways near downtown with 4-5 lanes and sharp curves. Combine that with crumbling infrastructure and a ton of semis, as well as the mentioned high speed traffic, driving around there can be quite exhilarating and scary.
I live in Naples and visit friends in New Tampa pretty frequently. I’m not scared of traffic or a little speed, but I-75 around the I-4 interchange is basically Death Race 2000 with fewer spikes on the cars. The never-ending construction with its completely meaningless 60mph speed limit (which does introduce an element of whimsy from the tourists who actually take it seriously) doesn’t help.
I bet the driver didn’t envision that their late night drive would end up with them in cuffs, or perhaps they did but the cuffs didn’t belong to a cop.
“(b) At 100 mph or more in a manner that threatens the safety of other persons or property or interferes with the operation of any vehicle.”
So going 129 mph in an 80 mph zone (or 119 in a 70, I don’t know where Florida tops out) doesn’t qualify for more than just a normal ticket if there is no one else around to threaten their safety or operation. Good old loop holes.
The cop was. There’s your loophole to your loophole.
Sounds a bit like years ago when my mom had a cop follow her out of a small rural town on the highway, so she made sure to go slow. The cop pulled her over because she “blocking traffic”, but at least immediately left when she pointed out he was the only other vehicle on the road.
Maybe he had something else in mind.
I don’t really see anything wrong with that. If someone’s in the middle of nowhere only endangering themselves I don’t care what the heck they do.
I can relate, I’ve certainly had my fair share of that sort of driving out in the middle of nowhere in my 20s, not anymore with a 4 year old in the back though (and no longer a vehicle that is even capable of 100mph)
One feature I would love to see on cars is a programmable speed limiter. I want to tell my car “Don’t go any faster than 79MPH on this trip”. So later when I’ve been stuck behind some left lane slowpoke, I don’t do the thing where I finally get around the person and look down and I’m doing 90. I didn’t need to go that fast, but sometimes it happens.
It’s all drive by wire anyway, so add a few lines of code and boom, you’re done.
I feel like I’ve seen that feature somewhere. My car doesn’t limit my speed, but it does read speed limit signs and I can set the threshold at which it warns me that I’m exceeding the limit.
I believe Ford still has the MyKey function where you can limit top speed, prevent the radio from turning on if the seatbelts aren’t buckled, etc.
I’m pretty sure that at least some newer cars in Europe have this feature, should be something quite easy to offer as optional with a software update in just about any newer car.
I can set the max speed on my 330i
Just had a rental Renault Cleo in Europe that had this feature – right next to the cruise button was a “max speed” (I don’t remember the actual name) button.
This is essentially adaptive cruise. Set it to 80 and it will slow down for the slowpoke, get out from behind the slowpoke and the car will accelerate to 80, then you can merge back.
I can see that, but the following distances on adaptive cruise are too long for city freeway travel. In addition to being cut off multiple times, I’d be unable to follow the left lane slowpoke in such a way as to communicate that they are driving too slow for the left lane. 🙂
I was on a road trip recently and had adaptive cruise on the shortest following distance setting, and still had a friggin 18 wheeler merge in front of me. If the following distance is longer than an 18 wheeler, it’s too long to be useful to act as a max speed limiter.
At highway speeds you SHOULD have enough room for an 18 wheeler, as the average car is 15 feet long, the max length for a semi truck is about 75 feet, and you should have 1 car length of room for every 10 mph, meaning at 70 mph you should have 7 car lengths or 105 feet between cars.
One problem we have is truckers taking 5 minutes to pass another truck because they both have speed limiters, resulting in traffic backing up behind the elephant race and people getting frustrated. I think we need to ban large trucks from the left most lane unless they are passing someone going 5 mph under the posted speed limit.
Truck traffic was supposed to separated from cars by now for safety reasons.
And physics.
“I’d be unable to follow the left lane slowpoke in such a way as to communicate that they are driving too slow for the left lane.”
Or I dunno, you could just drive the speed limit.
The speed limit is 80. Sure, the signs say 65, but the cops don’t look for anyone doing less than 80, and there are plenty to meet their quotas.
OK leadfoot.
Honestly Mr. Beef has a point. Using adaptive cruise in the passing lane is just as bad as not keeping up with traffic, because even if you’re going the same speed as the car in front of you, maintaining a safe distance from that car will piss off the driver behind you. Then you get a dangerous pass on the right and cut off so one asshole could move one spot up. You end up just making other drivers drive even more dangerously than they already were. That’s why I keep it in the other lanes.
That angry driver is not a force of nature. It is on that driver to temper their emotions, not to act like a fucking toddler, especially when piloting a two ton death machine.
Yeah if I can take off the speed limiter on my crown Vic then I’m sure you could dial it back to 95 just to be on the safe side. Not bragging but I backed off at 135 bc I’m chicken about the law. It was still pulling. I’d love to put rated tires on it and find out what it could do somewhere in Mexico.
Why go to Mexico? We have dry lake beds right here.
Not sure if you’re joking but “Mexico” is code for public roads (usually the interstate).
I did not know that. I’m in California so Mexico to us is just next door.
Ah yeah people will post videos of them doing very illegal stuff with some caption about how they went down to Mexico.
Sounds like a case for ICE. Might as well sic them on people who deserve it.
Why not go to speed trials and get the paperwork?
Toyota / Lexus has this feature to a great extent. I set my radar cruise control to a max speed and it will slow down in slower traffic. I usually set it at 10 over the limit and use lane keep assist in the right lane or sandwich lane, depending on how many on and off ramps I am driving through.
Mercedes-Benz does this with their Distronic cruise control system
You set your upper speed and the distance you want to follow, and the car slows when traffic requires it – staying at the speed of the car ahead or stopping completely when necessary. It will auto-brake for cloverleaf exits, and hold you in your lane – but will automatically change lanes when you hit the signal and the car determine’s the next lane is clear.
I’m sure other manufacturers high-end driver assistance systems do similar.
I had a rental Mustang drop-top a few years back, from Payless at McCarren Airport. They had the Ford MyKey limited to 75 mph or something ridiculous. I (kind of) understand why you don’t want your typical renter who is going from the airport to the casino and back hammering a five-oh, but when you’re going from Vegas to Dana Point, Death Valley, Joshua Tree and Salton Sea and back…you really need to be able to keep with traffic. It can’t tell you the number of times I almost caused accidents not being able to go faster than 75.
I was so irritated by this, I figured out that there was a way to bypass the MyKey if you were going downhill (say, for instance, the long straight downhill run on I-10 into Vegas), in neutral, you could make it go over 75. I think I managed to “coast” up to 90, the entire time the dashboard screaming at me.
Did you go to Slab City?
“when you’re going from Vegas to Dana Point, Death Valley, Joshua Tree and Salton Sea and back…you really need to be able to keep with traffic. It can’t tell you the number of times I almost caused accidents not being able to go faster than 75”
I call bullshit.
California has a speed limit of 55 mph for anything with three or more axles or that is towing. That means big rigs and some of them are governed to that limit. if what you say is true every big rig would leave a trail of wreckage in its wake.
If you almost caused accidents it wasn’t because you couldn’t do faster than 75.
My 2000s Audis don’t have a limited but you can set a speed alarm. It will yell at you if you go above a speed you set.
I think some cars have a setting for new drivers where you can set limits like that, which might work for what you want to do.
Buy a Ford, as Mr E noted below they have the my key function that allows you to set a speed limited and even have it notify you that you’ve hit or nearing that speed by turning the radio volume way down. My wife once rented a Focus where the My Key function had been activated and was quite annoyed by how low they had set it. I think 75mph in a state with 70mph limits on the interstates.
Now back in the day some cars had a “speed minder” with a second needle, adjustable by a knob sticking through the lense, and once you reached that speed a buzzer similar to a seat belt buzzer would go off. I had that feature on a couple of Buicks.
This is actually the most reasonable “super speeder” law I’ve seen. >100 mph or 50 mph over the speed limit… if anything I’d say the latter isn’t quite restrictive enough, I’d put it more at like 30 mph. But keep ‘er at 95 mph on the interstate and you’re golden. I wish I had that in CA – enforcement is very spotty outside the congested areas and I’m regularly passed with some speed when I’m doing 80 mph, but you can’t count on that. If I’m traveling, I find a rabbit (car going fast to be in front of me to sniff out trouble) but sometimes they’re going faster than I’m comfortable.
I agree about the 50 mph more than the speed limit is a bit ridiculous. So 100 is only 25 mph faster than the top speed limit in FL (which I think recently changed to 75 in certain locations) but going 64 in a 15 won’t trigger this law?
A lot of places do have mandatory “reckless driving” at 25 over the limit, so just because this new law won’t capture it, it doesn’t mean they’re getting off (Rick) Scott free!
Yeah, the 50 over should be replaced by a percentage. Something like 45 over in a school zone or residential area wouldn’t count and it should.
WTAF?? Even Florida should have been able to handle that better.
I’m sort of shocked by that one, too. Though, I suppose I shouldn’t be. I’ve somehow seen even worse results when shadowing my wife’s legal work.
Genuinely curious what this person’s solution for this problem is then.
Putting someone in jail for 30 days for speeding would seem to have a deterrent effect far beyond a mere fine. Perhaps someone anti-social enough to drive 100 mph everywhere they go doesn’t care about jail time either, but I think the burden of proof should be on the other side of this one.
The death penalty should in theory lower the homicide rate, but it doesn’t. People are either not thinking about the consequences of their actions, have convinced themselves they won’t get caught, or think the punishment is worth it. For stuff like extreme speeding or street takeovers I doubt that the morons doing it have great critical thinking skills to begin with.
It may not prevent things, but if you get caught speeding and go to jail for a month, that has the potential to seriously wreck your life so it would likely make you think twice next time.
I think that’s just it – it doesn’t deter people in advance, but it may deter them from doing it again, which is probably the best you can hope for deterence-wise.
Not really. The largest cause of crime is poverty, so making them poorer doesn’t really help. The U.S. already incarcerates the highest proportion of its population outside of a few dictatorships, and our crime rate is still much higher than any other wealthy country.
In general, jailing people is a political act, not a way of solving crime.
I agree with that for most crimes, theft especially, but disagree when it comes to speeding. If you’re doing 50 over the limit, and you end up in jail for a month, likely losing your job in the process, yes it’s going to be likely to push you towards or further into poverty, but I do think that it would deter you from risking that again. Certainly not for everyone, but I think the majority would cool it after that.
I don’t have a problem with heavy penalties for speeding. Mainly, I was talking about how incarceration doesn’t really do much. I would be fine using the Finnish system, where the penalty is based on your wealth.
It sounds to me like our incarceration rate is not high enough then.
A person in jail cannot commit additional crimes until they’re released. And once they’re released, the majority (of previously violent offenders) commit crimes again.
https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/recidivism-federal-violent-offenders-released-2010
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-common-is-it-for-released-prisoners-to-re-offend/
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-numbers-dont-lie-its-the-hard-core-doing-hard-time/
That’s because we’re incarcerating the wrong people. Too many drug offenders, and not enough thieves, fraudsters and violent criminals.
It is because we are more worried about locking up people than we are about doing the things proven to reduce crime.
By your logic, all crime should result in the death penalty since it would eliminate recidivism. Our prison system is higher education for criminality, and the more often we put people into the system, the more crime we will have.
Again, poverty is the single largest driver of crime. Anyone genuinely interested in reducing crime would focus on poverty. The law-and-order facade appeals to the inherent racism in the country since it justifies locking up brown people. After all, the current prison system owes a lot to the structure that allowed Southern states to continue slavery after the Civil War.
Yeah, this is going to be a [citation needed] from me. Sounds a lot like an “umbrellas cause rain” fallacy.
Poverty and criminality are correlated, certainly, but it’s awfully reductive to simply assert that poverty *causes* crime, rather than the more complex answer that traits like poor impulse control, poor planning skills, hair-trigger tempers, and poor socialization are major causes of both poverty and crime.
I would not say all crime should result in the death penalty, but certainly repeat offenders should be given “throw away the key” sentences.
My partner spent two decades working in the courts and managing the public safety budget and policy committee for an entire state.
Poverty drives crime.
Again.
And Again.
And Again.
The tropes you repeat about “impulse control,” etc., are just repackaged white supremacy talking points used to lock up brown people. Claiming that certain types of people are inherently criminal in nature and need to be locked up. While that certainly can be true in rare cases, it isn’t the root cause of the massive rates of violent crime in this country.
At least ask yourself what would cause what you describe as
The answer is that all of these things are far more likely to occur in people, families, and communities experiencing poverty. Poverty is the cause, full stop.
The War on Poverty has been going on since my parents were children, I’m sure one of these days it will finally work.
No one is “inherently” criminal unless and until they prove it by *gasp*, committing crimes! If you prove yourself unfit *by your behavior* to live in a civilized society, you shouldn’t live in one.
That simplistic view provides nothing useful. If the goal is to reduce crime, incarceration won’t do anything. It, in fact, makes it worse.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.11483
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5651733/?utm
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1701544114
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ffcts-prsn-sntncs/index-en.aspx
The law-and-order tropes you are repeating are the reason we aren’t making progress. The war on poverty was lost because politics in general is in the pockets of corporations, and conservatives specifically would rather use the problem to justify the racism that underpins their ideology than fix anything.
The fact that criminals reoffend after leaving prison is not something we disagree about, only the reasons for why.
My thoughts are supported by citable research and informed by listening to people who have spent their entire lives on the topic. Not centuries of racist, classist propaganda that appeals to people’s worst impulses.
Buddy, the only one who has brought race or anything of the sort up here is you.
The only prejudice I have is against people who commit crimes.
I’m sure the fact that your understanding of crime and recidivism is so thoroughly researched and that you know so many important people will comfort you the next time you’re victimized by a repeat offender.
On the other hand, since you’ve openly advocated for vandalizing Cybertrucks in these comments before, perhaps your soft on crime attitude is more self-interested.
Crime is driven by poverty, and poverty is distributed unevenly by race. The reason for much of the policy around incarceration is based on a set of laws founded on 500+ years of overt racism. Pretending that they are not inextricably linked is willful ignorance at best.
Again, the only way to reduce crime is to reduce poverty. Your viewpoint is proven to lead to more crime and more victims. Which you seem happy to ignore since doing so allows you to forgo learning.
I’m not going to apologize for being well informed. You should give it a shot. It might be more satisfying than repeating racist, classist tropes and using ignorance as a defense.
Obama being elected by white voters to the most powerful position on the planet proved. conclusively that black people have no chance at power or wealth.
While poor impulse control is used as a racist dog whistle, the reality is that poverty leads to multiple kinds of stress and trauma and that is what can result in poor impulse control and choices (like drug use) that amplify the problem. That those in poverty are disproportionately POC due to racist policies that perpetuate the issue once instituted (even if rescinded and the people are placed into completely different circumstances, generational trauma causes babies to literally be born with trauma effects passed down) and that is used as an excuse by dirtbags responsible to blame POC (when it applies equally to anyone, very likely the accusers themselves as I don’t think I’ve ever met a well-adjusted racist of that caliber) doesn’t make it inherently racist to address.
I agree completely. Poverty is the key issue; 500+ years of racism distributes that burden unequally.
“At least ask yourself what would cause what you describe as
“poor impulse control, poor planning skills, hair-trigger tempers, and poor socialization.”
Lead poisoning, alcohol abuse, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, brain trauma, PTSD, affluenza, shitty,/absent/violent/molesting parents, prescription med side effects, institutionalized bullying, drug abuse, testosterone poisoning, unrealistic social expectations, poor workplace environment, TV, culture,…
The list goes on and on.
FWIW I have seen with my own eyes how things are getting better, at least in my area.
I went to *good* schools in the 1980s with country club kids. A lot of them were jerks because their parents were jerks and because the teachers and administrators had a hands off attitude when it came to anything but basic reading, riting, rithmetic and SPORTBALL!!! God help you if you didn’t blindly worship SPORTSBALL!!, the jocks who played it and the girls that cheered them on.
You want to hear about poor planning skills and poor impulse control? The entire cheer team was arrested for shoplifting at Disneyland during a cheer camp the year after I left. IIRC they got probation and a juvenile criminal record.
I still live in the general area of my old neighborhood. Now even the *bad* school here is focusing on the social emotional well being of the students as well as reading, riting, rithmetic and a LOT less on sportsball.
That’s not to say there are no problems, it’s still a school
on the wrong side of the tracks with a high percentage of homeless/undocumented/non English speaking families. In many such families poor impulse control, poor planning skills, hair-trigger tempers, and poor socialization is culturally ingrained (e.g. machismo) or the result of stress, especially over the past few months.
And they’re teenagers with underdeveloped teenage brains and (presumably) raging hormones.
However the school does everything it can to help those students overcome those issues and from what I can tell it’s helping. There is a lot less violence and bad behavior than one would expect, certainly less than I remember from my HS years at the *good* schools.
I agree completely that the schools are doing what they can with the resources available and that the new ideas you mentioned are beneficial.
I also agree that often wealth and privilege can create a laissez-faire attitude toward the rules. Also, everyone is a bit of an idiot when they are a teenager.
However, poverty affects people differently, largely because its impact is so comprehensive. All ages are impacted in every area, from nutrition to sleep to general stress, and there are few, if any, resources available to counteract the effects of these factors. The research is fairly clear on poverty being the primary driving factor for crime in general and violent crime in particular.
I dunno about where you live but public schools here offer free meals to all students regardless of socioeconomic status. And its damned good food! Way better than the sketchy school lunches I had to pay for.
As far as food goes free or low cost food is widely available as well, including fresh produce. I have volunteered in a “soup kitchen” and I was shocked at how good the free provided meals were. I’ve also had “meals on wheels” type deliveries mistakenly left on my door. When I called to report the mistake I was told a replacement meal had already been dispatched and they could not accept the mistake as it had been out of their control so I was free to keep it. So I ate the contents rather than throwing it away (I hate waste). It was fine.
A local chain “Grocery Outlet” sells overstock, expiring food, etc sometimes at giveaway prices. It’s become my first stop because I can get most of what I need there at prices even a poor graduate student could afford. And I stock up whenever I can.
Sleep and general stress I can’t speak to but as far as access to proper nutrition goes I don’t see the problem, at least not here.
1-2 meals a day for kids during the school year and occasional “soup kitchen” meals don’t equate to food security. And those items are not universally available. Volunteer programs, including Meals on Wheels, vary widely since there is no centralized menu or production control.
Even the emergency items you describe come with hurdles for people in poverty. They take far more time than reaching into a fridge and grabbing good food, or being able to go to the grocery store and get whatever you like.
Grocery stores are far less common in areas with high poverty rates, and people experiencing poverty often have fewer transportation options. Spending an hour on the bus to get 2-3 bags of groceries discourages the consumption of nutritious food. Meanwhile, inexpensive food tends to be higher in calories and lower in nutrition.
In 2021, 41 million people per month received SNAP benefits, and rates of food insecurity are increasing. Those rates will go up significantly as support programs are eliminated.
A few related sources. There is no doubt that poverty has a massive negative impact on health and nutrition.
https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/cindy-leung-nutrition-health-equity/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10972712/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2025-04/SNAP_Increase_Kept_2.9_Million_People_Out_of_Poverty_after_Thrifty_Food_Plan_Update.pdf
“1-2 meals a day for kids during the school year and occasional “soup kitchen” meals don’t equate to food security.”
It’s a Hell of a lot more than all but a lucky few people on this planet ever got up until just a few decades ago* and still better than a billion people on this planet get today. That includes some of the kids in the previously mentioned poor school came from. They are not motivated to succeed academically because they are already living the good life working in the family roach coach (so no food insecurity there) and the place they are living in has indoor plumbing.
And BTW the school food is offered during the summer school sessions as well. I don’t know all the details but its my impression special arrangements can be made for those in need during school holidays. Breakfast, lunch and snacks for sure. That’s just one source.
“Even the emergency items you describe come with hurdles for people in poverty. They take far more time than reaching into a fridge and grabbing good food, or being able to go to the grocery store and get whatever you like.”
??? That describes EXACTLY what was dumped on my doorstep. A few freezer ready microwavable TV dinners, some pantry staples, some fresh produce and dairy. I didn’t order it so I don’t know what the options were but I can tell you it was perfectly fine food delivered right to my door. It doesn’t get more convenient than that. The school cafeteria is also as convenient as it gets for students and parents.
“Grocery stores are far less common in areas with high poverty rates, and people experiencing poverty often have fewer transportation options. Spending an hour on the bus to get 2-3 bags of groceries discourages the consumption of nutritious food. Meanwhile, inexpensive food tends to be higher in calories and lower in nutrition”
I don’t disagree with that. But I will point out grocery stores are far less common in areas with high poverty rates because those are also areas with high crime rates. If people don’t want to spend an hour on the bus to get 2-3 bags of groceries maybe try focusing on making their neighborhood safer for grocery stores to operate.
*That includes my silent gen parents and greatest gen grandparents. Thanks to that I used to get chided at if my grandparents thought I was too greedy at meal time. And I’m pretty sure my mom as a child was forced to eat a pet.
Attempting to set the bar lower by saying things aren’t as bad as “when I was a kid” is pointless and doesn’t address the point.
Again, the degree to which school meals are offered and efforts like Meals-on-Wheels help aren’t sufficient to deal with the scope of the problem. This is not an arguable point unless you choose to ignore the clear, verifiable data on the subject. Your anecdotes don’t reflect the greater reality.
You may recall that early on in this thread, it was made clear that poverty drives crime. Trying to claim that it is the fault of the people living in poverty that they don’t have grocery stores nearby is about as elitist as it gets.
I can also tell you from experience in marketing and store design for grocery stores that crime is rarely a deciding factor in locating new stores. It is done almost exclusively based on income levels within a given travel time. Crime is, however, used as an excuse because simply stating “The people are too poor for us to make a profit” is bad PR. Blaming crime makes the company look like the victim.
Poverty drives crime through multiple mechanisms. One of them is food insecurity and nutrition. All the data agree.
Attempting to set the bar lower by saying things aren’t as bad as “when I was a kid” is pointless and doesn’t address the point.
The point is that bar of which you are so concerned is being raised. We’ve gone from the problem being “starving” to “food insecurity”.
“Your anecdotes don’t reflect the greater reality.”
I never claimed they did, only that the greater reality is that things are better now than then.
“Again, the degree to which school meals are offered and efforts like Meals-on-Wheels help aren’t sufficient to deal with the scope of the problem. This is not an arguable point unless you choose to ignore the clear, verifiable data on the subject.”
And so what do you suggest exactly? You’ve clearly thought a lot more about it than I have, what are your implementable solutions to fix poverty, crime and hunger?
“Trying to claim that it is the fault of the people living in poverty that they don’t have grocery stores nearby is about as elitist as it gets”
It would be if that’s what I had claimed. But it’s not.
“I can also tell you from experience in marketing and store design for grocery stores that crime is rarely a deciding factor in locating new stores.”
It is however a deciding factor in which stores close:
https://www.pacificresearch.org/cities-can-end-food-deserts-by-ending-crime-oases/
Once those stores close for reasons of crime you’ll have a hard time convincing new ones to replace them.
“It is done almost exclusively based on income levels within a given travel time.”
If that’s true then don’t bother with fancy stores like Whole Foods or even regular stores like Safeway but stores that sell discounted foods like Grocery Outlet, WinCo, Food Maxx, etc.
“Poverty drives crime through multiple mechanisms. One of them is food insecurity and nutrition. All the data agree.”
And nobody is disagreeing with that, however whether the problem is poverty or crime you have to face the reality that grocery stores are businesses, not charities, and that grocery is a businesses that isn’t very profitable under the best of circumstances so crime hits harder than other, more profitable businesses.
If your community isn’t well off enough or too crime ridden to attract stores that sell food at or below its original cost then as far as I can see you’re stuck with whatever charity you can get, whatever food you can DIY, moving to greener pastures or making your community better to get those businesses to stay.
You initially suggested that food insecurity/nutrition was not a contributing factor in how poverty drives crime. I provided you with all the necessary research to demonstrate that your statement was incorrect.
Your anecdotes and statements about improvements from some past era are simply distractions to avoid this conclusion.
The link you provided is from a conservative think tank that spends time honoring famous tweed-covered white supremacist William F. Buckley and contributed to Project 2025. The article was primarily hyperbolic statements with no supporting data. It simply said crime was “out of control,” to blame it as the only possible reason for food deserts. It might as well have been a post from The Daily Stormer. Crime (shrinkage) isn’t a non-factor, but it is not the primary cause for food deserts, and you have nothing valid to support a claim that it is other than far-right propaganda.
Again, crime is primarily driven by the stresses and conditions of poverty. Trying to claim that crime is the reason for the conditions that cause crime is circular nonsense. You might be alright with our failures and blaming the poor for being poor so that you can ignore those failures, but I am not.
BTW, even discount food retailers have their standards for income. Just because they are less restrictive than a premium retailer doesn’t mean they have no limits. By the time you get to retailers like Dollar General, you have a retailer that provides far fewer healthy options. Because, as I noted earlier, healthier foods are more expensive per calorie than cheaper foods and discount retailers require cheap products.
You initially suggested that food insecurity/nutrition was not a contributing factor in how poverty drives crime.
That is not at all what I said. What I said in response to your comment of “At least ask yourself what would cause what you describe as “poor impulse control, poor planning skills, hair-trigger tempers, and poor socialization.” was:
“Lead poisoning, alcohol abuse, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, brain trauma, PTSD, affluenza, shitty,/absent/violent/molesting parents, prescription med side effects, institutionalized bullying, drug abuse, testosterone poisoning, unrealistic social expectations, poor workplace environment, TV, culture,…
The list goes on and on.”
Many but not all of those factors are linked to poverty but not necessarily so. Affluenza in particular is caused by the exact opposite of poverty yet results in all those same things.
“I provided you with all the necessary research to demonstrate that your statement was incorrect.”
Did you? Did you provide research that shows Lead poisoning, alcohol abuse, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, brain trauma, PTSD, affluenza, shitty,/absent/violent/molesting parents, prescription med side effects, institutionalized bullying, drug abuse, testosterone poisoning, unrealistic social expectations, poor workplace environment, TV, culture are NOT driving factors for crime?
No you did not. What you provided were: “A few related sources. There is no doubt that poverty has a massive negative impact on health and nutrition.”
https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/cindy-leung-nutrition-health-equity/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10972712/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2025-04/SNAP_Increase_Kept_2.9_Million_People_Out_of_Poverty_after_Thrifty_Food_Plan_Update.pdf
I do not disagree poverty has a massive negative impact on health and nutrition. I only point out that there ARE programs to help poor people get nutritious food.
Nor am I or anyone claiming food insecurity/nutrition is not a contributing factor in how poverty drives crime. My point – again – is that health, nutrition and poverty are not the ONLY contributing factors for crime.
“The link you provided is from a conservative think tank that spends time honoring famous tweed-covered white supremacist William F. Buckley and contributed to Project 2025.”
Which does not change the fact that crime is a deciding factor in which stores close:
Safeway:
“Following a nearly one-year reprieve amid outcry from nearby residents, the Safeway store in San Francisco’s Fillmore District is set to permanently close in early 2025 after four decades in business
….
The retailer said the decision to close the store was due to “ongoing concerns” about safety involving customers and employees, along with “persistent” issues involving thefts at the location.
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/sf-fillmore-district-safeway-closing-feb25-after-reprieve-webster-street/
Walmart (Some locations sell groceries):
“Walmart, the world’s largest retailer, has announced the closure of three of its stores in the United States, citing rising crime rates and unsustainable profit margins as primary reasons. The stores, located in Albuquerque, New Mexico; San Francisco, California; and Portland, Oregon, are set to close their doors permanently. This decision has sparked a wave of concern among local communities who rely on these outlets for affordable goods and essential services.”
https://retail-merchandiser.com/news/walmart-closes-three-stores-amid-rising-crime-and-financial-struggles/
Target (Some locations sell groceries):
Target closed crime-prone stores and it appears to have paid off. Why that may result in future ‘retail deserts.’
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/as-theft-increases-store-closures-and-retail-deserts-could-be-the-new-consumer-reality-99a4a74e
Like it or not crime DOES factor into which stores close.
Now put away your scarecrow.
You read what you write.
Yes, there are lots of mechanisms that cause crime that are driven by poverty. I never said otherwise. Environmental conditions, such as a higher prevalence of toxins like lead in poor communities, are another.
As I stated, crime can be A factor, but it is not the primary factor. Crime is, however, the factor that right-wing and white supremacist organizations like to point out when they, like you, are trying to suggest that crime is the only meaningful factor. Corporations go along with the theme since it sounds better than “poor people aren’t worth the bother.” Crime isn’t the primary cause of food deserts. Poverty is. A population that can spend money is the reason people open businesses in an area.
“Affluenza” does not “result in all those same things,” which is fairly obvious by looking at crime rates in affluent areas. Do rich people commit crimes? Do they commit more crimes like those we are talking about than the general population? Nope. If you want to talk about tax evasion, fraud and wage theft, that could well be since they are the ones in a position to commit those crimes.
“Crime isn’t the primary cause of food deserts. Poverty is. A population that can spend money is the reason people open businesses in an area.”
Crime is the cited reason stores CLOSE. Poverty AND crime are why they are not replaced. Nobody is going to put a business into a location where any meager profit made is lost to theft and higher operating costs.
“Affluenza” does not “result in all those same things,”
Oh? Well then let’s take a look at the rich jerks for whom the term was coined:
Ethan Anthony Couch killed four people at the age of 16 while driving under the influence on June 15, 2013, in Burleson, Texas. Couch, while intoxicated and under the influence of drugs, was driving on a restricted license and speeding in a residential area when he was involved in a fatal crash as a young man. He lost control of his vehicle, slamming into a group of people assisting another driver with a disabled SUV. The collision killed four people and injured nine others.Two passengers in Couch’s pickup truck were critically injured, one of whom was completely paralyzed.
Family history: His parents — who divorced in 2017 — have also each had legal problems, publicized in the media following their son’s conviction.
Fred Couch: Fred Couch has previously been charged with evading arrest, theft by check, and assault against his then-wife Tonya, and was convicted of misdemeanor assault in 2000. On August 19, 2014, he was arrested for impersonating a police officer, allegedly displaying a fake badge during a disturbance call, and was later found guilty and sentenced to a year of probation in December 2016. In February 2016, police were called to his home after he allegedly choked his girlfriend, but no charges were filed. In September 2019, he was charged with assault, allegedly having choked his girlfriend with his hands that July.
Tonya Couch: In 2013, Tonya Couch was sentenced to a $500 fine and a six-month community supervision order for reckless driving when she used her vehicle to force another motorist off the road.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethan_Couch
There is a whole lot of poor impulse control, poor planning skills, hair-trigger tempers, and poor socialization here.
More pointless gish gallop. Again, as I stated, crime happens at all income levels, but the amount and type are driven by poverty. Repeating anecdotes is entirely pointless. Areas with high levels of poverty have higher levels of crime. That isn’t an arguable point since it is backed up by countless studies and huge amounts of data rather than anecdotes. Why continue with it?
Why indeed? I’ve proven my point to any reasonable standard.
Cherry-picked anecdotes don’t constitute proof of any sort. Maybe your belief that they do is your issue, and why you are so easily duped that you repeated far-right propaganda without question.
OK scarecrow.
Jesus, you don’t even know what a straw man is.
Sure I do but apparently you don’t. So I will help you out.
Scarecrow = straw man
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Scarecrow_Argument
But if you prefer I can use straw man:
OK Straw man.
Feel better now?
I understand the definition. You just failed to provide anything I stated that would be considered a straw man.
“I understand the definition”
Then why claim I “don’t even know what a straw man is” when I used the term “scarecrow”? Why not just say scarecrow?
“You just failed to provide anything I stated that would be considered a straw man.”
This is what I said:
Sleep and general stress I can’t speak to but as far as access to proper nutrition goes I don’t see the problem, at least not here.
This is your ongoing scarecrow fallacy:
“Again, as I stated, crime happens at all income levels, but the amount and type are driven by poverty. Repeating anecdotes is entirely pointless. That isn’t an arguable point since it is backed up by countless studies and huge amounts of data rather than anecdotes.”
And I have not argued that. What I HAVE said is:
1)That there are multiple causes for “poor impulse control, poor planning skills, hair-trigger tempers, and poor socialization”, some of which have nothing to do with poverty.
2) That access to proper nutrition is possible at least in my area and I have listed multiple sources of that nutrition many of which I depend upon myself. There are many others I have not listed but they also exist.
3) That crime does indeed drive store closures and I have provided real world examples to show this.
4) That I have seen with my own eyes how things are getting better, at least in my area. And I have provided examples of this.
None of which make any sort of assertion that areas with high levels of poverty do not have higher levels of crime.
OK Scarecrow?
What you wrongly claim to be a straw man is just me pointing out the fact that your anecdotes are meaningless, attempting to counter the statistically valid claim (as shown in the research provided) that poverty has a negative impact on nutrition, by rambling on about collecting berries from the local playground or an accidental charity delivery.
The fact that you choose to reject valid research and want to rely on anecdotes doesn’t mean you get to make claims that what you see from inside your tiny bubble applies to the population as a whole or has any impact on what I have stated. If you weren’t countering any of my initial claims, what was your point? That poverty isn’t the ONLY cause? That is a claim I never made and arguing against it would make it the actual straw man argument here.
I guess you missed this part
Is the “here” you are referencing your kitchen? Because that is the only place where you have the knowledge to know that statement might be true. Because for every sample population large enough to be representative of the general condition and topic of this thread, it is demonstrably false.
I’ve already made it clear “here” is my own community and yes “here” includes my own kitchen. My kitchen which I stock by purchasing food, including fresh groceries at discount stores even people at the poverty line (like a graduate student at a frugal ass university) can afford.
I have also stocked it with free food people dumped on my doorstep and food that I have grown myself on a small plot of land. In places where land is more abundant more food can be grown.
The local flea market offers fresh produce even cheaper. You need to eat or cook it within a day or two but its cheap AF.
On Nextdoor I see people posting giveaways of food from their own gardens some of which has ended up in my kitchen.
On hikes and in parks I see sorrel, nettles, kale, chard, miners lettuce, nasturtium, walnuts, thistles, figs, pomegranates, persimmons, wild onions herbs (sage, rosemary, lavender, etc), artichokes, puffball mushrooms, Douglas fir and other very nutritious food there for the taking. This is not a comprehensive list at all but a brief sample of what’s out there. Our parks allow, even encourage people to take the food that grows on park trees. I’ve had that confirmed by more than one park worker and which I have done for my own kitchen.
If one REALLY wanted meat there are plenty of turkeys, quail, deer, and other wild animals to hunt. Many of the households in the “poor” neighborhoods here keep chickens for eggs and meat. I’ve heard of goats being kept for milk. The local fish are no good for eating but people do fish in other areas that aren’t so contaminated so there’s another source of meat.
Between all that and the charities I have mentioned yes I think one can get their basic nutritional needs met in my community. People have been living here for THOUSANDS of years with their basic nutritional needs met with far, far fewer resources than poor people have today.
So you’re back to the original claim that you later tried to say you hadn’t made. Got it, you can’t even keep track of your own thoughts.
The rest of your blather is just that and simply illustrates the depth of your ignorance and proves my point. Even if all the methods you listed were viable at the scale of the problem (they aren’t), they take significantly more effort, time, and money than the available alternatives. Farmer’s markets aren’t cheaper and are generally very seasonal. The amount of food available in parks near impoverished areas would provide an inconsequential amount of food for the populations in question. Hunting requires transportation, access to land, licenses, ability/money to process, etc. People don’t live in the environment of thousands of years ago. We have a fraction of the biodiversity and almost none of the skills. For god’s sake, farming was the primary mechanism that allowed humans to end their nomadic lives and increase the population. There were between 3-7M people in North America prior to European colonization/genocide. Just the U.S. is now over 340M. Using the stat of 15% of the population facing food insecurity, that would mean 51M people scrounging through parks and hunting for their food. The suggestion of that as a solution shows a comprehensive lack of awareness on your part.
The fact that, for a few people in rare circumstances, there are alternative methods to supplement standard food supplies, isn’t sufficient to bend the curve on nutrition being negatively impacted by poverty. Which, again, you would understand if you wanted to process information that wasn’t visible outside your window.
If food deserts and the need to take public transportation a significant distance are enough to impact nutrition (which research shows they are), then all of the stuff you listed isn’t going to help. Your claim is equivalent to saying that a person who can afford to buy whatever they want at the grocery store and hire a personal chef has no advantage in their ability to eat nutritious food compared to a homeless person. Poverty means having fewer resources, and these limited resources impact a person’s ability to access healthy food. It is a simple concept you spend a lot of time purposely missing.
All your anecdotes are nothing more than a way for you to justify your existing beliefs in the face of overwhelming statistical evidence showing you are wrong.
Farmer’s markets aren’t cheaper and are generally very seasonal.
Flea market, not farmer’s markets. There are big differences, especially in price, quality and seasonality. The grocery isn’t as pretty but it’s just as nutritious and a LOT cheaper.
“they take significantly more effort, time, and money than the available alternatives.”
Fine. If alternatives are available then use those. Even Dollar Tree and some Wal-Marts (where some of those poor people work) sell cheap frozen vegetables and they are just as nutritious as fresh. They also sell bags of nutritious lentils, brown rice, beans, pasta, cans of tuna, chicken, etc which are highly transportable, can be stored for years and easily cooked up in a crockpot or campstove. Dried fruits and nuts are also a shelf stable nutritious option.
Foraging and hunting is only presented as an option for those with the time to do so, even just as a supplement to the main diet.
Hunting requires transportation, access to land, licenses, ability/money to process, etc.
Maybe. In some states with free salvage tags you can just grab something that’s already been hit by a car:
https://www.themeateater.com/cook/foraging/how-to-salvage-roadkill
In many areas kids don’t need a hunting license, all they need is a BB gun, a slingshot or box trap for small animals. Land access? In rural areas that could be their own backyard.
People don’t live in the environment of thousands of years ago. We have a fraction of the biodiversity and almost none of the skills.
Every one of the plants I listed exist today, right now as well as many more I did not list. Many of those plants are much more productive than the plants from thousands of years ago. The skills needed to successfully forage aren’t rocket science. Even wild animals manage to do it.
“If food deserts and the need to take public transportation a significant distance are enough to impact nutrition (which research shows they are), then all of the stuff you listed isn’t going to help.”
Sigh.
I’ve already made it clear “here” is my own community and yes “here” includes my own kitchen. My kitchen which I stock by purchasing food, including fresh groceries at discount stores even people at the poverty line (like a graduate student at a frugal ass university) can afford.
…
Between all that and the charities I have mentioned yes I think one can get their basic nutritional needs met in my community.
I never suggested these as options for a poor person living in a “food desert” only that these options exist in my own community and that I have used them myself. Not all poor people live in food deserts.
“Your claim is equivalent to saying that a person who can afford to buy whatever they want at the grocery store and hire a personal chef has no advantage in their ability to eat nutritious food compared to a homeless person.”
None of that is true Scarecrow Strawman.
Poverty means having fewer resources, and these limited resources impact a person’s ability to access healthy food.
Limited resources =/= no resources. Humans don’t need the vast section of different types of perfectly unblemished, organic, fresh heirloom produce at Whole Foods to meet basic nutritional needs, nor do humans need animal products to have a healthy diet, nor do they even need much plant matter. The diet of a poor person may not be as tasty or as varied as that of a rich person but that doesn’t mean it can’t meet their nutritional needs.
What are you trying to claim with your series of anecdotes? Which of my claims are you attempting to counter? If it isn’t what I stated, what is it? Please note that all of my claims apply to the general population of the entire country.
BTW, some wild animals can take down deer and live eating nothing but grass. Again, your entire framework is meaningless because you cannot stay within a valid context.
Please show me where I claimed that all poor people live in food deserts, or you can admit that you are the one relying on straw men.
“Please show me where I claimed that all poor people live in food deserts”
You claimed foraging was not sufficient to support the 15% of the population facing food insecurity:
“Using the stat of 15% of the population facing food insecurity, that would mean 51M people scrounging through parks and hunting for their food.”
People who are scrounging through parks and hunting for their food would do so most likely because they’d lack access to supermarkets and affordable, healthy foods, ergo they are living in a food desert.
“The suggestion of that as a solution shows a comprehensive lack of awareness on your part”
Want proof? Here:
Foragers find bounty of edibles in urban food deserts
For Modern Foragers, This Map Reveals Urban Abundance
The Untapped Promise of Foraging in the City
Your turn. Now please show me where I claimed scrounging through parks and hunting for their food to be the total nutritional solution for all 51M people facing food insecurity.
Which of my claims are you attempting to counter?
FFS did you not read the post you are replying to? I already made that list.
BTW, some wild animals can take down deer and live eating nothing but grass. Again, your entire framework is meaningless because you cannot stay within a valid context.
The context being wild game, even roadkill can be one source of nutrition for poor people? That’s very relevant to the topic of nutrition for poor people.
Oh and since you brought it up:
“Farmer’s markets aren’t cheaper and are generally very seasonal.”
Examples of Successful Farmers Markets in Food Desert Areas
Try to focus.
Please show me where I claimed that all poor people live in food deserts, which is what all your anecdotal gish-gallop seems to be attempting to disprove. Your initial post that precipitated everything.
Here, I will help since you are having such a difficult time.
I claimed that poverty has a negative impact on nutrition and that poor nutrition is one stressor that leads to higher crime. I provided well-regarded, statistically valid research that shows this to be true.
You seemed to have an issue with my claim (thought you can’t seem to remember what that is.) and provided a collection of anecdotes that indicate that people in poverty have some non-standard options that could ameliorate the negative impact poverty has on nutrition. I never claimed otherwise. I simply pointed out that anecdotes prove nothing to counter any of my initial claims yet you providing them suggests that you think they do.
This should be obvious because the options you list, to the extent they improve outcomes, are built into the research I provided, which shows that poverty has a negative impact on nutrition. The ability to hunt, forage, go to flea markets, discount stores, charity, etc., exists for the populations being studied, and the outcome is still that poverty negatively impacts nutrition. That is why good research is so much superior to random anecdotes and personal observation.
So again, what claim that I am making do you have an issue with? A real one, not the straw man you continue to battle.
Try to focus.
My focus is fine.
I claimed that poverty has a negative impact on nutrition and that poor nutrition is one stressor that leads to higher crime. I provided well-regarded, statistically valid research that shows this to be true.
You seemed to have an issue with my claim
No. That is not true and is one of your scarecrows. “My issue” only exists in your own mind. All I did was answer your open ended challenge “ask yourself what would cause what you describe as “poor impulse control, poor planning skills, hair-trigger tempers, and poor socialization.” with other situations which result in those same bad behaviors.
I never claimed this was an all inclusive list. Nowhere have I even hinted that poverty does not have a negative impact on nutrition or that poor nutrition is not a stressor that leads to higher crime.
“I simply pointed out that anecdotes prove nothing to counter any of my initial claims yet you providing them suggests that you think they do.”
Again that only exists in you own mind. I have been very clear my observations are limited to my own community.
The ability to hunt, forage, go to flea markets, discount stores, charity, etc., exists for the populations being studied
Availability is only one factor. There are other reasons poor people may not hunt, forage, go to flea markets, discount stores, charity, etc that have nothing to do with ability. Pride, ignorance, snobbery, taste, skills, and convenience to name a few.
…and the outcome is still that poverty negatively impacts nutrition.
Again that is not my point. The point is hunting, forage, flea markets, discount stores, charities, etc., exist and do make an impact in poor communities when taken advantage of.
That was a response to a claim by V10omous that impulse control and poor planning were the root cause of crime.
Here was my response to your initial list of other mechanisms that cause things like poor impulse control. Some of which were true, but included some that suggested causation that doesn’t exist. It also claimed that “affluenza” has a similar impact. Which it clearly, statistically, doesn’t.
So, what in my response did you think would have been illuminated by a list of ways people in poverty can impact the nutrition in their diets? Especially with a comment that ends with
Keep in mind, the context up to this point has always been poverty in general. Not in your neighborhood. Noplace did you specify such a pointlessly narrow version of “here” until after being shown that your claims don’t impact the initial claim.
Why would you claim that poverty doesn’t impact nutrition in your area (despite having no data on the issue and only anecdotes) when it has nothing to do with the topic of poverty in general? It is like saying “I never wore a seatbelt and I am fine,” after somebody mentions that the increased use of seatbelts has drastically reduced auto accident fatalities.
The statements about your limited view are 100% meaningless given the topic. Everything I have posted to your comments has simply been pointing this out. All of your examples have nothing to do with the topic you joined.
Nice to see someone still practicing irony.
Here to say I was already thinking after they arrest a few wealthy individuals this law will be toned down or converted to the discretion of the officer. “You look poor. Put your hands behind your back” basically.
That is it exactly. Cops know dealing with poor people is a lot easier, so that is what they do. Add to that the fact that monetary penalties that are fixed and don’t scale with wealth are a huge factor in keeping people in poverty. It is actually part of what they are designed to do.
Poor people don’t have Hellcats and the time to do donuts with them in the middle of busy intersections.
Have you heard of the concept of debt?
There’s a difference between being actually poor and spending yourself into poordom. The latter isn’t an excuse for crime.
I have no idea how you got to that observation. My point was that “poor” people can acquire the trappings of wealth by going into debt. Driving a Hellcat doesn’t reveal the socioeconomic status of the driver.
A hellcat is hardly a requirement for recklessness and someone with no time is more likely to be hauling ass…
We are not a wealthy country or a tiny European country.
We have a dense subculture of criminals that believe they have a right to prey on others.
Instead of locking those up, we imprison easy targets, including debtors.
All regressive and counter productive.
We have never had less in common with tiny, controlled countries.
The U.S. is the fourth wealthiest country per adult, trailing only Switzerland and Luxembourg, two tax havens. The distribution of that wealth is the cause of poverty and poverty drives crime.
The U.S. is considered more controlled, less “free” than the vast majority of Europe, and is now considered a “flawed democracy,” with press freedom called “problematic.”
The poor are the easiest targets, and then there are subcategories such as debtors, which are the easiest of the easy targets. Often, that debt is compounded by court fees and penalties.
I have no idea what criminal “subculture” you are referencing, unless you are talking about the oligarchs and the current administration.
There is value in at least getting the offender off the road for a while. It’s just unfortunate that these measures don’t seem to deter people from driving like assholes before the fact.
Agreed. It’s not great, but people are stupid, and there doesn’t seem to be anything that can deter us from making stupid decisions once. The best the law can hope to do is stop you from wanting to do it a second time.
Well this was sort of my closing point, but I do think there’s a big difference between someone capable of homicide and someone speeding. The population capable of driving 100 mph on a public road presumably includes more conscientious and normally law-abiding people than the population of murderers. Deterrence works on that group.
I have seen stats where a large percentage although definitely not most homicides are “heat of the moment” where consequences are not logically considered.
I feel like death penalty for speeding would probably work pretty well as a deterrent for most of the population.
Most preplanned murders are never discovered, much less solved.
And speed is almost never the cause of accidents.
“And speed is almost never the cause of accidents
Where do you get that idea? Higher speeds reduces reaction times and increase stopping distances. That alone makes situations which are easily avoidable at slower speeds unavoidable at higher speeds, hence speeding is the cause.
Real world traffic engineering numbers, not the made up ones.
Are you familiar with the 85th percentile rule for setting speed limits?
That it is well known most people drive more safely without set speed signs, as they will adjust speed for conditions more?
It is well known that overly restrictive speed limits increase crashes as it distracts drivers from actual safe driving.
The primary cause of crashes on high speed roads is dissimilar speed traffic conflicts.
Traffic density in some areas has become a serious safety issue, like here.
DOT told me many years ago there was planning to separate heavy truck traffic from light vehicles.
Still no sign of progress.
I support going further, separating very light vehicles from others.
To my surprize, engineers support this idea as they say it would be highly cost effective.
Yes I am.
I am aware it is based on the speed people FEEL safe, not the speed they are actually safer.
I am aware many people prefer vehicles that prioritize their their own safety over that of others and that they feel safer to driving those large, heavy intimidating vehicles at higher speeds assuming if they worst happens at least they will be alright. Too bad though for whomever got in the way. Sucks to be that other guy.
I also know many people drive like asses at high speed; tailgating, weaving, etc because they are letting their emotions and feelings get the better of them, or maybe they’re just in a hurry, or other *reasons*.
I am aware people are not capable of seeing invisible hazards which could have been avoided or at least handled better at lower speeds. They thought they were safe…until they wern’t.
I am aware that higher speeds dramatically increase the severity and consequences of crashes. What might be a fender bender at a lower speed becomes a tragedy at higher speeds.
https://newsroom.acg.aaa.com/is-raising-the-speed-limit-worth-the-risk/
https://www.ourstreetsmn.org/2024/07/25/how-the-85th-percentile-rule-is-ineffective-and-dangerous/
https://www.americancityandcounty.com/public-safety/rethinking-the-85th-percentile-rule-prioritizing-safety-over-speed
https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/speed-limit-increases-are-tied-to-37-000-deaths-over-25-years
“It is well known that overly restrictive speed limits increase crashes as it distracts drivers from actual safe driving.”
That’s not what happens at all. Drivers are not “distracted”. What happens is people are more likely to ignore the posted speed limit and drive the speed they want to:
https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/crashes-increase-when-speed-limits-dip-far-below-engineering-recommendation
Crashes INCREASE as more drivers gravitate to the 85th percentile rather than sticking to the lower posted speed limit.
Two solutions there: Keep the lower limit to 5 mph under the engineers recommendation or step up enforcement.
“The primary cause of crashes on high speed roads is dissimilar speed traffic conflicts”
Which is never a slower car crashing into a faster one. It is always a faster car crashing into a slower one. “Driving too fast for conditions” is still speeding.
“DOT told me many years ago there was planning to separate heavy truck traffic from light vehicles.
Still no sign of progress.
I support going further, separating very light vehicles from others.
To my surprize, engineers support this idea as they say it would be highly cost effective.”
Why not take it even further and give every single vehicle its very own road? That would be the safest option of all!
Unfortunately that’s not going to happen for many reasons. And since DOTs fantasy hasn’t panned out I think its safe to assume that won’t happen either. So we’re stuck sharing the roads after all.
Split highways are cost effective already as cost per foot for semis sounds more like pricing for aerospace than pavement.
Moreso for any bridges.
My light highway proposal was limited to 2000 pound cars.
Paving for that standard is virtually free by highway standards.
Many places are already due for doubling lanes, like Memphis to Nashville.
Who would prefer driving next to 80,000 pound trucks?
Side roads here are at capacity sometimes now.
There was a traffic problem on one side of the freeway recently and every alternate path gridlocked as well as the freeway.
It took me six hours to drive 80 miles, and I know the roads.
What happens with a storm evacuation?
When I mentioned restrictive speeds, I was talking about heavily enforced speed traps that result in excessive braking filling the small towns with brake dust, extra pollution and distracted drivers.
Most people here will no. longer even drive that route.
The most interesting part of the 85th Percentile rule is that by all standards people adjust speed better for conditions without speed limit signs than with them.
Violating the standard for limits rcesults in drivers ignoring signs that deserve to be ignored.
As for safety, most drivers aren’t interested.
I keep an adequate braking zone in front of me.
Whatever I’m driving people constantly pull into that braking zone like it’s an invitation.
In my pickup, it takes me three times as far to stop as a small car, more in the rain, more when I’m towing.
Longer stopping with a box truck.
Why don’t people care about their own safety? Or even the inconvenience of having their totaled car scraped off a bumper?
I feel safer on the track!
“Split highways are cost effective already as cost per foot for semis sounds more like pricing for aerospace than pavement.
Moreso for any bridges.
Many places are already due for doubling lanes, like Memphis to Nashville.”
Good for Memphis and Nashville as long as the NIMBYs keep out of it. That’s not an option though in areas where there is literally no room to widen existing freeways and/or is NIMBY hell.
Plus you’d also need even more room for separate emergency lanes now shared by all vehicles, more ramps, lights, reflectors, etc.
“My light highway proposal was limited to 2000 pound cars.
Paving for that standard is virtually free by highway standards.”
That’s about the weight of an early 1980s Toyota Corolla with all the safety features of a soda can. Good luck with that, especially as we move into the era of EVs. Even the tiny Mitsubishi i-MiEV was 2300 lbs.
And where do the vehicles between those hypothetical 2000 lb cars and 80,000 lb trucks go? The box trucks, school busses, minivans, class B RVs and of course every other existing vehicle today? Does your plan require hundreds of millions of Americans to trade in their current whips for one of your 2000 lb tin cans?
“Who would prefer driving next to 80,000 pound trucks?”
We all already do that on a daily basis. Some of us even bike next to them. Its not a big deal.
“What happens with a storm evacuation?”
Same thing as now: Confusion, delay, denial, panic, frustration and chaos. That happens with or without cars because that’s what humans without proper training do.
“When I mentioned restrictive speeds, I was talking about heavily enforced speed traps that result in excessive braking filling the small towns with brake dust, extra pollution and distracted drivers.”
Uh huh. I’m still calling bullshit on all that.
“Most people here will no. longer even drive that route.”
Well then, problem solved. Lets put in more speed traps.
“As for safety, most drivers aren’t interested”
…And a bunch of other stuff…
All of which contradicts your whole assertion that the 85th percentile is the speed drivers feel is the safest.
Did I say safest?
More accurate to say comfortable, which averages out to be the safest, and most acceptable.
The interesting point is still that this relies on not having speed limits posted, especially because it is well known that reducing speed due to other issues happens more often than with setting limits that becomes a target goal in dense traffic, rain and fog.
Speed signs are for revenue, because safety is not the goal.
Reasonable and proper wasn’t so much outdated as simply wiser.
Re traffic jams, I think the freeway was gridlocked for 12 hours on a clear day, a long with all nearest alternatives.
Took me 6 hours making a big loop around it.
Hardly a safe event.
Did I say safest?
Pretty sure you did:
“Are you familiar with the 85th percentile rule for setting speed limits?
That it is well known most people drive more safely without set speed signs, as they will adjust speed for conditions more?
It is well known that overly restrictive speed limits increase crashes as it distracts drivers from actual safe driving.”
That sure sounds like a verbose way of saying the 85th percentile is the speed drivers feel is the safest.
So does this:
“More accurate to say comfortable, which averages out to be the safest, and most acceptable”
BTW I’m still waiting for some of that “well known” data that proves your assertions are correct and disprove the links I provided.
I don’t have time to research things that have been covered in car magazines on a regular basis, aside from routine news coverage.
Maybe that will change, but couldn’t do it now if I was paid for the time.
An article on the counter productive results of speéd traps was recent on one of a myriad of automotive news feeds I use.
No idea which one, and I am not sanguine about how useless search engines have become.
I’m on tech journals feeds when available and followed road and track and Grm to Racecar Engineering, including Autoweek back when it was on newsprint.
I can’t keep up with where every story was carried for other people.
Some things are fairly obvious when thought through, though statistics are still useful for frauds, like airlines claiming flying is safer than driving.
Maybe in the slow season?
You don’t have time to find something that should be everywhere…I see.
Running red lights is still the most dangerous event.
The TBI group here was trying to increase penalties.
It was pointed out that running lights and stop signs has a built in death penalty already.
When used properly it does lower repeat offences since it’s kinda hard to kill someone when your dead.
If nothing else at least it makes the roads a little safer for those 30 days.
Bring back driver training for a start.
Then make it better than it was.
I’m surprised about the ‘nearly 10 percent of the traffic deaths in the state…..had excessive speed as a contributing factor’. Figured it would be higher.
The other 90% had excessive slowness and/or drainage canals involved 🙂
You must not have been in southern FL lately…if you’re only going 80, better be in the slow lane.
What surprises me is they actually took the time to figure out if speed was a factor. Normally states report something like 40-60% of traffic fatalities are the result of speeding, but that’s because they have a checklist of ‘factors’ on the report and if you were speeding at all they check it, whether it was an actual factor or not.
So this law realistically does nothing for improving safety. It just brings in more revenue.
So prior to this law I could run someone down in a crosswalk while being super reckless and only pay a grand plus some community service. No homicide charges!?!
Holy Jailbreak Florida!
you can do this in TN
https://www.wsmv.com/2025/07/11/country-singer-gets-misdemeanor-citation-fatal-crash-nashville/
In Florida, they now encourage vehicular homicide as long as you can excuse it as a political act.
Protect the unborn so you can kill them later.
I remember when it happened once in Spain — noteworthy because the driver of the Audi (because naturally) actually tried to sue the dead child’s family for the damage to his car. Since the kid was allegedly doing “kid things” and not in a crosswalk like he was supposed to be.
I’m generally pretty liberal about speeding, but 100% behind this. There is never a reason or excuse for going 50 over, ever — even in a zone with artificially low limits like a speed trap or disused construction zone.
The 100mph limit is a little more nebulous, but let’s be honest: With American infrastructure, lack of driver training, and almost no real vehicle inspections, going 100+ is generally stupid 99.99% of the time.
I can’t imagine a need to ever drive 100+mph, ever. I actually tend to agree that we should have speed limiters on vehicles.
I-40 west of Amarillo, TX is a place I’ve driven twice and 100 mph in light traffic is reasonable. I would gladly switch to metric for a nice round 200 km/h limit, though.
A few years back, the GF and I drove from San Diego to Vegas, and through the Mojave traffic was flowing at 100-110. Felt perfectly reasonable on that long, arrow straight road.
Okay, yes, I agree on this. There certainly parts of the midwest and west where 100mph makes sense.
Here in populated New England, I agree, but driving cross country, there are a lot of wide open, flat, featureless places with widely separated exits where it isn’t unreasonable. I’m not saying there should be no limit in such places, but 100 in Nebraska isn’t unreasonable like it would be on the Southeast Expressway in Boston.
I think the car impoundment part of the penalties is what could make a difference. Driving dangerously without a license is easy, driving dangerously without a car is a bit harder. Plus putting a car in jail is cheaper than putting a person in jail.
This is true, even if you’re not in jail driving without a license is a lot harder if you don’t have a vehicle. Potential problems are going to be things like single-car families where one parents gets the car impounded and they don’t have any transportation for work/school/etc.
That situation sucks, but the importance to public safety of a reckless driver not having access to a vehicle is more important.
Here in Ontario stunt driving, which also includes 50KM (30Miles) over the limit results in automatic impoundment and a $5000 fine. It’s hard to be sure if it’s working as deterrent since there are many regular stories of people getting caught doing pretty stupid stuff. Where the stories get interesting is when parent’s cars get impounded by their stupid kids driving them. Ahhh, the family drama… mommy, daddy have to take the bus now!
Greater Toronto Area–where everyone drives like a granny on local roads and goes full beserker on the 400-series highways.
I heard from my brother in law that GTA speed cameras are super draconian–1kph over and you’ve got mail.
Quick way to ensure high speed no limit police pursuits, if that’s what you really want.