ADVERTISEMENT

OT: Electric vehicles

i have provided my perspective many many many times on this already. you choose to argue because you don't agree. so i choose to ignore your questions because i choose not to re-enter this circle of stupidity you endeavor to take us on.
Should ADAS policy decisions be based on real world driving data? Very simple yes or no question. I won't even reply if you choose to answer.

Bottom line is your perspective is driven by emotion and hearsay, rather than actual data. You don't like something and you want it to go away. Now that this is crystal clear, you won't hear from me anymore on this topic.
 
Should ADAS policy decisions be based on real world driving data? Very simple yes or no question. I won't even reply if you choose to answer.

Bottom line is your perspective is driven by emotion and hearsay, rather than actual data. You don't like something and you want it to go away. Now that this is crystal clear, you won't hear from me anymore on this topic.
but you never go away. you're like the herp.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: mildone
I'm not going to buy an electric vehicle until I know that I can recharge the car as easily as I can now fill up a gas tank. Yes, I could get a charger for home, but that costs more than $1000 (I've talked to electricians), and a home charger doesn't help me drive cross-country. Until then, I'm sticking to hybrids.
 
I pass a young woman on 295 about twice a week, left lane doing 70-75 mph, doing her makeup in her visor mirror. I’d rather be behind someone on autopilot or driver assist. The tech isn’t the problem, as usual, people are the problem.
We all know that lots of people are guilty of inattentive driving. And that's what's wrong with partial automated driving.

Fully automated driving, that has no reliance on human presence, once ready, will be okay. It'll have it's accidents, but they won't be very frequent and will get less frequent over time. Replace your observed woman with a fully automated driving system, and we're good to go.

Partially automated driving has known failure-points, some that can occur randomly and without any warning. It cannot be relied upon and a human must be there and alert - which is obviously problematic. If that woman is Darwinian enough to fail to be properly alert when she's operating the vehicle, then it's a safe bet she'll be far worse when the car's doing lots of the driving right up until she's needed and then it'll be much too late.

What we cannot know, because it's impossible to ever know, is how many miles she manages to go without causing a problem with her current lack of attention, versus how many miles a partially automated driving system would go without causing a problem. The two cannot drive at the exact same time - only one can.

I would rather have cameras and cops ticket the crap out of inattentive drivers, or add driver assistance systems that detect inattentive drivers and screech at them with uncomfortable loudness until they pay attention, than have a system that has known failure points and a sleeping driver.

Solve the problem. Don't create a new, higher-tech problem.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RUevolution36
We all know that lots of people are guilty of inattentive driving. And that's what's wrong with partial automated driving.

Fully automated driving, that has no reliance on human presence, once ready, will be okay. It'll have it's accidents, but they won't be very frequent and will get less frequent over time. Replace your observed woman with a fully automated driving system, and we're good to go.

Partially automated driving has known failure-points, some that can occur randomly and without any warning. It cannot be relied upon and a human must be there and alert - which is obviously problematic. If that woman is Darwinian enough to fail to be properly alert when she's operating the vehicle, then it's a safe bet she'll be far worse when the car's doing lots of the driving right up.

What we cannot know, because it's impossible to ever know, is how many miles she manages to go without causing a problem with her current lack of attention, versus how many miles a partially automated driving system would go without causing a problem. The two cannot drive at the exact same time - only one can.

I would rather have cameras and cops ticket the crap out of inattentive drivers, or add driver assistance systems that detect inattentive drivers and screech at them with uncomfortable loudness until they pay attention, than have a system that has known failure points and a sleeping driver.

Solve the problem. Don't create a new, higher-tech problem.
Sticking with the example of the woman putting on makeup, the current nissan driver assist mode would do what you propose. It alarms, buzzes the wheel, etc when a hand isn’t detected on the wheel. Progress
 
I'm not going to buy an electric vehicle until I know that I can recharge the car as easily as I can now fill up a gas tank. Yes, I could get a charger for home, but that costs more than $1000 (I've talked to electricians), and a home charger doesn't help me drive cross-country. Until then, I'm sticking to hybrids.
So get a plug in hybrid and plug into a Level 1 charger at home. I don't need a fast charger. I plug into a regular outlet on the side of my house. My vehicle gets 37 miles on a charge and since March I may have driven over that 1 or 2 times.
If you want to drive cross country just use the gas in the tank.
I'm waiting to put in my first drop of gasoline since I bought the vehicle on June 29th. Maybe by December.
If you have a cell phone and keep it on you when you drive look into google maps timeline and it will show your driving for every day.
 
So get a plug in hybrid and plug into a Level 1 charger at home. I don't need a fast charger. I plug into a regular outlet on the side of my house. My vehicle gets 37 miles on a charge and since March I may have driven over that 1 or 2 times.
If you want to drive cross country just use the gas in the tank.
I'm waiting to put in my first drop of gasoline since I bought the vehicle on June 29th. Maybe by December.
If you have a cell phone and keep it on you when you drive look into google maps timeline and it will show your driving for every day.
I would consider a PHEV, though I wouldn't be willing to pay much of a premium for it unless gasoline prices get a lot higher. But I am not ready for a BEV.
 
I will never understand the attraction of plug-in hybrids. You get all the parts and issues with parts and hoses and such for a little extra range and/or performance. Unless you are stocked up on astronaut diapers and take long-ass trips every weekend, a BEV will meet the needs of 99.5% of households with access to a level 2 charger (220v).
 
Sticking with the example of the woman putting on makeup, the current nissan driver assist mode would do what you propose. It alarms, buzzes the wheel, etc when a hand isn’t detected on the wheel. Progress
A person can have two hands on the wheel and eyes forward and still not be alert and paying attention.

Anyway, I've been driving my whole life with distracted drivers all around me. I hate it, but the sorts of things distracted drivers do can be accounted for by:

- Being hyper-alert at intersections for drivers not slowing for red lights or stop signs.
- Constant alertness on the highway for drivers not holding steady in their lane.
- Slowing in approach to vision-compromised corners and hills.
- Maintaining large gaps to cars in front.

Because human drivers tend to fail both slowly and observably. Which I can explain if you need me to, but I think you'll understand if you think about it for a moment.

Whereas software operates far, far more quickly and has a far far quicker implementation time once it's reached a, potentially highly flawed, "decision". This creates faults that are difficult to spot in time for the rest of us to recognize and react.

We all agree that eventually, software and sensors, operating in a network of vehicles and infrastructure together, will produce far safer modes of transport. But we're not there yet. We're not even particularly close yet. Mostly because of the missing infrastructure and V2V networking standards and so forth.
 
I will never understand the attraction of plug-in hybrids. You get all the parts and issues with parts and hoses and such for a little extra range and/or performance. Unless you are stocked up on astronaut diapers and take long-ass trips every weekend, a BEV will meet the needs of 99.5% of households with access to a level 2 charger (220v).

Because you're not trying. Some here have explained multiple times.

A little extra range? Come on. Main thing is not straight one-fill range but being able to fill up (completely ...not to 80 percent, or 100 miles or some other half-assed number) in minutes, anywhere.

The reasons may not beapplicable to you, but it they very much exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mildone
Polestar 3 SUV debuted today and up for order. Much improved styling (imo) derived from a pair of concepts they released previously, starting back in 2020.

300 miles of range, up to 510 horsepower, adaptive air suspension standard, Volvo levels of safety. I wouldn't spend $90K on it, but it's definitely a nice newcomer.

 
Polestar 3 SUV debuted today and up for order. Much improved styling (imo) derived from a pair of concepts they released previously, starting back in 2020.

300 miles of range, up to 510 horsepower, adaptive air suspension standard, Volvo levels of safety. I wouldn't spend $90K on it, but it's definitely a nice newcomer.

Nice design, I agree. Range doesn’t meet my needs.
 
Read about the Bezos family’s recent generous philanthropy, and that made me wonder how philanthropic the uber-wealthy Musk is. Has he been worthy of the adulation heaped upon him by the Teslerati?

Perhaps not so much, according to this article from earlier in the year:


But that article is old. Has he, perhaps been more philanthropic with his 200+ billion dollars, since that article came out?

Far be it from me to suggest how others spend their money. But damn… that kind of money could do a massive amount of good.
 
Read about the Bezos family’s recent generous philanthropy, and that made me wonder how philanthropic the uber-wealthy Musk is. Has he been worthy of the adulation heaped upon him by the Teslerati?

Perhaps not so much, according to this article from earlier in the year:


But that article is old. Has he, perhaps been more philanthropic with his 200+ billion dollars, since that article came out?

Far be it from me to suggest how others spend their money. But damn… that kind of money could do a massive amount of good.
I’ll go off the rails with you. He’d be 6th on this list now. Three times more than Bezos (not his wife)
 
Was checking out the 2023 Land Rover Range Rover. The relevance to the thread being that they are apparently going to be offering a PHEV version of the vehicle.


This is a beautiful SUV. Extremely simple lines, smooth subtle bodywork. Impeccable luxurious interior. Just lovely. I don’t understand why auto manufactures are embracing overly busy bodywork design philosophies, or screwy triangular weirdness, when a simple elegant design like the LRRR is so damn pretty.

Despite my aversion to Land Rover, because of their reputation for unreliability, I am adding this to my list of SUVs to consider. Will wait to see how financially painful the PHEV version is. But yum.
 
I’ll go off the rails with you. He’d be 6th on this list now. Three times more than Bezos (not his wife)
Informative article. Thanks.

But how would Musk rank 6th? Or do you mean if it is confirmed that he’s actually donated the $5B+ to a charity of some sort, and the charity actually receives the funds, instead of him parking it in a fund and collecting the tax break while the funds sit unused?

I, obviously I guess, agree with the premise in the article that money must reach the folks in need before it can be counted as philanthropic. Or did that occur, sometime after the Forbes article I posted came out (2/2022), and I just missed it?

Hopefully the latter. I’m a big fan of philanthropy and philanthropic billionaires. I’d jump on the Musk fan club bandwagon if he’s getting involved.
 
Was checking out the 2023 Land Rover Range Rover. The relevance to the thread being that they are apparently going to be offering a PHEV version of the vehicle.


This is a beautiful SUV. Extremely simple lines, smooth subtle bodywork. Impeccable luxurious interior. Just lovely. I don’t understand why auto manufactures are embracing overly busy bodywork design philosophies, or screwy triangular weirdness, when a simple elegant design like the LRRR is so damn pretty.

Despite my aversion to Land Rover, because of their reputation for unreliability, I am adding this to my list of SUVs to consider. Will wait to see how financially painful the PHEV version is. But yum.
They look great sitting in the shop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: retired711
Informative article. Thanks.

But how would Musk rank 6th? Or do you mean if it is confirmed that he’s actually donated the $5B+ to a charity of some sort, and the charity actually receives the funds, instead of him parking it in a fund and collecting the tax break while the funds sit unused?

I, obviously I guess, agree with the premise in the article that money must reach the folks in need before it can be counted as philanthropic. Or did that occur, sometime after the Forbes article I posted came out (2/2022), and I just missed it?

Hopefully the latter. I’m a big fan of philanthropy and philanthropic billionaires. I’d jump on the Musk fan club bandwagon if he’s getting involved.

You know better. Slap that devil off your shoulder.
 
Sorry that was a response to the Range Rover.

Don't feel like deleting and re-quoting so consider this my best fix.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mildone
A person can have two hands on the wheel and eyes forward and still not be alert and paying attention.

Anyway, I've been driving my whole life with distracted drivers all around me. I hate it, but the sorts of things distracted drivers do can be accounted for by:

- Being hyper-alert at intersections for drivers not slowing for red lights or stop signs.
- Constant alertness on the highway for drivers not holding steady in their lane.
- Slowing in approach to vision-compromised corners and hills.
- Maintaining large gaps to cars in front.

Because human drivers tend to fail both slowly and observably. Which I can explain if you need me to, but I think you'll understand if you think about it for a moment.

Whereas software operates far, far more quickly and has a far far quicker implementation time once it's reached a, potentially highly flawed, "decision". This creates faults that are difficult to spot in time for the rest of us to recognize and react.

We all agree that eventually, software and sensors, operating in a network of vehicles and infrastructure together, will produce far safer modes of transport. But we're not there yet. We're not even particularly close yet. Mostly because of the missing infrastructure and V2V networking standards and so forth.
Drivers have become more reckless since the beginning of the pandemic, IMHO. It is important to be super-careful no matter how good a driver you think you are.
 
They look great sitting in the shop.
Maybe they finally got their reliability act together (he says without much hope). I dunno. Maybe they’d let me sit in the comfy seating while they fix it?

I was gonna say that even the lowest ranked cars are still pretty reliable these days, and that’s kind of true. But, the place I take my car for service also does Mercs and LRs and is always incredibly busy with long waits for appointments. And, although I know this is just one joint dealership shop and one person’s anecdotal evidence, it is always roughly 50% RR with the remaining 50% combined Merc/Porsche cars queued up to check in.
 
I’ll go off the rails with you. He’d be 6th on this list now. Three times more than Bezos (not his wife)
Musk said in a TED interview when asked about philanthropy: “I think if you care about the reality of goodness instead of the perception of it, philanthropy is extremely difficult."

philanthropy = love of humanity. Should this be measured in dollar amounts only? Not trying to diminish the generosity of philanthropic donors, but, I think we can all agree there is plenty of money thrown at problems that ends up being wasted and fruitless.

All 4 of Musk's companies are doing things to improve the the well being of people globally.
Tesla = accelerating the transition to sustainable energy
SpaceX = trying to ensure humanity becomes a multiplanetary species. Starlink is providing high speed internet in remote and rural locations across the globe
Boring Co. = alleviate traffic
Neuralink = attempting to cure brain and spinal injuries/disease.
 
Drivers have become more reckless since the beginning of the pandemic, IMHO. It is important to be super-careful no matter how good a driver you think you are.
I can attest to the fact that a lot more people are driving at triple digit speeds than pre-pandemic. Speed can kill. But the more serious problem is that lots of these new speeders are still texting as if they’re driving with the flow, or they’re driving cars ill-equipped to be driving that fast (i.e. cars lacking high speed tires and/or bobbing around on old suspensions, large SUVs or minivans, etc.).

Thing is, those people will still be on the road and doing stuff that software will struggle to recognize and respond to. Bad human drivers in non-automated cars just complicates the situation.
 
I can attest to the fact that a lot more people are driving at triple digit speeds than pre-pandemic. Speed can kill. But the more serious problem is that lots of these new speeders are still texting as if they’re driving with the flow, or they’re driving cars ill-equipped to be driving that fast (i.e. cars lacking high speed tires and/or bobbing around on old suspensions, large SUVs or minivans, etc.).

Thing is, those people will still be on the road and doing stuff that software will struggle to recognize and respond to. Bad human drivers in non-automated cars just complicates the situation.
In my recent experience as a driver, high speeds are a relatively minor part of the problem. What is more concerning is that drivers have become more aggressive; for instance, more willing to cheat as a light turns red or to cut in front of another driver with little room to spare.

Automating driving would probably cut down on accidents and highway deaths. But automating is not going to be accepted unless it almost completely eliminates risk. People are willing to accept risks when they feel controllable, but not when the risks are involuntarily imposed. So people are willing to tolerate a relatively high risk of auto accidents because they feel they can control the risk through their own driving. Not so with a risk imposed by automation, even if that risk is much less. The size of a risk is far from the only determinant of whether people will accept it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mildone
In my recent experience as a driver, high speeds are a relatively minor part of the problem. What is more concerning is that drivers have become more aggressive; for instance, more willing to cheat as a light turns red or to cut in front of another driver with little room to spare.

Automating driving would probably cut down on accidents and highway deaths. But automating is not going to be accepted unless it almost completely eliminates risk. People are willing to accept risks when they feel controllable, but not when the risks are involuntarily imposed. So people are willing to tolerate a relatively high risk of auto accidents because they feel they can control the risk through their own driving. Not so with a risk imposed by automation, even if that risk is much less. The size of a risk is far from the only determinant of whether people will accept it.
Agree with this. Although, people who drive in excess of 100mph, with the same low level of attentiveness and alertness as when they drove 75 or 80, are probably not so minor a part of the problem. Gotta be super alert to drive those speeds because you’re moving past everybody and other drivers will not see you coming.

But for sure, your point about the type of risk people will accept is true. And people generally don’t see themselves as the problem, they think it’s others. So they’ll want others to incur the risks of automated driving while they can opt out.

I expect some nasty legal battles with SCOTUS involvement as states try to impose stuff on drivers who refuse it. Also expect a lot of lawsuits against auto-manufacturers as people wind up dead in cars that are driving themselves.
 
Musk said in a TED interview when asked about philanthropy: “I think if you care about the reality of goodness instead of the perception of it, philanthropy is extremely difficult."

philanthropy = love of humanity. Should this be measured in dollar amounts only? Not trying to diminish the generosity of philanthropic donors, but, I think we can all agree there is plenty of money thrown at problems that ends up being wasted and fruitless.

All 4 of Musk's companies are doing things to improve the the well being of people globally.
Tesla = accelerating the transition to sustainable energy
SpaceX = trying to ensure humanity becomes a multiplanetary species. Starlink is providing high speed internet in remote and rural locations across the globe
Boring Co. = alleviate traffic
Neuralink = attempting to cure brain and spinal injuries/disease.
I don't think I agree with Musk here.

I don't know where it came from for me, but from when I was in high school, "giving back" beyond what I do for my job, has been very important to me. It is something we have drummed into our kids. Do something for others. It can be your time, or it can be money if you have it (and Musk has an awful lot of it). Just had this conversation with my daughter who will graduate in the Spring and will be moving to a new part of the country.

I told her that the most important thing she can do besides being great at work is to find something to do to serve others in the community. While I have never looked for anything in return for what I have done with volunteering my time and donating money, the rewards, both emotional and tangential have been enormous.

This vignette (and the entire podcast) is very telling:

 
I don't think I agree with Musk here.

I don't know where it came from for me, but from when I was in high school, "giving back" beyond what I do for my job, has been very important to me. It is something we have drummed into our kids. Do something for others. It can be your time, or it can be money if you have it (and Musk has an awful lot of it). Just had this conversation with my daughter who will graduate in the Spring and will be moving to a new part of the country.

I told her that the most important thing she can do besides being great at work is to find something to do to serve others in the community. While I have never looked for anything in return for what I have done with volunteering my time and donating money, the rewards, both emotional and tangential have been enormous.

This vignette (and the entire podcast) is very telling:

Wanting to give back comes with the lack of expectation of getting something in return. Elon expects to make money in return for his endeavors. He's not sacrificing anything...whether it is time, money, influence, etc. for the benefit of others. He's investing in his own businesses. That's very much uncharitable.
 
Last edited:
I will never understand the attraction of plug-in hybrids. You get all the parts and issues with parts and hoses and such for a little extra range and/or performance. Unless you are stocked up on astronaut diapers and take long-ass trips every weekend, a BEV will meet the needs of 99.5% of households with access to a level 2 charger (220v).
Good point. But you're really not using those parts and you should have less issues with them. One other thought, is a PHEV carrying less weight than a full EV? What weighs more the ICE or the batteries?
I don't need a Level 2 charger and I'm running more than 90% on Electric and that's because I'm forcing the use of gas until I get to 50 miles left then I will buy $5 worth to keep the gas fresh in the tank. And yes, I know I can still use a Level 1 on a EV since I don't need to fully charge faster.
 
Wanting to give back comes with he lack of expectation of getting something in return. Elon expects to make money in return for his endeavors. He's not sacrificing anything...whether it is time, money, influence, etc. for the benefit of others. He's investing in his own businesses. That's very much uncharitable.
Correct, he's entirely invested in his own businesses and his wealth is tied to their success. He's cash poor (relatively speaking) and he's not some billionaire playboy living in on a yacht. And, once again, his 4 businesses have, and will continue to benefit humanity. This apparently doesn't fit your definition of philanthropy, so I'd like to know how each of his business ventures and their benefit to humanity could be accomplished as a non profit.
 
Last edited:
Need help on EV tax credit. If I buy an EV right now, is it under the old rules (no income limit) or the new rule?
 
I don't think I agree with Musk here.

I don't know where it came from for me, but from when I was in high school, "giving back" beyond what I do for my job, has been very important to me. It is something we have drummed into our kids. Do something for others. It can be your time, or it can be money if you have it (and Musk has an awful lot of it). Just had this conversation with my daughter who will graduate in the Spring and will be moving to a new part of the country.

I told her that the most important thing she can do besides being great at work is to find something to do to serve others in the community. While I have never looked for anything in return for what I have done with volunteering my time and donating money, the rewards, both emotional and tangential have been enormous.

This vignette (and the entire podcast) is very telling:

I have found that doing stuff for others provides a lasting good feeling whereas pretty much everything else, acquisitiveness, sex, whatever... the positive feelings are much more fleeting. Doesn't have to be money, as you say. Time is even more precious than money. Hell, a kind word or a hug can be what someone needs most.
 
Correct, he's entirely invested in his own businesses and his wealth is tied to their success. He's cash poor (relatively speaking) and he's not some billionaire playboy living in on a yacht. And, once again, his 4 businesses have, and will continue to benefit humanity. This apparently doesn't fit your definition of philanthropy, so I'd like to know how each of his business ventures could be accomplished as a non profit.
Has over $200B in net worth. He could afford to sell a few shares and donate some of that, maybe feed a few starving kids or fund some cancer research, no?

It seems, from the article I posted, that he might have done just that, sold shares and donated the funds. However, it also appears, but is not yet confirmed, that he parked it in some fund where he gets the tax benefit of the donation without the funds necessarily ever reaching anybody who could benefit from it. Although perhaps I misunderstand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight Shift
Agree with this. Although, people who drive in excess of 100mph, with the same low level of attentiveness and alertness as when they drove 75 or 80, are probably not so minor a part of the problem. Gotta be super alert to drive those speeds because you’re moving past everybody and other drivers will not see you coming.

But for sure, your point about the type of risk people will accept is true. And people generally don’t see themselves as the problem, they think it’s others. So they’ll want others to incur the risks of automated driving while they can opt out.

I expect some nasty legal battles with SCOTUS involvement as states try to impose stuff on drivers who refuse it. Also expect a lot of lawsuits against auto-manufacturers as people wind up dead in cars that are driving themselves.
I doubt there would be a legal problem with requirements on drivers as long as they're not completely irrational.. We've lived with seatbelt laws, after all. Yes, we're heading for litigation against auto manufacturers about self-driving cars that will get into accidents; the possibility of that litigation will considerably slow down automation.

I encounter almost no one going over 100 mph. But I encounter plenty of idiots who think they own the road.
 
Should ADAS policy decisions be based on real world driving data?
Sure. But cars don't actually have to any self-driving in order to gather that real world data.

Cars can drive around in a virtual driving mode 24/7 where all the sensors and software are fully operating and gathering all the same event data, making decisions as it goes. Except the software would run in a mode where it doesn't follow-through by physically implementing it's decisions using the car's controls.

The data is all still being gathered without the risks of exposing everybody else on the road to some manufacturer's software team's pre-release and/or buggy software. The resulting data would show failure points, would gather massive amounts of useful training data, etc. There would even be additional useful data generated by the gaps between the software's decisions and virtual actions, and the human driver's decisions and actions.

And using all that gathered data, both virtual and physical proving grounds can reproduce failure points to high degrees of accuracy, making testing away from public roads very useful (and safe).

That stuff has already been taking place and is ongoing. But it obviously needs refinement. It's not like software folks signed off on releasing their software knowing it would cause cars to run into emergency vehicles. So that scenario clearly didn't arise in their data from driving on-road or from testing off-road.

Which means they need more real-world data-gathering on public roads, and/or improved test plans or facilities, without physically operating vehicles on public roads.
 
Last edited:
I doubt there would be a legal problem with requirements on drivers as long as they're not completely irrational.. We've lived with seatbelt laws, after all. Yes, we're heading for litigation against auto manufacturers about self-driving cars that will get into accidents; the possibility of that litigation will considerably slow down automation.

I encounter almost no one going over 100 mph. But I encounter plenty of idiots who think they own the road.
Trust me. The 100+ club has grown quite a bit since early 2020. We know it for sure because the NJSP have pointed it out from their records.

Used to only be folks with tuner cars or high-end sports cars or sports sedans drove that fast. I'd see them on longer road trips when traffic volume was low and we were away from population centers. And it didn't bother me because all the cars were built for it and the drivers were usually pretty focused and alert and everybody tended to slow up when volume increased.

But now I'm seeing it almost every time I'm on a highway in NJ for more than a few miles - and often in cars that are very unsafe at those speeds. And with people just kind of driving along, not really paying attention. Saw a small handful of these 100+ drivers on the GSP between Edison and Union, and on I287 between Edison and Route 22 just yesterday.
 
Trust me. The 100+ club has grown quite a bit since early 2020. We know it for sure because the NJSP have pointed it out from their records.

Used to only be folks with tuner cars or high-end sports cars or sports sedans drove that fast. I'd see them on longer road trips when traffic volume was low and we were away from population centers. And it didn't bother me because all the cars were built for it and the drivers were usually pretty focused and alert and everybody tended to slow up when volume increased.

But now I'm seeing it almost every time I'm on a highway in NJ for more than a few miles - and often in cars that are very unsafe at those speeds. And with people just kind of driving along, not really paying attention. Saw a small handful of these 100+ drivers on the GSP between Edison and Union, and on I287 between Edison and Route 22 just yesterday.
287, GSP, Turnpike, 295, 78...i see that all the time.
 
287, GSP, Turnpike, 295, 78...i see that all the time.
Yep. Like I said, it didn't used to bug me because the folks doing it were mostly sane car people who took their driving as seriously as their cars.

But that's all changed for the worse. Scares me to see someone in an Escalade doing 125mph and lane weaving. But I saw that very thing on the GSP just a couple/few weekends ago.

These darn irresponsible folks are making it problematic for us responsible speeders. 😀
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT