Getting Off The Highway

Recently I visited Boston to watch our beloved Knicks lose a heartbreaker Game 1 to the Celtics at the TD Garden. It was an awesome trip despite the loss.

Here's the gang getting warmed up for the game:

Moon, Eric, Jay, Walt Clyde, and Beer-on-the-Girl.

But before I digress and complain about the Knicks' lost opportunities, poor coaching, and the like, I wanted to discuss the following issue that arose on the trip.

On our way up, friend-of-the-blog Jay generously offered to drive him and myself from North Jersey to Boston. On our trip, there were a handful of times we had to exit a highway. Each time the exit ramp was filled with a line of cars waiting to leave the highway, Jay would pull the following move: not wanting to wait in this line, he would drive up as far as possible, passing the growing line of cars on his right. Then, at the last possible instant, he would abruptly cut back into the line of cars, "cutting" the line of cars.

Incredulous (and also wanting to bust his balls), I brought it up around the guys in Boston, who all admitted that they do the same thing! Moon even justified it by bringing up the fact that no traffic laws were technically being broken. My stance remained constant: I can't think of many things that are as blatantly rude as this - and maybe I would have done the same as a younger man, but now I can't imagine doing this with such a cavalier attitude and with no guilt.

Is this an egregious act of road rage carried out to the nth degree? Or just something that people do on the rough roads of the Northeast?

New Jersey Highway Driving

From the New Jersey Driver's Manual:

On a multi-lane roadway, motorists must drive in the lane nearest to the right-hand edge or curb of the roadway when the lane is available for travel, except when overtaking another vehicle or in preparation for a left turn.

(from N.J.S.A. 39:4-88, which elaborates:

"Upon a highway which is divided into 3 lanes, a vehicle shall not be driven in the center lane except when overtaking or passing another vehicle or in preparation for a left turn or unless the center lane is at the time allocated for traffic moving in the direction the vehicle is proceeding and is signposted to give notice of that allocation.")

Now, any of you who have ever driven on the New Jersey Turnpike know that what the law says and what people do in this regard are very, very different. Troopers who are parked on the side of the turnpike, watching for traffic violators, do not stop people strictly for unnecessarily driving in the left lane.

Infact, I would argue that there seems to be an written but widely accepted set of rules for driving on the Turnpike (and the Parkway, 295, 80, etc...) that most motorists seem to abide by. They go something like this:

- The right lane is the "slow lane". If you feel like actually obeying the speed limit (i.e. driving slower than it) you go to the right lane. You also go here when you are getting ready to exit the highway. If you are in the right lane and you want to pass somebody, it is expected that you will go to the middle lane to do so.

- The middle lane is the "cruising lane". People in the middle lane should be going either at the speed limit or slightly above it. You don't feel like going slow to the right. If you are on a 65-mph highway, the accepted speed for the middle line is probably something between 62 and 72 miles per hour. If you are in this speed range, and somebody wants to go faster than you, it is expected that they will go to the left to pass you.

- The left lane is the "fast lane". People in the left lane are in a constant state of passing people in the middle lane, and are taking the risk of getting a speeding ticket. If you are in the left lane you should be doing at least 75 on a 65-mph highway. Also, even if you are doing 75, if somebody comes up behind you and wants to go faster, it is expected that you will go over to the middle lane at the next opportunity to let them by. Then, you are allowed to return to the left lane.


So, let us posit that I am more or less accurate about these unwritten rules. Furthermore, let us agree that these are not the actual driving laws. I do not abide by one of these rules. And consequently, I receive glares, middle fingers, etc... by irate drivers (and almost always, in North Jersey. Don't get me started on the vast difference between the human beings that drive south of Trenton and the stress-inducing lunatics that drive north of New Brunswick. I should have elaborated on this difference more the last time I meditated on this topic.)

Here's the way I usually drive: I am ok with the unwritten rules about the right and middle lanes. When I cruise in the middle lane, I drive at about 65 (or 55 if that's the speed limit) or slightly below that speed. However, when I'm too impatient to cruise in the middle lane (usually when the driver in front of me is not doing 60 (or 55)), I cruise in the left lane. However, I obviously want to minimize my chances of getting a ticket. Therefore, I obey another unwritten rule of driving - which is you should never go more than 10 mph over the speed limit. The thought process behind this, I suppose, is that police won't bother writing you a ticket for speeding by under 10 mph over the limit, as you can plead down in traffic court.

So, anyway, when I cruise the left lane, I do so at about 72 mph (in a 65) or 62 mph (in a 55).

When I do this, before long, somebody is inevitably riding right up my ass. I don't move over for them, nor do I speed up or slow down. Essentially, I pretend that they aren't there. This usually leads to them getting dangerously close to me and high-beaming me. Finally, they give up, swerve around me to the right, match my speed to glare at me, give me the finger, and yell at me. Then, they swerve in front of me, dangerously close, go slow for a couple of seconds (I suppose to show me the size of their dick), then peel away.

Now, Walt, why don't you obey rule #3 about the left lane? Is it passive-aggressive behavior which is a form of road rage? Are you trying to prove a point? No, none of the above. I feel that this is an appropriate way to drive. I do not want to let the behavior of maniacs alter or dictate the way I drive. I understand that when I'm in the left lane, I technically shouldn't be there. However, neither should any of the other drivers. Therefore, their rules are no more valid than mine. We are all breaking the law by being there at all. If you need to go 85 or 90 miles per hour, the onus is on you to swerve through the lanes as you feel necessary, not on me to placate you and implicitly condone your insanity by moving for you.

Ironically, I brought this up at a dinner in North Jersey with my North Jersey family a few months ago, and asked them how they felt. Every single one of them, including my own mother and brother, said that I was being a dick for not moving out of the way in the left-hand lane. I concluded that living in North Jersey makes one a maniacal driver and warps one's otherwise rational perspective on the driving issue. Then again, if I had to fight the crazy traffic up there for the past four years in addition to the previous 11 that I already had done, I'd have lost my fucking mind too.

The Class System and Muncipial Court

Aside of the obvious disadvatanges of being of a low socio-economic class in this country, we know that there are also more subtle, indirect disadvantages. Several months ago, this was illustrated this to me through a real-world example in traffic court.

I have not been known to be the best driver in the world. When I was 17 (it was a very good year), I was infamously noted as saying "Well, the speed limit is really just a guide. You don't HAVE to follow it" and probably believing it at the time. Over the years I've had a series of fender-benders, mishaps, traffic violations, 15-day license suspensions, etc... but always managed to stay on the good side of any serious consequences. Just some money lost, refiltered back through various local judicial systems of our great state, and a couple in other states.

But, Walt, you are a generally law-abiding person, right?. Why have you had so many traffic accidents? I'm becoming more and more convinced that I'm ADHD, and that is responsible for my inordinate number of traffic incidents. As recently as last night, when Walt Clyde took his dad (George Carlin) to the Sixers - Spurs game, I drove to Walt Clyde Senior's nervousness, where we almost ran out of gas on the way back, and W.C. Sr had to steer for a minute while I was taking something out of my pocket on the highway back from Philadelphia.


By the way, our seats at the game kicked ass. Here's a pic I took from my seat. It was a treat to see Duncan play, who I've always admired, but Sammy Dalembert did a great job defensively on him. Andre Miller went for 32 points in a great game for him, and the Spurs got outplayed by the Sixers.








But I digress. So I've been to traffic court several times in my life, in various municipalities. Several months ago, I got a ticket coming from Teaneck to my home in South Jersey, at about 7:30 on a Sunday morning on the Turnpike (78 mph, nobody else around - plus driving in the left lane without the intent of passing is apparently illegal - and I so got a ticket for "Disregarding a Turnpike Sign" - apparently officers can give these generic 2-pt violation tickets) and went to traffic court. I won't say the name of the town I got pulled over in, but I'll just say that it was near exit 5 and sounds something like "Shmurlington City".

Most of us probably have heard that if you get issued a ticket that carries motor vehicle points, it is worthwhile to go to traffic court to try to plea down to a violation that carries no points. The whole thing is basically a ploy to get money from you. The state has made it legal to plea down to a no-point ticket called "unsafe driving" which you can do twice in a 5-year span and get out of 2 or even 4 points, but you must pay a surcharge to the state of a couple hundred bucks. So, it's like: you can plea guilty, pay less in traffic court, but pay the insurance companies a couple of hundred dollars in surchages; or, pay more in traffic court and not have your insurance go up. It's not hard to see why the state wants you to plea down to this no-point thing. However, having to pay money at all does serve the deterrent effect, as I have not broken any traffic laws since.

But I digress again. So I went to traffic court, having researched the ticket I got, having called my insurance company and finding out the consequences, and therefore having a limit set on the amount of money I was willing to accept in ticket / fine money, so that I was equipped to deal with the prosecutor when we had our pre-conference prior to court starting.

There were approximately 100 people in municipal court that day. Of those, the majority of the people there were minorities (black and Hispanic), and most appeared to be of a lower socio-economic class. Shmurlington City is not the most affluent of areas. There were a handful of middle-class white guys there, most of them in for similar offenses to mine.

During the plea period, and when called up in front of the court, the white guys all did something similar to me - pled down out of points, took a surcharge, and paid their tickets and left. However, the majority of the non-white people there, regardless of offense - traffic or otherwise - did not strike any kind of deals. They just pled either guilty or not guilty to whatever they were charged with. In most cases, they were pleading guilty to traffic offenses that they did not even bother to discuss or plead down to. I'd overheard them talking to the prosecutors, and the weary prosecutors did not seem to fully explain or talk to some of the more ghetto people there. I believed this was because, overall, they generally were more defensive, argumentative, and not willing to discuss things as much as John Q. White Guys. Some of the Hispanic guys did not seem to really understand the procedure. Now, was any of this blatantly discriminatory or classist? Clearly not. But did the result of our court dealings turn out differently? Probably. While not denying anybody of rights, the judge, police, and prosecutors certainly weren't going out of their way to illustrate to people what all of their options were - kind of like the general difference between lying and not telling the truth.

And speaking of Hispanic guys not understanding stuff... every time the judge enters or leaves the courtroom, everybody follows the archaic procedure of "All rise as the judge enters/leaves!" and stand until he says, "You may be seated." The back row of the court contained a Hispanic guy who I'll call Javier. Javier probably doesn't know how to say "Si" in English. He was slow on the uptake of standing and seating at the appropriate times, and he was the only one. This old, bald, testosterone-filled cop made it a point to yell at the guy in front of the entire room, making a note of his name, saying that for his impending dealings with the court, this would be remembered. He demonstratively and determinedly broadcast Clancy Wiggum-like copisms such as, "This guy don't think he's got to get up with everybody else? That's ok, we'll get him." I left after my case and don't know what happened to Javier. All I know is that it seemed not only obvious that Javier was not being intentionally disrespectful, but also that he could not have been the only guy who didn't get up or sit in a timely manner - didn't this cop understand that? As if Javier was going to risk being punished just so he can stick a needle in the court by not standing and sitting at the right time. Was he just doing this "for show" to, for whatever reason, scare the rest of the court lest they had visions of being disrespectful to the judge later? So I don't know if anything came of it - but it was very insensitive. During the break, the cop could have handled it differently. And if Javier's treatment was any harsher from this incident, I don't see how it could be described as anything other than unfair and discriminatory.

And this is one small picture of what I believe happens to lower class people that make them feel like the system is against them. Less informed than middle class people, they don't seem to catch the breaks that we do.

(And I've been driving more safely for the past few months. I will keep it up... I will keep it up... I will keep it up...)

On Driving in NJ

Travelling often now from South Jersey to North Jersey, and having lived in different parts of New Jersey since college (going to 10 years, yikes), I wanted to share some thoughts about driving in our great state...

On the Turnpike...

Read up on "the Turnpike". The Turnpike has become increasingly annoying to travel as the years have gone on. It seems like traffic used to be concentrated near exit 18 and near Newark sometimes, and then bunch up at the "merge" going south. However, often these days these are not the worst pockets of traffic. Traffic is worst often going north or south in random pockets anywhere between exit 6 and exit 9. If you clicked on the Wikipedia link, apparently they are thinking of widening the turnpike between exit 6 and exit 8A, so who knows if that will help.

The dashes painted on the road on the turnpike are 25 feet long. I learned this in a math teacher's workshop.

I've stopped in Turnpike rest stops and never been propositioned by a woman, man, or a prostitute. What have I been missing out on?

They need to do something coming north approaching the toll booth at exit 18 about people who wait in the EZ-Pass lane but don't have EZ-Pass, and then wait to cut into the non-EZ-Pass lanes to avoid waiting there. It not only pisses off both EZ-Passers and non-EZ-Passers, but it defeats the purpose of having an EZ-Pass lane. They should either (1) start putting up concrete dividers about half a mile up the Turnpike - although, I guess you'd run into the same problem right before these dividers - or, (2) have police patrol the plaza and give out fines or tickets for these line cutters.

Speaking of the toll booth at exit 18, any thought on this huge ski thing they're constructing there? What's the progress with that?

There are no roads that traverse the entire length of the Turnpike that give you alternate methods to travel. There are several different roads which run almost parallel to the turnpike for strecthes at a time. For instance, one can bypass the turnpike between exit 4 and exit 7 by taking 295 which is an awesome highway, and then if turnpike traffic is really bad one can take the Parkway to bypass the stretch from exit 11 to exit 18. Between exit 7 and exit 11 one can take either Route 1 and Route 130. However, except for 295 none of these other methods are usually quicker than waiting out the traffic.

Which leads me to...

On Traffic...

Has traffic in the NYC / NJ / Philadelphia / CT region reached a point of "crisis"? Obviously not. We all manage to get by and deal with the traffic we have. However, we're not even close to being the worst. According to this link, here's the top 12 worst cities:

1. Los Angeles, Long Beach, Santa Ana, Calif.
2. San Francisco, Oakland, Calif.
3. Washington, D.C.
4. Atlanta
5. Houston
6. Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Tex.
7. Chicago.
8. Detroit
9. Riverside, San Bernardino, Calif.
9. Orlando, Fla.
11. San Jose, Calif.
12. San Diego

I was in L.A. once in my life, and the traffic indeed did suck at all hours.

Anyway, I know that as a Jersey resident, I often feel like have to plan my activities around traffic. It's sometimes worth driving back and forth to North Jersey at weird hours to avoid the extra 30 - 60 minutes I'll have to sit annoyed on the Turnpike (with no traffic, it's about an hour and 40 minutes). And I don't really do errands after school between, say, 4:30 and 6:30. And if I do, I take back roads everywhere.

So, I guess what I'm pondering is, when would traffic reach such a level not only here in NJ, but in general, that a critical mass of our society stood up and decided that serious changes needed to be made (add true incentives to use public transportation, etc...)?

"Cars"

An animated movie called Cars came out a couple of years ago (it was good, worth seeing). Anyway, a theme of the movie is about how major highways / modern conveniences make people forget about small towns / old fashioned America and what's really important. Now that I've traversed South Jersey a little bit, that movie rings true driving these other smaller roads (sometimes to avoid traffic on the Atlantic City Expressway!) that run east-west from Philadelphia to Atlantic City. People have been driving to the shore for a long time from the Philadelphia area, but there is a major road called the Atlantic City Expressway (built in the 60s) that has slowly decreased traffic on these other roads. There are small, run down bars, restaurants, and generally abandonded areas on these smaller roads that families must have taken before everybody just decided to take the Expressway since there are no lights and you can do 65 (at least) instead of having to stop every couple of miles for a light and do 65 (at the most) on these other highways.