# Driving unreasonably fast (ticket rant)



## The_lurkeR (Feb 12, 2005)

I received a ticket on the way into work today.   

I was on a backroad shortcut near my home, I take every day to avoid a major intersection.

The major roads of the intersection are busy with 2 to 4 lanes, has 4 lights, numerous driveways on and off for businesses and residences. It has a 40mph speed limit.

The road I was on is a 2 lane straightway, no lights, with no sparse driveways off and none of them blind. This road has a 25mph speed limit.

I take this road every day and I can't remember ever seeing a car drive 25 down this road. Does anyone drive 25 these days? You can run faster! It's all a big scam to make money, Insurance companies donate radar guns to local police so they can write more tickets and they both make money hand over fist! It's a financial bonanza!!!


Ok rant over


----------



## Mark (Feb 12, 2005)

Did the ticket mention how fast you were traveling?


----------



## The_lurkeR (Feb 12, 2005)

[cough] 54 [cough]

None the less it's a grave injustice!!!




Honestly everyone travels that road about 40-45'ish, (that's not just in my opinion, I've talked to others about it today) so I wouldn't be completely shocked if I did somehow hit 54 at peak, but I am surprised if that's true.


----------



## Mark (Feb 12, 2005)

Any hills or rises?


----------



## The_lurkeR (Feb 12, 2005)

No hills, but it does rise a bit in the direction I was traveling.

(wondering where Mark is leading...)


----------



## Crothian (Feb 12, 2005)

did you just get a ticket for going fast or did they add on something like reckles s driving as well?  round these aprts I think if you exceed the speed limit by 20 mph it is actually consider reckless driver and that is much more severe.

And I doubt you can run 25 mph, that's really fast to run.  And I drive the speed limit, it really isn't that hard.  But if "everyone" travels that road at that speed you can gather evidence and argue your ticket in court.


----------



## Mark (Feb 12, 2005)

The_lurkeR said:
			
		

> No hills, but it does rise a bit in the direction I was traveling.
> 
> (wondering where Mark is leading...)




Just curious as to conditions.

And, if I am not mistaken, most of CT has been hovering around 32 degrees, a little over during midday/early afternoon with some chance of melting, and down in the low twenties at night causing some refreezing, is this correct?

Also, driveways?  That means at least some residential?  Possibly children?


----------



## The_lurkeR (Feb 12, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> did you just get a ticket for going fast or did they add on something like reckles s driving as well?  round these aprts I think if you exceed the speed limit by 20 mph it is actually consider reckless driver and that is much more severe.
> .





The ticket is just for "Driving unreasonably fast". I checked the state laws online after, and it looks like they break it out like this...

If the speed limit is below 55mph, and you are over it, it's "Driving unreasonably fast".

If the speed limit is 55mph or above and you are over it, you are "Speeding". If you are 20mph+ over that you can be charged with "Reckless driving".


----------



## Crothian (Feb 12, 2005)

so, how much is the ticket?


----------



## drothgery (Feb 12, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> And I doubt you can run 25 mph, that's really fast to run.




For reference, that's about what an Olympic-medalist level sprinter averages in the 100 meters.



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> And I drive the speed limit, it really isn't that hard.




In California, about the only thing that's safe to assume about the speed limit is that it has very little correlation with the speed traffic actually moves at  -- which will be stop & go, 10-15 mph under the speed limit (if there's rain, which causes SoCal residents to panic), or 15+mph over the speed limit (given a long stretch of relatively clear highway). However, the California highway patrol apparently doesn't consider exceeding the speed limit to be an actual crime.


----------



## The_lurkeR (Feb 12, 2005)

Mark said:
			
		

> Just curious as to conditions.
> 
> And, if I am not mistaken, most of CT has been hovering around 32 degrees, a little over during midday/early afternoon with some chance of melting, and down in the low twenties at night causing some refreezing, is this correct?
> 
> Also, driveways?  That means at least some residential?  Possibly children?





No ice on the road. I've lived in the state all my life so I'm experienced with winter driving and would not have been driving that fast if that was the conditions. I had one experience with black ice back in my teenage years and that was enough.

Yes there are a handful of residences at the beginning, on one side of the road that do have children, but it was not where I was clocked.
Most of the road is just bordered by a large clear plot where they are planning on building a new shopping and apartment complex.


----------



## The_lurkeR (Feb 12, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> so, how much is the ticket?





$180


----------



## Crothian (Feb 12, 2005)

The_lurkeR said:
			
		

> $180




a little higher then the last speeding ticket I got


----------



## Mark (Feb 12, 2005)

I guess you could try to argue it, but if the speed limit is posted and considering you were doing 220% of it, I doubt you'll make much headway.  Maybe you could get a reduced fine by taking traffic school or something?  How many tickets have you had over your time as a licenced driver?


----------



## The_lurkeR (Feb 12, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> a little higher then the last speeding ticket I got




AHA! But I thought you didn't speed?!!


----------



## Crothian (Feb 12, 2005)

The_lurkeR said:
			
		

> AHA! But I thought you didn't speed?!!




i don't now......


----------



## Mark (Feb 12, 2005)

The_lurkeR said:
			
		

> AHA! But I thought you didn't speed?!!




SNAP!



Caught him red handed with his junk in the wind!


----------



## Jaws (Feb 12, 2005)

edit


----------



## Lhorgrim (Feb 12, 2005)

From the way you describe the area, it sounds like someone has complained to law enforcement that "people are flying through this residential 25mph area and the cops don't do anything about it", and speed enforcement was ordered for the area.
It's possible that the officer just happened to be there, but in my experience a roadway like you describe only gets real attention after accidents or citizen complaints.
I'm not sure how the courts work in your area, but in my area your best bet would be to contact the prosecutor's office and try to get traffic school.


----------



## The_lurkeR (Feb 12, 2005)

Mark said:
			
		

> I guess you could try to argue it, but if the speed limit is posted and considering you were doing 220% of it, I doubt you'll make much headway.  Maybe you could get a reduced fine by taking traffic school or something?  How many tickets have you had over your time as a licenced driver?





I had a couple tickets in the past, but it has been perhaps 8-10 years since the last.

Haven't decided on what to do about this one. I might try and get some leniency like you say, to get it reduced or something.

My frustrations are only that the speed limit is so unreasonably low that it jacks the fine up, and that virtually every car travelling that road could be given a ticket as well, it just happened to be my unlucky day.   

There are those kind of 'speed trap' roads in every town though I suppose.


----------



## Krieg (Feb 12, 2005)

Nevermind, someone beat me to it.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Feb 12, 2005)

The_lurkeR said:
			
		

> It's all a big scam to make money, Insurance companies donate radar guns to local police so they can write more tickets and they both make money hand over fist! It's a financial bonanza!!!




I'm with you. Speed limits are a joke. People can be trusted to drive a reasonable speed given their surroundings and their vehicle's capabilities. I say we toss out all speed limit ordinances.


----------



## Algolei (Feb 12, 2005)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> I'm with you. Speed limits are a joke. People can be trusted to drive a reasonable speed given their surroundings and their vehicle's capabilities. I say we toss out all speed limit ordinances.



Let me guess:  You've "picked" apples by ramming the tree with your van, haven't you?


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Feb 12, 2005)

The_lurkeR said:
			
		

> If the speed limit is below 55mph, and you are over it, it's "Driving unreasonably fast".
> 
> If the speed limit is 55mph or above and you are over it, you are "Speeding". If you are 20mph+ over that you can be charged with "Reckless driving".




That's weird as heck. It's not as bad to go 55 in a residential area as it is to go 75 in a 55 zone? Strange, strange. 

I drive the speed limit. The assumption that everyone's going to be going above the speed limit is a constant irritation to me on the road. Speed limits need to be either enforced or changed to something reasonable; as is, it fosters an attitude that breaking little laws is fine, if you don't get caught. Not that people need that actively increased...


----------



## Jdvn1 (Feb 12, 2005)

Yep, I know the feeling.  Got a $185 ticket a week or two ago.


----------



## Ashwyn (Feb 12, 2005)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> I'm with you. Speed limits are a joke. People can be trusted to drive a reasonable speed given their surroundings and their vehicle's capabilities. I say we toss out all speed limit ordinances.



I hear ya! It's not like anyone ever gets hurt by people going too fast. It's a conspiracy, man!!!


----------



## Impeesa (Feb 12, 2005)

Algolei said:
			
		

> Let me guess:  You've "picked" apples by ramming the tree with your van, haven't you?




Hehe. If you think he's joking, explain this. 

--Impeesa--


----------



## Panthanas (Feb 12, 2005)

The_lurkeR said:
			
		

> Haven't decided on what to do about this one. I might try and get some leniency like you say, to get it reduced or something.




I know a few friends and family here in rural upstate NY that have had their speeding tickets reduced to "Failure to obey a traffic control device" i.e. the speed limit sign.  It has reduced the fine greatly and isn't as bad of an infraction for insurance purposes.  I don't know if that will help you in CT, but it might be worth looking into.


----------



## Turanil (Feb 12, 2005)

The_lurkeR said:
			
		

> It's all a big scam to make money, Insurance companies donate radar guns to local police so they can write more tickets and they both make money hand over fist! It's a financial bonanza!!!



Welcome to the real world!


----------



## JoeBlank (Feb 12, 2005)

One possibililty you do not seem to have considered: in some residential areas the speed limits are set low as a traffic control device. Even though it is possible for you to cut your trip short by using this road, the plan is for the majority of the traffic to be on the main road. The people who live on that road do not want it used as a shortcut, especially by people who might endanger their children.

I'm certainly do not want to be argumentative, but I live on a street like the one on which you were speeding. Although originally intended to be only a residential street, a few highway expansions in the area have turned it into a helpful shortcut. A few years ago, a few of us got together and petitioned to have speed humps installed. The county required a speed study to confirm the level of traffic and the percentage of speeders. Then, 80% of the residents had to agree to the speed humps, and to a small increase in our property taxes to pay for them. They help a little, but there are certainly still commuters who would rather deal with the humps than travel on the highway.

As others have suggested, contact the prosecutor's office and see if they will help you out. Do not go to court without talking to someone beforehand. The judges usually to not appreciate someone appearing to argue a speeding ticket, especially when you admit you were speeding but find the law unfair. They could end up adding on court fees to your fine.


----------



## Hellefire (Feb 12, 2005)

I disagree. Even if you don't get a chance to talk to anybody beforehand, the best advice I ever got was go to court for every ticket. If the cop who wrote the ticket doesnt show up, it's dismissed (well in CA, WA, AK and MI, havent fought tickets in any other states). Even for showing up the ticket price is almost always reduced. I ALWAYS recommend fighting traffic tickets, and I have never seen and didn't realize it was legal for them to add to your ticket price for showing up for the court date that they have to give you and be there for.

Aaron Blair
Foren Star


----------



## Umbran (Feb 12, 2005)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> People can be trusted to drive a reasonable speed given their surroundings and their vehicle's capabilities.




Yeah, just like we can trust them to not do other dangerous things, like drink and drive.  Or do motorcycle wheelies on the interstate.  Just like we can trust them not to stick knives in each other, or shoot each other, or relieve themselves on electric fences...

Sorry, but the idea that human beings will be reasonable simply doesn't stand up to the historical evidence.


----------



## alsih2o (Feb 12, 2005)

I got my first ticket in 18 years last week. I was doing 56 in a 40. I had just left class and my head was just elsewhere, I was 1/4 mile shy of where the 55 starts. 

 There was a major "speed trap", 8 motorcycle cops sitting around a corner with 3 guys with radar guns shooting over a grassy rise. Cop stepped out in traffic and waved me over.

 He asked about my last ticket (and laughed when I explained how long ago it was) and asked me about class. He wrote me up for 45 in a 40, saying it would easily be dismissed.

 Speed limits are there for a reason. Speeding is more dangerous to the people you share your community with than doing drugs, unsafe sex and owning a firearm combined. It sucks that you feel singled out, but it is a rule.


----------



## Krieg (Feb 12, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Yeah, just like we can trust them to not do other dangerous things, like drink and drive.  Or do motorcycle wheelies on the interstate.  Just like we can trust them not to stick knives in each other, or shoot each other, or relieve themselves on electric fences...
> 
> Sorry, but the idea that human beings will be reasonable simply doesn't stand up to the historical evidence.




Sorry but on a large scale yes it absolutely does stand-up. The vast majority of people do act in a reasonable & rational manner. Most people don't urinate on electric fences, or commit assault or drive recklessly. 

The problem is that people place judgement on the behavior of the general population based merely on the actions of a very small minority.




			
				alsih2o said:
			
		

> Speeding is more dangerous to the people you share your community with than doing drugs, unsafe sex and owning a firearm combined.




Do you have a corroborating a non-speculative source?

The reality is that posted speed limits have little (if any) effect on the average speed of the the flow of traffic. Various studies done have all shown that changing a posted speed limit does not change the speed of drivers and that drivers on roads with similar characteristics drive at about the same speed even if the roads have differing posted limits.

Furthermore the accident rate in states with higher posted interstate speeds is not correspondingly higher than in states with lower posted speeds. For example in 1995 Montana went to having no posted speed limit during daylight hours....in 1999 they reported their lowest traffic fatality rate _ever_. Over Memorial day weekend in 99 Montana again went to having a posted speed limit. Immediately afterwards the traffic fatality rate began to rise.

Furthermore when the nationwide 65mph limit was repealed in 1995 traffic fatality rates continued to decline at the same rate as they had in the years previous to the law being repealed despite that fact that many states immediately raised their minimum posted speed limits. Likewise when the limit was raised to 65 from 55 in 87 the increase in posted limits did not have a negative effect on traffic fatality rates...they again continued to drop at the same rate as they had previous to the change.

In Germany the traffic fatality rate on the Autobahns is considerably lower than in the US despite having no posted speed limit.

Statistics show that driving at higher speeds does not _in and of itself_ increase the risk of the drivers involved.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Feb 12, 2005)

Krieg said:
			
		

> In Germany the traffic fatality rate on the Autobahns is considerably lower than in the US despite having no posted speed limit.




Actually, I seem to remember that not too long ago the Autobahn has a set speed limit(in some places, at least).


----------



## Darrin Drader (Feb 12, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Just like we can trust them not to stick knives in each other, or shoot each other, or relieve themselves on electric fences...




I'm a real bad boy. I can't get enough of that electric fence action.


----------



## Krieg (Feb 12, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Actually, I seem to remember that not too long ago the Autobahn has a set speed limit(in some places, at least).




Rural autobahns typically have no speed limits. The major autobahns have no limit for passenger cars between 6AM & 7PM and have posted limits of 120-130kph outside of those times. Trucks and buses do have a speed limit, around 100kph I believe.

There is a growing push in German for imposed limits, but much like the national 55 limit in the early 70's it has more to do with fuel consumption than safety issues.


----------



## Ampolitor (Feb 12, 2005)

*reality check*

hmmm unreasonable, well Ive been a cop for 10 years now and Yes speed limits are needed. I just worked on a woman who died last week because somebody thought that he shouldnt follow the sped limit, he blew a tire crossed traffic and killed her.
The speed limit is not set for the driver, its set for the roadway due to materials, pitch, number of access points (driveways). The speed limit is set by the towns and cities for a reason. I love when people complain about tickets, theyre supposed to make you mad and THINK, to slow down so next time were not dragging you out of a car and slapping you on a gurney.


----------



## Hellefire (Feb 12, 2005)

The speed to fatality connection is due to the speed at which the mind interprets and reacts to a 'danger.' At 65-70mph, in the average person, the brain registers enough of a danger to keep pumping low levels of chemicals into the bloodstream which keeps the brain sharper and the muscles tighter. Of course you get tired from burning those body resources. At 50-55 miles per hour, the average brain does not register a danger, therefore you will pay less attention and get tired more from being bored than from burning body resources, and your mind will have much more of a tendency to wander.

This is entirely off the subject, but I would argue that what is 'reasonable' is closely related to 'common sense', in that it is decided by the people and society at the time. Whatever 50%+1 of the people decide is 'reasonable', is, therefore you can count on at least half of the people to be reasonable by definition.

This last part might ruffle feathers and be leaning toward the political, so I will keep it short. In my mind, anyway, there are two sides of the law. The letter of the law and the spirit of the law. The spirit being, or what it should be in my world being, to protect people from other people. I think victimless crimes should not be crimes, and I think you are responsible for protecting yourself from yourself and it's your own business, but that's another rant. Anyway, with the letter of the law, I see a lot that I think of as idiocy. Technicalities that I find as absurd as some of the ways obvious criminals walk away because of court technicalities. That's a whole new can or worms and I guess I already said more than I planned to. Just, basically, don't hurt other people. Don't put yourself in a place where you have a likelihood of hurting other people. And 99% of the rest is ok with me.

Aaron Blair
Foren Star


----------



## Lhorgrim (Feb 12, 2005)

Hey Ampolitor,
I thought I was the only cop on these boards.  I just passed 10 years on the force on Feb 8th.  I'm finally on the downhill slope toward retirement.
If you don't mind, PM me and tell me about your department.

Lt. Col. Jay Newell
Badge #202
Danville PD
Kentucky


----------



## Angcuru (Feb 12, 2005)

*does the "never got ticket of any kind" dance*


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Feb 12, 2005)

Angcuru said:
			
		

> *does the "never got ticket of any kind" dance*



 *joins in*


----------



## Darrin Drader (Feb 12, 2005)

Ampolitor said:
			
		

> hmmm unreasonable, well Ive been a cop for 10 years now and Yes speed limits are needed. I just worked on a woman who died last week because somebody thought that he shouldnt follow the sped limit, he blew a tire crossed traffic and killed her.




Hmm, sounds to me like the real problem is that he blew a tire, not that he was speeding.




> The speed limit is not set for the driver, its set for the roadway due to materials, pitch, number of access points (driveways). The speed limit is set by the towns and cities for a reason. I love when people complain about tickets, theyre supposed to make you mad and THINK, to slow down so next time were not dragging you out of a car and slapping you on a gurney.




And that sounds like something that you would have to believe if it is your job to hand out these randomly assessed unjust taxations. Studies have proven - speed does not kill. Motorists who are not driving according to their vehicle's capabilities or road conditions are what kills. Speed limits are arbitrarily set, unevenly enforced, and almost always set at least 10 miles an hour beneath what is actually safe in any given area. I stand by my previous statement that we're far better off getting rid of them altogether.


----------



## Angcuru (Feb 12, 2005)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> And that sounds like something that you would have to believe if it is your job to hand out these randomly assessed unjust taxations. Studies have proven - speed does not kill. Motorists who are not driving according to their vehicle's capabilities or road conditions are what kills. Speed limits are arbitrarily set, unevenly enforced, and almost always set at least 10 miles an hour beneath what is actually safe in any given area.



I agree with this.  Too often I see someone driving 30 MPH above the speed limit in a residential area with no repurcations, and then someone I know gets a ticked for going 5 MPH above the limit.  Speed limits for highways are way to low the way they are, IMO.  55MPH?  Right.  The usual reasonable speeds I've seen is 80 for major highways, 75 for minor highways.  It'd be more reasonable to give tickets to people who drive too slow.  Autobahn-style, but not quite.



> I stand by my previous statement that we're far better off getting rid of them altogether.



This I don't agree with.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Feb 12, 2005)

Angcuru said:
			
		

> This I don't agree with.




OK, you're right, residential areas should be protected by reasonable speed limits (25 MPH is reasonable), and in other areas tickets should be given only for driving too slowly and delaying other drivers.


----------



## Hellefire (Feb 12, 2005)

The highway from my home town in Alaska to Anchorage has posted signs that it's illegal to delay more than 5 vehicles...there are plenty of turnouts and by law they must use these to allow traffic to pass if more than 5 cars are piled up behind them (and they aregoing below the speed limit). It helps a lot in the summer when we get a gazillion tourists who want to drive 5mph and watch the goats and sheep and whales and trees. I know in some states they have minimum speed limits on some freeways, but I don't know if htey are enforced or how.

Aaron


----------



## Krieg (Feb 13, 2005)

Ampolitor said:
			
		

> hmmm unreasonable, well Ive been a cop for 10 years now and Yes speed limits are needed. I just worked on a woman who died last week because somebody thought that he shouldnt follow the sped limit, he blew a tire crossed traffic and killed her.




Yes that is a tragedy, but statistically it is an aberration not the norm. Your anecdotal evidence while heart wrenching, is irrelevant.

Want to place a wager on what the air pressure was in the tire at the time that it failed? 

Improper vehicle maintence, ignoring road conditions (rain/snow etc) and reckless driving (weaving in and out of traffic, tailgating etc) should be far more of a concern from a safety standpoint. 



> _The speed limit is not set for the driver, its set for the roadway due to materials, pitch, number of access points (driveways). The speed limit is set by the towns and cities for a reason. I love when people complain about tickets, theyre supposed to make you mad and THINK, to slow down so next time were not dragging you out of a car and slapping you on a gurney._




While to some extent that is true, it is also true that the national interstate system was designed to safely vehicles moving at 75-80 mph. The engineers based those numberes on the automobile technology that was available in the *1950's*. 

Once again it is important to reiterate that the national speed limit was limited to 55 mph to conserve gasoline _not_ because of safety concerns. When the national limit was raised to 65 mph in 1987 traffic fatalities continued to drop at the same rate that they had previous to the change. When it was eliminated in 1995 again traffic fatalities continued to drop at the same rate. States with higher upper end speed limits do not have higher traffic fatality rates than those at the lower end. 

The primary reason for most of the speed limits in this day and age has absolutely nothing to do with passenger safety, it is largely driven by politics and money. The influence of lobbyists paid for by the insurance companies cannot be understated, nor can the desire of politicians to look like they "are doing something" in the eyes of their constituants.

Just out of curiosity how much of your municipality's budget is made up from revenue generated from traffic violations? If your department did not write a single ticket in FY05 how much of a shortfall would there be in the budget?

*Disclaimer:* In retrospect I should point out this primarily concerns limited access divided highways. I failed to clarify that originally and may have caused some confusion. I don't think any would advocate unlimited speed limits on roads through built up areas (although I would wager that if the limits were removed 99% of the drivers on the road would continue to drive at prudent speeds).



			
				Hellefire said:
			
		

> The highway from my home town in Alaska to Anchorage has posted signs that it's illegal to delay more than 5 vehicles...there are plenty of turnouts and by law they must use these to allow traffic to pass if more than 5 cars are piled up behind them (and they aregoing below the speed limit).




Now that is a law I would heartily endorse.


----------



## monkeyshines (Feb 13, 2005)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Once again it is important to reiterate that the national speed limit was limited to 55 mph to conserve gasoline _not_ because of safety concerns. When the national limit was raised to 65 mph in 1987 traffic fatalities continued to drop at the same rate that they had previous to the change. When it was eliminated in 1995 again traffic fatalities continued to drop at the same rate. States with higher upper end speed limits do not have higher traffic fatality rates than those at the lower end.




That's real sweet and all, but the ticket in question is for going *54 in a 25*, in an at least semi-residential area.  Sorry, though it's a heck of a ticket I don't have much sympathy.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Feb 13, 2005)

Panthanas said:
			
		

> I know a few friends and family here in rural upstate NY that have had their speeding tickets reduced to "Failure to obey a traffic control device" i.e. the speed limit sign. It has reduced the fine greatly and isn't as bad of an infraction for insurance purposes. I don't know if that will help you in CT, but it might be worth looking into.




Funny story,  I got a ticket going down I-81 in Cortland.  So I go, and there's like fifty people there, and the ADA just lines us all up and pleads everyone down to "failure to obey a traffic control device".  Except me, I was going 84.  So I still got a ticket, but a vastly reduced one.  The moral being, at least around where I am, you can be really screwed if you go twenty over the speed limit.  I'm pretty sure I was going faster, and I think the cop took pity on me, and put me at nineteen over.

Also, for whomever suggested gathering evidence other people were going fast, so it's okay... um, no.  IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that's not how it works.  It just means you got caught and everyone else didn't, boo sucks for you.

I will agree that at least _some_ speed limits are too low.  Personally, I feel a flat speed based on nothing more than road design is terribly inefficient.  As I think most cops and driving instructors would say, it's all dependant on road conditions.  For example, allowing people to go 75 down I-81 through Syracuse is _begging_ for accidents to happen left and right.  Not only is there a bunch of merging traffic in only two lanes, but in the rain the road gets really slick, and in the snow crap off of the overpasses creates a lot of ice.  However, once you get south and are going through the Onondaga Reservation, there's no reason to limit speeds to 65, especially in good conditions.

Personally, I agree with the posters who have said that officers need to focus more on the speeding in residential and city areas over those on the highways.  Not only is it much more dangerous, but in general these areas are more difficult to drive in.


----------



## Ampolitor (Feb 13, 2005)

Just out of curiosity how much of your municipality's budget is made up from revenue generated from traffic violations? If your department did not write a single ticket in FY05 how much of a shortfall would there be in the budget?

well you dont have a understanding of the law, 99% of all police departments write under the State codes which generates nothing for your department. Court costs that are paid go to county courts and the municipality, not the department.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Feb 13, 2005)

Ampolitor said:
			
		

> well you dont have a understanding of the law, 99% of all police departments write under the State codes which generates nothing for your department. Court costs that are paid go to county courts and the municipality, not the department.




Nevertheless, the money still just goes back into the legal system in a self perpetuating cycle. This may benefit the courts, court employees, and money hungry insurance companies, but on the whole benefits other motorists and the general public not one bit.


----------



## Krieg (Feb 13, 2005)

monkeyshines said:
			
		

> That's real sweet and all, but the ticket in question is for going *54 in a 25*, in an at least semi-residential area.  Sorry, though it's a heck of a ticket I don't have much sympathy.




...and if you read the entire post you will find that I don't disagree with that.

_Disclaimer: In retrospect I should point out this primarily concerns limited access divided highways. I failed to clarify that originally and may have caused some confusion. I don't think any would advocate unlimited speed limits on roads through built up areas (although I would wager that if the limits were removed 99% of the drivers on the road would continue to drive at prudent speeds)._




			
				Ampolitor said:
			
		

> well you dont have a understanding of the law, 99% of all police departments write under the State codes which generates nothing for your department. Court costs that are paid go to county courts and the municipality, not the department.




If you read my post you will find that I specifically said municipality rather than department.


----------



## Greylock (Feb 13, 2005)

alsih2o said:
			
		

> Speed limits are there for a reason. Speeding is more dangerous to the people you share your community with than doing drugs, unsafe sex and owning a firearm combined. It sucks that you feel singled out, but it is a rule.




Whatever, but Memphis cops have been on a tear. 39 years old, last speeding ticket when I was 18, until the past few monthes.  Had two recently.

One on Poplar between Highland and UofM. For going 45 in a 40. The other on Yates between Shady Grove and Walnut Grove. That one took the cake.

Going east on Walnut Grove I was pulled over on the I-240 overpass. Lady cop came to passenger side window and asked for my ID. Asked me if I had just been on Yates. Silly me, I said yes, the  truth. She said that was too bad, she was going to have to take me to jail. I of course said "WTF?" She said I'd been clocked going 80. I said that was impossible, as I'd just pulled away from a stop sign WHEN I  SAW THE CRUISER DOING  RADAR. Said I couldn't have been going over 40.

That's when she said, okey-fine, here's your ticket for doing 40 in a 30 zone. (FIWI, Yates is a forty zone except for the fifty yards between it and Walnut Grove.)

Yeah, I know. Speed kills.


----------



## Krieg (Feb 13, 2005)

Greylock said:
			
		

> Whatever, but Memphis cops have been on a tear.




You think that is bad, google "New Rome Ohio" along with speedtrap sometime.

Many years ago I got hit by the speedtraps in both Lawtey & Waldo Florida.


----------



## Michael Morris (Feb 13, 2005)

Ampolitor said:
			
		

> hmmm unreasonable, well Ive been a cop for 10 years now and Yes speed limits are needed. I just worked on a woman who died last week because somebody thought that he shouldnt follow the sped limit, he blew a tire crossed traffic and killed her.
> The speed limit is not set for the driver, its set for the roadway due to materials, pitch, number of access points (driveways). The speed limit is set by the towns and cities for a reason. I love when people complain about tickets, theyre supposed to make you mad and THINK, to slow down so next time were not dragging you out of a car and slapping you on a gurney.




That's the theory.  The practice is something else entirely - I've seen radically different speeds assigned to equivalent sections of the road as determined by local juristictions. Something I have noted is that traffic invariably goes 5 - 10 mph over whatever the posted limit is.  And it's never enforced consistently enough to make the roads any safer - indeed it can make them worse.

In Tennessee the speed limit of road construction areas is almost universally 45 MPH. When I drove a truck I'd dutifully follow it - despite the complaining over the radio. I stopped the practice after digging up some newpaper articles of major accidents being caused by speeders rear-ending vehicles actually going the limit.

Note that in TN the speed limit can drop from 70 to the 45 construction zone speed with little to no warning.

What really gets my goat though are split speed limits.  These are demonstrably dangerous, yet juristictions continue to pass them.  In a moment of poetic justice, a Michigan Senator's daughter was killed by hitting a semi.  She was going about 72 and hit the truck with, also obeying it's speed limit, was going 55.  The major problem with split speed limits is it makes the car drivers believe they are entitled to pass the truck no matter how fast it goes.

California though is the most draconian in this regard.  I read an article where a California officer ticketted a driver for impeding traffic by following the speed limit and failing to allow a car to merge onto the interstate.  However, in California it is illegal to drive a semi in the left lane for any reason. The driver pointed this out to the officer, who snidely remarked that yes, if the driver had changed lanes he'd have been ticketted for that and if he sped up to let the car in he'd be ticketted for that.  Fortunately when the ticket was fought in court and this was revealed to the judge (and admitted to by the officer) the officer was prompty fired from his job and the case dismissed.

I can only conclude that yes, speeding tickets are a money making scheme.  I've seen way too many anti-speeding campaigns coincide with budgetary shortfalls to believe otherwise.  My main reason for this belief though is the following: Speeding tickets are way too low to have any detterent effect.  Speeding tickets are intentionally set at an affordable price so that people won't feel too compelled to pay too much attention to it.

If I see a juristiction set speeding tickets up into the thousands of dollars / offence then I'll believe it's a safety issue.  Indeed, I feel the speeding ticket fine in a construction zone should be a flat $1000 / 10 mph over the limit, doubled for workers present, doubled for commercial vehicle.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Feb 13, 2005)

Krieg said:
			
		

> You think that is bad, google "New Rome Ohio" along with speedtrap sometime.
> 
> Many years ago I got hit by the speedtraps in both Lawtey & Waldo Florida.



 Amazing! Someone actually knows where Waldo is?! Heh, I thought only those of us in the area knew of Waldo's existance.


----------



## Michael Morris (Feb 13, 2005)

Ampolitor said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity how much of your municipality's budget is made up from revenue generated from traffic violations? If your department did not write a single ticket in FY05 how much of a shortfall would there be in the budget?
> 
> well you dont have a understanding of the law, 99% of all police departments write under the State codes which generates nothing for your department. Court costs that are paid go to county courts and the municipality, not the department.




Kentucky sends the money back to the local juristiction where the ticket was issued.  Ohio is known (and widely criticised in truck circles) for maintaining set quotas of tickets which must be written per month by officers.

It varies widely by state.


----------



## Krieg (Feb 13, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Amazing! Someone actually knows where Waldo is?! Heh, I thought only those of us in the area knew of Waldo's existance.




It's only because I was ticketed there for driving one mile over the speed limit on the same day that I was ticketed for driving two miles over in Lawton.   



			
				Michael Morris said:
			
		

> Ohio is known (and widely criticised in truck circles) for maintaining set quotas of tickets which must be written per month by officers.




To be fair that is primarily only the OHP, and most of the county & local law enforcement agencies around the state aren't overly thrilled with the state troopers either.

My favorite line from Cannonball Run is "There's not one state in the 50 that has the death penalty for speeding...although we aren't sure about Ohio". lol


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 13, 2005)

I don't really have much sympathy for people who get speeding tickets. If you make the choice to speed then suck it up when you get the ticket and stop whining about how unfair it is and how it is a plot of the police to make money or the insurence companies.

There are a lot of things in this life that just don't make much sense but we have to deal with every single day. like the fact that here in Florida I pay the earth for car insurence called PIP which all it does is pay major medical if I am injured. I already have health insurence and from the stories I have heard good luck getting the insurence company to pay. But I have to have it if I want to have a tag for my car. 

I live in South Florida which is a traffic nightmare. To many people not enough roads. I don't agree with a lot of the posted speed limits but since I can't afford the ticket I don't speed. I also could not afford what it would do to my insurence rates. 

This is a really sore subject wirh me right now I just shelled out over 1000 dollars to help my son get his license back from all his speeding tickets not to mention that now even though he does not own a car he is required to carry car insurence a non owners policy which is more expensive than if he had a car. What a crock. But its the law and he would have been much smarter to have just cooled his jets.

An aside I also live on one of those shortcut roads. It runs the same direction as the as the main road but has no lights so people take it to avoid the zillion lights. The problem is this is an urban area with lots of kids and no fraking sidewalks. (The city thinks sidewalks detracts from the country atmosphere. Please this has not been country since the late 70. ) I can't tell you how many close calls we have because of drivers speeding through. To make matters worse a lot of people park on the road. These selfish drivers don't give a damn about the people who live on this road all they care about is shaving a few extra minutes off their driving time.


----------



## Krieg (Feb 13, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> This is a really sore subject wirh me right now I just shelled out over 1000 dollars




That is all you had to say.


----------



## Michael Morris (Feb 13, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> (The city thinks sidewalks detracts from the country atmosphere. Please this has not been country since the late 70. )




More likely the city doesn't want to assume the liability of maintaining them.  Too many people have sued municipalities for tripping on sidewalk cracks, and now most cities don't build sidewalks.  One town in Texas does, but it's illegal to walk on the sidewalk (yes - that's actually on the books).  The reason for the law is to stop liability - if you injure yourself while walking on the sidewalk you were "injured in the commission of a crime" and can't sue the city.  Montgomery Alabama has a law against women wearing high heels for the same reason (woman sued the city when she stepped on and throw a storm grate spraining her ankle, so now it's illegal to wear such shoes).


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 13, 2005)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> More likely the city doesn't want to assume the liability of maintaining them.  Too many people have sued municipalities for tripping on sidewalk cracks, and now most cities don't build sidewalks.  One town in Texas does, but it's illegal to walk on the sidewalk (yes - that's actually on the books).  The reason for the law is to stop liability - if you injure yourself while walking on the sidewalk you were "injured in the commission of a crime" and can't sue the city.  Montgomery Alabama has a law against women wearing high heels for the same reason (woman sued the city when she stepped on and throw a storm grate spraining her ankle, so now it's illegal to wear such shoes).




That is a whole other rant. Stupid people who sue over things that is either their fault or nobody's and is just pure dumb luck.

Down here a family sued the state park system when one of their family members was struck by lightning  and killed while taking cover under a huge tree during a storm. And they won.


----------



## ph34r (Feb 13, 2005)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> People can be trusted to drive a reasonable speed given their surroundings and their vehicle's capabilities.




No they can't. You put too much faith in our society...  :\


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 13, 2005)

Hellefire said:
			
		

> I disagree. Even if you don't get a chance to talk to anybody beforehand, the best advice I ever got was go to court for every ticket. If the cop who wrote the ticket doesnt show up, it's dismissed (well in CA, WA, AK and MI, havent fought tickets in any other states). Even for showing up the ticket price is almost always reduced. I ALWAYS recommend fighting traffic tickets, and I have never seen and didn't realize it was legal for them to add to your ticket price for showing up for the court date that they have to give you and be there for.
> 
> Aaron Blair
> Foren Star





Maine as well. In fact the police got a bit of a talking to about that, it seems that everybody, their cousin, and their little dog Toto too knew that the cops never bothered showing up if it got disputed.

I know somebody who got pulled over in Texas for driving 15 miles over the speed limit - the cop told him to speed up. There used to be a town in Texas that sold traffic tickets ahead of time, so you could hand it to the policeman, stick the receipt in your window and go speeding off again.

And here in Maine I was once passed on the Interstate by a truck barrelarsing along way above the speed limit. A police car pulled out, started speeding along after him, then slowed and parked again. The truck was an open topped hopper containing fishmeal, and the temperature was around 90 degrees... I think that the cops decided that they wanted that thing off the highway as fast as possible, my gods, what a stink!

The Auld Grump, you know that it's stinky when you still remember it twenty years later...


----------



## Michael Morris (Feb 13, 2005)

Garbage trucks also don't get pulled over often for much the same reason.


----------



## ph34r (Feb 13, 2005)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> Studies have proven - speed does not kill. Motorists who are not driving according to their vehicle's capabilities or road conditions are what kills.




Be my guest and go to every single resident in the United States and explain to them the capabilities of their vehicle and what unsafe road conditions are.  Do you honestly expect everyone to know these things? It's much easier to just put up a general speed limit for everyone to go by. Scared of getting a ticket?...Don't speed! Just because everyone else thinks it's the Suburbia 500 doesn't mean you have to drive fast with them?

Is it really so hard for someone to obey something as simple as speed limit..looks to be that way.  :\


----------



## Darrin Drader (Feb 13, 2005)

ph34r said:
			
		

> Is it really so hard for someone to obey something as simple as speed limit..looks to be that way. :\




Obeying is the appropriate word here since it suggests subservience. I'm willing to be subservient to laws that are just and make sense, but speed limits do not fit that criteria. The nature of the ticket itself and the purpose it serves is the problem. So to answer your question, no I don't feel that I should be forced to obey arbitrarily set random taxation zones. I have utter contempt for those who impose speed limits, those who enforce them, the courts that "adjudicate" so called "infractions", and the insurance companies who syphon millions (if not billions) of extra dollars every year from people who are essentially nothing more than victims of circumstance.


----------



## ph34r (Feb 13, 2005)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> I have utter contempt for those who impose speed limits, those who enforce them, the courts that "adjudicate" so called "infractions", and the insurance companies who syphon millions (if not billions) of extra dollars every year from people who are essentially nothing more than victims of circumstance.




If people obeyed the speed limits then there would be no "victims of circumstance" now would there? Sounds like you've got one too many speeding tickets and plenty of points on your license and insurance...but hey I don't blame you! It's THEY'RE fault for you getting a speeding ticket right!   

So the next time you're driving down the road with a loved one and some car comes out of nowhere doing about 90 MPH and slams into you killing whoevers with you...you wouldn't be upset would you? Shouldn't, because according to you they aren't doing anything wrong.


----------



## Lhorgrim (Feb 13, 2005)

One thing to remember about the philosophy behind speed limits is that they have the lowest common denominator in mind.  Whisperfoot is probably very safe on the state road going over the posted speed limit, but many very young and very old drivers are not.  Part of the idea is to have a somewhat uniform traffic flow so that the widest range of drivers will be able to safely negotiate the roadways.  Some places have tried different solutions to this issue, such as designated cutoffs and restrictions against holding up traffic, but that is just a different citation for a different violation if someone refuses to yield.

Yes, many people speed and don't get caught, but they risk that they will get caught if they speed so they are gambling.  The possibility of getting a ticket is enough af a deterrent to most people, and actually getting a ticket slows down many more, but some people will continue to speed and/or violate other traffic laws.  This situation isn't unique to the U.S., most countries have traffic laws and some enforcement for them.

As far as tickets being a money making proposition for the local agencies, it varies.  In my area the municipal department gets a very small amount of the fine, and the rest goes to the state and the county court sysytem.  There is no distinction between traffic and criminal charges.  If someone is convicted of assault the money distribution is the same.  Most places in KY do not have seperate traffic courts, all misdemeanor and traffic cases go through the same district court.


----------



## Krieg (Feb 13, 2005)

ph34r said:
			
		

> No they can't. You put too much faith in our society...  :\




Yes they can. Studies continually to show that it is statistically verifiable. 

The problem is knee jerk reactions by folks who think that the one or two aberrant data points they witness are indicitive of a trend.



			
				ph34r said:
			
		

> Be my guest and go to every single resident in the United States and explain to them the capabilities of their vehicle and what unsafe road conditions are.  Do you honestly expect everyone to know these things?




Yes I do.

We expect too little from people.

If you don't take the time to understand the capabilities of any piece of potentially dangerous machinery you were using then you have no one to blame but yourself when it bites you on the ass.



			
				ph34r said:
			
		

> Is it really so hard for someone to obey something as simple as speed limit..looks to be that way.  :\




No one is advocating breaking the law.

It is merely being pointing out that posted speed limits are generally ineffective as a safety measure.



			
				ph34r said:
			
		

> Sounds like you've got one too many speeding tickets and plenty of points on your license and insurance...




And that is an prejudicial ad hominum attack with no factual basis.

...and for the record I personally have not received any type of traffic violation in over 10 years.



			
				ph34r said:
			
		

> So the next time you're driving down the road with a loved one and some car comes out of nowhere doing about 90 MPH and slams into you killing whoevers with you...you wouldn't be upset would you? Shouldn't, because according to you they aren't doing anything wrong.




There is no direct connetion between driving 90mph and "coming out of nowhere and slamming into you". Regardless of what the speed of the driver is or the posted speed limit the above scenario cannot happen without other traffic laws being broken. Would it really make you feel better if that someone came barreling out of nowhere and slammed into you at a legal 65mph instead? Will it make you feel better about your loved one's death if you can say "Well at least he wasn't speeding!"?

This of course brings up one of the other points regarding the determination of speed limits in some areas....the desire to appear to be "doing something about the problem". Under constant barrages of "Won't somebody please think about the children!!" politicians tend to seek quick solutions to quell the outcry...even if those "solutions" do nothing to ameliorate the underlying basis of the problem in question.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Feb 13, 2005)

ph34r said:
			
		

> If people obeyed the speed limits then there would be no "victims of circumstance" now would there?




Yes, there would be, because most people will never obey the speed limits. Suppose you have a freeway. The posted speed limit on that freeway is 60 MPH. Nobody on that freeway ever goes under 70 or 75 on that stretch of freeway. Its nice and straight, its flat, and there are almost never any accidents there that don't involve one person not checking their blind spot when merging into the other lane. Now you have an officer on duty who has a ticket quota to meet. He sits in an inconspicuous spot and starts radaring people. Fortunately the vast majority of people manage to spot him, so they slow down before he can get a reading on their speed. In the far left lane, you have a guy doing the same speed everyone else was five seconds before, who couldn't see the cop sitting there because of the semi in the right lane. The cop clocks him at 70 and gives him a ticket. That is a victim of circumstance, and crap like that happens all over this country on an hourly basis.



> Sounds like you've got one too many speeding tickets and plenty of points on your license and insurance...but hey I don't blame you! It's THEY'RE fault for you getting a speeding ticket right!




You know what they say about assuming. Actually my driving record is cimpletely clean. It isn't that I never speed, I've just gotten really good about spotting cop cars.



> So the next time you're driving down the road with a loved one and some car comes out of nowhere doing about 90 MPH and slams into you killing whoevers with you...you wouldn't be upset would you? Shouldn't, because according to you they aren't doing anything wrong.




That wouldn't be a speed issue, now would it? That would be a case of someone not watching where they're going, or not having good enough control over their vehicle to drive safely at that speed. Speed is not to blame. The other driver, who apparently doesn't know his own or his vehicle's limitations, is. If he "came out of nowhere" maybe I wasn't paying enough attention to the other cars on the road, or maybe he's on drugs, or maybe he blew a tire. There are a thousand other variables other than speed that could play into the accident. Besides, with regards to speed, the best rule is to go with the flow of traffic. If he was driving 90 and everyone else on the road was going 70, then he's guilty of reckless driving - not because he's breaking some arbitrarily set speed limit, but because he's trying to go faster than the flow of traffic.


----------



## ph34r (Feb 13, 2005)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> You know what they say about assuming. Actually my driving record is cimpletely clean. It isn't that I never speed, I've just gotten really good about spotting cop cars.




Then what's the problem? You've never got a ticket but you complain about speed limits even though you don't obey them anyway?   

Also, Krieg I wasn't talking to you, but nice to know what you think....


----------



## johnsemlak (Feb 13, 2005)

Couple of points

Isn't one of the reasons spead limits are needed is so offenders who cause accidents partially because of speeding can be procecuted for it?

I certainly agree that most people would drive at prudent speeds without posted speed limits, but it only takes a small amount of bad drivers to ruin someone's day.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Feb 14, 2005)

ph34r said:
			
		

> Then what's the problem? You've never got a ticket but you complain about speed limits even though you don't obey them anyway?




I didn't say that I've never had a ticket. I merely said that my record is completely clean. In Washington state, tickets only stay on your driving record for 3 years.



			
				johnsemlak said:
			
		

> Isn't one of the reasons spead limits are needed is so offenders who cause accidents partially because of speeding can be procecuted for it?




That may be true in theory, the reality is that most speeding tickets are not given because an accident has occurred. In fact, in the case of an accident, unless an officer was at the site of the accident when it occurred, they have no way of proving that the offending driver was speeding, so speeding tickets are normally not given in such cases.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Feb 14, 2005)

I think the REAL problem here is simple.

No flying cars.

Its past the year 2000 now, and we still don't have flying cars! If we had those, speeding would be the least of our problems!


----------



## Krieg (Feb 14, 2005)

ph34r said:
			
		

> Also, Krieg I wasn't talking to you, but nice to know what you think....




My apologies, apparently I was under the mistaken impression that this was an open forum.



			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Its past the year 2000 now, and we still don't have flying cars! If we had those, speeding would be the least of our problems!




Yeah I just can't wait until you have to worry that your 16 y/o's first fender bender requires that you extricate the vehicle from someone's second story bedroom.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Feb 14, 2005)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Yeah I just can't wait until you have to worry that your 16 y/o's first fender bender requires that you extricate the vehicle from someone's second story bedroom.




At least a week's worth of grounding depending on the damage done.


----------



## Michael Morris (Feb 14, 2005)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> I didn't say that I've never had a ticket. I merely said that my record is completely clean. In Washington state, tickets only stay on your driving record for 3 years.
> 
> 
> 
> That may be true in theory, the reality is that most speeding tickets are not given because an accident has occurred. In fact, in the case of an accident, unless an officer was at the site of the accident when it occurred, they have no way of proving that the offending driver was speeding, so speeding tickets are normally not given in such cases.




Don't count on that.  Newer cars have black-boxes that track the speed and other engine stats.  The automakers put them in to protect themselves from liability - too many folks suing them for "mechanical failures", and they've countered by engineering a means to prove you're a bad driver.  This system is usually wired into the airbag system and can't be removed or the main processor will prevent the vehicle from starting.


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 14, 2005)

Been awhile since my last ticket, as well. Granted, I never go more than 5-10 over the posted limit. No one is in that much of a hurry.

I do drive aggressively, however, when someone is acting like an idiot. When someone zooms up behind me in a school zone, I will cut them off in a heartbeat. When someone tailgates me (read that: I cannot see their headlights in my rearview mirror), first I will slam on brakes, speed back up, then slow down to 5-10 mph.

And let’s not even get into people who park illegally in handicap spots. The fine for that should be $5,000 AND 90 days in jail.

In short, I have no issue with drivers who obey MY rules.


----------



## IronWolf (Feb 14, 2005)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> What really gets my goat though are split speed limits.  These are demonstrably dangerous, yet juristictions continue to pass them.




Yeah, Ohio is one of these with split speed limits.  All it does is lead to people moving in and out of traffic because the semis are supposed to be going 55mph while everyone else is going 65mph.  Just makes no sense to me, just leads to more weaving in and out of some of the biggest things on the road!


----------



## Krieg (Feb 14, 2005)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> I do drive aggressively, however, when someone is acting like an idiot. When someone zooms up behind me in a school zone, I will cut them off in a heartbeat. When someone tailgates me (read that: I cannot see their headlights in my rearview mirror), first I will slam on brakes, speed back up, then slow down to 5-10 mph.




I'm pretty certain that does behaving irresponsibly & dangerously on your own part does nothing to help the situation.


----------



## Michael Morris (Feb 14, 2005)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> Been awhile since my last ticket, as well. Granted, I never go more than 5-10 over the posted limit. No one is in that much of a hurry.
> 
> I do drive aggressively, however, when someone is acting like an idiot. When someone zooms up behind me in a school zone, I will cut them off in a heartbeat. When someone tailgates me (read that: I cannot see their headlights in my rearview mirror), first I will slam on brakes, speed back up, then slow down to 5-10 mph.




I met someone who killed a man by doing that to a tailgater.  He served 3 years in jail for vehicular manslaughter.  Think about that for a moment next time someone tailgates you.


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 14, 2005)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> Think about that for a moment next time someone tailgates you.




   Technically, they are "following too close". Besides, the driver's handbook tells you to reduce speed, when someone is close behind you. Granted, I do try to see if they're on a cell phone, first. Those folks won't see the brake lights in time.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Feb 14, 2005)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> I met someone who killed a man by doing that to a tailgater. He served 3 years in jail for vehicular manslaughter. Think about that for a moment next time someone tailgates you.




In the state of Washington, anytime someone rear-ends another, the person farthest from the front is automatically responsible for the entire accident. I actually agree with that law. Every driver should leave a safe amount of distance between himself and the vehicle in front of him - even if the person in front is driving moronically slow. Of course there are a few road rage jerk offs who try to take advantage of the law by passing another driver and then slamming on the brakes in an effort to get the car they passed to rear-end them. I had one person try to pull that on me one morning on the way to work, and to this day I have no idea what his issue with me was. He pulled that on a multi-lane freeway and I hadn't even seen the guy on the road before. He could have just been a fraudster. Thankfully my brakes work well.


----------



## Michael Morris (Feb 14, 2005)

Arguing legal semantics isn't much help at a funeral guys.  The fact the guy went to jail wasn't my point so much as he *killed* someone trying to "teach a lesson."  Do you want to risk having that on your conscience?  If so, brake for tailgaters.


----------



## Warrior Poet (Feb 14, 2005)

Krieg said:
			
		

> In Germany the traffic fatality rate on the Autobahns is considerably lower than in the US despite having no posted speed limit.




Though some of the Autobahn is not posted, there are sections that are posted, and have limits.  I'm not positive (you can check the German Ministry of Transportation website), but I think there's an "understood" limit for most of the Autobahn at about 140 km/hr, or so (but I'm not positive).  I've got to go to lunch, but if I get a chance, I'll try and look it up later.

Warrior Poet


----------



## Hitokiri (Feb 14, 2005)

Whether or not speeding actually contributes to an accident, you can hardly argue that survival rates decrease as your speed increases.  I've always looked at speed limits not so much as preventative measures, but as a last safety measure for when the preventative measures fail.  I'd much rather end up crashing at 55 mph than 90 mph, I think most of the cars I've driven would fly apart if they hit something at 90 mph   

That being said, if you speed, you're taking the chances with the cops.  You can't be a victim of circumstances if you just stay at or below the speed limit.  I speed routinely, especially on the freeway, and if I ever get a ticket, it'll be because I decieded not to follow laws, not because of some cracked up conspiracy theory.  If you really don't agree with posted speed laws in your area, then start contacting your city council or legislator and try to get it changed, whining about it on public forums accomplishes nothing.


----------



## Pielorinho (Feb 14, 2005)

*Moderator's Notes*:

Venting about getting a speeding ticket is fine.  Discussing the underlying rationales for speeding laws is inherently political.  Can we veer away from that?

Personally in this situation, Lurker, I would've pulled a barnstorming maneuver:  given that the cop was probably doing a redline, I would've gotten a +8 bonus to my driving check.

Daniel


----------



## ph34r (Feb 14, 2005)

Hitokiri said:
			
		

> If you really don't agree with posted speed laws in your area, then start contacting your city council or legislator and try to get it changed, whining about it on public forums accomplishes nothing.




Teh win!


----------



## Darrin Drader (Feb 14, 2005)

ph34r said:
			
		

> Teh win!




Oh, so speaking in a public forum, raising awareness, and examining the issues accomplishes nothing. OK, whatever. Might as well shut down the entire messageboard since obviously this place is just a big waste of bandwidth.


----------

