Granted it was 82 in a 75 and I just got a warning. So I went 79 after that and had people running me down. This was west of Brackettville Texas two days ago. NEVER been pulled over for speeding within 10 before.
I've never seen anyone get pulled over for 7 over in Massachusetts. I suppose if the speed limit is higher, like 75 or 80, states might be more strict on speeding. Isn't 7 still almost within the margin of error for radars?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 13, 2024, 08:06:39 PMI've never seen anyone get pulled over for 7 over in Massachusetts. I suppose if the speed limit is higher, like 75 or 80, states might be more strict on speeding. Isn't 7 still almost within the margin of error for radars?
I'm pretty sure, yes. I've never seen anyone going 7 over in Oregon that got a ticket or pulled over. Though it makes sense considering our speed limits don't go above 70 on rural freeways and 65 on urban freeways.
Meh. Getting pulled over for single digits was a lot more common in the 1900s. Interesting that it still happens from time-to-time.
In Michigan you generally can go within reason over the speed limit like 5 over is alright. I know the Michigan State Police don't start pulling people over until they are doing 11 or more mph over the speed limit. Saginaw Township Police will sit in school zones and pull people over, they generally don't start until about 7 or so over. 82 in a 75 here probably wouldn't have got you pulled over.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 13, 2024, 08:06:39 PMI've never seen anyone get pulled over for 7 over in Massachusetts. I suppose if the speed limit is higher, like 75 or 80, states might be more strict on speeding. Isn't 7 still almost within the margin of error for radars?
Michigan has 75 mph zones and they aren't that strict on going the speed limit. They did a sting in Detroit where the speed limit is 55 and 70 on the freeways and didn't pull anyone over for doing under 85 and got several people for going over a hundred. I even remember back in the day when Jack Morris got pulled over on I-75 and was doing a hundred and they let him go because he was Jack Morris.
Driving marginally above the speed limit is a calculated risk that most people, myself included, frequently choose to take. The risk is that you get pulled over for blatantly breaking the law. 7 over is indeed blatantly breaking the law. 2 over? Maybe not so much, due to speedometer/radar gun inaccuracies.
The way I look at it is, the cops are not legally or morally doing anything wrong when they pull you over for driving above the speed limit. 7, 15, or 30 over, doesn't matter, you're breaking the law. 7 over is comfortably illegal, and you have to weigh the benefits of driving faster against the small chance that you encounter a cop that's bored, having a bad day, has an agenda, or all three.
Quote from: texasdogGranted it was 82 in a 75 and I just got a warning. So I went 79 after that and had people running me down. This was west of Brackettville Texas two days ago. NEVER been pulled over for speeding within 10 before.
I always keep my speed within 5 of the limit when I'm driving through Montague County (Bowie, TX area) on US-287. Various other speed traps can be found around Texas.
Oklahoma has some bad speed traps too. A warning for anyone driving in the Lawton area: if you're visiting Medicine Park or the Wichita Mountains watch out for the zone on OK-49 just West of the Love's store near I-44. There are three different speed limits in short succession. Most times I drive out there I see someone pulled over by the local police.
A couple people I knew allegedly got a ticket for 76 in the 70 zone on I-10 in FLORIDA... I've often seen cases where officers will give you a break by writing a lesser ticket (I.e. only writing for 76 when clocked at 87 or something), but these were both legit 76mph tickets.
Speed limit 75 plz :banghead: :-(
The last time I was pulled over was in January 2016 by Texas Highway Patrol. It was apparently for "being within 500 feet of a vehicle at 70 MPH" on I-20. The real reason was that I had Florida plates and wasn't on I-10 (the officer even said what the reason really was). I got a warning ticket after I told the officer I was on a PCS move to California.
I've heard of people getting pulled over for doing 85 in 80 zones in Wyoming. IIRC, it even happened in the "I-90 Surge" video series on the Out of Spec Motoring YouTube channel (and also on another video on that channel).
I figure that at least some of the jurisdictions that post higher limits like 80 did so because they wanted the number on the sign to match the actual speed limit, and not because of wanting to allow people to go faster.
Growing up in Oklahoma, I was always told that the tolerance was only 5 mph.
"Margin of Error" is a made up cry by people who keep pushing for more and more leniency with speeding tickets.
There are ways to test your speedometer.
There are ways to test speed enforcement devices.
Most people doing a certain speed over the limit are doing it because they're comfortable doing that speed. They're not going 82 in a 75 because they think their speedometer is broken and they believe their 82 is really 75, and everyone else they're passing are cautious drivers driving under the limit.
Not me, but a friend once got pulled over for going 49 in a 45. It really depends on the cop, though, as I've gone a higher continuous speed over the speed limit, with a cop right behind me, without getting pulled over. They might've just been finishing their shift, as it was pretty late into the evening.
There's a part of me that thinks the cop's goal was achieved by this post - coming here and talking about it, so it gets people talking, or in other instances where anecdotes start to spread around in the community that Joe got stopped for 3-5 over and some people start to fret about it enough for (temporary) behavior changes. Making examples of people just because they can is part of the job, and the pain of this still lingers with me.
I don't know if you got picked out or if you were largely the only vehicle around, which while I don't speed excessively, you can't claim to go the speed of traffic very easily if there is none so I typically am more careful when there are few/no other cars around.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan3561 on December 14, 2024, 02:11:36 AMThere's a part of me that thinks the cop's goal was achieved by this post - coming here and talking about it, so it gets people talking, or in other instances where anecdotes start to spread around in the community that Joe got stopped for 3-5 over and some people start to fret about it enough for (temporary) behavior changes. Making examples of people just because they can is part of the job, and the pain of this still lingers with me.
This generously presupposes that speed enforcement is done for the purpose of modifying behavior.
Quote from: thspfc on December 13, 2024, 08:59:33 PM7 over is indeed blatantly breaking the law
Depends on the jurisdiction. In prima facie states, it explicitly is not.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 14, 2024, 02:22:28 AMQuote from: TheHighwayMan3561 on December 14, 2024, 02:11:36 AMThere's a part of me that thinks the cop's goal was achieved by this post - coming here and talking about it, so it gets people talking, or in other instances where anecdotes start to spread around in the community that Joe got stopped for 3-5 over and some people start to fret about it enough for (temporary) behavior changes. Making examples of people just because they can is part of the job, and the pain of this still lingers with me.
This generously presupposes that speed enforcement is done for the purpose of modifying behavior.
I mean, I can't disagree with that, although I think it got lost in my post that the "behavior modification" is meant through intimidation and not being your friendly neighborhood cop looking out for you.
The point is to make an example out of someone so people go "there is no safe speeding, 1 over and they might come fuck me up."
Quote from: TheHighwayMan3561 on December 14, 2024, 02:11:36 AMThere's a part of me that thinks the cop's goal was achieved by this post - coming here and talking about it, so it gets people talking, or in other instances where anecdotes start to spread around in the community that Joe got stopped for 3-5 over and some people start to fret about it enough for (temporary) behavior changes. Making examples of people just because they can is part of the job, and the pain of this still lingers with me.
I don't know if you got picked out or if you were largely the only vehicle around, which while I don't speed excessively, you can't claim to go the speed of traffic very easily if there is none so I typically am more careful when there are few/no other cars around.
Generally I'm one of many but not in this stretch. We had a 4 day trip to go see her dad who was in the hospital. Of course two days later we break up, only real break we got all week was the warning.
Unless it is something really egregious (ie, an active school zone) or if it is due to neighborhood complaints, the City of Appleton's (WI) PD won't touch anyone for below 15 over. They have many more important things to worry about.
Mike
Quote from: TXtoNJ on December 14, 2024, 02:34:07 AMQuote from: thspfc on December 13, 2024, 08:59:33 PM7 over is indeed blatantly breaking the law
Depends on the jurisdiction. In prima facie states, it explicitly is not.
You are explicitly not understanding what prima facie means. And it's certainly not a numeric number of the miles per hour you're allowed to go over a signed limit.
In states with prima facie speed laws, such as Texas, laws are written such as "all speed limits are considered 'prima facie' limits. Prima facie limits are those limits which on the face of it, are reasonable and prudent under normal conditions."
Note "Normal Conditions". What Prima Facie is referencing is that the limit is what one should be driving at or under when conditions are proper for such driving. What it means is when there's a rainstorm or snowstorm and someone is driving 75 in a 75, a cop has the right to pull them over for driving an unsafe speed or cite "unsafe speed" in a police report after the person was in a crash. The cop can't write a ticket for X over the limit because he/she can't make up a temporary limit on the spot. They can use an all-encompassing "unsafe speed" or "careless driving" statute to write a ticket though.
Does the "prima facie" definition translate to allowing motorists to drive above the limit without penalty? While the NMA and the Internet will like you to think that, it's not necessarily true. Let's say, again, in Texas, you were stopped and ticketed for doing 82 in a 75. A cop has the absolute authority to write that ticket. You would then need to go to court and convince the judge that Texas law and engineering practices were incorrect and that doing 82 was a safe and prudent speed at the time. If you were on a highway with great sightlines and light traffic, maybe the judge will grant you your argument. If you were doing 82 and zipping around heavy traffic, you probably aren't going to win your argument. You may also want to bring documentation, pictures, etc to support your position.
Texas' Administrative Code on Prima Facia Speed Limits (And again, note, nowhere does it say driving faster than the limit at X mph is Prima Facia permitted):
https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=43&pt=1&ch=25&rl=21
Dagnabbit. That "hey, you can't post since a new post came in" seems to have swallowed up my own "Huh?" response to the prima facie nonsense.
Americans have an interesting relationship with the law. We love ideals, but we hate rules. I believe that we have a societal obligation to obey the laws. To me, it's a matter of personal discipline. Traffic laws not only limit speeds, but also remind us that everyone else has an equal right to the use of the roads, that impeding or endangering someone else in order to get ahead, or for personal enjoyment, is not an entitlement. Obeying the law is also an act of patriotism. Complying with speed limits and even paying your taxes are recognitions of the importance of doing what's necessary to make your country better. Trying to get away with misconduct is unpatriotic. This obligation to obey the law also applies to legislators and administrators. In our system of law, limits on personal conduct must be the least restrictive necessary in order to bring about the objective, such as public safety or the administration of justice.
Americans, not unreasonably, are described as ungovernable. Even when they want to perform their patriotic duty and contribute to a just and secure society, they don't like being told that they have to. We like laws that we can ignore because they don't work. We often set speed limits that are too low, and then don't take them seriously because they're not reasonable. We set limits on immigration that are too low, and then when that brings about illegal immigration we don't take it seriously because our laws don't work. We ban drugs and gambling because having a good time is a sin, and then don't take those laws seriously because the harm in enforcing the law is greater than the harm the law was meant to prevent. I've been to a festival in Austin that was heavily patrolled by local law enforcement, and people were openly and obviously smoking illegal stuff. As long as they behaved themselves, nobody cared. It was like a sample of what living in a place with reasonable laws would be like. Of course, there are drugs that are much worse, just like there are places where it's truly necessary to go slow, but the disrespect we have for the law, and the disrespect that the law teaches us by being too strict, makes getting away with crime into a game, makes law enforcement and their protectees see each other as enemies, and takes away from the idea that you should make good decisions because it's good for you and for your country rather than because someone is forcing you to.
I'm legalistic. I believe that laws should be enforced strictly. Enforcement is strict, but the same strictness applies to those who write the statutes, the written will of the legislature, which determines how the principles of law are to be carried out in the area subject to that legislature's jurisdiction. They're required to write them in the least restrictive way necessary to accomplish the objective, such that strict enforcement is not unreasonable or unworkable. Our duty is not to ignore badly written laws, but to replace the legislators who write them and to demand better.
As I've gotten older I've found myself having less respect for stringent adherence to speed limits. I'm far less of a target for being stopped now that I'm not really all that young anymore and typically have my wife with me. Societal norms around here and CHP enforcement practices have made at 7 MPH over the limit acceptable.
Quote from: wxfree on December 14, 2024, 03:10:54 PMAmericans have an interesting relationship with the law. We love ideals, but we hate rules. I believe that we have a societal obligation to obey the laws. To me, it's a matter of personal discipline. Traffic laws not only limit speeds, but also remind us that everyone else has an equal right to the use of the roads, that impeding or endangering someone else in order to get ahead, or for personal enjoyment, is not an entitlement. Obeying the law is also an act of patriotism. Complying with speed limits and even paying your taxes are recognitions of the importance of doing what's necessary to make your country better. Trying to get away with misconduct is unpatriotic. This obligation to obey the law also applies to legislators and administrators. In our system of law, limits on personal conduct must be the least restrictive necessary in order to bring about the objective, such as public safety or the administration of justice.
Americans, not unreasonably, are described as ungovernable. Even when they want to perform their patriotic duty and contribute to a just and secure society, they don't like being told that they have to. We like laws that we can ignore because they don't work. We often set speed limits that are too low, and then don't take them seriously because they're not reasonable. We set limits on immigration that are too low, and then when that brings about illegal immigration we don't take it seriously because our laws don't work. We ban drugs and gambling because having a good time is a sin, and then don't take those laws seriously because the harm in enforcing the law is greater than the harm the law was meant to prevent. I've been to a festival in Austin that was heavily patrolled by local law enforcement, and people were openly and obviously smoking illegal stuff. As long as they behaved themselves, nobody cared. It was like a sample of what living in a place with reasonable laws would be like. Of course, there are drugs that are much worse, just like there are places where it's truly necessary to go slow, but the disrespect we have for the law, and the disrespect that the law teaches us by being too strict, makes getting away with crime into a game, makes law enforcement and their protectees see each other as enemies, and takes away from the idea that you should make good decisions because it's good for you and for your country rather than because someone is forcing you to.
I'm legalistic. I believe that laws should be enforced strictly. Enforcement is strict, but the same strictness applies to those who write the statutes, the written will of the legislature, which determines how the principles of law are to be carried out in the area subject to that legislature's jurisdiction. They're required to write them in the least restrictive way necessary to accomplish the objective, such that strict enforcement is not unreasonable or unworkable. Our duty is not to ignore badly written laws, but to replace the legislators who write them and to demand better.
How can following the laws be considered patriotic, when the entire beginning of the country was about rebelling against "unjust" laws?
Anyway, we don't have time for strictly enforcing every law on the books. I have a life to lead. So I will continue going 5-10 over. I will jaywalk when I go to the restaurant across the street. I guess that makes me unpatriotic and ungovernable in your eyes. So be it.
Quote from: wxfree on December 14, 2024, 03:10:54 PMTrying to get away with misconduct is unpatriotic.
My response to this:
https://youtu.be/LQCU36pkH7c?si=qnzveZdmuldwu3Iv
Other examples of how this is just silly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk1vbwb6vS8
https://youtu.be/5zpeqni3WrE?si=7_0SNLJ2pHwZNevN
https://youtu.be/hxD0PqVlt5Q?si=2ITXAeKiJkUW4iw1
https://youtu.be/LDjK8VD0itE?si=Uv69d2klh8m1cpQ2
Oh, and in terms of breaking the law being unpatriotic in general:
https://youtu.be/1aF73iwH-lU?si=BdOCqr9ffMght4dh
https://youtu.be/UucXz3ZGmF4?si=sYxClHFYzvdTDJpq
Finally:
https://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/028f7-dillinger_john_indiana_jail.jpg?w=739
Breaking the law is as American as apple pie.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 14, 2024, 03:28:36 PMQuote from: wxfree on December 14, 2024, 03:10:54 PMAmericans have an interesting relationship with the law. We love ideals, but we hate rules. I believe that we have a societal obligation to obey the laws. To me, it's a matter of personal discipline. Traffic laws not only limit speeds, but also remind us that everyone else has an equal right to the use of the roads, that impeding or endangering someone else in order to get ahead, or for personal enjoyment, is not an entitlement. Obeying the law is also an act of patriotism. Complying with speed limits and even paying your taxes are recognitions of the importance of doing what's necessary to make your country better. Trying to get away with misconduct is unpatriotic. This obligation to obey the law also applies to legislators and administrators. In our system of law, limits on personal conduct must be the least restrictive necessary in order to bring about the objective, such as public safety or the administration of justice.
Americans, not unreasonably, are described as ungovernable. Even when they want to perform their patriotic duty and contribute to a just and secure society, they don't like being told that they have to. We like laws that we can ignore because they don't work. We often set speed limits that are too low, and then don't take them seriously because they're not reasonable. We set limits on immigration that are too low, and then when that brings about illegal immigration we don't take it seriously because our laws don't work. We ban drugs and gambling because having a good time is a sin, and then don't take those laws seriously because the harm in enforcing the law is greater than the harm the law was meant to prevent. I've been to a festival in Austin that was heavily patrolled by local law enforcement, and people were openly and obviously smoking illegal stuff. As long as they behaved themselves, nobody cared. It was like a sample of what living in a place with reasonable laws would be like. Of course, there are drugs that are much worse, just like there are places where it's truly necessary to go slow, but the disrespect we have for the law, and the disrespect that the law teaches us by being too strict, makes getting away with crime into a game, makes law enforcement and their protectees see each other as enemies, and takes away from the idea that you should make good decisions because it's good for you and for your country rather than because someone is forcing you to.
I'm legalistic. I believe that laws should be enforced strictly. Enforcement is strict, but the same strictness applies to those who write the statutes, the written will of the legislature, which determines how the principles of law are to be carried out in the area subject to that legislature's jurisdiction. They're required to write them in the least restrictive way necessary to accomplish the objective, such that strict enforcement is not unreasonable or unworkable. Our duty is not to ignore badly written laws, but to replace the legislators who write them and to demand better.
How can following the laws be considered patriotic, when the entire beginning of the country was about rebelling against "unjust" laws?
Anyway, we don't have time for strictly enforcing every law on the books. I have a life to lead. So I will continue going 5-10 over. I will jaywalk when I go to the restaurant across the street. I guess that makes me unpatriotic and ungovernable in your eyes. So be it.
My point is that the obligation of the law, to limit personal freedom only as actually necessary for safety and justice, is binding on legislators and administrators, and that laws should not be unjust, so that strict enforcement is not unreasonable or burdensome on those not engaged in harmful activity. If speed limits are too low, they should be raised, not ignored. They should be at a level at which enforcement promotes safety. If laws against jaywalking don't promote safety, they should be repealed. A personal complaint of mine is laws about sidewalks. I'm required to walk on the left side of the street unless there's a sidewalk. In places, there's a sidewalk on one side, and then it ends, and then there's a sidewalk on the other side. The laws says that I should cross the street repeatedly to stay on the sidewalk when it's safer to walk on the left side, and use the sidewalk on that side when there is one. This should be fixed.
I was speaking of ideals. I'm not saying "don't speed." I was writing about something I've been thinking about for years. My point about patriotism is that the laws should be written in such a way that following them is patriotic, not in a way that penalizes reasonable and prudent conduct. The "law," the Constitution and our principles of government, imposes an obligation on the legislators to write the statutes, which are directives for how the principles of law are to be carried out, in the most freedom-promoting way that brings about safety and justice, and imposes an obligation on the people to follow those laws with a mind toward those same goals of safety and justice.
The American spirit is rebellious. That isn't wrong. It can be a virtue as much as it can as much be a vice. The intent influences the direction in which the outcome will tend, by which I mean that even in a rebellious spirit, an intent toward justice tends toward an outcome being just in the same way that an intent toward selfishness and disregard for the public good tends toward outcomes in favor of those things. What's patriotic is an intent toward our national values of equality and justice, and writing and following laws with those values in mind.
Someone doesn't seem to understand that those high-falutin' values have little to do with our actual country values, which are much better reflected in who our current political and economic system protects, specifically in whose rights and whose wealth are protected.
Considering how the system is resistant to change to change those parameters, any broad appeal to equality and justice is pretty silly.
All of this contributes to actually tying patriotism to rebellion, not conformity.
I'm a philosophical thinker. To me, there's value in understanding principles and motivations, because they help us understand behaviors and outcomes even when they seem unrelated to those behaviors and outcomes. My rant wasn't motivated by this discussion, but is something I've been thinking about for a long time. I know this isn't a philosophy forum, but often writing something out helps me to understand my own thoughts better. I agree with what's being said, and my high-falutin' (a description I don't disagree with) words are meant to inspire thought, not to comment on behavior.
My own choice is to follow the laws. That's my choice, and in a way it's an act of rebellion because society doesn't like it. I do it for the reason I described, personal discipline and a recognition of the equal right to the use of the road held by everyone else. More broadly, it's about the right of the people to live in a free and just society. It isn't even really about following the law as much as deciding to do what I believe is right, which is to abstain from impairing anyone else's rights.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 13, 2024, 11:37:12 PM"Margin of Error" is a made up cry by people who keep pushing for more and more leniency with speeding tickets.
There are ways to test your speedometer.
There are ways to test speed enforcement devices.
Most people doing a certain speed over the limit are doing it because they're comfortable doing that speed. They're not going 82 in a 75 because they think their speedometer is broken and they believe their 82 is really 75, and everyone else they're passing are cautious drivers driving under the limit.
True, but I would not want to be going (according to my car) the exact speed limit and then get a ticket because of my car's speedometer and/or the camera being a mph or two off. Not to mention that most people have analog speedometers, and cruise control will often have the car vary by +/- 1 mph from what it's set for. So having
some buffer is reasonable. Then again, I'm defining "some" as something like 3 mph, not the typical 10 mph. But I'd also like to see our speed limits raised to reasonable levels before enforcing so strictly.
I'm not sure how to test my car's speedometer scientifically, though I expect that it's accurate because it usually isn't right on or within 1 mph of the "your speed" signs and based on the distance I go in an hour on the Thruway. I've found most cars are off by more, though always on the side of being slower than what the speedometer says (so my Civic's 70 is probably closer to 72 on most cars).
Quote from: wxfree on December 14, 2024, 03:10:54 PMAmericans have an interesting relationship with the law. We love ideals, but we hate rules. I believe that we have a societal obligation to obey the laws. To me, it's a matter of personal discipline. Traffic laws not only limit speeds, but also remind us that everyone else has an equal right to the use of the roads, that impeding or endangering someone else in order to get ahead, or for personal enjoyment, is not an entitlement. Obeying the law is also an act of patriotism. Complying with speed limits and even paying your taxes are recognitions of the importance of doing what's necessary to make your country better. Trying to get away with misconduct is unpatriotic. This obligation to obey the law also applies to legislators and administrators. In our system of law, limits on personal conduct must be the least restrictive necessary in order to bring about the objective, such as public safety or the administration of justice.
Americans, not unreasonably, are described as ungovernable. Even when they want to perform their patriotic duty and contribute to a just and secure society, they don't like being told that they have to. We like laws that we can ignore because they don't work. We often set speed limits that are too low, and then don't take them seriously because they're not reasonable. We set limits on immigration that are too low, and then when that brings about illegal immigration we don't take it seriously because our laws don't work. We ban drugs and gambling because having a good time is a sin, and then don't take those laws seriously because the harm in enforcing the law is greater than the harm the law was meant to prevent. I've been to a festival in Austin that was heavily patrolled by local law enforcement, and people were openly and obviously smoking illegal stuff. As long as they behaved themselves, nobody cared. It was like a sample of what living in a place with reasonable laws would be like. Of course, there are drugs that are much worse, just like there are places where it's truly necessary to go slow, but the disrespect we have for the law, and the disrespect that the law teaches us by being too strict, makes getting away with crime into a game, makes law enforcement and their protectees see each other as enemies, and takes away from the idea that you should make good decisions because it's good for you and for your country rather than because someone is forcing you to.
I'm legalistic. I believe that laws should be enforced strictly. Enforcement is strict, but the same strictness applies to those who write the statutes, the written will of the legislature, which determines how the principles of law are to be carried out in the area subject to that legislature's jurisdiction. They're required to write them in the least restrictive way necessary to accomplish the objective, such that strict enforcement is not unreasonable or unworkable. Our duty is not to ignore badly written laws, but to replace the legislators who write them and to demand better.
I feel like there's another reason why we have overly strict laws combined with lax enforcement: it basically allows the police to go after anyone if they want to, since if everyone is a lawbreaker, anyone can be stopped at any time.
Honestly, as someone with Asperger's, I wish we had a system where the law was both reasonable and enforced. Having unreasonable laws with lax/no enforcement is just a minefield. Figuring out what the "real law" is instead of the stated law is hard for me and not a game I want to have to play, nor do I want to have to vary how I treat certain laws by where I am. Bringing it to speed limits specifically, if the sign says X, I don't want what the "real" speed limit is to vary by jurisdiction, nor do I want to have to figure it out. I want it to just be X, everywhere. I'd love to give up my usual "5 over on surface roads, 7 over on freeways", but to do that without it feeling like I'm crawling and having roadtrips take a lot longer, the speed limits (especially on the interstate system) would need to be raised to reasonable levels. My trigger for that would probably be NY raising most of the 65 zones to 70 (especially on the Thruway), especially as speed cameras are on the rise, and every jurisdiction has their own (often not published) tolerance on those.
If anything this thread proves there is probably too much analysis of speed limits in general. If you don't drive like a dickhead then you probably aren't getting pulled over often.
I didn't think 7 over was "driving like a dickhead". After that I went 4 over and had people riding my bumper for an hour.
Besides the funny language, that's what the speed limits should be. The nearest number divisible by 5 below the "minimum dickhead speed" in good conditions.
That's basically what I recommend to others who don't have my views on driving, which is everyone. Keep up with traffic, don't try to leave everyone behind, and you probably won't be bothered. It really has nothing to do with numbers. You can go below the limit and still be driving aggressively and dangerously.
Quote from: texaskdog on December 14, 2024, 05:04:41 PMI didn't think 7 over was "driving like a dickhead". After that I went 4 over and had people riding my bumper for an hour.
Hence why emphasized it wasn't likely to happen often. If you drive enough you're probably getting pulled over at least a couple times in a lifetime.
Quote from: wxfree on December 14, 2024, 05:11:07 PMThat's basically what I recommend to others who don't have my views on driving, which is everyone.
I honestly don't understand it. Who would prefer our current system of having an "official limit" and a separate "real" limit that isn't publicized and which is inconsistent between jurisdictions over having the number on the sign being reasonable with that being the "real" limit?
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 14, 2024, 03:28:36 PMHow can following the laws be considered patriotic, when the entire beginning of the country was about rebelling against "unjust" laws?
Anyway, we don't have time for strictly enforcing every law on the books. I have a life to lead. So I will continue going 5-10 over. I will jaywalk when I go to the restaurant across the street. I guess that makes me unpatriotic and ungovernable in your eyes. So be it.
Why not skimp out on the bill at the restaurant?
I think the reason is the opposite. We make a lot of laws because we like legislating to tell people what to do (and not to do.) Law enforcement is left with a bunch of stuff that is hard to enforce and inconsistent, and ye some agencies use those inconsistencies to do what they want and strictly enforce. But many, if not most, just pick and choose what they emphasize enforcing given limited resources.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 14, 2024, 05:34:33 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on December 14, 2024, 03:28:36 PMHow can following the laws be considered patriotic, when the entire beginning of the country was about rebelling against "unjust" laws?
Anyway, we don't have time for strictly enforcing every law on the books. I have a life to lead. So I will continue going 5-10 over. I will jaywalk when I go to the restaurant across the street. I guess that makes me unpatriotic and ungovernable in your eyes. So be it.
Why not skimp out on the bill at the restaurant?
Because someone else is harmed through my theft. Way different than a victimless crime like jaywalking.
Quote from: vdeane on December 14, 2024, 04:50:57 PMI'm not sure how to test my car's speedometer scientifically, though I expect that it's accurate because it usually isn't right on or within 1 mph of the "your speed" signs and based on the distance I go in an hour on the Thruway. I've found most cars are off by more, though always on the side of being slower than what the speedometer says (so my Civic's 70 is probably closer to 72 on most cars).
In the older days:
When I've tested my speedometer, the best way I found is to use the milemarker signage, driving at 60 mph. If I'm doing it in 60 seconds, I'm good. And I'll do it a few times at different markers, in case a few of the signs are slightly off.
In the present day:
Use a phone app that shows the speed you're going, and compare it to the speedometer.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 14, 2024, 05:41:31 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on December 14, 2024, 05:34:33 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on December 14, 2024, 03:28:36 PMHow can following the laws be considered patriotic, when the entire beginning of the country was about rebelling against "unjust" laws?
Anyway, we don't have time for strictly enforcing every law on the books. I have a life to lead. So I will continue going 5-10 over. I will jaywalk when I go to the restaurant across the street. I guess that makes me unpatriotic and ungovernable in your eyes. So be it.
Why not skimp out on the bill at the restaurant?
Because someone else is harmed through my theft. Way different than a victimless crime like jaywalking.
Well, until someone is hit.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 14, 2024, 05:47:05 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on December 14, 2024, 05:41:31 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on December 14, 2024, 05:34:33 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on December 14, 2024, 03:28:36 PMHow can following the laws be considered patriotic, when the entire beginning of the country was about rebelling against "unjust" laws?
Anyway, we don't have time for strictly enforcing every law on the books. I have a life to lead. So I will continue going 5-10 over. I will jaywalk when I go to the restaurant across the street. I guess that makes me unpatriotic and ungovernable in your eyes. So be it.
Why not skimp out on the bill at the restaurant?
Because someone else is harmed through my theft. Way different than a victimless crime like jaywalking.
Well, until someone is hit.
That's a risk I am willing to take.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 14, 2024, 05:15:16 PMQuote from: texaskdog on December 14, 2024, 05:04:41 PMI didn't think 7 over was "driving like a dickhead". After that I went 4 over and had people riding my bumper for an hour.
Hence why emphasized it wasn't likely to happen often. If you drive enough you're probably getting pulled over at least a couple times in a lifetime.
I drove Lyft 5 years and got pulled over 4 times, plus 2 more times, 6 warnings in 12 years so not doing too bad. Helps being old and white though.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 14, 2024, 05:48:54 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on December 14, 2024, 05:47:05 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on December 14, 2024, 05:41:31 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on December 14, 2024, 05:34:33 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on December 14, 2024, 03:28:36 PMHow can following the laws be considered patriotic, when the entire beginning of the country was about rebelling against "unjust" laws?
Anyway, we don't have time for strictly enforcing every law on the books. I have a life to lead. So I will continue going 5-10 over. I will jaywalk when I go to the restaurant across the street. I guess that makes me unpatriotic and ungovernable in your eyes. So be it.
Why not skimp out on the bill at the restaurant?
Because someone else is harmed through my theft. Way different than a victimless crime like jaywalking.
Well, until someone is hit.
That's a risk I am willing to take.
A 2nd victim is the innocent person that was obeying the traffic laws, along with passengers, extending to family and friends. Then they're possibly out of work if injured physically or mentally. And they may need to pay a deductible for the repairs on the vehicle, along with other costs related to auto accidents.
I'm not saying I'm perfect, just for an FYI. I'm just saying that people pick and choose what 'crimes' they want to commit to rebell against unjust laws, and often they're picking crimes that won't give them police records.
Quote from: wxfree on December 14, 2024, 03:10:54 PMWe ban drugs and gambling because having a good time is a sin...
Maybe your state does. ;)
Really, though, the point your post makes is a part of the culture that varies from region to region. Nevada's philosophy tends to be to get by with as few laws as possible. Even those seem to be borderline optional, because if you break the law, how would anyone know? Most of the state is empty, so who's going to complain? And if they do, are the police going to bother to show up?
Unfortunately, this also seems to apply to things where compliance and enforcement are really in everyone's best interest, like stopping for red lights and having license plates...
Quote from: vdeane on December 14, 2024, 04:50:57 PMI feel like there's another reason why we have overly strict laws combined with lax enforcement: it basically allows the police to go after anyone if they want to, since if everyone is a lawbreaker, anyone can be stopped at any time.
Honestly, as someone with Asperger's, I wish we had a system where the law was both reasonable and enforced. Having unreasonable laws with lax/no enforcement is just a minefield. Figuring out what the "real law" is instead of the stated law is hard for me and not a game I want to have to play, nor do I want to have to vary how I treat certain laws by where I am. Bringing it to speed limits specifically, if the sign says X, I don't want what the "real" speed limit is to vary by jurisdiction, nor do I want to have to figure it out. I want it to just be X, everywhere. I'd love to give up my usual "5 over on surface roads, 7 over on freeways", but to do that without it feeling like I'm crawling and having roadtrips take a lot longer, the speed limits (especially on the interstate system) would need to be raised to reasonable levels. My trigger for that would probably be NY raising most of the 65 zones to 70 (especially on the Thruway), especially as speed cameras are on the rise, and every jurisdiction has their own (often not published) tolerance on those.
There's a legal precedent that the people have a right to be informed as to what conduct is prohibited by law and what isn't. Laws can be declared unconstitutional for vagueness. I think that's why the famous Montana speed limit was struck down, that it was found to inadequately inform drivers of what speeds are subject to legal consequences.
It could be argued that speed limits that are subject to variable or secret enforcement standards are vague. When the law is written with clarity, it could be argued that enforcement guidelines should also be clearly defined. I don't think that's a winning argument, but I think it's a reasonable one. Courts would probably find (and may have in the past) that since not going over the speed on the sign is not subject to legal action, then that's adequate warning, and that any intentional lack of enforcement only acts in the favor of drivers, not as a violation of their rights. I would argue back that this is stupid, and then go to jail for contempt. I think I would be right, but I'd still be in jail and the laws would still be the same.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 14, 2024, 06:34:36 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on December 14, 2024, 05:48:54 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on December 14, 2024, 05:47:05 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on December 14, 2024, 05:41:31 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on December 14, 2024, 05:34:33 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on December 14, 2024, 03:28:36 PMHow can following the laws be considered patriotic, when the entire beginning of the country was about rebelling against "unjust" laws?
Anyway, we don't have time for strictly enforcing every law on the books. I have a life to lead. So I will continue going 5-10 over. I will jaywalk when I go to the restaurant across the street. I guess that makes me unpatriotic and ungovernable in your eyes. So be it.
Why not skimp out on the bill at the restaurant?
Because someone else is harmed through my theft. Way different than a victimless crime like jaywalking.
Well, until someone is hit.
That's a risk I am willing to take.
A 2nd victim is the innocent person that was obeying the traffic laws, along with passengers, extending to family and friends. Then they're possibly out of work if injured physically or mentally. And they may need to pay a deductible for the repairs on the vehicle, along with other costs related to auto accidents.
I'm not saying I'm perfect, just for an FYI. I'm just saying that people pick and choose what 'crimes' they want to commit to rebell against unjust laws, and often they're picking crimes that won't give them police records.
🙄🙄🙄
It's fine. I jaywalk without remorse.
In all these years of distance running I've never been once accosted for jaywalking. That includes places like Clark County where it was once a thing Las Vegas Metro supposedly used to heavily enforce.
I've been hit by cars twice while running. In both cases I was a legal pedestrian. I would argue that well timed jaywalking has kept me safer over the years than unquestioningly following pedestrian laws.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 14, 2024, 05:39:59 PMI think the reason is the opposite. We make a lot of laws because we like legislating to tell people what to do (and not to do.) Law enforcement is left with a bunch of stuff that is hard to enforce and inconsistent, and ye some agencies use those inconsistencies to do what they want and strictly enforce. But many, if not most, just pick and choose what they emphasize enforcing given limited resources.
They're not contradictory. Someone can hate being told what to do and love telling
other people what to do.
I mean, I tend to drive with a heavy foot on the gas as well, but there's absolutely a good few towns (like Town Creek, AL) where I set my cruise control right at the speed limit on my speedometer until I see the speed limit go back up.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 14, 2024, 06:57:11 PMThat includes places like Clark County where it was once a thing Las Vegas Metro supposedly used to heavily enforce.
What Metro does really depends where in town you are and what you look like. If you're in the Strip area, maybe jaywalking is enforced. But a lot of those nitpicky laws are how Clark County hassles the "bad element" into staying away from the tourists. You probably looked like you were going to spend money.
If you were jaywalking across Rainbow or Boulder Highway or something? Metro couldn't give less of a shit. I've almost hit several people who were running around in the traffic lanes of Rainbow in the dark for who knows what reason.
May 2007: I was pulled over on I-10 eastbound approaching Kerrville, Texas. The Speed Limit was 80 MPH, and the County sheriff told me he clocked me at 83 MPH. The Sheriff informed me that he was just alerted to an emergency (while running my license and insurance in his patrol car) he had to respond to and he did not have the time to administer a citation to me; he did give me a stern warning to "slow it down!" in a very sharp tone before racing off. And impeccably enough just several miles ahead, an accident involving 18-wheeler shut down the overpass at the TX-16 intersection in Kerrville forcing all traffic to exit and reenter the freeway.
Seems like Texas law enforcers are a lot more stringent than many other states.
Quote from: freebrickproductions on December 15, 2024, 12:32:51 AMI mean, I tend to drive with a heavy foot on the gas as well, but there's absolutely a good few towns (like Town Creek, AL) where I set my cruise control right at the speed limit on my speedometer until I see the speed limit go back up.
I drop mine
below the speed limit when I pass the speed camera in a school zone not far from our neighborhood because there have been multiple documented incidents of the camera ticketing people at times when the lower school zone speed limit is not in effect (that is, it's 25 mph when the yellow lights are flashing, 35 otherwise, and the camera is only supposed to operate when the lights are flashing, but it's given tickets based on a 25-mph limit at times when the 35-mph limit was in effect).
I also view neighborhood streets as being fundamentally different from arterials. I keep it to 25 on the street that runs in and out of our neighborhood because there are little kids around who will do things like chasing a ball into the street. Some people in our neighborhood think they're entitled to go 40 or more and they also think tailgating is a way to get other people to speed up, so I set my cruise control to ensure I do not speed up.
Makes me wonder about legal requirements for speed cameras to have a buffer above the speed limit and if any of them are federal.
Quote from: Rothman on December 15, 2024, 10:50:19 AMMakes me wonder about legal requirements for speed cameras to have a buffer above the speed limit and if any of them are federal.
I remember seeing an article about speed cameras in Australia that said federal law there requires a 10% tolerance because of the cost of replacing or calibrating a speedometer, yet Victoria's speed cameras gave drivers only a 3 km/h cushion (obviously that's less than 10% at anything over about 18 mph). Not sure what ever came of it.
At the opposite extreme was the Belgian speed camera that clocked a Mini Cooper at Mach 3 (faster than the aircraft seen in my avatar).
My cruise control is always set to 80 in a 70 in Michigan and I've never been pulled over, been past at least 15 state troopers by now. Don't slam the brakes and you won't stand out...
Quote from: michiganguy123 on December 15, 2024, 12:20:28 PMMy cruise control is always set to 80 in a 70 in Michigan and I've never been pulled over, been past at least 15 state troopers by now. Don't slam the brakes and you won't stand out...
Funny I didn't use mine figuring 7 was good, but I saw him turn around. Took him forever to catch up to me.
Quote from: jgb191 on December 15, 2024, 10:17:41 AMMay 2007: I was pulled over on I-10 eastbound approaching Kerrville, Texas. The Speed Limit was 80 MPH, and the County sheriff told me he clocked me at 83 MPH. The Sheriff informed me that he was just alerted to an emergency (while running my license and insurance in his patrol car) he had to respond to and he did not have the time to administer a citation to me; he did give me a stern warning to "slow it down!" in a very sharp tone before racing off. And impeccably enough just several miles ahead, an accident involving 18-wheeler shut down the overpass at the TX-16 intersection in Kerrville forcing all traffic to exit and reenter the freeway.
Seems like Texas law enforcers are a lot more stringent than many other states.
Lectures are fine if you're doing something wrong. That guy was just power mad.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 15, 2024, 10:32:08 AM(that is, it's 25 mph when the yellow lights are flashing, 35 otherwise, and the camera is only supposed to operate when the lights are flashing, but it's given tickets based on a 25-mph limit at times when the 35-mph limit was in effect)
Must be caused by DST. (ducks and hides)
Quote from: wxfree on December 14, 2024, 06:41:16 PMThere's a legal precedent that the people have a right to be informed as to what conduct is prohibited by law and what isn't. Laws can be declared unconstitutional for vagueness. I think that's why the famous Montana speed limit was struck down, that it was found to inadequately inform drivers of what speeds are subject to legal consequences.
Was that why? I thought it was because everyone with a hot car within 1000 miles of Montana would drive to Montana to find out how fast it would go and they got tired of the resulting wrecks.
Quote from: michiganguy123 on December 15, 2024, 12:20:28 PMDon't slam the brakes and you won't stand out...
Around here, that probably would make you stand out, because practically
everyone slams the brakes when they see a cop in the median or on the shoulder, even if they were already going near or even below the speed limit.
Quote from: Rothman on December 15, 2024, 10:50:19 AMMakes me wonder about legal requirements for speed cameras to have a buffer above the speed limit and if any of them are federal.
There are speed cameras in many school zones here, and the speed cameras only operate when the yellow lights are flashing. The speed limit also drops to 20 when children are present, but that would need an officer to observe. The speed limit cameras supposedly have a safety margin, only ticketing people going over 25 even though the posted limit when the lights are flashing is 20.
Quote from: kkt on December 15, 2024, 02:19:37 PMQuote from: wxfree on December 14, 2024, 06:41:16 PMThere's a legal precedent that the people have a right to be informed as to what conduct is prohibited by law and what isn't. Laws can be declared unconstitutional for vagueness. I think that's why the famous Montana speed limit was struck down, that it was found to inadequately inform drivers of what speeds are subject to legal consequences.
Was that why? I thought it was because everyone with a hot car within 1000 miles of Montana would drive to Montana to find out how fast it would go and they got tired of the resulting wrecks.
The source of all truth, Wickerpaedia, says that the law was struck down by the courts due to vagueness. It gives a link that helped me find the supreme court decision.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/mt-supreme-court/1110919.html (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/mt-supreme-court/1110919.html)
The Montana constitution says in Article II Section 17: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
The court ruling says in Paragraph 23: "It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning. Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application."
Paragraph 25: "We conclude that, as a speed limit, § 61-8-303(1), MCA, does not meet these requirements of the Due Process Clause of Article II, Section 17, of the Montana Constitution, nor does it further the values that the void-for-vagueness doctrine is intended to protect."
This principle is not unique to Montana. It applies to every state through the federal Fourteenth Amendment: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Here's an article on the vagueness doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness_doctrine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness_doctrine)
The last sentence in Paragraph 23 sounds like an interesting argument for requiring reasonable speed limits rather than relying on lax enforcement of deficient limits, as an argument against against letting police make up their own speed limits through secret enforcement standards.
Quote from: wxfree on December 15, 2024, 04:13:25 PMQuote from: kkt on December 15, 2024, 02:19:37 PMQuote from: wxfree on December 14, 2024, 06:41:16 PMThere's a legal precedent that the people have a right to be informed as to what conduct is prohibited by law and what isn't. Laws can be declared unconstitutional for vagueness. I think that's why the famous Montana speed limit was struck down, that it was found to inadequately inform drivers of what speeds are subject to legal consequences.
Was that why? I thought it was because everyone with a hot car within 1000 miles of Montana would drive to Montana to find out how fast it would go and they got tired of the resulting wrecks.
The source of all truth, Wickerpaedia, says that the law was struck down by the courts due to vagueness. It gives a link that helped me find the supreme court decision.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/mt-supreme-court/1110919.html (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/mt-supreme-court/1110919.html)
The Montana constitution says in Article II Section 17: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
The court ruling says in Paragraph 23: "It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning. Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application."
Paragraph 25: "We conclude that, as a speed limit, § 61-8-303(1), MCA, does not meet these requirements of the Due Process Clause of Article II, Section 17, of the Montana Constitution, nor does it further the values that the void-for-vagueness doctrine is intended to protect."
This principle is not unique to Montana. It applies to every state through the federal Fourteenth Amendment: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Here's an article on the vagueness doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness_doctrine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness_doctrine)
The last sentence in Paragraph 23 sounds like an interesting argument for requiring reasonable speed limits rather than relying on lax enforcement of deficient limits, as an argument against against letting police make up their own speed limits through secret enforcement standards.
Okay, thank you. Good, I'm glad, although even the posted speed limit can be too high if conditions are unfavorable.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 14, 2024, 04:53:08 PMIf anything this thread proves there is probably too much analysis of speed limits in general. If you don't drive like a dickhead then you probably aren't getting pulled over often.
Reminds me of one time I was waiting to turn left. The guy behind me didn't like that I wasn't running the red light, so he zoomed past me by illegally cutting into the oncoming traffic lanes. It was night, so he didn't realize a cop was right behind him. I have never been more satisfied seeing someone get pulled over in my life.
This thread is a good reminder of why I invested in a Valentine One.*
*Not applicable in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 16, 2024, 01:59:43 PMThis thread is a good reminder of why I invested in a Valentine One.*
*Not applicable in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
I still hear of people who have those that still get pulled over. Detects the cop when the cop detects you kind of thing.
Quote from: Rothman on December 16, 2024, 03:25:20 PMQuote from: hbelkins on December 16, 2024, 01:59:43 PMThis thread is a good reminder of why I invested in a Valentine One.*
*Not applicable in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
I still hear of people who have those that still get pulled over. Detects the cop when the cop detects you kind of thing.
What a shame.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 16, 2024, 01:59:43 PMThis thread is a good reminder of why I invested in a Valentine One.*
*Not applicable in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Only useful if you are normally speeding well above the limit. If you're going the speed everyone else is doing, or less, then it's not worth the money.
I was always amused when I would see these in vehicles I'm passing. If I'm not worry about getting a ticket going 10 mph over, I've quite sure cops aren't going to bust these people going 4 mph over the limit. They probably still slam on the brakes the moment the thing chirps.
Quote from: michiganguy123 on December 15, 2024, 12:20:28 PMMy cruise control is always set to 80 in a 70 in Michigan and I've never been pulled over, been past at least 15 state troopers by now. Don't slam the brakes and you won't stand out...
Quote from: texaskdog on December 15, 2024, 01:20:39 PMQuote from: michiganguy123 on December 15, 2024, 12:20:28 PMMy cruise control is always set to 80 in a 70 in Michigan and I've never been pulled over, been past at least 15 state troopers by now. Don't slam the brakes and you won't stand out...
Funny I didn't use mine figuring 7 was good, but I saw him turn around. Took him forever to catch up to me.
One time about 20 years ago I was on my way to a Red Wings game in Detroit and was going 90 mph on SB I-75 just before exit 93 and saw a cop coming NB turning around, I figured he was after me so I noticed the traffic was backed up at the off ramp for exit 93 and went on the shoulder and drove around all the traffic stopped there, as I got up to Dixie Highway I saw the cop fly by on the highway. I just took a right on Dixie and took Woodward into Detroit after that.
In the 14 years I've been driving, I've always had to go 10-15 mph over just to keep up with traffic on highways. :-D
I think the only times I'm at or below the speed limit on highways is either slow traffic or bad weather
I know this isn't on topic as far as the OP goes but there has been talk about slamming on the brakes. One thing I really hate is how people feel the need to slam on their brakes when going around a curve on a freeway or going over a hill on a freeway. An example of each is in Detroit, I-75 near the Davison exit and the entire Southfield Freeway.
Quote from: Flint1979 on December 16, 2024, 07:24:52 PMI know this isn't on topic as far as the OP goes but there has been talk about slamming on the brakes. One thing I really hate is how people feel the need to slam on their brakes when going around a curve ... or going over a hill...
I agree. :nod:
Quote from: Quillz on December 15, 2024, 11:53:16 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on December 14, 2024, 04:53:08 PMIf anything this thread proves there is probably too much analysis of speed limits in general. If you don't drive like a dickhead then you probably aren't getting pulled over often.
Reminds me of one time I was waiting to turn left. The guy behind me didn't like that I wasn't running the red light, so he zoomed past me by illegally cutting into the oncoming traffic lanes. It was night, so he didn't realize a cop was right behind him. I have never been more satisfied seeing someone get pulled over in my life.
I saw something similar bur worse happen once, except no cops were involved. I was second in line when the light turned red. The car in front of me went - on red, mind you - but I decided not to push it and stopped. But then the guy behind me, who was actually
third in line when the light changed, zoomed around me and across the oncoming lanes even as the light on the cross street turned green. I was so stunned I couldn't even be angry.
The last three times I've been pulled over, none of them gave me any written warning or documentation at the conclusion of the stop which pretty much screams that the purpose of the stop was to go fishing.
Quote from: Rothman on December 16, 2024, 03:25:20 PMQuote from: hbelkins on December 16, 2024, 01:59:43 PMThis thread is a good reminder of why I invested in a Valentine One.*
*Not applicable in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
I still hear of people who have those that still get pulled over. Detects the cop when the cop detects you kind of thing.
They are sensitive at a great distance. If you're not the only vehicle on the road and the cop is using "instant-on" radar on other vehicles up ahead, you'll pick up the signal when the cop shoots the other vehicle. But around here, cops don't use stationary radar all that much. You're much more likely to meet an oncoming cop running radar, where it's on constantly.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 16, 2024, 05:07:41 PMQuote from: hbelkins on December 16, 2024, 01:59:43 PMThis thread is a good reminder of why I invested in a Valentine One.*
*Not applicable in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Only useful if you are normally speeding well above the limit. If you're going the speed everyone else is doing, or less, then it's not worth the money.
I was always amused when I would see these in vehicles I'm passing. If I'm not worry about getting a ticket going 10 mph over, I've quite sure cops aren't going to bust these people going 4 mph over the limit. They probably still slam on the brakes the moment the thing chirps.
They are much more handy when you're not on the freeway. 10 over on a 65 mph Interstate may not be a big deal, but 10 over on a 25-35-45-55 mph limit two-lane road is. I'm more worried about getting a ticket on one of those roads than I am the interstate, as I drive two-lane roads much more frequently.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 14, 2024, 12:57:36 PMQuote from: TXtoNJ on December 14, 2024, 02:34:07 AMQuote from: thspfc on December 13, 2024, 08:59:33 PM7 over is indeed blatantly breaking the law
Depends on the jurisdiction. In prima facie states, it explicitly is not.
You are explicitly not understanding what prima facie means. And it's certainly not a numeric number of the miles per hour you're allowed to go over a signed limit.
In states with prima facie speed laws, such as Texas, laws are written such as "all speed limits are considered 'prima facie' limits. Prima facie limits are those limits which on the face of it, are reasonable and prudent under normal conditions."
Note "Normal Conditions". What Prima Facie is referencing is that the limit is what one should be driving at or under when conditions are proper for such driving. What it means is when there's a rainstorm or snowstorm and someone is driving 75 in a 75, a cop has the right to pull them over for driving an unsafe speed or cite "unsafe speed" in a police report after the person was in a crash. The cop can't write a ticket for X over the limit because he/she can't make up a temporary limit on the spot. They can use an all-encompassing "unsafe speed" or "careless driving" statute to write a ticket though.
Does the "prima facie" definition translate to allowing motorists to drive above the limit without penalty? While the NMA and the Internet will like you to think that, it's not necessarily true. Let's say, again, in Texas, you were stopped and ticketed for doing 82 in a 75. A cop has the absolute authority to write that ticket. You would then need to go to court and convince the judge that Texas law and engineering practices were incorrect and that doing 82 was a safe and prudent speed at the time. If you were on a highway with great sightlines and light traffic, maybe the judge will grant you your argument. If you were doing 82 and zipping around heavy traffic, you probably aren't going to win your argument. You may also want to bring documentation, pictures, etc to support your position.
Texas' Administrative Code on Prima Facia Speed Limits (And again, note, nowhere does it say driving faster than the limit at X mph is Prima Facia permitted):
https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=43&pt=1&ch=25&rl=21
Sorry for the necrobump, but you're confusing "permitted" with "legal" here. Prima facie just means you can present evidence that the law was not broken and have the case dismissed pre trial. Per se means you have to come up with affirmative defenses during the trial phase while admitting that the law was broken. Both are tough to defend if the officer shows up, unless you can impeach their evidence.
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2024, 08:17:19 PMMeh. Getting pulled over for single digits was a lot more common in the 1900s. Interesting that it still happens from time-to-time.
Used to happen all the time on the way to Mammoth because the Inyo County police know people traveling from SoCal aren't going to drive all the way back to fight the ticket. My dad got pulled over for being 4 (!) over the speed limit. And yes, it's justifiable because he was speeding.
On the Indian reservation in northwest Washington, where Cape Flattery is, I got pulled over for doing 30 in a 25 zone. But I only got a warning because the officer thanked me for buying one of those medallions you are supposed to get when doing business there. Implying that a lot of people don't buy it. It also helped that while I was being pulled over, another guy zoomed by him going a good 10-20 over. He was PISSED, told me to just watch my speed, and then took off after that other guy.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 14, 2024, 04:53:08 PMIf anything this thread proves there is probably too much analysis of speed limits in general. If you don't drive like a dickhead then you probably aren't getting pulled over often.
It pretty much comes down to this. I generally go 5 mph over the speed limit, no more. (I set my cruise control to this). I've done this with cops tailing me and none have ever pulled me over because I'm otherwise not doing anything reckless.
I've been pulled over twice in all the years I've been driving. I mentioned the first time. The second time was after I had worked a 12-hour shift, I briefly cut into the other lane about two minutes away from my house. The cop behind me (with no lights on) did an informal drug test because they thought I was high. I wasn't, I was just tired. They said I passed and to just go home, which I was already doing.
I typically go 70 in a 55 on the I-495 Capital Beltway, which is about the average speed. Never gotten stopped in either state, and the number of visible traffic stops is vanishingly small. With all that traffic I surmise it is too much of a disruption to enforce that.
Basically, don't do anything else wrong and they won't bother you.
Quote from: Quillz on January 07, 2026, 05:15:01 PMbuying one of those medallions you are supposed to get when doing business there.
?
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 08, 2026, 05:19:52 AMQuote from: Quillz on January 07, 2026, 05:15:01 PMbuying one of those medallions you are supposed to get when doing business there.
?
The one I visited sold little tokens you put on your rear view mirror. Like inside the restaurants, I think they were $10. There was a sign when you entered about them being required to purchase when visiting, although obviously it wasn't really enforced unless you get pulled over.
Quote from: Quillz on January 08, 2026, 07:23:14 AMQuote from: Scott5114 on January 08, 2026, 05:19:52 AMQuote from: Quillz on January 07, 2026, 05:15:01 PMbuying one of those medallions you are supposed to get when doing business there.
?
The one I visited sold little tokens you put on your rear view mirror. Like inside the restaurants, I think they were $10. There was a sign when you entered about them being required to purchase when visiting, although obviously it wasn't really enforced unless you get pulled over.
Is it perhaps a recreation permit (https://makah.com/attractions/recreation-permits/)?
Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2026, 10:19:21 PMI typically go 70 in a 55 on the I-495 Capital Beltway, which is about the average speed. Never gotten stopped in either state, and the number of visible traffic stops is vanishingly small. With all that traffic I surmise it is too much of a disruption to enforce that.
Basically, don't do anything else wrong and they won't bother you.
I largely view it as, "don't do anything to stand out in a bad way." It seems like the people who get pulled over are either the ones who feel the need to call attention to themselves, say by whipping in and out across all four lanes of traffic because they're determined to go faster, or the ones who are just plain complete dumbasses. My favorite example of the latter was when I saw a marked Fairfax County police car—one of the old Crown Vic model that was utterly obvious even at a great distance—cruising on the Outer Loop ahead of me at about 65 mph near I-66 and some utter moron came along and flew past the cop at 70+. He was immediately pulled over. Passing a cop in that situation is just plain stupid.
With all that said, I generally try to keep it to 65 in the mainline and 70 in the HO/T lanes. I figure I won't stand out in either circumstance. I could probably go faster, but most of my driving on the Beltway is local driving such that it wouldn't make much difference either way (e.g., if I take the Beltway to go over to my mother's house, it's eight miles on the actual highway; while I haven't done the math to figure out the time difference between going 65 and going 70, it would obviously be insignificant).
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 08, 2026, 09:01:33 AMI largely view it as, "don't do anything to stand out in a bad way." It seems like the people who get pulled over are either the ones who feel the need to call attention to themselves, say by whipping in and out across all four lanes of traffic because they're determined to go faster, or the ones who are just plain complete dumbasses. My favorite example of the latter was when I saw a marked Fairfax County police car—one of the old Crown Vic model that was utterly obvious even at a great distance—cruising on the Outer Loop ahead of me at about 65 mph near I-66 and some utter moron came along and flew past the cop at 70+. He was immediately pulled over. Passing a cop in that situation is just plain stupid.
I would avoid passing a marked police car. And things that signify lack of attention like not staying centered in the lane, and not speeding up and slowing down by 10+ mph over and over like some do. Set the cruise control and go grey.
Mine is not short trips but bypassing to major Maryland routes like I-270, US-50 and I-95.
Right, I know you're not from the immediate DC area and if I were making a longer drive I would likely also feel the desire to go faster to make better time in the context of my overall trip. My comment was more intended to reflect why I personally just don't bother going faster anymore.
Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2026, 09:23:25 AMI would avoid passing a marked police car.
Usually, but not always. If they are going at or below the speed limit on a multilane freeway, there's no reason they should dictate traffic flow. Refusing to pass in that situation is sanctimonious not to mention peak cognitive dissonance.
I once passed a police car on a two-lane highway, when the officer was going the speed limit and I was going 5-7 over. In a company box truck. Speed limit was 55, I was going 60-62. Probably a dumb move, but I didn't get pulled over. This was on IL-14, west of Carmi, not too far before the US-45 junction.
In northern Mexico, I was once on an arrow-straight two-lane highway in the desert, going about 105 km/h when the speed limit was 80 km/h, as the lead vehicle in a caravan of two. A police officer (the federales!) zoomed up to our tail, then tailgated us for a few miles. Never slowed down, kept going a steady 25 km/h over. He kept tailgating us but never turning his lights on and never passing us. Eventually, he pulled off the highway. Totally freaked out our other driver, who had never driven in Mexico before.
On the other hand, I was once micro-passing an officer on US-412 heading west out of Tulsa. The speed limit was 65, he was going exactly 65 in the left lane, and I was micro-passing at about 66 in the right lane. Just after I cleared passing him, he sped up to be even with me, looked at me, and pointed to his radar gun. I backed off. A mile or two later, he sped up really fast and shot over two lanes in front of me to exit the highway.
Quote from: kphoger on January 08, 2026, 11:18:09 AMI once passed a police car on a two-lane highway, when the officer was going the speed limit and I was going 5-7 over. In a company box truck. Speed limit was 55, I was going 60-62. Probably a dumb move, but I didn't get pulled over.
Not a dumb move. To the contrary, steadfast and resilient.
Quote from: kphoger on January 08, 2026, 11:18:09 AMOn the other hand, I was once micro-passing an officer on US-412 heading west out of Tulsa. The speed limit was 65, he was going exactly 65 in the left lane, and I was micro-passing at about 66 in the right lane. Just after I cleared passing him, he sped up to be even with me, looked at me, and pointed to his radar gun.
Ugh. Just reading that makes my blood boil. What was giving you a ticket for speeding 1 mph over the limit going to prove, anyways? What a despicable waste of time when there are real pressing problems to deal with.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on December 14, 2024, 02:34:07 AMQuote from: thspfc on December 13, 2024, 08:59:33 PM7 over is indeed blatantly breaking the law
Depends on the jurisdiction. In prima facie states, it explicitly is not.
In PF states (with a higher maximum), 7 MPH over the posted limit *MIGHT* be illegal. 7 MPH over the state maximum is PROBABLY breaking the law. It also depends upon whether the penalty is deemed "civil" or "criminal". In California, Vehicle Code violations are criminal and, therefore, require intent, which is difficult to prove in "round off" cases. "52 in a 45" might not even be illegal or might be "grossly illegal"; it depends. The 45 MPH limit is PF. It's designed to be the best estimate of the highest legal speed under 'good' (not 'ideal') conditions. "77 in a 70" is illegal and, if the state can reasonably prove that you knew that you were doing 77, you'd be guilty. 70 MPH is the state maximum. This isn't' legal advice! ... and even if it were, the laws in your state may well be different!
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 08, 2026, 07:45:50 AMQuote from: Quillz on January 08, 2026, 07:23:14 AMQuote from: Scott5114 on January 08, 2026, 05:19:52 AMQuote from: Quillz on January 07, 2026, 05:15:01 PMbuying one of those medallions you are supposed to get when doing business there.
?
The one I visited sold little tokens you put on your rear view mirror. Like inside the restaurants, I think they were $10. There was a sign when you entered about them being required to purchase when visiting, although obviously it wasn't really enforced unless you get pulled over.
Is it perhaps a recreation permit (https://makah.com/attractions/recreation-permits/)?
Yeah. When I went it was $10 and a circular thing.
Quote from: webny99 on January 08, 2026, 11:08:00 AMQuote from: Beltway on January 08, 2026, 09:23:25 AMI would avoid passing a marked police car.
Usually, but not always. If they are going at or below the speed limit on a multilane freeway, there's no reason they should dictate traffic flow. Refusing to pass in that situation is sanctimonious not to mention peak cognitive dissonance.
Well yes indeed that is what I was thinking. Let's say if they going no less than 5 mph over that I would be reluctant.
Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2026, 02:29:28 PMQuote from: webny99 on January 08, 2026, 11:08:00 AMQuote from: Beltway on January 08, 2026, 09:23:25 AMI would avoid passing a marked police car.
Usually, but not always. If they are going at or below the speed limit on a multilane freeway, there's no reason they should dictate traffic flow. Refusing to pass in that situation is sanctimonious not to mention peak cognitive dissonance.
Well yes indeed that is what I was thinking. Let's say if they going no less than 5 mph over that I would be reluctant.
My understanding is that many police departments direct their officers to always drive a considerable amount either under or over the speed limit so that it is clear to other motorists that they should not be expected to keep pace with the officer.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 08, 2026, 09:21:38 PMMy understanding is that many police departments direct their officers to always drive a considerable amount either under or over the speed limit so that it is clear to other motorists that they should not be expected to keep pace with the officer.
If a cop is speeding without his lights or siren on, then I'll gladly drive behind him at the same speed he's going.
Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2026, 02:29:28 PMQuote from: webny99 on January 08, 2026, 11:08:00 AMQuote from: Beltway on January 08, 2026, 09:23:25 AMI would avoid passing a marked police car.
Usually, but not always. If they are going at or below the speed limit on a multilane freeway, there's no reason they should dictate traffic flow. Refusing to pass in that situation is sanctimonious not to mention peak cognitive dissonance.
Well yes indeed that is what I was thinking. Let's say if they going no less than 5 mph over that I would be reluctant.
I've passed officers and state troopers several times on my commute to work. They are often also commuting to work, and if they're in the right lane chances are they're just in line to get off at the next exit. They're not worried about traffic passing them.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 13, 2024, 09:06:52 PMOklahoma has some bad speed traps too.
Heavener, Panama and Pocola and Tryon are just four of the dozens of speed traps in the state.
Quote from: bugo on January 21, 2026, 07:32:34 PMQuote from: Bobby5280 on December 13, 2024, 09:06:52 PMOklahoma has some bad speed traps too.
Heavener, Panama and Pocola and Tryon are just four of the dozens of speed traps in the state.
Tryon? How many people go through there and get pulled over a year? 12?
Quote from: Rothman on January 21, 2026, 08:58:57 PMQuote from: bugo on January 21, 2026, 07:32:34 PMQuote from: Bobby5280 on December 13, 2024, 09:06:52 PMOklahoma has some bad speed traps too.
Heavener, Panama and Pocola and Tryon are just four of the dozens of speed traps in the state.
Tryon? How many people go through there and get pulled over a year? 12?
I was in a car with a driver who got a speeding ticket there.
Quote from: bugo on January 22, 2026, 10:07:30 AMI was in a car with a driver who got a speeding ticket there.
Is that the whole reason you call it a speed trap? Or do other people say it's a speed trap too, and your driver just decided to ignore the common knowledge?
Quote from: kphoger on January 22, 2026, 10:11:29 AMQuote from: bugo on January 22, 2026, 10:07:30 AMI was in a car with a driver who got a speeding ticket there.
Is that the whole reason you call it a speed trap? Or do other people say it's a speed trap too, and your driver just decided to ignore the common knowledge?
Based on some quick googling, looks like
bugo might be accurate:
(https://i.postimg.cc/3N24TSFm/Tryon.png)
I got pulled over once because I passed a police officer on the right at this intersection as the light turned green. He said I was speeding, I think he just didn't like that I passed him on the right, which is legal when there's three or more lanes in my state.https://maps.app.goo.gl/7AnPh5VeQXp7xDe78?g_st=ac (https://maps.app.goo.gl/7AnPh5VeQXp7xDe78?g_st=ac)
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 22, 2026, 05:41:05 PMI got pulled over once because I passed a police officer on the right at this intersection as the light turned green. He said I was speeding, I think he just didn't like that I passed him on the right, which is legal when there's three or more lanes in my state.https://maps.app.goo.gl/7AnPh5VeQXp7xDe78?g_st=ac (https://maps.app.goo.gl/7AnPh5VeQXp7xDe78?g_st=ac)
Did you take it to court?
Quote from: Quillz on January 23, 2026, 01:05:43 AMQuote from: RobbieL2415 on January 22, 2026, 05:41:05 PMI got pulled over once because I passed a police officer on the right at this intersection as the light turned green. He said I was speeding, I think he just didn't like that I passed him on the right, which is legal when there's three or more lanes in my state.https://maps.app.goo.gl/7AnPh5VeQXp7xDe78?g_st=ac (https://maps.app.goo.gl/7AnPh5VeQXp7xDe78?g_st=ac)
Did you take it to court?
No, because I was just given a written warning.
As an aside In CT, if you plead no contest to a traffic infraction and pay the fine, you get no points on your driving record. But, if you plead not not guilty and are convicted, you do.
Quote from: wxfree on December 14, 2024, 03:10:54 PMI believe that we have a societal obligation to obey the laws.
Quote from: wxfree on December 14, 2024, 03:10:54 PMObeying the law is also an act of patriotism.
Do you believe the Boston Tea Party was unjustified? Was it an act of treason? What about the sit-ins in the South during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s?
I was pulled over for the first time a few days into the new year for going 9 over (on a downhill, smh). Got off with a warning (MO State Trooper). It does make me wonder if my luck would have run out if I was going one more mph over.
Quote from: bugo on January 23, 2026, 08:27:57 PMQuote from: wxfree on December 14, 2024, 03:10:54 PMI believe that we have a societal obligation to obey the laws.
Quote from: wxfree on December 14, 2024, 03:10:54 PMObeying the law is also an act of patriotism.
Do you believe the Boston Tea Party was unjustified? Was it an act of treason? What about the sit-ins in the South during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s?
Good examples of legality and morality rarely aligning. And how life and history is complicated and not black and white.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 23, 2026, 07:45:08 AMQuote from: Quillz on January 23, 2026, 01:05:43 AMQuote from: RobbieL2415 on January 22, 2026, 05:41:05 PMI got pulled over once because I passed a police officer on the right at this intersection as the light turned green. He said I was speeding, I think he just didn't like that I passed him on the right, which is legal when there's three or more lanes in my state.https://maps.app.goo.gl/7AnPh5VeQXp7xDe78?g_st=ac (https://maps.app.goo.gl/7AnPh5VeQXp7xDe78?g_st=ac)
Did you take it to court?
No, because I was just given a written warning.
As an aside In CT, if you plead no contest to a traffic infraction and pay the fine, you get no points on your driving record. But, if you plead not not guilty and are convicted, you do.
Wow. That's kinda messed up.
Quote from: wxfree on December 14, 2024, 03:10:54 PMI believe that we have a societal obligation to obey the laws.
Quote from: wxfree on December 14, 2024, 03:10:54 PMObeying the law is also an act of patriotism.
Quote from: bugo on January 23, 2026, 08:27:57 PMDo you believe the Boston Tea Party was unjustified? Was it an act of treason? What about the sit-ins in the South during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s?
It is possible to believe both that (1) it is
generally our societal obligation to obey the law, and also that (2) there are
occasional times when the law is immoral enough that it is our societal obligation to disobey it. In fact, I'd say that holding both of those beliefs has been pretty much normal throughout history.
Quote from: kphoger on January 23, 2026, 11:00:54 PMQuote from: wxfree on December 14, 2024, 03:10:54 PMI believe that we have a societal obligation to obey the laws.
Quote from: wxfree on December 14, 2024, 03:10:54 PMObeying the law is also an act of patriotism.
Quote from: bugo on January 23, 2026, 08:27:57 PMDo you believe the Boston Tea Party was unjustified? Was it an act of treason? What about the sit-ins in the South during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s?
It is possible to believe both that (1) it is generally our societal obligation to obey the law, and also that (2) there are occasional times when the law is immoral enough that it is our societal obligation to disobey it. In fact, I'd say that holding both of those beliefs has been pretty much normal throughout history.
Morality fits the situation! :D
Quote from: Rothman on January 23, 2026, 11:02:55 PMMorality fits the situation!
Morality has a hierarchy of guiding principles. Absolute submission to the rule of law and complete disregard for the rule of law are both aberrant forms of morality because they pretend there's only one guiding principle at work.
Quote from: bugo on January 23, 2026, 08:27:57 PMQuote from: wxfree on December 14, 2024, 03:10:54 PMI believe that we have a societal obligation to obey the laws.
Quote from: wxfree on December 14, 2024, 03:10:54 PMObeying the law is also an act of patriotism.
Do you believe the Boston Tea Party was unjustified? Was it an act of treason? What about the sit-ins in the South during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s?
Treason? The British called it that, and they had 18th century lawyers and I'm not even a present day lawyer. But I see it as destruction of private property which would carry a prison term if they were convicted. At that point, the tea was the property of private individuals, not the crown or the East India Company. Treason is the overthrow of the king or of governmental authority in general, and can carry the death penalty, which I don't see applying. As far as I see no individuals were prosecuted - just collective punishments for the colonies in general.
Yes, there's a general obligation to obey laws, but there's also an obligation to justice and humanity which may supersede unjust laws.
Thoreau was in jail for not paying his poll tax while the United States was engaged in what he felt was the unjust Mexican War:
QuoteAccording to some accounts, Ralph Waldo Emerson visited Thoreau in jail and asked, "Henry, what are you doing in there?" Thoreau replied, "Waldo, the question is what are you doing out there?"
- https://bookhaven.stanford.edu/2014/07/henry-david-thoreau-i-was-not-born-to-be-forced-i-will-breathe-after-my-own-fashion/
Hm.
https://www.bostonteapartyship.com/tea-blog/types-of-teas-destroyed
QuoteThe North Ministry's solution was the Tea Act, which received the assent of King George on May 10, 1773.[34] This act restored the East India Company's full refund on the duty for importing tea into Britain, and also permitted the company, for the first time, to export tea to the colonies on its own account. This would allow the company to reduce costs by eliminating the middlemen who bought the tea at wholesale auctions in London.[35] Instead of selling to middlemen, the company now appointed colonial merchants to receive the tea on consignment; the consignees would in turn sell the tea for a commission.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party
I don't feel a moral obligation to always adhere to all traffic laws strictly as they are written. I especially don't feel a moral obligation when situational circumstances dictate I do something contrary to traffic laws.
Quote from: bugo on January 23, 2026, 08:27:57 PMQuote from: wxfree on December 14, 2024, 03:10:54 PMI believe that we have a societal obligation to obey the laws.
Quote from: wxfree on December 14, 2024, 03:10:54 PMObeying the law is also an act of patriotism.
Do you believe the Boston Tea Party was unjustified? Was it an act of treason? What about the sit-ins in the South during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s?
I look at it a little differently. To me, "the law" is not legislation and statutes, it's the legal foundation of the nation, and is as binding on the legislature as it is on the people. The Boston Tea Party happened in a different era, with a different legal system that generally spoke against abuse of power, but didn't do all that much to prevent it. The Unites States legal system is an improvement on that.
In the 1960s, the legislatures had not been obeying the law and wrote statutes in conflict with the legal rights of people. They had failed in their obligation. Much of the protest was done within the law, but was not held to be within the rights of disfavored people.
My statement was meant to be understood in this context, that legislation should be properly written, not to advance political agendas or to suppress the disfavored, and rules should be the least restrictive necessary to ensure the public good. That, not statutes and regulations, is "the law" in our form of government. I do believe that we shouldn't be careless in driving, assuming that whatever feels right or is most convenient is something we have a right to. I also believe that relatively minor things, such as speed limits and complete stops, are a way of enforcing personal discipline to make sure we drive safely and attentively. I have, at times, willfully disobeyed, such as going 70 when the limit was 60 in order to keep up with traffic, when strict compliance resulted in a constant stream of passing vehicles, which is unsafe. My actions were in keeping with the purpose of the law, to preserve safety. I wasn't passing everyone and driving like a maniac, while claiming I was forced to do so due to a sense of entitlement to go whatever speed I want, but just keeping up with the slowest lane of traffic. They've since raised the speed limit to 70 on that road, I-20 in Fort Worth, and now when I do the same thing it's legal. I have at times walked on the left side of the street even when there was a sidewalk for a hundred feet on the other side, because it's safer to stay on one side than to cross repeatedly to use short stretches of sidewalk on alternating sides. I'm not trying to break the law, or carelessly disregard it, but I'm trying to uphold its purposes, when sometimes poorly written rules, and sometimes maliciously written, are destructive of those purposes. The world is complex, and strict compliance is not perfect, but noncompliance shouldn't be careless and should happen only when it's for a higher purpose.
Quote from: Rothman on January 23, 2026, 11:27:50 PMHm.
https://www.bostonteapartyship.com/tea-blog/types-of-teas-destroyed
"
It was only included in the ill-fated shipment because the East India Company had quite a bit of stock that needed to be liquidated..."
Ha! Touché...
Quote from: kphoger on January 24, 2026, 09:21:14 AMQuote from: Rothman on January 23, 2026, 11:27:50 PMHm.
https://www.bostonteapartyship.com/tea-blog/types-of-teas-destroyed
"It was only included in the ill-fated shipment because the East India Company had quite a bit of stock that needed to be liquidated..."
Ha! Touché...
Well, they were in the business of selling stuff...
Quote from: wxfree on January 24, 2026, 08:35:51 AMI look at it a little differently. To me, "the law" is not legislation and statutes, it's the legal foundation of the nation, and is as binding on the legislature as it is on the people. The Boston Tea Party happened in a different era, with a different legal system that generally spoke against abuse of power, but didn't do all that much to prevent it. The Unites States legal system is an improvement on that.
That's a bold claim to make in 2026.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 24, 2026, 10:29:53 AMQuote from: wxfree on January 24, 2026, 08:35:51 AMI look at it a little differently. To me, "the law" is not legislation and statutes, it's the legal foundation of the nation, and is as binding on the legislature as it is on the people. The Boston Tea Party happened in a different era, with a different legal system that generally spoke against abuse of power, but didn't do all that much to prevent it. The Unites States legal system is an improvement on that.
That's a bold claim to make in 2026.
Especially today.
Quote from: kphoger on January 23, 2026, 11:00:54 PMQuote from: wxfree on December 14, 2024, 03:10:54 PMI believe that we have a societal obligation to obey the laws.
Quote from: wxfree on December 14, 2024, 03:10:54 PMObeying the law is also an act of patriotism.
Quote from: bugo on January 23, 2026, 08:27:57 PMDo you believe the Boston Tea Party was unjustified? Was it an act of treason? What about the sit-ins in the South during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s?
It is possible to believe both that (1) it is generally our societal obligation to obey the law, and also that (2) there are occasional times when the law is immoral enough that it is our societal obligation to disobey it. In fact, I'd say that holding both of those beliefs has been pretty much normal throughout history.
"An unjust law is no law at all."
Quote from: Quillz on January 24, 2026, 04:50:15 PMQuote from: kphoger on January 23, 2026, 11:00:54 PMQuote from: wxfree on December 14, 2024, 03:10:54 PMI believe that we have a societal obligation to obey the laws.
Quote from: wxfree on December 14, 2024, 03:10:54 PMObeying the law is also an act of patriotism.
Quote from: bugo on January 23, 2026, 08:27:57 PMDo you believe the Boston Tea Party was unjustified? Was it an act of treason? What about the sit-ins in the South during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s?
It is possible to believe both that (1) it is generally our societal obligation to obey the law, and also that (2) there are occasional times when the law is immoral enough that it is our societal obligation to disobey it. In fact, I'd say that holding both of those beliefs has been pretty much normal throughout history.
"An unjust law is no law at all."
In the US, the First Amendment recognizes our "right to petition the government for a redress of grievance". If you don't like the motor vehicle laws, get them changed. That's why we have 80 MPH rural freeway limits in the West and the plains.
Quote from: michravera on January 26, 2026, 12:20:55 PMQuote from: Quillz on January 24, 2026, 04:50:15 PMQuote from: kphoger on January 23, 2026, 11:00:54 PMQuote from: wxfree on December 14, 2024, 03:10:54 PMI believe that we have a societal obligation to obey the laws.
Quote from: wxfree on December 14, 2024, 03:10:54 PMObeying the law is also an act of patriotism.
Quote from: bugo on January 23, 2026, 08:27:57 PMDo you believe the Boston Tea Party was unjustified? Was it an act of treason? What about the sit-ins in the South during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s?
It is possible to believe both that (1) it is generally our societal obligation to obey the law, and also that (2) there are occasional times when the law is immoral enough that it is our societal obligation to disobey it. In fact, I'd say that holding both of those beliefs has been pretty much normal throughout history.
"An unjust law is no law at all."
In the US, the First Amendment recognizes our "right to petition the government for a redress of grievance". If you don't like the motor vehicle laws, get them changed. That's why we have 80 MPH rural freeway limits in the West and the plains.
Just got to hope whatever state you're in actually listens to the voters. Many instances of voters voting on things and then the lawmakers just ignoring them anyway. (Although that's usually not traffic stuff). But yes, even in my own neighborhood, there have been changes. An intersection now has a stop sign that used to have nothing at all. A car once crashed into the house that's right there, and the intersection is also right by a school.
Bit late here. My reply has nothing to do with anything above mine.
I've been stopped three times, all by Washington State Patrol: once in 2012 for 72 in a 60, once in 2014 for 63 in a 50, and once in 2015 for 69 in a 60. Only the first got me a ticket, but it was reduced to 65 in a 60. The 69 in a 60 was a very chill stop, I showed him my documents and he let me go without even returning to his patrol car. All three I admitted to the speed.
I've never been stopped since. I still normally drive 10-15 over on the freeway, sometimes 20+ if prevailing speeds are around that (eg I-5 in South King County, and WA-167 south of Kent). In my experience, in the south Puget Sound area of Seattle, 10-15 over is the norm. Some stretches routinely have cars going 80+ (in a 60). I accept that my driving speed is grossly beyond the limits, but they are within reason of the traffic around me, and I'm more concerned with not creating a hazard and driving predictably.
When I learned to drive in 2010 in Washington State, my driving school ("911 Driving School", all former police) taught us, off the record, that 3-5 over was pretty accepted; beyond that it was iffy. My immediate experience actually dictated up to 10 over was pretty accepted. Since then, people seem to be going a lot faster; 70-75 used to be pretty quick around here, but now it's the norm. The traffic going 85-90 are the exception; previously anyone going over 75 would be exceptional.
Generally, I almost never see Washington State Patrol doing speed enforcement. It used to be very common 15 years ago, but I hardly ever see it these days. Most stops seem to occur if they visually witness you breaking the limit, with no actual "hiding and waiting" enforcement anywhere that I can think of (at the state, county, or city level). The general rule of thumb around here is to pull over only egregious ignorance of traffic speeds (eg 25+ over when everyone else is doing 15 over). Some individual cities may have tighter enforcement, but none that I visit regularly.
I was stopped and ticketed by Washington State Patrol about 2011 in Seattle. I-5 express lanes northbound between the entrance from Mercer St. and the Ship Canal Bridge. Officer said he clocked me at 74 in a 60, and he's probably right. Conditions were pretty much perfect: Saturday morning about 7:30 AM, hardly any traffic, sunny and bare pavement. He wrote the ticket for 65 in a 60, and the court I could take it to was in some distant suburb, so I swore a bit to myself about the general unfairness of life and sent them a check.
Quote from: kkt on January 23, 2026, 10:52:16 PMQuote from: RobbieL2415 on January 23, 2026, 07:45:08 AMQuote from: Quillz on January 23, 2026, 01:05:43 AMQuote from: RobbieL2415 on January 22, 2026, 05:41:05 PMI got pulled over once because I passed a police officer on the right at this intersection as the light turned green. He said I was speeding, I think he just didn't like that I passed him on the right, which is legal when there's three or more lanes in my state.https://maps.app.goo.gl/7AnPh5VeQXp7xDe78?g_st=ac (https://maps.app.goo.gl/7AnPh5VeQXp7xDe78?g_st=ac)
Did you take it to court?
No, because I was just given a written warning.
As an aside In CT, if you plead no contest to a traffic infraction and pay the fine, you get no points on your driving record. But, if you plead not not guilty and are convicted, you do.
Wow. That's kinda messed up.
I think this is in place to prevent court dockets from getting backed up.
In CT, there's violations, infractions, misdemeanors and felonies. Violations are typically municipal and handled by the probate courts. But infractions are processed by the Central Infractions Bureau. Literally all the do is take in tickets and either process the fine payment or forward the not guilty plea to the appropriate Superior Court. If everyone got points for pleading
nolo, they might be more likely to fight it, and going through the judicial process would place a greater burden on the courts.
What I would prefer is that with the exception of criminal violations of motor vehicle laws (reckless driving, misdemeanor speeding, DUI, striking a pedestrian), motor vehicle law enforcement should move from state and local police to an administrative enforcement division of the DMV, with an Article II court establish to hear challenges to citations.
Quote from: ElishaGOtis on December 13, 2024, 09:39:23 PMA couple people I knew allegedly got a ticket for 76 in the 70 zone on I-10 in FLORIDA... I've often seen cases where officers will give you a break by writing a lesser ticket (I.e. only writing for 76 when clocked at 87 or something), but these were both legit 76mph tickets.
Speed limit 75 80!!!! plz :banghead: :-(
I completely forgot about this when o initially wrote this post, but one of my bosses was pulled over (but not ticketed) for 54 in a 50 also in Florida...