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: TheHighwayMan3561 on December 17, 2024, 01:03:37 AMThe 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.
Got pulled over once because I worked a 14-hour shift and on the way home weaved one lane. Cop pulled me over and asked if I was high or doing drugs. Had me follow his finger. Then said I could go.
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.