Got pulled over for going 7 MPH over.

[RobbieL2415]

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

[Quillz]

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

Did you take it to court?

[RobbieL2415]

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

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.

[bugo]

I believe that we have a societal obligation to obey the laws.

Obeying 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?

[ozarkman417]

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.

[Quillz]

I believe that we have a societal obligation to obey the laws.

Obeying 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. 

[kkt]

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

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.

[kphoger]

I believe that we have a societal obligation to obey the laws.

Obeying 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?

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.

[Rothman]

I believe that we have a societal obligation to obey the laws.

Obeying 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?

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!

[kphoger]

Morality 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.

[kkt]

I believe that we have a societal obligation to obey the laws.

Obeying 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:

According 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/

[Rothman]

Hm.

https://www.bostonteapartyship.com/tea-blog/types-of-teas-destroyed

[kkt]

The 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

[Max Rockatansky]

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. 

[wxfree]

I believe that we have a societal obligation to obey the laws.

Obeying 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.

[kphoger]

Hm.

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...

[Rothman]

Hm.

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...

[Scott5114]

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.

That's a bold claim to make in 2026.

[kkt]

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.

That's a bold claim to make in 2026.

Especially today.

[Quillz]

I believe that we have a societal obligation to obey the laws.

Obeying 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?

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."

[michravera]

I believe that we have a societal obligation to obey the laws.

Obeying 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?

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.

[Quillz]

I believe that we have a societal obligation to obey the laws.

Obeying 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?

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.

[jakeroot]

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.

[kkt]

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.

[RobbieL2415]

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

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.