Challenges to NMSL?

[cpzilliacus]

If a person is driving recklessly fast, then issue a ticket for reckless driving (perhaps something like 30 mph over the advised limit could be unarguable in court, or something).

I don't like anything being "unarguable in court".  if I'm doing 100 in a posted 70 and not harming anyone (because I'm out in the absolute middle of nowhere, for example) then I should be able to present my case to a judge.

Though  I don't think you can do that in most states.

as for being statutory, I'd be okay with roads being given particular classifications, and each classification having a given speed limit (for example: "rural two-lane road with visibility standards as established by Engineering Study XYZ shall have speed limit 90mph"), so long as it is the highway department which goes through and sets the classifications.

That is what I had in mind.  Not situations like New Jersey, where they have a Turnpike that was designed in the late 1940's with the intent that vehicles could use it safely at 80 MPH, yet the New Jersey legislature refuses to set a speed limit higher than 65 MPH.

I believe currently Nevada has the highway department set the zones where, rurally, the speed limit drops from 70 to 55 due to terrain.  I can't imagine Senator Numbnuts riding out in his motorcade and taking notes about when the curves were getting just a wee bit too sharp for his tastes.

70 MPH on a rural two lane arterial in Nevada and parts of other large states (the true desert parts of California, for example) makes all the sense in the world. 

However, I cannot think of any two lane minor arterials in my home state of Maryland that should have a posted limit that high.  There might be one or two, but I cannot think any right now.

[agentsteel53]

Though  I don't think you can do that in most states.

(to clarify - I am assuming that you meant by "do that": "challenge a moving violation in court")

I am quite certain that you can, because that is protected by the "due process" clause of the 5th/14th amendment (I can't remember exactly where that hair is split).

[1995hoo]

I think what he meant is that you can't seriously argue that your ticket should be dismissed on the ground that although you were going 30 mph over the posted speed limit, since you weren't endangering anyone your speeding ticket should be dismissed. Some states have "prima facie" speed limits that allow you to present that sort of argument, but most do not, and even in those states that have prima facie limits it's a very high burden of proof if you are to prevail on this kind of argument.

[agentsteel53]

I think what he meant is that you can't seriously argue that your ticket should be dismissed on the ground that although you were going 30 mph over the posted speed limit, since you weren't endangering anyone your speeding ticket should be dismissed. Some states have "prima facie" speed limits that allow you to present that sort of argument, but most do not, and even in those states that have prima facie limits it's a very high burden of proof if you are to prevail on this kind of argument.

in that case, if we are discussing hypothetically reforming speed limit law, then we need to return to this original quote from kphoger:

If a person is driving recklessly fast, then issue a ticket for reckless driving (perhaps something like 30 mph over the advised limit could be unarguable in court, or something).

I do not believe that 30mph is a blanket reckless-driving charge, especially not if it is 30 over an advised limit.

Germany's advised limit is 130 km/h and going faster than that is only held against you in the case of an accident.  if you can do 200-250-etc km/h safely, no one will be stopping you.

[cpzilliacus]

I think what he meant is that you can't seriously argue that your ticket should be dismissed on the ground that although you were going 30 mph over the posted speed limit, since you weren't endangering anyone your speeding ticket should be dismissed. Some states have "prima facie" speed limits that allow you to present that sort of argument, but most do not, and even in those states that have prima facie limits it's a very high burden of proof if you are to prevail on this kind of argument.

Hoo, I  believe Maryland courts will not accept the argument of "I was speeding but I was not endangering anyone" - I have seen it tried (not especially recently) in District Court (roughly the same as the General District Court system in the Commonwealth), and the judges won't go along. 

Because the normal rules of evidence and courtroom procedure in Maryland's District Court system is "relaxed" and "somewhat informal," most of the judges will listen to such an argument (at least for a while), but I  don't think it's ever a winner. If the posted speed limit is established, and the State (in the form of a police officer) can provide credible evidence that a driver was exceeding that limit, then the ruling will be guilty.

Bottom line - state legislatures need to increase the statewide maximum speed limits for rural areas and on freeways (and note that I have no problem with lower and strictly enforced speed limits on streets in urbanized areas).  Nobody should rely on the court system to do it, except in instances where the speed limit can be shown to be clearly unreasonable (and I don't think a freeway speed limit of 50 or 55 MPH, even if it is ignored by most drivers, meets such a standard).

[cpzilliacus]

I do not believe that 30mph is a blanket reckless-driving charge, especially not if it is 30 over an advised limit.

Germany's advised limit is 130 km/h and going faster than that is only held against you in the case of an accident.  if you can do 200-250-etc km/h safely, no one will be stopping you.

Steel, I have not driven in Germany (though I have visited there). 

But I have driven in Finland, which used to post 130 k/h on its rural motorways (now only 120 k/h ), and felt that 130 was an appropriate posted limit, even on motorways like highway E18 with a reasonably high percentage of commercial vehicles (including a lot of Russian trucks).

Keep in mind that getting obtaining driving privileges in most EU nations (including the UK, Sweden, Finland and Germany) is a much more expensive and involved process than it is in most U.S. states.  For one thing, I believe all of the nations above require a prospective driver to prove that he or she can safely operate a motor vehicle on a motorway (if one is reasonably close to the area where the  test is being taken - northern Finland and northern Sweden don't have (or need) motorways).

[1995hoo]

I think what he meant is that you can't seriously argue that your ticket should be dismissed on the ground that although you were going 30 mph over the posted speed limit, since you weren't endangering anyone your speeding ticket should be dismissed. Some states have "prima facie" speed limits that allow you to present that sort of argument, but most do not, and even in those states that have prima facie limits it's a very high burden of proof if you are to prevail on this kind of argument.

Hoo, I  believe Maryland courts will not accept the argument of "I was speeding but I was not endangering anyone" - I have seen it tried (not especially recently) in District Court (roughly the same as the General District Court system in the Commonwealth), and the judges won't go along. 

....

That's basically what I said, or at least what I meant my comment to say. In law school the professors often called it the "laugh test"–if you can't make the argument with a straight face, don't bother making it. I suppose there are some zealots or philosophical types who might be able to make the "I wasn't endangering anyone" argument in total sincerity, but I find it hard to imagine most judges, at least most judges in the crowded Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states, taking it seriously. In other words, what I was saying is that trying to argue in court, "Well, Your Honor, I was going 30 mph over the posted speed limit, but since I wasn't endangering anybody you should dismiss my ticket" is not an argument that's going to get very far.

Let me hasten to point out that I'm referring solely to pure speeding tickets. Except where a statute dictates that a particular speed constitutes reckless driving (Virginia, for example) I think it's perfectly legitimate to defend against a reckless driving charge by arguing that there was nobody else on the road and you weren't endangering anyone.

[J N Winkler]

Keep in mind that getting obtaining driving privileges in most EU nations (including the UK, Sweden, Finland and Germany) is a much more expensive and involved process than it is in most U.S. states.  For one thing, I believe all of the nations above require a prospective driver to prove that he or she can safely operate a motor vehicle on a motorway (if one is reasonably close to the area where the  test is being taken - northern Finland and northern Sweden don't have [or need] motorways).

Actually, no, that is not quite true.  Motorway driving is learn-by-doing, at least in the UK, since learner drivers are not allowed on the motorways even with an accompanying licensed adult driver.  I think much the same is true in the other European countries since learner drivers are pretty universally prohibited from motorways in countries that have them.  Unlike the situation in most US states, where new drivers can use Interstates on an instructional permit, a new driver in most EU countries won't be able to start accumulating motorway driving experience until he or she passes his or her road test.

[kphoger]

most US states, where new drivers can use Interstates on an instructional permit

Indeed, it was a required part of my driver's ed training.  In fact, we drove from Atwood down to Colby just to get on I-70 and then turn around at the Levant exit.  My first taste of "real" city traffic was on the freeway in Denver during rush hour, and I was on a learner's permit at the time.

[cpzilliacus]

Keep in mind that getting obtaining driving privileges in most EU nations (including the UK, Sweden, Finland and Germany) is a much more expensive and involved process than it is in most U.S. states.  For one thing, I believe all of the nations above require a prospective driver to prove that he or she can safely operate a motor vehicle on a motorway (if one is reasonably close to the area where the  test is being taken - northern Finland and northern Sweden don't have [or need] motorways).

Actually, no, that is not quite true.  Motorway driving is learn-by-doing, at least in the UK, since learner drivers are not allowed on the motorways even with an accompanying licensed adult driver.  I think much the same is true in the other European countries since learner drivers are pretty universally prohibited from motorways in countries that have them.  Unlike the situation in most US states, where new drivers can use Interstates on an instructional permit, a new driver in most EU countries won't be able to start accumulating motorway driving experience until he or she passes his or her road test.

I respectfully disagree - I have seen (or heard) first-hand descriptions of the driving test (I also have a friend in Sweden who owns a driving school), and I know that in the Nordic nations, they want drivers to demonstrate that they know how to safely enter a motorway drive on it, and exit from it (even though there are parts of Sweden where there are no motorways or other controlled-access highways, such as the island province of Gotland).

This is from the Swedish Transport Administration's Web site (translated by Google and cleaned-up by me) about the driving test for a "class B" license (for four-wheeled cars and light trucks):

During the test, you may be asked to drive on a motorway, "Super-2" highway or similar road, where the maximum speed can be up to 120 k/h.

The examiner assesses your interactions with other road users, the distance to the vehicle in front of you, your foresight and how to place the car in the lane. The driving examiner also assesses your search routines, your attention, how to utilize the acceleration and deceleration lanes and how to adjust your speed to other traffic.

[1995hoo]

most US states, where new drivers can use Interstates on an instructional permit

Indeed, it was a required part of my driver's ed training.  In fact, we drove from Atwood down to Colby just to get on I-70 and then turn around at the Levant exit.  My first taste of "real" city traffic was on the freeway in Denver during rush hour, and I was on a learner's permit at the time.

In my case it wasn't required, although the behind-the-wheel instructor did have me take the Beltway for one exit one time. I drove on the Interstate quite a bit on my learner's permit, as well as on the New Jersey Turnpike–in the latter case we were en route to Brooklyn and my dad told me to pull off at the last service area prior to the Goethals Bridge so he could take over the driving. My father had me driving out on the Beltway and I-395 within my first week with the learner's permit.

The thing I had to learn by doing was parallel parking, which is not part of the driving test in Virginia and was not part of the behind-the-wheel course. Taught myself pretty darn quickly when I was off at college and now some 20+ years later I wish it WERE part of the driving test here because so many people don't know how to do it and leave way too much space between cars (probably out of fear of not being able to leave).

The thing I read somewhere that I found interesting was that apparently in some European countries if you take the road test on an automatic-shift car you get a restricted license that only allows you to drive an automatic? Is there any truth to that? I asked my father to teach me on his 5-speed right from the beginning and every car I've ever owned has been a manual-shift, but I made a point of taking the road test in my mom's automatic-shift Volvo sedan because I figured it was one less area on which I could make a mistake. Supposedly it's illegal in Virginia to shift into neutral as you coast up to a stop sign or red light–legally you must stop and only then shift to neutral–and I didn't want to take the risk of failing on that basis because right from the beginning my father had me doing that. (The road test went through a trailer park with a 15-mph speed limit and I popped the automatic shift down into first gear so I wouldn't speed.)

[agentsteel53]

Supposedly it's illegal in Virginia to shift into neutral as you coast up to a stop sign or red light–legally you must stop and only then shift to neutral

what the Hell do they care?

when I had a stick-shift car, I always took it out of gear when slowing down - even if it was, say, to come into a town with a speed limit of 35 when I was previously in a rural area doing 65.  Once I got to the correct speed, I'd pop it back into the right gear.

[1995hoo]

Supposedly it's illegal in Virginia to shift into neutral as you coast up to a stop sign or red light–legally you must stop and only then shift to neutral

what the Hell do they care?

when I had a stick-shift car, I always took it out of gear when slowing down - even if it was, say, to come into a town with a speed limit of 35 when I was previously in a rural area doing 65.  Once I got to the correct speed, I'd pop it back into the right gear.

That's my reaction, why do they care, but there is a statute that prohibits "coasting in neutral" and I'd heard from other friends that the road test proctor (or whatever you call the DMV person who rides along) flunked them for shifting into neutral before being fully stopped because taken literally that violated the statute in question and the rules say that if you violate the law, you automatically fail the road test.

So, regardless of whether or not that was true, I saw no reason to tempt fate. Why make it easier for them to fail you, right? Who cares about what you do out on the actual road in regular driving–you have to play their game when you're taking the test.

[kphoger]

I believe it's a typical law that the car must be in gear while you drive it.

[agentsteel53]

I believe it's a typical law that the car must be in gear while you drive it.

that's absurd.  what do legislators care about the technical specifications of how cars are driven?

as with setting speed limits, lawyers are stepping in where engineers are doing just fine.

[cpzilliacus]

I believe it's a typical law that the car must be in gear while you drive it.

Yep.

Maryland's Transportation Article has this, which is a variation on this theme (I suspect it's ancient, too [with emphasis added]):

TRANSPORTATION 
TITLE 21.  VEHICLE LAWS -- RULES OF THE ROAD 
SUBTITLE 11.  MISCELLANEOUS RULES

Md. TRANSPORTATION Code Ann. § 21-1108  (2012)

§ 21-1108. Coasting prohibited

(a) Vehicles generally. -- If a motor vehicle is traveling on a downgrade, the driver of the motor vehicle may not coast with the gears or transmission in neutral.

(b) Truck or bus. -- If a truck or bus is traveling on a downgrade, the driver of the truck or bus may not coast with the clutch disengaged.

HISTORY: An. Code 1957, art. 66 1/2, § 11-1108; 1977, ch. 14, § 2.

[agentsteel53]

hoo boy, good to know I'm such a rebel.  I'm damn sure I've coasted on uphill, downhill, and level ground, in every state of the lower 48.

(never made it to Alaska or Hawaii in a stick-shift car.)

[kkt]

I believe it's a typical law that the car must be in gear while you drive it.

that's absurd.  what do legislators care about the technical specifications of how cars are driven?

as with setting speed limits, lawyers are stepping in where engineers are doing just fine.

If you're on a long downgrade and keep your speed down only with the brake, it's possible to boil your brake fluid and have no brakes left, making your vehicle a danger to yourself and others.  It's rare, but it happens.  Keeping your speed down by shifting into a low gear eliminates that risk.

[Alps]

Wiper talk split off to a new topic. Not quite sure if it's off-topic or not, because windshield wiping does affect our ability to roadgeek.