Speed limits...

[Sinister Angel]

You know, it seems to me that in 90% of situations, speed limits are rediculously slow. I call bullshit on the fact that 70 MPH is the safest speed you can go on the express way. Hell kids, I feel comfortable doing 70 on some back roads. Who the hell sets the speed limits anyway? It's bad enough we have chumps like William Eno, who never drove a car, yet still get's pinned as a "traffic expert". I suppose it's these same kind of people who have no clue what the f*ck they are talking about, yet somehow get the authority to write traffic code?

 

[UCBeau]

shoot him?

 

[SQ Stang]

that's why i say **** **** **** the speed limits yeah **** em

Line from Jay and Silent Bob...just reworded

 

[05 Roush]

Maybe this will help. Let's say you have NO speed limits. An LEO pulls you over and says you were speeding.

"Define speeding officer. How fast is speeding? Is it 40, 50, 20?"

"You were going 40 in an area where most people go 25. In my book you were speeding."

"Well, I don't read your book so how can you say 40 is safe? What makes you the expert? Would a different officer see it differently? How am I protected against you and the judge? How do I defend myself?"

See what I mean? Now, I do agree many speed limits are intentially set low, but this is because of the lowest common denominator, namely those who drive too slow to begin with. Many of these folks are older than 75 and their reflexes are shot.

 

[Sinister Angel]

Originally posted by PlatinumCobra
Maybe this will help. Let's say you have NO speed limits. An LEO pulls you over and says you were speeding.

"Define speeding officer. How fast is speeding? Is it 40, 50, 20?"

"You were going 40 in an area where most people go 25. In my book you were speeding."

"Well, I don't read your book so how can you say 40 is safe? What makes you the expert? Would a different officer see it differently? How am I protected against you and the judge? How do I defend myself?"

See what I mean? Now, I do agree many speed limits are intentially set low, but this is because of the lowest common denominator, namely those who drive too slow to begin with. Many of these folks are older than 75 and their reflexes are shot.

Well, then they give you tickets for "driving too fast for conditions" so I don't see how it really differs if there weren't limits.

 

[05 Roush]

Originally posted by Sinister Angel
Well, then they give you tickets for "driving too fast for conditions" so I don't see how it really differs if there weren't limits.

They could use this, but it's flimsy unless there is some sort of condition to justify it, like wet roads, fog, etc.

So, in your mind, let's say you are an officer and there's a road with no speed limits near a school and someone blasts through at 60 MPH while kids are trying to cross the street. Would you say that's too fast for conditions? How fast would not be for conditions? 30? 40? 20?

Each officer would have their own "too fast" limits and they would enforce them to differently. You as a driver wouldn't know how fast you could go and not get into trouble either. If you ask just about anyone, the magic "9 over" is a general rule (unless you live in CA or AZ that is).

 

[mike79]

Our limits on the highway are 55. Everyone does well above that though, its just way too low of a speed. They should set the limits to reasonable levels, at which traffic normally could safely move, and inforce them as they should. YOu could go past a cop doing ten to fifteen over the limit, and they will let you go because they know thats what everyone else is doing. I agree....

 

[Sinister Angel]

Originally posted by PlatinumCobra
They could use this, but it's flimsy unless there is some sort of condition to justify it, like wet roads, fog, etc.

So, in your mind, let's say you are an officer and there's a road with no speed limits near a school and someone blasts through at 60 MPH while kids are trying to cross the street. Would you say that's too fast for conditions? How fast would not be for conditions? 30? 40? 20?

Each officer would have their own "too fast" limits and they would enforce them to differently. You as a driver wouldn't know how fast you could go and not get into trouble either. If you ask just about anyone, the magic "9 over" is a general rule (unless you live in CA or AZ that is).

Very good points and I see what you are saying. Now this is what I'm thinking. I think that if the cop can prove that there is a definate indication of reckless endangerment, then he can give you a ticket as such. However, if there isn't a clear indication of danger, then no ticket. Obviously blasting through a school zone would fit this criteria, however, any one with a shred of common sense should realize doing 110 on I-75 in a porsche with no one on the road is not going to be an immediate danger.

Agreed, this still leaves it up to interpretation by the cop, however, if a cop were to consistently write tickets that could be defeated in court, his credability would be destroyed, and quite frankly shouldn't be doing road patrols issuing tickets. Hopefully that was written so you can understand what I'm saying (It's late and I'm falling asleep doing homework).

 

[TnPaulMan]

One word folks: Revenue.

paul

 

[LTHL VNM]

Originally posted by TnPaulMan
One word folks: Revenue.

paul

that's the truth

 

[05 Roush]

Originally posted by Sinister Angel
Agreed, this still leaves it up to interpretation by the cop, however, if a cop were to consistently write tickets that could be defeated in court, his credability would be destroyed, and quite frankly shouldn't be doing road patrols issuing tickets. Hopefully that was written so you can understand what I'm saying (It's late and I'm falling asleep doing homework).

Makes perfect sense. This means that they have to do a better job at actually citing with good reason versus relying heavily on a statute. :beer:

 

[Sinister Angel]

Originally posted by PlatinumCobra
Makes perfect sense. This means that they have to do a better job at actually citing with good reason versus relying heavily on a statute. :beer:

:beer:

Here is something to think about regarding the statute thing. Who do you think is going to know more about what is showing a danger at the time, some politician or the cop that drives the area all the time? I'm gonna be inclined to say the cop.

 

[Canoodler]

In older cars, you definitely had to be going slower. I don't feel safe going above the speed limit in my dad's 73. It was just built that way. I think the speed limits are still from that time, and they definitely need reconsideration for this day in age.

 

[05 Roush]

Originally posted by NYCStangGT
In older cars, you definitely had to be going slower. I don't feel safe going above the speed limit in my dad's 73. It was just built that way. I think the speed limits are still from that time, and they definitely need reconsideration for this day in age.

In many other locales other than the east they are. Around here, most neighborhoods run 30-35 MPH. Surface arteries run 40-45 MPH. Semi-rural roads run 50 MPH. Back roads run 65 MPH. Interstates range between 65 and 75 most locations. :beer:

 

[Canoodler]

In NYC, speed limit is 30 and highways are 50!


Hell, we only got the 65mph speed limit on interstates not too long ago.

 

[05 Roush]

Originally posted by NYCStangGT
In NYC, speed limit is 30 and highways are 50!


Hell, we only got the 65mph speed limit on interstates not too long ago.

Yeah, come out here and visit. It's like watching an old Jetson's episode with all the people whizzing by. :-D

 

[JoeNashville]

It's pretty simple...and really makes this discussion above moot.

The police are enforcers. They don't really know the law that well, they are just there to do what they have been sworn to do in the line of duty.

Start trying to discuss the ticket in that fashion with a police officer and it will get you nowhere. If he knows you were in a 45 mph zone, and you were traveling 46, he could cite you for 1 mph over the limit. All he would have to say would be "that discussion is reserved for the judge sir", and you would have to sign the ticket. Refusal to sign the ticket (at least in Georgia) causes you to temporarily lose your license (in lieu of bail). Without a license, you can't legally operate a motor vehicle. Try to drive off from a traffic stop without a license, they treat you as if you've been revoked.

Don't try to mess with the enforcers. If you're going to attempt to do something, try it in the courts where you've got half a chance.

As for speed limits...upon construction of a new roadway, traffic speeds are monitored. People will usually travel at a speed that they feel is safe for the roadway. On the new bypass north of town here, that speed was 65. As a result, the speed is artificially set lower than the maximum safe speed as determined by the citizenry to 55. This ensures a steady flow of citations for speeding, generating revenue for the principality.

I am all for speed limits in neighborhoods (high school kids break the limit through my neighborhood at least 2x the limit daily) but on wide open stretches, 45 mph speed limits are ludicrous.

 

[YesterdayAgain]

I don't trust the idiot people of this country with the speed limits we have, let alone with no speed limits.

 

[nj7703]

Originally posted by Euphoric One
I don't trust the idiot people of this country with the speed limits we have, let alone with no speed limits.

:beer: the average distracted soccer mom in her hummer is dangerous enough, add no speed limit, she is just a menace. I personally feel safe at 80 on the highway in light traffic. Being that traffic seems to come to a sudden stop for no reason a lot, anything over 70 is a tad dangerous at rush hr here.

 

[kissmyAZZure]

^Agreed^ but don't limits have something to do with petroleum consumtion? Weren't the speeds set to 55(most efficient) during the gas shortage? I can't imagine the gas we'd use without limits!!