Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Funny part is that my wife just got a ticket for "too fast for conditions" on a clear morning last week. She was doing 62 in a 45 right after the speed limit changed. The policeman culdn't give her a "real" ticket because in GA you can't write a ticket for 500 feet/yards (one of them) after a speed limit change. 62 in a 55 can't be ticketed here. We'll just pay it as a speed tax. Considering the speeds we usually drive, that's nothing.
-Jason
Again, continued discussion has muddled the point. We have now moved into the realm of entitlement - be careful there though! All that is going to be accomplished through feeling entitled to something is to create unnecessary stress over situations and actions entirely outside of one's control. I do not know about anyone else, but I have lived quite long enough to know that feeling entitled is mere disillusionment and makes life far too stressful.
-Wes-
The other driver convinced my son that it was all minor and no report or insurance exchange was needed. My son has since learned thru friends that this guys isn't very responsible (surprise, huh?) and may not even have insurance.
I am wondering if we are better off handling this out of pocket or pursuing the other driver. It was also suggested to us that reporting this as a hit-and-run parking lot accident it could be advantageous. None of us (including my wife) has any accidents on our records.
Thanks in advance for any tips.
teach your young driver it's ok to use the horn.
get them a camera phone. 2 good features. they can take pictures of what happened and call you for advice. what if this unscrupulous person had told them, "i'll drive us the to the police station to report the accident, leave your van here."?
maybe you could leave the damage for a while. it may not be the last incident.
i'll be in your situation shortly. these are the things i think about.
The lesson that such things don't matter, and we can ignore requirements is not the right message.
Lesson learned... nobody moves ANY vehicle after an accident I'm in until the police show up and find out who has insurance and who doesn't. And woe betide the uninsured motorist who ever hits me again.
Somehow, I doubt that it is possible for a Civic to achieve that speed, even if it is heavily modified.
On the Autobahn, I've both been in a vehicle traveling at over 100 mph, and been passed by vehicles traveling at that speed (while traveling at about 75 mph). If the Civic had been travelling at 150 mph, you probably wouldn't have been able to see what make of car it was, let alone pick out the specific details about it.
imidazol97: High speeds above the typical interstate speed limits of 65 and 70 saves _little_ time. The time savings is not an excuse for needing to speed. It's strictly for the person thrill that some seem to get from it.
Considering that the interstate highway system was designed to allow the average 1956 car to travel safely at 80 mph, speeds above 70 mph hardly constitute "high speeds" for a typical 21st century vehicle. Traveling at those speeds has nothing to do with a bringing on a thrill or adrenalin rush. It's about using the roads in a safe, responsible way in modern, capable vehicles.
You and your son fill out completely a state vehicle accident report with all of the information you can obtain about the other driver. Include your Liability insurance information.
When your state's Financial Responsibility Department does not get a corresponding accident report from the other man, proving financial responsibility on his part, he will be arrested for violating the state's Financial Responsibility Law. The usual result is loss of license.
You may or may not decide to calmly advise the other man of how he can lose his license by not cooperating with you & the F.R. laws of your state.
Good Luck
And the traffic load at the time in 1956 was how many cars per hour? Compared to how many multiples of that now?
>safe, responsible way in modern, capable vehicles.
That would involve the speed limit set by the authorities using whatever methods and prudence they employ.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I drive on many roads where the speed limits and traffic volumes are very close to as they were in 1956. Of course, I suspect people then were better drivers.
I am thinking we didn't go much faster than the above paragraph due to the fact we were getting between 10-12 mpg.
Now who really believes that the "authorities" have set limits based on responsible and defendable methods? Why are these people to be unquestionably trusted? It's not all about safety, and a lot of the people who make these rules are virtually devoid of credentials or credibility on the subject. Just because they say it or make it a rule does not mean it should be deferred to.
It would be interesting to see the job description, qualifications and training necessary to become a DOT engineer. What are the written procedures, methods and rules they use for determining speed limits?
I would guess that two (of many) factors on speed limits are the range of state of technology of vehicles expected as well as the minimum competence level of drivers. I would think that the limit has to be set for the least capable vehicle and least experienced licensed driver. If an interstate road (current physical standards) were "only" to be used by drivers such as Danica Patrick of IRL/Indy car or Michael Schumacher of F1 driving in Porsches, then the limit (maybe no limit) would be 120 MPH. On a real-world interstate, perhaps they consider that a recently licensed driver (Ex: US citizen, but immigrant) or an 80 year-old driving a 20 year old appliance (Suburban?) will be on the interstate. For them, 65 MPH is probably too fast. I would hope that speed limits are set for the lowest possible denominator rather than a Patrick or a Schumacher.
Those of us who feel are competent and expierenced drivers - in good physical condition, and owning Corvettes, Porsches, Mercedes, etc. - will just have to drive at the speed limit established for the lowest common denominator of the masses. It's the law.
Do DOT engineers really set the limits, and determine where they seem to randomly change?
"It's the law" is not a way to find progress, nor is it what America is really based on.
http://www.virginiadot.org/comtravel/faq-speedlimits.asp
http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,7-151-14034-28532--F,00.html
In Michigan, the police won't come to an accident unless there is an injury. You and the other parties have to go to the police station yourselves to file reports. So it is doubly important to get all of the other driver's info at the time of the accident, including license plate number.
When my kids are ready to drive they are definitely going to get a lesson on how to deal with an accident. If you have a checklist to go by, you don't have to worry about trying to think too much - a lot of the time you're in too much shock to think properly.
And road capacity has been increased, many "kinks" in road design have been eliminated (interstates have been rebuilt and improved since they were first constructed) and vehicles are considerably more capable in the handling, braking and performance department than vehicles on the road in 1956.
Plus, most of the talk about increased congestion on our highways centers on freeways in and around major metropolitan areas. Even when these roads were new (mostly in the 1950s and 1960s) it was not possible to cruise at 80 mph due to congestion and heavy traffic.
imidazol97: That would involve the speed limit set by the authorities using whatever methods and prudence they employ.
Not necessarily. It's ludicrous to suggest that 70 mph, for example, is the maximum safe speed on many rural interstates just because it is the speed limit. Speed limits are set as much by political pressure and fear-mongering as by sound engineering principles.
Road capacity has not been increased everywhere. And we're talking about people who wish to speed near and over 100 mph. I recall I75 having few cars on two-lane parts long ago compared to the near clog now.
>Speed limits...sound engineering principles.
Speed limits have basis in reality. A car going faster is going to have much more damage done to itself in an accident compared to one going at a slow speed. Protecting people from themselves by choosing a reasonable speed limit weighing potential damage against the desire to speed and expedite travel time slightly is a job that shouldn't be ridiculed as done by by someone's whim or desire to collect fines.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
It is also ludicirous to suggest that a speed limit set for the common good by the politicians we elect and the civil engineers they hire who study traffic flow, is lower than it should be. By whose expertise, credentials, and facts?
Protecting people from themselves by choosing a reasonable speed limit weighing potential damage against the desire to speed and expedite travel time slightly is a job that shouldn't be ridiculed as done by by someone's whim or desire to collect fines.
You got it exactly right. I'm fairly sure there are statistical models that are used as input in the decision making process. For example, in real life there isn't much of a difference between 65 and 70, there has to be a rational for choosing one over the other. (as much as a psychological difference)
No they shouldn't, but unfortunately they are not set by "weighing potential damage", they are set on interstate highwats by congressional fiat, and on local roadways in response to resident pressure. I don't believe even the Federal government puts much money into highway science, and the states and local governments surely don't. If I thought speed limits were really based on safety considerations I would have more allegience to them. I don't honestly believe they are set up as revenue sources - that is just a target of opportunity. They are set up by convention and knee-jerk reaction. I believe highway design science is rarely involved.
"A car going faster is going to have much more damage done to itself in an accident compared to one going at a slow speed."
A truism, and like most truisms relatively meaningless. If thet were the guiding principle we would all be walking.
Not taken in the context if scraping human body parts from the roadway from a high speed car crash.
The fact stated above on it's own merit it means nothing, and the hyperbolic "scraping human body parts from the roadway" scenario adds little to the discussion. Obviously no rational person favors gruesome wrecks. Limit speeds to 10 mph with padded passenger cabins to assure no harm?
Of course not. Instead traffic engineering principles could be used to define the speed at which the risk added by speed is acceptable to our society based on the configuration of the given road and the average driver's ability. I believe almost all of us agree on that too.
Where we probably disagree is that I don't believe that is how speed limits are typically set in this country. They should be. When proper limits are set they should be enforced, again with reason.
From the ridiculous to the sublime? You seem to say there is virtually no difference in going 60 or 70. But in fact that is not the case. The difference in kinetic energy of a 3,500 lbs vehicle is enormous. Enough to make the difference between life and death.
"Where we probably disagree is that I don't believe that is how speed limits are typically set in this country. They should be. When proper limits are set they should be enforced, again with reason."
So that is it then. Since you are in disagreement with the method that is used to set speed limits, maybe you can come up with some guidelines that should be used to allow people to go 80 or 90 or even faster, while at the same time reducing critical injuries and fatalities to an acceptable level, and eliminating traffic enforcement as a revenue aid.
I yield to the contrarian, since nothing I say will be accepted anyway. Carry on.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
It is the responsibility of those who are given bloated salaries and benefits to make the rules to prove their credentials and reasoning behind their actions. It'd be a first. I see no justification for 10mph speed limit changes on straight wide open interstates, for example. And if it was all about safety above all else, 60-70mph limits would simply not exist. Revenue creation plays into it bigtime. I am sure there are also "statistical models" as one puts it that examine the money collected on certain stretches of road with varying limits.
I hereby give my permission to the people who get the bloated salaries and revenue to set the speed limits without my expertise.
I duly acknowledge I will not tell you how to do your job, it you don't tell me how to do my job.
I also give permission to law enforcement to enforce all the laws in the country as you see fit, without me intervention as long as you don't tell me how to do my job.
I am sure there are also "statistical models" as one puts it that examine the money collected on certain stretches of road with varying limits.
Well it's very simple then don't speed or break the law.
I actually don't think one has to go to the expense of doing a statistical model to see how much money an officer can collect. Can you imagine what would happen to revenue if every driver on the road for one day adopted the mentality of obeying every traffic law. Sticking with the spirit of the law. Being a calm and courteous drivers. Holy Cow, in NJ they might have to raise the property taxes to make up for a lack of tickets. :lemon:
"Well it's very simple then don't speed or break the law. "
That attitude is not what the US is founded upon. The "law" is not good in and of itself. A law is only as good as those who created it. If a law cannot be proven to be legitimate, it needs to be modified or otherwise destroyed. Sometimes it takes mass civil disobedience...there has been far too little of that in recent history. Speed limits now act as nothing more than a tax...a tax that masquerades as safety and fools the easily persuaded.
If everyone followed traffic laws, even the most mindless ones, to a tee, our esteemed law enforcement professionals would just dig up something else. There is a revenue stream that must be maintained. It's a moot point though...society is so dumbed down now, there will always be LLCs, tailgating bandits, inconsiderate cutter-offers who create road rage, etc.
There is a rural US numbered highway (road) in my area that is blacktop over concrete and blacktop is 14 years old and in bad shape. Additionally, this road has dips and crests and twists and turns and does not have adequate shoulders. Anyone with vehicle problem that has to stop has to leave 1/2 of vehicle on the roadway. This road junctions with an interstate with large truck stops and US nbd road serves growing towns. Finally, there is heavy semi traffic, almost 24 hours a day. The speed limit is 55 MPH. This US nbd road has had numerous accidents, deaths and injuries over the years.
If the 55 MPH for the interstate is correct, can the 55 on US nbd road possibly be correct?
Afterthought - I guess it is up to users, like myself, of the US nbd road to organize and raise questions to state DOT mgmt/engineers about what "should" be proper speed limit.
Well actually it is. We elect people to represent us. These people we elect make the laws for the common good. It's very simple, if we believe our representatives don't do a good job, on election day, we get rid of them.
But the laws are for all to obey. People are more than welcome to go somewhere else if they feel they can't live within the system.
Anyway, you're not going to change my mind, I'm not going to change yours. But, the law is the law like it or not.
That doesn't change the already enacted legislation though. It took an entire generation to do away with the idiotic 55 rule.
The way I see it, the US is founded on people voting with their actions when unjust laws are in place. It's how the country was created. Seeing how more and more people are blinded by fear and faith and are unwilling to question what their supposed superiors put forth is scary. Not progressive in any way.
Until the powers that be can provide some logical defense of their policies, they are not worthy of respect.
Had a goodie today. Travelling in the left normal lane (there's also a carpool lane) north on 405 at about 65...traffic was relatively light and all was fine. I was pulling alonside an older white S10 extended cab driven by an older couple, loaded up with toilet paper. it was going maybe 5-10 slower than me. As I get alongside of it, it signals and starts moving left! I lay on the horn and get over into the carpool lane...I look at the guy, who glares at me, so I give him the finger, and he returns it. So I keep mine up and punch it, and get safely in front of him. It seems like he was trying to race or catch up, as he was going faster than before I passed him...but that old nail couldn't compare to my 16 year old 180K+ mile beast, and he was still a ways behind me as I exited.
Some people's children. If I see a demolished S10 flipped on its roof with toilet paper strewn about, I'll laugh my butt off and hope the guy wasn't unharmed. This is probably the most common stupid thing in this area...ignorant lane changes.
It's also probably not a good idea for the offending driver to ask for it. This wasn't a cut off, it was very near a crash...and I am pretty certain his vehicle would have been on the losing end. At that moment, that guy had no right in the world to be driving. If the simp had tried that move and then gave the evil eye afterwards in many other areas, he might not have made it home.
I've been thinking of getting some kind of mini digital video recorder that can record onto a flash/memory card, somehow mounting it in my rear vew mirror or maybe in the grille assembly, and just flipping it on now and then. Might make for some fun movies.
Gov't is very slow to changes, and yes that's a good thing. However if I thought it would make driving safer for my kids, I would vote for the 45 rule. However, I digress.
I'm sure you could figure out who to petition to look at traffic studies or maybe become a civil engineer. When you figure it out, pleae tell us the reasons why the speed limit is 65 on interstates where it could be 80.
While your at it, maybe you could change law enforcement to actually enforce the speed laws instead of using it for revenue generation. We could lower the fines and points and ensure speeding violations are NOT received by the insurance companies. Speeding tickets would be as bothersome as jaywalking tickets.
One final note, you are confusing apathy with the ability to change the system. In the words of a conservative talk show host on WOR-NY: "Your influence counts...use it".
also, road design is independent of politics...back in the 1970s, it was politics that dropped the interstate limit to 55 mph, having nothing to do with the design of the road by the engineers...
I shouldn't have to find where speed limits could be raised, as I am simply asking for justification of current limits and the credibility of those involved with setting them. No need to get defensive.
But on that note, I would love to see what the average civil engineer knows about vehicle dynamics and driving in general.
Oh yes, and "please tell us why" identical roads are sometimes at 55 or 60 or 70, depending on the findings of a magic 8 ball. Drive up I5 through WA and OR to see some funny random changes.
For many people, speed limit fines are like jaywalking or parking tickets, meaningless. Take it to court, get it knocked in half, pay it, move on, do it again. It's a meaningless tax. It may be stupid from a financial point of view, but it doesn't seem to stop people from speeding. That should be the aim of laws.
There's almost nil individual ability to change the system, and even the abilities of large groups are limited when so many of those in power get away with murder daily. And in these divided times...mass action is not going to happen.
I don't listen to conservative radio, sorry. If I wanted that effect, I would just cut out the middleman and hit myself on the head with a steel mallet a few dozen times.
But it's not necessarily a bad thing either. The rate at we perceive the world changing is actually faster than it does.
"but it doesn't seem to stop people from speeding."
True. We have laws on the books for murder and fraud. That doesn't seem to stem the tide into jail of murders or stop the Enron fraud from happening either.
"it was politics that dropped the interstate limit to 55 mph, "
Coupled with lack of gas, real or perceived.
I do believe some of the speed limits are out of whack but:
1. The law is the law, like it or not.
2. I don't pretend to know more than the civil engineers who designed for the common good.
3. Speed limits have to be set for the least common denominator. Not for the fastest car with the driver who not afraid of dying.
PS I have that mallet you want. Where would you like it sent?
fintail: identical roads, or seemingly identical roads???...also, designing a road is somewhat of a science (altho the physics of traction would be an absolute science) since no two cars are the same...a new Porsche with sport suspension would certainly go faster and stick to the road better than any new Chevy Malibu with average radial tires...one engineer might feel the road maxes at 90 mph, so the limit (assuming my earlier assertion is correct, I may still be wrong on my enitire concept, which would kinda throw this post in the trash heap, eh?) would be 70, whereas a diff engineer might say the road maxes at 85, so he sets it at 65...does this have even a chance of offering a partially logical reason???
That's debatable at best, especially from the viewpoint of a less than progressive society.
Your murder and fraud comparison is apples to oranges. It's a bit tougher and more expensive to convict someone of murder or fraud than it is to nab a speeder. The process isn't even in the same world. It doesn't work.
"The law is the law, like it or not. "
Scary. That line of thought ensures the current people in charge retain power and dodge responsibility. When it comes to this subject, the law is a sad joke, a sham.
I am pretty sure that civil engineers alone do not determine speed limits.
And seeing as it is a mystery as to who actually determines the limits...I'd say some people have some explaining to do. Of course, as long as "a law is a law", they never will have to. I don't pretend that those in power have a clue as to what they are doing.
"fintail: identical roads, or seemingly identical roads???"
Drive I5 from central Oregon to the Canadian border, and tell me.
Well, if it's a "near clog" on I-75 today, then no one is even traveling at the speed limit, let alone at 80+ mph, which makes that example irrelevant to this discussion. So you just negated your own example.
imidazol97: Protecting people from themselves by choosing a reasonable speed limit weighing potential damage against the desire to speed and expedite travel time slightly is a job that shouldn't be ridiculed as done by by someone's whim or desire to collect fines.
And exactly where is the proof that exceeding speed limits on limited access highways inevitably results in increased fatalities and accidents? So far, you haven't come up with any, even though we've been through this topic numerous times on this very thread.
The simple fact is that over the past two decades, increased speed limits and speeds on limited access highways have not resulted in higher fatalities as measured on the basis of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (the only accurate measure of highway safety).
The desire to exceed speed limits on limited access highways is not driven by need to expedite travel times. As I said before, informed drivers are using modern, well-engineered vehicles on roads designed to handle high-speed traffic.
As for the "desire to collect fines" - numerous states are using surcharges on traffic tickets to balance budgets. These surcharges have become nothing more than revenue-raising tactics, completely divorced from improving safety. Respect for speed limits decrease, which, in turn, increases public cynicism, and let's more people wink at violations. Which, if you note, they already do. They've figured out that exceeding a 70 mph speed limit on a limited access highway doesn't cause Automotive Armageddon.
A study of the history of Prohibition would give you a better understanding of this phenomenon.
kdshapiro: True. We have laws on the books for murder and fraud. That doesn't seem to stem the tide into jail of murders or stop the Enron fraud from happening either.
Incorrect. Those laws DO stem the tide of murders and Enron-type frauds from occurring. Our modern-day murder rate is very low, considering our population. And most murders are concentrated in a few neighborhoods, and are largely connected with the drug trade. Business in this country is still mostly conducted on the up-and-up.
For example, the Laci Peterson case was big news precisely because it that type of case IS rare (i.e., a white, middle-class pregnant woman is murdered).
And Enron was a big story partly for the same reason - this type of fraud is actually rare in the business world.
The simple fact is that people obey laws against murder and fraud because they either accept the rationale behind them (spouses shouldn't kill each other; executives shouldn't swindle shareholders and employees) or because they fear the stated punishment (the death penalty or life imprisonment for first-degree murder; jail time and stiff fines for fraud).
If most people are exceeding the speed limit on a limited access highway, the intelligent response is to explore all of the reasons why, instead of mindlessly calling for more enforcement or whining about "speeders" (who, every time I drive on a limited access highway, constitute the majority of drivers).
kdshapiro: 2. I don't pretend to know more than the civil engineers who designed for the common good.
Now please stop pretending that you know that posted speed limits always represent the common good, or even the maximum safe speed for a particular road.
kdshapiro: It is also ludicirous to suggest that a speed limit set for the common good by the politicians we elect and the civil engineers they hire who study traffic flow, is lower than it should be. By whose expertise, credentials, and facts?
If you think civil engineers set speed limits free of interference from politicians, and those politicians actually use a rational review of traffic safety statistics and logical reasoning when they weigh on what constitutes a safe limit, then you really do have a lot to learn.
That is exactly what I've been asking for, especially with the autobahn argue...er discussion. Statistics point to low fatalitiy rates on the autobahn, but what of those who get into an accident at 140 and don't die. Being a parapalegic as a result of an accident on the autobahn and not counted as a fatalitity is a statistical sham.
Those studies do not seem to have been done, but common sense prevails and one would think that at increasing rates of speeds severe injuries and fatalities increase for those who get into an accident.
Unfortunately the number of fatalities has been rising steadly, except for a dip one year. The reason for this is probably the increased damage resulting at higher speeds.
Incorrect. Those laws DO stem the tide of murders and Enron-type frauds from occurring.
Incorrect. The laws do not stop these things from happening. They allow society to punish the offenders.
If most people are exceeding the speed limit on a limited access highway,
It's because they can, plain and simple. Breaking the law is breaking the law. One doesn't need exploration, we need huge fines for speeders. Guarantee get hit with a $1,000 fine for 25 over the limit once, only the foolish will continue speeding.
Now please stop pretending that you know that posted speed limits always represent the common good, or even the maximum safe speed for a particular road.
You have been pretending as much as me and have not presented a single fact to the contrary that indicates within reason and guidelines there is a mostly political motivation for speed limits, rather than a safety and rational view for the common good. (In other words you believe that by setting the speed limit artifically low, then revenues can be made by ticketing speeders. I'm actually okay with that as long as enforcement is consistent.)
I think you should do some research, learn something and report back to us on how the system really operates.
"A study of the history of Prohibition would give you a better understanding of this phenomenon."
So now we're talking about Prohibition in an amusing analogy to understand the system and speeding? :confuse:
I marvel at the way you try to twist people's words... and then conclude they disproved their own comment. Perhaps you've traveled I75 from Cincinnati to Dayton in HEAVY traffic at 70+ mph in left lane... and already know that what you posed wasn't happening.
>where is the proof that exceeding speed limits on limited access highways inevitably results in increased fatalities and accidents? So far, you haven't come up with any,
I'm still waiting for you to prove in a controlled experiment manner that it does not cause increased injuries and fatalities from accidents.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
"Guarantee get hit with a $1,000 fine for 25 over the limit once, only the foolish will continue speeding. "
That's fine, but our law enforcement professionals are spending just as much time getting people for going 10 over, and oftentimes even less.
"Unfortunately the number of fatalities has been rising steadly"
So has the amount of drivers. Raw numbers are useless when the population is expanding.
Well, I thought this lady was going to turn right, but she went straight. She had the right-of-way, as traffic from the right has a stop sign, and to the left is parking lot. Well, this white S-10 come out of the parking lot, and without even stopping, smacks right into the Odyssey!
The Odyssey continued forward on its momentum, and as soon as it was clear the S-10 rolled on through the intersection and kept on going! :surprise:
I got their tag #, called the cops from my cell, and chased them for about 2 miles, telling the police the direction they were heading. At one point they flew through an intersection and almost T-boned a car that was turning left in front of them! Then the light turned and I didn't want to run it, so I had to stop.
Anyway, I gave the cops my phone # and name, and told them to call me if they needed any further info. I hope they get these suckers. This kind of stuff pisses me off! :mad:
Harry
Nope, they are very useful.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/
These are up:
1. total mileage
2. total trips
3. total driver population
4. total passenger car population
5. speed limit has gone from 55 mph to 65 mph 70-75 in some interstates.
So per 100 million miles the RATE is the lowest than it has ever been.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/2002annual_assessment/fatalities.htm
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/2002annual_assessment/increases.htm
Raw fatality numbers are the most dumbed down stat. They are almost meaningless when not related to the amount of vehicles/drivers.
Do you ever speed, kdshapiro? Remember, a law is a law, like it or not...and far be it from anyone to question the knowledge and motives of those who make the rules.