I'm sure that's all due to the effectiveness of "speed enforcement." Hahahha!
Your data didn't address accident rates, but fatality rates. Much different. There can be several reasons for declining fatality rates over time, such as the huge improvements in car safety (airbags, standard ABS and ESC, improved crash protection) in recent years that allow more people to survive accidents.
Here's some US government data that might interest you: Speeding-Related Traffic Fatalities by State, Road Type, and Speed Limit: 2009...
Here is what I mean. If you are driving too fast for conditions then it is the driver "judgment" error that is at fault for the accident.
Of course it is the driver who is at fault for driving too fast for conditions! At least you acknowledge that speeding is an error in judgement.
By the same reasoning, almost all accidents are caused by an error in driver judgement: driving too fast for conditions, allowing oneself to be distracted, aggressive driving, not maintaining the car properly (e.g. causing a tire to blow), taking an intoxicant before driving, etc. etc. The only ones not caused by an error in driver judgement would be those the driver had no way to prevent, e.g. a meteorite hits the car, killing the driver and sending the car out of control so it hits another vehicle.
I hope that you or a loved one never gets first-hand experience of how excessive speed can contribute to an accident.
I happen to believe the sign should be "correctly" posted to be valid.
Yes, we all know that you believe you should have free reign to violate any speed limit that you disagree with.
Why shouldn't everyone have the same freedom? For example, there's lots of "no turn on red" signs in my area. I suppose there was some rationale for erecting each of them, e.g. intersection can have a lot of pedestrian traffic. But I can't count the number of times I've sat at such an intersection, waiting for the light to turn green so I could make a right turn. Why make me and others wait, our time is important! We should be able to ignore those signs if we think it's safe to do so.... right?
Also, what about the folks who think the speed limits are set too HIGH? If you have the freedom to exceed the posted speed limits whenever you think it's safe to do so, the folks who think the limits are too high should be allowed to drive at whatever speed they believe is safe... say, 20 in a 35 zone. That will drive folks like fintail crazy, but hey, it's their right to drive at whatever speed they want if they think the signs are incorrectly posted... right?
What's good enough for you is good enough for everyone else, right?
In my 40 years of driving in the Snow Belt, I have seen many a vehicle (usually these days an AWD SUV) driving much faster than the rest of the traffic in snow/slush, probably thinking "I have AWD, my car is invincible!". Then a little ways up the road they're in the ditch
Being from northern Illinois, been there, seen that. Dopes and reckless. These fools would be dangerous in any kind of vehicle. But, they think they are invincible because they are in a "dumb" SUV that has AWD. These vehicles should actually be relegated to semi-truck speed limits on interstates, just as should pickup trucks and any non-cars.
It's fun to drive in other places, see what the world is like. Driving in FL, LA, New England, Seattle - all different. I am thinking of being fiscally careless and taking a trip to Germany
You want adventure. Come to Chicago and drive on some of the freeways/interstates to see some real inconsiderate drivers. I have. Such as the Dan Ryan interstate on a weekend night. And, if you want more thrills, go into some of the neighborhoods that are more dangerous than Afghanistan.
You need eyes in the back of your head and on each side to survive the inconsiderate drivers in Chicago.
For example, when I was 16 or 17 I did rear-end someone
End of arguments for andres. Perhaps many or most of us here have never been the cause of an accident/crash and do not deride posted speed limits. In my county, arguments can be made for lowering limits in some areas. Some are too high. People need to slow down. Just what is the point of wanting to grossly flaunt posted limits. Seems infantile and immature.
This afternoon, driving on a lightly traveled residential thoroughfare, 1 lane in each direction, 30mph limit. I can see a couple blocks ahead, a Lexus RX pulls out from a side street into the same lane I am in - no big deal as it is a couple blocks away, I am not speeding, plenty of time to get up to speed. But it doesn't. By the time I catch up, it is going maybe 20. And that's as fast as it went. By the time it turned (didn't signal until after the front wheels started turning, of course), 7 or 8 cars were stacked up behind it. If the driver was under 80, I will eat my shoes. Really past time for mandatory testing based on age.
Yes... We have lots of drivers like that here, that will floorboard the accelerator pedal turning onto a street in order to get in front of a car and then immediately reduce speed to 20mph in a 35 mph zone.
My wife calls it "hurrying up so you can go slow" mode.
So long as I don't rear-end someone, what's the difference? :P
(I think I was quoting Andre's number anyway. Can't fact check everything, lol.)
Backy, don't blame your wreck on a meteorite. Too exotic. Just tell the cop you rolled down the window to get some air, the extra sunlight caused you to sneeze and meanwhile a mad bee flew in and distracted you.
Perhaps many or most of us here have never been the cause of an accident/crash
If you call a 2 to 3 MPH bump a "crash" more power to you.
If you've driven as many miles as me without being in a "fender bender" more power to you.
No one wants to grossly flaunt posted limits. It is the gov't that wants to grossly underpost limits thereby making the majority of drivers "speeders."
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I picked up a new car Friday evening, and had to bring it home about 100 miles from north jersey to south jersey, mostly on highways. So, I wanted to make sure to break it in correctly (I almost came home on some back local highways, but too late for that!)
so I kept the speed down, and tried to vary. So I ran mostly around 65, varying from 55-70 (depending if SL was 55 or 65).
And honestly, I did not notice it taking all that much longer. a few minutes, but I made it.
I did, however, get passed a lot! Budget rental trucks, buses, you name it. Some people drive really fast.
but surprisingly, there were plenty of other people driving as slow or slower than I was.
Of course it is the driver who is at fault for driving too fast for conditions! At least you acknowledge that speeding is an error in judgement.
I think you guys are wrong in saying going too fast for conditions is speeding. They are two completely different things. Glad to see the Census.gov link provided admits they include things other than "speeding" itself right at the top as "speed related," which seems to pretty much include everything from A to Z. It seems every fatality is speed related according to the Census, they admit as much as they include fatalities even when the speed limit is unknown!!!! That data is worth $0.00. I'm sorry Census. Seems another waste of tax payer dollars at work.
I can be going too fast for conditions and NOT be speeding. The sign says the speed limit is 55 MPH, but it's snowing, and I'm driving a double decker bus on bald tires in heavy traffic. I could be going well under the speed limit; say 40 MPH in that 55 zone (and hence not speeding), and still be going too fast in those conditions! How can you say they are the same thing?
Is speeding going faster than the 2 numbers on the sign, or isn't it? You still haven't answered the question!!! If it's about driving reasonably and prudently, then surely if your the judge in my case, you should find me not guilty. If you can be forced to go slower than the limit, surely you can be forced to drive faster than it.
If the legislature intended it to be uni-directional (only lower than the limit), then they would have said you can drive reasonably and prudently up to and including the limit, but never over it. The VC doesn't say anything like that.
Yes, I know, the DMV handbook tries to pitch that, but that's not the law. That is just some overpaid gov't agency doing things incorrectly.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
There can be several reasons for declining fatality rates over time, such as the huge improvements in car safety (airbags, standard ABS and ESC, improved crash protection) in recent years that allow more people to survive accidents.
Yes yes yes, but you have said that speed INCREASES the severity and frequency of accidents. Doesn't it follow with rising speed limits the last few decades fatalities should be going up?
AS I've stated above, the Census data can be questioned and thrown out with just a little bit of common sense applied.
I mean really! For them to lump racing into "speeding" is nuts. It is way beyond me. Racing is an exhibition of speed where you are competing with someone else to get to point B faster than they do. That has nothing to do with speeding itself.
If they wreck it wasn't because they were speeding, but because they were RACING (and probably going too fast for conditions if they are both brave).
If they were racing a Smart for 2 modified with a lawn mower engine, perhaps they wouldn't have been "speeding" but would still be racing! :sick:
You can shoot a gun at a gun range and safely avoid committing murder. Play Rush n' Roulette Deer Hunter style with that same gun and murder may likely be the result. This is my analogy to comparing speeding to racing and lumping them together in the same basket.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
By the same reasoning, almost all accidents are caused by an error in driver judgement: driving too fast for conditions, allowing oneself to be distracted, aggressive driving, not maintaining the car properly (e.g. causing a tire to blow), taking an intoxicant before driving, etc. etc. The only ones not caused by an error in driver judgement would be those the driver had no way to prevent, e.g. a meteorite hits the car, killing the driver and sending the car out of control so it hits another vehicle.
Exactly, your starting to learn that it's driver errors that cause accidents, not speeding in and of itself. My work is paying off!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
This legal site lumps "absolute" speeding tickets in with "presumed" speeding tickets. Absolute meaning going faster than a sign, presumed meaning unsafe speed for the conditions. I'm sure if you want to get two lawyers together and argue it, you can nitpick it six different ways.
Speaking of braking hard, simply seeing people rush up to red lights and then slam on the brakes irks me. My dad taught me proper braking for anticipated stops involves not making the car dive forward.
One of my peeves is drivers that, when steering into a left-turn lane (with a red light, while the other lanes are green)... will brake hundreds and hundreds of feet away, while still in the passing lane with ordinary traffic.
My view is that, in cases like that, if the left-turn lane is clear enough to brake easily WITHOUT slowing down in the passing lane, then one should not brake until actually in the left-turn lane.
(Unfortunately, around here, the common view is to brake... slowing down from 55-60 mph to 15-20 mph in the passing lane for an empty left-turn lane.)
The problem is that there are two different ideas on this issue, but with terms that are interchangeable.
There is the 'speeding' issue... which is, to many, simply driving faster than the posted speed limit.
And then there is the 'driving too fast for conditions'... which is simply that. This is *NOT* speeding. For example, one can drive on a highway that has a posted speed limit of 70 mph and only be driving at 45 mph, yet still be 'driving too fast for conditions' if there is a blizzard occuring.
Unfortunately, many in the 'no speeding' camp cannot sense the difference. They assume that the posted speed limit is the maximum *SAFE* speed for the road, no matter the conditions.
Hence all the blather about 'speed kills'. For speed can only kill if it's too fast for the conditions in which you drive.
How about someone driving 40 through a couple inches of snow/slush while other traffic is going 20-25? The vehicle at 40 is tracking true, as are most vehicles, while some at the slower speed are showing instability (sliding, fishtailing, etc).
Both need to be off the road. The 40mph vehicle, while tracking true, won't be able to stop quickly enough if any driver in front (going 20-25mph) stops.
Whereas the sliding/fishtailing/etc 20-25mph drivers are a hazard to everyone on the road.
I've seen this example on the road often enough in Maryland. The first time I saw it (in 2000), the very next day in the Washington Times... there was an article about a 119 car pileup on the selfsame road.
>thrills, go into some of the neighborhoods that are more dangerous than Afghanistan.
Emanuel just commented on how he's straightened up Chicago as mayor this morning on MTP. I recall each time I drove from the Science and Industry Museum through some of Univ of Chicago to the Ryan, it took me through a neighborhood I didn't like being it. I was on full alert then ready to run a light or whatever it took if I had problems. And
Yes, we all know that you believe you should have free reign to violate any speed limit that you disagree with.
And we all know you think the speed limit should be blindly obeyed even if their was a misprint typo and they say 15 instead of 51! :P
For example, there's lots of "no turn on red" signs in my area.
I hate those signs. You've found another pet peeve of mind. Yes, I think the driver should be able to determine when it is safe to turn right on red. There are several of them around San Diego. I have not encountered a single one that is necessary. I notice they are typically in zones where you have reduced line of sight, but not so much so that it's impossible to turn right safely on red. You just have to creep forward a bit more and be a tad bit more careful.
For the most part, those signs are a waste of time and gas and pollution.
Also, what about the folks who think the speed limits are set too HIGH? If you have the freedom to exceed the posted speed limits whenever you think it's safe to do so, the folks who think the limits are too high should be allowed to drive at whatever speed they believe is safe... say, 20 in a 35 zone.
They are allowed to drive slow. Isn't the "slow" limit under ideal conditions 15 or 20 to 25 below the "fast" limit already? I have no problem with people choosing to drive slow, they just need to stay in the right lane (in more ways than one) . If they drive in the correct right lane, there's no issue with slow drivers except on 2 lane highways. In CA there are plenty of turnouts to allow people to pass; they should be used! Proper lane discipline makes slow drivers an extremely minor irritation.
Yes, it's good enough for everyone else. Freedom. Liberty. For all!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Hence all the blather about 'speed kills'. For speed can only kill if it's too fast for the conditions in which you drive.
Finally, someone with some sense here!
People need to read the signs. Some say Maximum Speed Limit, some say Speed Limit. There is a reason behind the difference. That is what the lawyers mean when talking about absolute vs. presumed speeding tickets.
I'd venture a guess that "going too fast for conditions" citations are rarer than LLC tickets, which would make them more rare than just about anything in this world.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I agree with your response to both scenarios. In the second, my inclination to pull the vehicle over would be more due to the greater possibility of conflict further up the road if, for no other reason, the speed differential with other traffic. That said, only the resulting interaction with the driver/vehicle would lead me to determine whether a ticket was warranted. Of course, I say this without the benefit of all that law enforcement training, too.
In either case, if the vehicle exhibited no signs of loss of control, I would not have any sound basis to be able to say that the vehicle was, in fact, driving too fast for conditions were I to decide to issue the ticket until the interaction took place.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
I think you guys are wrong in saying going too fast for conditions is speeding.
Everyone is entitled to his opinion. Where I live, in Minnesota, it's the opinion of the folks who write the statutes that matters the most to me. And they consider driving too fast for conditions "speeding", to wit:
Duty to drive with due care. No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions.
This is also referred to as the Basic Speed Law. I expect other states have a similar law. As the statute (law) above states, anyone driving at an unreasonable speed for the conditions is in violation of that law. As it is a law regarding speed of vehicular travel, the short way to say it is, if you violate this law, you are speeding.
At least in Minnesota, you cannot drive too fast for conditions and not be in violation of the Basic Speed Law... i.e. you are speeding.
Read the statute further and you'll see that driving faster than the posted speed limit is prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and is thus unlawful. I know you know what that means: a fact presumed to be true unless it is disproved. Thus, in Minnesota, drive faster than the posted speed limit and you are SPEEDING unless proven otherwise.
But what's this you say about being forced to drive faster than the speed limit? Have you ever been ticketed when being "forced" to drive faster than the speed limit? And how were you forced to drive faster than the speed limit? I've been driving for 40 years and I can think of a few times when I was forced to exceed the speed limit for a brief time, e.g. passing on a two-lane road (and this is legal in MN, to exceed the posted speed limit under those conditions) or to pass a vehicle on a multi-lane road so as to not get in the way of left-lane traffic. That was borderline "forced"--not really forced as in coerced, but forced in that I thought it was the safe and considerate thing to do under the circumstances.
Yes yes yes, but you have said that speed INCREASES the severity and frequency of accidents. Doesn't it follow with rising speed limits the last few decades fatalities should be going up?
Rising speed limits WHERE exactly? No, raising the speed limit on a lonely stretch of interstate in West Texas doesn't count--no traffic at all out there (I've been there).
Also, a given speed limit doesn't mean much if the traffic itself is not going faster. With the increase in traffic in our major urban areas over the past decade or so, I think it's likely that average speeds in urban areas, which have the most traffic and potential for accidents, have gone down in recent years, not up.
Anyway, I wasn't the one who said "speed increases the severity and frequency of accidents", so don't put words on my fingers.
This is another great example of how some people can justify almost any behavior, in their own minds.
Exactly, your starting to learn that it's driver errors that cause accidents, not speeding in and of itself.
In an ultra-simplistic sense, yes, since it's a driver error to speed. Every time you and I decide to ignore posted speed limits for no good reason other than wanting to drive faster than the speed limit, we are making an error in judgement. The difference is, I am willing to live with the consequences of such errors in judgement. Are you?
Since I routinely drive faster than posted speed limits, are you saying I am immoral? I don't think I am, but that is a value judgement. I do make a choice occasionally to drive faster than posted speed limits. Usually it's just a little over. But I've gone as fast as 100 in a 55 zone. It was very light traffic that day, and I was rushing my wife to the hospital with what I believed to be a very serious medical condition. So I thought that was the right choice at the time. So I knowingly break the law on occasion. I've had two speeding tickets in 40+ years. Deserved both of them, although both were in classic "speed traps". I am willing to accept the consequences of my actions.
As for do I think all laws are morally right... that is way off topic, and let's not go down that path. But there are many good examples throughout history of laws that were immoral. I don't think speed limit laws are immoral, however.
And we all know you think the speed limit should be blindly obeyed even if their was a misprint typo and they say 15 instead of 51!
Wow, does that happen a lot in CA? Posting 15 mph instead of 51 (which btw seems like an odd speed limit)? Someone should get fired over that one!
So looks like you believe the "no right turn on red" signs should be ignored also, whenever we feel like it. Any other traffic laws you think should be ignored? How about turn arrows? Don't you just hate waiting for the arrow to turn? Why not just blast through the intersection against the arrow? And red lights and stop signs... why bother to stop (and waste your valuable time) if you don't see anyone coming from the opposite direction? Just blast through those too!
Heck, maybe just repeal all traffic laws and let everyone decide for themselves what's safe and what's not!
I don't think speed limit laws are immoral, however.
I do, especially when they are set extra low subjectively, instead of objectively (the 85th percentile measurement) for the sole purpose of increasing revenues.
If an officer gave you a speeding ticket while rushing your wife to the hospital, would you have been upset or accepted it? If he pulled you over and delayed your trip to the hospital by 15 minutes (often purposefully slow ticket writers the CHP is); would that have upset you?
I know I was upset when I was given a ticket while the designated driver for drunk friends on a CA right turn on red.
I know I was upset when given a tailgating ticket when if he'd of been worth a lick of salt he'd of seen the car in front made an unsafe lane change cutting me off.
I know I was upset for being given a speeding ticket for 58 MPH when I couldn't have been going more than 48. I know I was very upset for being given a ticket for a location I hadn't visited that day (mistaken identity?? drunk cop?? who knows???). All I know is each of these situations shows me that traffic enforcement often lacks training and competence.
REGARDNG your MN basic speed law - So if I can prove my driving was safe and reasonable and prudent, then I'm no longer speeding. Hence... given this countries presumption of innocence, the officer should not make the allegation of speeding in those situations.
Even MN law doesn't say that the prima facie speed limit is absolute and must never be crossed. If it's reasonable to lower the speed limit in some conditions, then by the same argument it is reasonable to raise the speed limit in ideal conditions.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
It's only an error in judgement to exceed the posted speed limit if exceeding that posted limit makes you too fast for conditions! :P
If the speed limits are not correctly posted (as is often the case) then that could easily happen without any error in judgement on my part despite exceeding the posted limit.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
People need to read the signs. Some say Maximum Speed Limit, some say Speed Limit. There is a reason behind the difference.
Yep. The reason is, some states decided to put "maximum" on the signs. Same meaning in each case: maximum speed limit (unless it specifically says "minimum").
So looks like you believe the "no right turn on red" signs should be ignored also, whenever we feel like it.
Not ignored, but the sign should read "Careful on right turn on red." If you cause an accident, then you can be ticketed for unsafe turn. I know, more tickets are written then accidents caused; revenue will be reduced. Oh! for shame! The horror of reduced revenues!
Funny you mention stop signs. The NMA and I agree that about 90% of STop Signs are inappropriate, and should be changed to Yield Signs. The only reason for stop signs, is again, revenue (those are expensive, same as red lights).
Even so, you don't "blast" through a "yield" sign. You carefully manuever through safely without having to go down to 0.0 MPH for .01 seconds.
Not all traffic laws are created equal.
The main ones that need changing are no right turn on red, requiring stopping on right turns on red, speed limits, and stop signs not being yields. Other then that, I'm fairly satisfied with the vehicle code.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Don't even replace them with yield signs, just remove the signage altogether. Then the intersections would flow more like roundabouts and a lot more attention would be paid as people approach them, while less gas would be wasted by idling.
If an officer gave you a speeding ticket while rushing your wife to the hospital, would you have been upset or accepted it?
First, I would have asked the officer to escort us to the hospital, given the emergency. I expect that would have been the most likely outcome in that case. If however the officer saw my wife writhing and crying in pain in the back seat and gave me a speeding ticket rather than helping us, yes, I would have been upset and I would have challenged that ticket. If the judge agreed with the officer, I would have accepted and paid the ticket but not been very happy about it.
How many times when you have been ticketed for speeding was your speeding due to an emergency?
REGARDNG your MN basic speed law - So if I can prove my driving was safe and reasonable and prudent, then I'm no longer speeding.
Read the full statute again... that's not what it says. Don't just read the part you agree with.
Even MN law doesn't say that the prima facie speed limit is absolute and must never be crossed.
That's not what it says. It says that if you exceed posted speed limits, YOU ARE SPEEDING and you must prove to the contrary. Hopefully something better than, "Your honor, I admit I was going 10 mph over the posted speed limit, but IMO going 10 over is perfectly OK at that spot on the road."
I'm cool with roundabouts. A lot of neighborhoods in residential areas have these idiotic 3 way stop signs where there is hardly ever any traffic to warrant it.
I'm sure it comes from old neighbors complaining that traffic is moving too fast, and STOP signs slow them down! Let's put stop signs everywhere, it works like speed bumps!
I mean really, the nerve of some old folks to complain about everything. Perhaps they shouldn't have bought that house that is alongside a major arterial roadway!!!
They should have thought twice about living there instead of complaining about it after the fact. Reminds me of the NOrth Sacramento folk that complain about Airport noise. The airport was there before all those houses!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
You are either greatly confused or just trying to confuse people. There's a big difference between the Basic Speed Law and posted speed limits. The Basic Speed law talks about driving at a speed that is reasonable and prudent. Posted speed limits (not talking about warning signs here, but actual speed limit signs) are either MAXIMUM speed limits or MINIMUM speed limits. There's no other kind. There's no such thing as a speed limit sign that means, "Y'all stay close to this speed, but only if you feel like it, OK?" If you think there is some other kind of posted speed limit in CA, please post here a clear description from an official source e.g. CA DOT of how there's 3 different posted speed limits in CA:
1) Minimums 2) Maximums 3) Something like a maximum, but not an absolute maximum.
And a question for you: do you observe posted speed limits that say "Maximum Speed Limit" with any more veracity than those that say "Speed Limit"?
How many times when you have been ticketed for speeding was your speeding due to an emergency?
Does it really matter what the reason is? As I've pointed out, if you can "accept" some exceptions, I'm inclined to say all exceptions should be accepted. A law that isn't absolute generallly doesn't have a good foundation to exist; for the most part. Some excuses for speeding are better than others? That is a slippery slope!
The MN law is long and extensive, it is far different than California's; that being said:
Subd. 2. Speed limits. (a) Where no special hazard exists the following speeds shall be lawful, but any speeds in excess of such limits shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful; except that the speed limit within any municipality shall be a maximum limit and any speed in excess thereof shall be unlawful:
That language is a tad stronger against exceeding the prima facie limit than CA's, especially cause it says it'll be unlawful unless you can show otherwise, basically like you say.
Notice it still separates the maximum speed laws with the word "EXCEPT" where maximum speed laws are located. That "exception" I think shows that it was the intent of the legislature to let people show that exceeding a non-maximum speed limit is OK where reasonable and prudent to do so.
It's not just my personal opinion my driving was safe and reasonables, it's the facts:
1) amazing sun and visibility and high lighting levels 2) good brakes and tires 3) light vehicle (about 3,300 lbs with me inside it). 4) going uphill reduces stopping distances 5) no pedestrians 6) no bicyclists 7) no traffic in or around me, none in front, none alongside, and none directly behind because I left them in the dust getting up to that OH SO FAST 50 MPH :P 8) good condition smooth roadtop asphalt 9) good sight lines, multiple lane choices, center dividing median, wide lanes 10) dry weather
Am I forgetting anything?
These 10 things are indisputable FACTS. They cannot be disputed. The only one the officer might even attempt to dispute is the "traffic" levels because he inaccurately and inappropriately check the box for "medium" traffic on the citation. He probably doesn't remember me or my case by now, and in court will use that notation to say traffic was medium rather than light or heavy.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
That seems very familiar. Simps do something similar out here. Imagine a road with a turn lane in the middle - empty of course. They will slow down to a near stop, THEN get into the turn lane and get ready to turn. No doubt these are people who can't fathom accelerating on an on-ramp.
A couple of winners earlier today. First, a new C-class with a likely newbie driver. Is going very slow in front of me and hesitating at green lights - but I can't pass as not enough lanes. Road widens, I pass, he speeds up, we're then both going 15+ over, he slows back down, then as I am observing his skill in my mirror, makes a random turn with no signal.
Later I am in the old car, get behind a GA plated Lancer Sportback. Driver is very pre-occupied with the passengers, so weaving around a lot and going slow. Then suddenly, takes off, goes about 50 in a 30 for awhile (but I get behind it again due to the great equalizer - stoplights). Takes off in a similar style on a street with an electronic speed limit sign, which blinks wildly as the peach plated weirdo passes by. Then makes a right turn - by getting into a right turn lane about a car length before it ends, and takes off down that street. Thankfully, I was going straight. Future crash there, I bet.
Comments
Your data didn't address accident rates, but fatality rates. Much different. There can be several reasons for declining fatality rates over time, such as the huge improvements in car safety (airbags, standard ABS and ESC, improved crash protection) in recent years that allow more people to survive accidents.
Here's some US government data that might interest you: Speeding-Related Traffic Fatalities by State, Road Type, and Speed Limit: 2009...
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1108.pdf
Over 10,000 speeding-related traffic fatalities in the USA in 2009.
Of course it is the driver who is at fault for driving too fast for conditions! At least you acknowledge that speeding is an error in judgement.
By the same reasoning, almost all accidents are caused by an error in driver judgement: driving too fast for conditions, allowing oneself to be distracted, aggressive driving, not maintaining the car properly (e.g. causing a tire to blow), taking an intoxicant before driving, etc. etc. The only ones not caused by an error in driver judgement would be those the driver had no way to prevent, e.g. a meteorite hits the car, killing the driver and sending the car out of control so it hits another vehicle.
I hope that you or a loved one never gets first-hand experience of how excessive speed can contribute to an accident.
Yes, we all know that you believe you should have free reign to violate any speed limit that you disagree with.
Why shouldn't everyone have the same freedom? For example, there's lots of "no turn on red" signs in my area. I suppose there was some rationale for erecting each of them, e.g. intersection can have a lot of pedestrian traffic. But I can't count the number of times I've sat at such an intersection, waiting for the light to turn green so I could make a right turn. Why make me and others wait, our time is important! We should be able to ignore those signs if we think it's safe to do so.... right?
Also, what about the folks who think the speed limits are set too HIGH? If you have the freedom to exceed the posted speed limits whenever you think it's safe to do so, the folks who think the limits are too high should be allowed to drive at whatever speed they believe is safe... say, 20 in a 35 zone. That will drive folks like fintail crazy, but hey, it's their right to drive at whatever speed they want if they think the signs are incorrectly posted... right?
What's good enough for you is good enough for everyone else, right?
Being from northern Illinois, been there, seen that. Dopes and reckless. These fools would be dangerous in any kind of vehicle. But, they think they are invincible because they are in a "dumb" SUV that has AWD. These vehicles should actually be relegated to semi-truck speed limits on interstates, just as should pickup trucks and any non-cars.
You want adventure. Come to Chicago and drive on some of the freeways/interstates to see some real inconsiderate drivers. I have. Such as the Dan Ryan interstate on a weekend night. And, if you want more thrills, go into some of the neighborhoods that are more dangerous than Afghanistan.
You need eyes in the back of your head and on each side to survive the inconsiderate drivers in Chicago.
End of arguments for andres. Perhaps many or most of us here have never been the cause of an accident/crash and do not deride posted speed limits. In my county, arguments can be made for lowering limits in some areas. Some are too high. People need to slow down. Just what is the point of wanting to grossly flaunt posted limits. Seems infantile and immature.
My wife calls it "hurrying up so you can go slow" mode.
So long as I don't rear-end someone, what's the difference? :P
(I think I was quoting Andre's number anyway. Can't fact check everything, lol.)
Backy, don't blame your wreck on a meteorite. Too exotic. Just tell the cop you rolled down the window to get some air, the extra sunlight caused you to sneeze and meanwhile a mad bee flew in and distracted you.
We call it the "Pull out and poke along club."
Morons.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
If you call a 2 to 3 MPH bump a "crash" more power to you.
If you've driven as many miles as me without being in a "fender bender" more power to you.
No one wants to grossly flaunt posted limits. It is the gov't that wants to grossly underpost limits thereby making the majority of drivers "speeders."
so I kept the speed down, and tried to vary. So I ran mostly around 65, varying from 55-70 (depending if SL was 55 or 65).
And honestly, I did not notice it taking all that much longer. a few minutes, but I made it.
I did, however, get passed a lot! Budget rental trucks, buses, you name it. Some people drive really fast.
but surprisingly, there were plenty of other people driving as slow or slower than I was.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I think you guys are wrong in saying going too fast for conditions is speeding. They are two completely different things. Glad to see the Census.gov link provided admits they include things other than "speeding" itself right at the top as "speed related," which seems to pretty much include everything from A to Z. It seems every fatality is speed related according to the Census, they admit as much as they include fatalities even when the speed limit is unknown!!!! That data is worth $0.00. I'm sorry Census. Seems another waste of tax payer dollars at work.
I can be going too fast for conditions and NOT be speeding. The sign says the speed limit is 55 MPH, but it's snowing, and I'm driving a double decker bus on bald tires in heavy traffic. I could be going well under the speed limit; say 40 MPH in that 55 zone (and hence not speeding), and still be going too fast in those conditions! How can you say they are the same thing?
Is speeding going faster than the 2 numbers on the sign, or isn't it? You still haven't answered the question!!! If it's about driving reasonably and prudently, then surely if your the judge in my case, you should find me not guilty. If you can be forced to go slower than the limit, surely you can be forced to drive faster than it.
If the legislature intended it to be uni-directional (only lower than the limit), then they would have said you can drive reasonably and prudently up to and including the limit, but never over it. The VC doesn't say anything like that.
Yes, I know, the DMV handbook tries to pitch that, but that's not the law. That is just some overpaid gov't agency doing things incorrectly.
Yes yes yes, but you have said that speed INCREASES the severity and frequency of accidents. Doesn't it follow with rising speed limits the last few decades fatalities should be going up?
AS I've stated above, the Census data can be questioned and thrown out with just a little bit of common sense applied.
I mean really! For them to lump racing into "speeding" is nuts. It is way beyond me. Racing is an exhibition of speed where you are competing with someone else to get to point B faster than they do. That has nothing to do with speeding itself.
If they wreck it wasn't because they were speeding, but because they were RACING (and probably going too fast for conditions if they are both brave).
If they were racing a Smart for 2 modified with a lawn mower engine, perhaps they wouldn't have been "speeding" but would still be racing! :sick:
You can shoot a gun at a gun range and safely avoid committing murder. Play Rush n' Roulette Deer Hunter style with that same gun and murder may likely be the result. This is my analogy to comparing speeding to racing and lumping them together in the same basket.
Exactly, your starting to learn that it's driver errors that cause accidents, not speeding in and of itself. My work is paying off!
One of my peeves is drivers that, when steering into a left-turn lane (with a red light, while the other lanes are green)... will brake hundreds and hundreds of feet away, while still in the passing lane with ordinary traffic.
My view is that, in cases like that, if the left-turn lane is clear enough to brake easily WITHOUT slowing down in the passing lane, then one should not brake until actually in the left-turn lane.
(Unfortunately, around here, the common view is to brake... slowing down from 55-60 mph to 15-20 mph in the passing lane for an empty left-turn lane.)
Specially with the LLCers.
:mad:
There is the 'speeding' issue... which is, to many, simply driving faster than the posted speed limit.
And then there is the 'driving too fast for conditions'... which is simply that. This is *NOT* speeding. For example, one can drive on a highway that has a posted speed limit of 70 mph and only be driving at 45 mph, yet still be 'driving too fast for conditions' if there is a blizzard occuring.
Unfortunately, many in the 'no speeding' camp cannot sense the difference. They assume that the posted speed limit is the maximum *SAFE* speed for the road, no matter the conditions.
Hence all the blather about 'speed kills'. For speed can only kill if it's too fast for the conditions in which you drive.
Both need to be off the road. The 40mph vehicle, while tracking true, won't be able to stop quickly enough if any driver in front (going 20-25mph) stops.
Whereas the sliding/fishtailing/etc 20-25mph drivers are a hazard to everyone on the road.
I've seen this example on the road often enough in Maryland. The first time I saw it (in 2000), the very next day in the Washington Times... there was an article about a 119 car pileup on the selfsame road.
For exactly the reasons I gave above.
Are all laws, no matter what, morally right to you?
Which is different that driving too fast for conditions... which can occur at nearly ANY speed.
And find it the cause célèbre for why HE guided missiles should be mandatory on all vehicles. For this type of driver would shortly cease to exist.
And there would be much rejoicing!
:P
Emanuel just commented on how he's straightened up Chicago as mayor this morning on MTP. I recall each time I drove from the Science and Industry Museum through some of Univ of Chicago to the Ryan, it took me through a neighborhood I didn't like being it. I was on full alert then ready to run a light or whatever it took if I had problems. And
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Even in SC, I can show you a few places you would think twice about driving through after dark, even if you were driving a M2 Bradley Assault Vehicle.
You don't have to go all the way to Chicago to get your head cut off...
And we all know you think the speed limit should be blindly obeyed even if their was a misprint typo and they say 15 instead of 51! :P
For example, there's lots of "no turn on red" signs in my area.
I hate those signs. You've found another pet peeve of mind. Yes, I think the driver should be able to determine when it is safe to turn right on red. There are several of them around San Diego. I have not encountered a single one that is necessary. I notice they are typically in zones where you have reduced line of sight, but not so much so that it's impossible to turn right safely on red. You just have to creep forward a bit more and be a tad bit more careful.
For the most part, those signs are a waste of time and gas and pollution.
Also, what about the folks who think the speed limits are set too HIGH? If you have the freedom to exceed the posted speed limits whenever you think it's safe to do so, the folks who think the limits are too high should be allowed to drive at whatever speed they believe is safe... say, 20 in a 35 zone.
They are allowed to drive slow. Isn't the "slow" limit under ideal conditions 15 or 20 to 25 below the "fast" limit already? I have no problem with people choosing to drive slow, they just need to stay in the right lane (in more ways than one)
Yes, it's good enough for everyone else. Freedom. Liberty. For all!
Finally, someone with some sense here!
People need to read the signs. Some say Maximum Speed Limit, some say Speed Limit. There is a reason behind the difference. That is what the lawyers mean when talking about absolute vs. presumed speeding tickets.
I'd venture a guess that "going too fast for conditions" citations are rarer than LLC tickets, which would make them more rare than just about anything in this world.
In either case, if the vehicle exhibited no signs of loss of control, I would not have any sound basis to be able to say that the vehicle was, in fact, driving too fast for conditions were I to decide to issue the ticket until the interaction took place.
Everyone is entitled to his opinion. Where I live, in Minnesota, it's the opinion of the folks who write the statutes that matters the most to me. And they consider driving too fast for conditions "speeding", to wit:
Duty to drive with due care. No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/getpub.php?type=s&year=current&num=169.14
This is also referred to as the Basic Speed Law. I expect other states have a similar law. As the statute (law) above states, anyone driving at an unreasonable speed for the conditions is in violation of that law. As it is a law regarding speed of vehicular travel, the short way to say it is, if you violate this law, you are speeding.
At least in Minnesota, you cannot drive too fast for conditions and not be in violation of the Basic Speed Law... i.e. you are speeding.
Read the statute further and you'll see that driving faster than the posted speed limit is prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and is thus unlawful. I know you know what that means: a fact presumed to be true unless it is disproved. Thus, in Minnesota, drive faster than the posted speed limit and you are SPEEDING unless proven otherwise.
But what's this you say about being forced to drive faster than the speed limit? Have you ever been ticketed when being "forced" to drive faster than the speed limit? And how were you forced to drive faster than the speed limit? I've been driving for 40 years and I can think of a few times when I was forced to exceed the speed limit for a brief time, e.g. passing on a two-lane road (and this is legal in MN, to exceed the posted speed limit under those conditions) or to pass a vehicle on a multi-lane road so as to not get in the way of left-lane traffic. That was borderline "forced"--not really forced as in coerced, but forced in that I thought it was the safe and considerate thing to do under the circumstances.
Rising speed limits WHERE exactly? No, raising the speed limit on a lonely stretch of interstate in West Texas doesn't count--no traffic at all out there (I've been there).
Also, a given speed limit doesn't mean much if the traffic itself is not going faster. With the increase in traffic in our major urban areas over the past decade or so, I think it's likely that average speeds in urban areas, which have the most traffic and potential for accidents, have gone down in recent years, not up.
Anyway, I wasn't the one who said "speed increases the severity and frequency of accidents", so don't put words on my fingers.
This is another great example of how some people can justify almost any behavior, in their own minds.
In an ultra-simplistic sense, yes, since it's a driver error to speed. Every time you and I decide to ignore posted speed limits for no good reason other than wanting to drive faster than the speed limit, we are making an error in judgement. The difference is, I am willing to live with the consequences of such errors in judgement. Are you?
As for do I think all laws are morally right... that is way off topic, and let's not go down that path. But there are many good examples throughout history of laws that were immoral. I don't think speed limit laws are immoral, however.
Wow, does that happen a lot in CA? Posting 15 mph instead of 51 (which btw seems like an odd speed limit)? Someone should get fired over that one!
So looks like you believe the "no right turn on red" signs should be ignored also, whenever we feel like it. Any other traffic laws you think should be ignored? How about turn arrows? Don't you just hate waiting for the arrow to turn? Why not just blast through the intersection against the arrow? And red lights and stop signs... why bother to stop (and waste your valuable time) if you don't see anyone coming from the opposite direction? Just blast through those too!
Heck, maybe just repeal all traffic laws and let everyone decide for themselves what's safe and what's not!
:sick:
I do, especially when they are set extra low subjectively, instead of objectively (the 85th percentile measurement) for the sole purpose of increasing revenues.
If an officer gave you a speeding ticket while rushing your wife to the hospital, would you have been upset or accepted it? If he pulled you over and delayed your trip to the hospital by 15 minutes (often purposefully slow ticket writers the CHP is); would that have upset you?
I know I was upset when I was given a ticket while the designated driver for drunk friends on a CA right turn on red.
I know I was upset when given a tailgating ticket when if he'd of been worth a lick of salt he'd of seen the car in front made an unsafe lane change cutting me off.
I know I was upset for being given a speeding ticket for 58 MPH when I couldn't have been going more than 48. I know I was very upset for being given a ticket for a location I hadn't visited that day (mistaken identity?? drunk cop?? who knows???). All I know is each of these situations shows me that traffic enforcement often lacks training and competence.
REGARDNG your MN basic speed law - So if I can prove my driving was safe and reasonable and prudent, then I'm no longer speeding. Hence... given this countries presumption of innocence, the officer should not make the allegation of speeding in those situations.
Even MN law doesn't say that the prima facie speed limit is absolute and must never be crossed. If it's reasonable to lower the speed limit in some conditions, then by the same argument it is reasonable to raise the speed limit in ideal conditions.
If the speed limits are not correctly posted (as is often the case) then that could easily happen without any error in judgement on my part despite exceeding the posted limit.
Yep. The reason is, some states decided to put "maximum" on the signs. Same meaning in each case: maximum speed limit (unless it specifically says "minimum").
Not ignored, but the sign should read "Careful on right turn on red." If you cause an accident, then you can be ticketed for unsafe turn. I know, more tickets are written then accidents caused; revenue will be reduced. Oh! for shame! The horror of reduced revenues!
Funny you mention stop signs. The NMA and I agree that about 90% of STop Signs are inappropriate, and should be changed to Yield Signs. The only reason for stop signs, is again, revenue (those are expensive, same as red lights).
Even so, you don't "blast" through a "yield" sign. You carefully manuever through safely without having to go down to 0.0 MPH for .01 seconds.
Not all traffic laws are created equal.
The main ones that need changing are no right turn on red, requiring stopping on right turns on red, speed limits, and stop signs not being yields. Other then that, I'm fairly satisfied with the vehicle code.
No, that's wrong. The Basic Speed Laws do not state the prima facie speed limit is the maximum speed limit.
The reasonable and prudent standard applies. You can't have it both ways Backy, sorry.
It sounds like MN is the same; not sure why you argue this point.
First, I would have asked the officer to escort us to the hospital, given the emergency. I expect that would have been the most likely outcome in that case. If however the officer saw my wife writhing and crying in pain in the back seat and gave me a speeding ticket rather than helping us, yes, I would have been upset and I would have challenged that ticket. If the judge agreed with the officer, I would have accepted and paid the ticket but not been very happy about it.
How many times when you have been ticketed for speeding was your speeding due to an emergency?
REGARDNG your MN basic speed law - So if I can prove my driving was safe and reasonable and prudent, then I'm no longer speeding.
Read the full statute again... that's not what it says. Don't just read the part you agree with.
Even MN law doesn't say that the prima facie speed limit is absolute and must never be crossed.
That's not what it says. It says that if you exceed posted speed limits, YOU ARE SPEEDING and you must prove to the contrary. Hopefully something better than, "Your honor, I admit I was going 10 mph over the posted speed limit, but IMO going 10 over is perfectly OK at that spot on the road."
I'm sure it comes from old neighbors complaining that traffic is moving too fast, and STOP signs slow them down! Let's put stop signs everywhere, it works like speed bumps!
I mean really, the nerve of some old folks to complain about everything. Perhaps they shouldn't have bought that house that is alongside a major arterial roadway!!!
They should have thought twice about living there instead of complaining about it after the fact. Reminds me of the NOrth Sacramento folk that complain about Airport noise. The airport was there before all those houses!
1) Minimums
2) Maximums
3) Something like a maximum, but not an absolute maximum.
And a question for you: do you observe posted speed limits that say "Maximum Speed Limit" with any more veracity than those that say "Speed Limit"?
Does it really matter what the reason is? As I've pointed out, if you can "accept" some exceptions, I'm inclined to say all exceptions should be accepted. A law that isn't absolute generallly doesn't have a good foundation to exist; for the most part. Some excuses for speeding are better than others? That is a slippery slope!
The MN law is long and extensive, it is far different than California's; that being said:
Subd. 2. Speed limits. (a) Where no special hazard exists the following speeds shall be
lawful, but any speeds in excess of such limits shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not
reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful; except that the speed limit within any municipality
shall be a maximum limit and any speed in excess thereof shall be unlawful:
That language is a tad stronger against exceeding the prima facie limit than CA's, especially cause it says it'll be unlawful unless you can show otherwise, basically like you say.
Notice it still separates the maximum speed laws with the word "EXCEPT" where maximum speed laws are located. That "exception" I think shows that it was the intent of the legislature to let people show that exceeding a non-maximum speed limit is OK where reasonable and prudent to do so.
It's not just my personal opinion my driving was safe and reasonables, it's the facts:
1) amazing sun and visibility and high lighting levels
2) good brakes and tires
3) light vehicle (about 3,300 lbs with me inside it).
4) going uphill reduces stopping distances
5) no pedestrians
6) no bicyclists
7) no traffic in or around me, none in front, none alongside, and none directly behind because I left them in the dust getting up to that OH SO FAST 50 MPH :P
8) good condition smooth roadtop asphalt
9) good sight lines, multiple lane choices, center dividing median, wide lanes
10) dry weather
Am I forgetting anything?
These 10 things are indisputable FACTS. They cannot be disputed. The only one the officer might even attempt to dispute is the "traffic" levels because he inaccurately and inappropriately check the box for "medium" traffic on the citation. He probably doesn't remember me or my case by now, and in court will use that notation to say traffic was medium rather than light or heavy.
A couple of winners earlier today. First, a new C-class with a likely newbie driver. Is going very slow in front of me and hesitating at green lights - but I can't pass as not enough lanes. Road widens, I pass, he speeds up, we're then both going 15+ over, he slows back down, then as I am observing his skill in my mirror, makes a random turn with no signal.
Later I am in the old car, get behind a GA plated Lancer Sportback. Driver is very pre-occupied with the passengers, so weaving around a lot and going slow. Then suddenly, takes off, goes about 50 in a 30 for awhile (but I get behind it again due to the great equalizer - stoplights). Takes off in a similar style on a street with an electronic speed limit sign, which blinks wildly as the peach plated weirdo passes by. Then makes a right turn - by getting into a right turn lane about a car length before it ends, and takes off down that street. Thankfully, I was going straight. Future crash there, I bet.
Stop signs at every intersection are probably the easiest way to dumb down the driving experience. Lowest common denominator is never a good thing.