No, I’m perfectly fine sharing the road with people that consider accident aversion to more important than following the letter of the law. In most circumstances, following the letter of the law does reduce accident risk but there are times when it does not. A driver with a clue knows the difference.

> The vehicle traveling slower than
> you has every right to be there and
> traveling at that speed.

Actually, no they don’t. First, no one has a right to be driving. Second, many cities actually impose speed minimums. For example, if memory serves Denver has a speed minimum of 40 MPH under optimal conditions. If the limit is 65 and everyone is doing 40 but someone is doing 65, that person driving substantially faster than the speed of traffic is as much a hazard as someone doing 40 when everyone else is doing 65.

> Why they are traveling slower
> is irrelevant; it could be because
> they are pulling a trailer, it is a
> heavily laden truck, the vehicle
> is having mechanical problems, it
> is a student or young driver, etc.
> It is not up to you to decide if
> they should or should not be
> allowed on the road.

As I stated above, no one has a right to be driving on the freeway. Second, IMO, if a truck cannot do the speed minimum, they shouldn’t be on the freeway. There was a particular two lane freeway grade near my house where trucks would do 20 up the grade during rush hour which caused massive traffic delays (easily added an hour to my commute) and yes accidents as people tried to get around the trucks. That is not sharing the road. That is causing massive traffic delays and accidents because they could not be bothered to change their schedule, lighten their load or take a different route.

> Your excessive speed though,
> as you rightly point out, is a cause
> of concern when meeting up with someone
> going so much slower.

No one said anything about excessive speed. In my example, suppose the limit is 65. If everyone is doing 65 except one person doing 40, that person is increasing the risk of an accident.

> YOU are the one unable to react
> in time to avoid them. And it is
> your speed that influences your
> reaction time.

There are number of reasons why reaction time is a bullshit argument. If reaction time is an issue, then the DMV ought to be testing for it. Second, there are numerous elderly drivers with awful reaction times even if everyone were doing 10 MPH. Third, an the end of the day speed does not cause the vast majority of accidents. Bad judgment relating to something other than speed causes the vast majority accidents. Speed simply exacerbates the damage.

> What if instead of a slower vehicle, there
> is some debris on the road? …

This example is completely irrelevant. It is also the case that the debris is traveling 40 MPH slower than you if you hit at 40..or 30 or 20… If road conditions call for slower speeds then driving substantially faster than the speed of traffic is *also* a hazard.

RE: Left Turn

Again, reaction time is a bullshit argument. Everyday, there are elderly people and sleep deprived people driving on the roads. No DMV that I’m aware of tests for reaction time. As I said, it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever what speed the oncoming car is traveling. If they are doing 100 or 10, the person turning left is obligated to wait until it is clear. Assuming that running a red is not part of the scenario, if the person turning left hits the oncoming car, they are at fault as they should be. The error in judgment was turning when it wasn’t clear.

RE: COP and “over the limit”

So, what about an accident at 65 as opposed to 55? What about 65 as opposed to 40? There is no question that speed exacerbates damage. The question is whether it caused the accident in the first place.

Actually #52 brings up an excellent point. If speed is viewed so badly then why are the fines not substantially higher? Why are they not equivalent to DUIs? It also brings into question as to why we don’t make the speed limit 10 MPH everywhere. After all, someone going 20 MPH more than doubles the amount of energy on impact.

In 10 years driving in a city with photo radar I have received a whopping 2 photo radar tickets and have been pulled over exactly zero times. I don’t have what you’d call an impressive income but even I can afford a couple tickets a year. Hypothetically speaking, if points were being issued against my license which drove my insurance rates up and which put me in risk of losing my license, I might speed less. But that’s not the world we live in. Many (MANY) people have higher incomes than I do.

Do I think people who speed, knowing they are going to get caught, are idiots or mentally unstable? Maybe they are. But maybe they just don’t give a crap about the money. I bet they care whether they have a license at all though.

The fact that the D.C. area is showing such high rates of revenue would seem to indicate that there’s plenty of money and few who care about that money, floating around. If the D.C. police could show a dramatic reduction in revenue from photo radar, I might be willing to concede that the photo radar was working to reduce speeding. I suspect that the statistics show otherwise.

Under this model, the speeder can continue to speed for as long as he/she has money to pay for the photo radar tickets.

Good point. It is precisely because there is no pullover that the fines are less and do not carry “points”. They also are assessed to the vehicle, the same as a parking ticket instead of the driver.

I don’t know about you but I can’t afford too many tickets. In fact, I don’t know anyone that can. If you can afford them, do you think having a cop stop you will make any difference?

People do illegal things thinking that they won’t get caught. Even you would think someone deliberately speeding, knowing they are going to get caught, is either an idiot or mentally unstable.

I’m perfectly fine sharing the road with people that have a clue and that means driving with the flow of traffic.

Which translates as “You are perfectly comfortable with sharing the road with others that take a similar view of disregarding the law.”

The vehicle traveling slower than you has every right to be there and traveling at that speed. Why they are traveling slower is irrelevant; it could be because they are pulling a trailer, it is a heavily laden truck, the vehicle is having mechanical problems, it is a student or young driver, etc. It is not up to you to decide if they should or should not be allowed on the road.

Your excessive speed though, as you rightly point out, is a cause of concern when meeting up with someone going so much slower. YOU are the one unable to react in time to avoid them. And it is your speed that influences your reaction time.

What if instead of a slower vehicle, there is some debris on the road? That debris is now traveling 65 mph slower than you. Guess what? Hit the debris and it is almost always your fault for any damage. Not sharing the road and being prepared for the unexpected is the leading cause of accidents on freeways. If you can’t react in time because of your speed then guess what the root cause of the accident is?

*
Left Turn

If you judge the distance to the oncoming vehicle will take 6 seconds to reach the intersection yet is traveling 50% faster (ie 45 in a 30) then it will reach the intersection in 4 seconds. Bang, time enough for a collision.

Being that as it may, turning left into oncoming traffic is always a risk.

*

Most cops I know are just doing their assigned job. When I asked our local Sheriff (a neighbor) about a very similar point a few years back his response was illuminating. It was to the effect “After pulling one dead body from a wreck, it isn’t just a little over the limit anymore”. Something to think about the next time you get caught speeding.

RE: Left turn example

Actually, my example is dead on. The person turning left has to account for the other vehicle’s speed whether too slow, too fast, or variable. The accident is caused by someone turning when it wasn’t clear. Speed will make the damage worse, but it is not the cause of the accident. If you really think that speed is the cause, then why not push for making the limit 10 MPH or for mandated governor’s on cars that prevent them from speeding?

Most cops will tell you that most speeding laws, not all, but most, are geared towards revenue generation or as an excuse to stop someone and not public safety.

Ah! Yes, you’re correct. I misread Luc’s original comment – I retract my comment regarding marrantless searches. (My aplogies to Luc.)

As for the rest… re-read my comments. I never said that photo radar doesn’t “catch” the speeder. I said it doesn’t “stop” the speeder. There is a distinction. When the police pull over the speeder they are physically stopped. As well, points are issues against the speeders license so there’s potential for the license to be suspended.

With photo radar, the speeder is not physically stopped. The speeder receives a ticket in the mail days later with no points issued against their license. Under this model, the speeder can continue to speed for as long as he/she has money to pay for the photo radar tickets.

Does it stop the speeder? No. Does it generate revenue? Yes.

You stated that photo radar does not catch speeders. I say it does work. If you know you might end up being caught speeding and be assessed a fine you just might take that into consideration the next time the urge to speed overwhelms you.

Your equivalence that a warrantless search of my property is the same as a photo radar set-up is silly. Just as silly and ridiculous as is the murderer being tricked by the police.

Yet, that is exactly your argument, the police must be above board when they catch you breaking the law. If the police get the fingerprints or analyze the DNA from a murder scene, is that any different than catching you speeding with photo radar?

What the hell are you talking about?

“IT IS ILLEGAL TO SPEED!”

No one is arguing that it isn’t illegal to speed. What I’m saying is that photo radar does nothing to stop someone from speeding whereas a cop that pulls someone over does.

Once again you missed the point. The upper limit is 65. Unless there is a lower limit than the vehicle traveling 40 is well within their right to travel on that highway.

Part of being on any road in the US, and indeed most of the civilized world, goes with the understanding you SHARE the highway.

It is clear that you have no intention of sharing the road and take the attitude that you own the road and everyone not driving as fast as you can get off the road. That only contributes to my high insurance premiums.

*

Your example of speed being a contributor is bogus. The faster the vehicle is traveling, the further it will travel in the time it takes the driver to respond. It also means that in your left turn example, the car turning could misjudge the speed and time he has to make the turn. Most red light runners do so because they know they could not safely stop in time.

I drive a semi and you don’t drive a semi over 65 mph in CA. The posted limit in ALL of California is 55 mph for big trucks (and autos/pickups/RV pulling trailers but nobody pays attention to this). You put your wallet at serious risk to speed in a truck in California because the speeding fines are not the same as for autos, they are more like 5-10 times higher. It is not unheard of for a fine of $800 for going 65-70 mph in some of the loneliest stretches of I-15, I-10 or I-40.

When I run CA I always try to stay around 60-63 mph along with the vast majority of other trucks. I would hazard the observation that 99.5% of all trucks running in CA never go above 70 mph. In addition, just about all trucks owned by the major trucking companies are governed around 65-68 mph.

The reason they require regular traffic surveys on highways (think surface streets) in CA is specifically to stop this type of nonsense where the posted limit does not match the speed most people are driving and that process works great on highways. However, it does not apply to freeways where CHP and local revenue whoring localities have bullied the legislation into capping the speed at 65. Hell, there are parts the I-5 where the limit ought to be 100. If you are doing 80, you better be in slow lane because a semi will drive right over you.

What?!!! So everyone violates the limit, refuses to obey the limit, and the one who obeys the limit is the menace because the violators are forced(???) to try to get around the one who is not violating so they can violate? You are A-MAZ-ING!