Is speeding wrong? Should radar detectors be illegal? Let's find out! (1 Viewer)

[Chris]

Good friend is hiway patrol.

It has happened recently, I'll find a case.

The argument made before the court is a simple one: a person travelling greater then 110MPH now is openly risking the lives of others on the hiway and acts as an "endangerment"..

Let me put it this way: you fire a gun in central park, and you hit no one. But you still openly risked people. You can be charged and easily convicted of "attempted homicide" Think of the way the Kansas statute is written as chargin you with "attempted vehicular homicide".

 

[AjayM]

Easily convicted of attempted homicide for a firearm discharge? It would take a fresh from lawschool lawyer to argue his way out of that one, that's not to say you won't be charged with a multitude of other crimes, but anything with the words homicide (provided you didn't actually shoot somebody) isn't going to be in it.

The gun example doesn't work very well here. For instance, if I'm standing in an empty field in Kansas with the nearest neighbor 2 miles away I can fire that same gun and you would have a very hard trying to charge me with endangering other people.

Ditto on the highway, sure at 110mph you may very well be endangering other people, if there are other people on the roadway at that exact time. I've driven through some desolate places and there are times when there just aren't people on the road.

Or maybe the charges were brought against somebody who was driving at those insane speeds in an urban area, or high traffic situation. But even then it's reckless endangerment. Now if said speeder caused an accident, then sure, attempted manslaughter is a great charge for what the person has done.

I'd be interested in reading anything you find on the subject though, and I'm not saying I think you're wrong, the state may very well charge people that way....but it's rather confusing on why they would (when there are plenty of other crimes that such a person could be charged with).

Andrew

 

[Seth_L]

Uh... if you want to think of I-696 as a "closed track" feel free. It was at 2am on a Saturday morning on the way home from my buddies house. A Mercedes blew by me at 100+. I let him get about a mile up the road (clearing any speed traps) and then gave chase. I passed him as I was slowing to take the same exit he was.

I'm sure you'd try to call it in, but realistically you can't catch a car going 142MPH. In this instance I got off the freeway at the first exit and was home a few minutes later.

 

[DaveGTP]

It's funny seeing a high-speed on the freeway story from another Michigan person. Perhaps it's the deserted roads here and there? Not sure where I-696 is.


I think my record was 115 MPH on the local freeway (US-10). The speed limiter on my Beretta kicked in at that point. I was just messing around with my new car at the time. There wasn't another car even on the road. Not even some headlights.

It's not cars or people I was worried about, though. It's the deer.

 

[Eric_L]

Everyone is talking about highway speeding. Other places have problems too:

In my town there is a long and wide road moderately used with homes set very far back from it with a limit of 35 mph. Then there is the main strip which has many signaled intersections, retail stores and heavy traffic, with a limit of 45.

It will be a cold day in Hawaii when anyone actually does anything near 45 on the main drag, and anything under 45 on the 35mph road.

Then there is the part of town that our PD lovingly refers to as 'Payday' where the speedlimit goes from 45 to 30, to 35, then 40 and finally 45 again - all within one mile.

With F'ed up limits like that you BET that I want a detector.

Also, the argument 'If it weren't unsafe there wouldn't be a law against it' is about as airtight as Janet Jackson's wardrobe. Never trust a government that much; engage your God-given intellect and decide for yourself what is safe.

Most speed limits are set by traffic surveys. (oversimplified = traffic is measured and the average speed is used) However it is not uncommon for a community to petition for the limit to be reduced WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OF RISK - often at the request of immense busybodies. it is possible that if you get a ticket on a road with an artificially lowered limit you stand a chance to beat it in court if you can prove that the prima facie (traffic survey) was higher (and you were within that limit)


Which brings me to another - red lights. I run them - often. I do stop. I do look every way. Then I make a decision - is a light and a timer better able to determine when it is safe to go than I am? If there is no traffic to be seen (as is often the case at 3am) I go, light be damned. Many people think it is odd. I think it is odd that they would consider a timer and a light to have better judgement than themselves.

ahhh, rant over. That felt good.

 

[Seth_L]

It's 4 lanes each way. It's not usually empty, but at 2am on a Saturday morning it's pretty clear. I did catch up to a pack of cars as I was slowing to exit the freeway.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Don't be surprised if you get tickets for running red lights at intersections with ticketing surveillance cameras in place...

 

[Mike_Ch]

Personally, I think that speed limits are there for a reason, and people should just live with it instead of yapping on and on as happens a lot where I live. I don't have much of a problem with speeding per say, only those ppl who speed in a dangerous environment such as when its wet, dark and in a shopping area or when tailgating a slower car... there is no way in hell you will stop in time if you're less than 1 metre behind a car in an emergency situation.

Cheers,
Mike

 

[Chris]

I was wrong. It is reckless endangerment. My bad!

 

[Robert_Gaither]

I'm amazed no one pointed this out on this thread, but the other factor that makes radar detectors dangerous is the false sense that the perpetrator of the crime thinks the only danger that they will encounter is to be ticketed by law enforcement.

The reason why the speed laws should be observed is that most car tires have a load, heat, and speed rating on them. Those who buy the Pep Boy's 4 tire for $99 special shouldn't drive past 75 mph imho.

 

[Adam.Heckman]

Nobody has mentioned that at 90 you're far outshooting your headlights at night. Somebody could put a brick wall up in the middle of the road and most car/driver combos wouldn't be able to stop in the time between when they see it and when they hit it.

Different Night/Day limits would be good.

 

[Shayne Lebrun]

Oh, come on! You really want to trust Studly McJock with his brand new car, who wants to impress his girlfriend, to decide 'what is safe?'

You want to decide for yourself what's safe? You go nuts. Go rent a speedway, or racetrack, and speed to your heart's content.

But the moment you get on a PUBLIC highway, or any public road, for that matter, you need to obey rules that are designed, in part, at least, to keep everybody safe. Don't agree with the rules? Fine. Lobby to have them changed. Get yourself elected. Campaign.

But don't just decide 'the laws are for idiots, and don't apply to me.' If the posted limit is 100, and people are driving like the posted limit is 100; some are doing 90, some are doing 110 or 120, and you decide to do 160, you're purposefully endangering people.

 

[DaveGTP]

At the speedlimit on a 55MPH highway you are outshooting your headlights. As far as I knew from driver's training that was proven. I could be proved wrong, but that was my understanding. Moot point in my eyes.

There's not going to be a brick wall type obstacle on the freeway. Worst case scenario seems like a dead vehicle that neglected to turn on their emergency blinkers. And normally vehicles are pulled over to the side of the freeway anyway. Perhaps a semi could lose something off the back. Maybe. In any event, you are doomed if you need to come screeching to a halt on the freeway.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

There can be any number of unforeseen obstacles that block a road, or require correction to avoid, and at high speeds the likelihood of doing so without losing control is lessened greatly.

I don't care how fast you think you can drive safely. By speeding, you are putting other people's lives at risk, and that is not something you have a right to do. Just because you may be able to recover from an unexpected swerve doesn't mean the driver you cut off to do so can. If you are in such a great hurry to get someplace, try using a little planning and leave earlier.

(Admin note: Rest of post snipped. There are better ways to make your point.)

 

[DaveGTP]

There's been plenty of information that actually shows accidents actually decrease with higher/no speed limits. Someone mentioned the Montana example above. Mostly due to proper use of the left lane for passing. They fear people driving fast in the left lane so they get over to the right lane where you should be if you aren't passing


As far as Obstacles on the Road, I still hold you're already overdriving your headlights at the speedlimit. I did some looking, and you are overdriving your headlights @ 55 MPH when they are on low beams. With highbeams @ 55mph, you are about 100ft of stopping distance safe.



So @ the speedlimit of 70mph, at night on the freeway (when you normally can't use highbeams), you are already overdriving by a substantial margin. Heck, even with highbeams you are overdriving your headlights just being on the freeway.

Trust me, I understand obstacles - we've got plenty of deer in Michigan. I just know you're screwed anyway if one gets in front of you on the freeway and you can't dodge it.

 

[Mike Voigt]

On Germany: please don't forget that Germany is about the size of Montana or thereabouts. So remember to multiply their stats to match with the US, either in population, number of cars, highway mileage, or any other comparison you wish to make. I've driven there, a lot, and I do know the roads. I've also driven there at speeds in the 200+ kph range (hit 135 mph). Apart from the danger factor, you have to learn to drive differently. If you cannot handle car traffic going MUCH slower than you in those circumstances, you're toast.

As for obstacles on the road: you're dead wrong, or might end up that way sometime. Hit a complete dead stop traffic jam at that speed, and you AND the people in front will be dead. At that point, it is a mess. Incidentally, this includes deer, cattle, stuff falling off trucks, or disabled vehicles. What would happen if you slam into a stalled truck at that speed? No chance to stop.

I've almost had that happen to me. Driving the 135 mph above (well within the mechanical and mfr stated capability of that car), I hit the dreaded Stau (traffic jam) on the autobahn. I finally stopped within 20 ft of the cars in front of me...

 

[JamieD]

Moose.

And for Germany, they've been looking into inplementing limits, as some people have just been obliterated by people driving incredibly fast sports cars.

 

[Chris Bardon]

Well, I know that the 100 Km/hr limit here is a little low-I'm sure that everyone could handle 120 without too much difficulty. The problem is that if the limit were 120, then everyone would drive 140, which is definitely unsafe.

I'm actually surprised that they haven't done this on the 407 yet-it'd definitely make more people willing to pay for it.

 

[Eric Kahn]

I've been on 696 in the daytime and if you are not doing 80 they will run you over

 

[D. Scott MacDonald]

If I understand the argument correctly, you are saying that since you are already overdriving the headlights (by a small margin), why not driver 90 and overdrive them by a large margin? Am I the only person that would much rather be in a 30MPH collision than a 60MPH collision? There are differing degrees of being screwed.

Several years ago I was driving down 45 in Houston at night time, turned a corner, and there in my lane was a parked car (no hazard lights or anything). There was no way that I could stop in time, and the only way to avoid a 60MPH collision was to swerve blindly into the lane next to me (which I was luckily able to do safely). I fail to see the logic in the assumptions that "brick walls" don't happen on freeways at nighttime.