🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <22200@oasys.dt.navy.mil> dlee@oasys.dt.navy.mil (David Lee) writes:
>If this guy has a few points on his license, maybe it will do some good
>and slow him down a little. Might just save somebody's life.

By extension the speed limit should be zero, since that's the safest
speed.  Driving is inherently dangerous and (fundamentally) is simply a
tradeoff:  more mobility for most people vs. injury and death for
the unlucky.

If you want to *not* be a hazard, drive at a speed consistent with the
current traffic flow rate in your lane.  At least on 95 between
Baltimore and Washington, that means between 60 and 70; the Washington
post reported the average speed as being in the mid-60's.  (This was a
while back, when the police decided they'd crack down and reduce the
average speed.  Oh well.)  If you go either 50 or 80 you're probably
going to be disrupting the normal traffic pattern.

>I've driven in VA for a great many years; the state police normally "give'
>you 5 miles over the limit as an error.

Great.  Since the speed limit is obviously ridiculous compared to the
average speed (obviously what most people generally consider to be
reasonable), we just make the point at which the law is enforced
fuzzy.  That way everyone just drives the way they'd normally drive,
but 90% of the drivers are techincally breaking the law and can be
nailed whenever the state needs a little more money.  Remember that 55
is supposed to be the *absolute maximum*, not the average speed.  To
keep the speed limit in line with the real average traffic speed you'd
have to either raise the limit to 70 or slow most people down to 50 or 45.

Several truckers did an experiment in New Jersey back when the police
were doing their rolling roadblocks and nailing people for going 56:
they would block all the lanes going 55 miles an hour.  What happened?
Traffic backed up for miles, the implication being that, at least in
some areas, the road system is incapable of adequately sustaining the
amount of traffic that the reduced throughput an enforced 55 mph limit
would cause.

>Like the poster said earlier, "if you can't do the time, don't commit
>the crime"...

Jeez, this isn't murder, it's just speeding.  Personally, I'm not going
to do something demonstrably dangerous, regardless of whether being
safe (in my view) is illegal or not.  Driving 55 on 95 is not usually
safe (or, at the very least, not *as* safe as driving 65).  The police
know that, which is why they won't normally give you a ticket for going 60.

Your mileage may vary.  :)

W.r.t. radar, in my experience (which is admittedly limited to one
court visit during which I only heard about 10 cases in addition to my
own), if you place blame on the radar gun or operator, the judge will
either ignore it or tell you you're lying and double your fine.  (Then
again, maybe that judge was just having a bad day.)  The "Your Honor,
I'm usally a safe driver and I know I shouldn't have been going XX
miles an hour in an YY zone" seemed a lot more effective.  In the
original poster's case, it might be be best to say something like, "I
know the radar says XX, and even though I thought I was only going YY,
they're both against the law and I shouldn't have done it. (Boo-hoo)."
For some reason judges don't seem to appreciate any arguing in traffic
court.

Dave Baggett
dmb@wam.umd.edu