Nope, no law, because in court its the cops word against yours. Having a badge usually does allow you to pull stunts like that, corruption comes with power. They get a nice pat on the back for apprehending a street racer since its such a huge revenue generator and is in the spotlight. I keep my racing to the track because no chance of getting a felony hit there or hurting others. But I have seen undercover police instigate street races only to pull people over, has happened to me several times in tampa. Even once in naples, a cop with a red gt stang was reving like hell at me at a light, so i told him, sorry, i dont street race cops. He then pulled me over and told me he could take me to jail for saying something like that. My response, "Thats fine, I will cooperate in any means necessary officer."

 

Not legally in this country.

Amazing that we hire those that don't understand the law to enforce the law.

 

I find it interesting that you even consider generalizing from one specific law at one specific time - speed limits today - to all laws always.

How can anyone give a reasonable answer to that question? Should I answer as someone living in 2007 - when that isn't the law and offends even the meanest sensibilities - and have you reply, "J'accuse! You'd have broken the law!", or should I answer as someone living in 1850 - sharing the customary attitudes and beliefs of 1850's Americana - and have you reply, "J'accuse! You'd profit on human suffering and abuse"?

Your question is absurd.

 

I'm not trying to tell you anything of the sort; of course I've done 26 mph in a 25 zone, 46 mph in a 45 zone, and 56 mph in a 55 zone (if you're slowing from 85 to 45 you have to pass through 56 at some point: intermediate value theorem). It's a ridiculous generalization, however, from one individual - yours truly - speeding to everybody speeding.

You really need to avoid these unsupported generalizations; they weaken your argument.

Note, too, that, at least in California, we have a prima facie speed law; if 56 mph is safe even when the posted speed limit is 55 mph, I'm doing nothing illegal by driving 56 mph.

 

No.

I'm a magician.

(Also a math teacher, finance teacher, risk management teacher, project management consultant, and software developer and marketer. I'm told it's called a portfolio career.)

 

I really believe that people's opinion of law enforcement and their motives is highly based on where they live.

i.e. People bitch about cops in VA and other places while here in Philly it seems like there aren't nearly enough of them.

 

I've been seeing this more and more frequently in MA/NH. It upsets me to the point where i'd like to pull over, and ask them nicely to put on at the least their running lights. However without a camera crew there, i'm not willing to approach them without a degree of fear of how they'll react.

Another "phenomena" i've noticed; Where are the police officers during inclimate weather? Short of serious snow storms in which accidents are prevalent, i've never seen someone pulled over in the rain. If anything, speeding in the rain is even more dangerous (all other things remaining equal) given the reduction in grip, decreased visibility etc and yet there is no visable speed limit enforcement.

 

It's no less interesting than what you seem to be proposing, ie that we all obey all laws at all times just because it's the law.

I brought up that specific example because it WAS the law in 1850. You're telling me you wouldn't have known right from wrong?

My question is no more absurd than your views on speed limits.

 

Now you're being pedantic.

Maybe you live where people drive below the speed limit. I don't. The speed limit on I-95 is 55mph. Earlier this week, I was doing 85mph and had to move over for a minivan who must have been doing close to 100mph.

I'd say most people are doing 75-85mph in morning rush hour.

Unlike California, we do not have a prima facie speed law. In this area, if you're doing 56mph in a 55 zone, you're a target.

I don't even know what argument you're trying to win here. You can disagree with my opinion that speed limits are really for revenue enhancement, but that doesn't make it untrue.

Why are we allowed buy cars that do more than 65mph in NJ?

How much money would the state lose if they lost revenue from speeding tickets?

How many jobs would be lost if we didn't have clogged traffic courts all over the country?

How much money would the insurance companies lose if people no longer got traffic tickets and points for driving at normal speeds?

And from the NMA website:

Q. How should speed limits be set?
A. Traffic engineers maintain that speed limits should be established according to the 85th percentile of free flowing traffic. This means the limit should be set at a level at or under which 85 percent of people are driving. Numerous studies have shown that the 85th percentile is the safest possible level at which to set a speed limit.


Q. What are "realistic" speed laws?
A. According to a pamphlet produced by the Washington State Department of Transportation relating to speed limits, "realistic" speed limits should invite public compliance by conforming to the behavior of the most drivers. This would allow the police to easily separate the serious violators from the reasonable majority.

Q. Isn't slower always safer?
A. No, federal and state studies have consistently shown that the drivers most likely to get into accidents in traffic are those traveling significantly below the average speed. According to an Institute of Transportation Engineers Study, those driving 10 mph slower than the prevailing speed are six times as likely to be involved in an accident. That means that if the average speed on an interstate is 70 mph, the person traveling at 60 mph is far more likely to be involved in an accident than someone going 70 or even 80 mph.

Q. Wouldn't everyone drive faster if the speed limit was raised?
A. No, the majority of drivers will not go faster than what they feel is comfortable and safe regardless of the speed limit. For example, an 18-month study following an increase in the speed limit along the New York Thruway from 55 to 65 mph, determined that the average speed of traffic, 68 mph, remained the same. Even a national study conducted by Federal Highway Administration also concluded that raising or lowering the speed limit had practically no effect on actual travel speeds.


Q. Don't higher speed limits cause more accidents and traffic fatalities?
A. No, if a speed limit is raised to actually reflect real travel speeds, the new higher limit will make the roads safer. When the majority of traffic is traveling at the same speed, traffic flow improves, and there are fewer accidents. Speed alone is rarely the cause of accidents. Differences in speed are the main problem. Reasonable speed limits help traffic to flow at a safer, more uniform pace.

Q. Aren't most traffic accidents caused by speeding?
A. No, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) claims that 30 percent of all fatal accidents are "speed related," but even this is misleading. This means that in less than a third of the cases, one of the drivers involved in the accident was "assumed" to be exceeding the posted limit. It does not mean that speeding caused the accident. Research conducted by the Florida Department of Transportation showed that the percentage of accidents actually caused by speeding is very low, 2.2 percent.

Q. Aren't our roads more dangerous than ever before?
A. No, our nation's fatality rate (deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled) is the lowest it has ever been. The total number of fatalities has also stayed relatively stable for several years. They do occasionally increase, but given that our population and the distance the average person drives are also increasing, this is not surprising, nor is it cause for alarm.

Q. If nobody follows the speed limit, why does it matter that they are underposted?
A. According to a speed-limit brochure published in conjunction with the Michigan State Patrol, inappropriately established speed limits cause drivers to take all traffic signals less seriously. The brochure also points out that unrealistic speed limits create two groups of drivers. Those that try to obey the limit and those that drive at a speed they feel is safe and reasonable. This causes dangerous differences in speed.

Q. Don't lower speed limits save gas?
A. No, research has shown that the 55-mph National Maximum Speed Limit, which was enacted specifically to save gas, had practically no impact on fuel consumption. This is partly because people do not obey artificially lower speed limits. It is also because the differences in travel speeds that result from unreasonable limits waste gas. Most fuel is used to accelerate to a given speed. Speed limits based on actual travel speeds promote better traffic flow, which reduces the amount of braking and accelerating on our roads. This has a positive effect on fuel consumption.

 

Some more material...

LIDAR dates back to the early 1990s, when Kustom released their ProLaser, and Laser Technology, Inc. released its first unit, the 20-20. LTI almost didn't make it to release, though. The company, founded in 1985, was strapped for cash as it worked on its new LIDAR product. They needed money, and guess who brought cash to the table? The insurance companies.

GEICO, an insurance company that was initially founded for US government employees, stepped in with a $950,000 loan. The reasons are simple: Speeding tickets result in increased insurance premiums, and better enforcement technology results in more speeding tickets. GEICO's loan was the birth of what I like to call the Speeding Industry.

The Speeding Industry

Here's how it works: Insurance companies support communities and police departments through donations of LIDAR devices, money, and loans. Read through the minutes of your city council or town meeting, and don't be surprised when you see a line item that reads, "Approved: Donation of LTI Marksman 20-20 laser gun." Speeding fines go directly into the coffers of that town or city. For the government, it's a no-brainer. Accepting that donation is like accepting free money. The insurance companies, though, get the real benefit. In the United States, a single speeding violation can send your premium up by hundreds of dollars - and depending on your state, you could be paying that higher rate for years. As anyone who has been found guilty of a speeding violation will tell you, the fine is nothing compared to the ongoing insurance rate hike.

The final ingredient in this cottage industry is the cooperation of the public. After all, we're all participants (if somewhat unwitting) in this game - it couldn't continue without the implicit support of taxpayers and motorists. This is the reason we are led to believe, by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, police departments, and motor vehicle bureaus, that all traffic violations are dangerous.

How does this explain the existence of the speed trap, though? The speed trap, entrenched in our driving culture and the daily lives of police officers, is a practice designed for one purpose: Catching people who are exceeding the speed limit. There is something wrong with this goal. Shouldn't the goal of highway police be to catch unsafe drivers, not speeders? At some point speeders have been equated with unsafe drivers, and we are all suffering for it.

The IIHS will tell you that "Speed is a factor in 30 percent of all fatal crashes, killing an average of 1,000 Americans every month."1 If you didn't look carefully, you might think they were declaring a causal relationship between speed and fatal crashes - they're not. Incidentally, doesn't this statistic mean that 70 percent of fatal crashes don't involve speeding?

According to the Washington State Department of Transportation, the actual danger is when motorists are traveling at varying speeds. Research has not supported the claim that lower speed limits result in fewer accidents, but it has shown that if most drivers operate at the same speed, accidents will be reduced.2 You may be surprised to learn that there is a proven method for accomplishing the goal of similar speeds for most drivers, and it's called the "85th percentile speed."

The 85th Percentile

We must assume these four points2 when determining public policy on speeding:

The majority of motorists drive in a safe and reasonable manner
The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable person should be considered to be legal
Laws are established for the protection of the public and the regulation of unreasonable behavior of a few individuals
Laws cannot be effectively enforced without the consent and voluntary compliance of the majority
Raising and lowering speed limits has not been shown to influence the speed that most drivers operate at. A reasonable basic speed rule should be based on a proven statistic: The speed limit should be set at the maximum speed that 85 out of 100 drivers travel at. At the 85th percentile speed, the differential between driving speeds is reduced, and consequently accidents are reduced.
Unfortunately, the goal of the Speeding Industry is not to reduce accidents. A study by the United States Department of Transportation3 showed that changes in speed limits barely caused drivers to change their average speed. An obvious finding was that raising the speed limit reduced violations, and lowering the speed limit raised violations. On average, the speed limits on the roads they measured were set at 45th percentile speeds - meaning, over half of drivers exceed the posted speed limit. A study by the Cato Institute4 found that since the repeal of the national 55 MPH speed limit in 1995, traffic fatalities have continued to decrease in frequency.

Most states claim to set speed limits at "safe and reasonable" speeds. Is it reasonable to turn more than half of all drivers into criminals? Is it safe to promote such disparity in traveling speeds by enforcing unrealistic speed limits?

Enforcement vs. Safety

I'd also like to bring up a point about roadblocks. Many departments have taken to screening drivers using mandatory checkpoints. Most frequently, checkpoints are used to combat seat belt violations and DWI. Checkpoints have been great for police departments. A 1995 Connecticut emphasis on roadblocks and enforcement was a success. There was a 33% increase in speeding tickets, a 51% increase in seat belt tickets, and a 22% increase in DWI arrests. Unfortunately, the biggest success was the rate of accidents: on highways that were targeted for enforcement, the rate of crashes rose by 66%.6

It should go without saying, but it doesn't. Roadblocks are an unconstitutional violation of 4th amendment rights in the United States. As usual, freedom is thrown out the window when the word safety is thrown around. Roadblocks are outlawed in some states, they are legal in others.

Oh, and if you're wondering what happened with my little laser ticket: I beat it. You see, the courts and police aren't interested in the small percentage of drivers who bother to fight tickets. Most people just mail the ticket in, and accept it as a "driving tax." It just isn't cost effective to battle every motorist in open court. If you fight your ticket, chances are it will be either reduced or thrown out. I beat mine on a technicality, which is your best bet for getting the ticket thrown out entirely. The most likely outcome is you will indicate to the prosecutor that you are interested in working something out. You'll bargain on a reduced sentence, the judge will ask if both parties agree, and your case will be closed.

The triangle of law enforcement, insurance, and local government has convinced us that they are operating in the best interests of safety for too long. In reality, they are not operating in your best interests, or the best interests of safety. They are only looking out for their own revenue stream, and if enough people realize this we can force them to do the right thing: Look out for our best interests.

References:

http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/qanda/speed_limits.htm
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/fossc/trafficopera...ffic/limits.htm
http://www.motorists.org/issues/speed/fhwa_report.html
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-346es.html
http://www.motorists.org/issues/enforce/vastudy.html
http://www.motorists.org/pressreleases/laborday.html