Pistonheads reports that Suffolk police are leading the charge to ensure that all UK motorists are banned from driving. OK, that's not the goal– even if it isn't entirely unimaginable. As befits the British Nanny State, the police are trying to ticket as many speeders as possible to stop them from killing themselves. Or others. Yes, we've been down this road (at the posted speed limit) before. But I think it's important for TTAC's Best and Brightest to appreciate the Suffolk Po-po's full commitment to public safety. Pistonheads reports that the constabulary nailed 94 percent more mobile scofflaws between April 21 and 27 than they'd collared during their previous six-day high water mark. We're talking 854 selfish bastards vs. 264 'scrotes. Assuming the absolute minimum possible fine for all [who bloody well should be] concerned– £44 or $86.2749– The Suffolk Old Bill added £37,576 ($73,668.63) to the county coffers. If they could maintain that pace (£6,262.66667 per day), they'd raise £2,285,873.33 ($4,481,316.10) in a year. But that's not the point, is it mate? Speaking on behalf of "you should see what I've scaped off the pavement" police everywhere, Sgt Steve Knight said a "significant" number of motorists have "failed to grasp the concept" that speed kills. "Motorists really have no excuse," he said.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
I’ve never been a fan of parental governments.. if i wanna be on the pavement then that should be okay. I got $400k in life insurance and that more than pays my debts to society and gives them some stimulus moneys
Apparently German motorists aren’t getting the message. There are still large portions of the Autobahn with no posted speed limits, and everyone seems to be doing just fine. Maybe we need to send Sgt. Knight on a German holiday.
Back in Pennsylvania, most fatal accidents are caused by drunk driving and making turns in front of oncoming traffic, not speeding.
When speeding is a contributing factor, it’s usually because a bunch of teenagers were speeding on a country road, where 60 mph is too fast. It’s not people driving 80 mph on a limited access highway.
And a fair number of drunk drivers don’t bother with seat belts, either, which further increases the chance of a fatality.
But targeting those drivers probably won’t generate sufficient revenue, so we’ll just continue saying the same old thing and hope that enough of the gullible accept it as true.
Left the UK about 16 years ago to move back home to the USA, then went back on vacation 8 years ago and was absolutely gob-smacked that drivers had actually reduced their speeds from 80-90 on motorways, to the speed limit of 70 on motorways. That was because of the speed cameras. By the time we went back on vacation again in 2005, speeds had crept back up. There are now devices that you can buy (kind of like GPS I think) to warn you to slow down before speed cameras.
Britain is such a nanny state, it’s awful. But the United States is rapidly following the UK (and Canada and most of the European nations too) down the same rocky road.
In one sense, I’m glad that at least in Michigan, speed cameras are illegal. On the other hand, for me personally, it doesn’t make much difference because I actually try to obey the rules of the road.
Yeah I know, I’m part of a “peculiar people.”
Yet they don’t have time for actual crimes against society like theft, vandalism, etc. I guess the difference is those crimes don’t pay (the police that is).
Does ‘speeding’ mean driving too fast ?
Or does ‘speeding’ mean merely driving faster than posted limits ?
That drivers everywhere should be somehow penalized if they drive too fast seems beyond question.
That drivers should be penalized for driving faster than legislators might happen to prefer is an outrage.
Many speed limits are so low that speeds in excess of the limit are not harmful, in which case, to drive at speeds in excess of the limit (but within the threshold of safety) is an innocent activity.
Police agencies, almost everywhere, however, are more than willing to harrass, delay, detain, fine and imprison drivers for merely exceeding posted limits.
This is what they call ‘prima facie’. The police don’t have to make a case against you, before a jury of your peers, that you were driving too fast. They merely have to show (through technical means: radar, laser, etc) that you were driving faster than the posted limit.
Yet, someone engaged in an innocent activity is an innocent person.
No individual, and no quantity of individuals has the right to punish innocent persons.
Your rights do not depend on the kindness of strangers, but, in the words of the Declaration, are inalienable.
Yes, your rights can be violated.
If, say, your fellow citizens somehow voted slavery back in, and you were required to report for duty, but declined to appear, they would most certainly issue a warrant for you as a ‘violator.’
But even though you ‘broke the law’, it is they, not you, who would be the ‘violator’.
Speed kills, we’ve heard it all before.
Lots of officers I’ve spoken with have told me that the vast majority of fatal accidents they’ve seen were cause by alcohol, drugs, lack of sleep, or distraction – not excessive speed.
My cousin was killed in a car accident when she fell asleep behind the wheel and her car crossed over a median and hit an on-coming car. No excessive speed was attributed to the fatality.
If the law-enforcement community really cared about preventing highway carnage, there would be random checks of sobriety and alertness on these roads instead of the radar toting gestapo.
-ted
Yet they don’t have time for actual crimes against society like theft, vandalism, etc. I guess the difference is those crimes don’t pay (the police that is).
Once again I will say that, in many cases, other, more serious crimes are solved due to leads from traffic stops. Tim McVeigh was stopped for a license plate issue. My brother is a narcotics officer who will tell you that many of their leads came from traffic stops (not all speeding, but quite a few). We have had conversations about this topic before.
To say that they don’t have time for “actual crimes” is just silly and shows what little that person knows about law enforcement.
I have a really novel idea – obey the posted speed limit and you will not get a ticket.
Do I agree with all the speed limits I see? No; some are too low and some are actually too high. Do I believe that “speed kills”? No, bad driving kills. Speed does increase the severity of a crash, but speed, in and of itself, does not kill.
However, given the skill of the typical American driver and the amount of attention they pay to what is going on, I think the speed limits are, generally speaking, about right. Like I said, some are too low and some are too high, but there are too many people who don’t need to be driving 40, much less 70+ mph.
I think it is too easy and too cheap to get and keep a license in this country. I think the training should be more intense and it should cost more than $16 for a four year license. Of course, no one in positions of power would abdicate such policies since they would be deemed a “burden” to many people.
I just don’t understand the reason people are so up in arms about this. I do just fine at 70 mph on the highway. I used to commute about 70 miles one way to work. If I want to go out and drive faster, I know I may be caught and ticketed. That’s the way it works.
This is the sort of shit you get when you continualy bow down to tyrants.
As for the residents of Suffolk County, if God didn’t want them to be fleeced, he wouldn’t have made them sheep.
you can’t blame the police for helping to balance their budget by enforcing the law, can you ;)
just a thought:
maybe, if the masses were better, less distracted drivers, there wouldn’t nearly as many accidents (at any ‘reasonable’ speed)… – then, there wouldn’t be the need for putting as much money into traffic enforcement and thus less speeding tickets…
Absolutely shocking how quickly the UK is accelerating down the steep, slippery slope of big-brother, police state nannyism. God help the British citizens/taxpayers who foot the bill for this instrusive surveillance and the very salaries of the police and the bureacrats who are foisting this travesty of freedom and justice on its citizens. And God help us in the U.S. from going down the same dark path.
improvement_needed :
just a thought:
maybe, if the masses were better, less distracted drivers, there wouldn’t nearly as many accidents (at any ‘reasonable’ speed)… – then, there wouldn’t be the need for putting as much money into traffic enforcement and thus less speeding tickets…
It needs saying that the UK was one of the safest countries for motoring ON EARTH before they started this anti-speeding jihad.
And anyway, legislating against a behaviour that the majority of the people practice is insane– even if it really is dangerous and the voters agree with the policy.
Think prohibition.
TexasAg03: Tim McVeigh was stopped for a license plate issue.
So, if he had just made sure that his Mercury had a valid license plate, he would still be free, blowing up buildings, because the police would have had no other leads? Highly unlikely.
TexasAg03: Once again I will say that, in many cases, other, more serious crimes are solved due to leads from traffic stops.
Traffic regulations are supposed to improve traffic safety, not give law enforcement officials a gateway or excuse to go on fishing expeditions for other crimes.
TexasAg03: I have a really novel idea – obey the posted speed limit and you will not get a ticket.
I have an even better idea – stop targeting drivers just because they happen to be exceeding two numbers posted on a sign that reflect either a need to generate revenue or the “speed kills” hysteria.
The federal government performed a study in the 1980s that determined that the safest drivers were traveling FASTER than the flow of traffic. The slowest drivers were some of the worst.
TexasAg03: I just don’t understand the reason people are so up in arms about this. I do just fine at 70 mph on the highway.
And lots of sophisticated, informed drivers like to travel at 80 mph, and don’t see why they should be pulled over and ticketed for violating an arbitrary number that has little, if anything, to do with improving highway safety.
Many speed limits are so low that speeds in excess of the limit are not harmful, in which case, to drive at speeds in excess of the limit (but within the threshold of safety) is an innocent activity.
No. A two year old taking a piece of candy is an innocent activity because he doesn’t know better. An adult driving in excess of the posted limit is not innocent. It may be true that the activity isn’t harmful, but it certainly isn’t innocent.
I hate tickets. Therefore I obey the speed limits. But that does not mean that I buy into the hypocrisy of speed enforcement.
There’s something deeply annoying about having the police take the easy way out (sitting in their cars using radar and lasers) rather than actually patrolling the roads looking for the sort of behavior that is much more likely to cause accidents such as tailgating, weaving, blocking the passing lane, agressive driving, etc.
Yes, I know law enforcement is tough. And, yes, I know that they catch some bad guys as a result of traffic stops. But to extend that logic, we would end up with mandatory stops of all traffic with subsequent searches of our vehicles regardless of probable cause. It’s the extension of that logic that must be opposed lest we end up as serfs in our own country.
but this ignores the role speed plays in fatal and serious road traffic collisions
Yep, speed is EEEVIL. If people weren’t moving, they wouldn’t have collisions, so let’s rob them of every dime we can steal until they can’t afford to move. Does robbing (ticketing) people reduce fatal accidents? No… Did lower speed limits reduce fatal accidents? No… Do unlimited speeds, a.k.a. Germany, increase fatal accidents? No… Did raising the speed limits in the US increas fatal accidents? No…
This is nothing more than another story of grand theft by the state.
Good point Wolven. Targeting the speeders makes no difference in safety. Just another means to make revenue.
And if you slow the vehicles down 20% that means at any one time you will have 20% more vehicles on the road. Which doesn’t sound safer.
They tried the speed cameras in Ontario one year and traffic deaths took a big jump. Maybe just a coincidence but the cameras were soon gone, along with the government that installed them.
[TexasAg03 wrote:] “An adult driving in excess of the posted limit is not innocent. It may be true that the activity isn’t harmful, but it certainly isn’t innocent.”
Okay, TexasAg03, can we agree that chewing gum is an innocent activity ?
Now, if an ordinance is passed against chewing gum, does chewing gum suddenly somehow stop being an innocent activity ?
So, if he had just made sure that his Mercury had a valid license plate, he would still be free, blowing up buildings, because the police would have had no other leads? Highly unlikely.
No, I didn’t say that.
Traffic regulations are supposed to improve traffic safety, not give law enforcement officials a gateway or excuse to go on fishing expeditions for other crimes.
I was responding to the point that police should be targeting people committing “real crimes”. Sometimes, serious offenders are stopped for traffic violations.
I have an even better idea – stop targeting drivers just because they happen to be exceeding two numbers posted on a sign that reflect either a need to generate revenue or the “speed kills” hysteria.
The federal government performed a study in the 1980s that determined that the safest drivers were traveling FASTER than the flow of traffic. The slowest drivers were some of the worst.
First, I have never had anyone tell me they were given a speeding ticket for anything less than 5 mph over the limit, and most were for 10+ mph over the limit.
That study was done during the 1980s when the speed limit was 55 mph. I would guess that the difference between the posted limit and the average speed of traffic was greater then than it would be now. Far more people drive closer to the limit since the speed limits were increased to around 70 mph. I remember driving when it was 55 mph. I got my license in 1986 and, as a new driver, I was very careful to drive the limit. I got passed like I was parked. It’s not that way now. Even doing the speed limit, I often pass many other cars on the road.
Maybe they should repeat the study…
And lots of sophisticated, informed drivers like to travel at 80 mph, and don’t see why they should be pulled over and ticketed for violating an arbitrary number that has little, if anything, to do with improving highway safety.
Sometimes I drive over the limit too, but if I get a ticket, that’s on me. I was speeding.
At what speed would you say people should be ticketed? I am curious. At some point there has to be a limit.
I’ve got an idea…how bout we start punishing people for committing crimes and not for possibly maybe being more likely to commit a crime. Our system does things like this, while drunk drivers (who haven’t actually committed a crime against another human until they cause an accident), are thrown in jail:
ELLICOTT CITY, Md. — The Howard County State’s Attorney’s Office says a driver who struck and killed a county police officer last year has paid her traffic fines.
Prosecutors say Stephanie Grissom of Columbia paid $310 in fines for speeding and negligent driving. She also received three points on her driving record.
Police say Grissom was driving 71 mph in a 55-mph zone on Route 32 when she struck Officer Scott Wheeler. The officer was working a speed enforcement detail and had stepped into the road to flag Grissom down when he was struck.
Cody: Well, if that officer wasn’t standing in the middle of the road, he probably wouldn’t have been hit, would he? No way driving 16 MPH over the speed limit was a significant factor there. If it was, Grissom would have been charged with vehicular homicide. She wasn’t probably because they knew they couldn’t convict.
Alright Geotpf, I’ll give a better example, one for which I know the details. My dad was killed 3 years ago by a teenager who failed to yield. Totally the kid’s fault. He got off with a fine and probation.
My point is that speeding itself is not a crime, so it shouldn’t be punished, the ends (an injury, damage to your vehicle, etc.) are crimes, and should be punished.
Okay, TexasAg03, can we agree that chewing gum is an innocent activity ?
Now, if an ordinance is passed against chewing gum, does chewing gum suddenly somehow stop being an innocent activity ?
Yes. If someone violates a law, they are not innocent. Now, the law may need to be changed, but if you violated it, you are guilty.
I would actually be in favor of banning gum. I get tired of stepping in it. :)
Yes, Britain has historically been about twice as safe to drive in compared to the US over the past several decades, largely due to the competency of the British drivers (which itself stems from the high standards of the British driving licence testing). Fully 56% of testees FAIL and fully 70% of those retesting FAIL. It’s nearly impossible to fail an American drivers license test, because the standards for passing are abysmally low in comparison.
I know. I moved to the UK from the US 23 years ago and was required to take the British test 22 years ago. I passed first time. Before I did that, I swallowed my pride and took lessons from the British School of Motoring, and essentially re-learned how to drive – not just “the British way” but competently.
Another point to ponder. I read a 1956 automobile test of a new Continental luxury car, and the specific orders for the writers were to drive on the then-new interstate from Chicago to New York, and obey the speed limit, and take copious notes. These notes indicated that their speed varied from 35 mph (construction zone) to 65 mph, and that between Chicago and the outskirts of New York City, they were only passed about a dozen times.
The point is this: 52 year ago, most people obeyed the road rules. After the “temporary” 55 mph speed limit was not repealed as politicians promised (after all it was only “temporary” for use during the 1973 fuel crisis, or so we were told), this fact essentially made SCOFFLAWS out of 99.9% of the American public. Because, people no longer saw the need to go slow – and began to realize that “speeding tickets” were just another way of revenue generation by municipalities and states. Not forgetting that this has always been the case, and that even in the 1950’s speed traps in little towns (complete with speed limit signs strategically placed behind trees out of sight) were fairly common – and widely hated.
So who was it that mentioned that only sheep get fleeced? Maybe if we the people took back control of our own government, we could change some of these activities, on either side of the pond.
Thing is, Policing costs money. Speed tickets have traditionally been used by Police Forces to raise revenue.
There is an alternative, but I expect the majority of voters would whine a lot louder about increased taxes than they do now about speeding tickets.
TexasAg03: As for ‘stepping in it’, gum may be the least of your worries.
In your view, ‘lawmakers’ may make any law they wish against whatever activity they wish.
Moreover they would seem to have a magical power to change gold into lead, to make an innocent activity a guilty one.
As an administrative, legislative act, it would take about five minutes for Congress to replace the U.S. Constitution with that of Cuba.
Would, in your view, anything be lost ?
We’d still have the Rockies, the Golden Gate Bridge, all of it. It’d still be called ‘The United States of America”.
What place does Freedom have at all, in your understanding ?
Why not remove “L I B E R T Y” from all the coins and replace it with the phrase, “LAW ENFORCEMENT” ?
How, on the basis of your view, could the American Revolution ever occurred ?
“I broke the law”, our 18th-century Patriot might say (if he wasn’t Patriotic, that is). “That’s on me. I should do always whatever King George decrees.”
But thankfully, they said other things, like,
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”
Yes, powerglide, but the majority of people in the United States can’t even be bothered to vote
and the VAST majority
a) can’t even be bothered to learn what the Constitution and Bill of Rights say
b) can’t even be bothered to think in terms of Liberty because they never bothered to learn what it means, either
c) have no real clue about why people such as Ron Paul, the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party and other patriots are trying to get us back on track
d) and are far more interested in what the Repugnican and Dhimmicrat party flavors of the year are willing to “give” them while pandering for votes (of course, what is being given away is actually other people’s money)
Say, does anyone know what time American Idol starts? (tongue in cheek)
In a nation where voting is possible, the people get the government they deserve.
At what speed would you say people should be ticketed? I am curious. At some point there has to be a limit.
Really??? Why? As most everyone in the world is aware, Germany has highways WITH NO SPEED LIMITS. And they have had for decades. According to your thinking, How can that be? Certainly they should all be dead by now.
The most depressingly ignorant assumption behind the “need” for speed limits is that human beings are SO STUPID they would kill themselves if the ultra intelligent guv’ment didn’t tell them what speed was safe. (If only it were that simple…)
Seriously folks, how many people would kill themselves if it weren’t for the posted speed limit? (Hint: not enough… :)
Germans generally don’t try to eat hamburgers while driving.
@ menno;
Right on, except for the voting part. The problem in America is that EVERYONE gets to vote. Now if you stop and think about this for a minute you’ll realize what I’m saying is true. The fact is, as you pointed out, MOST Americans are IGNORANT. And in a country where the MAJORITY rules, and EVERYONE gets to vote, and the MAJORITY is IGNORANT… Do you see the problem?
Powerglide,
I made the point in a prior post. If you want a law changed, then change it. Until then, if you violated it, you are not innocent in a legal sense. You may well be innocent morally, but not legally.
In your view, ‘lawmakers’ may make any law they wish against whatever activity they wish.
There’s no “may” about it; they can and, unfortunately, they do. If 70 mph is truly too slow, then vote people in who will change it.
I am against gun control, in general. I know that, even with a concealed carry license, if I carry a gun into a school or a hospital in Texas, I can be cited and arrested. I don’t agree with the way the law is written since the Constitution actually guarantees my right to bear arms, but the law is what it is.
I think it should change and I have written my senators and my representative to express that opinion. I have also asked them to do new studies on speed limits. I don’t believe that “speed kills” and I think that, in some cases, speeds are too low; in some cases, too high. I have also asked my senators and representatives to make it more difficult and more expensive to get a driver’s license.
It’s harder to get a license to sell insurance than it is to get a license to drive a 6,000 pound truck.
Really??? Why? As most everyone in the world is aware, Germany has highways WITH NO SPEED LIMITS. And they have had for decades. According to your thinking, How can that be? Certainly they should all be dead by now.
Remember, I am talking about America, where people can’t be bothered with paying attention to what they are doing while driving. They may need to text their kid while eating a Jumbo Jack and drinking a 44 oz. Coke. It’s all about the skill level and, in Germany, they’ve got the skill level to do it.
It is also much harder and more expensive to get a license in Germany. They take driving seriously. I think that if the typical American treated driving the same way the typical German does and the training was more rigorous, then we could have places with no speed limit.
Menno: Another point to ponder. I read a 1956 automobile test of a new Continental luxury car, and the specific orders for the writers were to drive on the then-new interstate from Chicago to New York, and obey the speed limit, and take copious notes. These notes indicated that their speed varied from 35 mph (construction zone) to 65 mph, and that between Chicago and the outskirts of New York City, they were only passed about a dozen times.
65 was reasonable in the ’50s and ’60s, given the handlng characteristics of the cars of the times. Also interstates were almost non-existent in 1956–the program was inaugurated by Eisenhower on June 29, 1956–although a few of the roads that became part of the interstate system were already built–PA tpk, NJ tpk, Maine tpk, and maybe others. Bottom line: 65mph would have been quite fast most of the way from Chi to NYC.
I can remember driving the Merritt (from close to New Haven to NYC) with my family of origin in the late ’50s and early ’60s in the 57 Chevy. It was twistier then than it is now, but there were curves where between the car and the road, you really didn’t want to exceed 45mph. Very different in my Accord.
TexasAG03:
Maybe you should read a prior posting in the News section of this site about the effectiuve elimination of vandalism as a crime in at least one UK jurisdiction (that is what I was referring to). My personal experience is that many police don’t give a rats ass about property crimes unless its their property.
Case 1:
A guy nailed your car and fled the scene? You can come down and file a report which will promptly be placed in the circular file, thank you. You have his license plate number? Oh, it’s an Oregon license. That’s out of state; and well, practically speaking, there’s nothing we can really do. We don’t have the time, and neither do the Oregon police, to follow up on a minor crime involving property damage.
Case 2:
Sir, do you know why I pulled you over? Your registration tag is expired. (Takes proof of registration and license to police car and comes back.) I see that your car is registered, but since you did not have your tags properly displayed (I hadn’t received them yet from the DMV though I paid the fee several weeks prior)I’m issuing you a ticket. You can send in the ticket with the court fees and proof that you have your tags within the next 30 days to avoid paying the fine.
Those have been my experiences.
[TexasAg03 wrote:] “If you want a law changed, then change it”
Sure, what could be more fair, let the people vote !
And let the rights of the minority (to Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, to Bear Arms, etc etc) depend on the whims of the majority, how they feel that day ?
I fail to see how this differs from a lynch mob, men with guns and opinions, unless it’s somehow important that the lynch mob happens to write down their decisions, and bind them into a little book…
Certainly it’s the view of Stephen A. Douglas, who wanted the States to be able to simply vote, up or down, on whether to be slave states.
What could be more fair ?
Unless, of course, it so happens “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.”
Would you approve of this conversation ?
“Miss Parks, if you’ll just move to the back of the bus I won’t arrest you.”
“I’ve as much right to be here as that white woman. In fact, I sat down here first, and she just now boarded the bus.”
“Look, ma’am, that’s the law–if you want the law changed, change it!”
No, no, a thousand times no.
“All men are created equal…they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights”
If you are engaged in an innocent activity, no lawmaker, no law, and no police can change that.
They cannot take away your rights–they can only VIOLATE your rights.
Democracy IS essentially a lynch mob. “Men with guns and opinions”, as you so brilliantly put it.
But weren’t the founders of American Independence ‘Men with guns and opinions’? The ancient Athenians? (OK, men with swords and opinions), as were the Barons who forced a King to sign Magna Carta, and the peasants who fired a revolution of Liberty in France.
Democracy is essentially a fancy word for ‘Mob Rule’, but WE the people are that mob, and whatever faults the system may have, it’s proven to be far preferable to the alternatives.
This is why there are no (successful nation-state level) democracies. There’s democratic republics, parliamentary democracies and various riffs on representative republicanism and so forth, but real democracies in the one-man-one-vote sense? No, and we’re better for it.
So no, no mob rule, no populism. We have something somewhere in between, and given what we have to work with its about as good as its going to get. Real democracy would end up being about as horrible as anyfull-bore authoritarianism. Heck, it would probably devolve into authoritarianism in a very short time.
d) and are far more interested in what the Repugnican and Dhimmicrat party flavors of the year are willing to “give” them while pandering for votes (of course, what is being given away is actually other people’s money)
Actually, I’m among those who is more interested in what they won’t give me, because I know that means they are taking something away from others and myself as well in order to give something to me.
In a nation where voting is possible, the people get the government they deserve.
I would actually say that any nation gets the government that they deserve. In many places throughout the world, people have revolted only to replace one despot with another.
I’m enjoying all the comments though. It’s refreshing to see someone questioning authority in a positive way.
Good point David Holzman. I have a stock ’58 Chevy, and I wouldn’t want to drive it 65 in many cases. It just wouldn’t be safe. Modern cars are much safer at higher speeds; now we just need to make the drivers themselves safer. A retired CHP officer recently told me that if it weren’t for the brass discouraging it, they would put districted driver/inattention as the cause in 75% of all accidents. Road conditions, mechanical failure, or plain bad luck are almost never the cause.
Remember, I am talking about America, where people can’t be bothered with paying attention to what they are doing while driving. They may need to text their kid while eating a Jumbo Jack and drinking a 44 oz. Coke. It’s all about the skill level and, in Germany, they’ve got the skill level to do it.
I’m willing to bet if we eliminated the speed limits on the highways, people wouldn’t be doing the things you mentioned while driving. You would see the skill level would rise dramatically, quickly.
It’s BECAUSE they don’t HAVE to pay attention to herd their vehicle along at the speed limit that they DON’T. Remember, the speed limit is set for the slowest common denominator… where ANY incompetent, ignorant, idiot SHOULD still be able to keep it between the lines.
And let the rights of the minority (to Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, to Bear Arms, etc etc) depend on the whims of the majority, how they feel that day ?
So, we should just let everyone do what they want? It sounds to me like you want no rules.
Certainly it’s the view of Stephen A. Douglas, who wanted the States to be able to simply vote, up or down, on whether to be slave states.
What could be more fair ?
So now speed limits are the equivalent of slavery? I think comparing the issue of speed limits to slavery and the civil rights movement is low. As a matter of fact, it is disgusting.
I’m willing to bet if we eliminated the speed limits on the highways, people wouldn’t be doing the things you mentioned while driving. You would see the skill level would rise dramatically, quickly.
You may be right, and I certainly would hope so. I still say we need more rigorous driver training, not to mention better roads…
Michigan and some 16 other states had no daytime speed limit until some time in the 1950’s, despite the low tech cars. In fact, about 10 miles from my house, on a back road, there is a road sign that states “speed limit ends” in plain English. (Yeah, I live in a rural area of Michigan).
I would be happy and pleased to drive 65 mph on two lane roads in a 1956 Studebaker Golden Hawk with single circuit drum brakes, a big supercharged V8, no collapsable steering column and only accessory option dealer fitted lap belts – IF – the roads were kept as well as they should be considering the taxes I pay in; my fellow drivers were as competent as British or German drivers generally are; and my car was in safe and sound condition.
It speaks volumes that in 2002, I finally concluded that, being surrounded by inattentive, often imbecilic and downright dangerous drivers who apparently think rules don’t have any place on the roadway and drive accordingly, I chose to specifically buy a car with side-air-bags.
By 2005, I had added curtain air bags, ABS, vehicle stability control and brake assist to my requirements for a safe car. Not because MY driving was getting worse, but because tailgating, red light/stop sign running, cell phone use/weaving and other dangerous driving had become absolutely pandemic.
TexasAg03:
The question of whether I’m low and/or disgusting I’m content to leave for another day.
The question, central here throughout, is whether people have rights.
If they have rights, that means they have rights absolutely secure against the will of the majority.
That then means that the majority must confine itself to Constitutional laws only, laws that do not violate the rights of the people.
That then implies that no, the legislators may NOT make any law they wish against any activity they wish.
TexasAg03: That study was done during the 1980s when the speed limit was 55 mph. I would guess that the difference between the posted limit and the average speed of traffic was greater then than it would be now. Far more people drive closer to the limit since the speed limits were increased to around 70 mph. I remember driving when it was 55 mph. I got my license in 1986 and, as a new driver, I was very careful to drive the limit. I got passed like I was parked. It’s not that way now. Even doing the speed limit, I often pass many other cars on the road.
Here in Pennsylvania, 75 mph is about the average speed on limited access, rural highways. That is more a function of improved cars with better control of noise, vibration and harshness than the higher speed limit (which went from 55 mph to 65 mph in late 1995).
When the speed limit initially changed, I noticed no real increase in the speed of traffic. People do drive faster NOW, 13 years later, but, as I said, that is largely because of improved vehicles.
TexasAg03: At what speed would you say people should be ticketed? I am curious. At some point there has to be a limit.
Yes, we should ticket left-lane campers, regardless of their speed. If there has to be a speed limit, I would set it at 80 mph for Pennsylvania in rural areas.
Realistically, many western states wouldn’t need one for rural interstates.
powerglide said “The question, central here throughout, is whether people have rights.
If they have rights, that means they have rights absolutely secure against the will of the majority.
That then means that the majority must confine itself to Constitutional laws only, laws that do not violate the rights of the people.
That then implies that no, the legislators may NOT make any law they wish against any activity they wish.”
Precisely and well said. To accomplish this (” majority must confine itself to Constitutional laws only”) requires living in a REPUBLIC, and not a Democracy. In a Democracy, the majority which rules simply sets rules to steal from the minority. The United States was established and is to this day, supposed to be a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy.
But a massive majority of the US public think we live in a Democracy, and don’t even understand the difference.
Ignorance (by design by those intent on obtaining and retaining power) is our downfall.
When I swore to defend and protect the United States Constitution from enemies both from without and within, the day I joined the military, there was no time-limit on that oath.
99% of the current politicians are seditious and a good portion are treasonous.
That is, if you believe in God, the United States of America and the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Yeah it may sound corny, but if you don’t believe in any higher power than other human beings, then the laws of man will simply come and go at the whim of the powerful, and the people will be in no better situation than East Germans were under the heel of the Stazi blackboots, or under Stalin’s KGB.
The United States Constitution was written for a people who believed in God and is wholly unsuited for any other (peoples) – paraphrased but accurate.
98% of teens are unchurched. 95% of churched college students leave their faith. We Americans are less than a generation from being in the same situation as Western Europe and Britain, and all that entails.
The fate of our American nation was and always will be tied to the faith or lack of faith, of the population, in a manner which the world has never seen before and probably won’t see again.
The question, central here throughout, is whether people have rights.
If they have rights, that means they have rights absolutely secure against the will of the majority.
Of course the people have rights. Hundreds of thousands of people died for that ideal in this country. To say that we don’t have rights is just flat-out silly. Even sillier if you feel a speed limit violates your rights. I’m sure there are families of dead soldiers who would gladly shake your hand because you stood up for the little guy about speed limits.
Not being able to voice your thoughts to the government violates your rights. Denying you an attorney when accused of a crime violates your rights (you don’t need an attorney for minor traffic violations like speeding). Depriving you of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law violates your rights (meaning all those can be taken away if you are found guilty of breaking the law). Having a speed limit does not violate your rights.
You have the right to petition your local, state and federal representative if you do not agree with a law. Just because you don’t agree with a law doesn’t mean it has to be changed. The Civil Rights Movement worked because a majority of people DID believe in equal rights for all. But that is FAAARRR more important than a 25mph speed limit in a residential neighborhood.
You may need to check out the Schoolhouse Rock “I’m Just a Bill” cartoon to refresh you on how the government works rather than listening to Lou Dobbs or Glen Beck.
Not because MY driving was getting worse, but because tailgating, red light/stop sign running, cell phone use/weaving and other dangerous driving had become absolutely pandemic.
That is precisely the problem. I wish I had enough confidence in other drivers to have unlimited speeds (in certain areas). It’s not that I wouldn’t like to be able to drive as fast as I want, but there are too many people who can’t handle it. That’s why I don’t have an issue with speed limits as they are set now (with some exceptions).
That then implies that no, the legislators may NOT make any law they wish against any activity they wish.
The point I was trying to make is that legislators already pass virtually any law they want and many times there is no challenge. Obviously, a gum ban (that sounds a bit familiar) would be ludicrous and no one would ever propose such a law.
Look, I am not a huge fan of government; I hold conservative views on almost every issue. If people had more sense, then I would be in favor of relaxing speed limits. I also think that the infrastructure would need some upgrades. I just don’t see where having speed limits is a violation of anyone’s rights.
If we could make it so that the people driving were properly trained and the roadways were of better quality, then I would be all for higher speed limits and, in some areas, no speed limits. I just don’t think that the current culture in America would submit to the training and discipline that would require. Could many people do it? Yes, of course. I just don’t know if it would be enough.
The fate of our American nation was and always will be tied to the faith or lack of faith, of the population, in a manner which the world has never seen before and probably won’t see again.
Well put.
That is, if you believe in God, the United States of America and the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Yeah it may sound corny, but if you don’t believe in any higher power than other human beings, then the laws of man will simply come and go at the whim of the powerful, and the people will be in no better situation than East Germans were under the heel of the Stazi blackboots, or under Stalin’s KGB.
The United States Constitution was written for a people who believed in God and is wholly unsuited for any other (peoples) – paraphrased but accurate.
I was completely agreeing with you up to this point. Then it went horribly wrong. I do not have a belief in any higher power. Yet, strangely, my belief in the truth and wisdom of the Constitution might well equal that of your religious belief. How can this be? Either there is something wrong with me, or your absolute association of religion with constitituional republicanism is wrong.
Jefferson wrote “…are endowed by their creator…”. Despite my agnosticism, I have never had a problem with this line because it is no problem whatsoever for me to believe that my rights come strictly because of my existence, regardless of who or what created me.
AutoFan,
Actually this is a disputed point. “Due process of law” doesn’t, and can’t, merely mean “we filled out all the forms we’re s’posed to, now you’re going to jail”.
Hence a stronger term, “substantive due process” came into use, indicating that authorities really have to have a case against you.
I didn’t mean to leave the term ‘rights’ unguarded. The context, above, shows that I mean inalienable rights.
If the Government gives you a ‘right’ to deliver some mail, say, over a given distance, they can take it away from you later.
Many people see rights similarly. You have the right to live, be free, only until the majority goes against you. Then you lose your rights.
The Civil Rights Movement worked because King and others appealed over the heads of the majority (who didn’t allow that blacks had certain rights) to the Declaration and inalienable rights.
Rights given by a Creator, are part of who you are, and cannot be separated from you.
I’m sorry you think me silly because I think a speed limit could violate my rights.
Do you believe that driving faster than five mph, on a good road, etc. is a crime ?
If not, then it is an innocent activity.
The speed limit was 5 once. I didn’t mean to write 55, either. The speed limit was five.
If our legislators make the limit 5 again, are you now a criminal for driving six ?
[TexasAg03 wrote:] “Obviously, a gum ban (that sounds a bit familiar) would be ludicrous and no one would ever propose such a law.”
OK, how about a law against growing wheat–for your own use–on your own property ? Such a law was upheld by the Supreme Court and the ‘violators’ punished.
Finally, if you guys are indifferent to whether ‘speeding’ penalties go only to those driving too fast, or to all who are merely in excess of posted limits, that seems to suggest that we can cure ‘speeding’ once and for all.
Raise all limits to 270 mph, and you’ll have almost no speeders on the roads.
Raise the blood alcohol limit to 100% and you’ll have no drunk drivers either.
“But !” you might say. “We’d have so many impaired drivers, who’d kill so very many people !”
Exactly.
It’s not ‘violating’ some statute that kills, it’s driving dangerously.
Hence, the Basic Speed Law:
“No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property”
In October 1960, the speed limit on the Maine Turnpike was 80 mph. Yes, that’s 80. The sight lines of that road were designed for that speed.
My father drove our tiny Ford Anglia from Ithaca, NY, to Bar Harbor Maine, 679 miles in 12 and a half hours, and a lot of it was 2 lane.
We stopped only for gas and nature, and had good fun passing all the Saab two strokes. We could do 80, but they couldn’t. Most cars were doing about 75.
That was my first visit to the US, and we were impressed with the roads compared to Canada.
Now it’s 2008, and while folks may travel at 80 plus, the speed limit is usually less. Cars are 10 times more capable than 1960 models, no 2 ply rayon bias ply tires, no drum brakes up front.
Speed limits have not moved with the times, that’s for sure, and over in the UK, it’s bullshit city with the speed cameras. Even good drivers over there have citations and points on their license. So, if they take it on the chin without changing their government, well tough luck on them.
bunkie:
I hear, respect you.
But as Robert likes to keep things on-topic, and as I’ve already strayed enough for one day, instead of addressing your concern in this forum, might I hope you would thoughtfully consider the view expressed here:
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=143
A couple of heathens made these comments about Christianity and the founding of the country:
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson
It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
-John Adams
That’s The Truth About the Founding Fathers. No more religious revisionism, please.
Yes please. Bringing invisible sky pixies into the debate only ever produces heat, never light.
Sgt Steve Knight said a “significant” number of motorists have “failed to grasp the concept” that speed kills. “Motorists really have no excuse,” he said.
except that it doesnt…
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/main.html
half the facts used by the do-gooder-we-know-better-than-you-do-do-as-we-say thought police are made up/fudged
Here in the US we have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. On the interstates, I like to Pursue Happiness at somewhere between 80 & up…
Furthermore, I believe we have the RIGHT to free (unrestricted) travel within the US. Since we no longer use horses and carriages, I would argue that driving a vehicle on the roads is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Unfortunately, the sheeple have let the guv’ment turn it into a state granted (and denied) privilege.
Very interesting info about fatality likelihood and speed on this site, from the UK btw:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/12mph.html
And another analysis from the 90’s which concludes mainly traffic density kills.
http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/speedsci.html
Speed limits are not about safety. Cars are required to by federal law in the US to meet certain minimal standards to ensure the passengers in vehicles will likely survive a 30 mph crash.
So if the speed limit is really about all this maximal safety, at best, you would not allow any speed limits to exceed 30 mph. I guess considering two cars can hit head on you might really need to make it 15 mph. (Yes I know the physics of a head on at 15 mph doesn’t equal 30 mph into a fixed object, but we would be requiring way too much of our gov’t to get that involved). So if you let limits be more than 30 mph it isn’t just about safety. Either there are other trade offs from maximum safety for higher speeds or it isn’t about safety at all.
Okay so maybe it is about reasonable safety. Speed at which at least an observant driver can safely operate. Plenty of info indicates posted speed limits are usually below this speed. Over and over again it is observed the speed at which 85% of the people drive on a road is the safe speed limit for the road. Google “85th percentile” and “speed limit” and knock yourself out reading about it.
Another report from a senior policeman this week told us that the millions spent on CCTV was a waste of money because it didn’t reduce crime or help solve crimes.
Acts of violence are the #1 crime that the British public want reduced. The police are there to serve the public.
The British public does not regard speeding as the #1 crime.
The police really should get on with doing something useful – tackle knife crime and gun crime not somebody doing 35mph in a 30mph zone.
bunkie, nobody “demands” that you believe in a higher power than yourself, not even God himself.
Otherwise we’d merely be robots. That is why there is free will. You can believe that or not, too. It’s still a free country!
But the facts are that many of the founders were devout Christians of various denominations or traditions, in fact the vast majority were. That is historically accurate and very well known. At least, until “newspeak” rewrites history, anyway. It’s also known that many did not believe that this nation could stand long without God, and that God delivered this nation to freedom in our war for independence.
I have an agnostic or possibly atheist friend and colleague at work who has worked relentlessly to see that Ron Paul is elected President of the United States. I would describe him as a constitutionalist and libertarian, and I respect him and his right to have his own beliefs and opinions about faith, and all other subjects.
Even agsnostics and atheists can recognize that there is something “special” and unique about the United States and recognize that going back to basics – and actually paying attention to the United States Constitution – would be advantageous for all.
Personally, with regards to speed limits, I would love to see higher speed limits on roads where this could be safe, AND even more importantly, would love to see the retraining of all drivers on the road to British or German standards, which will do more to improve safety than anything else we could do. Because in the UK and Germany, a good number of drivers actually concentrate on their driving while driving! I know, what a novel idea, eh? That is they are driving, instead of behind behind the steering wheel while-
-drinking latte
-slapping the kids in the back of the minivan
-yakking continuously on the cell phone
-eating a Burger King whopper while steering (?) with their knees
-texting friends
-or doing all of the above pretty much at the same time
But the facts are that many of the founders were devout Christians of various denominations or traditions, in fact the vast majority were.
The intellectual firepower behind the Constitution and Declaration of Independence came from “deists,” an 18th century version of political correctness that was used to describe agnostics and atheists.
Jefferson coined the term “wall of separation” for a reason. Clearly, we didn’t build that wall high enough. Should have included a fringe of barbed wire along the top and a few guard towers, while we were at it.
@menno
“The United States Constitution was written for a people who believed in God”
I think you’ll find that a large number of the immigrants who built what is now the great Nation that is the United States of America were in fact fleeing from people who believed in their particular version of God a little too much.
The part in the First Amendment prohibiting State endorsement of religion wasn’t just put in to fill blank space. Think about it – it’s in the FIRST amendment, there with the things that the Nation’s architects considered essential and vitally impotrant. Some of them still remembered life in countries with state-sponsored religions.
(Side observation – US has Constitutional prohibition of religion in State business, and has “In God We Trust” printed on the banknotes. Here in the UK, we have an official state endorsed religion, and what do we have on our banknotes? – Charles Darwin. Makes you think…)
p.s. – Ron Paul – Isn’t he the guy who wants to reinstate the Gold Standard for the US Dollar?
That would work out just fine as long as you were OK with either the Dollar being devalued to around 3 Cents value, or thee price of gold rising to 1.5 million Dollars an ounce. There are just so many more Dollars out there in the world than grammes of gold.