Fight Your Speeding Ticket With Simple Math
December 10th, 2007 Posted in Speed Limits, Traffic Tickets
Many speeding tickets are issued as the result of motorists being clocked with devices that measure how fast a vehicle covers a known distance.
Because some judges and district attorneys are not comfortable with mathematical calculations it is important for the well-prepared defendant to present mathematical based arguments in the simplest of terms. We will start from the end and work backwards.
A vehicle moving one mile per hour will cover 1.47 feet in one second.
If you wish to determine how far a vehicle will travel at a specific speed just multiply that speed by 1.47 feet. For example, if a vehicle is traveling 60 mph it will cover 88 feet in one second. Obviously, it will cover 176 feet in two seconds, etc.
If you are trying to determine how many seconds it would take a vehicle to cover a known distance at a specific speed just divide the distance by the speed and divide the result by 1.47 feet.
This will yield the number of seconds it would take the vehicle to cover a known distance at a known speed.
For example: A vehicle traveling 60 mph will cover 300 feet in 3.4 seconds—-300 divided by 60 divided by 1.47 = 3.4 seconds. If need be you can verify this calculation by multiplying 3.4 seconds times 88 feet (the distance traveled in one second at 60 mph) and the result brings you back to 300 feet.
If you are challenged on the validity of the 1.47 feet per second figure you can prove its validity in very simple terms.
- There are 5280 feet in one mile so a vehicle traveling one mile per hour will cover 5280 feet.
- There are 60 minutes in one hour so a vehicle traveling one mile per hour will travel 1/60th of that distance in one minute, or 88 feet.
- There are 60 seconds in one minute so a vehicle traveling at one mile per hour will cover 1/60th of the distance it covered in one minute, or 1.47 feet.
You could also state that there are 3600 seconds in one hour and divide that number into 5280 feet and the result would be the same, 1.47 feet.
Once the court accepts and understands the source of these numbers you can apply them to your defense.
If you receive a VASCAR ticket you should obtain a description of the distance over which you were clocked, the time it took your vehicle to cover that distance and the speed you are charged with traveling.
If the citation or incident report claims you covered 300 feet in 4.2 seconds and you are being charged with speeding at 60 mph in a 50 mph zone you can readily verify the accuracy, or lack thereof in this case, of the speed you were claimed to be traveling.
At 60 mph you would have traveled 370 feet, not 300 feet. However, at 50 mph you would have traveled 309 feet in 4.2 seconds, indicating that you were driving within the speed limit.
Even if the calculations indicated the error was in the opposite direction, that your speed was underestimated, the speed-reading should not be allowed as evidence against you, thus eliminating the prosecutions principal evidence against you.
In other cases involving radar or pacing, time over distance calculations can prove serious inconsistencies in the officer’s testimony.
If the officer testifies that he clocked your vehicle for 5 seconds and you were going 80 mph, you can prove, by using time over distance calculations, that the officer could not have seen you for more than two seconds, because of a curve or sign, if you had been traveling 80 miles per hour.
For more advice on how to fight an unfair speeding ticket, consider joining the NMA.
Image Credit: JonOakley
Other Related Articles
- What Everyone Should Know About Laser Guns
- Utah Speed Limit Increase Has No Effect On Speed Or Safety
- Reinstating "55," Are They Crazy?!
- Do Speeding Tickets Deter Drivers From Speeding?
- The Effect Of A National Speed Limit On Traffic Safety & Fuel Prices
To change the picture next to your comments, sign up at Gravatar.com. Each picture is associated with a particular email address. (This is a third-party service not affiliated with NMA.)
I’d say fight all speeding tickets. Speeding tickets are all about revenue generation. Logjam the courts.
This article just sickens me.
http://www.southtownstar.com/news/692198,121207355speeders.article
You pay to use the tollway, and then you pay again for violating a ridiculously underposted speedlimit.
55mph on a three lane divided highway, what is that, the 50th percentile?
“Logjam the courts.”
Yes, make the process of obtaining motorists’ cash less rewarding and the “safety” issue will disappear. Remember, the ticket to fight is your first one, not your last. Rent the NMA “Legal Defense Kit,” well worth the pittance that it costs, learn how to fight, spend some time in traffic court well before your “trial” and have your eyes opened. Come on folks, let’s fight this monster.
Since when is speeding a legal right? Personally, I wish there were more cops on the road taking you folks down. Speeding is dangerous. I can’t count the number of times A-holes jump into the right lane (where I always drive because I cruise control at 60) because 70 or 75 is not fast enough. When are these folks going to realize they’re not the only ones on the road and that life is more precious than saving a few minutes (or seconds in even shorter drives)?
Do I have to mention the savings in gas and money by driving a sane speed?
Get over your self-righteousness, folks.
this has got to be a hiway patrol or a state trooper making this lame comment
Darren writes:
{Since when is speeding a legal right?}
Wrong question. The question should be: Since when should “speeding” be a crime? Speed limits are not now and never have been part of the universal rule of right of way (URROW) that determines who goes here and when. URROW was a legal solution to an organizational problem but speed limits were not part of that. In fact, speed limits’ original intent was to drive the newly invented horseless carriage out of existence, an obviously failed Luddite approach to new technology. Yet, they carry over into modern law, justified or excused by any number of things, none of which yield any benefit to any motorist.
{Personally, I wish there were more cops on the road taking you folks down. Speeding is dangerous.}
No, it isn’t. “Speeding” is merely exceeding an arbitrary number and bears no correlation to crashes or crash rates. Speeding is merely a vestige of a rule that was obsolete 100 years ago. It survived initially through political inertia and now through the direct intervention of those who benefit from speed limits, either fiscally or politically.
{I can’t count the number of times A-holes jump into the right lane (where I always drive because I cruise control at 60) because 70 or 75 is not fast enough. When are these folks going to realize they’re not the only ones on the road and that life is more precious than saving a few minutes (or seconds in even shorter drives)?}
You conflate speeding with aggressive or even dangerous driving. That’s dishonest. You also ignore *why* those folks are changing lanes, usually because somebody is impeding faster traffic in the left lanes and arrogantly refuses to move over under the excuse that “I’m already driving the limit, why should I move over?” That IS dangerous.
If you stay in the right lane, speeders will not affect you. You will not have to change course or alter your speed to accommodate them. OTOH, those impeders DO affect other traffic.
Finally, do not discount the savings of faster speeds. The NMSL cost this nation about a trillion (yes, with a “T”) dollars in lost productivity during its lifetime.
Don’t be ridiculous James Young.
You are the reason why there are traffic accidents on the freeways all the time. You zip in and out of lanes to get around all the “arrogant” people who are maintaining the legal speed limit and end up losing control of your PT cruiser and making a big-rig jack-knife. I can’t believe that you take yourself seriously when you say that there is no danger to speeding, obviously you haven’t driven a car otherwise you would feel for yourself the great loss of control over your vehicle, and the exponential stopping distance the faster you go. Talk about a conspiracy theorist taking it to the extreme. “THEY want me to stop driving 110 in the slow-lane so they can take my money, rape my wife, and steal my livelihood.” Please.
ryan writes:
“. . .”
Aside from all the silly assertions and unwarranted assumptions. . . lmao
If I’m so wrong, then prove to us that “speeding” is the cause of most or even a significant proportion of crashes. HINT: learn to distinguish between “speeding” and “speed too fast for conditions.”
James asks us to ‘prove to us that “speeding” is the cause of most or even a significant proportion of crashes’, when we all know that there are almost always a number of factors that lead to accidents. James has, in fact, asked for the impossible. James, can you provide evidence that speed is not a factor in most accidents?
High speed increases the likelihood of a fatality occurring. Here are some findings from a study by the National Center for Statistics and Analysis:
Estimated Odds of Driver Fatal Crash by
Key Driver and Crash Characteristics
Factor Odds
Posted speed 40-50 mph/ Less than 40 mph 2.83
Posted 55 mph/ Less than 40 mph 7.17
Posted above 55 mph/ Less than 40 mph 8.91
Source: Compiled by LAD from National Center for
Statistics and Analysis records.
What this says is that when there is an accident on a road with a posted speed limit of 55, the odds of a fatality happening are more than 8 to 1. On roads between 40 and 50, the odds are little less than 3 to 1. Speed kills.
The problem with speeding is that YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY PERSON ON THE ROAD! If the road were yours, James, you can speed all you want. But because there other people on the road, everyone must do the responsible thing and watch their own speed. If you cause an accident (by whatever factor you wish to choose), can you choose that you will be the only one to die?
Stat source:
http://leg.mt.gov/content/audit/download/98l-11.pdf
Ryan wrote: “I can’t believe that you take yourself seriously when you say that there is no danger to speeding. . .” This is fairly typical of the anti-destination cabal, unsupported and unproved allegations that speeding produces more crashes and fatalities. It was the basis of the National Safety Council “Speed Kills!” campaign in the mid-195s.
Darren then writes: “James asks us to ‘prove to us that “speeding” is the cause of most or even a significant proportion of crashes’, when we all know that there are almost always a number of factors that lead to accidents. James has, in fact, asked for the impossible. James, can you provide evidence that speed is not a factor in most accidents?”
Can you prove that you did not kick a dog last night? The burden of proof is always on the asserter not the audience of the assertion. Further, there is a substantive difference between causation and mere association. Of course “speed” is a factor in crashes; the question is does speeding cause crashes or, more fairly, does speed too fast for conditions cause crashes? How much does speed relate to crash incidence or fatality incidence? Other factors in crashes are too numerous to mention but the singular most blamed factor is speed, whether defined as speeding or too fast for conditions. This has certainly been the case with NSC, NHTSA, law enforcement agencies, insurance companies and anybody else with a stake in keeping speed limits low.
“What this says is that when there is an accident on a road with a posted speed limit of 55, the odds of a fatality happening are more than 8 to 1. On roads between 40 and 50, the odds are little less than 3 to 1. Speed kills.”
That’s a pretty big stretch. All that tells you is that higher speed crashes are more dangerous than slower speed crashes. However, that was not the argument asserted by NSC in their “Speed Kills!” campaign or in the latter-day incarnations of that argument. Also, did you note that most fatal crashes do not occur on Interstates, the fastest highways and the ones carrying a disproportionate amount of the VMT.
“The problem with speeding is that YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY PERSON ON THE ROAD!”
Speeders do not affect other drivers. If I’m running 80 mph in a 75 mph zone and I pass you it does not affect you in any way even though I am speeding. You need not change your direction or your speed. In fact, you need do nothing. I make a concerted effort to not affect other drivers and I expect the same consideration.
Keep in mind that speeding is arbitrary. We could so define the limit as to make any motion at all “speeding” or so define it so that no motion could be called “speeding.”
{Stat source:
http://leg.mt.gov/content/audit/download/98l-11.pdf }
Interesting source but did you actually read it, especially the parts where it noted that average and 85th percentile speeds are up but fatality and crash rates are down?
Further criticisms:
The report says: “The likelihood of an accident occurring is significantly greater for motorists traveling at speeds both slower and faster than the mean speed of traffic.” This is just flat wrong and is directly contradicted by ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) data. It should say “. . .faster than the 85th percentile** speed of traffic” because that is where the crash incidence curve minimizes. Drivers below that speed are significantly more likely to crash and drivers above that speed are slightly more likely to crash.
The “design speed” definitions are also wrong. Design speed specification for US Interstate highways during their introduction in the early 1950s was 100 mph. Those listed on the site don’t even make sense. According to those tables, the legal limit exceeds the engineering (absolute) limit.
I think everyone here is missing the obvious solution to all our traffic problems – transporter beams.
i dont zip around. i use blinkers ALWAYS. i never cut people off, and i go slow until the road opens. However when a road is vacant I will drive however I feel. Slow people who don’t know how to get on a highway, or go the speed limit cause wrecks.
i’ve never been in a wreck and drive 80mph on all roads atleast 55
the autobahn is safer than our highways, because people are held responsible for how they drive. you go to slow or fast and kill someone. you get charged with manslaughter equivalent. dont exceed yours or your cars limitations. a ferrari at 100mph stops faster than your SUV at 55mph. should we ban SUV. Should we require $15000 carbon ceramic brakes for every car.
My car has been stolen by the Dept. of Trans.
and sold,under protest.2 days before I was allowed a hearing in which I could provide evidence to support my protest of the alleged
“impound”.
I’ve been lied to and there have been gross violations to my Rights of privacy, Equal protection of the Law, Property as well as the Right to Travel freely.They attempted to extort monies and continue to do so.Can we allow this to continue? What are our fellow country men and women fighting for in the Mid.Est? Our Rights.
What is the reason for the loss of life? I thought it was to ensure freedom would not become a victim to tyranny.
Is there any body out there? Somebody has got to feel this.
This is the best information ever. We need this information out there. We get fined more for speeding than if we committed a serious crime. I know people who come out better and cheaper in court for drugs, theft, and robbery even murder in some cases. I was in the car with my daughter on Thanksgiving on a clear road , clear conditions she wasn’t being reckless or anything . We were just talking on our way to an aunt’s house not watching the speed but not intentionally speeding. Well, my daughter got stopped and was charged $440.00 plus 4 points, not to mention a days pay for taking off to go to court at 10am in the morning. Something needs to be done about this kind of thing. This happened in South Carolina.
Thanks for all the great information.
Speed limits can be ridiculous in some areas. They do not account for the varying conditions of driving. If you’re driving too fast to see the road ahead of you before you could stop it’s probably too fast, but other than that, driving is a personal responsibility, and posted warnings about road conditions would help more than fixed speed limits. Driving too quickly is about safety. Prove that.
When in court, it is up to the state to prove that you were driving unsafely, not for you to prove that you were driving safely.
The posted speed limits do not reflect safety. They are a guideline for safety, which is a potentially useful measuring ruler for drivers and police officers. If, beyond this, the state can prove that you were driving unsafely, then issue the ticket or other penalty.
I freely admit to being one of the aholes alluded to by a sanctimonius hypocite in a previous post. If you’re going 60 on a highway in the state of Florida you’re going about ten under the speed limit and frankly I don’t want to be the guy sandwiched between you and the guy who wants to go 90. I’ll let him by because it’s not my job nor is it worth my life to try to play cop and enforce the speed limit.70 can very well be a “safe and reasonable speed” If you’re not in the right lane or weaving from lane to lane or climbing up somebody’s butt, frankly those folks are just about as dangerous as you are with your “I’ll enforce the speed limit attitude” It’s all matter of time before you’re run off the road or possibly shot by someone with road rage and frankly I wouldn’t miss you a bit.
Denver has said it will enforce the 55 mph limit on I-70 East of I-25 where the traffic usually moves at 65-70. At the same time the State Patrol has said it will give out tickets for impeding traffic.
It’s a NO WIN situation because if you go with the flow at 70, Denver cops will get you. If you obey the speed limit at 55, the State Patrol will get you for impeding traffic.
Another great tactic! if only more people would fight there traffic tickets with a great defence instead of useless excuses we see daily…
Anyone know why police, after pulling you over because of a misdemeanor traffic infraction, ask if you have ever been arrested? Is being arrested now a form of guilt over being convicted? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
I did not want to get into these discussions about speed but after reading some of these I had to say something.
First of all in most states you do not have a right to drive, it is a privilege. In other words you are required to follow the rules. Please dont tell me about the right to travel, I’ve heard it too many times. You can walk or catch a ride with somebody else if you cannot follow simple rules.
I have investigated approximately 3000 automoble crash’s. Speeding, too fast for conditions or exceeded the limit, was the primary factor in most. Yes there are usually other factors but the main thing is, if they were driving the way they were required to, most of the crash’s wouldn’t have happened.
Speeding does affect other drivers and leads to other violations. Following too close and passing when prohibited or unsafe are just two that come to mind.
Yes travelling under the speed limit can also cause problems or crash’s.
The State Patrol in Colorado will not get you for impeding traffic if you are travelling at the speed limit. They will get you for driving in the left lane when you do not need to be there. In 65 or 75 mph zones, on multi lane highways, you are required to move to the right. They will get you for speeding in the left lane. Just because you are required to move to the right, does not mean it is ok to speed. They can also get you for not moving out of the way on a two lane highway, if you want to travel under the posted speed limit (impeding traffic).
Speeding only accounts for a small fraction of road deaths. The government numbers are mostly cases where alcohol was involved. They further bolster the numbers by including incidents including motorcycles, teenagers who go 80 in a residential and suicides. The actual cases where speed alone, or alcohol alone led to a death are negligible, and do not warrant such draconian penalties.
Fight every ticket. Traffic cops are the scum of the earth, and they could give a shit about your safety. On Hollywood Boulevard, there is a cop who stands there with his little radar every Tuesday. When people see him, they slam on their brakes and, inevitably cause a 3 car pile up. Still, the cop comes right back to the same place. It is a point in the road where you finally get a chance to speed up a little after a few miles of gridlock.
BW’s comments about “obey the rules” sounds like something out of Hitler’s Germany. Many of the “rules” are preposterous and only designed to raise money, and are not at all about safety.
A few years back the tiny town of Soldier Summit, Utah, situated on a major US Highway had a speed limit drop from 65 to 20 as you entered the town. And of course they always had their ONE cop with his radar set up to nail just about everyone that passed thru.
Whatever authorities got enough complaints that they dis-incorporated the town and turned the police duties over to the county sheriff and put the speed limit to 55 thru the 1/2 mile llong town.
Now..DRIVING TOO FAST FOR CONDITIONS. Yes, that is a biggie, and is the ultimate contributor to crashes. And those get tallied as “speeding”, so everyone ASSumes that mean driving over the speed limit. Not always so…if the speed limit is 65 and snowing like crazy and someone looses control at 40, then that is DRIVING TOO FAST FOR CONDITIONS.
Back when the national speed limit was 55 it was absolutely preposterous driving I-80 thru Nebraska and Wyoming going 55.
But I suppose BW just poked along at 55 as he OBEYED THE RULES.
Recently in Los Angeles we received a ticket NOT for SPEEDING but for being in a no-parking zone during a no-parking period. No parking from 4-6 p.m. We parked at about 3:55 p.m. and returned to the car at 4:15 p.m. We figured at 4:00 p.m. they hooked up they started the hook up. They towed the car..we were 8 minutes behind the car to the lot. They had the car a whole 8 minutes. We had to pay a fee to get the car out plus a municipal administrative fee and some other little fee. Added up to about $160.00 then when we walked up to the car in the lot and there was a TICKET!!! The ticket is about $120.00 (I think). SO to a visitor in Los Angeles watch where you park!!! The traffic peeps are just there waiting for you. We never could figure out why there is no parking there from 4-6 p.m. and the traffic cop would not answer our questions….real friendly sort…but considering that is his lot in life just to harrass people and tow cars so the city and tow company can make money…well there you go…Have a GREAT DAY!
Good examples of why I don’t usually get involved in these discussions.
In response to Angelo. Yes speeding does only account for some deaths, but it also accounts for injuries and property damage. Alcohol only accounted for 1300+ out of the 40000+ deaths in 2006. Last I checked motorcyles drive on the roads and can speed. Also teenagers doing 80 in a residential is still speeding. Drivers under the influence also speed. I also believe I stated that there is usually other factors involved. You gave a good example yourself mentioning the cop on Hollywood Blvd.
Fighting tickets is your right. Calling traffic cops the scum of the earth sound like you dont have much time on your hands. I can think of much worse people that really effect our lives. Most of the ones I’ve known are doing the job they were hired to do and most of the people I know appreciate them. Especially the ones who were in a crash or almost crashed due to a driver that wanted to get there just a little bit faster. I definately gave more time than is necessary to a person that has to resort to insults rather than having something worthwhile to say, so I’ll move along.
lynnB, comparing traffic laws in the United States with the rules imposed in Hitler’s Germany is what I find preposterous. I will agree with you that there are “rules” which are to raise money and not for safety. Most, NOT ALL, moving violations are for safety. Keep in mind that most of the traffic laws are the easiest laws to comply with and do not violate anybodys rights. They really take very little effort to comply with.
I will also agree that that towns that set up speed zones, as in your example of the town in Utah, should not be tolerated.
Also I mentioned too fast for conditions, I also mentioned just speed. No speeding is not always the ONLY factor, but it is certainly a major factor in crash’s. Where I live too fast for conditions and speeding are tallied seperately. There are also instances where drivers were speeding, lost control and went off the road and those crash’s were tallied as failed to drive in designated lane or something similar. We all know that numbers can be used anyway a person wants to use them and does not give the whole story.
I did think, and still do, the 55 speed limit was to slow on some roads. I did poke along at 55, and still got where I was going. It was alot easier than getting stopped and fined for speeding and it didn’t really cost me much time.
Once again, driving is a privilege, not a right.
bw writes:
{First of all in most states you do not have a right to drive, it is a privilege. In other words you are required to follow the rules.}
That’s just not true. Driving or holding a driver’s license is an entitlement as denominated by the US Supreme Court. Individual states do not have the authority to degrade a driver’s license to “privilege,” meaning that it can be revoked at the whim of a bureaucrat. Revocation of an already-granted license requires due process.
{I have investigated approximately 3000 automoble crash’s. Speeding, too fast for conditions or exceeded the limit, was the primary factor in most.}
BS. Your own numbers do not support that assertion. According to NHTSA, one of the most biased organizations in the government and which gets its data in large part from police reports (an already biased source), assigns only “speed-related” to crashes, carefully avoiding the causation issue. NHTSA also lumps too fast for conditions, exceeding the posted limit, too slow for conditions and unsafe lane changes into the “speed-related” category. Therefore, it is meaningless. Even given all that, “speed-related” still associates with a small segment of all crashes.
{Yes there are usually other factors but the main thing is, if they were driving the way they were required to, most of the crash’s wouldn’t have happened.}
“Driving the way they were supposed to” is a tautology, always true by definition. However, it applies equally to the person driving 50 mph on an 85 mph highway as well as the guy who has a .24 BAC and bent on suicide.
{Speeding does affect other drivers and leads to other violations. Following too close and passing when prohibited or unsafe are just two that come to mind.}
Please explain how “speeding” affects other drivers. If I am running 80 mph on a 75 mph limit, I’m speeding. If I then pass some guy running 50 mph, he need do nothing, no change of course or speed. He continues on if I’m there or not. Further, conflating “following too close,” which requires two drivers, one of them going too slow, with speeding is disingenuous.
{The State Patrol in Colorado will not get you for impeding traffic if you are travelling at the speed limit.}
Yet, that was the intent of the law, to get drivers to move over to allow the smoother and faster flow of traffic around them. CSP should cite drivers for failing to move right for faster traffic without regard to the posted limit. If I’m running 85 mph and some guy wants to run 95, it is up to me to move over, without regard to the posted limit.
I knew better but I’ll give one last response and then I have had enough.
James Young, we can play with words all day long. You can call it an entitlement if it makes you feel better. The fact remains, there is no right to drive. Priviledge or entitlement, a driver can lose that by not following simple rules / laws. It is the same for any license that is issued be it for practicing medicine, law or to be a contractor. If a person does not follow the rules when that license is issued, they can lose it. Yes it requires due procsess but lose it you can.
My numbers are BS? Which ones. That I have investigatiod approximately 3000 crashs? I happen to be a technical accident reconstructionist and have been for 15 years. 3000 crashs is not a large number, I know people that have done alot more than that. I have also assisted on several hundred others. As I said before, speed has been a FACTOR in most of them, I did not say it was the only cause. Most of the crash’s I investigated were on dry roads with no weather to factor in. I also mentioned that the numbers can show whatever you want them to. How about the driver that hit an animal crossing the road while travelling at 80 mph in a 65 zone. The animal and the driver did not stand a chance. Chances are at 65 that driver would not have even been there, and if he was, he had a better chance of avoiding it at 65. A crash like that is coded as animal caused. All crashs involving alcohol over the legal limit are coded as alcohol caued regardless of what actually caused the crash. We can bounce these numbers around all day and get nowhere.
I only stated what I have seen.
Driving the way they were supposed to. In other words, obeying the laws or rules. Any person that can pass the rquirements and be issued a license should know what the laws are. And yes they apply equally to everyone including the drunk or the person bent on suicide,(By the way suicides are not recorded as accidents although Im sure some of them have been)although some people feel they are special and dont have to. Are there crash’s that could not have been avoided with the exception of not going any where. Yes, but that is a small number.
Speeding can effect other drivers. I’ll use a similar example to the one you gave but without the extremes in speed differences. I’m thinking about the driver doing 75 in a posted 75 and you feel the need to go faster As you are passing the other driver something goes wrong, a mechanical failure or something causes you to take evasive manuevers and you either collide with or force the other driver to take evasive manuevers. That is effecting the other driver. No speed itself was not the cause, but if you were not speeding you would not be in that situation. If the other driver is doing 50, yes you would have been passing him anyway, but at that speed you would have been by him and if something happened he probably could have avoided it. I am talking about the drivers that are obeying the speed limit and another driver wants to speed by them. On a multi lane roads it is not as much of an issue. Unfortunately people that speed on interstates also speed on two lane roads. It most definately can be an issue there. I could give alot of examples of what could happen and what I have seen happen. Following to close, yes if a driver is going to slow that can happen. What about the driver doing the speed limit. Yes that requires two drivers but one is driving within the law the other is not. The other driver is under no obligation to get out of your way because you want to speed. If the other driver is travelling UNDER the speed limit he is required to get out of your way if you cannot safely pass in a reasonable amout of time. There are some people that are exceptional drivers and are safe at almost any speed. Unfortunately most drivers are not exceptional. There are some people that probably speed only when there is no other traffic and can handle the car they are driving exceptionally well. There is no way that I know of that you can look at a person and be able to reconize this. So there are traffic laws. Face it most people feel they are exceptional drivers and take immediate offense if you suggest otherwise.
About the CSP and ticketing drivers for impeding and not moving out of the way, I think you need to read what I said. I agree with you, they should move out of the left lane as rquired by law, but the speeding driver should also be cited for speeding.
I’ll throw in some other information. In the state I live in fatal crash’s have declined. That was do to a policy of strict enforcement by the police(thank you). We will never stop fatal crash’s but it’s a start. Also fatal crash’s make up a very small amount of crash’s that occur in this country every day. We could throw in the injury and property damage crash’s that definately effect most people. But why bother, until it happens to you personally your probably going to continue to drive anyway you want to, regardless of what I or anybody else says.
Thank you for your time. I do have other things to do so goodbye and good luck.
The best way to beat a ticket is to drive 5 mph under the posted speed limit, why well where are you going that can’t wait 5-15 minutes more. In a hurry to get to work in a hurry to get home, why just because your speedometer read 160 MPH does mean you have to drive that fast.
Think gas is high, tickets are high and remember to stop at all yellow lights so the camera does not give you a ticket and alway call a cab or someone to pick you up from the bar after your finish drinking, hey speeder & drunk, I know!!!!!!!
bw writes:
{James Young, we can play with words all day long. You can call it an entitlement if it makes you feel better. The fact remains, there is no right to drive.}
Nobody asserted that it was a right. You said it was a privilege and that is wrong.
Words are important and must be used with care. Words can soothe a sick child or instigate racial hatred. Words can reveal truth or create monstrous lies.
{My numbers are BS? Which ones. }
The ones where you said, “Speeding, too fast for conditions or exceeded the limit, was the primary factor in most.” NHTSA, the largest collection of crash statistics anywhere in the world no longer uses “factor,” and assigns no causation to crashes. They hide behind “xxxxx-involved,” with the deliberate implication that “xxxx-“ caused the crash, usually “speed” or “alcohol.” Even NHTSA, as biased as it is, only assigns about 4% of crashes as “too fast for conditions,” a distinction of significance from “speed-related,” which includes too fast for conditions, too slow for conditions, any speed above the posted limit and unsafe lane changes (their words).
{How about the driver that hit an animal crossing the road while travelling at 80 mph in a 65 zone. . . .Chances are at 65 that driver would not have even been there, and if he was, he had a better chance of avoiding it at 65. A crash like that is coded as animal caused. All crashs involving alcohol over the legal limit are coded as alcohol caued regardless of what actually caused the crash.}
Two different issues here. First, it is pure speculation that no crash would have occurred because the driver wasn’t there because he was driving a different speed. That sounds like a question for Nietzsche or Spinoza rather than a motorists’ blog.
Second, what state classifies that as “animal caused”? NHTSA has no such classification nor any state with which I’m familiar. NHTSA classifies every crash where ONE vehicle was over the limit as “speed-related.” If a speeding driver is T-boned by a guy under the limit but who blew a stoplight, the cause is ROW violation but it still gets recorded as “speed-related.” Similarly, the same driver hits a pedestrian with BAC of 0.25 who jumps in front of the car, gets recorded as “alcohol-related,” which, of course, is readily morphed into “drunk driving” but a gullible public.
{ (By the way suicides are not recorded as accidents although Im sure some of them have been)although some people feel they are special and dont have to.}
NHTSA does not recognize suicides at all, although independent studies reveal that anywhere from 4% to 16% of fatal crashes are suicides, disguised as crashes to save the insurance money for the family. Typical scenario: guy center-punches a bridge pier at 100+ mph and, yep, it gets recorded as “speed-related,” although speed was merely the mechanism, not the cause.
{Speeding can effect other drivers. . . . As you are passing the other driver something goes wrong, a mechanical failure or something causes you . . .}
That isn’t speed affecting other drivers; it is mechanical failure, something that could occur at 7.5 mph as at 75 mph. Just for the record, mechanical failures, usually tires, used to be a major factor in crashes but have been virtually eliminated, a major reason why the fatality rate has fallen to its lowest point in history.
{ The other driver is under no obligation to get out of your way because you want to speed.}
That depends on the state law. In California, they are under that very obligation to pull into a cut-out to allow faster traffic to pass.
{About the CSP and ticketing drivers for impeding and not moving out of the way, I think you need to read what I said. I agree with you, they should move out of the left lane as rquired by law, but the speeding driver should also be cited for speeding.}
I strongly disagree. Speeding cites serve no conceivable public benefit. Remove the limits on Interstate highways, enforce the no impeding laws without regard to the absolute speed of any vehicle but only the relative speed of at least two vehicles, and the problem will disappear.
{I’ll throw in some other information. In the state I live in fatal crash’s have declined. That was do to a policy of strict enforcement by the police(thank you).}
What state is that? I’m not surprised that fatal crashes have declined because that is a nationwide phenomenon. However, I would need to see some very convincing data to prove to me that it was due to police activity because that has never been the case in the history of automobiles.
{ We will never stop fatal crash’s but it’s a start. Also fatal crash’s make up a very small amount of crash’s that occur in this country every day. We could throw in the injury and property damage crash’s that definately effect most people. But why bother, until it happens to you personally your probably going to continue to drive anyway you want to, regardless of what I or anybody else says.}
I’ve been working for about 50 years to reduce crashes and fatalities. Crashes affect people in multiple ways but we cannot afford to assign blame where none is due because it leads to poor policy, wasted resources and a loss of government credibility.
The “way I drive” has been very successful. I’m at about 2 million miles, zero at-fault crashes, only a dozen or so cites. Others should emulate that success.
I heard about this site that had some idiot truck driver toting a thesarus. Boy were they correct! James Young, back away from the thesarus and get a life ( and collect your facts before you start running your mouth!) They say ignorance is bliss, well it must be in your case because you sound like a total moron! A dozen or so sitations and you call that success?????????? YOu hsould not be behind the wheel of what must surely be a weapon in your particular case! Let the rest of us know where you travel so we can be SURE and stay out of that particular state. With an attitude like yours, you should probably be put in for retesting and I would bet you wouldn’t keep that license that is, yes a privelage, not a right in some states.
Cindy:
You should have kept quiet and let everybody just think you were a moron rather than speak up and remove all doubt.
I do not drive a truck. I do have a very busy life but have devoted about 50 years of it to improving traffic safety and legal reform. Perhaps you missed the part where I have traveled about 2 million miles because a dozen citations is only one every 167,000 miles. I have also been driving since I was 12, legally since I was 14, so that’s 1 cite in a little over every 4 years. BTW, none of those was ever for any truly dangerous activity.
I have also gone to a lot of trouble to assure that my driving interferes with others as little as possible, spending my own time and money on advanced driving classes. I have never had an at-fault crash.
If my attitude – that traffic law needs dramatic change because it is being driven by greed and political power rather than motorists’ interests – troubles you, then too bad.
Remember that when you can drive 80 mph legally through west Texas, you can thanks the likes of me and my group.
As to the holding of license being a privilege, perhaps you should make a journey to D.C. because those justices on the Supreme Court obviously don’t know as much as you. States do not have the authority to opt out of a court decision.
OOOHHHH! Snappy comeback, quite sure I will be traumatized for LIFE! I do retract the moron statement, since OBVIOUSLY you are a rocket scientist.
Ok, Einstein, let’s say, as you did in one of your earlier posts that the Feds DID remove ALL speed limits on the interstate system do you really believe that speed as a causual factor(terminology still in usage by the way)in traffic incidents would not raise to the nth degree?
So, by your example, if you are doing 90 mph on the interstate, and someone passes you at 100mph, you should get a ticket for impeding traffic, correct? Where do the lines get drawn in your way of thinking? Thus, the necessity for posted speed limits.
{Snappy comeback, quite sure I will be traumatized for LIFE!}
Nah, you’ll get over it.
{Ok, Einstein, let’s say, as you did in one of your earlier posts that the Feds DID remove ALL speed limits on the interstate system do you really believe that speed as a causual factor (terminology still in usage by the way) in traffic incidents would not raise to the nth degree?}
Speed is not denominated as a “causal factor” in traffic crashes. NHTSA classifies crashes as “speed-related,” but as I’ve indicated in prior posts, that includes a multitude of actions that do not affect crashes. We were told that if the NMSL (“55”) were removed, the result would be a “bloodbath” [Joan Claybrook and Clarence Ditlow]. It didn’t happen; in fact, key safety measurements just kept improving. Then, when total revocation (from 65 mph) was proposed, we were told again that a “bloodbath” would ensue [Joan Claybrook]. Again, the rates just kept improving.
We had a situation in Montana that was essentially unlimited except to “R&P,” reasonable and prudent. Montana courts decided that 100+ was R&P. The experience in Montana was that there was no statistically significant difference between Montana and other states. However, when they imposed a numerical limit, the rates increased.
We have still another experience on the autobahnen. There, unlimited sections of roadway have a fatality rate just slightly less than American Interstates.
So, to answer your question, I do believe that speed as a causal factor (or even an associated factor) would not rise to the nth degree.
{So, by your example, if you are doing 90 mph on the interstate, and someone passes you at 100mph, you should get a ticket for impeding traffic, correct?}
No, because I was in the right lane when I was passed. BTW, this happens frequently. I am rarely the fastest car on the road; I get passed frequently. I never impede and I expect others to perform as well.
{Where do the lines get drawn in your way of thinking? Thus, the necessity for posted speed limits.}
Drivers draw their own lines, based on their capacities and those of their car. This is, of course, the basis for calculating speed limits but then the calculated limits are overridden by politics and greed. Speed limits are not now and never have been a critical element of the organizing function of traffic laws. Even were they to disappear overnight, no dramatic changes would occur, just as 20 years of empirical data tell us.
PS. I make no claim to rocket science. I claim only to be educated, thoughtful, intellectually curious and very skeptical, especially of those who have a vested interest in maintaining a flawed system.
Oh my GOD! You keep talking in circles,
TOTALLY ignoring even YOUR own words, let alone what anyone else has to say. Anyone under the sun can find stats to support anything they want to support at the time. You could turn around and use these stats to a disadvantage should you choose to do so. Yes I know about Montana, didn’t last long.
Speed certainly does affect many things. The faster you go, the less reactionary time you have. THAT is the simple law of physics. AND on top of that, the faster the speeds the worse the wrecks, again, simple physics involved here. ( and for the record, I travel the posted speed limits, not below)
Since you just don’t seem to get it, and you continue to talk in circles, guess I will never have the privelage, er, excuse me, (your terminology) the entitlement of driving 80 mph through west Texas any time in the future.
Well, I have a life I have to get to, hopefully we NEVER meet on any roadway, and I am also quite sure you will post a response to get in the last word. People who can not listen in debates tend to feel the need to dazzle with BS and get in the last word. Knock yourself out and good luck.
Bye Bye Now
{Since you just don’t seem to get it, and you continue to talk in circles. . .}
Yet, you cannot offer contradictory evidence.
{hopefully we NEVER meet. . .}
I agree.
{ People who can not listen in debates tend to feel the need to dazzle with BS and get in the last word.}
I can only lead readers to the facts; I cannot think for them. If you believe what I have posted is BS, then it should be simple to refute it. So far, all you have done is offer baseless criticism. If you have evidence to support your assertions, now is the time to present them.
This is an Internet forum and anybody can post at any time. The “last word” is meaningless. Besides, I don’t need the last word, only the correct one.
Sorry James, I forgot to mention for the record of this website. The only thing you would be able to legally drive at age 14 in ANY state is an implement of husbandry, ie grandpas John Deere, Dads grain truck, Uncle Bob’s Chevy in the pasture…Farm machinery.
This does not make you one of the highways better drivers. Unfortunately, living in a rural area I see some of these grown up products of driving at 14…not the best drivers around, too many years of poor driving habits.
See Ya
You also forget that the requirements were different in 1959.
I’m sorry, but I really like James Young’s style and agree with most everything he posts.
I think some people just don’t know how to debate and discuss properly–not to mention knowing when they are trumped by a superior argument.
On a side note, the usage of {crash’s} really just annoys me to no end; so, bw, learn how to use punctuation.
Now, to finally contribute to the discussion, I think that the system is extremely flawed, the speed limits are not necessary as a tool of enforcement, but should merely be a guide, or a reminder, if you will, of the speed suggested for those who do not know what speed to drive. Those who drive faster, fine; those who drive slower, fine–just use judgement for conditions. I really don’t know why this is o hard for so many–in fact, I think it should be much more difficult to get a DL–perhaps an IQ test… (or to be a cop, not a mindless drone…)
Now, to respond to the original article. This method of math is flawed because it does not factor in the derivative (mathematically speaking) of speed (or technically velocity): acceleration. If you are slowing down over the period of 5 seconds, the cop may be able to see you for that full amount of time–and the traffic light may have seen you at a maximum speed, but while you were decelerating saw you for a longer period of time.
I also question the definition of “reckless driving” as a direct relation to acceleration. I fear that one day there may be an acceleration limit on different roads governing how fast one may accelerate, change lanes or even stop. Or even, perhaps, on the manufacturing side limiting a car’s performance potential, or even the driver’s ability to input certain driving maneuvers into the car…
Well this discussion has turned into a catfight an nitpicking over terminology and words.
A few FACTS…In SOME places where motorists refust to OBEY the speed limit and regularly go, say, 10 mph over, SOME places will raise that speed limit. I’m going to ASSume that those “speeding” motorists have caused no significent “blip” in the accident rate in that area vs. other areas.
In many OTHER places the speed limit is artificially low so as to raise revenue for the town, county, etc.
The town of Morrison, CO is just one such place and is as infamous for being a speed trap as it is for the beautiful and wonderful Red Rocks Ampitheater.
One of the reasons many don’t fight radar tickets is because the greater the angle off the target vehicle and the beam of the radar, the lower the speed readout, so folk traveling 75 might be clocked at 70 and they feel like they got away with something. At 90 degrees off, the target speed will be zero from a non-moving radar as there is no closure rate.
HOWEVER…cops can and do misuse their radar as they don’t understand it…if a cop moves his radar to target a vehicle, that can result in a PAN or PANNING error. Stop signs and houses have been clocked going 70 mph by doing this.
The other error, and I’m sure this happens more often than one would think is a COSINE error, and that results from radar in a moving car being at an angle offset from the actual direction of the venicle. This tracks the cop car traveling at a lower speed than it actually is and give the target readout as a speed FASTER than they are actually traveling, as doppler can only track closure rate, and then the computer calculates the difference between the cop car speed and the target speed, giving the actual readout.
When you see the current hoax traveling around the ‘net about the Marine F-18 pilot able to stop the automatic firing of an anti-radar missile at a CHP radar on I-15 near MCAS Miramar…it’s a big HOAX for many reasons.
ME…I’ve clipped along, not on the road…at Mach 2.1, landed in a jet on a boat going from 150 to 0 in two seconds, and also launched from a boat going 0 to 160 or so in two seconds.
Anything else y’all want to know, just speak up.
LB…former Navy Radar Intercept Officer, expert training in pulse and doppler radars.
BTW, none of the gimmics to defeat radar will work. An electronic jammer MIGHT work, but it also might give a high reading and get you a really big fine, not to mention that you are operating a “radio transmitter” without a license..and that’s radar, jammers, etc. are….radio transmitters.
James Young: “Driving or holding a driver’s license is an entitlement as denominated by the US Supreme Court. Individual states do not have the authority to degrade a driver’s license to “privilege,” meaning that it can be revoked at the whim of a bureaucrat. Revocation of an already-granted license requires due process.”
Could you please give me the court cite. I would appreciate it.
cindy:I drive a truck and I have a few facts for you. In truck-car accidents 75% of the time the car is totally at fault according to the AAA (not known for their love of trucks) who was surprised and dismayed when their research turned up that fact. I drive about 150,000 miles a year. How many years does it take you to get that many miles. I’m held to a higher standard than you are and the fines are higher.
LynnB: I’ve seen a radar detector on the dash of a Texas Highway Patrol car. Guess he was looking for people with jammers. Speeding tickets are a lot cheaper than if you get caught with a jammer.
lived in Europe for years and learned driving there. i wish one day i could fight my tickets here by going to a driving school to prove how i can handle my car in different situations better than at least half of the population on the road.
This is one of the easiest countries to get driver’s license and that is the ultimate problem. people has no idea what they getting into.
Driving in this country is the grown up way of driving bumper cars. its like a amusement park to see what people do in their car in rush hour and how they drive everyday.
speeding dont keep people, people kill people. lets fix the people first. dont get this backwards!
Chris, you are absolutely CORRECT. It is the people and the ease of which to get a license; Or as I tell folks who want to see my DL for ID, “I don’t drive, I just steer like everyone else”.
The training in Europe is why folks can clip along at 120 or whaever they want (at certain times in certain places) on the Autobahn and there are very few “speeding” accidents. Oh, and when there is a crash, the perp must pay for damages to the highway…guard rails, etc.
I heard on the news that it costs the equiv. of $1200 to get a license in Japan. Drivers have to take a driving course, evasive maneuvers, and even know how to change a tire. That was some 20 YEARS ago, so the cost of a license if probably much higher now.
In Europe the DUI laws are extremely strict and finally in the US we are starting to impose heftier penalties…fines and jail time. FINALLY. You’ll see very few folks drink and drive in Europe..at least W. Europe where I’ve traveled.
Steve 1776: BELL V. BURSON, 402 U. S. 535 (1971)
This was a sad exchange to read. If you could do one thing personally to prevent the death of one person in the arena of driving, wouldn’t you do it? We really are talking about lives and property, and the mandate of government to make laws to apply to the least common denominator. I have no doubt that most of you are above average in your skills as a driver. If so, shouldn’t the responsibility rest upon you to set the better example? If you consistently speed with your kids in the car, then wonder, when they are sixteen, why they wrapped their car around a pole and are laying in a casket, please don’t blame the police for bad speed laws. In fact, the law is not made by the police, so if you have issue, and you truly believe you are right, then approach your unit of government about it. I have seen laws, moving traffic laws, changed by citizens who care enough to invest their time and effort into changing them. But safety should always be a concern. I agree that over-enforcement for the sake of revenue generation is for those departments who do not have enough to do. I never had that luxury, running call to call most of the time. But I have spoken to enough broken-hearted parents to know that speed coupled with just about any other factor, kills. Again, not for you who are the elite of drivers, but for the least common denominators, like your kids, or your aging parents, or any host of others. If you think they shouldn’t be on the roadways, then beg your legislators for reform in licensing. The comment on big trucks not being a causation problem was right on – the number of crashes that they cause has gone way down since the FMCSR went into effect, greatly increasing the standards to which those drivers are held. Most truck enforcement, at least in my state, has come to regulatory issues. One is hard-pressed to find a big truck committing any moving violation, and the rates of crashes involving them, and especially caused by them, has gone way down. Except for a few idiots (yes, they exist everywhere) who just enjoy placing financial burden on others, the Troopers I’ve had the privilege of working with over the last several years are folks who became Troopers to protect life and protect property. We have bosses that we don’t control, you all control them through your government units. If you truly don’t like the job you are calling us to do, then don’t complain to us, complain, as I believe Mr. Young does, to those entities who employ us. If I lose a ticket, I don’t take it personally, because I know I did what you are asking me to do, and the judge found in your favor. If I win a ticket, don’t take it personally, I was only doing what you are asking me to do, and the judge found in favor of the state. ALWAYS remember that these discussions are easy, and the rules of debate can even be debated, all the while, people’s lives are at stake, and some are being killed through going too fast. If speed is a factor, then it was always too fast for some condition!
You can kick this around as you will, no big deal to me, I won’t respond (I’m trained that way :)), just know that I hope each and every one of you live to see another day of debating!!!
Be safe and buckle up!!!
I would only add that I think the example of good driving should start with us police officers, so I abhor the habits of some of my colleagues that run counter to this philosophy of best example – we should obey the traffic laws, all the time, unless we are, as authorized by statute, directly engaged in specific enforcement activity!!!
Speed does NOT kill, it is the sudden lack of it that does.
James-
I used to be a terrible speeder, I used to average 20 over the speed limit.
I want to cover two issues.
Speeding should be legal.
You obviously believe this, and believe in this because you have spent a lot of time on the discussion here.
Instead of spending your time on here trying to persuade these many people that will never agree with you… why don’t you take your arguments to your local politicians, or county or state or national. You as any American have the write to propose ideas for legislation to your government.
But until you change the laws, you are required to OBEY the laws. Just because you don’t like them doesn’t mean that they don’t apply to you. Laws are written for the many and not the few. Obviously by the amount of people that disagree with you, you are the few.
Speeding is not dangerous.
I used to be in your camp. I had a sports car and I have a excellent reaction time. Then I changed my tune. I did this because I learned how to correctly ride a motorcycle. And what speed and safely driving means. Take a motorcycle safety course… you will never understand the idea of how dangerous speeding is until you ride a motorcycle after taking a safety course.
Ask yourself this, as your are driving. If I was on a bike would I drive like this knowing that any bad action by myself or others might kill me. Defensive driving is hard when speeding.
Chris writes:
{Speeding should be legal.
You obviously believe this, and believe in this because you have spent a lot of time on the discussion here.}
Actually, I spend a lot of time on here because I believe in this, not vice versa. Speeding should be meaningless because the laws are designed and written rationally, not politically.
{Instead of spending your time on here trying to persuade these many people that will never agree with you… why don’t you take your arguments to your local politicians, or county or state or national. You as any American have the [right] to propose ideas for legislation to your government. }
I have provided a bill to a state rep and a state senator in Oklahoma (Ron Peters and James Williamson) that would divert all traffic fines to a public corporation at the state level that is used to fund scholarships to state colleges. Take the money out of enforcement and all those CS little burgs will stop it. Since I’m not in Oklahoma right now, I’ll have to rely on email and phone contact to drive their acceptance of it. I have lobbied state legislators in Texas (where I vote), Oklahoma (where I grew up and have family), Utah and Colorado (where I lived) and in California (where I am now).
During NMSL, I lobbied US representatives and senators because it was a federal mandate (presidential order). Now, they hold no sway over states with respect to traffic laws except through MUTCD. Occasionally municipal or county entities get involved in setting limits but even those are driven by state guidelines.
{But until you change the laws, you are required to OBEY the laws. Just because you don’t like them doesn’t mean that they don’t apply to you. Laws are written for the many and not the few. Obviously by the amount of people that disagree with you, you are the few.}
First things first. I am joined in my disregard of posted limits by virtually the entire population of drivers. While they may not speak out enough, they simply ignore the law and do what they feel they must.
Next, using your philosophy, we would still be a colony of the British Crown, black folks would be property, and women would not participate in public life. Laws are written for multiple reasons, often by special interests. Speed limit laws are written with the political safety of the legislators in mind. Engineers determine the optimal speed and submit it to the legislature. Legislators are afraid that if they go with this much higher limit and something happens that they will be blamed and will not be reelected. So they keep the limits much too low. Another likely factor is that the insurance industry, the enforcement institution, and all the other quimbies of the anti-destination league provide tens of millions in campaign funds. We all know that money talks and BS walks.
{Speeding is not dangerous.
Take a motorcycle safety course… you will never understand the idea of how dangerous speeding is until you ride a motorcycle after taking a safety course.}
Been there, done that. I had a Honda that I could park right next to the building on campus. A car required very remote parking and a shuttle bus ride. It only solidified my beliefs.
Sidebar: We must be very careful to distinguish between “speeding” and “speed too fast for conditions.” In a 70 mph zone, 70.1 is speeding but certainly is no more dangerous than 69.999. Likewise, 92 mph in a 70 zone is illegal but not necessarily dangerous. I-15 for 60 miles north of San Diego runs routinely in the 90s; in that zone, the danger is running 70 in the #2 lane (not to mention rude and stupid).
Under normal conditions, where does “speeding” end and “too fast for conditions” begin? We cannot say with digital precision because it varies with the calculus of the car, the driver, the road, the weather, etc. However, we would get near universal acceptance of 20 mph over the posted limit as “speeding” but not “too fast for conditions.” The issue is that enforcement focuses on 5 to 10 mph over the limit, which is clearly “speeding” and clearly not “too fast for conditions.”
For the liberal James Young:
The failure of people to obey a law intended for all people is a prime example of the break down in our society. The same arrogant people who speed believe that they are above the law. That do not possess the moral values and principles of law abiding citizens and are more apt to break more than just motor vehicle laws such as speeding.