Fight Your Speeding Ticket With Simple Math
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
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.)
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.
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.”
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.
Speed does NOT kill, it is the sudden lack of it that does.
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!!!
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!!!
Steve 1776: BELL V. BURSON, 402 U. S. 535 (1971)
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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…
You also forget that the requirements were different in 1959.
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
{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.
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
{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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!!!!!!
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.
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.