CarSPIN Forums

Have you ever thought a speed limit was too fast?


Simple question. I was driving along a side street and I actually thought 25MPH was too fast.

There have been a couple of times, maybe, but it happens very rarely.  I think it's much more common that the speed limit is on the low side.

When I first started driving, there were a few streets where I felt the limit could have been lower. All were windy back roads and I wasn't fully comfortable taking the Caravan around them at the full limit. So I just drove under the limit at those points. "Speed limit" technically just means the maximum anyway. There are almost no streets where 25 would be too high; usually it's unrealistically low.


However, just today I was on some roads with limits that seemed questionably high. I'd gone out to a rural part of the county to look for some twisty back roads, and some of them were essentially driveways with 35 mph speed limits. That seemed questionable, especially because the main road in the area was 30. (More political pressure on the street people actually use, I suppose.)

Haven't run into anything that's unreasonable.  Sometimes in 25s, 25 is too fast (kids at play, snow, et al), and the same can be said for any road depending on conditions.  Conditions are the real speed limits.

Yes. Right in front of my apt is one of them. It's 25 here, but if you go that fast, there is a 100% chance that you will hit one of the 3-foot-tall Somalian kids that run around between he parked cars unsupervised at all hours of the day and night.

Yep. There have been a few times (not too often) that I've thought the limit on a particular road was a bit high.

Often irks me more as there are several roads where I feel the limit is too slow.

I can remember a few times thinking, "Wow, XXmph is wicked fast for this road... I'm barely comfortable at that speed," on a few occasions.  And I generally drive 5mph over the posted limit at all times, and I don't see the yellow signs if you get my drift.

Quote from: NACar on August 30, 2009, 06:44:22 PM
Yes. Right in front of my apt is one of them. It's 25 here, but if you go that fast, there is a 100% chance that you will hit one of the 3-foot-tall Somalian kids that run around between he parked cars unsupervised at all hours of the day and night.

lol

Quote from: R-inge on August 30, 2009, 09:50:48 PM
I can remember a few times thinking, "Wow, XXmph is wicked fast for this road... I'm barely comfortable at that speed," on a few occasions.  And I generally drive 5mph over the posted limit at all times, and I don't see the yellow signs if you get my drift.

I dunno if the yellow signs are the same as here ("recommended speed limit"), but by definition I thought you didn't have to keep to that speed....

and as much as I like to speed (admittedly a little way too much  :lol:), even I've found roads where I clearly see kids running around on the sidewalk and felt like the speed limit was too high. Small residential streets are the only ones I won't go over the speed limit at all on.

Quote from: SVT_Power on August 30, 2009, 09:52:18 PM
I dunno if the yellow signs are the same as here ("recommended speed limit"), but by definition I thought you didn't have to keep to that speed....

Maryland law is that you're only in trouble if you crash going above the recommended speed on the yellow sign.

Just because there are kids playing on the street doesn't mean the limit is too high.  You slow down when there are kids, or when kids are likely to be there.  Does that mean that a residential street's 25mph speed limit is too high at 3AM?  No.  

Hell, most people (and I mean people; 40 year olds in SUVs and minivans, adults with children, et al) do 40 in my neighborhood and roll stop signs.  I'm the only one who does 25-30 and makes full stops at stop signs.

Quote from: SVT_Power on August 30, 2009, 09:52:18 PM
I dunno if the yellow signs are the same as here ("recommended speed limit"), but by definition I thought you didn't have to keep to that speed....

What I mean is that even if there is a lower recommended speed for a corner I tend to judge it myself and decide whether I need to brake or not, so most of the time those signs are irrelevant to me.  In the winter I am a tad more cautious of course.

Quote from: R-inge on August 31, 2009, 07:30:09 AM

What I mean is that even if there is a lower recommended speed for a corner I tend to judge it myself and decide whether I need to brake or not, so most of the time those signs are irrelevant to me.  In the winter I am a tad more cautious of course.

I use them to benchmark turn speed.  Usually, twice recommended is a good speed for the corner.

Inner-city suburbs, certainly, especially when the limit was 60km/h (37.3mph).

All residential streets are by default 50 km/h max., however I'd never go that fast. The frequency of inattentive pedestrians is too high, the roads too narrow, and there are too many parked cars on both sides of the street to be able to adequately anticipate potential hazards on the sidewalks. I usually go about 30 km/h on any given residential road, sometimes up to 40 on my own street (because I know the hazards well enough).

There are a few roads in disrepair where the posted limit is too high, practically speaking. The frost-heaved asphalt is like a row of speed bumps.

Quote from: ifcar on August 31, 2009, 06:19:27 AM
Maryland law is that you're only in trouble if you crash going above the recommended speed on the yellow sign.

my dad got a ticket for going too fast on the off ramp (i didn't even know that was possible)

Barring road damage, I don't think so. At least not very often.

If it's worth anything, I drive plenty of roads with reasonable limits, IMO.

Quote from: SVT_Power on August 31, 2009, 05:45:25 PM
my dad got a ticket for going too fast on the off ramp (i didn't even know that was possible)

I guess disregard for speed laws runs in your family.... :rastaman:

Given the conditions that obtain when limits were set, no, I have never seen a posted speed limit that even approached the 85th and 95th percentile speeds that engineers use much less the design speed.  I have noticed that there are certain roads in Temecula that are posted at 55 mph (Rancho California Road) that would be posted at 40 or even 30 mph in OK or TX.  Since the 85th percentile speeds along RCR are closer to 65 mph that just goes to show what morons set the limits in OK and TX.

Driving through upstate NY on their back roads this summer, many revert to the "State Speed Limit" of 55 mph. There were a few times when I was going 40 and felt that it was plenty fast enough (within the limits of safety). But the roads had plenty of passing zones, making traffic backups non-existant.

Most states have overall regualtions in effect that residential side streets HAVE to be set at 25MPH, and this makes sense in most cases.  You are going to have too many distractions, kids, pets, people backing out of driveways, etc, etc.
Oddly, in MD, at least, any limit below 25 MPH is not enforceable by the police.  (I can't recall the source on that, but I read it just a few weeks ago.)

THere is one back road in my area that is posted at 50 that I feel uncomfortable doing over 45 or so.

As mentioned above, the road conditions are the most important factor.  You can be ticketed for "Driving too fast for existing conditions" in many states, regardless of the speed limit, if the officer feels you should have been going slower due to rain, fog, snow/ice or other hazards.

Quote from: 2o6 on August 30, 2009, 05:13:18 PM
Have you ever thought a speed limit was too fast?


Simple question. I was driving along a side street and I actually thought 25MPH was too fast.

The speed limit in our subdivision is 30 MPH.  I never drive that fast there becasue of the number of cars parked at the curb and the number of kids out and about.  I generally go 20-25 through our subdivision.

The street behind our old house was 3 lanes each way, but with stop lights every quarter mile or so.  It was, and is, a main route for trucks and thru traffic, plus there are subdivisions on each side so there is a lot of traffic entering and leaving the street. For years the limit was 55 which I thought too fast for conditions and general traffic volume.  I guess the city finally agreed because it was lowered to 45 a few years ago. .

Quote from: SVT_Power on August 30, 2009, 09:53:35 PM
Small residential streets are the only ones I won't go over the speed limit at all on.

LIAR.

Hell, I've taken to speeding in my neighborhood on the way to and from work.  In the morning, at most there will be high school kids waiting for the bus, and by the time I get back, everyone's inside having dinner.  No point in tiptoeing if no one is going to hear you anyway. 

During the weekend, I drive at 25-30 though. 

I've never found a posted speed limit that was too high. A posted limit that is higher that you want to go merely means that if it's prudent you can go faster. In fact, I'd prefer that to be the case everywhere, and enforcement based on reasonable and prudent for the conditions. A posted limit that is higher than you want to go allows for judgement, and the reality of a new Lotus Elise on sticky tires being more competent a mount to decide from than a beater Cavalier. I hate limits that are based on forcing everyone to the limits of that beater Cavalier. The reason we HAVE lowest common denomintor drivers, is we force everyone to BE lowest common denominator.

Quote from: Tave on August 31, 2009, 06:55:00 PM
Barring road damage, I don't think so. At least not very often.

If it's worth anything, I drive plenty of roads with reasonable limits, IMO.

University between North Point and Shattalon. It's a surface street with frequent heavy traffic as well as a large shopping center and two busy lights yet has a 55 mph speed limit. A lot of times 55 is safe, but during peak times it isn't, imho.

Quote from: ChrisV on September 15, 2009, 12:39:17 PM
I've never found a posted speed limit that was too high. A posted limit that is higher that you want to go merely means that if it's prudent you can go faster. In fact, I'd prefer that to be the case everywhere, and enforcement based on reasonable and prudent for the conditions. A posted limit that is higher than you want to go allows for judgement, and the reality of a new Lotus Elise on sticky tires being more competent a mount to decide from than a beater Cavalier. I hate limits that are based on forcing everyone to the limits of that beater Cavalier. The reason we HAVE lowest common denomintor drivers, is we force everyone to BE lowest common denominator.

One could argue that, if the state is subsidising your medical expenses should you be involved in an accident, then it has an obligation to the taxpayers to mitigate their financial burden by ensuring drivers and passengers are less likely to suffer the severe (and expensive) injuries more likely in 60mph crashes relative to 50mph ones, or 35mph ones relative to 25mph ones.

Playing devil's advocate, mind.

The speed limit for the street at the end of my block is too high in my opinion for the location.  It used to be a 25mph zone, about two years ago it was raised to 35mph.   The logic of increasing the limit escapes me.  The street goes from 25mph, then to 35mph just before it gets to a elementary school playground, then the street ends at another cross street, with a stop sign and you have to turn left or right.  For about 300 yards, it is 35mph.  Makes no sense.

I found a speed limit that is infuriatingly low.

There's a four-lane, separated stretch of a road called Elbow Drive that is a measly 30-40 km/h (19-25 mph). It should be 50 km/h (31 mph), and you could easily travel at 60 km/h (37 mph) in light traffic.

Quote from: ChrisV on September 15, 2009, 12:39:17 PM
I've never found a posted speed limit that was too high. A posted limit that is higher that you want to go merely means that if it's prudent you can go faster. In fact, I'd prefer that to be the case everywhere, and enforcement based on reasonable and prudent for the conditions. A posted limit that is higher than you want to go allows for judgement, and the reality of a new Lotus Elise on sticky tires being more competent a mount to decide from than a beater Cavalier. I hate limits that are based on forcing everyone to the limits of that beater Cavalier. The reason we HAVE lowest common denomintor drivers, is we force everyone to BE lowest common denominator.

"Reasonable and prudent for the conditions" is too vague. It will never happen. Lowest common denominator is easily enforceable.

Quote from: 93JC on September 16, 2009, 10:09:29 AM
"Reasonable and prudent for the conditions" is too vague. It will never happen. Lowest common denominator is easily enforceable.

But the fact that nobody really takes the lowest common denominator seriously means that in reality, we are still enforcing "reasonable and prudent for conditions", unless we have nothing better to do.

Quote from: 93JC on September 16, 2009, 10:09:29 AM"Reasonable and prudent for the conditions" is too vague. It will never happen. Lowest common denominator is easily enforceable.

Realistically, nobody would even want "reasonable and prudent for conditions" to be the law. Drivers wouldn't want it because it makes the speed limits totally arbitrary to the opinions of each individual LEO...what one officer thinks is "reasonable and prudent," another one a mile down the road might not. LEO's wouldn't want it because they'd be spending every day in court, testifying as to what they think "reasonable and prudent" is. Prosecutors wouldn't want it because they'd have to prove "reasonable and prudent" in court...something that's nearly impossible because it's so vague. Judges wouldn't want it because it would drastically increase their caseload until they'd defined "reasonable and prudent" into a more specific legal definition...which, once they did, would put us right back to where we started, because it would make the definition of "reasonable and prudent" specific enough for enforcement and prosecution.

Quote from: bing_oh on September 16, 2009, 12:49:57 PM
Realistically, nobody would even want "reasonable and prudent for conditions" to be the law. Drivers wouldn't want it because it makes the speed limits totally arbitrary to the opinions of each individual LEO...what one officer thinks is "reasonable and prudent," another one a mile down the road might not. LEO's wouldn't want it because they'd be spending every day in court, testifying as to what they think "reasonable and prudent" is. Prosecutors wouldn't want it because they'd have to prove "reasonable and prudent" in court...something that's nearly impossible because it's so vague. Judges wouldn't want it because it would drastically increase their caseload until they'd defined "reasonable and prudent" into a more specific legal definition...which, once they did, would put us right back to where we started, because it would make the definition of "reasonable and prudent" specific enough for enforcement and prosecution.

It would work fine if it wasn't enforced.

Quote from: bing_oh on September 16, 2009, 12:49:57 PM
Realistically, nobody would even want "reasonable and prudent for conditions" to be the law. Drivers wouldn't want it because it makes the speed limits totally arbitrary to the opinions of each individual LEO...what one officer thinks is "reasonable and prudent," another one a mile down the road might not. LEO's wouldn't want it because they'd be spending every day in court, testifying as to what they think "reasonable and prudent" is. Prosecutors wouldn't want it because they'd have to prove "reasonable and prudent" in court...something that's nearly impossible because it's so vague. Judges wouldn't want it because it would drastically increase their caseload until they'd defined "reasonable and prudent" into a more specific legal definition...which, once they did, would put us right back to where we started, because it would make the definition of "reasonable and prudent" specific enough for enforcement and prosecution.

Well, how about not enforcing it unless someone crashes.  If you crash, you very likely have gone beyond reasonable and prudent.  And tire squealing would be another sign.

Quote from: NomisR on September 16, 2009, 03:27:56 PM
Well, how about not enforcing it unless someone crashes.  If you crash, you very likely have gone beyond reasonable and prudent.  And tire squealing would be another sign.

110% agreed, although, some tires seem to squeal with even the slightest provocation (e.g. Swift). Large differentials in road speed versus wheel speed, and/or drift angles would have to be observed.

Quote from: NomisR on September 16, 2009, 03:27:56 PMWell, how about not enforcing it unless someone crashes.  If you crash, you very likely have gone beyond reasonable and prudent.  And tire squealing would be another sign.

Now you're advocating, at the very least, reactive law enforcement. The public in general is definitely not in favor of this. The public wants law enforcement to be proactive...prevention rather than reaction. When law enforcement is reactive, the usual response by the public is "where were you when this was going on?"

At the worst, it could end up in law enforcement being sued or criminally-prosecuted. What if an officer is sitting alongside the roadway and sees a vehicle driving at a high rate of speed. The officer doesn't enforce the "reasonable and prudent" speed law because he doesn't think he can prove it and the vehicle crashes a half mile up the road, killing an uninvolved third party. Chances of the department being sued for the officer not stopping the vehicle or the officer being criminally-prosecuted for misfeasance/malfeasance/nonfeasance is highly likely.

Quote from: bing_oh on September 16, 2009, 03:42:54 PM
Now you're advocating, at the very least, reactive law enforcement. The public in general is definitely not in favor of this. The public wants law enforcement to be proactive...prevention rather than reaction. When law enforcement is reactive, the usual response by the public is "where were you when this was going on?"

At the worst, it could end up in law enforcement being sued or criminally-prosecuted. What if an officer is sitting alongside the roadway and sees a vehicle driving at a high rate of speed. The officer doesn't enforce the "reasonable and prudent" speed law because he doesn't think he can prove it and the vehicle crashes a half mile up the road, killing an uninvolved third party. Chances of the department being sued for the officer not stopping the vehicle or the officer being criminally-prosecuted for misfeasance/malfeasance/nonfeasance is highly likely.

A liability issue for the sake of the police department has nothing to do with public interest, and everything to do with police interest, which makes it irrelevant.
The public, in general, is a bunch of assholes that want to have their cake, and eat it, too, but anyone else with cake shouldn't be allowed to enjoy it as they like. Well, the public's interest in controlling other people is really the only problem. People seem to think there is a real need to have something in the books to make sure the other people don't eat too much cake. But it's my fucking cake, assholes, and unless my cake spills onto your plate, you have no business telling me what to do with it. Are you going to give me shit just because my cake is huge and it just looks like it might fall on your head? Yes, you are, but you can't do anything about it unless it actually does. In that case, I will take full responsibility for the actions of my cake. The system will never be perfect, but given the choice, I think we need to err on the side of freedom and personal responsibility, rather than a police state. This is fucking America. I want some cake.

Quote from: NACar on September 16, 2009, 04:04:39 PMA liability issue for the sake of the police department has nothing to do with public interest, and everything to do with police interest, which makes it irrelevant.

Really? Irrelevant? Tying the hands of law enforcement isn't exactly "irrelevant" to the public interest. If law enforcement is unable to do its job because the laws are so poorly, vaguely written as to make enforcement impossible, then that would have a direct impact on the public, would it not?

How about you just admit that you don't have a rebuttal for my point instead of trying to label it "irrelevant" and we can move on.

QuoteThe public, in general, is a bunch of assholes that want to have their cake, and eat it, too, but anyone else with cake shouldn't be allowed to enjoy it as they like. Well, the public's interest in controlling other people is really the only problem. People seem to think there is a real need to have something in the books to make sure the other people don't eat too much cake. But it's my fucking cake, assholes, and unless my cake spills onto your plate, you have no business telling me what to do with it. Are you going to give me shit just because my cake is huge and it just looks like it might fall on your head? Yes, you are, but you can't do anything about it unless it actually does. In that case, I will take full responsibility for the actions of my cake. The system will never be perfect, but given the choice, I think we need to err on the side of freedom and personal responsibility, rather than a police state. This is fucking America. I want some cake.

Yes, YOU want some cake. Sounds more like you're the one who wants to have his cake and eat it too. The public has every right to have the roadways as safe as we can reasonably make them. That's not an unreasonable expectation. Your proposal doesn't support that, though. Your proposal is to let everybody do whatever the hell they want to and then, when it hurst or kills somebody else, doll out punishment. Somehow, I don't think that the victim or their family would consider that a fair trade-off. The public is willing to give up certain freedoms for the greater good...even if you're not.

Quote from: bing_oh on September 16, 2009, 04:16:53 PM
Really? Irrelevant? Tying the hands of law enforcement isn't exactly "irrelevant" to the public interest. If law enforcement is unable to do its job because the laws are so poorly, vaguely written as to make enforcement impossible, then that would have a direct impact on the public, would it not?

How about you just admit that you don't have a rebuttal for my point instead of trying to label it "irrelevant" and we can move on.

Your previous statement showed no thought other than how to make it the most convenient for cops to punish civilians. That is the attitude that leads to a police state. The government should exist to serve the people, not itself.  Oh, sorry, I AM NOT COP SO I AM DUMB ME SO SORRY I ADMIT HAVE NO REBUTTAL.

Quote

Yes, YOU want some cake. Sounds more like you're the one who wants to have his cake and eat it too. The public has every right to have the roadways as safe as we can reasonably make them. That's not an unreasonable expectation. Your proposal doesn't support that, though. Your proposal is to let everybody do whatever the hell they want to and then, when it hurst or kills somebody else, doll out punishment. Somehow, I don't think that the victim or their family would consider that a fair trade-off. The public is willing to give up certain freedoms for the greater good...even if you're not.

MOVE TO CHINA, YOU COMMIE BASTARD

Quote from: bing_oh on September 16, 2009, 03:42:54 PM
Now you're advocating, at the very least, reactive law enforcement. The public in general is definitely not in favor of this. The public wants law enforcement to be proactive...prevention rather than reaction. When law enforcement is reactive, the usual response by the public is "where were you when this was going on?"

At the worst, it could end up in law enforcement being sued or criminally-prosecuted. What if an officer is sitting alongside the roadway and sees a vehicle driving at a high rate of speed. The officer doesn't enforce the "reasonable and prudent" speed law because he doesn't think he can prove it and the vehicle crashes a half mile up the road, killing an uninvolved third party. Chances of the department being sued for the officer not stopping the vehicle or the officer being criminally-prosecuted for misfeasance/malfeasance/nonfeasance is highly likely.

Well, the general public is full of assholes and hypocrites.  I see it all the time, it's ok for them to speed down a residential street but when someone else is driving less than speed limit down their own street with kids playing, the other guy's a maniac that should be stopped. 

So in reality, what the public want may not always be what's right because it's largely skewed by their hypocrisy.

Now, I'm not recommending all speed limits to be abolished here but at least on freeways. 

Now of course the punishment for being the primary cause of accident will have to result in a really severe punishment though, this is a given.  Without that, it just doesn't work. 

Of course, knowing our society, we prefer to create severe laws only to hinder law abiding citizens but those who do break the law, they get a slap on the wrist because they're the victims. 

Quote from: NACar on September 16, 2009, 04:24:56 PMYour previous statement showed no thought other than how to make it the most convenient for cops to punish civilians. That is the attitude that leads to a police state. The government should exist to serve the people, not itself.  Oh, sorry, I AM NOT COP SO I AM DUMB ME SO SORRY I ADMIT HAVE NO REBUTTAL.

MOVE TO CHINA, YOU COMMIE BASTARD

Hmm. I do so love a nice, logical, adult debate. Nothing like a pleasant discourse between two intelligent people of differing ideas.

Quote from: NACar on September 16, 2009, 04:24:56 PM

MOVE TO CHINA, YOU COMMIE BASTARD

Hey,  Just so  you know.. after driving in China.. it's actually more the way "we" prefer the roads to be.. sorta. 

It's definitely not a police state, the police don't care at all unless you've done something really bad or someone from up top says to crack down on something for a little while, otherwise, you get to speed as much as you feel safely can.

Of course, with the number of poor drivers out there and the road constructions going on, I limited my speed to 85 or less.

Quote from: NomisR on September 16, 2009, 04:44:02 PMWell, the general public is full of assholes and hypocrites.  I see it all the time, it's ok for them to speed down a residential street but when someone else is driving less than speed limit down their own street with kids playing, the other guy's a maniac that should be stopped. 

So in reality, what the public want may not always be what's right because it's largely skewed by their hypocrisy.

Now, I'm not recommending all speed limits to be abolished here but at least on freeways. 

Now of course the punishment for being the primary cause of accident will have to result in a really severe punishment though, this is a given.  Without that, it just doesn't work. 

Of course, knowing our society, we prefer to create severe laws only to hinder law abiding citizens but those who do break the law, they get a slap on the wrist because they're the victims.

I'm not going to argue that the public isn't hypocritical. Generally, they are.

The idea of a "reasonable and prudent" speed limit is simply not possible from an enforcement standpoint. As I've said, you'll have to define "reasonable and prudent" legally...without a legal definition, the law is pointless and unenforceable. You'd be better off abolishing speed laws totally...not something that I advocate, but it makes more sense that replacing them with an unenforceable law. If you were to make such a "reasonable and prudent" law, but limit enforcement to only when it results in a crash, you're creating an unacceptable trade-off between human life and individual freedom. While some people might argue that the current system is skewed toward security at the cost of freedom, a "reasonable and prudent" law would skew exactly the opposite way.

As for the chance of "severe punishment" for a violation of such a law, I think we both know that isn't going to happen. I recall a thread not too long ago about the consequences of drunk driving resulting in a death and how absurdly miniscule the resulting punishments were. If we can't get consistantly severe punishments for DUI's, what's the chance of getting such punishments for a modified speed law?

Quote from: bing_oh on September 16, 2009, 05:04:24 PM
I'm not going to argue that the public isn't hypocritical. Generally, they are.

The idea of a "reasonable and prudent" speed limit is simply not possible from an enforcement standpoint. As I've said, you'll have to define "reasonable and prudent" legally...without a legal definition, the law is pointless and unenforceable. You'd be better off abolishing speed laws totally...not something that I advocate, but it makes more sense that replacing them with an unenforceable law. If you were to make such a "reasonable and prudent" law, but limit enforcement to only when it results in a crash, you're creating an unacceptable trade-off between human life and individual freedom. While some people might argue that the current system is skewed toward security at the cost of freedom, a "reasonable and prudent" law would skew exactly the opposite way.

As for the chance of "severe punishment" for a violation of such a law, I think we both know that isn't going to happen. I recall a thread not too long ago about the consequences of drunk driving resulting in a death and how absurdly miniscule the resulting punishments were. If we can't get consistantly severe punishments for DUI's, what's the chance of getting such punishments for a modified speed law?

Really? "Simply not possible"? Tying the hands of civilians for the sake of convenient law enforcement isn't exactly the way to ensure truth, justice and the American way... If law enforcement is unable to do its job because they can't figure it out for themselves, then we just need new cops that know what the hell America is supposed to be about.

How about you just admit that you don't have a rebuttal for anything other than a police state instead of trying to label it "simply not possible" and we can move on.

Quote from: bing_oh on September 16, 2009, 05:04:24 PM

The idea of a "reasonable and prudent" speed limit is simply not possible from an enforcement standpoint. As I've said, you'll have to define "reasonable and prudent" legally...without a legal definition, the law is pointless and unenforceable. You'd be better off abolishing speed laws totally...not something that I advocate, but it makes more sense that replacing them with an unenforceable law. If you were to make such a "reasonable and prudent" law, but limit enforcement to only when it results in a crash, you're creating an unacceptable trade-off between human life and individual freedom. While some people might argue that the current system is skewed toward security at the cost of freedom, a "reasonable and prudent" law would skew exactly the opposite way.

I personally prefer the other way as the trade-off as you have to be responsible for your own safety.  Especially with the current speed limit, it does not prove to make traveling safer, just enforceable.  And even then, you don't really know whether or not you may get a ticket for one offense by one officer while completely let off by another.  So it's still a crap shoot. 

Quote from: NACar on September 16, 2009, 05:09:26 PM
Really? "Simply not possible"? Tying the hands of civilians for the sake of convenient law enforcement isn't exactly the way to ensure truth, justice and the American way... If law enforcement is unable to do its job because they can't figure it out for themselves, then we just need new cops that know what the hell America is supposed to be about.

How about you just admit that you don't have a rebuttal for anything other than a police state instead of trying to label it "simply not possible" and we can move on.

I'll have to say, if speed limit was abolished, initially, there will be great confusion and a lot of accidents.  However, in about 6 months time, things will calm down and be even better than previous as people will realize what they feel is safe and they don't have the cover of the speed limit to help them.  Also, people might finally get off their damn phone and stop texting while driving!!!!!!

Quote from: NomisR on September 16, 2009, 05:20:30 PMI personally prefer the other way as the trade-off as you have to be responsible for your own safety.  Especially with the current speed limit, it does not prove to make traveling safer, just enforceable.  And even then, you don't really know whether or not you may get a ticket for one offense by one officer while completely let off by another.  So it's still a crap shoot.

If you look at it that way, you're actually expecting everybody else on the road to be responsible for your safety. At the extreme end of enforcement, such a law would essentially remove the government from taking any kind of preventative measure in ensuring speed-related safety, meaning that you're placing all your faith on the abilities of the least responsible driver in your general vacinity. Personally, I think I'll pass on that...

As for the legal crap shoot, it would be much, much worse with a "reasonable and prudent" law as opposed to the current set speed limit. Now, at least, you actually know if you're in violation of the law. With a "reasonable and prudent" standard, it's totally arbitrary and based upon an individuals personal opinion...not exactly a fair way to write a law.

Quote from: bing_oh on September 16, 2009, 05:32:01 PM
If you look at it that way, you're actually expecting everybody else on the road to be responsible for your safety. At the extreme end of enforcement, such a law would essentially remove the government from taking any kind of preventative measure in ensuring speed-related safety, meaning that you're placing all your faith on the abilities of the least responsible driver in your general vacinity. Personally, I think I'll pass on that...

As for the legal crap shoot, it would be much, much worse with a "reasonable and prudent" law as opposed to the current set speed limit. Now, at least, you actually know if you're in violation of the law. With a "reasonable and prudent" standard, it's totally arbitrary and based upon an individuals personal opinion...not exactly a fair way to write a law.

That's exactly the way it is right now, with your precious government intervention. Somehow, we trust all these other idiots to not kill us. It probably has something to do with the fact that they don't want to get killed, either.

You need some:

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2362/2464965818_01cef13d96.jpg)

Quote from: bing_oh on September 16, 2009, 05:32:01 PM
If you look at it that way, you're actually expecting everybody else on the road to be responsible for your safety. At the extreme end of enforcement, such a law would essentially remove the government from taking any kind of preventative measure in ensuring speed-related safety, meaning that you're placing all your faith on the abilities of the least responsible driver in your general vacinity. Personally, I think I'll pass on that...

As for the legal crap shoot, it would be much, much worse with a "reasonable and prudent" law as opposed to the current set speed limit. Now, at least, you actually know if you're in violation of the law. With a "reasonable and prudent" standard, it's totally arbitrary and based upon an individuals personal opinion...not exactly a fair way to write a law.

I don't know, after going to China, I think relative anarchy works reasonably well especially when you get into the bigger cities where people have more experience in driving.

There are a lot of conditions there if it were with typical American drivers, I would expect a lot more accidents.  But because everyone is so used to random events occurring on the road such as a farmer with a bike climbing out of a ditch onto the freeway or a motorcycle coming at the wrong way right at you or a pedestrian randomly crossing the street without looking that people know exactly what to do at the right time. 

If there's any accidents, it's typically minor fender benders, I don't see the typical SUV rolling their car on a multi lane freeway with no cars around like I do over here. 

And of course, there's the random construction that pops up without proper warning that forces people to pay attention to the road.

I'm not saying I'm for that type of driving but to a certain extent, it works.  And police doesn't really get involved until you get in an accident. 

Quote from: NomisR on September 16, 2009, 05:42:58 PMI don't know, after going to China, I think relative anarchy works reasonably well especially when you get into the bigger cities where people have more experience in driving.

There are a lot of conditions there if it were with typical American drivers, I would expect a lot more accidents.  But because everyone is so used to random events occurring on the road such as a farmer with a bike climbing out of a ditch onto the freeway or a motorcycle coming at the wrong way right at you or a pedestrian randomly crossing the street without looking that people know exactly what to do at the right time. 

If there's any accidents, it's typically minor fender benders, I don't see the typical SUV rolling their car on a multi lane freeway with no cars around like I do over here. 

And of course, there's the random construction that pops up without proper warning that forces people to pay attention to the road.

I'm not saying I'm for that type of driving but to a certain extent, it works.  And police doesn't really get involved until you get in an accident.

Of course, if you kill someone there (or ding the fender of someone with high government connections), you'll spend the rest of your life in a camp for hard labor...or with a 7.62x39 round penetrating your skull and your brains decorating a wall behind you a split second later.

What I'm saying is, there are different expectations and standards for different cultures. What works there might not, necessarily, work in a culture that holds things like individual freedom and personal ownership in high regard.

Quote from: bing_oh on September 16, 2009, 05:50:46 PM
Of course, if you kill someone there (or ding the fender of someone with high government connections), you'll spend the rest of your life in a camp for hard labor...or with a 7.62x39 round penetrating your skull and your brains decorating a wall behind you a split second later.

If it were only that easy.. they're still struggling with the conviction of the guy who killed 4 people in a DUI.

QuoteWhat I'm saying is, there are different expectations and standards for different cultures. What works there might not, necessarily, work in a culture that holds things like individual freedom and personal ownership in high regard.

I find that comment funny considering the direction our country is headed towards but i'll leave that for another discussion.  I just think that if Montana was able to do it and it was basically done pre 55 mph national speed limit.. it can still be done today.

bing_oh writes:  {Realistically, nobody would even want "reasonable and prudent for conditions" to be the law. Drivers wouldn't want it because it makes the speed limits totally arbitrary to the opinions of each individual LEO...what one officer thinks is "reasonable and prudent," another one a mile down the road might not.}

That?s no different from what we currently have.  Local cops in Kiowa, OK will cite you for going 2 mph over their 45 mph limit but Chippies routinely ignore traffic running 20 mph over the 70 mph limit along I-15 between San Bernardino and San Diego. 

We had R&P laws in Kansas, Nevada, Montana, and Germany, all with results that compared favorably with states with lower limits.  After Montana moved to rescind R&P in favor of a numerical limit ? to benefit enforcement and the judiciary -- the number of fatal crashes doubled on interstate highways and the fatality rate increased.  The second year after implementation, Montana suffered a record-high number of fatal crashes.  The phenomenon known as the Montana Paradox describes and corroborates experience during NMSL, R&P after rescission of NMSL and then a return to a numerical limit.  It says:  The desired safety effect from posting speed limits was achieved by removing them. 

In short, R&P works.  However, to overlay enforcement onto R&P, seeking to punish drivers arbitrarily, does not work. 

{ LEO's wouldn't want it because they'd be spending every day in court, testifying as to what they think "reasonable and prudent" is.}

Who cares what R&P is?  Is not your real goal to avoid crashes altogether?  Or is there another dynamic at work here, a sub-rosa theme that enforcement is more important than allowing traffic to travel at its own speed without crashing?  Perhaps I am cynical, but I still believe that making enforcement easier is far less important than keeping traffic flowing smoothly, quickly and safely.     

Quote from: James Young on September 16, 2009, 09:29:26 PM
Perhaps I am cynical, but I still believe that making enforcement easier is far less important than keeping traffic flowing smoothly, quickly and safely.     

You know what?  While driving around in China, at first, I was afraid to drive in front of a police car because like here, you're just asking for trouble since you can be randomly pulled over if you make a mistake.  But then I was told that there's nothing to worry about, cops there don't really care.  And you know what?  They're right.. they don't care.. and that feels good to not have to worry about randomly being pulled over for minor infractions whether valid or not. 

Quote from: bing_oh on September 16, 2009, 03:42:54 PM
Now you're advocating, at the very least, reactive law enforcement. The public in general is definitely not in favor of this. The public wants law enforcement to be proactive...prevention rather than reaction. When law enforcement is reactive, the usual response by the public is "where were you when this was going on?"

Of course they do. The general public does not want to take responsibility for their own actions. This is the root cause of all of this, from too low speed limits, passing the buck on enforcement, to "free healthcare" to welfare.

You talk about variable opinions of "reasonable and prudent." We all seem to be able to tell when someone is being stupid on the roads. And we're not trained. Proper officer training (and internal discipline about being too strict) would have officers being quite capable of telling when someone is being too stupid on the road.

Reactive enforcement? ALL traffic stops are "reactive" anyhow (when was the last time you stopped someone because they were going to speed in a few minutes, or because it was Friday morning and you felt that later that evening, the guy might drive drunk?). At the point you see them and stop them, you are "reacting" to something they've already been doing for a while.

Quote from: ChrisV on September 19, 2009, 08:41:01 AMYou talk about variable opinions of "reasonable and prudent." We all seem to be able to tell when someone is being stupid on the roads. And we're not trained. Proper officer training (and internal discipline about being too strict) would have officers being quite capable of telling when someone is being too stupid on the road.

You're assuming that the officer is the last link in the enforcement chain when, in reality, we're the first. Remember that all people accused of a violation...from the most serious felony right down to the average speeder...is innocent until proven guilty. That means that, for such a law to be enforcable, you're going to have to make "reasonable and prudent" a standard that can be proven in a court of law to a judge. It's easy enough for an officer to say that a person isn't driving in a "reasonable and prudent" manner along the side of a road, but a totally different thing when I have to testify to it in a court and prove through that testomony beyond a reasonable doubt that the driver's actions weren't "reasonable and prudent." That's what nobody seems to understand in this argument...if you make it a law, then it has to be a standard that can be proven in court.

QuoteReactive enforcement? ALL traffic stops are "reactive" anyhow (when was the last time you stopped someone because they were going to speed in a few minutes, or because it was Friday morning and you felt that later that evening, the guy might drive drunk?). At the point you see them and stop them, you are "reacting" to something they've already been doing for a while.

Actually, alot of traffic stops are proactive in nature. Despite what James says, most traffic enforcement is made to proactively prevent crashes. Drunk driving, for example, is very proactive. I stop and arrest drunk drivers because people under the influence have poor reaction time, and less aware of their surroundings, and make bad decisions...all things that contribute to crashes.

The "reasonable person" standard of care is quite common in civil litigation. :huh:

Montana's statute was challenged on the ground that it violated the due process clause of the Montana constitution. It was pled through the courts by some freemen asshole who was probably exceeding the reasonable and prudent speed for that particular road, and rather than pay his measly fine and move on with his life, he chose to spend thousands of dollars to battle his obnoxious point and ruin the fun for all of us.

Of course, I think the court did it to make a point to the Montana legislature more than it did to uphold fair standards of justice. Note that almost every state in the union has the "reasonable and prudent" language in their speed/motor vehicle statutes to allow officers who ticket people that drive too fast for conditions (the focus being visibilty, weather, road conditions).

Quote from: Tave on September 19, 2009, 03:58:31 PMThe "reasonable person" standard of care is quite common in civil litigation. :huh:

Montana's statute was challenged on the ground that it violated the due process clause of the Montana constitution. It was pled through the courts by some freemen asshole who was probably exceeding the reasonable and prudent speed for that particular road, and rather than pay his measly fine and move on with his life, he chose to spend thousands of dollars to battle his obnoxious point and ruin the fun for all of us.

Of course, I think the court did it to make a point to the Montana legislature more than it did to uphold fair standards of justice. Note that almost every state in the union has the "reasonable and prudent" language in their speed/motor vehicle statutes to allow officers who ticket people that drive too fast for conditions (the focus being visibilty, weather, road conditions).

Civil litigation normally doesn't have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt like criminal does. Civil litigation usually only requires a preponderance of the evidence...essentially, evidence greater than that 50/50 point. With the higher requirement of proof comes more stringent standards and more exacting legal definitions.

Aren't you in law school, Tave? You should know this stuff. :nono: ;)

While "reasonable and prudent" is a part of most states' speed laws for adverse weather consitions, it's not normally enforced unless there's a loss of control of the vehicle (and, frequently, not then, as most officers will cite for Failure to Maintain Reasonable Control or their states' equivalent...easier to prove in court). So, we're right back to enforcing a "reasonable and prudent" speed law only when such speed results in a crash.

Quote from: bing_oh on September 19, 2009, 04:09:08 PM
Civil litigation normally doesn't have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt like criminal does. Civil litigation usually only requires a preponderance of the evidence...essentially, evidence greater than that 50/50 point. With the higher requirement of proof comes more stringent standards and more exacting legal definitions.

Oh yeah, just throwing it out there. :lol:

Interestingly enough, I was talking to a classmate who just finnished a term with the border patrol in AZ. We were b-sing about the speed cameras in Phoenix, and he mentioned that the state was contemplating a revision of the code to make photo radar tickets a civil infraction. That way the fine would be payable on receipt in the mail and they could avoid situations like this guy:

http://www.carspin.net/forums/index.php?topic=19894.0 (http://www.carspin.net/forums/index.php?topic=19894.0)

Even cooler: he told me about one of his coworkers who was popped @ 142 in the middle of a pursuit. Said the Feds were all too happy to tell Maricopa County what to do with their cute little slip of paper.  :lol: They also blew it up and hung a massive poster in the office.

Quote from: Tave on September 19, 2009, 03:58:31 PM
The "reasonable person" standard of care is quite common in civil litigation. :huh:

Montana's statute was challenged on the ground that it violated the due process clause of the Montana constitution. It was pled through the courts by some freemen asshole who was probably exceeding the reasonable and prudent speed for that particular road, and rather than pay his measly fine and move on with his life, he chose to spend thousands of dollars to battle his obnoxious point and ruin the fun for all of us.

Of course, I think the court did it to make a point to the Montana legislature more than it did to uphold fair standards of justice. Note that almost every state in the union has the "reasonable and prudent" language in their speed/motor vehicle statutes to allow officers who ticket people that drive too fast for conditions (the focus being visibilty, weather, road conditions).

Montana changed it's "reasonable and prudent" law because they were in danger of losing federal highway money.

It's always about money.

Uh, you guys really don't want subjective law (i.e., "reasonable and prudent") to be the law of the land. Further, anarchy is not freedom.

Further, you will simply have to expend all your energy in keeping the status quo - from GWist-inspired 55 mph national speed limit, to the continued proliferation of red light and speeding cameras, to the often-mentioned in-vehicle GPS transponders for mileage and location taxation purposes, there is many a specter looming owing to the prevailing political winds.

Quote from: GoCougs on September 20, 2009, 08:25:29 AM
Uh, you guys really don't want subjective law (i.e., "reasonable and prudent") to be the law of the land. Further, anarchy is not freedom.

Further, you will simply have to expend all your energy in keeping the status quo - from GWist-inspired 55 mph national speed limit, to the continued proliferation of red light and speeding cameras, to the often-mentioned in-vehicle GPS transponders for mileage and location taxation purposes, there is many a specter looming owing to the prevailing political winds.

You're right that anarchy isn't freedom.  You're also right about the danger of the prevailing political winds.

I support things like speed limits and safety inspections because I think the law is meant to guide wise men and restrain fools, and there are a lot of fools out there, and their actions can have a bad effect on others.  That's what we have to protect against.

But of course now we've reached the point where laws are being manipulated for other ends, like revenue, and this I don't support.

Quote from: ChrisV on September 20, 2009, 06:54:17 AM
Montana changed it's "reasonable and prudent" law because they were in danger of losing federal highway money.

It's always about money.

I refer you to State of Montana v Stanko.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=MT&vol=97&invol=486 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=MT&vol=97&invol=486)

Federal funding might have had something to do with it, but the specific event that caused it's demise was the Stanko case. Remember, the legislature refused to follow the governor's and highway patrol's request to instate a numerical limit. They had to be forced by the court.

Quote from: dazzleman on September 20, 2009, 08:39:15 AM
I support things like speed limits and safety inspections because I think the law is meant to guide wise men and restrain fools, and there are a lot of fools out there, and their actions can have a bad effect on others.  That's what we have to protect against.

It can be argued that by making and enforcing lowest common denominator laws, we create more lowest common denominator people. So the reason we have to protect ourselves from ever increasing numbers of fools is that we are making more fools by making more laws to protect us from them. The less you have to rely on your own initiative and take responsibility for your own actions, the less you have to think for yourself and the greater fool you become.

Quote from: ChrisV on September 20, 2009, 11:23:22 AM
It can be argued that by making and enforcing lowest common denominator laws, we create more lowest common denominator people. So the reason we have to protect ourselves from ever increasing numbers of fools is that we are making more fools by making more laws to protect us from them. The less you have to rely on your own initiative and take responsibility for your own actions, the less you have to think for yourself and the greater fool you become.

That is a good point.

Quote from: ChrisV on September 20, 2009, 06:54:17 AMMontana changed it's "reasonable and prudent" law because they were in danger of losing federal highway money.

It's always about money.

Actually, Chris, I'm not sure that's true. To my knowledge, there's no longer any connection between interstate highway speed limits and federal highway money. That changed when the Feds dropped their insistance on the double-nickle speed limit some years ago. Now, speed limits vary from state to state on interstate highways, but all those states still get federal highway money.

Quote from: ChrisV on September 20, 2009, 11:23:22 AMIt can be argued that by making and enforcing lowest common denominator laws, we create more lowest common denominator people. So the reason we have to protect ourselves from ever increasing numbers of fools is that we are making more fools by making more laws to protect us from them. The less you have to rely on your own initiative and take responsibility for your own actions, the less you have to think for yourself and the greater fool you become.

I think you're underestimating the number of people in the US who are simply fucking idiots and who are breeding more idiots into our society. They aren't made into idiots by legislation...most of these people could care less what the law is and disregard it anyway. These "lowest common denominatior" people are mostly made by upbringing. Their parents are irresponsible idiots and they teach their children to be irresponsible idiots. I deal with them every day...we usually refer to them as "regular customers" around my department...and see their so-called parenting skills. You can't change them by making the laws less restrictive.

Is it unfortunate that we have to make common sense laws for these kinds of people? Yes, it is. But, it's also necessary for the protection of society as a whole. If all people could apply comon sense, thought before acting, and considered not only how the consequences of their actions effected them but effected others, then we wouldn't need laws at all. Of course, we woud be a very different species than we are right now, too.

bing_oh writes:  They aren?t made into idiots by legislation. . . .}
   
But they are made into criminals by legislation and thereby become the interest of the state, requiring resources from the judicial system and the social welfare system.
{I deal with them every day...we usually refer to them as "regular customers" around my department...}
   
True of virtually any large department.  My criticism of law enforcement is that they so often confuse all citizens with these regular customers. 
{You can't change them by making the laws less restrictive.}

Nor can you change them by making laws more restrictive.  I don?t believe that law enforcement has a legitimate role in social reformation of the disenfranchised, unemployed, uneducated, addicted, or impaired beyond protecting society and them from each other.  What benefit accrues to society by further burdening the addict with the label of criminal?  Are not these people and society better served by providing social services and education rather than adjudication and incarceration, freeing up enforcement for other legitimate needs?

Quote from: bing_oh on September 20, 2009, 12:57:49 PM
Actually, Chris, I'm not sure that's true. To my knowledge, there's no longer any connection between interstate highway speed limits and federal highway money. That changed when the Feds dropped their insistance on the double-nickle speed limit some years ago. Now, speed limits vary from state to state on interstate highways, but all those states still get federal highway money.

While Montana was never at risk of losing highway money, it's listed as one of the primary reasons legislators re-instated the speed limits (and lack of speed related revenue). In fact, legilators were misled by the Governor and the head of the Highway patrol, who both testified that they woudl lose the money AND that Montan was having a crisis on it's roadways.

Nevermind that Montana's highway fatalities were at an all-time low at that point, and had been decreasing every year the "reasonable and prudent" law had been in effect.

Quote from: bing_oh on September 20, 2009, 01:08:17 PM
I think you're underestimating the number of people in the US who are simply fucking idiots and who are breeding more idiots into our society. They aren't made into idiots by legislation...most of these people could care less what the law is and disregard it anyway. These "lowest common denominatior" people are mostly made by upbringing. Their parents are irresponsible idiots and they teach their children to be irresponsible idiots. I deal with them every day...we usually refer to them as "regular customers" around my department...and see their so-called parenting skills. You can't change them by making the laws less restrictive.

Is it unfortunate that we have to make common sense laws for these kinds of people? Yes, it is. But, it's also necessary for the protection of society as a whole. If all people could apply comon sense, thought before acting, and considered not only how the consequences of their actions effected them but effected others, then we wouldn't need laws at all. Of course, we woud be a very different species than we are right now, too.

I disagree. People are not allowed to be responsible for themselves, in fact, are discouraged by law, regulation, and the like. And are being encouraged to be that way by governmental agencies run by people who feel we have to protect ourselves FROM ourselves at any cost.  if you never have to rise above yourself, by laws that limit youre need to get more skilled at something, or by regulations that benefit you when you take the lowest common denominator path (welfare, for example) then you get a society that quickly aims itself at the bottom floor. "I don't have to do better. I'm getting a handout." "I don't have to try harder. I'm already a 'winner'." I don't need to take responsibility. It's someone else's fault. I'm just a victim! I'm gonna sue somebody."

Legislators, lawmakers, and the increasingly less responsible people that voted for them are, in fact, responsible for the dumbing down of society. And they get exactly what they are aiming for: lowest common denominator people dependent on them, protected by lowest common denominator laws that force them to not think for themselves.

Notice I'm not blaming LEOS. You guys get the short stick in this scenario, as you have to enforce increasingly bad, and increasingly unpopular laws. It actually makes it harder for you to do your jobs because now EVERYBODY is a potential outlaw, not just a few "repeat customers."

Quote from: ChrisV on September 20, 2009, 01:44:44 PMI disagree. People are not allowed to be responsible for themselves, in fact, are discouraged by law, regulation, and the like. And are being encouraged to be that way by governmental agencies run by people who feel we have to protect ourselves FROM ourselves at any cost.  if you never have to rise above yourself, by laws that limit youre need to get more skilled at something, or by regulations that benefit you when you take the lowest common denominator path (welfare, for example) then you get a society that quickly aims itself at the bottom floor. "I don't have to do better. I'm getting a handout." "I don't have to try harder. I'm already a 'winner'." I don't need to take responsibility. It's someone else's fault. I'm just a victim! I'm gonna sue somebody."

Legislators, lawmakers, and the increasingly less responsible people that voted for them are, in fact, responsible for the dumbing down of society. And they get exactly what they are aiming for: lowest common denominator people dependent on them, protected by lowest common denominator laws that force them to not think for themselves.

Notice I'm not blaming LEOS. You guys get the short stick in this scenario, as you have to enforce increasingly bad, and increasingly unpopular laws. It actually makes it harder for you to do your jobs because now EVERYBODY is a potential outlaw, not just a few "repeat customers."

Are you, personally, any less responsible because of the laws curently in place? Do you look for the quick welfare handout from the government? Do you limit how hard you try because somebody told you you're already a "winner?" Are you an automatic victim? Somehow, I think the answer to all of those questions is "no." So...why? You live under the same laws and whthin the same society (to some extent) that my "regular customers" do. Shouldn't you (and I, and every other responsible, law-abiding contributor to society) be acting the same way because we are being conditioned by the law? No, at some point in our lives, we were taught differently and so we act differently. I'm guessing it wasn't the government in any form that did that teaching. The foundations of those teachings were probably laid around the time we were learning to walk and talk.

I agree wholeheartedly that many aspects of our system encourage abuse and victimization and a lack of individual responsibility. It pisses me off to no end when I see people manipulating the system to their personal benefit, living better than I am without a job, ignoring the laws that I follow and enforce. I would love to see reforms in our system that eliminate all those loopholes AND give the good people more freedom. But, opening up the laws before making socital changes is putting the cart before the horse. You need to teach responsibility before you can give freedom. If you just give freedom to the people who are already manipulating the system...the "regular customers" we see in LE...then they will not learn responsibility but just take advantage of the changes for personal gain.

You have to accept that there is a segment of the population that doesn't think like you and I do. They don't understand personal responsibility and they don't WANT to. They have no desire to better themselves and definitely don't want to better society.

I imagine I'm going to regret this, as I always do when I respond to you, James...

Quote from: James Young on September 20, 2009, 01:34:14 PMBut they are made into criminals by legislation and thereby become the interest of the state, requiring resources from the judicial system and the social welfare system.

Their actions make them criminals. Don't blame the system because someone does something stupid that society doesn't want them to do. You don't eliminate the criminal act by legislative decriminalization...you just eliminate the "crime" statistically.

QuoteTrue of virtually any large department.  My criticism of law enforcement is that they so often confuse all citizens with these regular customers.

Too bad I work for a small department, huh? You can criticize LE all you want for confusing the citizenry as a whole with the "regular customers." While I may look at all people with a certain degree of suspicion simply for the purposes of safety, I don't confuse one group with the other.

QuoteNor can you change them by making laws more restrictive.  I don?t believe that law enforcement has a legitimate role in social reformation of the disenfranchised, unemployed, uneducated, addicted, or impaired beyond protecting society and them from each other.  What benefit accrues to society by further burdening the addict with the label of criminal?  Are not these people and society better served by providing social services and education rather than adjudication and incarceration, freeing up enforcement for other legitimate needs?

You don't change the "regular customers." "Reform" is the buzzword of the liberals...you'll be hard-pressed to find many liberal LEO's. No, the best way to deal with these people is to separate them from society and minimize the damage they can do to the good people. You can have your love affair with the ideas of providing social services and education to these people, thus changing them into productive members of society. It's all rainbows and sunshine hippie bullshit. People do not change unless they want to change and no amount of government assistance will force them to do so.

bing_oh writes:  {Actually, [a lot] of traffic stops are proactive in nature. Despite what James says, most traffic enforcement is made to proactively prevent crashes.}
     
If that is the case, such activity is a miserable failure.  There is no correlation between the level of enforcement ? measured in number of ?contacts,? citations, checkpoints, or officer saturation ? and key measures of traffic safety and no correlation has ever been established.  In harsher terms, those ?proactive? stops are wasted in terms of public safety improvements.  The best predictors of institutional behavior are history, inertia, protection of the institution and growth of the institution. 

Repeating the same behavior and hoping for a different outcome is a classic definition of insanity and it certainly applies in this case. 

Why do you keep defending an obviously failed system?

Quote from: James Young on September 20, 2009, 03:14:23 PM
bing_oh writes:  {Actually, [a lot] of traffic stops are proactive in nature. Despite what James says, most traffic enforcement is made to proactively prevent crashes.}
     
If that is the case, such activity is a miserable failure.  There is no correlation between the level of enforcement ? measured in number of ?contacts,? citations, checkpoints, or officer saturation ? and key measures of traffic safety and no correlation has ever been established.  In harsher terms, those ?proactive? stops are wasted in terms of public safety improvements.  The best predictors of institutional behavior are history, inertia, protection of the institution and growth of the institution.  

Repeating the same behavior and hoping for a different outcome is a classic definition of insanity and it certainly applies in this case.  

Why do you keep defending an obviously failed system?

What, did you swallow a psychology textbook this morning, Jimmy? :huh:

"Predictors of institutional behavior?" Ugh. Stop trying to sound like a university professor and respond so the rest of us troglodytes can figure out what the hell you're talking about, please.

Quote from: bing_oh on September 20, 2009, 03:50:32 PM
What, did you swallow a psychology textbook this morning, Jimmy? :huh:

"Predictors of institutional behavior?" Ugh. Stop trying to sound like a university professor and respond so the rest of us troglodytes can figure out what the hell you're talking about, please.

Troll harder.

bing_oh writes:  {What, did [you] swallow a psychology textbook this morning . . .?}

Naturally, you dealt with the wrong thing.  The important issue -- from a public policy perspective -- is the absence of a correlation between enforcement and key measures of traffic safety. 

I?ll ask the same question in starker form:  Why do you and your brethren continue to do the same thing when the results are negative?

Sidebar:  I am an economist and policy analyst, not a psychologist.  I am not keen on psychology and, much like you, view it with some suspicion.  I do find that the quote of repeating an action in the hopes of obtaining a different result had to come from Albert Einstein, a physicist, and not from the psychology community.

Tave writes:  {Remember, the legislature refused to follow the governor's and highway patrol's request to instate a numerical limit.}
So, the court set out to help the highway patrol and the number of fatal crashes doubled as a result of their action to fulfill MHP?s desire.    

I am familiar with the region south of Ft. Peck and, IIRC, the area where defendant Stanko was stopped is low rolling treeless hills with unhindered visibility in all directions.  Stanko?s alleged speed was 85 mph, which hardly even presses the envelop.  Speeds well in excess of that are common on Montana.  Just this time last year, I was cruising at right around 100 mph through the Madison River valley.  Stanko is notorious in Montana and Wyoming as the founding reverend of COTC (Church of the Creator), for his association with the Freemen, his racial vitriol in Fremont County, Wyoming, and his hatred of the federal government.  Speculating what happened:  Stanko saw Trooper Breidenbach and baited him into a stop.  Breidenback unfortunately rose to the bait like a trout to a mayfly.  

As NACar said so simply and so accurately:  {It would work fine if it wasn't enforced}

Had either Stanko or Breidenbach not taken their precipitous actions, we would not have the problem we have now and several hundred people would not have died.

Further speculation:  this was a setup to generate a test case.  Evidence:  absolute absence or denial of any behavior other than a routine speed of 85 mph.  No recklessness, no alcohol, no skidding, no traffic, no bad weather, new tires, "sports car" (Camaro) with stiff suspension; in short, isolation of speed as the singular issue.

Quote from: James Young on September 20, 2009, 04:06:15 PMbing_oh writes:  {What, did [you] swallow a psychology textbook this morning . . .?}

Naturally, you dealt with the wrong thing.  The important issue -- from a public policy perspective -- is the absence of a correlation between enforcement and key measures of traffic safety. 

I’ll ask the same question in starker form:  Why do you and your brethren continue to do the same thing when the results are negative?

Sidebar:  I am an economist and policy analyst, not a psychologist.  I am not keen on psychology and, much like you, view it with some suspicion.  I do find that the quote of repeating an action in the hopes of obtaining a different result had to come from Albert Einstein, a physicist, and not from the psychology community.

Actually, Jimmy, I was referring to your manner of speaking. You tend to talk down to people (whether that's intentional or a biproduct of overeducation, I don't know). I understand your arguments, but very much dislike how you express them...I prefer clarity over $10 phrases like "predictors of institutional behavior." Just an observation.

As for the alleged absence of a correlation between enforcement and safety, I'm not sure that's true. First and foremost, you're going by what you see and think you know...specifically, what you see and "know" about how we do our jobs in LE. You assume that traffic enforcement is generally random, for example. It's not. Most departments, large and small, engage in at least some directed patrol and enforcement related to statistical mapping of problem areas and problem violations. It's just part of the job in modern LE where everything is automatically mapped by computer.

You also assume that "random patrol" or "random enforcement" is ineffective. The results of the Kansas City Experiment seem to support that. The problem with that is, that was an experiment conducted in 1972...pretty much the dark ages of LE. There's a major difference in how LE is done in 2009 compaired to how it was done in 1972...including the statistical mapping I mentioned earlier. Alot of things in LE aren't "random" anymore. Much patrol and enforcement is directed. Realistically, you cannot say that we are continuing to do the same thing with negative results because there's no real baseline to compair it to. To my knowledge, there hasn't been a "control group" where we stopped patrol in a specific area and documented any fluctuations in violations for more than 30 years. So, really, neither of us can say what real effect patrol and enforcement has on something like crashes. You say it has no effect, while I could say that it's holding things in check and there would be a huge spike if it wasn't done. Who's right?

Quote from: bing_oh on September 20, 2009, 05:10:25 PM
Actually, Jimmy, I was referring to your manner of speaking. You tend to talk down to people (whether that's intentional or a biproduct of overeducation, I don't know). I understand your arguments, but very much dislike how you express them...I prefer clarity over $10 phrases like "predictors of institutional behavior." Just an observation.

As for the alleged absence of a correlation between enforcement and safety, I'm not sure that's true. First and foremost, you're going by what you see and think you know...specifically, what you see and "know" about how we do our jobs in LE. You assume that traffic enforcement is generally random, for example. It's not. Most departments, large and small, engage in at least some directed patrol and enforcement related to statistical mapping of problem areas and problem violations. It's just part of the job in modern LE where everything is automatically mapped by computer.

You also assume that "random patrol" or "random enforcement" is ineffective. The results of the Kansas City Experiment seem to support that. The problem with that is, that was an experiment conducted in 1972...pretty much the dark ages of LE. There's a major difference in how LE is done in 2009 compaired to how it was done in 1972...including the statistical mapping I mentioned earlier. Alot of things in LE aren't "random" anymore. Much patrol and enforcement is directed. Realistically, you cannot say that we are continuing to do the same thing with negative results because there's no real baseline to compair it to. To my knowledge, there hasn't been a "control group" where we stopped patrol in a specific area and documented any fluctuations in violations for more than 30 years. So, really, neither of us can say what real effect patrol and enforcement has on something like crashes. You say it has no effect, while I could say that it's holding things in check and there would be a huge spike if it wasn't done. Who's right?

Jimmy is right.  :huh:

Quote from: James Young on September 20, 2009, 05:03:32 PM
I am familiar with the region south of Ft. Peck and, IIRC, the area where defendant Stanko was stopped is low rolling treeless hills with unhindered visibility in all directions.  Stanko?s alleged speed was 85 mph, which hardly even presses the envelop.  Speeds well in excess of that are common on Montana.  Just this time last year, I was cruising at right around 100 mph through the Madison River valley.

Ah, but apparently less familiar with the specific road. He wasn't travelling on I-94. He was on Highway 200 and at trial, "The officer testified that the road at that location was narrow, had no shoulders, and was broken up by an occasional frost heave. He also testified that the portion of the road over which he clocked Stanko included curves and hills which obscured vision of the roadway ahead."

I'm very familiar with the narrow two-lane roads of eastern Montana, and can tell you that 85 mph would be excessive on many of them and deserving of a routine speeding ticket.

QuoteFurther speculation:  this was a setup to generate a test case.  Evidence:  absolute absence or denial of any behavior other than a routine speed of 85 mph.  No recklessness, no alcohol, no skidding, no traffic, no bad weather, new tires, "sports car" (Camaro) with stiff suspension; in short, isolation of speed as the singular issue.

Oh no doubt. He hunted the officer down as seen from the testimony:

"Kenneth Breidenbach is a member of the Montana Highway Patrol who, at the time of trial and the time of the incident which formed the basis for Stanko's arrest, was stationed in Jordan, Montana. On March 10, 1996, he was on duty patrolling Montana State Highway 24 and proceeding south from Fort Peck toward Flowing Wells in ?extremely light? traffic at about 8 a.m. on a Sunday morning, when he observed another vehicle approaching him from behind.

"At Flowing Wells, where Highway 24 intersects with Montana State Highway 200, he stopped or slowed, made a right-hand turn, and proceeded west on Highway 200. About one-half mile from that intersection, in the first passing zone, the vehicle which had been approaching him from behind passed him."

bing_oh writes: {Actually, Jimmy, I was referring to your manner of speaking. You tend to talk down to people (whether that's intentional or a [byproduct] of overeducation, I don't know). I understand your arguments, but very much dislike how you express them...I prefer clarity over $10 phrases like "predictors of institutional behavior." Just an observation.}

Noted.  I call it the arrogance of inside knowledge and it works both ways.  Can you honestly tell us that you don?t condescend your ?regular customers? because you are aware of many things that they are not?  My usual audience is a combination of the academic community (other PhDs) and two business communities.  My two jobs are CFO of a winery and consultant to a movie production company, both very sophisticated groups.

More importantly, I write for precision, of which ?predictors of institutional behavior? is an example and a very important concept.  There are certain characteristics and conditions that predict behavior in an institutional setting such as law enforcement.  Efficacy is not one of those predictors.

We can agree on the irritation of writing style.  You don?t like my phraseology; I don?t like your retreat into jargon. 

{As for the alleged absence of a correlation between enforcement and safety, I'm not sure that's true. First and foremost, you're going by what you see and think you know...specifically, what you see and "know" about how we do our jobs in LE.}

I am not going by what I think I know about your job at all.  I am going by measurements of inputs and results.  What I know about how you do your job is irrelevant.  I am only looking to see if it works at a macro level.

Over the past 90 years we have had increases and decreases in the level of enforcement and have a steady decline in the fatality rate with but two glitches in the trend.  In 1942 and in 1974 speed limits were lowered significantly.  In 1942 we have no evidence to believe that the level or intensity of enforcement increased and every reason to believe that it diminished due to the war effort.  In 1974 the level of enforcement exploded, not only among extant agencies seeing scofflaw speeders as an insult to their authority but among many small communities who jumped on the enforcement-for-profit bandwagon.  In just Oklahoma, somewhere between 50 and 100 communities established their own police departments between 1974 and 1980.

However, in both cases, the fatality rate increased.  Connecticut tried a famous blitz of traffic enforcement many years ago; their fatalities declined (we don?t know the fatality rate) so they intensified their efforts to truly draconian levels the following year and the fatalities more than doubled.  Arizona has had similar experience with blitzes lasting months.  Many states and municipalities have blitzes at certain times but we can find no consistent data to support a conclusion that any of these efforts have been successful.

Even more telling is the Sherlock Holmes observation of the dog that didn?t bark.   Were there data or even a hint of evidence that enforcement effort could affect key measures (or even absolute values), the enforcement community would be shouting it from the rooftops, on every radio and television channel, and to every newspaper in America.  The silence tells us more than any statistics than I can show.

Tave writes:  {Ah, but apparently less familiar with the specific road. He wasn't travelling on I-94. He was on Highway 200 and at trial, "The officer testified that the road at that location was narrow, had no shoulders, and was broken up by an occasional frost heave. He also testified that the portion of the road over which he clocked Stanko included curves and hills which obscured vision of the roadway ahead."}

I never said I-94.  I as referring to the area between Glendive, Lewiston and Great Falls; however, it?s been years since I was up there.  (Last year I was in West Yellowstone and Bozeman).  I suspect many vehicles on I-90 and I-94 are in triple digits.

Quote from: James Young on September 20, 2009, 07:21:43 PMNoted.  I call it the arrogance of inside knowledge and it works both ways.  Can you honestly tell us that you don’t condescend your “regular customers” because you are aware of many things that they are not?  My usual audience is a combination of the academic community (other PhDs) and two business communities.  My two jobs are CFO of a winery and consultant to a movie production company, both very sophisticated groups.

More importantly, I write for precision, of which “predictors of institutional behavior” is an example and a very important concept.  There are certain characteristics and conditions that predict behavior in an institutional setting such as law enforcement.  Efficacy is not one of those predictors.

We can agree on the irritation of writing style.  You don’t like my phraseology; I don’t like your retreat into jargon.

Actually, I only condescend my regular customers when I do so intentionally...and, yes, there are times when condescention is a useful interview tool. A good police officer knows how to speak to a miriad of different people and groups and adjust how they speak so that the communication is clear.

QuoteI am not going by what I think I know about your job at all.  I am going by measurements of inputs and results.  What I know about how you do your job is irrelevant.  I am only looking to see if it works at a macro level.

Over the past 90 years we have had increases and decreases in the level of enforcement and have a steady decline in the fatality rate with but two glitches in the trend.  In 1942 and in 1974 speed limits were lowered significantly.  In 1942 we have no evidence to believe that the level or intensity of enforcement increased and every reason to believe that it diminished due to the war effort.  In 1974 the level of enforcement exploded, not only among extant agencies seeing scofflaw speeders as an insult to their authority but among many small communities who jumped on the enforcement-for-profit bandwagon.  In just Oklahoma, somewhere between 50 and 100 communities established their own police departments between 1974 and 1980.

However, in both cases, the fatality rate increased.  Connecticut tried a famous blitz of traffic enforcement many years ago; their fatalities declined (we don’t know the fatality rate) so they intensified their efforts to truly draconian levels the following year and the fatalities more than doubled.  Arizona has had similar experience with blitzes lasting months.  Many states and municipalities have blitzes at certain times but we can find no consistent data to support a conclusion that any of these efforts have been successful.

Even more telling is the Sherlock Holmes observation of the dog that didn’t bark.   Were there data or even a hint of evidence that enforcement effort could affect key measures (or even absolute values), the enforcement community would be shouting it from the rooftops, on every radio and television channel, and to every newspaper in America.  The silence tells us more than any statistics than I can show.

Your job as an economist tells me alot about you and how you approach issues like this, as does your disregard of the "hows" of law enforcement in America today. You expect everything to fit into an equation. Unfortunately, few things in the real world fit into such neat, clean equations...especially not people. I can tell you that we'll never see eye-to-eye on these issues...our backgrounds, outlooks, and understanding of the world and those who occupy it are too contradictory. I'll never be able to provide you with a satisfactory equation and you'll never be able to fit your equations into the very unpredictable, unpleasant, dirty real world that I work in. So, it seems that further discussion of the issue would be moot.

I bid you a pleasant evening, sir.

Quote from: bing_oh on September 20, 2009, 08:06:32 PM
Actually, I only condescend my regular customers when I do so intentionally...and, yes, there are times when condescention is a useful interview tool. A good police officer knows how to speak to a miriad of different people and groups and adjust how they speak so that the communication is clear.

Your job as an economist tells me alot about you and how you approach issues like this, as does your disregard of the "hows" of law enforcement in America today. You expect everything to fit into an equation. Unfortunately, few things in the real world fit into such neat, clean equations...especially not people. I can tell you that we'll never see eye-to-eye on these issues...our backgrounds, outlooks, and understanding of the world and those who occupy it are too contradictory. I'll never be able to provide you with a satisfactory equation and you'll never be able to fit your equations into the very unpredictable, unpleasant, dirty real world that I work in. So, it seems that further discussion of the issue would be moot.

I bid you a pleasant evening, sir.

It is too late for you, I suppose, as you have already chosen the path of the dark side. It is sad that your every word on the subject is so easy to predict, and see through.

Quote from: NACar on September 20, 2009, 08:23:00 PMIt is too late for you, I suppose, as you have already chosen the path of the dark side. It is sad that your every word on the subject is so easy to predict, and see through.

Remember how I said a good police officer knows how to speak to different people and make the message clear? Let me display the proper response to your ongoing harassment, degredation, and general lack of desire to communicate in an adult way. Fuck off, NACar.

Anyone else ever get the feeling that Bing Oh and James Young are the same person? I just feel like they are talking back and forth, but from the same brain. Trippy, I know.  :rastaman:

Quote from: bing_oh on September 20, 2009, 08:26:10 PM
Remember how I said a good police officer knows how to speak to different people and make the message clear? Let me display the proper response to your ongoing harassment, degredation, and general lack of desire to communicate in an adult way. Fuck off, NACar.

pot, kettle...

Quote from: James Young on September 20, 2009, 07:33:49 PM

I never said I-94.  I as referring to the area between Glendive, Lewiston and Great Falls; however, it?s been years since I was up there.  (Last year I was in West Yellowstone and Bozeman).  I suspect many vehicles on I-90 and I-94 are in triple digits.

He was on a narrow two-lane with no shoulder, road damage, and frequent, unmarked intersections--a far cry from limited-access, divided, multi-lane interstate highways.

Quote from: bing_oh on September 20, 2009, 08:26:10 PM
Remember how I said a good police officer knows how to speak to different people and make the message clear? Let me display the proper response to your ongoing harassment, degredation, and general lack of desire to communicate in an adult way. Fuck off, NACar.

You think you're a good police officer, but getting rid of cops like you will be part of cleaning up the system when the time comes.

Quote from: J86 on September 20, 2009, 08:32:50 PMpot, kettle...

Please feel free to quote any inapproprate comments I've made on here, J86. In fact, please forward them to the mods so that they can discipline me approprately. Of all the things I may do around here, I try my damndest to keep the debate civil and adult.

bing_oh writes: {Your job as an economist tells me a lot about you and how you approach issues like this, as does your disregard of the "hows" of law enforcement in America today. You expect everything to fit into an equation.}

Economics is not always about equations, especially public policy economics.  My problem with your approach is that it confuses and, worse, substitutes the techniques of the process for the goals that the public demands.  Remember, techniques by definition are secondary to results.

Quote from: Minpin on September 20, 2009, 08:26:28 PM
Anyone else ever get the feeling that Bing Oh and James Young are the same person? I just feel like they are talking back and forth, but from the same brain. Trippy, I know.

Oh, the horror!  bing_oh is better read, more articulate, slower to anger and more rational than the other LEOs except perhaps Catman.  I appreciate the civility and would rather discuss with him than . . .

Quote from: James Young on September 20, 2009, 08:49:41 PMEconomics is not always about equations, especially public policy economics.  My problem with your approach is that it confuses and, worse, substitutes the techniques of the process for the goals that the public demands.  Remember, techniques by definition are secondary to results.

If you have enforcement techniques that both comply with the law and generate better results, I'd be more than happy to give them a try. Please remember that it can't be anything that requires a change in the law...no matter how much you protest it, it's beyond my ability to alter the law as it's written...and has to be useable in real-world enforcement and within the time and budegtary limitations under which I (a lowly patrol officer) work.

Quote from: bing_oh on September 20, 2009, 08:44:21 PM
Please feel free to quote any inapproprate comments I've made on here, J86. In fact, please forward them to the mods so that they can discipline me approprately. Of all the things I may do around here, I try my damndest to keep the debate civil and adult.

From a couple posts above mine, "Fuck off."  I believe it was coupled with a statement about proper response.  One might argue that the proper response (or at the very least, one more appropriate than directed profanity) would be simple silence.

I understand hackles get raised when a personal attack is perceived (either rightly or wrongly perceived), but I don't think that justifies a hypocritical response.  However, you know what they say about arguing on the internet...

Quote from: James Young on September 20, 2009, 08:55:18 PMOh, the horror!

I hate to agree with James on anything, but I was thinking something similar...

Quote from: J86 on September 20, 2009, 09:00:49 PMFrom a couple posts above mine, "Fuck off."  I believe it was coupled with a statement about proper response.  One might argue that the proper response (or at the very least, one more appropriate than directed profanity) would be simple silence.

I understand hackles get raised when a personal attack is perceived (either rightly or wrongly perceived), but I don't think that justifies a hypocritical response.  However, you know what they say about arguing on the internet...

You can't exactly use the "fuck off" comment...besides the fact that it was the phrase that garnered your pot/kettle comment, it was in response to prolonged abuse by NACar, including a tyrade of "fuck off's" in large type for better than half a page that I requested be deleted by the mods without comment or request for discipline. I've done my best to ignore his comments, but I thought that it would be an approprate time to sign off with a simple, apt phrase. From here on out, you can rest assured that NACar will not be graced with any further responses from me...unless they're with a press of the "report to moderator" button if he decides to get too far out of hand.

Quote from: bing_oh on September 20, 2009, 09:16:50 PM
You can't exactly use the "fuck off" comment...besides the fact that it was the phrase that garnered your pot/kettle comment, it was in response to prolonged abuse by NACar, including a tyrade of "fuck off's" in large type for better than half a page that I requested be deleted by the mods without comment or request for discipline. I've done my best to ignore his comments, but I thought that it would be an approprate time to sign off with a simple, apt phrase. From here on out, you can rest assured that NACar will not be graced with any further responses from me...unless they're with a press of the "report to moderator" button if he decides to get too far out of hand.

This thread is not the place, I suppose.

bing_oh writes: {If you have enforcement techniques that both comply with the law and generate better results, I'd be more than happy to give them a try. Please remember that it can't be anything that requires a change in the law...no matter how much you protest it, it's beyond my ability to alter the law as it's written...and has to be useable in real-world enforcement and within the time and budegtary limitations under which I (a lowly patrol officer) work.}

That?s an awful lot of restrictions; so many, in fact, that one might think you were trying to avoid any changes at all.  First, no significant changes will ever occur unless the law itself changes, significant numbers of agencies change and the entire philosophy changes. 

What can any single officer do on his own?  Don?t stop drivers for excessive speed absent some other immediate and compelling reason, e.g., swerving or ignoring control devices.  What does it matter if somebody is running 50 mph in a 30 mph zone, especially where the 85th percentile speed is 42 mph and the design speed is 55 mph.  Concentrate instead on the impaired, the distracted and the sleepy.  Sleep-deprived drivers kill far more people than speeders, yet get little attention. 

Quote from: James Young on September 20, 2009, 09:56:15 PM
bing_oh writes: {If you have enforcement techniques that both comply with the law and generate better results, I'd be more than happy to give them a try. Please remember that it can't be anything that requires a change in the law...no matter how much you protest it, it's beyond my ability to alter the law as it's written...and has to be useable in real-world enforcement and within the time and budegtary limitations under which I (a lowly patrol officer) work.}

That?s an awful lot of restrictions; so many, in fact, that one might think you were trying to avoid any changes at all.  First, no significant changes will ever occur unless the law itself changes, significant numbers of agencies change and the entire philosophy changes. 

What can any single officer do on his own?  Don?t stop drivers for excessive speed absent some other immediate and compelling reason, e.g., swerving or ignoring control devices.  What does it matter if somebody is running 50 mph in a 30 mph zone, especially where the 85th percentile speed is 42 mph and the design speed is 55 mph.  Concentrate instead on the impaired, the distracted and the sleepy.  Sleep-deprived drivers kill far more people than speeders, yet get little attention. 

Oh, wouldn't it be lovely if we were all required by law to get a full 8-hours of sleep every night!
Oh, sorry, I'll be late for work; I stayed up to watch Conan and but I have to sleep 8 hours no matter what, or I'll get a ticket from the sleep police! :wub:

Quote from: James Young on September 20, 2009, 09:56:15 PMThat?s an awful lot of restrictions; so many, in fact, that one might think you were trying to avoid any changes at all.  First, no significant changes will ever occur unless the law itself changes, significant numbers of agencies change and the entire philosophy changes.  

What can any single officer do on his own?  Don?t stop drivers for excessive speed absent some other immediate and compelling reason, e.g., swerving or ignoring control devices.  What does it matter if somebody is running 50 mph in a 30 mph zone, especially where the 85th percentile speed is 42 mph and the design speed is 55 mph.  Concentrate instead on the impaired, the distracted and the sleepy.  Sleep-deprived drivers kill far more people than speeders, yet get little attention.

Yes, it's an awful lot of restrictions, though I'm not trying to avoid any change as you may think. Those are the restrictions I'm bound by. I don't make the rules, I just work within them. I'm just a patrol officer in a small town PD...I don't get to make policy changes for my own department, let alone those across the state or the entire country. Hell, I can't talk my chief into buying us new staplers for the patrol room, let alone get him to change department policy!

As for arbitrarily ignoring a law (speeding), I can't do that either. "Protect, defend, and uphold the Constitution and the laws of the state of Ohio" was the oath I took and the job I get paid for. To intentionally not enforce the law isn't just a violation of my oath, but potentially a criminal act on my part. Interestingly enough, most of my traffic enforcement is centered around locating impaired drivers. I'm on midnight shift, where virtually every traffic stop I make is in search of intoxicated drivers or non-related criminal activity. What is interesting about that is, most imparied drivers I arrest aren't stopped for clear indications of impairment but for minor traffic violations...like speeding. In my current assignment, most minor traffic violations are used as pretextual stops to search for larger violations like DUI.

Well, in this area, there are different speed limits between Memorial Day and Labor Day. Also, the traffic lights are turned off in October and revert to flashing amber until Memorial Day. On our main road, Long Beach Boulevard, the speed limit goes from 30 in the summer to 50 during the off-season.