[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Need Help Bad speeding ticket



randy@omni.voicenet.com (Randy) writes:

>In article <bpita.815072918@toon>, bpita@ctp.com (Bob Pitas) wrote:

>> This is bullshit.  There are particular situations that make 10MPH over the
>> limit a "magic number", but it only applies *up to* the speed that people
>> would travel if there weren't any speed limits at all.

>This is not bull shit. People tell me all the time they will not drive
>MORE than 10 MPH over the SPEED LIMIT in fear of getting cited. Hence,
>speed limits do work to keep MOST traffic from going too fast. I think 75
>MPH on most highways may be more than adequate, but if you make the speed
>limit 75 MPH, you will have people driving 85 MPH. That is why I think 65
>MPH is a good speed limit.

If you put the speed up to 75MPH then people who are comfortable at 75MPH will
drive 75MPH and people that are comfortable at 85MPH will drive 85MPH.  But
people who are comfortable driving 90MPH will drive 85MPH too, because it's
too expensive to drive at the speed they should be allowed to drive, so they
limit their losses by driving 85MPH.

>> For instance, in alot of places (like Massachusetts) you get $50 for the first
>> 10MPH over the limit, and $1/MPH over that.  Up until 10MPH over, it's not
>> that expensive, but it gets expensive FAST after that.  In addition, alot
>> of LEOs will not pull someone over on a highway unless they're going >10MPH
>> over the limit.  In fact on the Mass Pike, someone high up in the State
>> Police hierarchy once stated outright that officers will not pull anyone over
>> if they are going <10MPH over the limit...

>In this paragraph you just proved my point. You agree that people will not
>do more than 10 MPH due to officers not pulling them over. So what is your
>argument?

Your point, as I understood it, was that no matter what speed you set as the
limit, people would go 10MPH over it.  That's *still* bullshit, whether you
accept it or not.  People will go whatever speed their comfortable driving,
but if that's more than 10MPH over the limit, then they will go 10MPH over
the limit to avoid excessive speed inforcement.


>> But, if there were no limits, people would travel at whatever speed they 
>> were comfortable.  

>And if they are comfortable at 55 MPH, this makes for a dangerous
>situation when others drive faster.

Not if people are taught proper lane discipline.  The problem now is that
there are some people who will drive 55MPH *only* because they are afraid
of getting a ticket, not because they are comfortable at that speed.  They
are the ones who create the accident-causing traffic-speed deltas that make
the roads dangerous, not the other 80% of the population who are all going
75MPH.  Speed doesn't cause accidents, relative speed does, and since the
speed limits are so artificially low, there is a big speed delta between
the fastest 10% (who are travelling at a reasonable and comfortable speed
for the conditions) and the slowest 10% (who are toodling along in a 
daze because they are bored out of their minds and are only going that
slow because their afraid of getting a ticket).

>> If the limit were 75MPH, people who are comfortable 
>> going 65 would not go 75MPH, which is faster then they are
>> comfortable.

>Mostly, but in high volume situations where the flow is about 75 MPH, the
>person may feel that s/he needs to drive faster.

There is no research that I've seen to support this.  If you can find some,
I'd love to see it.  People will sometimes increase their speed to where
they are comfortable (from the speed where they think they won't get a 
ticket) if they perceive a lower chance of getting a ticket due to the
faster car in front of them flushing out any revenue-enhancement officers
waiting in speed traps.

>> That makes no sense.  I think the problem is that we still
>> haven't raised the limit high enough to get to the point where people
>> are comfortable.  

>Some people are comfortable with the 55 MPH, some are comfortable with 65 MPH. 

And some people are comfortable with 120MPH.  I'm not, but some people may be.
If that person is alone on a deserted, smooth, well-maintained road at 2am,
why should they have to travel at 85MPH, which is where I'm comfortable???
Or, even worse, at 55MPH where just about anyone is lulled into inattentiveness!

>> I think somewhere around 85MPH would be nice...  

>You would. That is too fast. 65 MPH speed limits are good.

Do you realize how childish your argument sounds?  "That is too fast."???
Would you care to back that up at all?  Has it ever occurred to you that
if that's too fast for you then you can just *not go that fast*?  Why do
you insist on making the speed *limits* be catered to the lowest
denominator???  That's ridiculous!  "65 MPH speed limits are good."???
That is just some arbitrary number, which people ignore anyway.

>> That's
>> the speed that I travel when the conditions are perfect.  

>Until you get into that unavoidable accident and kill yourself or someone else.

If I'm in an accident that is unavoidable at 85MPH, then more than likely
it would have been unavoidable at 65MPH too.  And I think the fact that
I'm comfortable at 85MPH *means* that I think I can see possible threats
in time to react to them, which means such things as not outrunning your
own headlights, not flying around blind corners, not flying over hills,
not following to closely, etc...  If you're only comfortable at 65MPH
then fucking fantastic - you go that fast.  What's that got to do with
me though???

>> When it rains
>> or snows, I slow way down, usually slower than prevailing traffic, just
>> because I know that my car (with wide tires and crappy brakes) doesn't
>> handle well in either of these conditions.  

>Even cars with the best tires and brakes can have a bad driver behind the
>wheel. If you are driving on ice, 1 MPH could be too fast. Ever see how
>far a car slides when you lock the brakes up on ice at 1 MPH?

So you've just proven my point exactly - each driver knows their own car,
so they should be empowered to choose their own speed, based upon the 
current conditions.  If you're in a hot car and are a shitty driver,
then you drive slower than a hot driver in a hot car.  What's so
difficult about this concept?  I don't see why you keep dwelling on the
bad-driver thing.  If you're a bad driver then you drive slower.  If
you're a bad driver, then you've probably already seen situations where
you did something that made you uncomfortable, so you drove slower, until
you found a speed you were comfortable at.  It's that simple.  It's
kinda like Driver Darwinism or something...

>> Of course when I slow down,
>> I stay in the rightmost lane 

>All traffic should stay in the right lane except when PASSING. That is
>what the left lane is for. PASSING.

That's what we need to teach - lane discipline.  I would hazard a guess
that if for one month cops stopped enforcing speed limits and instead
pulled people over for "failure to stay right" or "failure to properly
signal" that the accident statistics would show decrease at an even
sharper rate then they are due to improved automobile technology...

You do realize, don't you, that accident statistics have shown a steady
decrease over the entire history of automobiles.  To me this statistic
shows that automobile technology has increased while driver ability has
stayed the same or slightly improved, and conditions (notably congestion
and #miles travelled) have gotten slightly worse.  I'm sure you can interprete
this fact a million different ways, but the fact is that there has never
been an increase in the number of accidents connected to raising speed
limits, which to me experimentally disproves your hypothesis that 
faster is automatically more dangerous.

>> except to pass (which I always do anyways,
>> even if I'm going 85MPH) 

>Glad you stay in the left lane.

???  I said (and I quote) "Of course when I slow down, I stay in the 
rightmost lane except to pass (which I always do anyways, even if 
I'm going 85MPH)"  Maybe this sentence isn't clear but what I said
was that I stay in the right lane except to pass regardless of my
speed, because there is always the possibility of someone going 
faster then I am...

>> and make sure that I don't impede anyone else's
>> progress.  

>I seriously doubt you are impeding anyone else's progress when you are
>driving 85 MPH.

You'd be suprised.  On Rt 95 southbound during the afternoon rush hour,
traffic routinely flows at 75-85, and there are some people who take
advantage of the lack of speed-traps to go slightly faster.  If I were
one of those assholes who goes 85MPH in the left lane and figures that
it's "fast enough", then I'd be impeding their progress, which I have
no business doing...

>> It would be nice if people would extend the same courtesy
>> to me when conditions are perfect!

>Wishful thinking.

Yeah well, that's because we have shitty driver education and shitty
law enforcement that only pay attention to the high-income offenses
like speeding which have little correlation with safety.

>> >100 MPH is not safe. 
>> 
>> You cannot make a generalization like this.  100MPH is most definitely safe
>> on certain roads in the US.  Hell, there were no night-time speed limits
>> in certain places in the western US for years, since it was so flat and
>> straight that it was *really* hard to be suprised by anything, short of
>> a mechanical failure, which will probably screw you up whether you're 
>> going 55MPH or 155MPH...

>Sure I can. 100 MPH is not safe! PERIOD! Unless you are on an oval track
>with other race car drivers. Even then the get into accidents. And they
>are pros with the best equipment. But the difference between going 55 MPH,
>and 155 MPH is the amount of distance you travel when switching your foot
>from the gas to the brake, the distance it takes you to stop that vehicle,
>and the amount of force when you hit the object.

Obviously, and if you hit a brick wall at 65MPH you're a pancake just as
much as if you were going 85MPH.  If you're talking about hitting debris
in the road that this is completely dependant on the car, the driver,
and the conditions - you can't make any generalizations about this at
all.  The driver knows what type of distance they need to stop their
particular car, and they're the only people who can make this 
determination.  If you have a car that can't stop well, you don't go
as fast.  Believe it or not, most people have a decent idea how long it
takes their car to stop, and drive accordingly.
As far as hitting other cars on the road, it's the relative speed
that causes dangerous situations.  A road where all cars are going
75MPH is safer than a road where 20% of the cars are going 55MPH and
80% of the cars are going 65MPH...

>I forget what state it was in, but there was multiple accidents with
>multiple fatalities due to sudden fog. I think 11 people died. You cannot
>predict what will happen. Due to the original accident, more accidents
>occurred due to motorists not being able to stop in time. This was on a 55
>MPH highway in which most cars were travelling 65 MPH. What do you think
>your car bolting at 100 MPH would have done? 

???  It doesn't matter how fast the people were travelling - they obviously
weren't paying attention.  If the person travelling 100MPH was paying attention
and not out-driving his headlights or field of vision, then he would
have stopped before even hitting the fog, and would have been *safer*
then the people going 55MPH, because at 100MPH, you're attention is
on the road, not looking around enjoying the scenery...

>                                              Don't forget, you may be able
>to drive 100 MPH, but there are other people on the road that can't/won't
>drive 100 MPH. Don't jeopardize their lives just because you want to shave
>some travel time off of your trip. Slow down and enjoy the scenery. 

It's exactly this "enjoy the scenery" attitude that makes driving dangerous!
If people are forced to "enjoy the scenery" because their attention is
flawed due to boredom caused by travelling slower then they are comfortable,
they they are being more dangerous then an attentive driver going faster!
If you want to be safer, drive at a speed where your attention is on the
road!  I'd rather be on the road with a driver going 100MPH and paying
attention then someone going 55MPH with their head in the clouds because
55MPH bores them to sleep...

>> >                       Most people will never break the 100 MPH mark. I am
>> >referring to the 55 and 65 MPH speed limits that most people drive 10
>> >over. 
>> 
>> As I said above, that's only because the 55MPH and 65MPH limits still haven't
>> gotten us into a comfort zone.  

>Who's comfort zone? Yours? 

Well, obviously almost everyone's comfort zone.  If people's comfort zones were
55MPH or 65MPH as you keep saying, then people wouldn't break the limits, now
would they?  But they do.  As a matter of fact, almost everyone does.  There's
a reason for that - the limits are wrong.

>> Maybe if they were 75MPH, then people would
>> be comfortable and stop breaking the (ludicrous) speed limit laws.  

>Or travel 10 MPH over the 75 MPH limit to do 85 MPH.

If there is a large segment of the driving population that is comfortable
driving 85MPH, then the damn limit should be 85MPH.  Basically it should
be whatever allows the majority of drivers to drive in their comfort zones
without breaking the law.  The "85% rule" for setting speed limits would
be a fair way to figure out what the limits would be, as long as the
drivers participating in the 85th percentile analysis were told that
they can drive at whatever speed they are comfortable.  You can't do
a study on a public road where the speed limit is 65MPH to see how fast
people would normally drive, because the majority of drivers are driving
slower then they'd like to for fear of getting a ticket.

>> Until
>> people can travel at a speed at which they're comfortable, though, they
>> will never observe the law 100% of the time...

>There will always be people out there who break the speed limit law
>regardless of what it is set at. Go sit at any school zone. Watch how
>people blow through without care of a kid running out into traffic.
>Happens everyday in the good old USA.

That's true that you will always find someone to break the law, but if
90% of the population is breaking it, then the law is wrong, not the
population.  Laws are made to benefit the majority of the population.
The majority of the population wants higher speed limits, otherwise
they wouldn't break the current limits...

>> >        As far as driving in inclement weather, most drivers slow down for
>> >conditions. That is plain common sense. But we are not talking about
>> >inclement weather, so why did you even bring this up? 
>> 
>> And going 85MPH is just as much a matter of common sense when the conditions
>> are perfect as slowing down is when conditions aren't perfect.  The other
>> person was trying to make a point with the inclement weather point, which
>> you evidently don't comprehend.  

>No, I comprehend just fine what he was trying to convey. The fact is, we
>were talking about reasonable speed limits during inclement weather. Speed
>limits in bad weather would be a whole new thread.

You *didn't* understand why the other person brought up inclement weather.
"Perfect" is just another condition in a list of conditions which drivers 
must deal with.  A speed limit is the upper limit, the maximum speed at
which you can travel, if you're comfortable at that speed, when the
conditions are perfect.  The reason the other person brought up inclement
weather is to point out that people are able to make the decision to travel
at a reasonable speed during inclement weather, even if that speed happens
to be under the posted speed limit.  This leads to the assertion that
people would travel under the posted limit even in perfect conditions, if
they weren't comfortable at that limit.  But if people were comfortable
at that limit, then they should be able to drive at the speed that they
are comfortable!

>> If you trust motorists to use their "common
>> sense" (your words here) to slow down in inclement weather, which I agree
>> with, why do you suddenly not trust them when conditions are perfect???

>I trust MOST motorists to use common sense. But even though they slow
>down, they are not necessarily driving slow enough for existing
>conditions.

So what?  This is going to be true no matter what the *maximum* speed limit
is...  If you're on a sheet of black ice, who cares if the limit is 55MPH
or 155MPH?  Are you saying that if the limit were 155MPH that people would
go faster on black ice???  I hope not!  Now carry this into the condition
"Perfect".  If a person is comfortable at 65MPH in "Perfect" conditions,
and the speed limit becomes 155MPH, are they going to go 155MPH?  Obviously
not!  There are always going to be people that should be going 5MPH slower
then they are, but there aren't going to be more of them if the speed limit
goes up...

>> Are people not qualified to determine what speed their cars are capable of
>> safely travelling in perfect conditions, which I would say they drive far
>> more often than inclement conditions?  

>I think most people can determine what is safe for them. But not everyone
>can agree on the same speed. Ever get behind someone driving so slow it
>pissed you off? This was comfortable for them.

Then that's fine, that doesn't piss me off when people are going slow in
front of me on a one lane road, because I realize that there's nothing they
can do.  I can just pass them in the first passing zone we get to.  On
the other hand, if someone is in the left lane going the same speed as
the person next to them in the right lane, you're damn right that pisses
me off!
This discussion is getting off-subject here, because we were talking about
speed limits on multi-lane highways - at least I thought we were!  :^)
On a multi-lane highway, in a perfect world, you'd never have to wait
behind anyone, because people would only come left to pass when they could
do so without slowing the person behind them down, so people could travel
at whatever speed they wanted to without impeding others or being pressured
into going faster then they were comfortable.  Of course this perfect world
would require different driver's education and a major overhaul of the way
LEOs enforce traffic laws, but these things would come naturally if the
speed limits were changed over time...

>> If they aren't capable of determining
>> this, you're saying that the bureaucrats that make the speed limits up
>> (by pulling them from their assholes) *are* capable?  

>Most speed limits are determined by traffic studies. People still break
>those speed limits.

That is complete and utter bullshit.  If you look at the actual traffic
studies of most highways, the limits put forth by the engineers are *not*
the speed limits posted on the roads.  In most cases, they aren't even
close.  The bureaucrats put artificially low speed limits on highways
that are engineered for speeds 10-20MPH over the posted limits...
AND, the "traffic studies" are taken with artificially low limits already
on the roads, so you get an extremely biased study, which supports
the lower speed limits.

>> Do you see why the
>> writer made the inclement weather point now???

>> >                                                       As far as every
>> >single highway having a speed limit lower than what it was designed for,
>> >where did you get this? Did you go to every department and ask them what
>> >speed each of the millions of roads were designed for? And how do you know
>> >the speed limits are "well below the speeds it was designed to handle"? 
>> 
>> Maybe you're not aware of this, but the highway infrastructure of the
>> United States was a very carefully planned, nationally standardized
>> project to meet certain criteria.  

>Find this and show it to me.

Hmmm.  That would be tough since I don't remember the exact reference.
I submit, I won't be able to find an exact quotation for this since
I think it was something I read in Popular Science or something when
they were talking about the engineering that went into the highway
system, and the incredible design issues that are addressed which we
most people would never even think twice about.  I suppose I could go
check the Library of Congress WWW site to look for a bill in the
50s (if that much history is on line) that dealt with highway 
infrastructure...  I'll try to find it...

>> I'm not sure of the exact specifications,
>> but one of them was for 50's technology military vehicles to be able to
>> safely travel non-stop at some speed, which I'm pretty sure was around
>> 80MPH for vehicles that were capable of achieving that speed.  
>> All the
>> highways were designed and built with these guidelines in mind.  
>> If you
>> do a strict engineering study on the roads, they are actually designed
>> (as far as turn radius, rate of climb/descent, width, smoothness, etc)
>> for 50's technology vehicles to go between 75MPH and 90MPH.  These
>> are vehicles with drum brakes, bias-ply tires, old-tech suspensions, no
>> anti-lock brakes or traction control, and in most cases not even
>> *seat belts*!  Don't you think that even if the people driving the
>> cars didn't change (which is not, in itself, a given) the performance
>> of the cars has improved enough to warrant even higher speed limits???
>> I'm saying limits higher then the were in the 60s, not higher then
>> they are now, since they are now *far* to low...

>Are you talking about interstate/intrastate highways? State highways? Many
>highways have curves with a critical speed less than 80 MPH now.

And on many there are straights that go for 50 miles without a single curve,
so what's your point?  If there is a engineering limit, then obviously the
speed limits should reflect that.  But the engineering limits back then were
for something like .5 lateral Gs, which is pretty low for current technology
vehicles.  And remember, if you don't feel comfortable going around a corner
at a particular speed, then slow down.  It's as simple as that.

>> >                                                                         My
>> >idea of a study was not flawed. My study was to determing what speeds
>> >people were travelling at in my jurisdiction. How is that flawed?
>> 
>> >> What you see is not always the way things are.  Remember the first time
>> >> you saw a magician and were so impressed.  After all the tricks were
>pointed
>> >> out you weren't wquite as impressed.  I think you are missing alot.  What
>> >> do you know about road design and safety?  Are you a traffic engineer?
>> 
>> >I know more about road design and safety than you obviously do. But of
>> >course what I was taught must be wrong since it contradicts you. You the
>> >all knowing traffic guru. Why bring magic into this? Magic is based on
>> >illusion, traffic accidents are not illusions. 
>> 
>> I wouldn't say you know *that* much about road design considering the fact
>> that you made such a blanket statement about safety, which you don't seem
>> to know much about either...  

>Talk about making a blanket statement. You do not know what my
>qualifications are. I may or may not know more about traffic safety than
>you, but I am willing to be that my training and experience makes me more
>knowledgeable than you.

Well, my dad can beat up your dad.  This isn't going to get us anywhere.
I can only give my opinions based on facts that I have been exposed to,
and the same goes for you.  I think that sometimes people are exposed to
biased facts, though, and don't have the right information to formulate
a reasonable opinion.  For instance, LEOs are given information that
is slanted towards the safety-nazi side of the house, since that's what
produces the most revenue for the local municipality...

>> Some major highways in New England (like I95) have fences on the sides
>> of the roads to keep animals off the roads, so you don't have to worry
>> about that.  

>If the fences are high enough, then no worries. But remember that animals
>can get on the highway at the same location that vehicles enter.

That is true, but I wouldn't expect this to happen very often.  Still,
good point.

>> There are State Troupers travelling the roads constantly,
>> so any debris will be spotted and taken care of promptly. 

>WRONG! The debris may be taken care, but not always promptly. In some
>areas, it may be as short/long as an hour before a Trooper drives down a
>stretch of road. You think there are Troopers every mile? I am a Trooper
>and can honestly say that it can take a long time before debris is
>removed. I am sure you have seen rubber from a blown tire on the road
>before. Most people have. The rubber usually comes from a truck tractor.
>Not only that, but you may be driving behind the truck tractor when the
>tire blows. No Trooper in the world could clean up that debris before you
>hit it.

That may be true, but if you can't see something in the road big enough
to do damage to your car in time to either change lanes to avoid it
or brake, then you're going to fast for conditions.  There have been
literally dozens of times when I've been going 85MPH or more and seen
retreads in the road, and changed lanes safely with time to spare.  
This is possible because my attention was on nothing but the road 
(because I was driving at a speed that challenged my senses enough to
avoid boredom) and because I wasn't out-driving my headlights.  I can't
think of a single situation where something has been in the road
and I haven't seen it in time to avoid it...  Maybe I'm just lucky, but
as person who used to commute 50+ miles per day each way, once in
the early morning and once late at night, I think I've had a bit of
experience driving on highways.

>> failures happen, to be sure, but there's really no way to minimize that
>> besides not driving at all.  If you snap an axle and a wheel comes off,
>> the wreck is going to be just as bad whether you're going 65 or 85MPH...

>WRONG! The wreck is going to be far worse at a faster speed. Common sense
>(my words) here.

Why?  Like I said before, hitting a wall at 65MPH or 85MPH you're toast.
If you can't recover control of the car from a mechanical failure at 85MPH,
you probably wouldn't be able to do it at 65 either...  Or maybe it's
more accurate to say that a person who is actually comfortable travelling
at 85MPH has as good a chance of recovering control of the vehicle after
a failure while going 85MPH as a person who's comfortable at 65MPH having
a failure at 65MPH...

>> >> Reasonable is what is determined after a study by road and traffic
>engineers.
>> >> As a starting point most of the interstates that were around before 1974
>> >> were posted at 75mph.  That should be a minimum starting point.  In the
>> >> 20 year that have gone by both roads and cars have improved alot so the 
>> >> more realistic limit would be higher than that.  You don't have to have all
>> >> the answers as long as you know how get the right answers the right way
>> >> based on unbiased facts.
>> 
>> >75 MPH as a minimum starting point? Why not just go all out and make it
>> >125 MPH? Just because roads and cars have improved, does not mean that
>> >drivers have improved. Not to mention the unexpected pot hole, deer
>> >jumping out in front of you, disabled motorist in the road, rubber from a
>> >truck tractor trailer laying in the road, etc... Technically, all roads
>> >could handle a car doing 150 MPH, but how long to stop that car? How far
>> >does the car travel during the reaction time? 
>> 
>> And they didn't have pot holes, deer, disabled motorists and retreads back
>> before '74?

>Sure they did. But the point is, the chances of losing control of your
>vehicle is less at lower speeds. I know when I drive over a pothole at
>higher speeds, my car has a tendecy to bounce, shake, swerve, etc... more
>than at lower speeds. Again, common sense.

So you know the limits of your vehicle, so just drive at that speed.  I
know the limits of mine, so I'll drive at the speed that I'm comfortable.
My car doesn't go nuts when I hit a pothole at higher speed.  It actually
feels more stable at 85MPH then 65MPH because of the aerodynamics involved.
I usually don't *hit* potholes on the highway, because I'm always looking 
for them and try to avoid them, since my suspension is so stiff that
the screws will unscrew themselves if I hit too many potholes!  :^)

>> Back before '74 it was scientifically determined that the cars of that
>> time (with their drum brakes, shitty tires, sub-standard lighting systems)
>> could handle 75MPH.  

>I would love to see this study. I have yet to see how a lighting system
>effects the speed of a vehicle.

???  You can't tell me that you are a trouper and have never heard of
"out-driving your headlights"!  OK, here's a little experiment for you -
let's both get out on the highway at night and start driving at 55MPH.
I'll have my halogen high-beams and driving lights on, and you get to
stick your arm out the window and shine a flashlight down the road.
Who's going to be able to react quicker to an obsticle in the road?
Now do you understand why lighting-system improvements have increased
the safety of cars?

>> It should be obvious to anyone that far more 
>> technologically advanced cars will be able to safely travel faster then
>> that, so why are the speed limits still way below what they were 25 years
>> ago? 

>Because not everyone can drive at faster speeds. COMMON SENSE! It does not
>matter how fast the car can go when you have someone that can not drive it
>safely.

Argh!  So if you're not comfortable driving at a certain speed, then go
*slower*!!!  Having an 85MPH speed limit DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERYONE HAS TO
DRIVE 85MPH!!!  Why can't you understand that?  If you're driving on black
ice, do you feel that you have to drive 55MPH because the rectangular white
sign tells you to?

>> This is a retorical question, obviously, because the reason is so
>> that the insurance companies can get rich and certain municipalities can
>> use speed limits as a road-use tax.

>It is not a tax. You do not have to pay a speeding fine unless you speed.
>If you don't speed, you don't get fined. Nice try. 

I won't even get into the tickets I've gotten by asshole cops who have
literally told me "You're a kid in a Mustang, I'll give you any ticket
I want and who is the judge going to believe?".  And that's with
me being polite to the slimey bastard....

>-- 
>Randy
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
       / _ \         "Now I've found some understanding            Bob Pitas
      /    /USH       of the only world that we see"           bpita@ctp.com
     / /| \                             - Neil Peart         (Cambridge, MA)


References: