Michigan speeding tickets in Feb

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
No. What is safe about packing people together on the road moving in one big pack? For those of us that watch auto racing, this bears an eerie similarity to “restrictor-plate” racing, i.e., Daytona and Talladega, tracks that are known for their monstrous crashes, a direct result of everybody going the same speed in close proximity to each other.

It is far more beneficial to let people go by and break the pack up a little bit. Lots of traffic leads to nervous drivers, panic stops, multi-car accidents, and traffic jams. Breaking it up lets people out of the logjams and allows them to find more open space, which dramatically increases the comfort level (and by extension, the level of safety) of the average driver.

The problem with “traffic enforcement” during high-volume times is that when people see police officers they slow down, hit the brakes, or take their eyes off the road for a split-second to check their speed. That is the formula for disaster, and the cause of many thousands of reactionary traffic jams and accidents. Therefore, they cause the very thing they purport to prevent, unsafe driving conditions.

With the exception of egregious speeding and weaving through traffic and drunk driving enforcement, traffic enforcement is nothing but revenue generation. Look at the laws of your vicinity and tell me that some of them aren’t written to extract max dollars out of the public over the most petty of things.
[/QUOTE]

I tend to agree. Look at this Youtube video where a bunch of kids get together and drive the speed limit on the expressway:

I love the ending. A four-wide funeral procession with a half-mile of open road ahead.

IMHO, these traffic laws have created a situation where any given car is probably in violation of two or three laws at any point in time. And that is a reason for a police stop (if needed) It turns the 4th amendment on its head.

How can anyone watch the above video (at the end) and tell me that the speed limit is proper for that road?

22

[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
No. What is safe about packing people together on the road moving in one big pack?
[/quote]

I’m not sure I understand. Why would enforcement of traffic laws result in cars “packed together”? It doesn’t mean everyone will be driving at the speed limit. And drivers are still required to maintain a safe distance between cars.

Anyway, even if this is done for revenue generation, so what? It’s a tax on people who break the law. I’ve got no problem with that.

It’s really the lack of enforcement that created this situation. Since everyone gets away breaking the law, there is no incentive to obey the law or to change the law.

23

A few years ago several drivers drove the speed limit in a pack on one of Detroits arteries during morning rush hour. They were pulled over by the police. I think one got a questionable ticket previously and tried to make a point. The police did not like that at all. I can not remember what they got them for but it sounded bad.
It was more than 20 yrs ago so I don’t remember if they were nailed for bliocking traffic or impeding or whatever. But it felt wrong to me.

24

The original story that started this thread came from a school teacher friend of mine. You know it can not be wrong.
It may be an urban myth but I never got it in my email before. New to me. But in the internets I found some reference to it being passed around for a couple years.

25

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
A few years ago several drivers drove the speed limit in a pack on one of Detroits arteries during morning rush hour. They were pulled over by the police. I think one got a questionable ticket previously and tried to make a point. The police did not like that at all. I can not remember what they got them for but it sounded bad.
It was more than 20 yrs ago so I don’t remember if they were nailed for bliocking traffic or impeding or whatever. But it felt wrong to me.
[/QUOTE]

Well, a likely candidate is:

Sometimes, the lane usage statute might apply:

26

So GFactor, your cites are saying that if a person, or several persons drive at the posted speed limit, he can be cited for obstructing the normal flow of traffic?

So what speed can we drive without police interference? Obviously not faster, that is speeding. And according to your cites, AT the speed limit is obstructing the flow of traffic.

What speed should we drive to keep from getting a citation for something?

27

[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
No. What is safe about packing people together on the road moving in one big pack?
[/quote]
I hear tell that some people actually go a bit slower than the speed limit on interstates. In fact, a friend of a friend’s cop buddy says he’s actually seen this happen.

Obviously this is the latest variation in the argument that speeders are not a problem on the roads, it’s those durn slow drivers frustrating everybody else who must therefore speed, or explode. Or something.

“The pack” is not a uniform entity. It is true that some maniac trying to go 80 mph in heavy traffic may well “break it up”, with attendant crumpled metal and shards of glass.

I have a feeling that “egregious speeders” means “some jerk who has to go faster than me, when I’m already doing 20 mph over the limit”. :smiley:

28

[QUOTE=jtgain]
So GFactor, your cites are saying that if a person, or several persons drive at the posted speed limit, he can be cited for obstructing the normal flow of traffic?

So what speed can we drive without police interference? Obviously not faster, that is speeding. And according to your cites, AT the speed limit is obstructing the flow of traffic.

What speed should we drive to keep from getting a citation for something?
[/QUOTE]
The same speed as the cop?

Or, failing that, the same speed as everyone else. They can’t pull the entire expressway over, so even if they go nuts and decide to tag someone, you’re indistinguishable from the crowd and thus have equal (low) odds (all other things being equal).

29

[QUOTE=jtgain]
So GFactor, your cites are saying that if a person, or several persons drive at the posted speed limit, he can be cited for obstructing the normal flow of traffic?
[/QUOTE]

Maybe, maybe not. Probably not if you are just one person driving in one lane, and it’s not the passing lane. It’s an easier case if you admit that you were working with others to block all of the lanes.

It’s not just about speed. The speed limit sets the *maximum * speed. It doesn’t give you the right to tailgate, and you’ve got to follow the rules for lane usage. In fact, the speed *limit * doesn’t guarantee you can drive at any particular speed.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(3vnklz450tpbm555fh31miis))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-257-627

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/wedmk_16312_7.pdf
And it’s Gfactor with a small “f”

30

OK so say the speed limit now is 70 on a MI highway. Everyone knows that the understood speed limit is 75 and that anything over that is fair game for a ticket. So now they’re saying 74 and over is fair game. So what, they gave you 70 and all you MI drivers have to be greedy and want more. I drive in MI all the time and on the way there I can guess how close we are to MI by how obnoxiously fast the drivers are. The speed limit isn’t the speed you must drive, it is the maximum speed you’re allowed to drive.

If so many people weren’t trying to drive 90 they wouldn’t have to crack down. If everyone was going btwn 70-75 and only speeding up a little to pass once in a while they wouldn’t have to spend all the money to keep people safe.

(A former MI resident)

P.S. I love your nice fast speed limit, if you all abuse it they’ll take it away again. rantrantrant And hey, there’s no “pack” did you all leave the same place at the exact same time? NO

31

[QUOTE=Gfactor]
Maybe, maybe not. Probably not if you are just one person driving in one lane, and it’s not the passing lane. It’s an easier case if you admit that you were working with others to block all of the lanes.

[/QUOTE]

Gfactor (with a small f) …I stand corrected…

So, how exactly would the state contend that I was “blocking” a lane, or impeding the flow of traffic? By driving at the maximum speed allowable under the law?

Perhaps my friends and I were attempting to prevent crimes (or civil infractions) by forcing people to obey the state mandated speed limit? Surely that is a laudable goal?

32

[QUOTE=jtgain]
So, how exactly would the state contend that I was “blocking” a lane, or impeding the flow of traffic? By driving at the maximum speed allowable under the law?
[/QUOTE]

  1. Because one of you is blocking the left lane, which as you can see from the other statutes, is not permitted, at least in some cases.*
  2. Because in the case I was referring to, the parties admitted that their plan was to create a blockade in order to protest speed limits. If a driver admits he was being an asshole (I’m not directing this at a particular poster, btw) and inconveniencing other drivers to prove a point, what’s he to expect?
  3. The “hey, I was going the maximum speed so I didn’t have to let traffic pass me” argument is probably most persuasive to the over-clever folks who make it. From what I’ve seen in traffic court, the district court judiciary is less impressed with it. :wink:
  1. Where do you find your authority to prevent civil infractions?
  2. Again, one way to prevent civil infractions would be not to commit them yourself. I think the other drivers on the road and the police would rather prefer that method. I know I would.

*When a driver remains in the left lane, thereby causing traffic to back up, I call it vehicular tamponade. :wink:

33

Doesn’t it stand to reason that there isn’t necessarily a speed limit so much as there should be a speed zone? Instead of the speed limit being 70, have the speed zone 70 to 75 with strict enforcement. Having an enforceable zone (being over that cushion) makes the law easier to uphold without any of the fuzzy “well, it’s 5 over, so it’s not speeding…or is it?” kind of thoughts.
Or we really need to start working on a crapload more mass transit, which is fine by me.

By the way, I’m one of those drivers that drives 70 to 75 in the left lane. If someone wants to pass me, I’ll usually move over a lane to let them pass.

34

When I drive through Ohio I see people are cowered by the Gestapo police. They have a lower speed limit and enforce it ridiculously. Once we cross the state line into Mich. drivers take off. I doubt Ohio is safer.

35

[QUOTE=Gfactor]

  1. Because one of you is blocking the left lane, which as you can see from the other statutes, is not permitted, at least in some cases.*

  2. Because in the case I was referring to, the parties admitted that their plan was to create a blockade in order to protest speed limits. If a driver admits he was being an asshole (I’m not directing this at a particular poster, btw) and inconveniencing other drivers to prove a point, what’s he to expect?

  3. The “hey, I was going the maximum speed so I didn’t have to let traffic pass me” argument is probably most persuasive to the over-clever folks who make it. From what I’ve seen in traffic court, the district court judiciary is less impressed with it. :wink:

  4. Where do you find your authority to prevent civil infractions?

  5. Again, one way to prevent civil infractions would be not to commit them yourself. I think the other drivers on the road and the police would rather prefer that method. I know I would.

*When a driver remains in the left lane, thereby causing traffic to back up, I call it vehicular tamponade. :wink:
[/QUOTE]

I don’t disagree with anything you say, however is my point lost on you that a state would set a maximum speed limit of say, 70mph, and then tell a driver who was in the left hand lane, driving at 70mph, that he was impeding the flow of traffic by driving so slowly?

I am also pissed at the arguments of people that “I was driving the speed limit” as a reason to block traffic. But I am more pissed that the state gives these people a very rational argument by having the maximum limit set so artificially low.

And I will respond to your first point #1 specifically: How can the state say that I am “blocking” a lane by travelling at the maximum allowable speed under law?

And to your second point #1, I prevent civil infractions because I am a very good citizen. :wink: Hell, we hire professionals to stop civil infractions, why would you punish me for doing it for free? :slight_smile:

36

[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
Doesn’t it stand to reason that there isn’t necessarily a speed limit so much as there should be a speed zone? Instead of the speed limit being 70, have the speed zone 70 to 75 with strict enforcement.
[/QUOTE]

Not sure what you mean - are you suggesting the minimum speed should be 70 and maximum be 75?

What makes sense to me is to set a maximum speed limit at a reasonable level, then enforcing it literally. It’s a limit, there shouldn’t be any buffer zone at all. They should be able to give you a ticket for being 0.5 mph over the limit.

37

Speed limits fall under a category of laws where setting some behaviour by law is necessary, but equally necessary is that the law be flexible and only enforced to make sure the ‘spirit’ of the law is kept.

There is no one ‘safe’ speed limit on a road. Or rather, there is one perfectly safe limit - 0 mph. Everything else is a compromise between safety and efficiency/productivity/tolerable behaviour.

For example, when determining a public limit, you have to set it based on the least-safe vehicle and the least-safe driver, lest you wind up with a limit that is above someone’s capability to handle safely. This means the old guy in the '65 pickup with the bald bias-ply tires and slow reflexes has to be able to negotiate curves safely at the limit.

If you set the limit such, it’s obviously going to be too low for someone driving a BMW with active suspension, traction control, and with good reflexes and vision. Forcing them to adhere to the limit is not just inefficient, but impractical. They just won’t do it. There are plenty of studies which show that people tend to drive at the speed which they feel comfortable at - no slower and no faster. The trick is to find that speed on average, set the limit to that, and then look the other way as people find their own comfort zones within a reasonable band around that speed. You can’t just say there is no limit, because you need the tools to be able to bust someone driving like a lunatic. But you also can’t force everyone to exactly adhere to one speed, or you’ll get gridloc, tailgating, and eventually aggressive behaviour and aggressive passing. Clumping up cars on the road is dangerous - you wind up with tailgaters, and when people have to pass they have to pass multiple vehicles at once, which hands them out in the oncoming traffic lane for long periods of time.

Most police officers understand this - Highway 2 between Edmonton and Calgary has a posted limit of 110 km/h, but the flow of traffic on that highway is easily 125-135, depending on conditions. I’ve gone though many speed traps at those speeds with no consequences.

Police officers are taught to look not just for speeding, but for aggressive driving. It’s one thing to be going 130 in a 120 zone when you’re the only car on the road, or when there is a huge gap between you and the other cars. It’s quite another to go 130 in a 120 zone when the other traffic is doing 120 and you’re tailgating, flashing your lights to get people to move over, aggressively cutting and thrusting through traffic, etc. Police are trained to focus on that type of driver and let the other ones be, unless the speed itself is reckless (i.e. going 160).

But once in a while, a spectacular accident will happen, or a funding goal won’t be met, or tickets given won’t meet some quota, and the directive will come down from on high to ‘crack down’, and suddenly behaviour that is commonly ignored is punished. Somestimes it’s also done to ‘send a message’ when the speed of the normal flow of traffic starts creeping up to dangerous levels.

If you want to cut down on traffic accidents, the ‘big three’ things are drunk driving, reckless driving, and driving while distracted/sleepy/medicated. Speeding is a ‘contributory cause’ because when there is an accident higher speeds mean more damage. But going after speeders in general won’t do much for accident rates.

38

[QUOTE=jtgain]
I don’t disagree with anything you say, however is my point lost on you that a state would set a maximum speed limit of say, 70mph, and then tell a driver who was in the left hand lane, driving at 70mph, that he was impeding the flow of traffic by driving so slowly?
[/QUOTE]
They may not say you were driving too slow, but that does not mean you didn’t break traffic laws. For example, in Maine we see the law as

Drive 65 if you want, but if you’re not passing another vehicle at the time, you are not supposed to be in the left lane.

Here’s a chart of keep right laws, which may or may not be current.

39

If the speed limit is 65 you are not allowed to go faster to pass. You can be ticketed. If you are passing a vehicle going 60 you can go 65 to pass.
Late at night should cops ticket people on empty roads?. The answer would be no if it were simply about safety. It is also about revenue. I know people that late at night when they hit a red light ,look about . If they see no traffic or cop cars they go through. I would never do it. I know its not a safety issue but I don’t want to put up with cop shit .

40

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Late at night should cops ticket people on empty roads?. The answer would be no if it were simply about safety.
[/quote]
Bullshit. Speeding can, in fact, all by itself be a safety issue. Speeding alone can, in fact, lead to an accident. Just 'cause there’s no other cars on the road doesn’t mean that there are no safety factors involved.

of course it can also include revenue, but to claim that, as you did just now, that there’s no safety issues for people speeding if there’s no other traffic is in error.

(edited for @#(*@( coding )