Speed limits

rhagfo wrote:

Bumpyroad wrote:

bgum wrote:
If you don't believe speed kills just look at the pileups with 40-50 cars. Those who are driving the limit are not the problem the speeder is the problem.

IIRC most of those situations were caused by ice/fog/or some other "outlier". not necessarily breaking the speed limit.
bumpy

Well once again, driving too fast for conditions! Not looking far enough down the road, just stupid drivers!

Describe in detail how "looking far down the road" helps when visibility goes from clear to total white-out in an instant.

valhalla360 wrote:

bgum wrote:
If you don't believe speed kills just look at the pileups with 40-50 cars. Those who are driving the limit are not the problem the speeder is the problem.

Typically, that is poor visibility. They are rarely doing the speed limit. It's more often someone nervous who is traveling substantially below the average of nearby traffic (high differential speed).

Of course, until we have wide spread adaptive speed limits, the limits posted for normal conditions will be too much for icy white out conditions.

According to the NHTSA, approx 94% of car crashes are caused by drivers.

Of those, over 40% are "recognition mistakes" - this is distracted driving or simply not paying attention.

"Decision errors" cause 33.3% of crashes - this includes speeding, tailgating, driving recklessly, and incorrectly judging the speed of other cars or space the driver has to complete an action (e.g., passing another vehicle).


"Driver performance" causes more than 10% - this is oversteering, losing control, etc.

Other errors not related to performance, which mostly is the driver falling asleep causes 7%.

Unknown or unspecified reasons cause 8%.


Note that "driving too slowly" is not listed in any of these categories.

That suggests that your claim that those pile ups are caused by some nervous nellie is inaccurate. It is NOT the nervous nellie who causes the accident - it is the driver who is distracted or is making decision mistakes. If that driver were not distracted, speeding, tailgating, miscalculating speed of or space between other vehicles, then the collision would not have occurred.

The nervous nellie does NOT hit other vehicles - other drivers hit the nervous nellie. And they do so because they are distracted or making bad decisions.

In a foggy situation, with a speed limit of 55mph, one should expect and be extra observant of vehicles driving much slower, or even stopped traffic. A driver who chooses to drive 55 in that situation has no one to blame but himself if he hits a car going 45mph.

Bumpyroad wrote:

bgum wrote:
If you don't believe speed kills just look at the pileups with 40-50 cars. Those who are driving the limit are not the problem the speeder is the problem.

IIRC most of those situations were caused by ice/fog/or some other "outlier". not necessarily breaking the speed limit.
bumpy

Ice, snow squalls, or abruptly going from clear to pea-soup fog.

Groover wrote:


From what I understand going over the speed limit legally requires the use of emergency lights except in specific instances. Those instances require the police to have a judge approved warrant with the time and route on it.

Nobody, including police, should be expected to break the law intentionally. If the law is unreasonable the law should be fixed, not ignored. Loose enforcement of the law leads to subjective and selective enforcement that is too often corrupt or can give the appearance of being corrupt. More than ever we need police to avoid the appearance of being corrupt. Just think how much violence could have been avoided in the past year if police had watched their appearance more closely.

I grew up in Huntsville, Alabama and remember when their police department sought certification about 35 years ago. The first thing that they had to do was give up all official policies that were illegal. Can you imagine what would happen to a company that had policies that required illegal behavior? And think about how it undermines the very authority that the police represent.

I am strongly in favor of law and order. But it should be reasonable and clear and it must apply to EVERYONE equally. And that includes judges, other police and especially lawmakers. Actually, since those people are the ones responsible for the laws they may deserve an extra dose of enforcement instead of the total immunity that many are privileged with now.

I understand that being a law officer is a tough job and that many work too many hours. Some of that needs to corrected but keeping a clean image would take away a lot of the disrespect that they suffer from now.

I am not aware of a federal law stating that lights and sirens must be used. I know that Texas law does allow police officers and other first responders to exceed the speed limit without lights if.....

"Speed Restrictions
Sec. 545.365. Speed Limit Exception for Emergencies; Municipal Regulation
(a) The regulation of the speed of a vehicle under this subchapter does not apply to:
(1) an authorized emergency vehicle responding to a call;
(2) a police patrol; or
(3) a physician or ambulance responding to an emergency call.
(b) A municipality by ordinance may regulate the speed of:
(1) an ambulance;
(2) an emergency medical services vehicle; or
(3) an authorized vehicle operated by a blood or tissue bank."

As stated, a police patrol is exempt from these laws. Other state's laws may be different as well as local city/county laws. I know most people assume they lights are required, but as with many other things like people assuming that you can get ticketed for going over the manufacturers GVWR, it is just an assumption, not reality.

As I said before, it is not black and white as many assume it is. There are many state and local laws that allow them to speed without lights in certain situations and areas so technically they are not breaking the law when used in this manner. Having these laws apply to a regular citizen that does not do the same type of work is just asinine.

BobsYourUncle wrote:
A point perhaps worth considering regarding a LEO and driving is that they are not an average driver taught by mom and dad how to pilot a car.

They undergo rigorous training behind the wheel. They are taught to be observant of all things and situations. They are taught to be keenly aware of their surroundings and more.

Their drivers ed teaches them by actual scenarios how to react in a multitude of traffic situations. Things like a pursuit chase - they learn by controlled training how to react to their surroundings, what to expect from other drivers etc etc.

Bottom line is that a LEO is far better equipped to handle a vehicle than the average driver is.

But, traffic deaths for LEO's is right up there with firearms for the leading cause. I frequently see police vehicles at the body shops in town. They do occasionally kill people and go to jail for irresponsible driving. They are human and deserve as much grace as anyone but they get way too much now. Keeping their image cleaner would make their lives much easier in my opinion.

A point perhaps worth considering regarding a LEO and driving is that they are not an average driver taught by mom and dad how to pilot a car.

They undergo rigorous training behind the wheel. They are taught to be observant of all things and situations. They are taught to be keenly aware of their surroundings and more.

Their drivers ed teaches them by actual scenarios how to react in a multitude of traffic situations. Things like a pursuit chase - they learn by controlled training how to react to their surroundings, what to expect from other drivers etc etc.

Bottom line is that a LEO is far better equipped to handle a vehicle than the average driver is.

ShinerBock wrote:
I have no problems with a cop doing 10 over without his lights on. There are a lot of times where they need to get somewhere in a hurry, but it does not constitute the use of emergency lights. Many people just assume that they only do it because they can, when in fact there are many instances where it is needed.

A friend of mine who was a Sheriff assigned to graveyard shift DUI had to this all the time. It is a lot harder to see if someone is swerving and drunk looking from the side of the road so he had to catch people while he was driving. He would come up to a batch of cars and check their driving. If they were not swerving or acting erratically then he would speed up(many times over the speed limit to catch up) and go to the next batch of cars. He got many drunk drivers off the road doing this versus those who waited on the side of the road just checking radar.

He also did this when he caught a DUI suspect and they resisted a breathalyzer. Case in point was one accident wear a drunk driver killed four members of a family of five. Only the young daughter remained alive and in critical condition. The drunk driver refused a breathalyzer so my friend had to get a warrant for his blood to be drawn at the nearest hospital. Every second counts and the longer you wait the lower his blood alcohol level gets. It is imperative that he got there fast as possible so the @$$hole does not get off from killing a family, but it does not constitute emergency lights.

Then there is my dad who was a police officer for over 30 years before he retired several years ago. When he was a sergeant, he had to stay readily available to his officers when they needed him which were anywhere between 3-9 officers on a shift. When he got a call where one of his deputies needed his assistance, then he had to rush over there so they can get their problem solved and move on to the next task. Many times he got multiple calls from different deputies. He would use his lights when it was a true emergency, but many times the call did not warrant emergency lights yet he still needed to get their ASAP. Being short handed as he was, the longer the deputies were on a call, the less deputies he had available if an emergency did pop up.

So no, I don't care if they go over the speed limit without their lights because I know there are many instances that warrant it. These are just a few off the top of my head.

From what I understand going over the speed limit legally requires the use of emergency lights except in specific instances. Those instances require the police to have a judge approved warrant with the time and route on it.

Nobody, including police, should be expected to break the law intentionally. If the law is unreasonable the law should be fixed, not ignored. Loose enforcement of the law leads to subjective and selective enforcement that is too often corrupt or can give the appearance of being corrupt. More than ever we need police to avoid the appearance of being corrupt. Just think how much violence could have been avoided in the past year if police had watched their appearance more closely.

I grew up in Huntsville, Alabama and remember when their police department sought certification about 35 years ago. The first thing that they had to do was give up all official policies that were illegal. Can you imagine what would happen to a company that had policies that required illegal behavior? And think about how it undermines the very authority that the police represent.

I am strongly in favor of law and order. But it should be reasonable and clear and it must apply to EVERYONE equally. And that includes judges, other police and especially lawmakers. Actually, since those people are the ones responsible for the laws they may deserve an extra dose of enforcement instead of the total immunity that many are privileged with now.

I understand that being a law officer is a tough job and that many work too many hours. Some of that needs to corrected but keeping a clean image would take away a lot of the disrespect that they suffer from now.

JRscooby wrote:


I understand every cop can justify breaking the traffic laws to do his job better, but where do you draw the line? If a salesman runs a few over, maybe he can make a extra demo today. What is his limit? If I crowd the traffic lights, maybe I can dump 6 loads today instead of 5. Should I get a pass for that red?
Something that is overlooked is while your drunk, me or my salesman also face civil penalty for our actions. Our insurance will pay to the limit, then it is on us to pay. Until laws change, the cop has no money on the table.

This is why it isn't just black and white. There are many grey areas where one person's opinion will say that they shouldn't and another's says it is warranted. I feel that one can't just say that no cop should go over the speed limit without their lights, period. These people are either very ignorant to the situations of what an officer faces day in and day out. That is like me telling someone else how to do their job even though I do not fully understand all aspects of their job.

Then you have to ask who should be in charge of drawing that line and what politics, knowledge, and/or biases are driving their perception. Many people here said they should not do it period, but most do not have much knowledge about the job. It is a slippery slope and there are I feel many more important things that should be addressed first because they are bigger problems than a cop doing 10 over.

Now keep in mind that I agree that there are bad cops that do break the law because they feel that they can. However, these types of officers are generally hated by the other cops as well because it gives them a bad name. It is extremely hard to get rid of these types of officers in large metro areas with unions. While the unions do a go job at protecting good cops, their rules and regulations that the departments have to follow also protect a percentage of bad cops. So it is one of those cases that in order to have the good, then you have to understand that it will also come with a percentage of bad as with most things. Expecting 100% good is just an unrealistic expectation.

however....sometimes it's just easier to criticize.

That says it all with todays anti-authority mind set.
I have family and friends and neighbors in some type of law enforcement be it city PDs...state troopers....local SOs deputies. What some don't get is many times the officer may have to make backup call for lets say a search warrant or serve a legal paper or a arrest. These aren't a code red call so no red lights and sirens necessary but he/she has to get there at a certain time and may be slowed down by heavy traffic. If he/she runs red then the whole highway has to stop or pull over.
I have no problems with a officer driving a bit faster. Doing so may save a life.
I don't keep up with the faster drivers. I'm the guy in the right hand lane doing the speed limit wondering about why the type A folks have need for speed (10-20 mph over).
Most tv news or press release about a pile up says the state troopers say speeders (conditions) are number one problems in these situations.
JMO but I would like to see more traffic control to hand out more tickets to speeders...tailgaters....over aggressive type A types and those that stay in the passing lane.

But mainly to take out those type A's that are shooting and killing others.

ShinerBock wrote:
I have no problems with a cop doing 10 over without his lights on. There are a lot of times where they need to get somewhere in a hurry, but it does not constitute the use of emergency lights. Many people just assume that they only do it because they can when in fact there are many instances where it is needed.

A friend of mine who was a Sheriff assigned to graveyard shift DUI had to this all the time. It is a lot harder to see if someone is swerving and drunk looking from the side of the road so he had to catch people while he was driving. He would come up to a batch of cars and check their driving. If they were not swerving or acting erratically then he would speed up and go to the next batch of cars.

He also did this when he caught a DUI suspect and they resisted a breathalyzer. Case in point was one accident wear a drunk driver killed four members of a family of five. Only the young daughter remained alive and in critical condition. The drunk driver refused a breathalyzer so my friend had to get a warrant for his blood to be drawn at the nearest hospital. Every second counts and the longer your wait the lower his blood alcohol level gets. It is imperative that you get there fast as possible so the @$$hole does not get off from killing a family, but it does not constitute emergency lights.

Then there is my dad who was a police officer for 30 years before he retired just a few years ago. When he was a sergeant, had to stay readily available to his officers when they needed him which were anywhere between 3-9 officers on a shift. When he got a call where one of his deputies needed his assistance, then he had to rush over there so they can get their problem solved and move on to the next task. Many times he got multiple calls from different deputies. He would use his lights when it was a true emergency, but many times the call did not warrant emergency lights yet he still needed to get their ASAP. Being short handed as he was, the longer the deputies were on a call, the less deputies he had available if an emergency did pop up.

So no, I don't care if they go over the speed limit without their lights because I know there are many instances that warrant it.

I understand every cop can justify breaking the traffic laws to do his job better, but where do you draw the line? If a salesman runs a few over, maybe he can make a extra demo today. What is his limit? If I crowd the traffic lights, maybe I can dump 6 loads today instead of 5. Should I get a pass for that red?
Something that is overlooked is while your drunk, me or my salesman also face civil penalty for our actions. Our insurance will pay to the limit, then it is on us to pay. Until laws change, the cop has no money on the table.