Speed limits

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.

Completely absurd and not true at all.

First and foremost, you do NOT need a WARRANT to respond with lights and sirens. That is dictated by department policy. The idea that an officer dispatched to a shooting call would have to stop, write a warrant, find a judge and get it signed BEFORE he can turn on lights and sirens is beyond my comprehension of stupidity.

Second, check traffic law in your state. I know that in Maryland a police officer can exceed the speed limit to respond to "emergency calls" (which aren't defined) or to catch up with a suspected traffic violator. I can promise you that most people that call the police consider their needs to be "emergencies" to them, therefore does it meet the definition of an "emergency call"? In Maryland, I don't think police are even required to use lights and sirens while responding to an emergency. They can simply speed (assuming its an approved call), but that greatly increases their liability if they are involved in a wreck. Not sure how that conveys in Tennessee though.

JRscooby wrote:

spoon059 wrote:
So you want to fire a cop for speeding?

No! I want the cop fired for not enforcing the law, any law, when he sees a violation. WHAT THE DUCK WE PAYING HIM FOR?

Lynnmor wrote:

If one cannot obey or enforce the laws he needs to go.

fj12ryder wrote:

Unless he's responding to an emergency, he's no different than everyone else out there.

Thanks, both of you understand my point.

So... you want him fired for not enforcing the law... but you agree with Lynmor and fj12ryder that he should be fired for speeding. Which is it? By the way, enforcing the law doesn't mean enforcing EVERY SINGLE LAW, EVERY SINGLE TIME. Otherwise he would have to pull you over for doing 56 in a 55, thus not being available to pull the next guy over for doing 90 in a 55. Maybe he isn't making a traffic stop for speeding because he is headed to a call for service, or maybe he's headed to someone's house to tell them that their child is dead, or maybe he's going to a call for a missing child, or maybe he's gotta go to the bathroom.

You can't catch every traffic violator and have to strike a balance between those that are worth pulling over and those that aren't. There are plenty of threads on RV.net complaining about that "a-hole cop" that stopped someone for rolling through a stop sign or some other "minor" offense. But you want him FIRED if he doesn't stop someone for a traffic violation?

But then you contradict yourself and indicate you DO want him fired for speeding. It would be easier to follow your logic if you kept it straight yourself.

fj12ryder wrote:

spoon059 wrote:

JRscooby wrote:
IMHO, you have that bass ackward. If a cop is seen in traffic running over the limit, he better explain what is more important he is doing or head for unemployment line.

So you want to fire a cop for speeding?

Unless he's responding to an emergency, he's no different than everyone else out there.

He's no different than anyone else, and everyone else is speeding, so EVERYONE should be fired because they speed?

fj12ryder wrote:

spoon059 wrote:

JRscooby wrote:
IMHO, you have that bass ackward. If a cop is seen in traffic running over the limit, he better explain what is more important he is doing or head for unemployment line.

So you want to fire a cop for speeding?

Unless he's responding to an emergency, he's no different than everyone else out there.

So ANYONE that speeds should lose their jobs? Just trying to figure out where the line is drawn.

I'll have to admit that I deserved all the speeding tickets I ever got. But the last one was over 20 years ago. I don't drive any slower, but I am a bit more observant. And that last one was on the open interstate by an airplane and they just pulled over a bunch at a time, handed you a preprinted ticket in a self-addressed envelope. Hmm, could that have been revenue generation? Naaaahh.

mkirsch wrote:

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.

Because salesmen and dump truck drivers have extensive pursuit driver training.

Yeah, I don't know how extensive that pursuit driver training is for local sheriffs, deputies, and small town police.

Asking for a Friend - If I go through the same driver training course cops do can I now drive 10 over without getting a ticket? I"d have the same advanced training they had.

MFL wrote:

toedtoes wrote:

4x4ord wrote:

toedtoes wrote:
I have no problem with a marked emergency vehicle driving over the speed limit. The assumption is that they are doing so in the performance of their duties and that the excess speed is necessary. I am willing to accept that assumption.

I do take issue with off duty law enforcement officers (or off duty emergency personnel) in private vehicles speeding and not being ticketed if stopped. The "good ole boy" wave 'em on attitude is wrong.

Do you stand opposed to the 1500 private jets landing in Sun Valley bringing billionaires together to talk about climate change?:)

What does that have to do with this?

Nothing that could make any sense! But hey, he started the thread, so guess alright for him, to go whatever direction. Thread went sideways anyway, with all the cop stories!

Jerry

Thought I was missing some big connection there.

Since it's gone sideways, I'll add an observation. Years and years ago I went to "traffic class". The class had about 17 people in it. The instructor asked everyone why they were there. 7 of the 8 women stated "I was speeding and got caught". The 8th woman's story could have been fought in court as entrapment. Out of the men, all 9 of them had an excuse for speeding and felt their excuse was a legitimate reason to not get ticketed. Excuses ranged from "I was speeding to stay awake" to "I was speeding to bring my child home from the hospital" to "I am a prison guard and got caught in a speed trap and the officer had to ticket me since they stopped another vehicle at the same time".

I suspect that today, the majority of the women would now have an excuse that "justified" their speeding. But I always thought it interesting that the women then accepted their speeding tickets without excuse while every man thought he should have been allowed to speed without issue.

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.

Because salesmen and dump truck drivers have extensive pursuit driver training.

wing_zealot wrote:
While there may be no evidence that differential speed causes accidents, there is certainly empirical evidence that the greater the differential speed, the greater the potential for having accidents and the greater the severity of the accidents.

Hence there is a reason why there is a minimum speed limit on freeways and why you can't drive your moped on them.

Yes, there are minimum speed limits on freeways. But that minimum is "waived" all the time. Stop and go traffic, road work, icy roads, fog, stormy weather, etc.

One person driving too slow may be annoying. But as long as others are driving an appropriate speed for the conditions and are paying attention, there will be no accident. It's when all those other "people factors" come in that accidents happen. Like the driver who chooses not to slow down but instead swerve around the slow driver on a crowded freeway.