Speed limits

[4x4ord]

The speed limit on the straight desolate paved road that goes past our place is 80 km/hr. The people who use the road drive whatever speed they please and for the most part it works fine ….. until you come across somebody driving 80 km per hour. The other day I was riding my bike through Banff national park and rode at the upper end of how fast traffic was moving …. about 130 km per hour. For the most part people drove 120 - 130 km/hr. Fortunately there wasn’t a sole driving the posted speed of 90 km/hr. How should we view speed limits? Is a speeding ticket simply a driving tax?

[MFL]

Not to stir the pot, but no matter how fast they drive, you can never have a cop show up when you need one! When you don't want to see one... you guessed it!

No offence to officer Putman! 🙂

Jerry

[spoon059]

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.

[spoon059]

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.

[spoon059]

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?

[spoon059]

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.

[fj12ryder]

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.

[fj12ryder]

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.

[wing_zealot]

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.

[toedtoes]

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.

[mkirsch]

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.

[toedtoes]

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.

[MFL]

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

[Grit_dog]

Banner thread 4x!
And it’s not even a ouut the bsfc of a Powerstroke at 1969 rpms!

[toedtoes]

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?

[JRscooby]

ShinerBock wrote:


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.

But unless there is a hard and fast line, then when it comes to enforcement, blue will always be justified, and others it is blue that decides what is right. There is nothing right about that.

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.

Like I say the cop can always come up with a reason for his fast driving. But my statement is if a cop is not on a call, and cars are speeding near him that cop should be fired.

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.

If you have 1000 cops and 3 are bad actors, but the 997 will not stop the 3, you have 1000 bad cops. Unions are collections people. If the members stand up for the bad actor, he stays. But if members stand up against him he will leave.

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.

Yeah. Right. Sure. Want to buy a bridge?
They also sing that song, dance that dance about their firearms. But often they lack judgement about when to use, and a large percentage of their rounds do not hit the intended target.