Replies

My post was more about how it is supposed to work in theory. I realize it's not how it actually works in practice, CWCT. In my post I didn't say to sit in the passing lane doing just the speed limit. If you're doing 85 (in a 70) in the passing lane and never moving over to the right lane, then you have essentially taken it upon yourself to flout the law and to make the passing lane your own personal traveling lane. If you're in the passing lane you should only be passing someone who's not doing the speed limit and then moving back to the traveling lane to again resume doing the posted speed limit yourself ~ IF you're someone who believes in following the law.

It seems people here want to argue it's ok to break the law when that law inconveniences them or they just plain don't like it. In what other circumstances do these FReepers believe it's ok to break laws that they don't like? Do FReepers no longer agree with the premise that we are a nation of laws, or does that apply only when it comes to laws they agree with?

Well, speeding is a civil, not criminal, penalty in most cases, and the punishment is a fine, like paying for the privilege. So that could be a distinction.

But if you really want to find the people who feel breaking the law is OK if they don’t agree with it, post a message saying people who don’t pay their state’s “Use Tax” on internet purchases are tax cheats.

For the record, I actually do pay my state’s “Use Tax” (equivalent of sales tax) on internet purchases that I can keep track of. But I am in an extremely small minority, as virtually everybody else thinks it is OK not to pay your taxes if the state can’t catch you.

Highway speed limit laws are the worst kind of laws around. They are appeals to a common denominator that doesn’t exist, and punish behavior that, by itself, harms absolutely nobody and has no rational basis for being controlled.

I only hurt someone by “speeding” if in addition to speeding I also do something else, like weave in front of them, cut them off, or fail to stop in time and crash. All those things could be severely punished if the person who does them is also known to be speeding; but speeding itself doesn’t harm people.

Of course, drunk driving itself doesn’t harm people either, and I don’t argue that drunk driving is OK. But I would note that we DO allow “drunk” drivers to drive, if you use the term “drunk” to mean “any impairment whatsoever caused by alcohol”.

Instead, we have picked an arbitrary number that can’t be known by the perpetrators, and said “above that number is illegal, below is legal”, when in fact some people with high BA levels drive much better than other people with low levels.

I support Drunk Driving laws because the percentage of drunks who harm others is sufficiently high to justify curtailing the rights of other people who could drive after drinking without causing any harm.

But the average speeder isn’t causing a significant additional danger. In fact, many states are raising their speed limits; Virginia just raised some limits to 70 mph.

I’d love to see limits set based on time of day or traffic levels, but that’s just too complicated.

Instead, police use judgement to determine whether a particular speed is really a danger or not, and pull people over accordingly.