I'm not sure I stand corrected about that. I haven't finished following the links I found, but so far the majority lead to sites like landrights.com, usff.com, sites making claims like "Another victory against "licensed" "driving" (http://www.uslawbooks.com/travel/flbrief.htm -the "victory" was "I bargained out with a nolo-contender plea $150.00 in court cost and judgment of guilt withheld.") but I want to see something ending in, say, .gov before I will be persuaded.

Seriously?

Seriously?

I can't wrap my head around that way thinking.

It seemed to me that both of CA's quotes give him the absolute right to use public thoroughfares; but not the right to drive any vehicle that requires an operator's license. Those quotes as I recall from my muddy recollections of history had to do with states erecting toll barriers at state borders to use their roads.

Vis-a-vis the topic; I remember an article in Scientific American years ago in which the speed limit on a new highway in California was set after a few weeks of measurement to determine the average speed folks drove on it. Their take was that the 'average' driver was a safe driver, neither too slow nor too fast. They set the speed limit at that average.

Best excuse ever
 

.
Best excuse for speeding ever (true story, published in the internal magazine for the California Highway Patrol), was from a guy who was really stressed when he was pulled over:

"Officer, please... I am sorry, but I’m really in a hurry. When wife is about to conceive a baby – and I really want to be there when it happens!"

Hard to argue with that. :D

A few more thoughts...
 

What a brilliant and radical idea!

Apropos being tailgated at 95 (or 70); I usually tap my brake lightly a couple of times. If that doesn’t work, I just remove my foot from the gas pedal, forcing them to pass. I am convinced that it is very contrary to my well-being to be anywhere near idiots like that.

It is a fact, however, that lower speeds (when embraced by drivers) save lives. Many lives. And it’s not a pretty sight seeing what happens to a body that continues travelling at a high speed – after the vehicle has come to an abrupt stop.

Do you have any friends or family members who have had a couple of hundred stitches sewn in their face after being hit by someone who felt it was perfectly legitimate for them to drive 20-30 miles over the speed limit?

I have.

I will grant you, however, that "speeding" all depends on circumstance. And it may well be that freeways in wide-open Arizona deserve more lax enforcement than the roads on Cape Cod or the Monterey Peninsula, or other places where there are scores of crossing roads.

As a general rule, I believe people should be ticketed for unsafe driving. People should not, however, be ticketed primarily as a source of government income. In Norway, radar controls (mobile or automated with cameras – don’t know if they’re from Gatsometer BV) are generally set up where they are likely to catch the greatest number of offenders – and not where exceeding the speed limit is most unsafe.

Sorry for not being more light-hearted in this post.

Best regards,
ArcticStones
.

The NHTSA guidelines say that all roads should be set to the "85th percentile" speed. That is, the speed that 85% percent of people drive naturally. That is the safest speed limit. In addition they have specific road engineering guidelines. Unfortunately, few places use any of those rules, relying on arbitrary numbers instead.

The high seas aren't controlled by any one jurisdiction, but there are international treaties that pretty much do apply as a right to everyone.

Being interested in other peoples' rights even if they don't affect me?

Too bad it didn't catch on. As CA says, the rule is now 85% of the mean, but for the most part no one pays attention. Speed limits tend to follow rather arbitrary rules in each state or province.

I got my driver's license in Nova Scotia in 1952 (I was 15, but there was a special rule for those that lived outside towns). At that time there was no speed limit; the rule was 'safe and prudent'. If you were cited, it was your word against an RCMP constable's and you had no option but to pay. On the other hand, if you lived at the end of a long winding country road, typically unpaved, during the day you could see a dust plume of someone coming, and at night, headlights served the purpose - you knew you didn't have the whole road for sliding your turns in the gravel and slowed down. The peril was farmer's tractors or herds, but you learned where they were likely to be encountered.

The real problem with speeding is that folks who don't have the skills required to go fast on a winding road still do, and folks with short little spans of attention think they can go fast AND eat their lunch, talk to their girlfriend on the phone, read a map, etc.

A Brit's Reply...
 

There's a few responses to various points made in this thread, so apologies for the potentially disjointed paragraphs :D

The general view is that speed cameras are designed purely to increase the money that the government makes from drivers, rather than to "prevent accidents" and "save lives".

The counter-arguement to the "prevents accidents, etc." line is that drivers spend more time looking out for cameras than paying attention to the road, thus reducing the liklihood that they will be able to avoid anything that may result in an accident.

While cameras were initially hidden, it is now required by law for the reverse of the camera housing to be painted in red and yellow diagonal stripes so as to make them more visible.

When Gatso's were the press's flavour of the month, there were occasional instances of vandalism (setting on fire, taking a chain-saw to them, even trying to blow up with explosives!), but it was never country-wide anarchy as some people may have been led to believe.

However, there is a good chance that the whole debate may be re-ignited with the introduction of new types of speed cameras:

- licence-plate recognition systems involving two cameras a set distance apart which calculate your average speed over the given distance (usually a number of miles).

- laser cameras with a range of around 400m (~1/2 mile) which can pick out individual lanes. Current radar cameras work at a range of about 100ft and can get confused if there are multiple objects moving at different speeds.

- gps tracker systems in your car to determine your speed at any given time. These are unlikely to appear anytime soon, but certain insurance policies make use of such devices to determine when and where you drive so as to better tailor your premiums.


Personally, I've never been caught by a speed camera -- but then again, I don't drive on a regular basis. However, I was caught by one of the cameras that catch people who jump red lights. I was in slow moving traffic and had stopped with my front wheels about 1m over the stop line. When the lights changed to red, I was snapped. Hardly what you'd call "jumping the lights". :mad:


Finally, with regards to speed limits, it is my view that people will ALWAYS go up to 15% over the speed limit as this appeals to the rebel in them because they are speeding, but is not speeding by that much so as to feel dangerous. This is probably why the NHTSA use the 85% rule --- they know that it will ensure the majority of speeders will still be below the 100% mark.

Well that's my two cents....

Last year I was in a wedding in Tiburon, and realized the groom's ring was at my apartment in San Francisco about 20-minutes before the wedding. It's about a 30-minute drive on a good day...so I got in the car and dropped the hammer. I'm not even sure that I used the breaks until I was on my block.

The ONE TIME I had a chance to speed with a good excuse I didn't get pulled over. I had the tuxedo, wedding ring, and stressed facial expression, everything I should need to get off a ticket. I didn't want a ticket...but I did want to play that card.

I made it to the wedding in time, with the ring and a full flask fo Macallan :D

Now that is what I call impeccably civilized behaviour! :cool:

I think the important thing to remember here is that in the majority of US cars the driver is going to be at least a quarter mile from the point of impact anyway ;) so speed limits on most roads are irrelevant.

Oh and in case anyone tries to jump on their high horse.... I'm kidding!

I suppose the ideal solution would be technological – a system that actually prevents drivers from getting closer than X feet to the car in front for every Y mph they’re travelling. Ah, finally a cure for tailgaters!

I’m kidding too.

I have been flashed about 3 or 4 times over the years, but luckily, I did not get the dreaded notice through my door.
I suspect that the cameras that did flash me where empty, the theory going around was that the plebs filling hem could not fill them all as soon as the film ran out. I suspect now that most of the cameras are digital.

I have at times had people tailgate me. when this happens and I know there is a speed camera up ahead.
I can usually time this so, as I move over one lane but keep my speed up just long enough, so as not to let the tailgater pass without having to go faster. By the time they realise there are cameras, I have already slowed enough to watch the cameras go Flash,Flash on them.


The overall feeling here in the Uk is the cameras started as a good idea in stopping speeding, but soon that good idea got taken over by how much they could earn the authorities. (millions).

The government was forced to make the notices and cameras more visible because road safety groups and the public expressed anger at the the placement of these cameras just to make money and not to calm traffic speed.

Recently on the M1 (motorway) 'approximate speed' speed cameras have been install, These measure the approximate time it take a vehicle to travel from camera A to camera Z, a to z being about a mile apart.

This sound like a very good way of slowing traffic in spots that are more prone to high speed accidents. But the problem is, if a driver enters the zone in lane 1 and exits in lane 2 or 3 then the cameras can not register the speed, Now the joke is the Authorities are thinking of asking drivers to play fair and exit the same lane as they started in.

Another interesting fact is that the national speed limit program in the UK was not introduced for altruistic purposes per se. It was introduced after an AC Cobra was driven up the M1 at over 170 mph. The UK government was so shocked that the speed limit was the response!

Particularly the full flask of Macallan :)

The NHTSA found that lowering or raising speed limits had no effect on the average speeds on a road. Their findings are that drivers have a comfort zone based on current conditions and that 85% of drivers agree. My observations are the same. The only real effects came from VISIBLE speed enforcement by police and with weather situations.

In some cases I've observed a REVERSE corelation. I used to commute between Tucson and Phoenix frequently, which is a 100 mile drive on a wide open, flat, straight road. Back when we had a national speed limit of 55 MPH, I and many other drivers would travel the road at about 90, while most people did 75-80, and the occasional dangerous situation would arise when one guy would do 55-60. Now that the limit on that road is 75, I notice almost everyone, myself included, keeps it under 85 because our highway patrol doesn't look for people until they are 11 over. And still, the average driver is doing 75-80, no change. Fortunately however there is nobody doing 55-60 any more, which was the real danger.

Back when the limit was 55 I figured I might as well go as fast as I want, since I was going to get ticketed anyway if spotted.

Back when the limit was 55, one had to be insane to go 55 on any really busy artery - you might as well have stopped in your lane. I commuted 75 miles a day on Route 128 - the inner ring road around Boston - and except for trucks merging, no one went below the 'flow' at 75 - three lanes, spacing about 25 feet at 75, one slow lane (the double-nickel lane) for merging - how would a speed trap have worked? Not a hope. Same on the Mass. Freeway Extension into the center of the city and on I-95 and I-93 feeding 128. Never got a ticket on any of them.

Up in Maine, the Maine Turnpike had a neat trick though - you picked up a card at your entry point and submitted it on exit to pay the toll. If you had averaged more than 10 mph over the limit for the distance, you got a ticket for speeding. I consulted about 40 miles up in Portland, but stopped for coffee part way.

I HATE speed camera's...:mad:

fine if they are outside a school... or somewhere where it matters...

But why do you find them hidden around corners at the bottom of very steep hills!??!:mad:

The best way to deal with speed cameras is to chuck a car tyre over it, fill the bottom of the tyre with lighter fluid, light it and cook the thing.

Brits are to easy going, we need to fight yet another stealth tax on the generally law abiding middle class! :D

Oh! Is that how it's done? I didn't realize there was flammable liquid involved. :eek:

Darn it! Next to Conclusion Jumping, High Horse Jumping was my best Olympic event!

It is a misstatement to say that the rights of others don't affect you. They are your rights, too, so it is in your interest to support them, and it is your resposibility as a citizen and member of the community not to infringe them. But I think it is safe to say that we agree more than disagree at least about that.

Resorting to glibness was a cheap shot and intellectually dishonest. That was not a legitimate conclusion to draw from anything I have written. Although I may differ with you about what rights we have and to what extent they apply, I am certainly not uninterested in the rights of others - quite the opposite - and I absolutely did not say anything that could honestly be portrayed as befuddlement about your concern for the rights of others.

About my previous comments, I'll be more specific.

You seem to, if not admire and condone the vandalism, at least minimize it. And abominitions? Speed cameras do not sink to the depths of slavery, antimiscenegation laws, etc., true abominations. Enforcement of traffic law is legitimate and necessary (although I do not beleive it should be pursued as a fundraising mechanism.)

A trust to protect your assets? Can't argue with that. But (and this is my belief in general, it is not meant to be a value judgement about you) offshore corporations and other tax shelters are too often abused. I find the lengths to which some go to hide their assets puzzling at best, dishonest at worst. I was a business owner before becoming a stay at home dad. I find most complaints about taxes to be overstated. I think a lot of loopholes (as well as wasteful government spending) need to be eliminated.

I am also puzzled by the percieved need to protect oneself from scrutiny carried so far as to hide behind a paper trail in matters as mundane as vehicle registrations.

By your own admission, you were among the minority traveling at the highest speeds. You were in fact a danger to the other drivers, especially the ones who were fully complying with the law. It defies logic to claim otherwise.

You were traveling at speed which many cars simply cannot safely maintain under the best of conditions. And you slow down now? But only enough to avoid a ticket? The people who are no longer traveling 55-60 are simply continuing to obey the law, as any citizen who respects the law, and their duty to obey it, would. Part of concern for the rights of others is living up to the responsibility not to abridge them in any way - that includes not putting their lives in danger.