TexasCHLforum.com

KBCraig wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:In this particular case on a Texas state highway, the speed limit was 60 mph - not 260 mph - and the drivers who are obeying the speed limit have a reasonable expectation that the drivers around them will also obey the speed limit, or at least stay close to it, which the law requires of all drivers, whether or not they have secret fantasies of being the next Wayne Gardner or Mario Andretti.

That is a dangerous assumption, one that is just as foolish as assuming that all the drivers around them are sober and fully insured.

Other than that, this is probably not the place to debate Autobahn versus Interstate, but I do appreciate your comments.

I'll grant you the dangerousness of the assumption, and I'll drop the Autobahn versus Interstate comparison... ...BUT, whether or not that assumption by most drivers is foolish, it is still the reality of the situation. So in any system that is running, however mistakenly, on the principle that one can reasonably expect all other drivers to be obeying the law (which describes the majority of drivers), it is the driver who upsets the apple cart - either by driving impaired, recklessly, or at excessive speed (which may or may not overlap with recklessness) - who causes the unsafe condition. The unsafe condition is not caused by the complacent driver. Where the complacent driver is wrong is in not being adequately prepared (either in mindset or in driving skills) for the possibility of an impaired/reckless/speeding driver in their vicinity. However, since the complacent driver is acting within the law, and the impaired/reckless/speeding driver is acting outside the law, it is then incumbent upon the impaired/reckless/speeding violator to change their ways to bring them into compliance with the rest of the drivers, who constitute the vast majority on the road, so that all may use the roads safely.

Can we at least agree on that?

AFCop wrote:

Odin wrote:Just wanted to point out that the police don't need to use radar to write speeding tickets.

The radar gun was invented in 1954.
The speeding ticket was invented long before 1954.

This comment is based on......

Maybe in 1954 you didn't need a RADAR Gun to write speeding tickets but in 2008 with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (the standards they have established) and case law from around the country (including federal courts (other than the SCOTUS) you most certainly do. Not only do you have to have the RADAR Gun but you must be trained in how to use it, that is right...any cop who hops in a cruiser and turns on the RADAR Gun without any training is wrong.

Bryan

That may be true in Texas, but it is not true in all states. In California, for instance, a CHP officer can write you a speeding ticket for driving at any speed he or she deems to be unsafe for the conditions - even when that speed is lower than the posted speed limit. CHP officers have used this - very successfully, I might add - many many times to harass motorcycle riders on twisty roads. For instance, (and this actually happened to me one time) I was riding my bike on the Angeles Crest Highway, going 45 in a 55 zone through a corner which had a little bit of sand and gravel that had washed onto the roadway from the shoulder. Now, in my judgment, and being very experienced with that highway's twists and turns and the varying road conditions at the time, 45 mph was a safe speed under those conditions. I had taken the same corner (illegally) at speeds approaching 75 when the road was clean without a hint of trouble. But on that particular day, the officer who watched me ride through that corner made the judgment that 45 was an unsafe speed for the local conditions - even though the posted limit was 55 mph. He wrote me a ticket, and it stuck, because a CHP officer in California (the counterpart of a Texas DPS officer) is entrusted with that particular authority.

Thus, depending on how big a weasel he wants to be, he can write you for going 25 or 15 in a 55 zone, and it is perfectly legal for him to do that. Furthermore, if challenged in court, in the eyes of the court, he's the expert witness and a friend of the court, not the challenger. You're simply going to lose, whether or not the charge is ridiculous. And, when you are dealing with the CHP, all of this can happen without the benefit of a radar gun most of the time.

In fact, (at least prior to 2008) in California, the CHP required special dispensation from the state in order to use radar on clearly defined, limited stretches of highway, for limited periods of time. While other local agencies and sheriff's departments routinely equipped their squad cars with radar guns, you would rarely ever see one in a CHP car. I don't know if that still holds true in 2008. However, whether it does not not, a CHP officer can still judge speed as being unsafe for the conditions, regardless of how fast you are actually going, and regardless of whether you are above or below the posted limit. I would be surprised if they no longer had that discretionary authority today.

KBCraig wrote:I've changed lanes at 120+, and done so "briskly" in order to get out of the way of faster traffic. There's nothing inherently unsafe about either the speed, nor changing lanes at speed.

I have to respectfully disagree. No, you're right, there isn't anything inherently unsafe in speed, or changing lanes at speed, as long as you are trying to merge back into traffic that is going relatively fast. Two spacecraft in earth orbit are both going over 17,000 mph when they attempt to dock, but relative to one another, their speed differential is very low. Trying to merge back into slower traffic from 120+ is fine if the slower traffic is going 100+, with a 20 mph speed differential; but it is more dangerous when merging from 90 mph back into 60 mph with a 30 mph speed differential. Also, on the Autobahn you are talking about driving past and around cars at 120+, when those cars are accustomed to being passed by people going that fast; they have a reasonable expectation of needing to yield room for a faster moving car to merge into their lane; and they have the driver training to deal with it. Add to that the fact that the Autobahn is without a speed limit (or the limit is so high as to be meaningless). There is a dictum on the racetrack that it is incumbent on the driver/rider making the pass to make a safe pass; but this dictum is dependent on the notion that the person who is being passed is also a qualified racer and won't be startled into a ditch by getting stuffed by a faster driver diving into the next corner while executing the pass. And that is on a racetrack, not on the street. You can't have the same expectations that you would have for racetrack driving (or Germany's speed limitless Autobahn) as you would have on a Texas state highway. American drivers, for better or for worse, by virtue of the speed limits we have, are for the most part untrained in having to respond to the maneuvers of other drivers around them going that fast, and since the laws forbid that kind of driving, it is unreasonable to expect them to be so trained.

I would add that your assertion that there is nothing inherently unsafe about either the speed or such maneuvers is also entirely based upon whether or not your particular vehicle is engineered to withstand and safely absorb the forces generated, even assuming that other drivers are prepared for your moves. If you are driving a high performance car (say a Corvette or a Porsche) with well sorted out suspension, sticky tires, and high performance brakes, then yes, the maneuvers can be relatively safe. If you are driving a 15 year old Honda Civic (assuming you could get it to go that fast), or an 8 year old Ford Explorer with slightly worn stock tires, stock suspension, and stock brakes, then it would be absolutely idiotic to drive like that. If the driver you're passing is an 80 year old grandma who startles easily, then you have created an unsafe situation. Add to that that you are expecting drivers untrained in the macho art of the autobahn, driving vehicles that are not set up for high speed stability nor high speed maneuvering, to be able to deal with your desire to break the law at will - which brings me to the next point.

In this particular case on a Texas state highway, the speed limit was 60 mph - not 260 mph - and the drivers who are obeying the speed limit have a reasonable expectation that the drivers around them will also obey the speed limit, or at least stay close to it, which the law requires of all drivers, whether or not they have secret fantasies of being the next Wayne Gardner or Mario Andretti. After all, your driver's license represents a social contract you have with your society not to break laws which all are held to, regardless of race, creed, or religion. No driver has the moral authority to place other drivers at risk simply because they think of themselves as superior asphalt warriors who condescend to those people who insist that your drivers license is a privilege, and not a right - and you do place them at risk when you make them respond, without proper training or equipment, to your illegal actions.

That's just my 2¢.

rider wrote:I've found it's mostly because I keep on getting caught breaking the law.

I apologize in advance... Meaning no disrespect, but this reminds me of that funny scene from "Liar Liar" when a recidivist armed robber client calls his lawyer (played by Jim Carey) for legal advice, at a time when the lawyer is at the end of his emotional rope.

He screams into the phone, "YOU WANT MY ADVICE?!?!?!?!? STOP BREAKING THE LAW, *******!!!!!!!