# Is it sinful and of the flesh to drive one mile over the speed limit?



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus

wwjd


----------



## RamistThomist

Let's twist the question a bit:
Is it sinful for a cop to drive one mile over the speed limit, all other things being equal?


----------



## RamistThomist

Seriously,
The phrase should be "all other things being equal."

As Christians we must obey the laws of the land. At the same time--and this is a great example that is applicable into all areas of law, jurisprudence and politics--we (the State and the civilian) must understand that under certain conditions a higher law must be appealed to which overrides the law of man. What are those conditions in this case:

Wife pregnat, dying person in the car, any scenario from the Dukes of Hazzard, etc.

Even my pluralistic opponents will agree with me on that. Most cops would understand, too. These are cases in which a higher ideal (I hate that word) must be appealed to.

Now, can we apply this in other areas of social life? I have always maintained that we can.

[Edited on 6--8-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## default

AWE, you mean when I'm running late for work it's alright to speed, and my conscience is lying to me that I can't push the petal to the metal????????? 

[Edited on 6-8-2005 by Loriann]


----------



## Plimoth Thom

Is it _safe_ to drive only 1 mile an hour over the speed limit?  Not in Michigan where I'm currently living. You're likely to get run off the road if you're only going the speed limit. Everyone else is going at least 10 mph over the speed limit, and they always pass on the right! Always on the right!

Is it sinful and of the flesh to purposely endager your life and the that of your family, to obey the law to the letter?


----------



## heartoflesh

What about conflicting laws? Let's say you live in San Francisco, have some form of cancer and go to a city-sponsored Marijauna Clinic for relief from your pain. Does local or Federal law apply? Is there a Biblical mandate?


----------



## govols

Man, am I glad it's just wrong to go 1 mph over the speed limit b/c I usually go around 9 if it is safe. 

I get to work at about 5 a.m. I have had colleagues stopped before for not going with the "flow of traffic." The "flow of traffic" was about 75 in a 65 at the time.


----------



## default

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> What about conflicting laws? Let's say you live in San Francisco, have some form of cancer and go to a city-sponsored Marijauna Clinic for relief from your pain. Does local or Federal law apply? Is there a Biblical mandate?



I HEARD over the weekend a radio program that shows they are trying to get the relief meds for marijuana over ruled. This at the same time the druggies of the US are pushing for it's legalization. LOL, even they can't agree amongst themselves!


----------



## heartoflesh

> _Originally posted by Loriann_
> I HEARD over the weekend a radio program that shows they are trying to get the relief meds for marijuana over ruled. This at the same time the druggies of the US are pushing for it's legalization. LOL, even they can't agree amongst themselves!



Personally, I think prohibiting it for medical use is insane.


----------



## govols

By your Avatar, you see that it should be legal for playing the guitar?


----------



## heartoflesh

> _Originally posted by govols_
> By your Avatar, you see that it should be legal for playing the guitar?



Django chain-smoked the cigs, but from what I understand he didn't touch the Blue Drag, which is amazing considering the jazz-infused environment he was a part of.


----------



## New wine skin

Regarding the speed limit ques, I think the answer from a post modern world is "no" as long as your going the flow of traffic. (if everyone else is doing it, its ok) 



Seriously... Regarding Man's law, if you break it and it get caught, you get a ticket, once you pay the ticket, the state declares you free from "guilt" since the payment of the fine satisfies, or expiates the punishment of the offense. (this may be an over simplication, but its fun to think about)


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus

> _Originally posted by New wine skin_
> Regarding the speed limit ques, I think the answer from a post modern world is "no" as long as your going the flow of traffic. (if everyone else is doing it, its ok)
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously... Regarding Man's law, if you break it and it get caught, you get a ticket, once you pay the ticket, the state declares you free from "guilt" since the payment of the fine satisfies, or expiates the punishment of the offense. (this may be an over simplication, but its fun to think about)



Should you turn yourself in everytime you go a mile over or is it kind of like stealing where its ok as long as you are willing to pay the consequences if you get caught.

What if you get a ticket in an opposing state and the penality of not paying is a suspended licens in the state. Would it be just to just accept having your licens suspended in that state instead of paying and just not drive in the state until you pay for the ticket?

I've always told myself I would obey the "intent" of our law which is what they want. They want safe driving. So, i'll drive safe. Not just because the government says but because of pratical concern and compassion for the saftey of others on the road.



[Edited on 6-8-2005 by ABondSlaveofChristJesus]


----------



## heartoflesh

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> I've always told myself I would obey the "intent" of our law which is what they want. They want safe driving. So, i'll drive safe. Not just because the government says but because of pratical concern and compassion for the saftey of others on the road.



I also think this is the purpose of a speed limit-- to promote safe driving. In our area (Mpls/St.Paul) it is generally accepted that 5 mph _over_ the posted speed is the speed limit. Following this rule can get you into trouble if you're driving in Iowa, however, where _"55 means 55"_, as a not-so-friendly trooper once told me.

[Edited on 6-8-2005 by Rick Larson]


----------



## New wine skin

I agree with the above. To answer the previous post which I copied below: 

Should you turn yourself in every time you go a mile over or is it kind of like stealing where its ok as long as you are willing to pay the consequences if you get caught.

Answer: I plead the 5th amendment on the first part of the question. Additionally, I would say neither stealing or reckless speeding is ok, even if your willing to pay the consequences. Any "speeding" that might be considered permissible would be going less than 20mph over posted limit, which I arbitrarily use because most courts use this rule to determine if a ticket is eligible to be dismissed under defensive driving. In my orig post I was suggesting that we were dealing with normal speeding, not excessive. Sorry, I should have been more specific.


----------



## lkjohnson

How does Leviticus 4 and 5 fit into this discussion? Intentional sin and unintentional sin?


----------



## Puritan Sailor

By law, even emergency vehicles are only allowed to go 10 mph over the speed limit. I think the only lawful exception may be a cop in pursuit.

[Edited on 6-9-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## Solo Christo

I don't believe that Old Testament speeding laws are still binding today.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

I have a lot of thoughts on this subject but limited time at the moment. However, I would note a couple of things briefly: 

1) Technically, the speed limit can be enforced when someone is clocked one mph over the limit, but in reality, police usually don't even begin to enforce the limit until you drive at least 10 mph over. There is typically a built-in assumption that speedometers may be "off" or traffic flow may allow for speeds faster than the limit and so many people drive above the limit that the police (in mercy or with pragmatism) don't bother to try to catch everyone (expecting certain types of checkpoints). So, when the police don't enforce some violations but do enforce others, what does that say? Police often drive in excess of 20 mph over the limit without lights flashing in my experience. The limits are flexible and I see both good and bad in that. 

2) I may be cynical but I am certain that safety is not the reason for speed limits. It's revenue. I'm all for safety, but slow speed limits do not always promote safety. Nor do speeding or red light cameras or safety belt laws. I live in the DC area and the DC mayor has said on the record that those enforcement methods are based on revenue quotas. Even AAA agrees with that. 

That said, can laws be unjust but indifferent and therefore obligatory upon Christians like income taxes? I'll leave that for another time...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Solo Christo_
> I don't believe that Old Testament speeding laws are still binding today.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Solo Christo_
> I don't believe that Old Testament speeding laws are still binding today.
Click to expand...


Can you point where the NT rescinded those laws?


----------



## Puritanhead

*Speeding Tickets*



> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Let's twist the question a bit:
> Is it sinful for a cop to drive one mile over the speed limit, all other things being equal?



Gee... that's funny... I once saw a sheriff in northern Virginia cut his blue-lights on just to run a red light that caught him... He promptly cut them off because it wasn't really a response to a call or an emergency obviously. 

I rountinely get passed by troopers running way far in excess of the 65 mph posted speed limit [and without blue lights]... but when they're hiding behind a median somewhere--- they become stern advocates of staying within 5 mph of the posted speed limit. State troopers know no grace-- except for crying women.

I remember when I was at a beach I saw a cop speeding past me at 65mph in a 35mph divided parkway... I eventually crossed his path again several miles down the road as he setup radar apparently to stop people from doing what he had been doing... speeding There is a little irony in that... 

Cops have a thankless job and they put in their lives on the line, but in some jurisdictions by flagrant abuse they cultivate disrespect for the law. This not the norm though in my humble opinion. My local municipal cops, at least from my vantage point, heed the law they uphold. I do believe speeding limits and seat-belt laws are necessary... I think a little grace is in order and cops should not utilize speed traps on exit ramps where people come off a 65 mph highway and have to quickly decelerate to the posted speed.

I know you can't rationalize your way out of speeding ticket, but too often disrespect for the law is cultivated by those enforcing the law.


----------



## Puritanhead

> _Originally posted by New wine skin_
> Regarding the speed limit ques, I think the answer from a post modern world is "no" as long as your going the flow of traffic. (if everyone else is doing it, its ok)
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously... Regarding Man's law, if you break it and it get caught, you get a ticket, once you pay the ticket, the state declares you free from "guilt" since the payment of the fine satisfies, or expiates the punishment of the offense. (this may be an over simplication, but its fun to think about)



With due respect.... In case you haven't noticed, the wages of speeding tickets are higher insurance premiums. You are not exonerated by paying your fine as you say.


[Edited on 6-9-2005 by Puritanhead]


----------



## Puritanhead

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 2) I may be cynical but I am certain that safety is not the reason for speed limits. It's revenue. I'm all for safety, but slow speed limits do not always promote safety. Nor do speeding or red light cameras or safety belt laws. I live in the DC area and the DC mayor has said on the record that those enforcement methods are based on revenue quotas. Even AAA agrees with that.
> 
> That said, can laws be unjust but indifferent and therefore obligatory upon Christians like income taxes? I'll leave that for another time...



Actually, I read how one of the corporate proprietors of those high-tech red-light cameras to bust red light violators was found tinkering with the timing on the yellow light in order to make more busts. Their profit-motive might encourage them to increase their revenues by 50-80%. They've abused it in the past. Perhaps money-hungry municipalities will as well. Senior Fox Judicial Analyst Andrew Napolitano has substantiated the earlier aforesaid claim.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

Posted speed 55

Me driving - with the flow of traffic, typically 70-75.

Posted speed 65 

Me driving - a little faster than the flow of traffic - typically 75-80.

It's only a sin if you get caught.... just kidding. Typically, cops don't ticket in MD if you're within 10-15 and driving with the flow of traffic.


----------



## default

Flow of Traffic. While I understand I do want to point this out... the "flow" of traffic is leading people down the wide path that leads to destruction, are you going to follow the flow or set your own "pace"?

we are commanded to be witnesses and to set examples! 

Just to throw a "monkey wrench" into the discussion!

[Edited on 6-9-2005 by Loriann]


----------



## govols

So if we start the "flow" of traffic, that will be better (example)?

J/K 

Makes me feel better about it anyways.

You have to love those that get caught speeding and say that it was a trap.

Were ya speedin or not?


----------



## rmwilliamsjr

I've personally worded it as the problem of conscience and the law.
if i disobey the law because it is inconvenient, i not only disobey God who asks for obedience to lawful authorities, but i loose the moral high ground when the time comes to disobey the law because it conflicts with God's higher requirements. For if i speeded because i was late for church, a minor inconvenience, how would i justify disobedience on moral grounds being as i effectively put pragmatism higher than conscience alright in my actions?

[Edited on 6-9-2005 by rmwilliamsjr]


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus

> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> I've personally worded it as the problem of conscience and the law.
> if i disobey the law because it is inconvenient, i not only disobey God who asks for obedience to lawful authorities, but i loose the moral high ground when the time comes to disobey the law because it conflicts with God's higher requirements. For if i speeded because i was late for church, a minor inconvenience, how would i justify disobedience on moral grounds being as i effectively put pragmatism higher than conscience alright in my actions?
> 
> [Edited on 6-9-2005 by rmwilliamsjr]



So you believe to go one mile over the speed limit is sinful and of the flesh?


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> wwjd



I personally believe it IS sinful to drive 1 mph over the speed limit. Aftereall, this is a clear cut case of breaking the law isn't it? Romans 13 condemns any idea of breaking the civil law, unless of couse it contradicts the law of God.

I actally have taken steps to drive under or right at the speed limit on my way to work. I still need more help in this area, especially when I can't use the cruise control.

Christians should do this 1st out of obedience to God, and 2nd as a witness to the world of how Christians should act practically in this fallen world.


----------



## D Battjes

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> wwjd
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I personally believe it IS sinful to drive 1 mph over the speed limit. Aftereall, this is a clear cut case of breaking the law isn't it? Romans 13 condemns any idea of breaking the civil law, unless of couse it contradicts the law of God.
> 
> I actally have taken steps to drive under or right at the speed limit on my way to work. I still need more help in this area, especially when I can't use the cruise control.
> 
> Christians should do this 1st out of obedience to God, and 2nd as a witness to the world of how Christians should act practically in this fallen world.
Click to expand...


Tell this to the 20k cars on the DC beltway!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The worse thing about driving over the speed limit is it is illegal.


----------



## New wine skin

Same thing in Dallas... Rush hour is akin to a stampede of 20k cars. If you drive the speed limit you get run off the road, someone flips you the bird or tailgates you @60mph.


----------



## alwaysreforming

*In Italy*

In Italy, (at least in Sicily), everyone goes through red lights and stop signs, its expected AND the norm.

One time I was coming up to a red light and noticed a lot of people going through it. As I started to slow down, I saw a cop yelling at me to go through, probably so I wouldn't impede the "flow of traffic."

Its almost as if I had to break the law in order to obey it! 

(I had no problem with that because my motto is always "Safety First". If my actions, even though they might break the "letter" of the law, help to create a safer flow of traffic, then I'm all for it.)


----------



## Contra_Mundum

A law is only a LAW so far as it is coupled with enforced sanctions. So, don't give the enforcers reason (whatever reason, too slow/fast) to bust you. If the law is enforced at 65 or 85, don't sweat it if you are "legal".

But, the problem is when you cannot count on fomal (written) or "informal" laws. There is no consistency. I suppose I like best what I read above about Iowa. There, it sounds like the cops try to enforce the written, firm, reliable standard.

Elsewhere, the "flexibility" is in reality a deeply troubling evidence of manipulation. Everyone (just about) can, with a simple "policy initiative" be found a law-breaker, as the "enforced standard" gets changed arbitrarily. This is what happens when rulers and people abandon meaningful language. Rule of law as a fixed, reliable reference is lost, and we are left first to the mercy of lawyers, and finally to the jungle (because the forces of anarchy are eventually too strong to steer).


----------



## BlackCalvinist

> _Originally posted by New wine skin_
> Same thing in Dallas... Rush hour is akin to a stampede of 20k cars. If you drive the speed limit you get run off the road, someone flips you the bird or tailgates you @60mph.



Or the Baltimore Beltway (695).
In fact, to add on to the 495 thing (DC Beltway) - folk are actually NOTORIOUS for road rage incidents on the Cap. Beltway - everything from 'brake jobs' to running folk off the road to shooting at people with crossbows AND guns. 

Call it what you want. If you're not keeping up with traffic (and police will tell you that they usually don't ticket the 'flow of traffic' - they usually go for the lone wolf doing 85 and passing everyone), stay off the road.

Seriously. Folk like you cause accidents.

*wonders how many of the folk on here actually LIVE what they pontificate on here*
*waits for everyone to go out and watch their speedometer today....  *


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by alwaysreforming_
> 
> 
> Its almost as if I had to break the law in order to obey it!



This justifies the Dukes of Hazzard


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

In the news today:

Survey: Most States Allow Speed Cushion 
By KEN THOMAS, Associated Press Writer 
Mon Jun 13, 2005 


WASHINGTON - Authorities patrolling U.S. highways tend to give motorists a cushion of up to 10 miles per hour above the speed limit before pulling them over, says a survey by a group of state traffic safety officials. 

This practice creates an unsafe comfort level at high speeds and is a potential safety hazard, according to the report being released Monday by the Governors Highway Safety Association. The group found that 42 states allow drivers to regularly exceed the speed limit before they are stopped.

"This cushion truly exists across this country and in some cases is more than 10 mph above posted limits," said Jim Champagne, the association's chairman.

"Law enforcement needs to be given the political will to enforce speed limits and the public must get the message that speeding will not be tolerated," said Champagne, who also is executive director of the Louisiana Highway Safety Commission.

Since 1994, 38 states have increased their speed limit, the report said. Congress in 1995 allowed states to raise limits above 55 mph in urban areas and 65 mph on rural roads.

A study released in 1999 by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety estimated an increase in deaths on interstates and freeways of about 15 percent in the 24 states that had raised their speed limit in late 1995 and 1996.

The survey's release comes ahead of the association's forum this week on ways to address speeding. The goal is to make recommendations for states to consider.

"As a country, if we are going to reduce the carnage on our roadways, speeding must be given the same level of attention that has been given to occupant protection and impaired driving," Champagne said.

States reported that highway patrol officers and other authorities said enforcing traffic laws has become difficult because of uncertainty in highway safety budgets, the focus on homeland security and a shortage of officers due to retirements.

Nineteen states lack a statewide database to log speed-related citation data, the survey found. That makes it hard for policy-makers to reach conclusions about the effectiveness of their enforcement efforts.

The survey said 10 states have some kind of aggressive driving law: Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Nevada, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Utah and Virginia.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I don't believe the stats (increase in hyway fatalities).

No one explains how the figures were figured. What is the baseline? What is included in the totals? What is excluded? More people are driving today than ever, so how much of the % increase might be attributable to greater volume, not higher allowable speed? Point is, we aren't told. The news report is presented in such a way that we get one side of the story. And maybe the writer himself is just sloppy, or his editor. Who stands to gain from a slanted story? Once, I almost had a terrible incident because I slowed down, when going the regular speed (@ posted speed limit) would have avoided the incident entirely.

Higher speeds is only one factor that must be brought into assesment of the matter (whether allowed by law or not). Distractions, age of drivers, recklessness, driving too slow, rubbernecking, cell phone usage, no cell phone available, cars made out of tinfoil to comply with federal fuel-economy mandates... the list goes on.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

I fully agree, Bruce.


----------



## bmwells42

Romans 13:3-5
"3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 

4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 

5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake."

So, when you justify breaking the speed limit for "safety" or to keep the "flow of traffic", would you fear the red and blue lights if they came behind you? Personally, I drive the limit for conscience sake.

For those blue moon occasions, such as a pregnant wife or other medical emergency, I honestly would have no fear of speeding then. Therefore I believe there are a couple exceptions.

(However, being late to work is definitely not one exception....I don't think that excuse would fly with the police officer ) 

[Edited on 6-20-2005 by bmwells42]


----------



## Puritanhead

> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> Posted speed 55
> 
> Me driving - with the flow of traffic, typically 70-75.
> 
> Posted speed 65
> 
> Me driving - a little faster than the flow of traffic - typically 75-80.
> 
> It's only a sin if you get caught.... just kidding. Typically, cops don't ticket in MD if you're within 10-15 and driving with the flow of traffic.



There is a bittersweet irony... that urban expressways are usually marked with a lower 55 MPH posted speed, but the flow of traffic is rountinely 70-80 MPH, in the absence of rush hour of course. Whereas, rural interstates people might not even go as fast... though the posted speed limit is higher than urban interstates.


----------



## Scott Shahan

jeff,

Are there exceptions? Just listened to Piper's sermons on Romans 13. I believe it is sinful to drive over the speed limit. It is disobiedant to God who instituted those govern authorities over us. I am grateful for the law because without it, every man would do what seemed best in his own eyes. Piper asked the question " Is it wrong to drive over the speed limit if your rushing someone to the hospital who's life is threatened? What about civil disobiedance?


----------



## RamistThomist

Obey the law, for conscience's sake (I bet many here didn't expect me to say that.  ). God made men. God made governments, and God is to be obeyed. 

I will obey the government's often idiotic laws (and there are many) but at the same time, through proper means of redress, I will point out to the State that if you have rules that are stupid, tyrannical, idiotic, unjust, then you are signing the death warrant for a civilization (granted, here, we are moving beyond speed limits). 

As much as I do not like the present government, I am quite grateful. For without government we have anarchy, which only leads to more government. So, be content _for the moment_.


----------



## Mike

Is it sinful and of the flesh to drive one mile over the speed limit? Not necessarily. We are to submit to the laws of our land, but this may not always involve complete, technical obedience. The laws are written by men (and often stupid, corrupt men at that!) and are imperfect. In our submission to them, we can and must sometimes fudge them some in order to better interact with the world and comply with their intent. If a highway somewhere has a minimum limit of 40 and there is an accident, then you better go slower. If someone is about to rear-end you, you should probably go faster. If you accidentally go 1 over when accelerating or setting the cruise control, I don't think you have meaningfully transgressed the law. 

That being said, good faith obedience is necessary. Christians are under obligation to really try to stay within the bounds of speed limits.


----------



## RamistThomist

Ditto ^
Sinful or not, you are paying a ticket!


----------



## Mike

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 1) Technically, the speed limit can be enforced when someone is clocked one mph over the limit, but in reality, police usually don't even begin to enforce the limit until you drive at least 10 mph over.


Don't move to College Station, TX!



> 2) I may be cynical but I am certain that safety is not the reason for speed limits. It's revenue. I'm all for safety, but slow speed limits do not always promote safety. Nor do speeding or red light cameras or safety belt laws. I live in the DC area and the DC mayor has said on the record that those enforcement methods are based on revenue quotas. Even AAA agrees with that.


From I Civil Engineering perspective, I must disagree. Transportation Engineers do most of the practical setting of speed limits and are bound by efficiency and safety rather than monetary considerations as a matter of law. Real, engineering studies are used to determine how to run our roads. There is certainly a political side, but the necessity and control of speed limits is not governed by it. Plenty of people will disobey any speed limit, so where we set them probably won't change potential revenue, but will effect many other things which are the standards we are legally allowed to go by.

[Edited on 3-27-2006 by Mike]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Speed limits have a veneer of engineering science behind them, but the reality is they are ultimately governed by political and revenue considerations. During the energy crisis of the 1970's, for example, politicians decided that interstates which were built to handle 70+ mph traffic should be limited to 55 to "conserve fuel." When public sentiment reached a critical mass, speed limits went up nationwide in the 1980's. The highways didn't change, the politics did. 

http://www.motorists.org/issues/speed/index.html

http://www.speedtrap.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_United_States


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Mike_
> From I Civil Engineering perspective, I must disagree. Transportation Engineers do most of the practical setting of speed limits and are bound by efficiency and safety rather than monetary considerations as a matter of law. Real, engineering studies are used to determine how to run our roads.



I agree. The speed limit is not a political or monetary issue, it's a safety issue. The 70's oil crises and the change to 55-mph is the only exception, and these were changed back later on. That only effected interstate highways for a few years. The posted speed limit is primarily and engineering decision on almost all roads today. 

What is being considered is the kinds of people who will potentially drive on the road (anyone from a teenage to a little old lady), and the reaction time of a driver. The calculated "site distance" is the main criteria for setting the "design speed". The greater the site distance (the minimum distance a drive can see an object on the road), the higher the allowable speed. The posted speed limit is usually about 5 mph lower than the "design" speed, so your in that window if your alert and have normal reflexes. 

Also, for a given length of road, we don't want to the posted speed limit changing frequently. So while it may be safe to drive faster along a straight stretch, the posted speed limit may be lowered due to a gentle crest in the road ahead that limits the distance the drive can see when he gets a short distance further down the road. 

I think the moral issue is not "the law of the land", but the intent of the posted speed limit - which is safety. And sometimes the posted speed limit is not necessarily the safest under some circumstances. For instance, when traveling a long straight section of interstate, with a post limit of 55 mph, if cars are passing you one after another, then you are actually increasing the danger to other drivers by going 55 mph. In that case, you do more to increase safety by driving in average speed of the other drivers (say 6o to 65 mph).

I try to keep a following distance of 2 seconds from the car ahead of me, regardless of the speed. But I know that when traveling the beltway around D.C., that keeping that much distance with heavy traffic - people would pull around me. And when I tried to drop back to the safer following distance, the next car behind me would do the same. I had to adjust reduce the following distance just to discourage other drivers from being stupid. When I'm driving in less congested areas, I go back to 2 or more seconds following distance.

So I think from a Civil Engineer's perspective, safety trumps the posted speed limit. Don't drive faster just because you _think_ you can. Consider the other drivers, and the fact that the posted speed limit is there to keep drivers who might be a little less alert from having accidents, or because much of the road your on does not provide enough site distance to drive 10 or 15 mph faster. 

Whatever you do, don't drive a lot slower than the speed limit when everyone else is zipping past you. If your on a single lane and there's a 1/2 mile of cars right behind you, it might be a good to pull off at the next turn and let them by so they aren't tempted to pass you on a double-yellow line. 

Bottom line, drive the posted speed limit whenever practical, considering that going a little slower or faster may increase your safety under certain circumstance. (And saving 5 mins on your drive to work is _not_ one of those circumstances.)



[Edited on 3-28-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by alwaysreforming_
> 
> 
> Its almost as if I had to break the law in order to obey it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This justifies the Dukes of Hazzard
Click to expand...


Gotta get a plug in for dem Duke boys


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Scott Shahan_
> jeff,
> 
> Are there exceptions? Just listened to Piper's sermons on Romans 13. I believe it is sinful to drive over the speed limit. It is disobiedant to God who instituted those govern authorities over us. I am grateful for the law because without it, every man would do what seemed best in his own eyes. Piper asked the question " Is it wrong to drive over the speed limit if your rushing someone to the hospital who's life is threatened? What about civil disobiedance?



I do think that there are appropriate exceptions, but it then deals with obeying the law of God to protect life in these circumstances, which, when applicable, always takes presidence over the laws of men.


----------



## Arch2k

From the Kansas Highway Patrol FAQ:



> Q: I have heard that I can drive five or ten miles per hour over the posted speed limit without being ticketed. Is this true?
> 
> A: *It is a violation of Kansas law to speed as little as one mile per hour over the posted speed limit*. However, the law also says that speed violations of ten or less miles per hour over the speed limit in 55 to 70 mile per hour zones will not count as moving violations for purposes of driving records.
> 
> Many officers adopt some sort of buffer to allow for inconsistencies in the speedometers of different vehicles. Consistently, officers ticket drivers who say that their speedometers showed they were only going five miles per hour over the speed limit, when their actual speeds may have been ten or more miles per hour over the limit.


----------



## Mike

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Speed limits have a veneer of engineering science behind them, but the reality is they are ultimately governed by political and revenue considerations.


That's utter baloney. As to revenue considerations, lower speed limits do nothing. You would have a hard time setting them high enough that there are not more than enough people speeding to give out as many tickets as you want. As to political issues, these certainly play in, but the political considerations on an operational level cannot legally have all that much effect on anything other than the allowed extremeties, which are rarely if at all taken to be significantly below what is deemed safe by road designs.



> During the energy crisis of the 1970's, for example, politicians decided that interstates which were built to handle 70+ mph traffic should be limited to 55 to "conserve fuel." When public sentiment reached a critical mass, speed limits went up nationwide in the 1980's. The highways didn't change, the politics did.


A fact I am more than well aware of. This was a transparent and honest case, revealing the intent of the law: to, as you say, "conserve fuel" (btw, it was quite necessary to conserve fuel at the time the law was enacted and driving your car at around 55 is quite effective at doing so.) Similarly, there is no secret at the motivation of speed limits now. 

Not based on a desire to screw people over (which they can do at any speed) but to provide a safe environment. These are substantiated by real, solid engineering studies (not some vineer but solid wood.) I know: I read them. No, our speed limits don't perfectly align with what would be ideal, but there are scads and scads of factors involved. In not looking exactly like it would be best for them to, though, they still are not as sinister as what you propose, if for no other reason than they wouldn't do the underhanded things you claim they are there to do.



> http://www.motorists.org/issues/speed/index.html
> 
> http://www.speedtrap.org/
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_United_States


I have only skimmed these sites, but I don't really see how this goes to show that the reason speed limits are set where they are now is greed.

[Edited on 3-28-2006 by Mike]


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by alwaysreforming_
> 
> 
> Its almost as if I had to break the law in order to obey it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This justifies the Dukes of Hazzard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gotta get a plug in for dem Duke boys
Click to expand...


I forgot about that. But my car is top-heavy, thus preventing me from driving like that.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Mike_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Speed limits have a veneer of engineering science behind them, but the reality is they are ultimately governed by political and revenue considerations.
> 
> 
> 
> That's utter baloney.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry you feel the need to use such language.



> As to revenue considerations, lower speed limits do nothing. You would have a hard time setting them high enough that there are not more than enough people speeding to give out as many tickets as you want. As to political issues, these certainly play in, but the political considerations on an operational level cannot legally have all that much effect on anything other than the allowed extremeties, which are rarely if at all taken to be significantly below what is deemed safe by road designs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During the energy crisis of the 1970's, for example, politicians decided that interstates which were built to handle 70+ mph traffic should be limited to 55 to "conserve fuel." When public sentiment reached a critical mass, speed limits went up nationwide in the 1980's. The highways didn't change, the politics did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A fact I am more than well aware of. This was a transparent and honest case, revealing the intent of the law: to, as you say, "conserve fuel" (btw, it was quite necessary to conserve fuel at the time the law was enacted and driving your car at around 55 is quite effective at doing so.) Similarly, there is no secret at the motivation of speed limits now.
> 
> Not based on a desire to screw people over (which they can do at any speed) but to provide a safe environment. These are substantiated by real, solid engineering studies (not some vineer but solid wood.) I know: I read them. No, our speed limits don't perfectly align with what would be ideal, but there are scads and scads of factors involved. In not looking exactly like it would be best for them to, though, they still are not as sinister as what you propose, if for no other reason than they wouldn't do the underhanded things you claim they are there to do.
Click to expand...


Speed limits are not based _primarily_ on safety considerations. I gave as an example the fact that highway speed limits were normally 70+ mph before the federal government intervened in the 1970's to lower the nationwide speed limit to 55 mph based on a stated interest in conserving fuel -- this is a political consideration, not a safety consideration, which trumped everything else. Since the federal standard has been rolled back, some highway speed limits have been raised to 80 mph (Texas). Highways in general are obviously built for high speeds, and a 25 mph differential in the speed limit in such places raises the question of why, if 55 mph was the limit based on safety, did the legislature raise the limit to 80 mph, if 80 mph is not safe? The 25 mph differential is much more than the marginal safety window that you have allowed for -- it shows to me that 55 mph is _not_ a true _safety_ limit, at least in that instance.

There are towns that are designated by the AAA as being speed traps, places where the disproportiante or dishonest enforcement of traffic laws with the intent to enhance revenues has been documented as I have shown in the links below. One of those places is Washington, DC, where I work. The mayor of Washington, DC has gone on record as saying that "revenue" is a primary motivation for the use of traffic cameras to prevent speeding. Laws have been passed in many jurisdictions to prevent cities from basing a majority of their budget on revenues from speeding tickets -- why? because the practice happens and has been well documented, leading to citizen protests. Injunctions have been issued preventing cities from doing this very thing (Reed, Arkansas, 2004). Two municipal employees in Coburg, Oregon have filed a $2 million lawsuit because they claim they were fired for not going along with the city's speed trap scheme. To say that it doesn't happen, and that safety is the primary consideration across the board is just not accurate. 

There are other means by which this is done besides setting speed limits (which are done at the state and local level currently). Placement of speed limit signs in hard-to-see spots, disproportionate enforcement of the law in certain areas (quotas), etc. These types of efforts to use the law for the financial advantage of jurisdictions, rather than to uphold the sixth commandment, constitute a violation of the fifth and eighth commandments, in my opinion.

Frederic Bastiat, _The Law_:



> It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.





> http://www.motorists.org/issues/speed/index.html
> 
> http://www.speedtrap.org/
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_United_States





> I have only skimmed these sites, but I don't really see how this goes to show that the reason speed limits are set where they are now is greed.
> 
> [Edited on 3-28-2006 by Mike]



These sources are worth reading if you are interested in learning about the documented efforts on the part of jurisdictions to enhance revenue through speeding tickets.

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=357

[Edited on 3-28-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## VictorBravo

I just wish I could go the speed limit in our part of the country. The Seattle-Tacoma corridor is marked 60mph. I'm lucky to hit 20. 

Regarding tickets, I had a client who did a clever thing after receiving a speeding ticket. On the back of our tickets you can mark a box requesting an evididentiary hearing. In the alternative, you may simply pay the fine marked; in essence you are admitting guilt.

What he did was send the fine in with the ticket and also requested a hearing. Because the court received the money, it ignored the request for hearing. When my client showed up on the designated hearing date, there was nobody from the county to testify on behalf of the state. The judge dismissed the case for lack of evidence and ordered the money he paid to be refunded.

I'm not advocating such clever tactics, but I thought it was funny. I always drive the speed limit and stay out of the way of faster drivers, mostly because I'd rather not be worrying about an expensive ticket and increased insurance premiums. Having said that, I agree that jurisdictions may have improper motives for some of the limits, nevertheless, they are grounded in the authority put over us and should be obeyed.

Vic


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by victorbravo_
> ...What he did was send the fine in with the ticket and also requested a hearing. Because the court received the money, it ignored the request for hearing. When my client showed up on the designated hearing date, there was nobody from the county to testify on behalf of the state. The judge dismissed the case for lack of evidence and ordered the money he paid to be refunded.
> ...
> Vic


 Ha! Did he really do that expecting those results?! I would have never guessed! Very clever!


----------



## VictorBravo

Yes, that was his plan all along. He understood bureaucracy.


----------

