Originally posted by: Trippin315
I am one of those bad drivers. I found this post and it seems to fit well with me.
Some Thoughts on Speeding
This is going to rub some people the wrong way, but I don't care, because speed limits rub me the wrong way, and I hate that.
Make no mistake, I drive at a comfortable speed. I just happen to be quite comfortable at 90 miles an hour. Not in traffic, of course. I'm not a weaver or a tailgater, because that's dangerous, and a good way to get the attention of an idle cop on the side of the road. But if the road is wide open, why shouldn't I be entitled to drive at 90 or even 100?
Recently, in fact, a judge dismissed a speeding charge against a motorcyclist by saying that his speed alone was not qualification for reckless driving. Good point: when speeding on an open road in a straight line, speeding isn't any more dangerous than driving 65 with screaming kids in the back and not paying attention. In fact, the good speeder is probably more conscious of road conditions and circumstances than the run-of-the-mill SUV driver at the wheel of a much more dangerous vehicle.
So why are police allowed to use radar guns to check speeding? This is where I take umbrage. The criteria to be judged should not be the speed, but the driving. In other words, if the road is mostly empty, and a speeder isn't menacing other drivers (tailgating, weaving, short-changing lanes, etc), why should the police be entitled to give a ticket? I propose that radar guns be outlawed BUT that in compensation to the police, unmarked cars be allowed to drive through traffic and ticket unsafe driving REGARDLESS of the actual speeed.
What constitutes unsafe driving?
Tailgating
Weaving
Double-lane changing
Driving slow in the fast lane
Drifting
As an unmarked car, police would be able to witness these unsafe actions as they occur on the road: after all, how many times have you seen a real asshole make a dangerous move and wondered where the police were when you needed them? With a marked police car on the road, everyone goes 65 and stays in their lane. How does that help discipline bad drivers? It doesn't.
I know there's the argument that higher speeds lead to greater casualties when an accident does occur. Accidents are going to happen. If we were going to set our priorities solely on preventing accidents, then we should never break 45 mph. Obviously that isn't what happens on the highway. So for the point of this argument, that's moot.
Maybe skilled drivers could get a special license that gives them exemption from simple speeding tickets; a test to get licensed for 90+mph, like racecar drivers have. Why not? Make it cost more, and the state makes more money, but the road test would have to be far more stringent than whatever it is that allows so many idiots on the road as it is.
Barring that, I propose a tradeoff: ban use of radar guns on the premise that speed alone isn't unsafe (after all, if speed kills, then why isn't every racecar driver already dead?), and allow patrolling in unmarked cars to cite drivers for unsafe maneuvers. I'll bet the police would hand out far more tickets, to the RIGHT kind of drivers they wish to target. And leave people like me the hell alone!
