User: missakins Date: 2006-03-01 06:32 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

I'm very surprised that they didn't get shot.
I'm not at all surprised about the van that broke it's mirror.

I drive the perimeter here (285) almost every day.

Reply | Thread | Expand | Link

User:	(Anonymous)
Date:	2006-03-01 13:45 (UTC)
Subject:	This experiment makes sense.

The argument has already been made that the people in this video did not intentionally break the law, etc., etc., so I will not expound upon it. What does make sense though is the experiment itself.

Suppose in a random series of events 4, 8, or even 16 slow drivers congested a highway not because they intended to, but because chance was such that they happened to be within the same vicinity of each other, and blocked off all four lanes on one side. The result of this phenomenon would be much the same as what happened in the experiment.

The fact is vehicles are getting faster and safer. And if you have an 8 lane highway, it should probably be a 65mph in the USA, rather than the 55mph highway in the video. So even though their methods were not entirely correct, they brought about a visual portrayal of what lawmakers and others would not be able to envision for themselves. Besides, changing speed limits is politically a harsh subject to deal with. A video by the common educated middle class spread across the internet and elsewhere helps to alleviate the pressure on politicians put upon them by soccer mom special interest groups.

Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

User: boymeat Date: 2006-03-01 06:33 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

But do these violations you have quoted apply within the speed limit? If they were indeed driving 55 exactly, and that is the posted speed limit, then technically, the overtaking vehicle would be breaking the law if indeed trying to pass. So then what? Are both illegal? Is it the law to yield to someone traveling over the speed limit?

If anything, it would appear this experiment has revealed some grey areas in the law, at least from my admittedly uneducated eye.

Reply | Thread | Link

User: kkkkkkkkat Date: 2006-03-01 06:39 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

Yes, the rules apply regardless of the speeds.

Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand | Link

User:	mymanbag
Date:	2006-03-01 09:24 (UTC)
Subject:	(no subject)

wow... didn't find that tidbit about traveling in adjacent lanes when we were planning this. we're going to be interviewed on NPR and ABC in the coming week. So I guess I'm seeking a bit of free legal advice from the owner of the blog... in your estimation, are we in danger of being prosecuted?

Reply | Thread | Expand | Link

User: alanesq Date: 2006-03-01 12:16 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

I really cant comment on what Georgia officials would do. Also, I'm not sure whether State or Local authorities would even have jurisdiction. My guess (and it's just a guess) is they may just figure it's not worth the effort.

As for publicity with ABC and NPR, well... you've been profiled by the great Instapundit himself, so the cat is out of the bag and I don't see how being interviewed by ABC or NPR is going to change that. Congratulations... you're already world famous.

Although my only free bit of advice is during your interviews stress that you really thought you were not breaking the law and just wanted to conduct this experiment by showing what happens when you comply with the law. At least you were acting in good faith and not trying to make some political protest.

Of course, if you are contacted by any state or local authorities, contact a lawyer immediately.

Good Luck.

Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand | Link

User: schrathe Date: 2006-03-01 09:56 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

I think mommy and daddy should just take their cars away until they graduate or what have you.

They can indeed be prosecuted for planning such an event. The right to gather in protest generally requires a request for such from the host city. An act of civil obedience is not different just because you attach a cutsy name to it. They are fortunate that nobody was harmed or no emergency vehicles needed to get through such lanes. of course, they would not know this because the traffic tie up went back so far.

What an incredibly stupid stunt. I suppose it was all just whacky teen fun because they slpiced in pre-interviews and quirky music. Morons.

Four college students did this on the Golden Gate Bridge a few years ago. They all got a year jail time.

Reply | Thread | Expand | Link

User: senzatema Date: 2006-03-01 10:09 (UTC) Subject: (no subject) Keyword: strokes - is this it cover

i've heard this "emergency vehicles" thing a few times now, and honestly, it doesn't make any sense. when an emergency vehicle needs to pass (even under normal conditions), it turns on its lights and its sirens to alert the rest of traffic, which then abides by the law and pulls over to let it pass. we already had provisions for such an event. if you notice, the traffic wasn't as dense as everyone makes it out to be, and had any emergency vehicles made themselves known (which they would have), we would have definitely broken the line and gotten out of the way.

second of all, the video was originally and has always been intended for a short-film competition at GSU. the interviews (which were done post-opp by the way), the "cutsy name", the "quirky music" and the "fun" are all a part of that. no one was hurt, shot at, or arrested. and we won a prize for Best Comedy at Campus Moviefest, so our end was met. good job with the name-calling, though.

Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand | Link

User:	(Anonymous)
Date:	2006-03-01 13:29 (UTC)
Subject:	Not necessarily a crime, but a crime against fellow citizens?

Well, first off, after watching the video, I think the students failed to make the point that they wanted to. If they wanted to make a point about enforcement of the speed limit or about the ridiculousness of getting a ticket for 25 MPH faster than the speed limit while traffic moves at 20 MPH, I think they did not accomplish anything. The video smacks of arrogance, immaturity, and "better than thou" attitudes. Of course this is a subjective opinion, but if I think that way, surely someone else does as well, and when you come off as an asshole to people, your message is usually lost. Then again, coming off as an asshole isn't a crime either.

What is criminal, in my opinion, is that the students blocked the highway in a deliberate manner, with zero concern for fellow citizens. Using the van for example, one student says "his fault, not ours" or something to that effect. Failure to take responsibility for creating the specific circumstances of a situation is criminal. Whether other drivers were breaking laws on their own (like the van driver) or not, the fact remains that the students set the conditions for things to occur in a deliberate manner.

While this is debateable as to whether its a crime or not, it is most definitely a lack of concern for fellow citizens based on a self serving need to make some kind of a point. So in the end, this is a stunt that falls short of accomplishing anything except elevating the students to the level of "great social crusaders" or "immature jackasses with cameras" depending on who you ask. Whether they are tried in a court or not, they will most certainly be tried in the court of public opinion. It will be interesting to see what fellow citizens have to say, and I bet the response will be mostly negative.

Reply | Thread | Expand | Link

User: oreouk Date: 2006-03-01 14:27 (UTC) Subject: Re: Not necessarily a crime, but a crime against fellow citizens?

I tend towards thinking you are also overreacting. There's a lot to be said for the occasional graphic demonstration that speed limits on freeways are completely out of line with the reality of the speeds being driven on them. Perhaps there is a certain level of arrogance in enforcing a delay on all the people stuck behind them but the delay was only for 10 minutes and would have cleared with ease once their project was completed. I've been stuck in delays of similar length for which I have never discovered the reason because they just cleared away and life continued as normal.

I don't think they are trying to say they are better than everyone around them, they're saying that the law is an ass and they're right.

Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand | Link

User:	(Anonymous)
Date:	2006-03-01 13:39 (UTC)
Subject:	Too many laws

I believe the only point schrathe really makes by copying and pasting law citations is that there are way too many laws. The danger of too many laws is that it gives the police and government almost dictatorial power. Everyone breaks some law everyday whether they know it or not...seriously you can't get through a day without technically making some sort of infraction there are just too many municiple, state and federal laws (often conflicting ones) on the books for this to be possible. With this many laws all you have to do is piss off someone in law enforcement and they will all of the sudden start noticing the ones you are breaking. It is pretty scary really. I think these kids make an excellent example of why we need to only pass laws we intend to enforce.

Reply | Thread | Expand | Link

User:	(Anonymous)
Date:	2007-01-09 01:43 (UTC)
Subject:	Re: Too many godforsaken laws, designed for selective enforcement

Amen, brother. Too many laws, noone with the backbone to stand up to them, except some "punk kids". Well, these kids have more spine than any thousand of the jerks who got mad at them. More power to 'em!

The question is how will freedom win, if most "Americans" are simpering Nanny-State apologists like schrathe? It's easier to raise a simpleton conformist than a thinker! (And the government's strategy is to make sure that it controls "education" and get those who are 'marginal' --like schrathe-- pumping for its protectionist machine!)

One of the last shreds of hope is here:
http://www.optimal.org

-Jake Witmer

Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

User: that_xmas Date: 2006-03-01 14:09 (UTC) Subject: Similar to a "Work to Rule" strike...

This movie reminds me of a "Work to Rule" strike, where a union does their work following ALL of the rules. Often times this causes a complete breakdown because many rules run counter to each other.

You mention that one law about driving to the right and allowing others to pass. Oh, how I wish people would do that. Of course, nobody does. In that line of thought, if someone wanted to repeat this experiment, they could create as big of a problem driving with 8 cars in formation going the speed limit just in the right two lanes. Sure people would be able to pass them on the left, but such a large block of law abiding citizens would righteously screw up traffic. Though, the pretty effect of the rolling road block wouldn't be there.

Reply | Thread | Expand | Link

User:	(Anonymous)
Date:	2006-03-05 13:00 (UTC)
Subject:	Re: Similar to a "Work to Rule" strike...

"You mention that one law about driving to the right and allowing others to pass... Of course, nobody does."

Excuse me, but I drive almost infuriatingly slowly on the freeway and I know it, so I do stay over right. Perhaps if people driving faster than me in the right lane would pass me rather than forcing me to get over to let them pass on the right by tailgating me and flashing their hi-beams at me (especially on a four lane interstate where there's plenty of room and time for the passing car to get over well before it's three inches from my rear bumper) I wouldn't get stuck driving in a passing lane going slower than everyone else.

Of course, I'm from Detroit, and as anyone who's ever driven in Detroit will tell you, the logistics of sane driving simply do not apply. People think we invented driving, so we can drive any way we damn well please, I guess.

Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

User: zsero Date: 2006-03-01 14:59 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

You all seem to be forgetting a few things: Nobody was inconvenienced, unless they depended on breaking the law. Nobody could overtake them without breaking the law. The law you cite above cannot be construed so as to require them to go faster than they were going. It could conceivably be construed to require them to go slower - can you imagine them being charged with having gone too fast? It would be laughed out of court. All they were doing was failing to facilitate law breaking.

As for the requirement to drive on the right half of the road, that cannot be understood as referring to a multi-lane highway. On a five-lane highway the left three lanes are not expected to be empty. And emergency vehicles could drive in the emergency lane - that's what it's for, isn't it?

Reply | Thread | Expand | Link

User:	(Anonymous)
Date:	2006-03-02 06:00 (UTC)
Subject:	You Are Wrong

Yes, driving on the right applies to a 3, 5, or 50 lane highway. No, the left lanes should not be "empty", but if you are generally going slower than traffic you are ABSOLUTELY expected to move to the right. I was quite surprised to see it actually codified in a law. Sounds to me like you are just one of the people who doesn't like doing that and you're just trying to justify why it is you drive like a jackass, which anyone who does not know AND comply with the "slower on the right" principle damn sure IS.

Yes, including the participants of this stunt. The fact that public safety was challenged, not to make a real point, but to enter a film content burns my ass. If not for a couple inches there very well could have been a bad accident as a DIRECT result of this stunt. How funny it would have been if someone had been injured. While maybe not legally "accountable" - though if someone had been injured I'm damn sure in civil court you would be accountable - you sure as hell would be morally accountable.

Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand | Link

User:	(Anonymous)
Date:	2006-03-01 15:41 (UTC)
Subject:	Missing the Point

I worked for some years as a fingerprint technician for the Columbus, Ohio Police Department, which means that I have actually been instrumental in putting people in jail. What surprises me is how everyone here seems to have overlooked the situation as seen from the law enforcement community's POV.

That view is simple: everybody breaks the law. (Everyone lies to the cops and is looking to steal what isn't nailed down as well, but that's a subject for another post.) The students kept trying to make the point that a 55 MPH speed limit was simply too slow and it should be raised. What in the world do they think would happen then? If the limit is raised to 75 MPH, the speed that one of the kids said everyone drives at now, do they actually think that everyone would obligingly motor along at 75 MPH?

I'm actually old enough to remember when the limit was 75 MPH, and let me tell you that no one drove at that speed. 90 MPH was more like it. Considering the state of car suspension technology in those days, and the lack of safety features (some cars didn't even have seatbelts), dramatic and messy deaths were all too common as drivers lost control. It wasn't uncommon for entire families to be wiped off the face of the Earth by some bozo who was trying to pass a car that wasn't going as fast as they liked.

Do you know the one thing that shocked me about this little experiment? I only saw two cars pass the students by using the emergency lane. (One of them was that white van which lost it's side mirror.) Only Two! That's extraordinary! As soon as one car managed that little stunt I figured that everyone else behind the blocking cars would have gone for the gold as well.

I suppose this shows that the people of Atlanta are generally safe drivers even if they like to think of themselves as desperadoes by driving 20 MPH over the speed limit.

James R. Rummel

Reply | Thread | Expand | Link

User:	(Anonymous)
Date:	2006-03-01 22:45 (UTC)
Subject:	Re: Missing the Point

This isn't exactly on topic, but does relate to it: Mr. Rummel sates: "What surprises me is how everyone here seems to have overlooked the situation as seen from the law enforcement community's POV. That view is simple: everybody breaks the law. (Everyone lies to the cops and is looking to steal what isn't nailed down as well...." If this is the preconception law enforcement approaches situations with, then they are certainly part of the problem. At the least this demonstrates a significant lack of professionalism. If everyone breaks the law, then there is certainly too many laws. There are people who make a concerted effort to obey the law, to the letter. If someone is trying to go about there business in an honest fashion and is in fact breaking the law, then the laws are ether intractably complex, counter intuitive, or contradictory. Or law enforcement officers actively interpret behavior as being illegal and look for a possible charge to support their viewpoint? I have been, on a number of occasions, hassled about 'violating and ordinance' after specifically following previous admonishments by other officers. Not everyone lies to the cops (I admit that I have been stopped, and even taken into custody, and have never knowing lied to the police). Not everyone steals. While most people go through a phase as youngsters where they are tempted to steal. Many act on it. Some grow out of it and take the viewpoint that it is simply wrong, and therefore actively avoid doing so. Such a bias on the part of law enforcement contributes to a adversarial relationship with the public and tarnishes the public's 'respect for the law'.

Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

User:	(Anonymous)
Date:	2006-03-01 16:22 (UTC)
Subject:	(no subject)

I saw this earlier but I have to laugh when I was reading it as ABC World News Tonight ran their report of on it.

So, there's the law Alanesq notes was violated. It's possible a road rage law was violated, though scrathe is only suggesting it based on a NYS law.

I can understand some sophomoric college students, reveling in their own intelligence, not actually being aware of the detail of the law that common sense usually prevents one from getting snared in, but how could they possibly be unaware of the law prohibiting the use of hand held cell phones while driving? I feel sorry for the chuckle-head caught on video doing that.

Reply | Thread | Expand | Link

User:	(Anonymous)
Date:	2006-03-01 18:50 (UTC)
Subject:	cell phone use

Actually, as best I can tell, it is NOT illegal to use a cell phone while driving in Georgia. For example, I found this document at the Governor's Office of Highway Safety site (Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue Welcomes You!):

http://www.gohs.state.ga.us/Public_Info/Brochures/Tip_Cards/Cell_Phone_Driving_Tips.pdf

It includes this passage:

Drivers are discouraged from using wireless hand-held phones while operating motor vehicles.

For absolute safety, drivers should pull off the road, in appropriate locations, to take or make calls.

If a driver must make or take calls while operating a motor vehicle, it is highly recommended that:....

[emphasis in original]

Then there are a number of very reasonable recommendations, like using a hands-free device, etc. NONE of those recommendations is phrased as a legal requirement.

I realize that lots of states do have laws against (or at least governing) cell phone use while driving. But the students did make it quite clear they were in Georgia, did they not?

Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

User: reality_hammer Date: 2006-03-01 18:21 (UTC) Subject: (no subject) Keyword: Life Liberty and the Pursuit of all who

A few people have done "rolling roadblocks" as forms of protest. I guess it says something about our society when "obeying the law" also conflicts with "the normal flow of traffic".

I'd say in the case it is the law that is wrong and needs to be changed.

After all, it is not speed per se that is bad (to a reasonable degree), but differences in speed. If people have been traveling 80-85 mph daily for years without a significant number of accidents I would say that is a de facto "safe" speed limit.

Reply | Thread | Expand | Link

User:	(Anonymous)
Date:	2006-03-01 19:10 (UTC)
Subject:	(no subject)

"reality_hammer" brings up the important point about this stunt, by bringing up the concept of "de facto", that there is indeed a conscious "gray area" built into traffic laws relating to speed. That understanding follows from the fact that road conditions change (weather, etc.) and that drivers are not automatons that can or will drive exactly at the "speed limit".

This fact is displayed openly in your own video, near the beginning of the driving portion, when your four drivers obviously had some difficulty staying "in formation", synchronizing your speeds. Your obvious goal was to block traffic, not to merely display how unsafe following the speed limit would appear. It takes a significant amount of energy and coordination to form a "rolling roadblock" like you did. This is an unnatural traffic condition and completely invalidates any sense of "experiment" you claim to be performing.

When I first followed the link to this video, I was enthused and immediately began imagining what effect a car traveling the speed limit would look like in reality. I was astonished when it finally came to the driving portion to see you purposefully blocking traffic. I think you owe your whole community an apology. I think your intentions were good, but it was foolish and reckless, and that fact should have been apparent the second any other drivers became noticably upset. It should have been obvious to you beforehand that you would piss people off, but I can't presume that you're all intelligent enough to think it through before acting.

Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

User: thebsg Date: 2006-03-01 18:42 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

I think the overall concept was brilliant, but I believe the line of four cars was silly, and sort of defeated the point. I did, however, laugh until I cried when the entire line of cars came rolling behind you. Had you not made the line, I believe your point of speed limits would become far more apparent as people bluntly break the law to get ahead of you.

And for this specific thread:
Some of you people are absolutely moronic. The attack on "young people," coupled with swearing and personal attacks is way out of line. This isn't my blog, but I honestly would delete half of your posts. But I guess that goes to say something about our society when people feel passionate about traffic jams.

BSG

Reply | Thread | Link

User:	(Anonymous)
Date:	2006-03-01 19:05 (UTC)
Subject:	(no subject)

Yes, the Type A drivers who acted like bull baboons with testosterone poisoning were the ones who were dangerous. I think the stunt was foolhardy, but only because of the risk of some moron shooting or ramming them, and then lawyers parachuting in on them with the civil suits. Otherwise, it accomplished the point -- the law is an ass in this case. So frickin' what if the speed limit was raised to 75 mph and some people would drive faster? Obviously they're *already doing that* or they wouldn't be so pissed off at having to follow the legal speed limit, now would they? As far as the legality of their action, the Dallas PD was actually seriously talking about doing *exactly* this with "rolling roadblocks" of police cars. Who are the bigger morons -- students doing a one-time stunt to demonstrate the asinine nature of the current speed limit on that road, or police chiefs who actually propose it as regular policy?

Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand | Link

User:	(Anonymous)
Date:	2006-03-02 06:29 (UTC)
Subject:	They can't spell either

The text in the movie misspells obedience. BTW - As has been repeatedly demonstrated, congestion problems persist long after their originating cause. In other words, they didn't only delay the drivers immediately behind them, they left a clot that affected people for hours.

Reply | Thread | Link

User: zanthinegirl Date: 2006-03-02 08:26 (UTC) Subject: (no subject) Keyword: OMG

This discussion is almost as entertaining as the movie! Let's face it, teenagers in groups make stupid decisions. There's an inverse correlation between group size and common sense. You know they were sitting around one night and somebody said "I wonder what would happen if we all drove around on the freeway at exactly the speed limit..."

Oddly enough, a group of friends and I did something very similar in our rural smallish town when I was a teenager; though it didn't occur to us to videotape the adventure! We didn't even pretend to have any remote justifications or points to prove; we were bored and it seemed like a good idea at the time. Frankly I'd be willing to bet money that the students in the video approached things the same way, but decided to add on that philosophical justification to impress girls make the tape more marketable.

Here via instapundit BTW!

Reply | Thread | Link

User: alanesq Date: 2006-03-02 10:52 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

And what is wrong with impressing girls? It has led to innumerable human advancements... :)

Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

User:	(Anonymous)
Date:	2006-03-03 06:24 (UTC)
Subject:	What the Students Did Was Great!

Perhaps I would be a lot more sympathetic to all of this whining on the boardif, as a general rule, Atlanta drivers actually obeyed most of the laws and exhibited a smidgen of common driving courtesy on the road. The most common remark that every visitor I have from out of town is, "These people don't know how to drive!"

By these people they mean Atlanta drivers who haven't heard of a thing called a turn signal. Who think that pulling up 1.1 inches from another driver's bumper at a stop light (often when no one else is around) is cute. Who regularly cut off other drivers although they themselves are going no farther than 2 blocks away. Who, between talking on their cell phones, adjusting their iPods, and eating their McBurgerBuster meals, regularly jump 3 lanes to make their exit from a 200 feet mark. Who, during inclement weather with wet roads and poor visibility, somehow manage to avoid turning on their headlights and slowing down especially if their silver and gray cars blend in with the gray mist or fog. Who regularly use the emergency lane or shoulder to pass cars to the right during rush hour...up a hill...on a curve. And that's not even counting the people in their aircraft carrier SUV's or their luxury cars who think they own the road and anyone driving is allowed only by their good graces, as somany of them try to "bogart" the roadways on the way to Starbucks ot Target. Even the students' own video bear out some of this childish behavior by other motorists.

I swear before God, I have never seen as much bad driving, poor driving, discourteous driving, and plain disregard for the law as well as near accidents and accidents in the 5 years I lived in Los Angeles, the 7 years I lived in New York or the 3 I lived in Chicago COMBINED as I have witnessed in Atlanta.

The students did nothing wrong except get a lot of people mad at them for curtailing their own sense of entitlement to drive as if they are in a NASCAR race instead of sharing the road with fellow motorists. You all need to save all this hypocritical caterwalling.

John
Dunwoody

Reply | Thread | Link

User:	(Anonymous)
Date:	2006-03-03 06:49 (UTC)
Subject:	Sequence

4 drivers, right lane to left lane. In accordance with the Law, the driver in the LEFT lane cannot move to the right, until sufficient clearance of the vehicle on that vehicle's right. In addition, the vehicle may also not break the speedlimit. Therefore, the vehicle in the left lane cannot move. Two vehicles driving side by side and impeding the flow of traffic at any speed under the speed limit is covered; but, at the point of Limit?

Two possibilities? 1. The vehicle in the right lane sped-up in violation of the Law, which prevents the vehicle in the left lane from completing the pass. 2. The vehicle in the left lane, overtook the vehicle in the right lane while breaking the law, then reduced speed to be within the Law.

In the case of number 2, the fine is then based upon how fast the vehicle in the left lane was driving Before the vehicle came within speed compliance?

Reply | Thread | Link

User:	(Anonymous)
Date:	2006-03-03 08:01 (UTC)
Subject:	"Blocking" is Illegal

I was part of a group that did a similar act here in Michigan, circa 1990.
We didn't use video cameras or cell phones, but we had CB Radios.
We learned a few things:

- We learned that, in Michigan, slower traffic is required to stay to the right and that the left lane is for passing only.
- We learned that if you cannot complete a "pass" of a vehicle by using the left-most lane without exceeding the posted speed, you are obligated to decrease your speed and return to a non-left-most lane.
- We learned that matching the speed of a vehicle to the right such that another vehicle is unable to pass is called "blocking". Blocking is illegal.
- We learned that coordinating an action that is illegal (as we did by matching speeds) and that pre-planning such an act (as we did by talking on the radios beforehand) is called "collusion" - which is also illegal.
- We learned that judges have the power to impose fines that far exceed the income of college students.
- We learned that picking up trash on the side of said road early Sunday morning as part of "Community Service" is not fun.
- Finally, we learned that ignorance of the law and good intentions mean absolutely jack sh!t in a court of law.


My advice, as someone who has done what you've done:
- Enjoy the fame (we never got any)
- Hire a lawyer (we should have)
- Don't deny you broke the law (you did)
- Accept responsibility (you are)

Good luck

Reply | Thread | Link

User:	(Anonymous)
Date:	2007-01-09 08:24 (UTC)
Subject:	Re: "Blocking" is Illegal - in some states, some areas...

Very, very, very good things to know. I was deeply curious about this, and found indications of exactly what you've stated.

This is the same "system" of selective enforcement that allows judges to send "niggers and spics" to jail and good little white boys to rehab under the "war on (some) drugs" AKA "the war on private property".

The same with revoked driving priviliges (read: revoked right to free passage).

There are also a myriad of different and byzantine rules in every State. The Atlanta folks seemed to know what they were doing for where they were. But the primary point I raise is this: If the cops want to frivolously charge you with some bogus charge that reeks of injustice, 99% of the judges out there will play along. They'll do it just to waste your money and time! They do it all the time. There's no justice in America for anyone, least of all the poor man! That's how selective enforcement works!

If we can't get your legal fees, we'll make you our slave!

-Jake Witmer

Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

User:	(Anonymous)
Date:	2006-03-03 10:58 (UTC)
Subject:	The point is:

Could a State Trooper please chime in? I'd be very interested to hear the take from them.

Sure the kids broke the law -- but they illustrated a gap in the law -- currently there are laws on the books that foster safer driving. They are rarely if ever enforced. Please imagine a freeway in which everyone kept as far right as possible, yielded to faster traffic, used their turn signals, followed at a reasonable distance. All of a sudden driving 90 mph is safe. It would help greatly help the highways worked like this:
following too closely = ticket
no turn signal = ticket
eating and driving = ticket
cellphone and driving = ticket
loitering in the left lanes = ticket

So sure, faster speeds are inherently more dangerous. When accidents do happen, speed makes them more violent.

We could lower the national speed limit to 35mph and save thousands of lives...but that's not a practical solution. Neither is harshly enforcing speedlimits but barely enforcing the other traffic laws.

Reply | Thread | Link

User:	(Anonymous)
Date:	2006-03-03 22:09 (UTC)
Subject:	Re: The point is:

The highways do work like this... in Germany. They're called Autobahns. They work great!!

Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

User: njtech Date: 2006-03-03 19:04 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

You argue that they purposely impeeded the flow of traffic and thus violated the law. The law says no two vehicles shall blahblahblah. No mention of four vehicles, so no law broken IMHO.

no, I'm not kidding, I'm serious. 100% completely not joking in any way, serious.

Reply | Thread | Link

User:	(Anonymous)
Date:	2006-03-04 14:32 (UTC)
Subject:	your logic is lame

Four vehicles can actually be accused of 3 separate cases each car is directly paired with at least one other car making up the 2 vehicles needed to break the law. Each violation results in two tickets so a total of 6 tickets could be issued. If they really wanted to make a case there could be as many as 6 separate violations (12 tickets issued) if you draw that even vehicles one or more lanes apart worked together to impede traffic. So to clarify for you not only could they be charged based on the information you gave, but the cars in the two middle lanes could each get 2 violations due to have impeded traffic with 2 other cars.

Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

User:	(Anonymous)
Date:	2006-03-03 19:33 (UTC)
Subject:	In Colorado They Could Be Fined

The State of Colorado passed a law in July of 2004 which covers multi-lane highways where the posted speed limit is 65 MPH or higher.

Impeding the flow of traffic by adhering to the posted speed limit in the passing lane (extreme left lane) is known to cause agressive driving as well as accidents. At their discretion, a Colorado State Trooper could ticket anyone engaging in such behavior. And they do!

Bottom line: If you're blocking traffic (regardless of whether others are breaking the speed limit) you are obliged by the law to move to the right. Get out of the way!

Let law enforcement authorities take care of the speeders -- it's not your job to be a self-appointed, righteous speed limit nanny.

http://www.dot.state.co.us/Publications/Brochures/leftlanebrochure.pdf

I-25 in Colorado has had many accidents due to people who drive along in the passing lane below the speed of the normal traffic flow (always greater than the posted limit) as if they are somehow given the "right" to impede those who choose to ignore the posted limit. Well, they are just as guilty (if not more so) of creating unsafe driving conditions and the new law correctly reflects that fact.

Reply | Thread | Expand | Link

User:	(Anonymous)
Date:	2006-03-03 20:15 (UTC)
Subject:	Re: In Colorado They Could Be Fined

That's totally asinine, though. We pride ourselves of being a nation of law, not men. And yet, police officers are allowed to "judge" who is speeding and who isn't? That's total bull! The reason a speed limit exists is to LIMIT speed. For a cop to say "that person is going 75 in a 55, but that's acceptable" or to say "that person is going 80 in a 55, that's not acceptable" makes the law totally arbitrary. In other words, why don't we just get rid of the pretense of speed limits and face the facts. Cops can pull over whoever whenever they want and there's no way around that. I've heard countless stories of "oh, my uncle was a cop so I never get ticketed" or "yeah, I started crying and the cop let me off". I, for one, would rather they not have that power. They need to either fix the speed limits, or get rid of them. Props to the students that made this video.

Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand | Link

User:	(Anonymous)
Date:	2006-03-04 11:07 (UTC)
Subject:	(no subject)

I agree that they violated other rules of the road, this is true.

However, in their defense, what needs to be said is that, if EVERYONE had been following the law, the laws that these kids broke would have not had any negative consequences. Nobody would've cared, *if* everyone obeyed the speed limit.

That said, I do believe they have a valid point. From what I remember reading long ago, the interstate highways were designed for about 75 MPH for the military to transport equipment. Certainly for the cars of the time as well.

Modern cars are safer. Modern *tires* will even make the cars of yesteryear safer than they were. 55 MPH was instituted to save fuel. In New Jersey, when they first increased some highways to 65, because of the "bloodbath" that would result, 65 zones have fines doubled. Smaller print states "for speeding and all other violations" Like, say, expired registration? Clearly twice as dangerous for your paperwork to be outdated in a 65 zone than a 55.

Well, in NJ, fatalities did not increase. It's been at least 5 years now. The double-fines are still there though.


Additionally, not all the other laws are as well known as the speed limit. The speed limit is posted every 1/2 mile or so, no? Some highways do have signs saying "Keep right except to pass" but not all of them do.

I honestly think their experiment would've been nearly as effective had they been only occupying the rightmost two lanes, and left the leftmost two lanes open.

So, yes, I agree that they probably caused problems and took risks they shouldn't have. But they're right: the speed limit is arbitrary, and more often, I believe, set more with revenue in mind than safety.

Reply | Thread | Link

User:	(Anonymous)
Date:	2006-03-05 09:52 (UTC)
Subject:	Young people we should be proud of

I think this was a great experiment by some talented young people. I think their parents should be proud of them. Rather than being out causing trouble by breaking the law, they were out causing trouble by obeying the law. LOL

Reply | Thread | Link

User: joecapricorn Date: 2006-03-05 10:52 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

It's just as, if not more dangerous if someone goes extremely slow on PA-RT 183. The speed limit is 55 for a good portion of the road, but stupid people go 45 anyway. People try to pass them. Already there have been fatal accidents because of it.

What I do is tailgate and beep and have my high beams on and be an asshole.

Usually people pull over and let me and my van (I have a chevy Astro) pass, but I watch them closely (The high beams is not intended to blind, but rather to make sure that the driver does not wield a weapon)

Those kids were nuts though... O_O
I was LMAOing.

Reply | Thread | Expand | Link

User:	(Anonymous)
Date:	2006-03-05 13:09 (UTC)
Subject:	(no subject)

What you do by turning on your high beams to purposely get the attention of other drivers (especially at night) is become a road hazard. You're going to get someone killed.

People directly behind me with their hi beams on (or even high set lights like in a pickup truck) at night cause me to not be able to see out of my front window (the same way turning on the interior light would).

I hope you feel very good about yourself when you cause an accident, Mr. "Asshole".

Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand | Link

User:	(Anonymous)
Date:	2006-03-05 21:08 (UTC)
Subject:	there's more to it

i would be the first person to say that people should be allowed to drive any speed they want, as long as it's safe.

however.

driving 75mph instead of 55mph results in almost 20% increase in fuel consumption. regardless of what you think about the situation in the middle east and the environment and iron lungs and if some supreme being put the earth here for humans to use up and throw away, you have to admit a link between supply and demand. imagine if millions of americans actually went the speed limit instead of speeding. what would that do to the overall cost of living? you drive 80mph because "everyone else does" and then you complain that it's so expensive to heat your house and the price of groceries is ridiculous.

life is more fun if you can do whatever they want but part of living in a society is sometimes sacrificing a little for the greater good.

Reply | Thread | Link

User:	(Anonymous)
Date:	2007-01-09 02:30 (UTC)
Subject:	Re: there's more to it

Bullshit. See: http://www.aynrand.org for the detailed counterargument. I don't have the time.

Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

User:	(Anonymous)
Date:	2006-03-06 09:03 (UTC)
Subject:	Following up on my previous post...

Just figured I'd follow up a bit (I'm the one who posted about NJ's double fines and the concept of revenue instead of safety, at 2006-03-04 07:07 pm UTC)....

I don't mean to say that all roads are like this, as I can only speak for New Jersey, or at least, the parts of NJ where I drive. And, I do know in some places that the speed limits are definintely legitimate (ie: residential zones), or sometimes even overstated (there's a yellow 35MPH suggestion sign at a curve for an exit off a local highway. Even when dry and clear, I don't think I've ever taken this much over 25MPH, maybe 30 tops).

But there are certainly many places where the speed limit is low, but safety doesn't explain it.

Further, I'd like to address an earlier poster (who worked for the Columbus, Ohio Police Dept), referring to the days (early 70s I assume), when 75MPH was the limit and people tended to do 90.

I don't really think it's fair to say that people will always exceed the speed limit. I've not researched it thoroughly, and it was a few years ago, but I've come across a few studies that more or less show that people will tend to drive at a speed that "feels right"

That is, if we arbitrarily take any arbitrary highway and make the speed limit 85MPH, they won't tend to drive over 100 unless it's something that's flat, nearly abandoned, and with visibility to nearly the horizon.

Yes, you'll get some hotshots who'll want to play. I'm sure of that. But in general, if 85 is way too high for a given road, people will tend not to go that fast.

Just some food for thought.

- JKV

Reply | Thread | Link