Yes, it's true. North Carolinians speed. And don't care.
The N&O has done a marvelous piece of investigative journalism recently on the plethora of drivers who speed, are ticketed repeatedly, but walk from any charges or points due to some gaping loopholes in the traffic laws. In the interest of full disclosure, I've been the beneficiary of such laws a couple of times when I got a ticket in the past.
Back to the article, one thing they asked some readers to do is drive the speed limit on their daily commute,count how many cars passed them, and report on their experiences. I decided to participate unofficially and see if all the hype was real.
It is.
I drive approximately 12 miles to work, I'd estimate 8 of that is via Interstate Highway. On the highway portion of my commute today, I got passed 12 times while going 65 mph in the right-hand lane of a 4 lane highway. Blew my mind. I thought maybe 4-5. It does seem many drivers are making a conscious effort to slow down, but still.
Now, I've always been a 'be a part of the solution' person, so here's my idea:
One of the chief reasons given for not having tougher laws and stiffer penalties is lack of capacity in the court system to handle all the offenders. I propose the following:
Empower the State Highway Patrol to act as a 'judge' right there on the highway at the time of offense and collect the fine.
Whine and protest if you want, but speeding isn't something that requires a CSI team investigation, to keep it real. You did or you didn't. If they can get a court date and print your ticket from the patrol car via computer today, how hard would it be to allow a driver to enter a plea and pay their fine right there and get it over with? No one in their right mind wants to participate in the traffic court cattle call half the day, guilty or innocent. How to pay? Have the option of swiping your credit/debit card right there or paying cash. (The technology is there; Hertz does this when you return a car.) If you don't have either, you get a bill in the mail due in 30 days to pay via mail or pay online. What happens if you request a court date anyway? Employ what they did in Illinois when I lived there: you must surrender your license and you don't get it back until your court date. Your fine and points should be higher if you are convicted going this route also.
What do you think? No I'm not a goody-two shoes who wants to cramp someone's style. I LOVE to drive and I love sports cars. This is a matter of safety and the best use of our tax dollars.
Let me hear from you and what you think about solving this problem.
4 Responses to North Carolina Speeding Issue: My Experience
I know there is somewhere in the mid-west where they have the option to pay the fine right there - although I believe in that instance, it is because the town is very small and on a common thoroughfare for people travelling through. Thus they get more cash from people on the spot to subside on versus having to make them deal with it in court.
Your solution reminds me of the redlight cameras - just a fine, no points, and hopefully compelling people to not run red lights. (Funny thing is, I read a while back that in test areas the red light cameras reduced side-impact crashes in intersections marginally, while rear-endings went up dramatically.)
Anyway, if they would give you the choice of paying the fine right there with no court AND no insurance points, I'd be all for it.
As for the ethics/morals/whatever of speeding: wow that's a can of worms. I don't do the speed limit most of the time (mostly highway), but I also don't drive like a maniac. I once read an article which suggested that accidents/problems on the highway related to speed were more caused by those going slower than the majority of drivers - those going a "reasonable" amount above the speed limit were the rule and not the exception so to speak.
In the end, if someone wants to do 10-15, or even 20mph over the speed limit and they aren't weaving in & out of lanes, tailgating, etc - I don't care as long as they aren't endangering me. Modern cars are all designed to be able to maintain speeds of 80-90mph safely, as long as the driver's skills are complementary. When a person crosses some undefined threshold of just speeding to reckless driving, there I have a problem. Where is that threshold? Who knows.
And in related news:
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/05/30/top-10-cities-in-which-not-to-speed/
Ah Krista,
Great post - so many good points to chase. I'm going to sound positional and arguementative - perhaps I'm channeling my inner troll. ; )
If it were as Tim says, then it would just be a matter of economics and playing the odds. Not everyone gets caught, and if you could afford the ticket, then speed all you want. Except that it's not just about a rule and revenue generation, but it's theoretically about safety. Ok, so I'm safe at 55, or 65 in some places, but I'm dangerous at 67? 72? 74? All kinda grey, where is the real unsafe line? Ok, let's go the other way. 100 is too dangerous. 90, probably, 85, likely, 80? 80 seems like the new 70. I don't go 80, but at 65 I feel like I'm chained to a tree when people pass me. So, they've got to be unsafe right? Well, we can debate conditions, driver skill and the particular vehicle they are driving and get really granular on what is comparitively safe and what isn't, but that's not how it works either. There are real penalties, like revoking your license, or paying exhorbaniant insurance rates.
And it's because of those elements, and due process that we have the court system. Of course, we could argue because there are lawyers, who know the DA and judges, that you CAN pay to get out of all but the most heinous of traffic offenses. So, it again comes back to the entitlement of money. Not really justice for all, but more a matter of justice for those who can afford it.
Let's look at one other point - why people speed. If you exclude termporary urgency - late for work/appointment/daycare, whatever, then why don't people drive the speed limit? I think it's two factors. 1) competitiveness - personally I feel more comfortable with clear road in front of me and nobody pressing me from behind. I don't like to feel boxed in behind somebody, another cow in the chute. I suspect a lot of people feel this way, and this leads to passing, and likely speeding. 2) Some relative perception of speed. 65 feels like 35 on a smooth new 4 lane, while 55 or even 45 may seem plenty fast on a pot holed 2 lane. I'm not argueing for crummy roads as a way to reduce speed, just saying people tend to go faster until they reach that point of road equilibrium.
In the end, what is it that speed limits are supposed to resolve? Injuries and fatalities? Why not just make it an offense with stiff penalties to cause a wreck? Let's get to the real root of the issue. Speed kills? No, crashing kills. Deceleration trauma. People have wrecks talking on the cell phone, eating, playing with radio, or just failing to look all the time. We write new laws to try to dissuade people from doing those precursor things, by saying they are now illegal. Is that legislation effective? Are you willing to surrender more of your freedoms because other people have proven they can't handle them?
How about? All new cars should be speed limited to 65 mph. We could go real hi-tech with OBD III systems that has RF provisions and use them to dynamically govern the speed of all vehicles. The speed limit signs on the side of the road would have a radio beacon sending out a signal that the govenor on the car would receive and use to set the maximum limit possible until the next sign was passed that would adjust it up or down. Then it would be impossible to speed and we wouldn't need all those police, cars, radar, courts, laywers, etc, etc.
I don't think car makers would be keen on it - who wants a BMW M5 that can't go any faster than the prius one lane over? Nor insurance companies who make a bundle jacking up your rates for having points, nor the lawyers who make their bread and butter in traffic court at $200-$400 a shot. Nor the police who we would need fewer of, nor the majority of individuals who want the choice. For that reason, we will likely keep the system we have today.
Krista – I think this deserves many comments, including mine.
First of all I think of due process. If the act of speeding is visually observed by a law officer and then the decision is made by that officer to confirm the observation by using a speed monitoring device then probable cause has become part of the process as it should be. The citation is valid as an accusation. Not automatic guilt.
If it is a “speed camera” that is monitoring every passing object within its view then there is no probable cause and we have moved into the realm of law enforcement that the founders of this country wisely wanted to ban.
Speed limits themselves are always a question. One of President “Bi-Polar” Nixon’s last acts while in office was to impose a nationwide 55 mph speed limit. Ostensibly to save fuel and lives. The facts and statistics gathered by our own government agencies have shown otherwise. http://jimsgarage.wordpress.com/2006/07/07/80-mph/
If you want to save lives through reduction of speed limits then let’s take it to the extreme. The speed limit is zero. No one moves. No accidents. That’s stupid you say, and that’s the point. We need to move things. People and goods. What speeds are safe? Studies have consistently shown that drivers, unless under the influence or mentally impaired, will drive at a speed 80-85% of their capabilities and therefore will choose the speed that is safe for “them”.
Having had some experience on a road racing track where everyone is trying to get around as fast as they can I can tell you that it is amazingly safe when people are driving in a pack of 25-30 at speeds approaching 120 mph. Is there risk? Of course. And when people do make mistakes at speed the natural event happens, but even then the environment generally cushions the result. It is a closed track, everyone is trying to go in the same direction, there are corner workers everywhere, you are wearing a seat belt and helmet, etc.
I’m not going to advocate unlimited speeds on roads, but we need to recognize that speed limits are not a constant in reality. When it is a well maintained road with little or no traffic or side entry roads and the weather is dry and in the daytime your safe speed is one thing, where in the rain, at night, with on coming traffic your safe speed is quite another. The speed limits set for roads try to take all those things into account. That is why you see people on a clear day travel 75-80 on I-40 on their way to work over a road they know like the back of their hand.
Having been cited many times since the first time I obtained a license to drive I’ve learned to challenge every speeding ticket, whether I feel I deserved it or not. My insurance rates are still affordable and my record is amazingly clean.
I wish that drivers would be cited more for bad driving habits rather than just speeding, but I must admit that speed limits are, on the surface, more objective than say, driving to endanger, or failure to signal or yield. Lane discipline in the US is abysmal and the number of things American drivers try to do other than drive when behind the steering wheel is frightening.
Tim/Jim/Mark: This is what happens when 3 of my cohorts are car buffs and I write a post on speeding :-) I'll respond to all 3 when I have time; thank you all for the thoughtful comments. I'm sure this conversation will continue. Thanks again --K
Add Comment