I am vindicated!
"As much as it pains me to do it, speed and speed alone is not sufficient to establish reckless driving," the judge told Carman on Friday. "If you had had a passenger, there would be no question of conviction. If there had been other cars on the roadway, if you would've went into the wrong lane or anything, I would have convicted you."
Stupid Virginia Highway Patrol! Take that!! Going 87mph on a beautiful clear morning with no other traffic is not reckless driving!! It's been years, but it still feels great! This and the fact that I got off on a speeding ticket in California a few years back (the cop never showed up in court) almost kinda makes up for it.
Stupid Virginia Highway Patrol! Take that!! Going 87mph on a beautiful clear morning with no other traffic is not reckless driving!! It's been years, but it still feels great! This and the fact that I got off on a speeding ticket in California a few years back (the cop never showed up in court) almost kinda makes up for it.
posted by z @ 2:59 AM
9 Comments:
At 9:18 AM,
Rama said…
I didn't read the article... was it Northern VA?
At 3:09 PM,
z said…
nope - nebraska. but the same principle applies dammit!! :)
At 8:25 PM,
nell said…
128 mph is reckless IMO, and far different than 87 mph. and only $300 fine? ridiculous.
At 1:48 PM,
z said…
yeah, 128mph may be reckless, but i like the idea that if you're not endangering anyone else it's your call and thus not reckless. if i was on a clear, open road with a good vehicle i'd like to be able to drive that fast without a fear of being locked away. i am only endangering myself which is my right (even though they'd have me believe otherwise).
At 10:22 PM,
nell said…
but how can you prove you're not endangering anyone else?
At 2:24 AM,
z said…
simple. if there is no traffic in a specified area around you. assuming you get busted that should be the litmus test.
At 6:42 PM,
nell said…
but if you're going fast enough, you won't notice traffic around you until you're close enough that you are endangering them. and then there's animals and pedestrians. my point is, you can't predict what will be in the road ahead of you, man beast or inanimate object, so you can't ever assume you're not endangering anyone else or yourself for that matter (whether or not you have the right to endanger yourself notwithstanding).
At 9:37 PM,
z said…
yeah, i know. arguing non-safety is a losing argument in every case. safety is tangible. pleasure from non-safety is not.
but you do think that 65mph is a reasonable speed limit, right? i've heard some calls to go back to 55mph which is PAINFUL! i'd say most non-city highways should be 75 or 80mph.
At 1:44 PM,
nell said…
I think if the roads are well-maintained, there are adequate divisions between opposing directions, and there are adequate measures to keep pedestrians and animals off (I know nothing is fool proof) there is no reason to have too slow of restrictions. so, non-city interestate speed limits should be around 75, or as conditions warrant.
city interstates I say should depend on the conditions. there are spots in milwaukee on the interstate where you don't want to go above 50. there are others where the road is wide enough, well maintained, etc., where 65 or 70 is fine.
however, I think any non-divided highways in the country shoud not be any higher than 55 or 60 just because there is no way to ensure that pedestrians aren't there. plus, you have intersecting roads instead of exit- and on-ramps. most of them don't have the traffic flow to justify it.
and, of course, non-highways should be less than 55. they're often too narrow and not maintained regularly enough. I get worried for my car sometimes going 45 on the roads by my parents' place...
um. so you can probably tell I've thought about this before... lol.
Post a Comment
<< Home