[Corpse of Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by krillbee

About the ambulance concern,
hey all these guys were doing was obeying the law . not their fault if ambulances cant get through, its the state's fault for the stupid limit!! Besides, emergency vehicles should know how to navigate through rush hour traffic jams.

Eh hem....as an EMT and a person who is very experienced driving an ambulance, we NEVER go onto the shoulders. Driving an ambulance is extremely dangerous and we can't see very much. That said, while on the highway going code 3 (lights/siren) we are instructed to drive in the far left lane. This gives us the greatest leverage for speed, view of the highway and is safest.

While I support these college kids and believe the speedlimit laws are pathetic, I do fear that may have actually caused someone real harm with their act of civil disobedience.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Corpse of Chewbacca

Eh hem....as an EMT and a person who is very experienced driving an ambulance, we NEVER go onto the shoulders.

There were actually emergency lanes on the sides of the road, I believe. (They looked like the emergency lanes along the shoulders that ambulances take here, and I seem to recall seeing that in one of the articles on the stunt.)

Anyway, this couldn't have caused any harm that wouldn't have been caused simply by 6 p.m. rolling around.

[Miniryu]

duplicate

[Miniryu]

Originally Posted by The Godfather

They were reckless because they encouraged other drivers to be reckless.

this is by far the poorest argument you have used to date. Its called 'personal responsibility': if you aren't capable of it, you have no bussiness driving. No one can make you break the law- and if you choose to do so, its your own damn fault.

Boy, that Anne chick is hot. I'd sure love to bang her.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by lothar56

Haha, that's a good point.

I go through about 2 1/2 tanks of gas a month. That's 30-35 gallons. I'm a college student with no income during the school year, so that's $270-300 more I have to save during the summer, on top of insurance, spending money, etc. Last summer I made about $3000. Granted, it was a crappy job and I'll do better next summer, but that's still a 10% increase in income that I'll need to cover this.

For most people, $30 a month is a very small percentage of their living expenses. For example, my mortgage is closer to three thousand a month. Even when I was a student, I paid close to a thousand in rent monthly. $30 was really neither here nor there.

My suggestion to you is to give up Starbucks or buy one fewer sixpack on the weekend, or one less overpriced drink at a club. Your budget will soon right itself so you won't be fretting over minor variations in the price of one of your smaller budget items. Or maybe you should just move closer to your school until you are in a position to earn a normal income.

[lothar56]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

For most people, $30 a month is a very small percentage of their living expenses. For example, my mortgage is closer to three thousand a month. Even when I was a student, I paid close to a thousand in rent monthly. $30 was really neither here nor there.

My suggestion to you is to give up Starbucks or buy one fewer sixpack on the weekend, or one less overpriced drink at a club. Your budget will soon right itself so you won't be fretting over minor variations in the price of one of your smaller budget items. Or maybe you should just move closer to your school until you are in a position to earn a normal income.

I suppose for most people that would work, but not me. I chose the smallest dining plan, I don't drink or smoke at all, and I eat out at most 1 or 2 times a week. I like on VERY little money. Even for dates, my GF and I trade off paying, and often we'll get food and make supper in my dorm's kitchen and rent a movie or just study. So all I even buy now is maybe 2 or 3 meals a week on top of the 7 covered in my dining plan and gas.

[alphasubzero949]

Originally Posted by Corpse of Chewbacca

While I support these college kids and believe the speedlimit laws are pathetic, I do fear that may have actually caused someone real harm with their act of civil disobedience.

Civil disobedience??? They were following the speed limit, as they were legally supposed to. And if I'm not mistaken, there was no anti-left lane bandit rule in place.

Voting with your right foot and continually driving above the speed limit would be the correct application of "civil disobedience." Unfortunately, we're not going to see true speed limits that really delineate the point of where driving becomes unsafe as long as the police and insurance industries show up predicting carnage and mayhem whenever there is talk of raising speed limits.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by lothar56

I suppose for most people that would work, but not me. I chose the smallest dining plan, I don't drink or smoke at all, and I eat out at most 1 or 2 times a week. I like on VERY little money. Even for dates, my GF and I trade off paying, and often we'll get food and make supper in my dorm's kitchen and rent a movie or just study. So all I even buy now is maybe 2 or 3 meals a week on top of the 7 covered in my dining plan and gas.

So you probably can't really afford a car. Or you could work in school as I did.

This really has nothing to do with your economic argument, which is that you are upset that the price of gasoline increases at on average, the same rate as inflation. There are peaks and valleys, but gas has been pretty constant in real terms over the decades. It might not seem so if you forget to adjust for inflation, but it is the case.

That being so, it's not very realistic to expect your living expenses to go down in real terms every year.

[lothar56]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

So you probably can't really afford a car. Or you could work in school as I did.

This really has nothing to do with your economic argument, which is that you are upset that the price of gasoline increases at on average, the same rate as inflation. There are peaks and valleys, but gas has been pretty constant in real terms over the decades. It might not seem so if you forget to adjust for inflation, but it is the case.

That being so, it's not very realistic to expect your living expenses to go down in real terms every year.

I was never really complaining about the price of gas, it seems America has it much better than other countries. I'm just saying not everyone can afford that. The solution would of course be for me to drive less, or at least lighten up my lead foot.

[macmad]

Germany's not perfect either. Most of the autobahns are only two lane. Trucks are not allowed to exceed 80Km/h, and BMW's and Mercs want to pass everything at 240Km/h. So, the average driver who'd like to cruise along at ~140Km/h can't because he's either seriously in the way of the fast boys, or stuck behind a slow moving truck. IMO, such a huge speed difference between left and right lanes is extreemly dangerous. But, slowly but surely, large portions of speed limit free autobahn are dissapearing for various reasons - in a few years it will probably all be gone. BTW, the reason you don't see many cop cars in Germany is because most of them are unmarked. The "recommended" speed on the autobahns is 130Km/h.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

The fuel economy argument is no longer widely cited as the justification for the 55 mph speed limit. It was the justification back in the 1970s but that was a temporary concern connected to the oil shocks of that decade. These days, fuel economy is, frankly, of concern to nobody -- as the plethora of SUV's amply testify. When people argue against increasing speed limits, it is almost invariably on the basis of safety, whether not not there is in fact a basis for doing so.

Well, it's a concern to me. Maybe I'm the last one.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by d4nth3m4n

how much of that is a testament to cars being geared to cruise at 55?

i don't know the answer, i'm just asking...

Some of it has to do with gearing. But realize that the wider range of speeds that the car is geared to operate efficiently at, the less efficient it will be at all speeds. It will also reduce performance at high speeds.

For example, my car is geared to run at 55 mph efficiently (about 2050 RPM in 5th gear). At 75 mph, I'm at about 2800 RPM. If my car were geared to run at 2050 RPM at 75 mph, two things would change:

-below 50 mph I would need to downshift into 4th gear, which hurts fuel economy
-at 75 mph the drag is so high that 2050 RPM would barely provide enough power to keep me going. If I wanted to accelerate at all, I would need to downshift.

So, gearing is always a trade-off.

But, from an overall vehicle perspective, the force needed to plow through the air is basically proportional to the square of your speed. In other words, if you double your speed (in a given gear, like going from 50 mph to 100 mph), you should expect only about 25% the gas mileage you had before. In practice, many other factors complicate the situation (Reynolds number, engine BSFC, time spent using accessories, etc.) but the general rule is that once you're in your highest gear, faster will always use more gas.

[driven]

Originally Posted by FireWire

How is it reckless? They were simply obeying the law, as they are supposed to do.. They drove at the posted speed limit, to demonstrate that it is in fact an inappropriate and maybe even dangerous limitation. Okay, personally, I hate the drivers who think they are The Police and decide that since they are going at the legal speed, nobody should pass them. But their "prank" was not reckless in any way, not more than the sunday's mom and pop who are quietly driving at the speed limit.

And as it has been pointed out, ambulances and other emergency vehicles have two full lanes to circulate, and they are trained to get through any kind of traffic they may encounter. The only word that can describe the event it "frustrating". It should not be repeated too often, but their initiative is a good one to demonstrate the bureaucrats that certain laws are not appropriate, in a in-your-face manner (often the only way to make a politician move).

Impeeding the flow of traffic is reckless. The left lane is for passing. There are signs all over Georgia (and NY where I previously lived) that say "keep right unless passing". What do you think that means?

And yes ... if the cop wants to he *CAN* stop you for crusing in the left lane if you are holding up traffic. (Technically, it *IS* illegal to pass on the right, which is what you are forcing people to do.)

We also have another law in Georgia that states if you are passing an emergency vehicle on the side of the road you have to either move over a lane or slow down to the speed limit. (I guess this is the general assembly's way of acknowledging that everyone drives OVER the speed limit)

[driven]

Originally Posted by itistoday

We need more people like these guys. Absolutely brilliant.

BTW, I didn't read this entire thread, but I am shocked to see that some of you think what they did was wrong. You need to seriously reevaluate yourself. You know how 95% of the planet is brain-dead? Well you're one of those people.

Actually we were thinking the same thing about you.

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by driven

Impeeding the flow of traffic is reckless. The left lane is for passing. There are signs all over Georgia (and NY where I previously lived) that say "keep right unless passing". What do you think that means?

And yes ... if the cop wants to he *CAN* stop you for crusing in the left lane if you are holding up traffic. (Technically, it *IS* illegal to pass on the right, which is what you are forcing people to do.)

We also have another law in Georgia that states if you are passing an emergency vehicle on the side of the road you have to either move over a lane or slow down to the speed limit. (I guess this is the general assembly's way of acknowledging that everyone drives OVER the speed limit)

"Slower traffic keep right" is meant for people going slower than the speed limit. The left lane is not meant for speeding. This is a common misconception.

[driven]

Originally Posted by greenamp

"Slower traffic keep right" is meant for people going slower than the speed limit. The left lane is not meant for speeding. This is a common misconception.

Not according to the cop that gave my mom a ticket for it.
(And the judge that upheld it)

[The Godfather]

Originally Posted by Miniryu

this is by far the poorest argument you have used to date. Its called 'personal responsibility': if you aren't capable of it, you have no bussiness driving. No one can make you break the law- and if you choose to do so, its your own damn fault.

Boy, that Anne chick is hot. I'd sure love to bang her.

I'd like to live in your la-la land where everything is perfect and there are no idiots around.

That passing driver was not "forced" to break the law, just merely "enticed", which doesn't lessens his/her responsibility.

Now about my argument. See the definition of reckless:
1. marked by lack of proper caution : careless of consequences

Did you see them caring about the unsafe situation they induced? Don't you think they knew the consequences? Legal doesn't mean safe. Common sense, people.

Boy, that Anne chick has used her lifetime allotment of mascara.

Dumbass kids, but the passing driver was doubly so.

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by driven

Not according to the cop that gave my mom a ticket for it.
(And the judge that upheld it)

So you're telling me your mother got a ticket for doing the posted speed limit in the left lane? Something tells me this isn't the whole truth. So I call BS.

[driven]

Originally Posted by greenamp

So you're telling me your mother got a ticket for doing the posted speed limit in the left lane? Something tells me this isn't the whole truth. So I call BS.

The ticket was for "impeeding the flow of traffic." She was essentially causing a traffic jam in rush hour.

Call BS all you want. I could care less. Keep driving in the left lane and holding up traffic for all I care too.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by driven

Impeeding the flow of traffic is reckless. The left lane is for passing. There are signs all over Georgia (and NY where I previously lived) that say "keep right unless passing". What do you think that means?

And yes ... if the cop wants to he *CAN* stop you for crusing in the left lane if you are holding up traffic. (Technically, it *IS* illegal to pass on the right, which is what you are forcing people to do.)

This is a ridiculous assertion. You cannot separate "impeding the flow of traffic" from speed. What if I told you that the college kids from the video weren't impeding the flow of traffic? Traffic was still flowing fine, just a little bit slower. Any time I'm slowing down traffic, I'm breaking the law? What if I'm passing someone at 75 mph and three ya-hoo's come up behind me in their Honda Civics doing 110 mph? Is it my responsibility to speed up to 100 mph to get out of their way, and to not "impeed" [sic] them? Impeding the guy behind you necessarily involves your relative speeds. The issue of speed is still the bottom line.

I would support a national make-over of the speed limit system, upping all speed limits by 10 mph accompanied by a commitment to enforce the new limits. I would not support it if I weren't sure the new limits would be enforced. Otherwise, we'd be in the exact same position, except everyone would be driving 10 mph faster.

[driven]

You think THAT was traffic flowing "fine"???? Do you drive? Those cars were closer together than stock-cars drafting at Daytona! They created a very dangerous situation. (They even admitted to such!) Had a wreck happened that would have messed up traffic for half the day down here in ATL. That's a huge financial cost to the city and local businesses. At best what they did was irresponsible.

And to answer your other hypothetical, no .. you don't have to move for the car behind you, nor do you have to speed up from your 75 mph, until you clear the car you are passing. At that point yes, you have to move over and let the faster car behind you go.

[driven]

Hopefully this settles this:

First exhibit: Georgia Statute:
(Notice that where it says move to the right lane it doesn't make exceptions for speed .. notice also when it says "normal speed of traffic" does not state what that speed is."

This is courtesy to an Atlanta PD cop that I am very close friends with:
(More below)

Georgia statute 40-6-40 (which has been around since the 1950s) states:
(a) Upon all roadways of sufficient width, a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway, except as follows:
(1) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction under the rules governing such movement;
(2) When an obstruction exists making it necessary to drive to the left of the center of the highway, provided that any person so doing shall yield the right of way to all vehicles traveling in the proper direction upon the unobstructed portion of the highway within such a distance as to constitute an immediate hazard;
(3) Upon a roadway divided into three marked lanes for traffic under the rules applicable thereon; or
(4) Upon a roadway restricted to one-way traffic.
(b) Upon all roadways, any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(c) Upon any roadway having four or more lanes for moving traffic and providing for two-way movement of traffic, no vehicle shall be driven to the left of the center of the roadway except when authorized by official traffic-control devices designating certain lanes to the left of the center of the roadway for use by traffic not otherwise permitted to use such lanes or except as permitted under paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of this Code section. However, this subsection shall not be construed as prohibiting the crossing of the center of the roadway in making a left turn into or from an alley, private road, or driveway.
(d) No two vehicles shall impede the normal flow of traffic by traveling side by side at the same time while in adjacent lanes, provided that this Code section shall not be construed to prevent vehicles traveling side by side in adjacent lanes because of congested traffic conditions.As regards the requirement that one drive on the right side of the road, Georgia statute §40-6-40 (which has been around since the 1950s) states:
(a) Upon all roadways of sufficient width, a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway, except as follows:
(1) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction under the rules governing such movement;
(2) When an obstruction exists making it necessary to drive to the left of the center of the highway, provided that any person so doing shall yield the right of way to all vehicles traveling in the proper direction upon the unobstructed portion of the highway within such a distance as to constitute an immediate hazard;
(3) Upon a roadway divided into three marked lanes for traffic under the rules applicable thereon; or
(4) Upon a roadway restricted to one-way traffic.
(b) Upon all roadways, any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(c) Upon any roadway having four or more lanes for moving traffic and providing for two-way movement of traffic, no vehicle shall be driven to the left of the center of the roadway except when authorized by official traffic-control devices designating certain lanes to the left of the center of the roadway for use by traffic not otherwise permitted to use such lanes or except as permitted under paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of this Code section. However, this subsection shall not be construed as prohibiting the crossing of the center of the roadway in making a left turn into or from an alley, private road, or driveway.
(d) No two vehicles shall impede the normal flow of traffic by traveling side by side at the same time while in adjacent lanes, provided that this Code section shall not be construed to prevent vehicles traveling side by side in adjacent lanes because of congested traffic conditions

Also see these statutes:
40-6-52 FAILURE TO KEEP IN PROPER LANE
40-6-52B DRIVING IN LEFT LANE OF 3+ LANES
40-6-52C DRIVING IN LEFT LANE OF 2 LANES
40-6-52D FAILURE TO KEEP IN PROPER LANE
40-6-53 FAILURE TO KEEP IN PROPER LANE
40-6-54 IMPROPER LANE USAGE
40-6-73 FAILURE TO YIELD RIGHT OF WAY TO VEHICLE

Other states have similar laws: (See this one from Motorists' Handbook Wisconsin Department of Transportation:
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers...e-handbook.pdf

GENERAL RULES ABOUT TRAFFIC LANES
When there are no signs or markings to control the use of lanes, there are rules that indicate which
lane is to be used. These rules cover general driving, passing and turning.
General driving. It is illegal and unsafe to back a vehicle in any travel lane unless you are parallel
parking or completing a Y-turn. Drivers do not expect a vehicle to be backing toward them and may
not realize it until it is too late. If you miss your turn or exit on a freeway, do not back up. Go on to the
next exit where you can exit and re-enter the freeway to go back to the exit you missed.
Do not stop in travel lanes for any reason (confusion, breakdowns, letting out a passenger). Keep
moving until you can safely pull off the road.
On a road with two or more lanes traveling in the same direction, stay in the right lane except to pass.
On a road with three or more lanes traveling in the same direction, stay as far to the right as practical.
As a general rule, never drive on an unpaved shoulder of the road.
Passing. You should never pass on the shoulder. However, a paved shoulder may be used to pass a
stopped vehicle or one that is slowing to make a left turn. On multi-lane roads, the left-most lane is
intended to be used for passing slower vehicles. If you pass on the right, the other driver may have
difficulty seeing you and might suddenly change lanes in front of you.

And an example tutorial from the Florida DMV test:

Florida DMV test:
32. On a four-lane road, only drive in the left lane if you are overtaking and passing another vehicle.
A. True <-- Correct answer
B. False

People keep mentioning Germany as having safer roads in spite of higher speeds. Part of the reason for that is that they have a real driver education program that consists of more than a simple multiple-choice test and driving through a parking lot around cones. Until we adopt such a thing here we will continue to have a bunch of folks driving around ignorant of road rules.

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by driven

You think THAT was traffic flowing "fine"???? Do you drive? Those cars were closer together than stock-cars drafting at Daytona! They created a very dangerous situation. (They even admitted to such!) Had a wreck happened that would have messed up traffic for half the day down here in ATL. That's a huge financial cost to the city and local businesses. At best what they did was irresponsible.

And to answer your other hypothetical, no .. you don't have to move for the car behind you, nor do you have to speed up from your 75 mph, until you clear the car you are passing. At that point yes, you have to move over and let the faster car behind you go.

They were impeding traffic. That was the point of the whole stunt. They were making the point that driving the speed limit impedes traffic.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by driven

Hopefully this settles this:

Originally Posted by the freakin' Department of Transportation

They didn't do a thing wrong

Fixed.™

[driven]

Hey ... feel free to listen to a low-paid government worker who probably doesn't know what the word statute means, or you could just read the law. Up to you.

Why is it so difficult to simply move over?

[MallyMal]

I'm surprised they didn't run into any police when they were passing the Church Street exit. That is right near where I live. It is also near the Memorial Drive exit where the police station/jail can be seen from I-285. There are cops all over there but there were none that day.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by driven

People keep mentioning Germany as having safer roads in spite of higher speeds. Part of the reason for that is that they have a real driver education program that consists of more than a simple multiple-choice test and driving through a parking lot around cones. Until we adopt such a thing here we will continue to have a bunch of folks driving around ignorant of road rules.

This is true. The German test is very difficult. It's why I have heard some Germans have taken to going to going to places like Portugal and taking the test there. With the EU, the licenses are portable.

But I don't know that licensing makes that much difference to safety. It does for new drivers, but expericed drivers mainly go by their experience. Literally hundreds of thousands of Americans have done just fine on the Autobahn. It's not just tourists and businessmen, but also GIs stationed in Germany (most of whom are young and a recent product of the cones-and-parking-lot US tests). They do OK driving over 55 mph. Of course, they learn within a week or so to start using their mirrors and turn signals to change lanes.

As for your cop, I'd suggest he take a look at the First Amendment. It would at least arguably be a pretty good defense in this case. This was a peaceful protest. Also, the people in the left lane of this line of cars going exactly the speed limit technically could not move over without doing one of two things. Either they would have had to drive 56mph, which is illegal, or they would have had to slow down to 54mph, which they are not required to do. And since no car could have legally overtaken them anyway, my opinion is I don't think any judge or jury would have convicted them based on this fact pattern.

Whether a cop would have pulled them over is another question. See my comments above about overagressive traffic cops and the harm they do to their relations with the community.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by driven

Hey ... feel free to listen to a low-paid government worker who probably doesn't know what the word statute means, or you could just read the law. Up to you.

Why is it so difficult to simply move over?

Because they/he would have to admit they were wrong.

I hope the people who did this gets some jail time or a large fine.

[driven]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

This is true. The German test is very difficult. It's why I have heard some Germans have taken to going to going to places like Portugal and taking the test there. With the EU, the licenses are portable.

But I don't know that licensing makes that much difference to safety. It does for new drivers, but expericed drivers mainly go by their experience. Literally hundreds of thousands of Americans have done just fine on the Autobahn. It's not just tourists and businessmen, but also GIs stationed in Germany (most of whom are young and a recent product of the cones-and-parking-lot US tests). They do OK driving over 55 mph. Of course, they learn within a week or so to start using their mirrors and turn signals to change lanes.

I think most ex-pats who live in other countries are smart enough to learn the rules of their host country. Experience hasn't helped most in the US who still can't figure out the basic rules of "if the car to your right is travelling at the same speed or faster than you then you are in the wrong lane."

As for your cop, I'd suggest he take a look at the First Amendment. It would at least arguably be a pretty good defense in this case. This was a peaceful protest. Also, the people in the left lane of this line of cars going exactly the speed limit technically could not move over without doing one of two things.

Whether a cop would have pulled them over is another question. See my comments above about overagressive traffic cops and the harm they do to their relations with the community.

First amendment defense in a traffic case? I'd love to hear the judge when you brought that one up. It would have entertainment value for sure.

Community relations? Do you think *anyone* behind that rolling roadblock would have looked down on a cop for pulling over the lead cars in this case?

Either they would have had to drive 56mph, which is illegal, or they would have had to slow down to 54mph, which they are not required to do. And since no car could have legally overtaken them anyway, my opinion is I don't think any judge or jury would have convicted them based on this fact pattern.

Yes, they were required to move over .. by any means neccessary. You won't find a court-appointed traffic school instructor (usually off duty cops) who will tell you that you can't accellerate past the legal speed limit to overtake someone, within reason, which this would have been. If 56 or 57 or 60 is too fast for you and you get fear, then yes, you are required to slow down and move over.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I hope the people who did this gets some jail time or a large fine.

For obeying the speed limit laws?

[driven]

no ... for being in violation of statute 40-6-40.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by driven

no ... for being in violation of statute 40-6-40.

I didn't ask you for HIS opinion.

[driven]

I don't give a *hit. I was giving you mine. It's called an OPEN forum. If you just wanted his you should have PMed him.

You do have a problem with basic rules even when it doesn't involve the road.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by driven

I don't give a *hit. I was giving you mine. It's called an OPEN forum. If you just wanted his you should have PMed him.

You do have a problem with basic rules even when it doesn't involve the road.

You're so badass.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by driven

You think THAT was traffic flowing "fine"???? Do you drive? Those cars were closer together than stock-cars drafting at Daytona! They created a very dangerous situation. (They even admitted to such!) Had a wreck happened that would have messed up traffic for half the day down here in ATL. That's a huge financial cost to the city and local businesses. At best what they did was irresponsible.

Well, then the real problem is that the people behind them were following too closely (which is a ticketable offense). If the people behind them were following at the proper distance (and not trying to pass on the shoulder) then there would be no problem.

[euchomai]

It seems very odd that you have all chosen this as the new argument thread. There are a ton of others that are more worthy.

I'll join in now too though... They were idiots and will have a great story to tell the rest of their lives. You know you'd have done it if you thought of it.

[driven]

Originally Posted by Dakar

You're so badass.

<< FLEX >>

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by macintologist

I think police should just punish bad drivers and leave good drivers alone. Just one factor alone like speed is not enough to determine lack of reason and prudence.

That would be ideal, but it would never work. At least, not in California. We passed a law in the 1950s that says that Police vehicles can't be unmarked. That law passed after a serial rapsit/murderer drove around posing as a police officer.

So now when a black & white police vehicle with big lights on top hops onto the freeway, everyone is suddenly a good driver.

I would very much like to see (somehow with verifyable identification to avoid what happend in the 50s), unmarked police vehicles like SUVs, station wagons, and just ordinary cars. That way you wouldn't know who's a cop and who isn't.

Realistically, I think the best way to curb bad driving is to actually ticket for minor traffic violations instead of bringing it up after a major violation. Ticket people for not using their turn signals. Ticket people for crossing more than 2 lanes of traffic without checking. Ticket people who run red lights through a yellow (turns red while in the intersection, technically, is running a red light since they had ample time to stop for the yellow.) Ticket people who block intersections during heavy traffic. Ticket people using the bicycle lane as a passing/turning lane. If people started getting $100 fines for doing all these things, I bet we'd have a lot of good drivers in the near future. Even if they do speed, at least they'll be courteous.

[Jawbone54]

The bright young minds of tomorrow...

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by driven

Hey ... feel free to listen to a low-paid government worker who probably doesn't know what the word statute means, or you could just read the law. Up to you.

Not to mention the real possibility of losing your license permanently if you get in an auto accident on the Autoban.

[andi*pandi]

an interesting experiment--and surprised no one has theorized that if an ambulance had come along, the kids would have yielded--as is the law. If anyone else didn't, they'd be breaking the rules.

75 is common around these parts, but the highest sign I've seen is 65.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by driven

I think most ex-pats who live in other countries are smart enough to learn the rules of their host country. Experience hasn't helped most in the US who still can't figure out the basic rules of "if the car to your right is travelling at the same speed or faster than you then you are in the wrong lane."



First amendment defense in a traffic case? I'd love to hear the judge when you brought that one up. It would have entertainment value for sure.

Community relations? Do you think *anyone* behind that rolling roadblock would have looked down on a cop for pulling over the lead cars in this case?



Yes, they were required to move over .. by any means neccessary. You won't find a court-appointed traffic school instructor (usually off duty cops) who will tell you that you can't accellerate past the legal speed limit to overtake someone, within reason, which this would have been. If 56 or 57 or 60 is too fast for you and you get fear, then yes, you are required to slow down and move over.

If you are going to argue picky details of the law -- such as the lane discipline statutes that frankly are not observed or policed in practice, then you can't rely on exceptions to them like the one you suggest.

You say that cops would not enforce the speed limit if someone is merely overtaking. That might be the case in reality, but it is irrelevant if you argument is that the law on the books is what is controlling. The law on the books is 55mph, and no more.

If on the other hand, what governs is how people actually behave, and what cops actually enforce, then in reality, people do cruise in the left lane no matter what the statutes say. Your argument about that law might be correct, but the fact is that law is observed with the same degree of practicality as the law against speeding when overtaken. Reality is a bit different from what the statute says.

Basically, you are trying to have this both ways. You want the cops to pull people over for breaking one law that few ever observe, but you would also like them to turn a blind eye to another law that few ever observe. Your problem, of course, is that consistency on your part would require you to concede that if two cars are travelling side by side at exactly 55mph, the car in the left lane cannot accellerate to overtake the car in the right lane without exceeding the speed limit, which is illegal.

I inject the note of reality about how people really drive for the same reason you mention people adapting to local circumstances with our example of American GIs stationed in Germany. In all countries, there are driving habits that are not precisely the way the law says. In America, it happens to be cruising in various lanes. That is why American drivers do that, and why American cops rarely, if ever, enforce the law against it (unless they have an ultirior motivation and are just looking for a convenient excuse to pull someone over). In Germany, for example, everyone knows and understands the headlight flash signal. When a fast car comes up behind you and flashes its lights, the custom is to move over for them. But that actually is not the law. By law, there is no such signal as I-am-flashing-my-lights-get-out-of-my-way. It's a customary practice, but technically, not legal.

Oh, and by the way, the First Amendment could be a defense in any case. It wouldn't matter whether it is a traffic offense or not. Generally speaking it wouldn't work, but for example if the cops decided to arrest drivers because they are engaged in a protest, but ignored the same conduct (i.e. poor lane discipline) of other drivers in the vicinity, then I would say there is a decent chance any charges could be thrown out. I just point it out because your cop friend seems from your comments to need to think a bit more broadly about what values he is supposed to be defending.

I'd also still like to know who exactly you think was inconvenienced by this protest. Your argument seems to be to throw the book at them so that lawbreakers won't be prevented from breaking the law. The only people who could have been slowed down by cars driving 55 are those people who wanted to break the law. To arrest one set of people because they prevented another group of people from breaking the law is not exactly consistent.

[driven]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

You say that cops would not enforce the speed limit if someone is merely overtaking. That might be the case in reality, but it is irrelevant if you argument is that the law on the books is what is controlling. The law on the books is 55mph, and no more.

Radar guns are only accurate +- 5mph so they won't stop you until they see 60mph or you'll get the ticket thrown out. There's your passing speed.

Georgia State Police use laser, so your margin of error is down to +- 3mph ... still enough to get out of the way.

If on the other hand, what governs is how people actually behave, and what cops actually enforce, then in reality, people do cruise in the left lane no matter what the statutes say.

Yes ... and a majority of people behind them get pissed off, angry and careless. If I'm behind the front row here I'm now stuck between the arrogant and the pissed off. Not a good place to be.

It seems that those people who are cruising in the left lane have a certain aloofness to them. "I am doing the speed limit, and even though I can move over and cruise one lane to my right I don't want to. Screw the people behind me. I've got no place to go in a hurry. Let them all follow me slower, or make a more dangerous pass on the right." It shows a lack of courtesy at best. At worst .... well ...

Basically, you are trying to have this both ways. You want the cops to pull people over for breaking one law that few ever observe, but you would also like them to turn a blind eye to another law that few ever observe. Your problem, of course, is that consistency on your part would require you to concede that if two cars are travelling side by side at exactly 55mph, the car in the left lane cannot accellerate to overtake the car in the right lane without exceeding the speed limit, which is illegal.

Actually I don't want them to get a ticket or even get pulled over (and create rubbernecking ... far worse!). I just want them to move the heck over.

As for "I can't pass because I'm doing the speed limit" ... well, you've got a brake. Push it and when you are behind the car on your right, move over. No law broken and traffic flow improved as cars space out a bit more.

Oh, and by the way, the First Amendment could be a defense in any case. It wouldn't matter whether it is a traffic offense or not. Generally speaking it wouldn't work, but for example if the cops decided to arrest drivers because they are engaged in a protest, but ignored the same conduct (i.e. poor lane discipline) of other drivers in the vicinity, then I would say there is a decent chance any charges could be thrown out. I just point it out because your cop friend seems from your comments to need to think a bit more broadly about what values he is supposed to be defending.

You are the one who wants to get practical. Any traffic judge is going to throw out the first amendment argument almost immediately. You *MIGHT* get somewhere one or two appellate courts later. But by then you are going to be broke on lawyer fees (who are the only ones that will get an appeals court to even accept the case.) IF you want to go that far, you might even win. But wouldn't it have been easier to move over?

.... ahh ... but you'll continue on your way ... driving in the left lane oblivious to those around you for no other reason than "you can".

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by driven

Radar guns are only accurate +- 5mph so they won't stop you until they see 60mph or you'll get the ticket thrown out. There's your passing speed.

Got a statutory cite for that proposition? You are the one demanding exact compliance with the law and quoting statutes. I doubt the above proposition is a legal one.

Bear in mind, I raised this as a hypothetical defense to a cop telling you that you must move over. They can't really tell you that and tell you to break the law at the same time. It's kind of like the time a cop demanded I move my car immediately out of a loading zone at the airport. I pointed out that I was still in the process of putting my seatbelt on, and would he like me to break the law and drive without a belt? Of course he said no.

Yes ... and a majority of people behind them get pissed off, angry and careless. If I'm behind the front row here I'm now stuck between the arrogant and the pissed off. Not a good place to be.

That's not an excuse. If someone gets "pissed off, angry and careless" simply because they can't break the law that day, than that is their lookout. It sounds like a recipe for reckless driving to me, which is a much more serious infraction than this protest.

And note, if the protesters get their way, driving over 55 would be legal. So your "pissed off, angry and careless" drivers could then drive faster legally. Everyone's a winner!

It seems that those people who are cruising in the left lane have a certain aloofness to them. "I am doing the speed limit, and even though I can move over and cruise one lane to my right I don't want to. Screw the people behind me. I've got no place to go in a hurry. Let them all follow me slower, or make a more dangerous pass on the right." It shows a lack of courtesy at best. At worst .... well ...

Actually I don't want them to get a ticket or even get pulled over (and create rubbernecking ... far worse!). I just want them to move the heck over.

As for "I can't pass because I'm doing the speed limit" ... well, you've got a brake. Push it and when you are behind the car on your right, move over. No law broken and traffic flow improved as cars space out a bit more.

.... ahh ... but you'll continue on your way ... driving in the left lane oblivious to those around you for no other reason than "you can".

So . . . your argument is that you want other people to obey the law so that you can break it. Color me unimpressed with that line of reasoning.

You are the one who wants to get practical. Any traffic judge is going to throw out the first amendment argument almost immediately. You *MIGHT* get somewhere one or two appellate courts later. But by then you are going to be broke on lawyer fees (who are the only ones that will get an appeals court to even accept the case.) IF you want to go that far, you might even win. But wouldn't it have been easier to move over?

I wouldn't claim that it is necessarily a winning argument, but I wouldn't personally dismiss it. And of course, if it were me, my legal fees would be pretty low (I'm a lawyer, after all).

[finboy]

Originally Posted by The Godfather

They were reckless because they encouraged other drivers to be reckless.

In the video, the kids realize that cars behind started to pass on the shoulder. They laughed and continued their trick, knowing that an accident was likely to happen.

The recklessness of the car passing on the shoulder was worse, but the kids were inciting the behavior on everyone.

I am not saying CAUSE, I am saying INCITE, ENCOURAGE.

Would you have done it? No. Because you know better than that.

Passing on the shoulder is nothing new in Atlanta. I've seen more of it there than anywhere else I've driven.

Being a "rolling road block" will get you stopped and ticketed in most places. Slow drivers are at least as dangerous as fast ones.

[driven]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Got a statutory cite for that proposition? You are the one demanding exact compliance with the law and quoting statutes. I doubt the above proposition is a legal one.

Actually since you mention it ...

Originally Posted by GA 40-6-1

40-6-1.
(a) It is unlawful and, unless otherwise declared in this chapter with respect to particular offenses, it is a misdemeanor for any person to do any act forbidden or fail to perform any act required in this chapter.
(b) Unless a different maximum fine or greater minimum fine is specifically provided in this chapter for a particular violation, the maximum fine which may be imposed as punishment for a first offense of violating any lawful speed limit established by or pursuant to the provisions of Article 9 of this chapter by exceeding a maximum lawful speed limit:
(1) By five miles per hour or less shall be no dollars;
(2) By more than five but not more than ten miles per hour shall not exceed $25.00;
(3) By more than ten but not more than 14 miles per hour shall not exceed $100.00;
(4) By more than 14 but less than 19 miles per hour shall not exceed $125.00;
(5) By 19 or more but less than 24 miles per hour shall not exceed $150.00; or
(6) By 24 or more but less than 34 miles per hour shall not exceed $500.00.

So there is actually NO fine for 5 mph over the limit. Also (I can't find the actual statute) but it's illegal for anyone other than Georgia State Police to pull anyone over on the Interstate for less than 10MPH over the limit.

Bear in mind, I raised this as a hypothetical defense to a cop telling you that you must move over. They can't really tell you that and tell you to break the law at the same time. It's kind of like the time a cop demanded I move my car immediately out of a loading zone at the airport. I pointed out that I was still in the process of putting my seatbelt on, and would he like me to break the law and drive without a belt? Of course he said no.

We just had a cop here (ATL airport) pull a woman out of her car and beat her for not moving her car fast enough. He was suspended when the video of the incident came to light. Then oddly a few months later they re-instated him with union pressure. I hated that.

I wouldn't claim that it is necessarily a winning argument, but I wouldn't personally dismiss it. And of course, if it were me, my legal fees would be pretty low (I'm a lawyer, after all).

Geez ... I should have known. That gives you a great advantage in these friendly debates. I'm fighting unarmed! I'll fold! <smile>

I think we can agree to disagree. I've come to appreciate some of your points. (Well, not really ... maybe one point ... )

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by driven

So there is actually NO fine for 5 mph over the limit. Also (I can't find the actual statute) but it's illegal for anyone other than Georgia State Police to pull anyone over on the Interstate for less than 10MPH over the limit.

There maybe no fine, but as you have just shown, the speed limit is still 55 and exceeding it for any reason (including overtaking) is not legal. QED.

On the First Amendment issue, it is quite normal, routine even, for charges to be waived or dropped when someone breaks a minor law in the course of a political protest. A recent public example is Cindy Sheehan when she was arrested in the House of Representatives. She broke the law, but charges were dropped.

The same thing has happened here. These kids may have technically broken the law you mentioned, but no charges are being filed. Apparently, the cops involved have greater awareness of the wider issues involved than your heavy-handed cop friend. Good for them. Now, had the kids simply been doing this for a prank or with malicious intent, then I could imagine a different outcome.

Overall, though, your outraged reaction only serves to make their point. The 55 mile an hour speed limit is absurdly low, and ordinary people like you regard it as normal, and even necessary to violate it. A law that everyone thinks is stupid is not a good law. That kind of specific law undermines support for the law in general.

[driven]

Wasn't outraged ... just enjoying some friendly banter.

Just couldn't let it drop, could ya?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Dakar

For obeying the speed limit laws?

Have you not read the entire thread? Is it not possible to be obeying SOME laws while breaking OTHERS? Yes, I think it is.

Originally Posted by Dakar

I didn't ask you for HIS opinion.

Well obviously ours is the same. Not that either one of us should have even answered such a silly question.

These were just a group of kids looking to make themselves important by
"sticking it to the man"

Rebels without a clue.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by driven

Radar guns are only accurate +- 5mph so they won't stop you until they see 60mph or you'll get the ticket thrown out. There's your passing speed.

Georgia State Police use laser, so your margin of error is down to +- 3mph ... still enough to get out of the way.

Watch yourselves with that folks. A recent study here found some radar guns (US made so don't think it's a UK specific thing) in use by law enforcement to be wildly inaccurate. One clocked a stationary brick wall as being over the speed limit.