$3550 Speeding Ticket

[b.c.]

Yeah, Speed trap. Thanks for telling me. I need to get a radar detector. Are they still illegal?




The thing is everbody speeds. EVERYBODY. I'd say over 75% of drivers in cities go over the posted 60 mph limit on our freeways here and 95% of drivers go over the 70 mph limit in the country areas. Just the unlucky ones get caught and get pulled over by the cops. The cops generally only pull over the reckless drivers weaving in and out of traffic or people who are obviously drunk. Of the masses of speeders - they do discriminate on who they pull over though which leads me to think this fine is unjust.

This is true. Of course no one wants to be driving around anyone who is recklessly driving, weaving in and out, intoxicated or the like. But on an average, on any highway in any state, people are generally moving 5-10 mph above the posted speed. In some states the speed limit is 70, in others it's 60, some states have different speed limits at night, and the limit can be even less (on stretches of highway where speeds drop to as little as 45mph for assorted reasons). In some areas driving can literally be a crap shoot.

Given such, and given the obvious incentive that such a high fine would make for writing tickets, the law seems perhaps over the top (and may even end up being challenged in higher courts) because of the opportunity for abuse and misuse it presents.

Sometimes though, the proper response to such punitive measures is to him them (those lawmakers) in the pocketbooks.

Voters who live in the state and who are most likely to suffer the effects should vote out of office all who approved of and supported the measure.

Would be visitors and tourists to the state should show their displeasure by going elsewhere. If the measure ends up costing them (in many ways)more than they can "rake in" with such fines, they'd get the message (maybe).

 

[earllogjam]

Would be visitors and tourists to the state should show their displeasure by going elsewhere. If the measure ends up costing them (in many ways)more than they can "rake in" with such fines, they'd get the message (maybe).

I'm not sure whether law makers have any say in setting these fines. They all would cover their asses in a round of finger pointing if anyone called them on it. This is one of those things that most people just let the goverment get away and some feel justified until it bites them in the ass one day.

A $3500 speeding ticket is more than some people pay for their cars! This would be devastating for the working poor. It could easily send them onto welfare or homelessness. There will just be more people driving without licenses and insurance, shifting the burden. I don't think State Troopers should have this power to ruin people's lives financially. People put too much trust in these people and the system. Only the "wronged" know what I am talking about and we are an ever growing group. What bothers me is that our rights are taken by these morons without a thought or fight - like the Patriot Act. Have the people in Virginia revolted yet?

 

[b.c.]

NOT that the Constitution of the United States matters worth a DAMN anymore, but they MIGHT'VE checked the Bill of Rights, Amendment Eight:


Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

NOT that the Constitution of the United States matters worth a DAMN anymore, but they MIGHT'VE checked the Bill of Rights, Amendment Eight:


Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

To use the words of our esteemed Attorney General: How.... quaint.

 

[earllogjam]

NOT that the Constitution of the United States matters worth a DAMN anymore, but they MIGHT'VE checked the Bill of Rights, Amendment Eight:


Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Boy that is clear as day. Thanks BC.

To use the words of our esteemed Attorney General: How.... quaint.

LMAO.
"Sorry....I don't recall. You'll have to consult my collegue Harriet Miers"

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

After recently having been arbitrarily singled out of a line of highway traffic and awarded a costly moving violation, I do sometimes wonder about law enforcement officers' ticket quotas and the county's income generated from traffic fines.

I've been singled out plenty of times I think because of the car I drive. I'll be driving the same speed or slower than the traffic around me sometimes, or be driving at reasonable speeds when NOBODY is around on the road, and still get pulled over because my car is flashy. Then they see my driving record, which shows I get pulled over a lot- becauase lots of other cops also unfairly singled me out, and I get hit with another $1000 ticket. btw, I already started a thread about this.

 

[dong20]

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Quantify excessive - in the context of an amendment created over 200 years ago, and a century before the beloved car existed in any real sense.

If you have $50, then a $51 fine is excessive - $3500 is devastating. If you're a millionaire, it's probably rather less so. This the excess of such fines is somewhat relative and yes in principle they could be considered unfair, but then aren't speeding and drink driving equally so? What would those complaining here consider a reasonable penalty for say, drunk driving or speeding, one that provides no disinsentive to a repeat offence perhaps?

To be serious, a fine commensurate with income for example would certainly seem reasonable at face value but I suspect the time and cost in making such a determination would likely be so time consuming and costly in itself as to render it impractical, never mind the accusations of privacy breaches etc that would ensue.

Of course a degree of sense needs to be applied to the policing of roads and the application of fines for motoring (and other) offences and I fully agree with posters here that this is sadly lacking. I suppose I'm speaking from somewhere which has long since had such heavy duty penalties so while I empathise I don't really sympathise. I can be sure but I suspect they're actually no more illegal in the US than they are here, though they are certainly no less irritating.

The "abuser" fees seem only to apply to state residents is that right? Nasty. But then it's the 'beauty' of a federal system I suppose. I'm not sure it would quite fall under cruel and unusual though, at least not objectively. DC's point about the tolls aside, if the 8th amendment is the sole basis of asserting such fines are illegal, I'm not convinced the case has legs.

In this thread and the other one, the 8th amendment aside, I see lots of gesticulating but no one has, apparently, cited specific law(s) being breached. It looks, from here that it's the more typical response of people unwlling to be held accountable for their behaviour than a genuine, illegal breach of their rights.

I'm more than willing to be convinced otherwise, but then of course it's not me you need to convince. Besides, it may come in useful if I'm pulled over by the troopers.:smile:

 

[dong20]

I've been singled out plenty of times I think because of the car I drive. I'll be driving the same speed or slower than the traffic around me sometimes, or be driving at reasonable speeds when NOBODY is around on the road, and still get pulled over because my car is flashy. Then they see my driving record, which shows I get pulled over a lot- becauase lots of other cops also unfairly singled me out, and I get hit with another $1000 ticket. btw, I already started a thread about this.

Me too and it stings. I suppose the combination of being (then) young and driving a (then) sporty, expensive or otherwise unusual car was irrisistible, though beyond the initial 'pull' I never felt I got unfair treatment.

These days should I chose to drive the same cars I'd most likely be called a merchant banker, and the cops would be more likely to take pity on me than see me a potential piggy bank.

 

[b.c.]

Quantify excessive - in the context of an amendment created over 200 years ago, and a century before the beloved car existed in any real sense.

If you have $50, then a $51 fine is excessive - $3500 is devastating. If you're a millionaire, it's probably rather less so. This the excess of such fines is somewhat relative and yes in principle they could be considered unfair, but then aren't speeding and drink driving equally so? What would those complaining here consider a reasonable penalty for say, drunk driving or speeding, one that provides no disinsentive to a repeat offence perhaps?

To be serious, a fine commensurate with income for example would certainly seem reasonable at face value but I suspect the time and cost in making such a determination would likely be so time consuming and costly in itself as to render it impractical, never mind the accusations of privacy breaches etc that would ensue.

Of course a degree of sense needs to be applied to the policing of roads and the application of fines for motoring (and other) offences and I fully agree with posters here that this is sadly lacking. I suppose I'm speaking from somewhere which has long since had such heavy duty penalties so while I empathise I don't really sympathise. I can be sure but I suspect they're actually no more illegal in the US than they are here, though they are certainly no less irritating.

The "abuser" fees seem only to apply to state residents is that right? Nasty. But then it's the 'beauty' of a federal system I suppose. I'm not sure it would quite fall under cruel and unusual though, at least not objectively. DC's point about the tolls aside, if the 8th amendment is the sole basis of asserting such fines are illegal, I'm not convinced the case has legs.

In this thread and the other one, the 8th amendment aside, I see lots of gesticulating but no one has, apparently, cited specific law(s) being breached. It looks, from here that it's the more typical response of people unwlling to be held accountable for their behaviour than a genuine, illegal breach of their rights.

I'm more than willing to be convinced otherwise, but then of course it's not me you need to convince. Besides, it may come in useful if I'm pulled over by the troopers.:smile:

No, i disagree. Not the typical response of people unwilling to be held accountable. Perhaps the response of people who believe the law either excessive, unfair, or discriminatory in various ways. To express an opinion on such does not qualify it as a "typical response" from irresponsible people.

I think (and this is just my take on it) that there is right and wrong (just and unjust) and then there is the law (what is legal). The first may be difficult to define (given the various takes, aspects and points of view) but concrete nonetheless. The latter (the law) is only what someone says it is at a particular point in time. It is given to change and/or interpretation. Hopefully it is also "just" but it isn't always so. On that note here are a few things to consider:

As you say, a person of wealth would think nothing of such fines. Those of lesser income could be seriously affected and irreparably harmed by the level of such fines. Just?? Or do you say to poorer people "Well you will have to just drive more carefully then." Maybe it's economically discriminatory (and if a certain segment of their population falls into the poverty category, perhaps discriminatory in other ways as well).

Also the additional fees as I understand, (intended to help Virginia pay some its "bills") are to be imposed only on residents of Virginia. Just? Maybe if your were a Virginian, you'd think not. If speeding is speeding then how can the infraction be less severe (as determined by the penalty) just because you don't live in Virginia??

I think perhaps there are MANY issues of "legality" here.

 

[dong20]

No, i disagree. Not the typical response of people unwilling to be held accountable. Perhaps the response of people who believe the law either excessive, unfair, or discriminatory in various ways. To express an opinion on such does not qualify it as a "typical response" from irresponsible people.

Like I say, quantify excessive. I didn't use the word irresponsible, you did.

I think (and this is just my take on it) that there is right and wrong (just and unjust) and then there is the law (what is legal). The first may be difficult to define (given the various takes, aspects and points of view) but concrete nonetheless. The latter (the law) is only what someone says it is at a particular point in time. It is given to change and/or interpretation. Hopefully it is also "just" but it isn't always so. On that note here are a few things to consider:

I quite agree. But of course merely considering something 'mean' or 'unjust' doesn't in itself make it illegal which was the point at issue. At least that's the point I was addressing.

As you say, a person of wealth would think nothing of such fines. Those of lesser income could be seriously affected and irreparably harmed by the level of such fines. Just?? Or do you say to poorer people "Well you will have to just drive more carefully then." Maybe it's economically discriminatory (and if a certain segment of their population falls into the poverty category, perhaps discriminatory in other ways as well).

It's always been that way, when the penalty for a crime is typically financial it will always be less of a deterrent for the rich. Again I don't disagree on the morality of a single speeding ticket resulting in such damage, but again, that wasn't the point I was addressing.

Also the additional fees as I understand, (intended to help Virginia pay some its "bills") are to be imposed only on residents of Virginia. Just? Maybe if your were a Virginian, you'd think not. If speeding is speeding then how can the infraction be less severe (as determined by the penalty) just because you don't live in Virginia??

If you re-read my post you would see I addressed that issue in terms of it's (un)fairness, but fairness and legality are not the same thing, unfortunately.

I think perhaps there are MANY issues of "legality" here.

I disagree, really there's only one. Something is codified or it's not. Most everything else is morality, subjectivity or worse, 'natural justice'.

Do I think it should be illegal to impose arbitary penalities? Yes of course. Do I think it should be illegal to impose severe penalties? Not necessarily, that is until I fall foul of them, which leads me back to the first paragraph.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

I've been singled out plenty of times I think because of the car I drive.

I think I remember you saying you've got a Viper, right? (turns green with envy).

Its a bummer how cops will want to single out and tail a certain car regardless of how its driven. Its somewhat like how bass will rise and follow only certain lures. Only bass are smarter. :smile:

 

[Mr. Snakey]

Virginia introduces the $3550 speeding ticket. The outrageous fees for traffic fines are an effort to generate revenue for the cash strapped state's road repairs.

I always wondered how fines are set, most traffic and parking fines seem to be set on how bad the infraction is but the dollar amount seems arbitrary to me. Fine amounts are unchecked, rise on some do-gooder's whim and are open to abuse but this takes the cake.

When you tie the fine into the need for cash or something other than the appropriate level of punishment - that doesn't sit well with me. It's worse than the quota systems for ticket writers which I think has been phased out.

This sets a bad precedent. Imagine paying $200 for a parking ticket because some city is short of mishandled cash.

Who sets these fines? Isn't this a egregious abuse of our public trust?


washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

Virginia Introduces $3550 Speeding Ticket

How fast were you going? You must have been fucking with the frabric of time:wink:

 

[earllogjam]

I've been singled out plenty of times I think because of the car I drive. I'll be driving the same speed or slower than the traffic around me sometimes, or be driving at reasonable speeds when NOBODY is around on the road, and still get pulled over because my car is flashy. Then they see my driving record, which shows I get pulled over a lot- becauase lots of other cops also unfairly singled me out, and I get hit with another $1000 ticket. btw, I already started a thread about this.

Yeah, Sorry NIC I didn't see your post the other day on this same subject. Thanks for posting here though. I gave a link a few posts back. I have friends who have gotten the same raw deal as you because they drive hot red sports cars or conversely beat up junkers. The State Troopers definitely discriminate on who they pull over. I don't see very many Camry's with a mom and kids in tow pulled over on the road even though I always see many of them speeding. There is also the issue of driving while black.

Quantify excessive - in the context of an amendment created over 200 years ago, and a century before the beloved car existed in any real sense.

If you have $50, then a $51 fine is excessive - $3500 is devastating.

A $3500 fine is excessive if everywhere else in the country the same offense sets you back at most $300 and a Saturday in traffic school.

I get the feeling that cops in the UK are much more civil and respecting of their citizens, cordial. I can't say I feel the same way about cops here in this country from all the experiences I've had with them. I'm with Speedoguy on this one. Some of these guys are downright evil. So to put this discriminating power of screwing you financially in their hands just angers me. Whoever they decide they don't like that day gets screwed. That seems how it works here in the States.

I think I remember you saying you've got a Viper, right? (turns green with envy).

Viper! Wow. That car must be a chick magnet too NIC. Doesn't that balance out things?

How fast were you going? You must have been fucking with the frabric of time:wink:

Yes, the fabic of time warps at 85 mph in the middle of butt fuck nowhere. :smile:

 

[DC_DEEP]

I've been singled out plenty of times I think because of the car I drive. I'll be driving the same speed or slower than the traffic around me sometimes, or be driving at reasonable speeds when NOBODY is around on the road, and still get pulled over because my car is flashy. Then they see my driving record, which shows I get pulled over a lot- becauase lots of other cops also unfairly singled me out, and I get hit with another $1000 ticket. btw, I already started a thread about this.

I have been a passenger in your Viper. I do have some inkling of how you drive, NIC. So, all I will say is,




No comment.

 

[dong20]

Yeah, Sorry NIC I didn't see your post the other day on this same subject. Thanks for posting here though. I gave a link a few posts back. I have friends who have gotten the same raw deal as you because they drive hot red sports cars or conversely beat up junkers. The State Troopers definitely discriminate on who they pull over. I don't see very many Camry's with a mom and kids in tow pulled over on the road even though I always see many of them speeding. There is also the issue of driving while black.

They do the same here, I'm not sure they pick particular types of car so much as the combination of car, driver and location/time etc as well as driving performance.

A $3500 fine is excessive if everywhere else in the country the same offense sets you back at most $300 and a Saturday in traffic school.

Maybe, at least at face value. But the argument could be made the $300 and days traffic school is sometimes too lenient.

Fines for speeding in the UK range from about fixed penalty £60 and 3 points to £2500 + costs, a ban and a requirement to retake your test when it expires. For drink driving a 12-18 month ban is mandatory, a fine of up to £5000 ($10,000) + costs and possibly up to 6 months jail time. Plus your insurance goes through the roof, if you can get it and it's up to a £5000 fine if you're caught driving without it. Repeat within 10 years and it's a mandatory 3 year ban, retest etc.

You can be fined up to £1000 (and a possible ban) for refusing a roadside test, £5000 for refusing to give a sample plus potential 3 months jail time and ban. You can be fined up to £2500 just for being in charge of a car while over the limit, not even driving.

My point being; in the US you get off comparatively lightly, as I said I empathise but I dont sympathise. In the end it comes down to one thing - if you know the penalty beforehand and go ahead to commit the offence and get caught, isn't whining afterward rather pathetic?

That aside, I do think motorists are a soft target for governments, especially in the US, for a variety of reasons.

I get the feeling that cops in the UK are much more civil and respecting of their citizens, cordial. I can't say I feel the same way about cops here in this country from all the experiences I've had with them. I'm with Speedoguy on this one. Some of these guys are downright evil. So to put this discriminating power of screwing you financially in their hands just angers me. Whoever they decide they don't like that day gets screwed. That seems how it works here in the States.

I can't say, never having had any run-ins with cops in the US with which to compare so I'll have to take your word from it. I think there are dangers posed to them in the US that don't exist to any significant degree in the UK, most particulary the risk of firearms use. I suppose that leads to their attitude being less cordial.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

I have been a passenger in your Viper. I do have some inkling of how you drive, NIC. So, all I will say is,




No comment.

haha.

I've never got a ticket for any of the reckless things I DO do in the car. It's always for stupid crap like what I described above.

and... c'mon.. we drove down Rt. 50 to Anita's. What did I have time to do? I explained why I did the powerslide through that U-turn...

Viper! Wow. That car must be a chick magnet too NIC. Doesn't that balance out things?

I think overall it probably gets as much bad attention as good but I still like it.

 

[dong20]

I've never got a ticket for any of the reckless things I DO do in the car. It's always for stupid crap like what I described above.

I know, some of the stupid shit I did behind the wheel when I was younger and never got caught for....

my last ticket was (I swear to God) speed 41 mph in a 35 mph zone. On Stone Rd, where EVERYBODY goes 45 or 50. Including every single cop I've ever seen drive down that road which the cop who pulled me over openly admitted to. He also admitted to pulling me over because my car was flashy. I mentioned this to the judge. He didn't care.

I get that it feels unfair, in some respects it is but in the end you were doing 41 in a 35 - so what others do or don't do there is irrelevant. People are hyocritical when it comes to applying rules.

I'm not a anti speeding freak by any means and if conditions are right - for example 3 a.m. on a deserted motorway I think speed limits can present more of a hazard - I've done over 160 on a bike on the motorway before today but here's the thing; if I'm caught doing something 'wrong' even something I don't think is wrong, really, who's to blame... that's right. Me.

This thread is replete with a heady aroma of sour grapes mixed with a tinge of righteous indignation. When someone speeds or drink drives and causes an accident it's too often the very same people that whine about 'excessive' fines who are among the very first to point the finger.

I used to love driving but nowadays, in the UK it's more a delay and over regulated hassle than a pleasure. In that regard I do think that much of the 'fun' of life is steadily being sucked out of it by our governments and being replaced with blanked rules that take no account of particular circumstances.

 

[LeeEJ]

To be serious, a fine commensurate with income for example would certainly seem reasonable at face value but I suspect the time and cost in making such a determination would likely be so time consuming and costly in itself as to render it impractical, never mind the accusations of privacy breaches etc that would ensue.

It's been done elsewhere, though, and to me, it's the only way to make fines (of any amount) seem fair to everybody. You won't have these people who could hypothetically write out a check on the spot for the full $3000 and continue on their way.

My usual rant against speeding regulations:

It's not speed itself that's dangerous, it's speed differential among traffic that needs to be curtailed. Picking someone at random -- or because they drive a Viper -- out of a line of identically-driven cars is bullshit. I'd rather see someone get busted if they're going noticeably faster and weaving through traffic -- OR if they're going too damned slow in the wrong lane and causing everyone else behind them to get bunched up while trying to get around.

If the speed limit's 60, and everyone's going 75, then it's safest to go 75 with everyone else. The zealot who tries to stick with the letter of the law is only going to cause problems because they're going 15 mph slower than everyone else. That's like going 45 in a 60, or even 5 mph in a 25-mph residential zone.

This is why I don't like speed limits. It's not because whether I think they're stupid -- sometimes they are, but a lot of the time they make sense, too. It's because of drivers' reactions to them. They give some people an excuse to clog up traffic and others a thrill of "breaking the law", which, when combined, is more dangerous overall, IMO.

Say that an interstate highway has a speed limit of 65, but people just drive 75. Raise the posted limit to 75, and I really don't think that people will suddenly be going 85 instead. The states that do have 75 mph limits don't have people going over 80 anyway. So, they end up with everyone hustling along at 75 to 80 mph, which is much more "flow-friendly" than a variety of people going anywhere between 60 and 80 (which is what happens with a 60 mph posted limit).

 

[dong20]

It's been done elsewhere, though, and to me, it's the only way to make fines (of any amount) seem fair to everybody. You won't have these people who could hypothetically write out a check on the spot for the full $3000 and continue on their way.

I'd be interested to see how successful it was, and how much it cost to run.

My usual rant against speeding regulations:

It's not speed itself that's dangerous, it's speed differential among traffic that needs to be curtailed. Picking someone at random -- or because they drive a Viper -- out of a line of identically-driven cars is bullshit. I'd rather see someone get busted if they're going noticeably faster and weaving through traffic -- OR if they're going too damned slow in the wrong lane and causing everyone else behind them to get bunched up while trying to get around.

In principle and in some circumstances I agree with you. The amount of times I see idiots weaving lanes because they are 'held up' behind other cars, which themselves may be speeding or because the road is simply busy is countless. It's these idiots that should be banged to the wall. I don't care how late you are, it's surely not worth dying for, certainly not worth killing for.

If the speed limit's 60, and everyone's going 75, then it's safest to go 75 with everyone else. The zealot who tries to stick with the letter of the law is only going to cause problems because they're going 15 mph slower than everyone else. That's like going 45 in a 60, or even 5 mph in a 25-mph residential zone.

Again, in principle I agree, at least on motorways and rural roads. But then shouldn't drivers have the right to drive at the limit or if the deem it prudent, for example bad weather below it? - should they be forced to drive illegally or dangerously merely because it's an inconvenience to others who want to drive faster regardless of risk? Look at fog or heavy rain, people drive like idiots, speed being only one factor, the results are predictable.

In residential areas however, I disagree, speeding through residential streets, especially during daylight hours when schools or children are active is both selfish and dangerous and I support the harshest penalties being thrown at drivers who do that, no execeptions.

This is why I don't like speed limits. It's not because whether I think they're stupid -- sometimes they are, but a lot of the time they make sense, too. It's because of drivers' reactions to them. They give some people an excuse to clog up traffic and others a thrill of "breaking the law", which, when combined, is more dangerous overall, IMO.

Again, I don't disagree, after all as you say that's why there limits, not every driver has the ability to properly and safely control a vehicle at high speed - high speed being rather subjective of course.

Say that an interstate highway has a speed limit of 65, but people just drive 75. Raise the posted limit to 75, and I really don't think that people will suddenly be going 85 instead. The states that do have 75 mph limits don't have people going over 80 anyway.

Providing accident rates remain constant, or drop you would have no argument from me. I can't speak for the US but in the UK we have a 70 mph motorway limit and many do 80-90.

Many modern cars have better performance than 'race/rally' cars of 20-30 of years ago but driving standards seem to be steadily declining, many of today's cars out perform their drivers, they are crammed with safety devices that can lull drivers into a false sense of over confidence.

On the flip side look at Autobahns, some are unrestricted yet have lower accident rates than some restricted roads. Modern vehicle safety, effective traffic management when coupled with high quality road construction and maintenance probably leading to reduced delay induced frustration must be factors there.

The problem is that revenue generation gets in the way, plus it's harder to sell the argument against speed controls than it is for them. I have not said that the fines at the root of this thread were either excessive or reasonable, that depends on circumstances, merely that they may not actually be illegal as has been alleged.

As with many such contentious issues conventional wisdom too often prevails even if it flys in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Montana - No Speed Limit Safety Paradox - 2001 UPDATE

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

I get that it feels unfair, in some respects it is but in the end you were doing 41 in a 35 - so what others do or don't do there is irrelevant.

It's in no way irrelevant. In the kangaroo court of Fairfax maybe, but not in respect to fairness. If it was really SO unsafe to drive 41 mph on that road, then why does every cop car go 50 mph when they are on the same road? The fact that there were other cars on the same road at the same time going the same speed doesn't just feel unfair it is unfair. The fact that they can hand out tickets at all on that road for going that speed is not just unfair it's illegal. If you call VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) and get copies of the engineering surveys done on Stone you'll see that the 85th percentile of free flowing traffic is moving well above 35 mph and closer to 50. This is where the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the federal standard, dictates the limit should be posted, because speed traps are supposed to be illegal. There aren't supposed to be roads where cops can sit around all day long and issue ticket after ticket after ticket after ticket. Because most people drive at what they feel are reasonably safe speeds. Posting limits so low that you CAN do this opens up the possibility for arbitrary abuse because that cop can single out anybody he feels like... because they're black or young or male or they drive a shiny car he can't afford. What's worse: YES, I could ALWAYS go the speed limit (though 6 over... at speeds that low... that's nothing... that's like if I farted and the air from my ass wafted down and depressed the pedal a little bit. If I tap the pedal in my car I'm going 80... anyway..).. I could make sure I was always at least 1 mph under what's posted... but if I did that that would be less safe. Everyone else on the road would be zooming past, because the speed limits everywhere are posted stupidly low to keep profits up. The disparity in our relative speeds would create a condition on the road where a collision was more likely than if I was just going along at roughly the same speed as everyone else. These aren't even the only reasons it's unfair but a couple anyway.