By Fox - 25/02/2013 03:41 - United States
Add a comment - Reply to : #
Happened to me once. But I was already below the speed limit when I passed the cop's radar. Although he followed me till I parked, he wasn't able to substantiate me speeding so I didn't get a ticket. You don't "slam" the brakes OP! Big no no.. Small jerking till you reach the required speed.
OP said it was the middle of nowhere and it sounded like there was nothing around to necessitate breaking hard. Slamming your breaks without reason to the point of blowing a tire can be regarded reckless and you will have a tough time proving the opposite if you took it to court. At the same time, if a cop is parked at the bottom of a hill, you can bet his radar is on. Why else would he be sitting there?
That depends on what your definition of "extremely fast" is. There was a case where the speeder got to keep his license while going 180 km/h on a 90 road; he did it on a stretch and the judge accepted his reasoning that it couldn't be reckless driving since no-one else was around. Of course, he still got to pay a fine, but that's to be expected. Speeding on some roads can be totally reasonable, while going exactly the speed limit on another is reckless. Driving is situational
It doesn't matter if the road you're on is empty. Driving unnecessarily fast is dangerous. You can veer off suddenly and crash.
Yeah if you suck at driving maybe... there's absolutely nothing wrong with going fast as long as you don't go faster than you're comfortable going. Speeding tickets are the stupidest way of squeezing money out of people. The majority of it goes to things that should just be gotten from taxes anyway.
I love how you bring up the old sentiment gone truism of speeding not saving you time. Let's assume you're going to see your relatives up north: a 1000km drive with a mean speed limit of 80 is not too unreasonable. If you just increase your speed to 100km/h, you do the drive in 10h, instead of 12h 30min. If you factor in taking breaks to eat, you're looking at about 12h instead of 14h 30min. To me, it's quite obvious which is more pleasant. Of course you're right about going 50 in a 30 zone is absolutely unacceptable, but speeding does save you time. And past 50 pedestrians die close to always anyway.
In that case sure you will definately save time. But lets say you're only going 10 kilometers, then I don't see why it's necessary to save a couple of minutes. Speeding is most dangerous in city traffic where you have a lot of other people around you. And just as you said, in that case I think it would be better to follow speed limits. You might love that I'm bringing it up but it's actually proven that a person has a much higher chance of surviving if he or she is being hit by a car that drives 30km/h instead of 50.
He wasn't driving near civilization. He was driving the back roads out away from populated areas. The argument that going higher than the speed limit is dangerous is completely false outside of city streets and high-traffic highways. Vehicles these days more often than not can easily and safely function at 80-100 mph on major highways, much less with consideration to a lot of factors regarding the back road you're on. My car can easily take back roads around where I live at 20-25 mph over the speed limit and a little less than double recommended turn speeds. The trick is to be smart about it. Always slow down when entering populated areas and use proper judgement. A lot of people are stuck in the past regarding safe speeds, cars are capable of safely moving at much higher speeds while speed limits stay the same. Most speed limits are actually decided by fuel economy, not what speed is considered "safe."
Helpful hint, "if you can see them, they've already seen you." Keep that in mind and drive safely. Also you deserved it for slamming on your brakes, which makes you look more guilty when the cops really are there.