1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

NH man, pregnant wife get speeding ticket on way to hospital

Discussion in 'The OT' started by James Long, Jan 7, 2011.

  1. Jan 9, 2011 #101 of 182
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,751
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Are you speaking of the case in the beginning of this thread or some other arbitrary case?
     
  2. Jan 9, 2011 #102 of 182
    SDimwit

    SDimwit AllStar

    78
    0
    Jul 13, 2008
    True, however the cause of that drop in fatalities is not magic, or luck, or some form of evolution, it's access to medical care.
     
  3. Jan 9, 2011 #103 of 182
    SDimwit

    SDimwit AllStar

    78
    0
    Jul 13, 2008
    Since people routinely die in accidents at less than 40mph, you could argue that driving at even posted speeds is "reckless" according to that first statute.
    I'm just sayin'...
     
  4. Jan 9, 2011 #104 of 182
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,259
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    ^ Exactly correct. It appears to be a variation of the basic speed law many states have (maybe all). If the posted speed limit is 40, but the roads are slick and there is fog, you may not be able to drive 40 safely. If you do, and you crash, you could be cited for reckless driving.
     
  5. Jan 9, 2011 #105 of 182
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,751
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    There are plenty of roads where 40 is permitted when conditions allow.
    I know of no public road in New Hampshire where 102 is permitted.
     
  6. Jan 9, 2011 #106 of 182
    tcusta00

    tcusta00 Active Member

    7,911
    1
    Dec 31, 2007
    Neither, I'm speaking of my own personal experience, as I stated before.
     
  7. Jan 9, 2011 #107 of 182
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I have seen that argument before... but honestly, there can't be any possible way to prove that faster = safer.

    As James said... the roads are safer when everyone is going at the same speed... because you don't have weaving and passing involved when all are at the same speed and nothing unexpected happens to cause a change in course.

    But the argument that faster = safer never works.

    The faster you drive, the less time you have to react to anything unexpected... period. Also, the faster you are going at the time of a collision, the worse the danger and damage... period.

    I would much rather be involved in an accident in a head-on collision going 10 mph than I would going 100 mph! It's also much easier to dodge that animal in the road at a lower speed.
     
  8. Jan 9, 2011 #108 of 182
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,259
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    Anyway, when does this guy go to court and will we hear the outcome? Will the Judge throw the book at him?
     
  9. Jan 9, 2011 #109 of 182
    MysteryMan

    MysteryMan Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    8,457
    515
    May 17, 2010
    USA
    You are incorrect. Speed limits are not posted for the worst drivers. They are posted because of conditions, type of road and land use as I stated in post #36. Read post #18 if you havn't done so and then tell me speeding can be warranted. Driving 102mph in a posted 55mph zone is reckless endangerment no matter how much you or anyone else tries to sugar coat it!
     
  10. Jan 9, 2011 #110 of 182
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,259
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    Word games here, but speed does not kill. If it did, humans wouldn't be able to fly or set land speed records or get launched into space in rockets.

    But if you screw up, speed will definitely compound the consequences.
     
  11. Jan 9, 2011 #111 of 182
    scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,303
    34
    Apr 22, 2002
    Youngsville NC
    Speed doesn't kill - sudden cessation of movement in one direction does. And the more speed /momentum you have in one direction that gets violently terminated, the more the consequences are.
     
  12. Jan 9, 2011 #112 of 182
    trh

    trh This Space for Sale

    5,632
    275
    Nov 2, 2007
    NE FL
    According to the article, this happened back in September. You'd think this would have been in court by now, but the article (dated 1/4/2011) says it goes to court on Monday. So maybe we'll hear something later this week?
     
  13. Jan 9, 2011 #113 of 182
    MysteryMan

    MysteryMan Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    8,457
    515
    May 17, 2010
    USA
    That's because the judicial system doesn't move at the same speed John Coughlin does! ;)
     
  14. Jan 9, 2011 #114 of 182
    djlong

    djlong Hall Of Fame

    4,343
    57
    Jul 8, 2002
    New Hampshire
    I hate to say it, but hitting a stationary trooper with a 2-ton vehicle means that anything over 20MPH (or about 40-50MPH if the trooper is in the car) means dying. We've had an unusual number of those kinds of collisions up here recently. Mostly drunk drivers. There's a new theory that the new kinds of lights on top of cruisers are causing a "moth to the flame" effect on drunks but nobody's got any proof yet.
     
  15. Jan 9, 2011 #115 of 182
    MysteryMan

    MysteryMan Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    8,457
    515
    May 17, 2010
    USA
    The trooper who lost her life was not stationary. She was on patrol and driving at the posted 55mph speed limit. The jerk that killed her was not drunk. Like John Coughlin he chose to be reckless. The results of his actions speak for themself.
     
  16. Jan 9, 2011 #116 of 182
    The Merg

    The Merg 1*

    10,289
    35
    Jun 24, 2007
    Northern VA
    There's a code section for that too...

    § 46.2-861. Driving too fast for highway and traffic conditions.
    A person shall be guilty of reckless driving who exceeds a reasonable speed under the circumstances and traffic conditions existing at the time, regardless of any posted speed limit.

    Actually, the issue is the blue lights. It's been shown that drunk drivers are more attracted to the flashing blue lights than other colors. A lot of departments have gone with the yellow directional lights on the back of their light bars to try to circumvent this issue. However, with the light bars getting thinner now, that is not so much a possibility now.

    - Merg
     
  17. Jan 9, 2011 #117 of 182
    smiddy

    smiddy Tain't ogre til its ogre

    15,654
    121
    Apr 5, 2006
    So it is that cut and dry? Interesting, thanks!
     
  18. Jan 9, 2011 #118 of 182
    smiddy

    smiddy Tain't ogre til its ogre

    15,654
    121
    Apr 5, 2006
    Nope, I'm trying to understand. I already mentioned that at those speeds a mistake is more than likely catastrophic. Similar to aircraft.
     
  19. Jan 9, 2011 #119 of 182
    smiddy

    smiddy Tain't ogre til its ogre

    15,654
    121
    Apr 5, 2006
    Moose! :D ...and Deer. That stretch I can't recall any deer strikes during the rut though.
     
  20. Jan 9, 2011 #120 of 182
    smiddy

    smiddy Tain't ogre til its ogre

    15,654
    121
    Apr 5, 2006
    I recall doing my driver's license test in California, there was a question on the test that wanted you to remember to go the speed that is safe, not necessarily the speed limit (I can't recall the actual verbage [not verbiage]), so that is how I try to drive, to what is safe. Now, based on The Merg's post, those laws are for Virginia I presume, but I suspect they aren't too different from the rest of the country, though Montana did do their own thing, you should probably adhere to both, safety and the expecatations of what the laws are, in order to avoid a situation with law enforcement officials. That would seem to be the best course, I would think.
     

Share This Page