Am I too scrupulous here? (speed limits)

[paramedicgirl]

This is so weird. I remember posting in this thread months ago, in April. Now those posts are gone, 'cause of the great time warp! Can’t remember what I said, either, or I would re-write it!

 

[Petergee]

As an example, I was walking along a road which has a 60 mph limit, (but now has a 63 -ish mph limit because it was changed over to metric 100 kilometers per hour), anyway an artic truck travelling 50 to 55-ish came around a shallow bend and lo and behold a tiny ford fiesta was ahead of him doing about 25 mph. The truck had to brake very hard, skidded, the trailer wobbling from side to side - the truck stopped about 2 feet from the back of the fiesta. Slow driving can be dangerous.

No dispute there. If the limit is 63, people expect most of the traffic to be travelling at 50 to 60, and deliberately doing 25 could create a dangerous hazard. But no more so than say a tractor or a bicycle or a veteran car whose MAXIMUM speed is 25. It is your responsibility to be prepared to cope with any hazard you come across, whether an animal that runs onto the road or a slow vehicle encountered just after a blind bend.

But if I am driving below the legal limit, any “danger” caused by the fact that someone behind me wants to travel faster than the speed limit, is entirely his fault, not mine at all.

When you are being tailgated you have three options under the road rules, accelerate to put a safe distance between you both, or allow the tailgater to pass by moving in if possible or continue as you are - in a dangerous situation.

If you accelerate, you will usually find the tailgater simply accelerates too. Plus if your acceleration takes you past the speeed limit then you too will be breaking the law. I find the best method is to tap lightly on the brakes a couple of times. If his tailgating is caused by inattention, this will bring him to his senses and he will back off. You get the occasional thug who continues to tailgate. In this case your only option is to evade him by moving sideways when you can safely do so, note his number plate and report the incident to police.

 

[Petergee]

I’m sure from a pharisaical point of view it is.

Please explain?
It is illogical to argue that “abortion is legal but immoral, therefore it’s moral to disobey any laws I find inconvenient”.

 

[Coder]

Christians often don’t do things blindly. We often understand the purpose of laws and therefore obey them according to their purpose. In some cases, such as Church law we may not fully understand but obey out of faith in Jesus and obedience to Him. However, for state laws we obey with some sense of trust but the not the same trust and faith that we have in Jesus and His Church. If we understand the purpose of a state law and its morally and socially acceptable interpretation/application then I think we need not be legalistic about it. This does not mean we arbitrarily disobey them based on finding them inconvenient. I consider the speed limit an example of a state law that is morally and socially accepted to typically have small leeway but not so much as to endanger.

 

[paramedicgirl]

No dispute there. If the limit is 63, people expect most of the traffic to be travelling at 50 to 60, and deliberately doing 25 could create a dangerous hazard. But no more so than say a tractor or a bicycle or a veteran car whose MAXIMUM speed is 25. It is your responsibility to be prepared to cope with any hazard you come across, whether an animal that runs onto the road or a slow vehicle encountered just after a blind bend.

 

[Petergee]

Petergee;1485205:

That’s not exactly the way the law sees it. I attended a 4 vehicle crash recently that was caused by someone stopped on the highway attempting to make a left hand turn. They had a line up of traffic behind them, all stopped, and a rec vehicle comes over the hill at highway speed and ploughs into them, causing damage to 3 vehicles plus their own. Charges were not laid because the police said they had no vision coming over the hill, and no ability to stop.

Fair enough, in a few cases, the driver who ploughs into the back of someone has diminished responsibility because he couldn’t reasonably have anticipated the hazard. But that does NOT mean that the car that was stopped was at fault.

That depends on the law where you live. In BC, if you have a line up of five or more vehicles behind you, and you are going slow, causing the wolf pack, you must pull over or get ticketed.

Yes, if by “slow” you mean say 20 km/h below the speed limit. But if by “slow” you mean, as some in this thread do, “at the speed limit or just below it”, you will not and should not get a ticket. What would be the charge? “Wilfilly obeying the law and so preventing others from breaking the law”?

Ask any cop or paramedic and they will tell you it is dangerous to hit your brakes when you are being tailgated. You may get rearended.

I said “lightly tap”, not “hit”. The flash of brake-lights usually brings the tailgater to his senses.

 

[wjp984]

why not just confess it if you think it is a sin and don’t confess it if you don’t think it is a sin. I don’t know why we are arguing. Of course be careful who you confess to. Some priests probably will reprimend you for confessing such a trivial thing.

 

[Petergee]

why not just confess it if you think it is a sin and don’t confess it if you don’t think it is a sin. I don’t know why we are arguing.

Because it’s infinitely better not to commit the sin in the first place; and because the question of whether something is a sin or not, is not simply a matter of personal opinion: - the latter is the great modern error of relativism.

 

[I_Leatherman]

why not just confess it if you think it is a sin and don’t confess it if you don’t think it is a sin. I don’t know why we are arguing. Of course be careful who you confess to. Some priests probably will reprimend you for confessing such a trivial thing.

But, we like arguing…:banghead:
In a society where we know the majority drives above the limit, people driving below the limit know they will eventually become a hazard and so they then also have a moral responsability to reduce the hazard to the majority of idiots.

 

[Crumpy]

I worked in Illinois, in the metro Chicago area. My co-workers were convinced that speeding was normal and that not speeding was stupid.

I drive within speed limits not just because I don’t want the expensive speeding tickets, but I don’t want my insurance rates to go up excessively, either.

Speeding is not the half of what some drivers do. They’re all over the road, because even some speeders are not speeding enough for the other speeders.

If I’m at the speed limit, it’s easier for other drivers to predict what I’m going to do, than if I’m speeding and dodging like they are. Don’t lie here. If everybody was speeding, some people would always have to go even faster.

Speeding isn’t the only issue here. Why are you speeding? Because it is your “right”? Why did you start out late for your destination? What are you going to gain by speeding? What are you going to gain by racing through that caution light?

On some well-traveled roads in my town, people simply going through town often are familiar with the timing of traffic lights, and are speeding to make it through the gauntlet of the lights. Within city limits, speeders are violating the rights of pedestrians to safety. Speeders also have the habit of tailgaiting and trying to push all the others off the road.

People who speed on icy roads are something special, too.

The people who smash up their vehicles also violate my rights by forcing my insurance premiums upward. In Michigan, not only do the insurance rates go up, but we have this fund for medical expenses of uninsured people. What started out as maybe a nice idea at $5 per year per vehicle is now adding over $200 per year per vehicle. Now I have to pay for the people stupid enough to drive without insurance, who speed on top of that?

when you add in the factors of young drivers who are risky to begin with, and with the large number of people using illegal drugs, I say throw the book at them.

 

[Petergee]

I can’t wait for the day when every car has a “black box” which automatically detects whenever the driver is speeding, tailgating, disobeying a traffic signal, drunk, drugged etc, and automatically deducts the fine from his bank account and the demerit points from his licence. We have the technology - let’s do it! and then we needn’t have this silly argument.

 

[paramedicgirl]

I think it’s pretty plain that speeding is a sin against the fifth commandment - Thou shall not kill. Even if you don’t kill yourself or someone else, the potential is there, and you are setting a bad example. “Render unto Caesar’s that which is Caesar’s” abide by just laws, don’t break them.

When I am driving the ambulance code 3, which means lights and sirens activated, we are allowed to break the laws and speed. Several times now, I have been shadowed by other vehicles who go right behind me, weaving in and out of traffic, using the ambulance as a shield to get by all the other cars. This is very dangerous. I have also been passed on the right when I am in the fast lane with lights and sirens on. Another dangerous situation. Some people are either very stupid, very impatient, or both!

 

[a_priori]

Please explain?
It is illogical to argue that “abortion is legal but immoral, therefore it’s moral to disobey any laws I find inconvenient”.

This is a non sequitur.

If you want to stop at stop signs in the middle of the desert because it is a sin not to, then fine. I guess we’ll have to answer for our driving some day so you should conduct yourself according to your conscience.

My opinion doesn’t matter.

 

[wjp984]

I can’t wait for the day when every car has a “black box” which automatically detects whenever the driver is speeding, tailgating, disobeying a traffic signal, drunk, drugged etc, and automatically deducts the fine from his bank account and the demerit points from his licence. We have the technology - let’s do it! and then we needn’t have this silly argument.

want to know why that will never happen? We also have the technology to make cars only go the maximum speed limit anywhere in the country which is 75. Do we do that, no. Just think about what you are describing. There would be trafic jams everywhere and the cars would be backed up for miles. You seem to like being a safe driver so you know the rules. You should be a nice safe distance behind the next car which means you have to go slower than him or her. But I guess you like bumper to bumper traffic since at least no one is speeding since that is exactly what you will have. not to mention extreme tailgating.

Oh, I think you should stick to the bible passages and church doctrine for your arguments. At least they are rational arguments.

 

[jmcrae]

I can’t wait for the day when every car has a “black box” which automatically detects whenever the driver is speeding, tailgating, disobeying a traffic signal, drunk, drugged etc, and automatically deducts the fine from his bank account and the demerit points from his licence. We have the technology - let’s do it! and then we needn’t have this silly argument.

Where I live, we have the Multinova, which is a machine they insert into the streetlights, that could be anywhere. It detects whether you are speeding and whether you run a red light, and it sends a picture of your license plate to the police station.

They move the multinova around from place to place, and there is no way of knowing where it is.

You then get a lovely 4x5 black and white picture of yourself caught in the act in the mail, together with a summons to go to court if you want to fight it, or else the option to pay the fine by mail. If you don’t show up for court and you don’t pay the fine by a certain date, then they won’t renew your license plates the following year, and you aren’t allowed to drive.

I’ve noticed that a lot fewer people around here consider themselves “entitled” to speed, any more. People are so polite and nice, anymore, since they started putting those up.

 

[LilyM]

want to know why that will never happen? We also have the technology to make cars only go the maximum speed limit anywhere in the country which is 75. Do we do that, no. Just think about what you are describing. There would be trafic jams everywhere and the cars would be backed up for miles. You seem to like being a safe driver so you know the rules. You should be a nice safe distance behind the next car which means you have to go slower than him or her. But I guess you like bumper to bumper traffic since at least no one is speeding since that is exactly what you will have. not to mention extreme tailgating.

Oh, I think you should stick to the bible passages and church doctrine for your arguments. At least they are rational arguments.

I think ‘render unto Caesar what is Caesars’ is pretty convincing - after all, paying those taxes would’ve been fairly harsh for everyone, but Jesus didn’t consider himself entitled to break a morally OK law whenever he felt like it.

 

[wjp984]

sure he did, Jesus went and healed the sick on the Sabbath.

 

[wjp984]

oh also, Jesus was just saying the one thing that would not get him into trouble. If he said pay taxes, he would upset off the Jews. If he said don’t pay them, he would upset off the Romans. But he said the one thing that no one can fight him on.

 

[Coder]

I think ‘render unto Caesar what is Caesars’ is pretty convincing - after all, paying those taxes would’ve been fairly harsh for everyone, but Jesus didn’t consider himself entitled to break a morally OK law whenever he felt like it.

I think that teaching of Jesus was more about the hypocrisy of those who claimed to seek freedom from Rome but had no problem haording/using Roman money. I think Jesus was at least in part showing then that a.) if they feel so strongly then holding Roman money is a contradiction and/or b.) if they are holding Roman money then it is clear they are asking him about taxes only to trick him.

I think the lesson in this teaching is very deep and relates not only to obeying laws but to how our involvement with others can affect/obligate us and cause us to compromise.

Your point about obeying moral laws is still valid - I’m just not sure that was Jesus’ main teaching in that story.

Also, remember we obey laws but not legalistically - i.e. letter vs. spirit. See my previous posts. It is possible to be ridiculous/scrupulous about it - and that’s what the original poster was asking about.

I think that a small/reasonable speed above the speed limit can be within the spirit of the law. Provided this is not used as an excuse to take advantage. I must also admit that due to this thread I’m noticing my speed relative to the speed limit.

 

[Petergee]

This is a non sequitur.

Yes, that’s my point.

want to know why that will never happen?

A very dangerous prediction. I’m not that old, but I remember when many if most pundits told us we would “never” see many things that are now so well accepted that it’s hard to imagine there was a time when we didn’t have them:

• compulsory seatbelts for car passengers, helmets for motorcyclists, and later, treadle cyclists;
• automatic radar speed cameras;
• police randomly stopping drivers and testing for alcohol;
• drivers caught with excess alcohol levels being gaoled as criminals;
• compulsory logbooks and later speed governors for heavy trucks, with massive penalties for noncompliance; etc. etc.

We also have the technology to make cars only go the maximum speed limit anywhere in the country which is 75. Do we do that, no. Just think about what you are describing. There would be trafic jams everywhere and the cars would be backed up for miles.

No, anyone who has studied basic physics will tell you that traffick will travel much more smoothly and all cars will get to their destination faster if they are all travelling about the same speed. Having some cars travel much faster creates chaotic and inefficient traffic movement. Not to mention the tailgating, the dangerous lane-hopping etc which together with speeding cause accidents which really clog up the traffic. Especially fatal accidents (which happen ONLY at high speed) which jam the traffic for an hour or more while the police investigators do their work.

You seem to like being a safe driver so you know the rules. You should be a nice safe distance behind the next car which means you have to go slower than him or her.

Er, no, it means I must go the same speed as the car in front.

But I guess you like bumper to bumper traffic since at least no one is speeding since that is exactly what you will have.

On the contrary, as I explained, traffic would be much smoother.

not to mention extreme tailgating.

I guess you missed reading where I said the “black box” would detect and punish tailgating.

Oh, I think you should stick to the bible passages and church doctrine for your arguments. At least they are rational arguments.

I think that is a fundamentalist idea, and that God gave us all a rational mind to work out rational reasons for our actions, not necessarily based on Scripture or doctrine.