Speeding - Teaching American Faithful "The Morality of Rationilization"

[fix]

That is because you are presuming that because a law is written, that it has specific moral implications.

That is assumed because it is true. If it is a just law it should be obeyed. The authority of the state to make laws is derived from God.

Just because they post a speed limit on the interstate does not mean that in and of itself it has a moral implication -

Sure it does. It says that is the maximum speed and should be obeyed. If not the state could have no limit if that was their intent.

that if you go faster than the limit, that you have made a moral transgression. If you go over the limit - 65 in a 55 zone of a highway - you may get a ticket and have to pay a fine; but that does not mean you are a bad person,

It says you committed a bad act. Moral culpability is a different issue.

that syou have sinned, that you have to confess the act.

If mortal if must be confessed.

You have not necessarily violated the basic speed law, which is that you must drive safely for yourself and others.

Is that how the statuted is written in each state? That the maximum speed is merely a suggestion? If that is what is written then you are correct.

That is why the cops generally don’t ticket someone doing 65 on a highway marked 55;

If the state says the police have the authority to enforce as they deem necessary then they have that authority or the police may fail to enforce for others reason, but none of that makes speeding licit.

you are generally driving safely, particularly if you are moving with the general traffic speed. It has nothing to do with relativism; it has to do with how law is written and what the intent of the legislature was when they wrote it. In almost all cases involving the 55 limit on highways, it was only to avoid a dcut-off of federal funds, not to make a statement about the morality of driving at a certain speed.

Again, if the state says one may exceed the limit due to traffic flow one is free to speed. If the state says no such thing then one should obey.

 

[rwoehmke]

You state that “60 on the Interstate is just too slow”. Well, I ask are YOU up to the demands of traveling faster than 88 feet per second? Even at 40MPH (59 fps)?? A helluva lot can happen in 60 feet, considering the best driver wasted about 20 feet of it in the time it took to get from the gas to the brake pedal! Just follow the posted limit, and leave home 10 minutes earlier… problem solved… and no “Little Jimmy” to scrape off!

Which reminds me that a moving car has momentum, in other words when you take your foot off the gas, it keeps going for a while. If you hit an immovable object, it still wants to keep going and so does every thing in the car including your self. Its a form of moving energy that has to dissipate in some way. Momentum increases as the square of the velocity(speed) or V x V x mass (your weight or the cars weight) = momentum. Lots more momentum at 60 than at 30. Even more at 80. Usually when seat belted and with air bags people survive at 60. At 80 it gets tougher. In Germany on the autobahn there are stretches where there is no speed limit. Speeds of a 100 plus are common. When one of those dudes crash, they just scrape them up. Not many survivors. Take your weight and do the multiplication and you will see that as the speed picks up your body , in a manner of speaking, becomes much heavier and lots harder to stop when the car hits a tree or head on with another. Buckle up drive wisely and live all the years you are alloted. Don’t be like two eighteen year old sons of friends who tried 85 on a curved road. The tires were rolled off the wheels. They hit a tree and not a very big one. I drive by their tomb stones almost every day. Their parents still miss them and ask why?

 

[Smber2c]

You should not speed because it is against the Law. As a citizen of a community your obligation is to obey the laws.

People “speed” because the punishment is monetary, inconvenient, and conviction is 1 in 100.

If the punishment for speeding (3MPH+ over posted) was $1500 and a minimum of 90 days (name removed by moderator)risonment would you do it?? If a 2nd offense in a year was $5000 and 6 months in the can would you do it??

No.

Speed Limits are set by a number of factors, mainly visibility, reaction time, population density, and road capacity. They are there for a reason… not to be inconvenient to you.
(Ask the same question when they scrape “little Jimmy” off your bumper when you were doing 50 in a 30!.. and you weren’t able to stop.)

You state that “60 on the Interstate is just too slow”. Well, I ask are YOU up to the demands of traveling faster than 88 feet per second? Even at 40MPH (59 fps)?? A helluva lot can happen in 60 feet, considering the best driver wasted about 20 feet of it in the time it took to get from the gas to the brake pedal!

Just follow the posted limit, and leave home 10 minutes earlier… problem solved… and no “Little Jimmy” to scrape off!

I agree that one should follow these laws. The state has a right to make them and they have. They are not suggestions or people would just walk into court and laugh at the ticket reminding the judge the limit isn’t law, it’s just a good idea.

So, yes - try to follow the speed limits. And yes there seem to be real moral dangers in putting oneself before the law. However, there isn’t any moral danger is suggesting the law should be adjusted. It is obvious that the flow of traffic in many areas does safely exceed the posted limits. And thus it would be fair for authorities to consider adjusting those speeds.

So as stated before, I still feel that 20 on back streets, 30 on highways, and 60 on the interstate is to slow. Changing it from MPH to feet/second really doesn’t change my opinion. Yes, I can handle myself and my car at 88 feet/second - when the road is designed with the wide lanes, walls seperating diretional traffic, limits on the degree of curve, and every other precaution that interstates grant to American drivers.

For the last few days I’ve been trying to keep it at 20 on the streets by my house. It’s really hard. Once I’m at 20, I have to take my foot off the pedal and glide for the next 20 seconds (or next 3 houses passed depending on how you are counting) before I start loosing momentum and then have to give the slightest nudge to the petal again. During this monotony I’m usually more distracted from actual safely driving than ever, and even a slight bump in the road as I caress my gas pedal causes the car to roar up to 25 mph and I’m forced to apply the brake.

If anything this seems to annoy other drivers and makes me wonder if I’m teaching myself to be overly scrupulous. I’ll keep trying, but I still think 98% of Americans will speed with limits low as they are. And I still hold that this is teaching our public to disobey/disreguard goverment regulations.

 

[cargopilot]

Spending much of my life going really, really fast, much faster than cars, I understand the allure of speed. I’m all for going fast, but…

Having children DOES make one much more sensitive to the 25mph residential speed limit. So I have to ask. Is it a sin to throw objects at a car doubling the speed limit on MY street? (But officer, the rake just slipped out of my hands.)

 

[Melissa]

So as stated before, I still feel that 20 on back streets, 30 on highways, and 60 on the interstate is to slow. Changing it from MPH to feet/second really doesn’t change my opinion. Yes, I can handle myself and my car at 88 feet/second - when the road is designed with the wide lanes, walls seperating diretional traffic, limits on the degree of curve, and every other precaution that interstates grant to American drivers.

OK, I’m leaving the 30 on a highway alone because I honestly know of nowhere that that’s the limit on the highway.

However, w/ respect to residential streets, I admit I was completely shocked while reading an article in a Good Housekeeping magazine–I knew that lower speeds for car/pedestrian accidents make a difference for the pedestrian, but I had no idea it was this dramatic, but 20mph gives a pedestrian approx. 80% chance of surviving the accident.

Increasing the risk of both accidents in the first place (many of these low limits are in places where visibility is impaired by various things including parked cars, trees, hedges, fences, and the like) and the risk of killing the pedestrian seem to be poor choices compared to taking a little extra time to get where I’m going. I tend to drive at approx. 15mph, despite posted 30mph signs … there’s cars often parked both sides (limiting driving area to the width of one car on a two-directional road), children playing, animals crossing the street … I put very little effort into watching what my speed it (a glance down here and there), but I’m not trying to maintain as fast as I can go–just as fast as seems safe in view of the surroundings.

 

[Smber2c]

OK, I’m leaving the 30 on a highway alone because I honestly know of nowhere that that’s the limit on the highway.

Yeah, 30 on a highway seems somewhat unreal, but I checked today to make sure I wasn’t exaggerating. My drive into the city is 12 miles. About half my drive is on highways with a 30 MPH speed limit.

I guess it is because these highways are often going through residential areas; but they are 2 lanes in each direction, with a median, and traffic signals.

 

[otjm]

That is assumed because it is true. If it is a just law it should be obeyed. The authority of the state to make laws is derived from God.

You and I are going at this issue on two strings. The authority to make laws may be from God, but that does not make a law per se a moral issue.

Sure it does. It says that is the maximum speed and should be obeyed. If not the state could have no limit if that was their intent.

No, it doesn’t. The over-arching speed law is safety for conditions then existing. The highways were designed for speeds of 65 to 75 mph. Ask any civil engineer who works on highways. 55 mph was subsequently imposed by the FEds during the gas crunch and has not been removed by the Feds - but some states do not follow the Federal law. It was not and is not a safety law, it is a conservation law. The FBI doesn’
t write tickets, and in general, most states do not write tickets up to 10 mph (or more in some states) over the 55 sign. The state laid the highways according to Federal guidelines and they were designed for speeds up to 75 mph in some areas. Arguing that 55 is a maximum speed means you apparently don’t know the history of this law.

It says you committed a bad act. Moral culpability is a different issue.

65 mph - a safe speed per the design of the highway - is not a bad act. Bad has a moral implication; going too fast for the conditions existing is a moral issue. Going at the safe speed for conditions existing is not a bad act. 55 mph is not a safety issue, it is a conservation issue.

Is that how the statuted is written in each state? That the maximum speed is merely a suggestion? If that is what is written then you are correct.

the 55 mph was a roll back of speed limits by the Federal government due to conservation measures. As I said, the Feds don’t write the tickets, they may or may not withhold funds to a State based on observed speeds, if they observe the speeds (seen any Federal personnel taking speed samples on a highway?). The history of the 55 mph issue is not a hidden matter; it is public knowledge. The engineering fo the highways is public; the prior posted speeds in excess of 55 is public knowledge. Speeding fines are part of the support of police agencies and court systems, and if the state wants to ticket over 55 they have the ability. The fact is that enforcement is at best spotty and is related to the need to generate revenue, not safety. And generally the states don’t issue the tickets.

If the state says the police have the authority to enforce as they deem necessary then they have that authority or the police may fail to enforce for others reason, but none of that makes speeding licit.

Licitness is not determined by a law being on the books. There are still statutes on the books that make discrimination based on skin color or race legal, but that doesn’t make it licit; and the US is awash with deeds which restrict ownership to whites only; but that doesn’t make the deed restriction licit. The state itself with major non-enforcement sets the licitness of going 65 in a 55, because the state can have laws on the books and choose not to enforce them; that choice sets the licitness.

Again, if the state says one may exceed the limit due to traffic flow one is free to speed. If the state says no such thing then one should obey.

And lack of enforcement is the stat’s norma means of saying that. You seem to insist that the state has to make a public pronouncement; give me your source for that.

 

[andy120]

Does St. Thomas Aquinas view of law apply to civil law as well as Church/moral law?

 

[otjm]

Does St. Thomas Aquinas view of law apply to civil law as well as Church/moral law?

Only in limited circumstances in law school.

What you quote seems more oriented to natural law than it does to ordinances such as the 55 mph speed limit.

 

[KofC660]

I have noticed that America is full of contradictions, with speed limits being one of them.

55 MPH speed limit on a well engineered limited access highway, and a 45 MPH speed limit on a poorly engineered suburban highway.

The limited access highway should have a speed limit in excess of 80 MPH, and the suburban highway should have a speed limit of no more than 35 MPH.

Yes, the laws are mixed up, and it creates a mixed up population.

Marry at 16, vote at 18, drink at 21.

Mixed up, I’m tellin’ ya.

 

[fix]

You and I are going at this issue on two strings. The authority to make laws may be from God, but that does not make a law per se a moral issue.

Sure it does. It means we are bound to submit to it and follow it.

**1952 **There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.

2240[Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners. . . . They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws. . . . So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.46

2238"Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution. . . . Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God."44

No, it doesn’t. The over-arching speed law is safety for conditions then existing. The highways were designed for speeds of 65 to 75 mph. Ask any civil engineer who works on highways. 55 mph was subsequently imposed by the FEds during the gas crunch and has not been removed by the Feds - but some states do not follow the Federal law. It was not and is not a safety law, it is a conservation law. The FBI doesn’
t write tickets, and in general, most states do not write tickets up to 10 mph (or more in some states) over the 55 sign. The state laid the highways according to Federal guidelines and they were designed for speeds up to 75 mph in some areas. Arguing that 55 is a maximum speed means you apparently don’t know the history of this law.

You keep making this argument as if the law may be disregared because you think the reason for it is silly. You avoid the fact it still must be followed and you ignore that other factors are at play.

65 mph - a safe speed per the design of the highway - is not a bad act. Bad has a moral implication; going too fast for the conditions existing is a moral issue. Going at the safe speed for conditions existing is not a bad act. 55 mph is not a safety issue, it is a conservation issue.

Again, you seem to place yourself above the law. Does your reasoning apply to other laws as well? Are you the expert of experts? Do you have the authority to dispense yourself from civil law based on your understanding of the matter? What if someone claims they are an expert driver in the best car around. May they drive 85mph? I mean they really are good at driving. They can drive safer at 85 than most at 55. Or is 65 the magic number you have decided is moral because you claim it is safe?

the 55 mph was a roll back of speed limits by the Federal government due to conservation measures. As I said, the Feds don’t write the tickets, they may or may not withhold funds to a State based on observed speeds, if they observe the speeds (seen any Federal personnel taking speed samples on a highway?).

So what? The feds want that number and the states have comlied. Why is that unjust? Why are you free to disregard it? Is your authroity superior?

Licitness is not determined by a law being on the books.

Obedience to just authority is not optional. See the CCC quotes above.

There are still statutes on the books that make discrimination based on skin color or race legal, but that doesn’t make it licit;

Unjust laws need not be obeyed.

And lack of enforcement is the stat’s norma means of saying that. You seem to insist that the state has to make a public pronouncement; give me your source for that.

Where does it say lack of enforcement makes the law void?

 

[fix]

I think this is an interesting read:

**The Moral Obligation of Civil Law

**

Indeed, all civil law may properly be regarded as either a reaffirmation of the natural law, or as an application of its precepts, principles or derived conclusions.{4} Of the former kind are the statutes forbidding theft, assault, and adultery. To the latter class belong the laws which determine individual property rights and prescribe the imposition and collection of taxes, and ordinances for the regulation of traffic on streets and roads…The function of prescribing one method rather than another belongs to the State. Its right to make such a prescription flows from the fact that it is the authorized and the only competent agency to determine and enforce necessary and uniform methods of carrying into effect the general principles of the natural law in all such matters. The obligation of the citizens to observe these methods and regulations is based ultimately on the natural law, but its immediate and formal basis is the State.{5}

Consider an ordinance which is clearly necessary for the common good, as, that which regulates the speed of vehicles. Does not the very necessity of this measure make it binding in conscience? It is true that a different law might be equally adapted to meet this necessity; and the inference might be drawn that the citizen who observed the provisions of this alternative and hypothetical rule would be under no obligation to obey the existing law. The reply is that the common good requires the enactment and the observance of one ordinance. Human welfare is not safeguarded through a kind of private interpretation by the citizens themselves of what constitutes a reasonable rule or standard. Now it is the proper and necessary function of the legislators to enact this uniform regulation. Once it has been chosen out of several possible ordinances, it becomes morally binding because of its necessity for the common good, no matter what the legislators may think of obligation. It is reasonable and necessary that they determine the provisions of the law, but it is neither reasonable nor necessary that they have power determine the question of its moral obligation.

 

[PauloFreire2]

Speeding in America is chronic, and is definitely sinful. We speed because we’re spoiled. Our entire way of life is based on the unrestricted availability of cheap gasoline. Those days are ending, for several reasons. When gas finally costs a small fortune to put in our vehicles, maybe then we’ll stop driving 4x4, Ford 350 Super Duty pick-ups at maximum speed just to look macho.

 

[otjm]

You keep making this argument as if the law may be disregared because you think the reason for it is silly. You avoid the fact it still must be followed and you ignore that other factors are at play.

I never in anything said the law was silly. I said the law was imposed a couple of decades ago by the Federal government during a time of gas crisis as a conservation measure, and as such, it is distinctly different from other speed laws which are based on safety. Prior to the law being pased, the safety speed limit were between 65 and 75 mph. I have not avoided any fact; it is you who choose not to read in context but rather take once sentance our of context and attempt to defaet it by ad hominem and non sequitur statements. As a matter of fact, the law has been repealed in some states - Montana, Idaho and Utah all have limits from 70 to 75 mph. The states that still have the 55 mph on the freeways use very selective and very limited enforcement of the 55 limit. And it is recognized in law that limited and selective enforcement is one of the ways that a State has at its disposal to modify a law; another being an actual change of the law itself through legislation.

Again, you seem to place yourself above the law. Does your reasoning apply to other laws as well? Are you the expert of experts? Do you have the authority to dispense yourself from civil law based on your understanding of the matter? What if someone claims they are an expert driver in the best car around. May they drive 85mph? I mean they really are good at driving. They can drive safer at 85 than most at 55. Or is 65 the magic number you have decided is moral because you claim it is safe?

Now you are starting to sound angry. Did you read what I have written in toto, or do you just take a sentance and try to defeat it? Why do you keep coming bback to an issue of my authority? I have nowhere stated that I have any authority in the matter; all of my reference is to the State’s authority.

In fact, I happen to be older than the Interstate Highway in Oregon - I-5, as I saw it built. When it was built, the speeds on it were 65 or better, and that was at a time when cars were less technically advanced. I didn’t post the speed of make it up; the highway engineers did. Why do you keep coming back to me?

So what? The feds want that number and the states have comlied. Why is that unjust? Why are you free to disregard it? Is your authroity superior?

As a matter of fact, any number of states have rolled back the limits to what they were befroe the gas crisis in the 70’s. As to justice, it is not an issue of justice in terms of safety, and it was never proposed as an issue of justice in terms of safety. It was an issue of conservation at a time wherein the entire fleet of vehicles then existing had a much lower overall consumption rating. Circumstances have changed tremendously since then technically, and that, coupled with the fact that the gas crisis was long ago resolved by the discovery of much larger deposits of oil have left the states with an option of modifying the law by enforcement; in short, they, bieing the authority, have chosen to ignore it. It is not me who is the authority, it is the state, and as that authority, it has exercised the authority granted to it.

Obedience to just authority is not optional. See the CCC quotes above.

Again, a non-sequitur.

Where does it say lack of enforcement makes the law void?Try law school. That is where they teach yuo what the law means when enforcement varies from the specific.

 

[andy120]

Only in limited circumstances in law school.

What you quote seems more oriented to natural law than it does to ordinances such as the 55 mph speed limit.

I thought perhaps it would since it discussed that laws must be reasonable, directed toward the common good, made by competent authority, and promulgated. If we look at speeding laws that way it is not merely following a law as long as it is not immoral. The law must also be reasonable, for the common good, etc.

 

[rwoehmke]

My last words on this post. How do you all think you would cope after your car, particularly if you are speeding, kills someone. Could you ever, till the day you died, put it completely behind you? With about 40,000 traffic deaths each year, I would guess it is only the dead who rest easy. Yeah I know, you didn’t mean to, but that doesn’t fix it.

 

[Ruthie]

There are two different issues here: legal speed and safe speed.

Yes, we are to obey the authorities:

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” (RSV)

There’s more; the whole passage is Romans 13:1-7. Also see CCC 2238-2240.

I know it’s hard to go slowly. (Been there, done that!) Consider it a spiritual exercise, and offer it up. that’s what I do. If you like going really fast, find a legal way to enjoy it, like at a racetrack.

You may be a really good driver - but the quality of your driving will not change someone else’s mistake. You already know that; your skills did not keep that car from t-boning you when it ran the stop sign. As Ron White says, “Ya can’t fix stupid.”

Ruthie
Tiber swim team '06