You are viewing this article in the AnnArbor.com archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see MLive.com/ann-arbor
Posted on Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 7:17 a.m.

Thoughts on speeding, speed traps and integrity

By Letters to the Editor

Those who knowingly exceed the posted speed limit, often because they assume they can get away with it, are deliberately breaking the law. When stopped in a "speed trap," they argue they are being unjustly singled out.

Consider the individual who knowingly sets her/his cruise control at 74-76 mph on the interstates, or 59-60 on Michigan's 2-lane highways. What is the difference between this deliberate violation of posted rules and cheating in sports, shoplifting, or insider trading in the stock market?

For those of us for whom "integrity" includes doing the right thing when no one is looking, those who knowingly exceed posted speed limits seem to be demonstrating a lack of this important quality.

Charles Olson Ann Arbor

Comments

Stuart Brown

Thu, Dec 30, 2010 : 6:15 p.m.

KJMClark said, "Somehow, I didn't think you'd bother to read the law." My thoughts about you as well. You seem to want to take the exceptions and turn them into a general justification for a bicycle to occupy an entire lane most or all of the time and not share a lane with motor vehicles as is usually required. And speaking of the Pontiac Trail Bike Nazi, I know for a fact he has intentionally impeded vehicles because he has done it to me.

Sandy Castle

Thu, Dec 30, 2010 : 9:28 a.m.

@Speechless, "Also, is Ann Arbor therefore wrong to maintain a $25 fine (once $5) on the books for non-med cannabis in "out-of-sync" noncompliance with state law?" The civil infraction Marijuana ordinance IS non-compliant with state law. However, the only person who would contest it would be a prosecutor and since this is the City Attorney, who is employed by the Ann Arbor City Council who instituted the ordinance, this isn't likely to happen. A defendant charged under this ordinance would be a fool to challenge the ordinance because it could result in a request for a misdemeanor warrant being issued which is a much greater offense with greater penalties. Once UM Public Safety came into being, Ann Arbor PD was no longer allowed to patrol the Hash Bash (on UM property), since AAPD is required by city ordinance to issue civil infraction tickets and cannot request misdemeanor warrants for these offenses.

Nephilim

Thu, Dec 30, 2010 : 1:45 a.m.

I am now dumber after reading all this. Wow is all I can say.

Hemenway

Thu, Dec 30, 2010 : midnight

Will motorists view cyclists differently when the cost of motor fuel doubles and there more bicycles are on the road?

Speechless

Wed, Dec 29, 2010 : 10:06 p.m.

"... President Richard Nixon lowered the speed limit to 55 in 1973 in response to the Gulf Oil Crisis...." This thread now exceeds 55.  Here, I dare not do even 5 over. Who knew I'd come out of this with my view of Nixon slighly raised out of the gutter. Various of Tricky Dick's domestic policies now look oddly progressive compared to Obama, Bush, and any other U.S. president since the 1970s. "... Richard Nixon — in many respects the last liberal president...."  — Noam Chomsky (2000), a member of Nixon's enemies list "... Now I am a Keynesian...."  — Richard Nixon  (1971) "... The National Highway System Designation Act, which repealed the Federal maximum speed limit, was passed in 1995 and signed by President Bill Clinton...." Bill Clinton was a rube, often politically to the right of Nelson Rockefeller (who was a role model for Hilary during the late 1960s).

KJMClark

Wed, Dec 29, 2010 : 6:56 p.m.

Somehow, I didn't think you'd bother to read the law. MCL 257.660a says that bicyclists must keep to the right-hand side of the roadway except for a number of situations, including: "(c) When conditions make the right-hand edge of the roadway unsafe or reasonably unusable by bicycles, including, but not limited to, surface hazards, an uneven roadway surface, drain openings, debris, parked or moving vehicles or bicycles, pedestrians, animals, or other obstacles, or if the lane is too narrow to permit a vehicle to safely overtake and pass a bicycle." Don't miss that "lane is too narrow to permit a vehicle to safely overtake and pass a bicycle." In that case, as in the other exceptions, a bicyclist is not required to keep right, and in many situations where the lanes are too narrow, cyclists are supposed to bike in the middle of the lane. The lanes of Pontiac north of Skydale are clearly too narrow to share, and cyclists don't have to keep to the right there. South of that there are bike lanes, and it depends on how wide the usable roadway is. Remember that bike lanes aren't maintained in the winter in Ann Arbor, and often they're completely unusable this time of year. The problem with your citation is that you're assuming bicycle traffic isn't vehicular traffic. Courts in Michigan have ruled that bicycles are vehicles (and almost all the other states and most dictionaries agree), and every time I know of that a cyclist has been charged with impeding the ticket gets thrown out. Unless someone could show that this guy you're griping about is intentionally slowing everyone down and not just biking where you don't like it, it's your problem, not his.

Stuart Brown

Wed, Dec 29, 2010 : 5:58 p.m.

Another point I wanted to make to all of the people who say, "If you don't want a ticket, drive the limit!" Here is the problem in Ann Arbor where there are sections of road with posted speed limits at the 5-10th percentile of free flowing traffic: you are impeding traffic under state law! In other words, the crazy laws we have now do not preclude a situation were complying with one law puts an individual in violation of another.

Stuart Brown

Wed, Dec 29, 2010 : 5:52 p.m.

KJMClark, Bicycles and motor vehicles are usually supposed to share a lane; SHARE, not take for either one! If a bicycle hogs a lane, that is impeding traffic with exceptions as per state law (see below) "MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE (EXCERPT) Act 300 of 1949 257.676b Interference with normal flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic prohibited; exception; violation as civil infraction. Sec. 676b. (1) A person, without authority, shall not block, obstruct, impede, or otherwise interfere with the normal flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic upon a public street or highway in this state, by means of a barricade, object, or device, or with his or her person. This section shall not apply to persons maintaining, rearranging, or constructing public utility facilities in or adjacent to a street or highway. (2) A person who violates this section is responsible for a civil infraction. " The Bike Nazi is a Nazi because he impedes traffic by hogging an entire lane for himself up a large section of Pontiac Trail. The Bike Nazi's trailer is all yellow and very wide. Also, you are incorrect when stating that speed limits should be set lower than the free flowing 85th percentile for motor vehicles in order to accommodate bicycles since the numbers on an under-posted sign will have no influence on most drivers anyway and using anything other than the 85th percentile is less safe for motor vehicles. In other words, bikers will not be safer with under-posted speed limits and vehicle passengers will be less safe; which is the worst of both worlds since nobody is better off. Bicycles cannot be safely accommodated using/enforcing under-posted speed limits; look for other methods.

treetowncartel

Wed, Dec 29, 2010 : 5:09 p.m.

So, does this mean that anybody who travels below the posted speed limit is a slacker and is not living up to their potential? Or, do they lack integrity like the scofflaws abusing their cruise control above the posted limit, while at the same time helping reduce the amount of fossil fuel that they use to be such scofflaws?

KJMClark

Wed, Dec 29, 2010 : 4:27 p.m.

... And to make it clear that talking about biking *is* on topic here, part of the reason local authorities need the discretion to set speed limits is to deal with motorists who are not used to seeing bicyclists in the roadway. There are many motorists who think bicyclists belong on sidewalks, despite the law being clear that bicyclists belong on the roads, and those motorists tend to drive as though no one other than motorists use the roads. There's nothing wrong with other traffic occasionally having to slow down to safely pass a bicyclist who's biking legally in the road. And if there are bicyclists regularly using a road, it's perfectly reasonable for the local jurisdiction to lower the speed limit to take that into account. People on bikes are legal users of the roadway, just as motorists are, and the speed limits should be set to allow everyone to travel safely. The solution is for AA City Council to adopt Michigan Uniform Traffic Code, at which point they will be following state law again, and will be able to use local engineering studies to set speed limits not solely based on 85th percentile speeds.

KJMClark

Wed, Dec 29, 2010 : 3:42 p.m.

Stuart Brown - I might be your "bike nazi" on Pontiac Trail. I bike with my yellow and blue bike trailer just about every Saturday, and rarely on other days as well. Please describe the behavior of your "bike nazi", and if it's me, I'll be happy to point out that I'm absolutely following state law while biking, and you have no idea what those laws are. However, if you want to tussle about bike laws in Michigan, I strongly recommend you start by going to MCL 257.660a (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-257-660a) and doing some basic reading. I hate to argue with people who have no clue.

Bill Wilson

Wed, Dec 29, 2010 : 2:29 p.m.

@ Speehless, The attacks on you were so baseless and silly that one wonders why you bothered to respond.

Tom Teague

Wed, Dec 29, 2010 : 2:03 p.m.

Jimmy Carter was Governor of Georgia that year so I'm not sure what national voice he had on the matter until 1977 when he was sworn in as president. As an FYI: In at least two documents, Gerald Ford encouraged Americans not to exceed the 55 mph national speed limit. As president, Carter urged support for the 55 limit in at least one proclamation. Two additional presidents -- Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush -- supported returning the decision on speed limits back to the states but never got a chance to sign a bill doing so; Bill Clinton signed that bill when it was passed by both houses of congress. But, if keeping presidential score is important, that's 2 Rs and 1 D for and 2 Rs and 1 D against. For the record, I'm not in favor of 55 mph speed limits; I much prefer 70 mph. Nor am I in favor of 90 mph or 120 mph as one commenter seemed to suggest would be okay. Not with these roads, anyway.

Speechless

Wed, Dec 29, 2010 : 9:21 a.m.

A clarification:  Just above, in using Huron Parkway as a quick hypothetical example, the reference is to the stretch from south of the river to below Washtenaw, obviously not to the divided road further north. The more general idea is to occasionally consider converting a four lane road over to three lanes.

Tom Wieder

Wed, Dec 29, 2010 : 12:10 a.m.

Speechless - You really need help. You have some sort of bizarre preoccupation with the evils of cars and most of the ordinary, socially responsible people who drive them, as well the NMA, as if everyone who disagrees with you is part of some NMA conspiracy. You propose no rational way to arrive at speed limits that serves the multiple interests that they must serve. We aren't switching gears here, at all. We have always been relying on the state law for our position, a law which is based in the same long history of travel science as the 85th percentile. The formula used in the law is designed to be an approximate replacement for measuring the 85th percentile on every street. Instead of rational discussion, you talk about "revenge" against the city council. You don't seem to have a clue about what the council was doing last week. If they didn't vote as they did, many of the city's speed limits would have been totally unenforceable, allowing drivers to go at almost any speed without fear of valid ticketing. Council was trying to prevent this and to put itself in the position to modify the state formula through the use of local traffic studies, as the statute allows. In short, they were on your side. You really don't understand what's going on here. You'd rather talk about such irrelevant things like the local marijuana law rather than trying to understand what's going on.

Speechless

Tue, Dec 28, 2010 : 11:03 p.m.

Reducing posted speed limits, of course, isn't the only strategy to make public spaces relatively more friendly for a wider categories of users. One way to slow down drivers is to do a lot more of the kind of thing being done right now on selected blocks of S. Division and S. Fifth Ave, where one lane is removed for use as mixed parking and landscaped green space. Redesign local roadways to create conditions conducive for slower driving. For example, the next time Huron Parkway is resurfaced, why not rebuild it as three lanes instead? Create wider asphalt paths on both sides that have separate lanes for bicyclists and walkers. The extra space gained could also allow limited room for monorail, should that become desirable at some point. Then again, the National Motorists Association exists for the 'express' purpose of shutting down all forms of traffic calming, with great prejudice.

Speechless

Tue, Dec 28, 2010 : 10:44 p.m.

Earlier quote:  "..."Laws need to be well-thought-out, understandable and have some legitimacy to the people who must obey them...." Later quote:  "... In the meantime, the city has to follow state law, and drivers shouldnt be punished when they are following the state law, and the city isnt...." Hmm.  We seem to be shifting gears here. For some time, opponents of slower city speed limits have stridently insisted that if a presumed critical mass of faster drivers simply ignore a posted speed limit, then it becomes straightforwardly "unjust" to maintain it. The "85th percentile" argument was placed on a pedestal to be worshipped like a golden idol, divinely unchallengable by mere mortals. Now, suddenly, state law is the only standard that matters. We all must now obey — despite being told for a while that masses of speeding violators were the only valid social yardstick for determining posted speed limits. One day, when it comes time for activists and progressive urban planners to challenge and remove more legal roadblocks to traffic calming placed there by the often well-funded lobbies for road, auto and speeder (NMA) interests, I'm confident that you and Walker will be there to fight that campaign tooth and nail, seeking to keep fast, dangerous driving enshrined in Michigan law as long as politically possible. Transportation-wise, it's quite possible we'll become one of the last U.S. states to fully enter the 21st century. Do you feel similarly compelled to upend the city's $25 cannabis fine due to its obvious, defiant inconsistency with state penalties? Michigan law is the only relevant legal standard that matters around here, after all — right? The city, by having a reduced local penalty, must be awfully wrong to interfere.... In the meantime, I hope for regular strategy sessions among organized constituencies representing the interests of walkers, bikers, commuters, environmentalists and their allies in city and county government. For devoted advocates and activists, it's time for development of a complex stategy which circumvents the effort by others to wield existing state law as a weapon against those who wish to safely access public roadway space in ways other than through the act of driving a vehicle. That would constitute a positive, meaningful revenge for last Monday night's political attack on the health and welfare of pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-drivers.

sbbuilder

Tue, Dec 28, 2010 : 5:58 p.m.

Oh, yeah, and unethical to boot. The only problem I have is the 'Render to Caesar what is Caesar's' angle. Basically, we're suppossed to obey the law even if we don't like it. Doesn't mean we can't advocate to change the law, though.

sbbuilder

Tue, Dec 28, 2010 : 5:56 p.m.

There are good laws, and there are bad laws. What many are pointing out is that there exist many instances of bad law in the form of artificially low speed limits. The City failed in their defense in large part because they could not show a safety difference in the speeds. Ghost has brought up the subject of Washtenaw from the Stadium split to South U. Have a look at the accident stats for this stretch of road. You may be surprised to find out that the accident rate has actually gone down since raising the speed limit. Now how's that? We had prohibition. An abominally bad law. I'm sure at the time, anyone sneaking a drink was considered a scofflaw. Perhaps even narcissistic. But, hey, it's the law. So shut up and just obey the law? We had segregation. Were people of color just suppossed to be happy with the back of the bus? But, hey, it's the law. So shut up and go sit in back. We had the draft. Whooaa there. This might be a sore spot for some of our resident hippies. Didn't like your draft card? Wanted to burn it? But, hey, it's the law. So shut up and go off to 'Nam like everybody else. Now, we have bad traffic laws. Don't like the speed limits? What, are we suppossed to shut up and just obey the law? I must be one of those narcissistic, scofflaw, belligerent drivers.

Tom Wieder

Tue, Dec 28, 2010 : 4:36 p.m.

@speechless - You are so intellectually dishonest. We won't be challenging school speed zones, because the state law we support specifically provides for them, overriding the formula that is the main part of the law. No one in this discussion has argued against lower limits in school zones. And if lower limits in areas just beyond the immediate statutory school zones can be justified by an appropriate traffic study done by the city, the law allows the city to impose those lower limits, as well. And we wouldn't contest those, either. So, what group of straw men are you having this argument with? Not us. Have you bothered to read the law that is at issue here? Most of what you want is provided for in the law, as long as the city does it right. On the other hand, the law stops the city from doing things like maintaining a 35 mph limit on portions of Huron Parkway where there are no schools, there are sidewalks/bike paths on both sides, no parking, virtually no intersections or driveways, etc. You are arguing with the wrong people here. We think the Legislature did the right thing in implementing this way of setting speed limits. You dont. So, go argue with the Legislature. In the meantime, the city has to follow state law, and drivers shouldnt be punished when they are following the state law, and the city isnt. Right now, the only law that is valid and enforceable is the state law. We think its a good law and want to see it adhered to in our city. We have a right to expect it to be adhered to in our city. And expecting that doesnt make us the bad guys. We think its a safer, fairer more people-friendly way of regulating our streets. If you convince the Legislature otherwise, well have to comply with that result. Its called representative democracy.

Stuart Brown

Tue, Dec 28, 2010 : 3:49 p.m.

Good to see Speechless flaming on in another forum topic! She apparently has no knowledge of the Pontiac Trail Bike Nazi--another militant bike rider who is going to teach the world to respect bikes or else. The Bike Nazi does not share the road with motor vehicles, he conquers it by making sure nobody can get by him without driving to the left of center (he always has a yellow child trailer in tow that protrudes beyond his bike lane into the motor vehicle lane.) The Bike Nazi is particularly good at slowing traffic down to his speed and forming a train of several vehicles queuing up to pass him; Speechless' ideal situation. I'm sure in Speechless' view the Bike Nazi is not a narcissist. No, it's the drivers trying to pass who are the narcissists. Speechless why are you so intent on ignoring reality, so intent on digging into the muck and sticking with a position that will not help save anybody's life or solve anybody's problem? I can understand the need to vent and lament the way the world is, but constantly wishing, and in your case accusing, does not change reality. You are not going to change the speeds people drive at in Ann Arbor by accusing people of being narcissists or for that matter by getting the City Council to finagle keeping the posted speed limits to between the 5th and 30th percentiles of free flowing traffic. The 85th percentile is the safest speed for operators of motor vehicles and any attempt to move it to something other than that will result in more accidents for motorists. I'm sorry that that reality does not fit well with your objective of controlling the roads for the benefit of bikers; but the truth is that neither the City nor you can control the speeds motorists drive at without changing the physical construction of the roads. If you are really concerned with improving safety for non-motorized vehicles, you should stop harping on the level motor vehicle speed limits are set at and look to other methods.

shepard145

Tue, Dec 28, 2010 : 2:34 p.m.

I stand corrected. Nixon signed the law reducing the speed limit to 55mph in 1973 but Carter was a big supporter, urging the nation comply. The law was reversed by Clinton.

Speechless

Tue, Dec 28, 2010 : 1:10 p.m.

"... Your approach is - "Do what feels right to speechless." Why shouldn't it be do what feels right to me, or Jim Walker or any given member of the City Council?" You continue to dodge around my answers. We have a special municipal community board, so to speak, which can referee these matters when they become contentious and defy easy consensus. It's called city council. They make decisions not on the basis of "any given member" but on that of "any six members or more." If you or Jim want council to do more of what "feels right" to you, then work for the election of council reps who suit your views. Should you feel that city council has no right to make decisions that promote traffic calming (per NMA logic), that's wrong. And, further, I will look forward to your suit challenging those outragious speed traps called school zones. Also, is Ann Arbor therefore wrong to maintain a $25 fine (once $5) on the books for non-med cannabis in "out-of-sync" noncompliance with state law?

Speechless

Tue, Dec 28, 2010 : 1:02 p.m.

"... Laws need to be well-thought-out, understandable and have some legitimacy to the people who must obey them...." Back in 1964-65, it's rather doubtful that the then-new civil rights and voting rights acts had legitimacy among the white majority in the Deep South. Many of them were furious, harboring no desire to obey. By your logic, the federal government made a big mistake and LBJ ought to have vetoed these bils. As per previous discussion, speeding advocates have not (yet) challenged school zones, our greatest speed traps and most egregious violators of the hallowed principle of 85th percentile fast driving. No doubt this hasn't happened because any such attempt would certainly generate outrage and go down in flames, with torches and pitchforks raised abundantly. Despite that, most drivers would likely much prefer not to slow down at all when driving past schools in session — if given a legal opportunity to do so. So, the real question is under what circumstances can a community choose to calm surrounding traffic in the interests of safety or enjoyment for one or more categories of non-drivers. Advocates for high road speeds clearly wish to constrict that range of circumstances as much as they can possibly get away with. They will seek to determine how much dangerous speed a community will tolerate, short of instigating a strong, progressive opposition. Others of us would like the community to begin moving further away from heavily car-centric public spaces. In the future, much saner roadways will require making room for multiple modes of transit. That means America in the 21st century starting to catch up to mid-20th century western Europe. It means that personal vehicles will move more slowly, especially in urban settings, and share right of way far more frequently with other travel modes. The roadway lunacy of, say, Oakland County is a legacy best abandoned. Ann Arbor should have lattitude to expand traffic calming procedures and policies beyond school zones (which appear politically safe from attacks by speeders). Yet it seems this possibility must necessarily be destroyed in order to raise posted speed on one stretch of Newport Rd. Why not simply make a case to raise the 25 mph limit in this one place and call it a day?

Tom Teague

Tue, Dec 28, 2010 : 12:55 p.m.

Before some misinformation takes hold: President Richard Nixon lowered the speed limit to 55 in 1973 in response to the Gulf Oil Crisis. The National Highway System Designation Act, which repealed the Federal maximum speed limit, was passed in 1995 and signed by President Bill Clinton.

shepard145

Tue, Dec 28, 2010 : 11:41 a.m.

The originator of this opinion raises an interesting point. Much of US law is based on Christian values so it's easy to Americans to relate to personal ethics. But what happens when federal, state or local officials pass laws based on political motives rather then health, safety or welfare? What if they are based on lies or just wrong? If you become convinced that traffic accidents are caused by a short list of negligent behaviors, often at posted speeds (drunk or sleepy, texting/sexting or racing) but specifically not "speeding" as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands of drivers who hum along at 90mph in good weather every day without accidents, how are highway speed limits anything other then an illegitimate tax? Surface street limits can be set purposefully low in order for municipalities to collect revenue rather then any concern for "safety" and whose there to argue? In the 70's, the highway speed limit was reduced to 55mph by the federal government, supposedly because Jimmy Carter thought even thought is would waste billions of motorist hours on the road, it would save oil. It was then raised back up to 70mph once sanity returned - this had nothing to do with health safety and welfare but by the writer's point, he was bound to follow whatever crank law was passed. A better position might be to strive for an open mind and think critically when deciding your own personal ethics rather then rely on the political class to do that for you. Certainly if obamacare is not stopped, this nation will be severely damaged and this challenge will be a daily issue for the sick and elderly as the socialist nanny state oozes over our once great market economy and some people's ethics try to absorb this repulsive 3000 page bill.

Tom Wieder

Tue, Dec 28, 2010 : 9:53 a.m.

@Murrow- "Twist it anyway you want: state law requires local law to be in conformity with those who violate the law." This makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever. The local "law" is null and void, overridden by the state law. Cities only have the powers that the state gives them, by state law. The state legislature has decided that a speed limit-setting approach promoted by the state police is better than the various approaches used by localities. It passed a law taking away the authority of cities (except when they do proper traffic studies) to deviate from the formula in state law. That is the law, and the only law, that is valid and that drivers may be made to follow. When a driver in Ann Arbor contests a ticket issued under Ann Arbor's nonconforming ordinances and regulations, he or she wins, because the driver isn't violating any valid law. You may prefer the speed limits adopted by one set of elected officials and their administrative employees (the City's) over another set (the State's), but under our legal system, the State prevails. And the motorist who conforms to state law is not doing anything legally wrong. Why are you so convinced that that the state's wrong and the city's right? "...those who speed to the detriment of their safety and mine so that they might arrive somewhere a minute or two earlier are the textbook definition of narcissistic." Well, that isn't the "textbook definition of narcissistic," it's yours. But, that isn't the point. You would be right that speeding to the detriment of the safety of oneself and others is stupid (or some other adjective), but the proponents of the state formula say - with considerable evidence to support them - that the state formula is safer. Your blind faith in the wisdom of some unknown persons who decided years ago what numbers to put on Ann Arbor speed limit signs is breathtaking.

Tom Wieder

Mon, Dec 27, 2010 : 11:56 p.m.

Speechless- Your personal views of safety, humane society, etc. are not a measurable standard for setting speed limits and penalizing people for breaking them. Laws need to be well-thought-out, understandable and have some legitimacy to the people who must obey them. You have no quantifiable standards. Your approach is - "Do what feels right to speechless." Why shouldn't it be do what feels right to me, or Jim Walker or any given member of the City Council? Murrow - "I find it truly bizarre that if enough people break the law that it is necessary to change the law to reflect the actions of the lawbreakers." Which lawbreakers are you talking about? The city is violating state law. Many of the "speeders" in Ann Arbor are traveling in conformity with state law. They aren't in compliance with the local posted speed limits, but those limits aren't legal. That's why the city keeps losing when people challenge the tickets. So, I agree with your quote, only the "lawbreakers" whose actions we shouldn't change the law for are the city officials who keep breaking state law by enforcing illegal speed limits. Try to understand this - the city is breaking the law, not the "speeders!"

Speechless

Mon, Dec 27, 2010 : 9:38 p.m.

"... if the 'neighborhood' wanted a 10 mph speed limit, would that control? How about 55? And how would we define who gets to vote? Or do we have to satisfy you, because you think 30 would be okay, but not 35?..." Well, once more, pulling from I wrote above:  "If residents in the area wish to advocate that the speed limit on Newport Rd. be raised... asking the city to evaluate particular stretches of road on a case-by-case basis is fine...." My presumption is that, failing a consensus, it would be best to let city council sort it out, in consultation with residents living on or near Newport Rd., city staff, police officials, various local interest groups, etc. But, very much unlike the type of proposal council moved toward a week ago, any decision to alter posted speed on Newport wouldn't impact limits elsewhere. ------------ "... I am a resident of Newport Rd., and along with many of my neighbors, would like a more reasonable speed limit...." I don't live close to Newport, but have used the road over the years as a driver, bicyclist, hiker, and runner. It's conceivable I even exceeded the speed limit once or twice by refusing to firmly apply the brakes as my road bike zipped downhill. Would have accepted a ticket had I received one. Let me tell you, as a biker I sure appreciated it when drivers heeded the 25 mph limit as they passed by me. Didn't care much for the jerks cruising along at 35 mph or more, who were also typically rude about leaving space and too impatient to wait for opposing traffic to pass by on those narrow lanes before starting to pass me. A moment of trepidation for no good reason at all. ------------ "... We are advocating that a number of major roads that are out-of-sync with the legal state standards be brought into compliance..." If keeping so-called "out-of-sync" roads "out of compliance" leads to a more welcoming public environment for walker, bikers and commuters, I'm all for maintaining that. It's saner, healther, more civil and humane social policy. There's gamesmanship going on here. Ctiy council is being told they're "out of compliance," but why are they so noncompliant? It's because they won't crank up posted limits to conform with the noncompliance of a presumed critical mass of speeding vehicles — the determinant of all social value. So, it's now supposed to become illegal to set procedures for safer driving that protect pedestrians and bicyclists, limiting car-centric culture. I do have to admit that such a hostile social policy does fit in very well with our current state and national politics.  Bye for now, I'm going to make some tea.

Tom Wieder

Mon, Dec 27, 2010 : 8:23 p.m.

@Murrow's Ghost - I don't favor having neighborhoods enact their own laws - or speed limits. I was attempting to point out the flaws in "speechless's" approach to the problem, which is to let "neighborhoods" decide unless, of course, she disagrees with them. Actually, you seem to have made up your own definition of narcissism. For the "textbook" definition (DSM-IV), see: http://www.narcissism101.com/Beginning/dsm_iv.html You seem to be ignoring the fact that the speed limits we are complaining about VIOLATE THE LAW of the State of Michigan, which takes precedence over Ann Arbor's administrative determination of speed limits. We are merely asking the city to follow the law. So all of these people who travel at speeds that the state law says are proper are delusional, and the city officials who ignore the law are the sane ones? Huh? Sounds more like the lunatics being in charge of the asylum.

Tom Wieder

Mon, Dec 27, 2010 : 4:39 p.m.

@speechless: As to whether it's preferable to write needlessly dangerous or remarkably stupid or willfully reckless in place of pathological or narcissistic, I'll put that out as something for others to consider and debate. If residents in the area wish to advocate that the speed limit on Newport Rd. be raised to 30 mph, I wouldn't have a serious objection. I would, however, object to legitimizing 35 mph [T]hose who angrily demand that posted limits be cranked up across town As I've written before, asking the city to evaluate particular stretches of road on a case-by-case basis is fine and dandy. This is quite different from any systemic effort to gut the city's procedures for setting limits. So, all of those soccer moms, city and school bus drivers, police officers on routine patrol, etc., etc. who average nearly 10 mph over the posted limits on many streets in town are all stupid and reckless? Why are you so sure that the dumb behavior arent the things done by the bureaucrats who set the speed limits, rather than the vast majority of your ordinary, reasonable fellow citizens? I am a resident of Newport Rd., and along with many of my neighbors, would like a more reasonable speed limit, but youve had the most serious objections for weeks now. And if the neighborhood, wanted a 10 mph speed limit, would that control? How about 55? And how would we define who gets to vote? Or do we have to satisfy you, because you think 30 would be okay, but not 35? So, if we took the best-defined residents of the area and they voted for 35 or 40, would you defer to them and shut up? NO ONE is demanding that posted limits be cranked up across town. We are advocating that a number of major roads that are out-of-sync with the legal state standards be brought into compliance, or, alternatively, that the city perform a permitted traffic study which would allow for lower limits than state law.

Speechless

Mon, Dec 27, 2010 : 2:45 p.m.

"... As usual, speechless is so immersed in calling everyone who drives over the speed limit narcissistic.... Does anyone know if there's a psychological term for a compulsion to label issue opponents with a diagnosis of pathology?... most people drive over the speed limit some, most or all of the time...." Any reasonable person who respects the laws of physics will recognize that fast, aggressive driving is endemic on southeast Michigan's freeways and major roads. Compared even to Wisconsin, we're also just terrible at sharing the road, especially with bicyclists, joggers, pedestrians, Amish buggies, and so on. We elect to artificially create extra levels of danger on our roads. Unlike those who angrily demand that posted limits be cranked up across town, I have no investment in trying to ethically justify or socially rationalize faster speeds. As to whether it's preferable to write "needlessly dangerous" or "remarkably stupid" or "willfully reckless" in place of "pathological" or "narcissistic," I'll put that out as something for others to consider and debate. ------------ "... As a case in point, Newport Rd. In several studies - which amount to nothing more than measuring travel speeds of passing cars with a narcissism-free radar gun, the percentage of cars traveling at or below the posted speed limit of 25 was....drum roll...zero...." If residents in the area wish to advocate that the speed limit on Newport Rd. be raised to 30 mph, I wouldn't have a serious objection. I would, however, object to legitimizing 35 mph or higher, which is too dangerous given that this steep, narrow roadway also sees some usage by bikers, walkers and runners. There's also a fairly sharp turn at the bottom of the descent. As I've written before, asking the city to evaluate particular stretches of road on a case-by-case basis is fine and dandy. This is quite different from any systemic effort to gut the city's procedures for setting limits. The motorists association exists to undermine 'traffic calming' policies (even speed bumps that help protect children and walkers) and create racetrack-like road conditions.

clownfish

Mon, Dec 27, 2010 : 10:30 a.m.

MACABRE-It must be nice when the world is completely black and white, with no shades of color anywhere. http://tinyurl.com/2urhdbx http://tinyurl.com/3oow33 It is WONDERFUL!!

fremdfirma

Mon, Dec 27, 2010 : 10:24 a.m.

To clarify, then, since my point seems a bit lost on some. The difference lies in conduct, particularly of the officers in question. If police feel traffic on a certain stretch of road is unsafe, then putting a marked cruiser in a highly visible location would suffice as a public reminder of both responsibility to others and potential consequences - but this does not generate income, so they "hide" in a non-visible location, waiting for someone to commit a violation so they can hand out a ticket. If police feel DUI/DWI is going to be a problem, they should station personnel near the exits or parking lots of places that are holding the parties to discourage folks who've had a bit much from ever getting behind the wheel in the first place - but this doesn't generate income, so they "hide" down the road a ways, waiting for someone to commit a violation so that they can make the bust. The difference between crime PREVENTION, which was the intended job of police, and "Law Enforcement" is a subtle one, but by chosing not to intervene in such a way as to prevent crime, while simultaneously seeking to profit from it, this makes them in the eyes of many indirect accomplices because in many cases they had the power and ability to prevent it, but did not do so because there is very little glory and profit in that kind of policing, despite its greater effectiveness. It's also substantially cheaper, because a crime that never happens requires no arrest, no incarceration, no prosecution, and therefore less police and court resources, which would inevitably lead to reduced budgets and employment for them, thus the corruption of this ideal was all but inevitable from the start, because nobody wants to work themselves out of a job, do they? I do not disagree that people in michigan have certain issues with driving safety, my point is HOW the police handle that is every bit as important as whether the issue is dealt with at all, exploiting it for income rather than preventing it seems an act of malice, rather than protection, and it is that very public awareness of this which leads inevitably to a disrespect and lack of cooperation with police, because they are seen as predators rather than protectors. And finally, consider this: A prevented crime, has no victim.

Tom Wieder

Mon, Dec 27, 2010 : 10:07 a.m.

As usual, speechless is so immersed in calling everyone who drives over the speed limit narcissistic that she ignores all facts and logic. Does anyone know if there's a psychological term for a compulsion to label issue opponents with a diagnosis of pathology? If so, she's earned it. By her reckoning, most of the traveling public is narcissistic, since most people drive over the speed limit some, most or all of the time (at least, when weather and traffic volumes allow). This is not what Jim Walker or I or the State Police or others tell them to do, it's what they do. As a case in point, Newport Rd. In several studies - which amount to nothing more than measuring travel speeds of passing cars with a narcissism-free radar gun, the percentage of cars traveling at or below the posted speed limit of 25 was....drum roll...zero. That included AATA buses, school buses, police cars (on routine patrol, not chasing anyone), soccer moms in mini-vans driving kids around, etc., etc. The median speeds (half going faster, half slower) in the three studies were 32, 34 and 36. No one, NO ONE, drove at 25 or less. The average speed over 3 studies was about 9 mph over the speed limit. So, are all these people "pathological narcissists?" So odd that someone who would, undoubtedly, call herself a humanist wants to call so many people names and label them anti-social, especially when they seem to represent the central core of the social order. For the record, neither Jim Walker, nor I, has ever equated speeders with Rosa Parks or Ghandi or Martin Luther King. In another thread, I simply pointed out that because a law or regulation is on the books (such as a posted speed limit) doesn't mean that it's justified by good sense or just. Prohibitions on women voting, abortion and inter-racial marriage come to mind. Fighting to rationalize speed laws isn't the highest order of altruism or nobility, but mindlessly arguing that the existing order is inherently correct, because it exists, is just dumb.

stunhsif

Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 11:42 p.m.

BasicBob said: "Going 5-over on the freeway is not a huge problem. Camping out in the left (or center) lane on the freeway when you're the slowest car on the road is a bigger problem. Driving with your lights off when it's raining or snowing is a bigger problem. Changing lanes without signaling is a bigger problem. Passing trucks on the right is a bigger problem." I would add one more "bigger problem" Basic Bob and that is snow tires. They should be made mandatory from Dec 1st through March 15. Too many people go through the entire winter driving cycle with lousy tires. These folks are just as dangerous if not more so than folks under the influence when there is snow and ice on the roadways. Winter tires should be the law for winter driving, all-season tires are not even close.

Basic Bob

Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 10:44 p.m.

Going 5-over on the freeway is not a huge problem. Camping out in the left (or center) lane on the freeway when you're the slowest car on the road is a bigger problem. Driving with your lights off when it's raining or snowing is a bigger problem. Changing lanes without signaling is a bigger problem. Passing trucks on the right is a bigger problem. Just wondering, didn't they teach this stuff in drivers ed?

Speechless

Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 8:54 p.m.

"... Remember, at one time it was illegal for people of color to sit in the front of a bus, and by your opinion here Rosa Parks was a scofflaw without integrity? No, I reject that, sometimes the law is wrong, or applied wrongly...." Ah, the latest propaganda talking point!  This line of 'argument' was presented near the end of an earlier thread by Wieder and/or Walker — after being unsuccessful at bullying opposing views into silence through lengthy, endless repetition of the term "85th percentile." The idea of comparing selfish, narcisstic, roadway speeders with the ethical commitment and selfless daring of Rosa Parks in 1955 is quite breathtaking. A comparison with Al Capone's rejection of applied law makes more sense. Also, "freedom" to drive fast increases harm to pedestrians and bicyclists. Keep in mind, too, that while the civil rights movement became famous for peaceful acts of civil disobedience, the Southern racists and Dixiecrats also made attempts at disobedience following legal victories for civil rights. Although some may shamelessly compare dangerous drivers to Rosa Parks' refusal to vacate the front of a Montgomery city bus, others of us see these drivers as more like then-Alabama Gov. George Wallace, who personally blocked a university entrance in defiance of a federal desegration order.

Speechless

Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 7:43 p.m.

"... On icy Sunday Dec. 5, I saw plenty of cars blindly going 50 mph on I-94 on sheer ice. Though... under the speed limit, at that senseless speed they were changing lanes, passing, causing accidents and many of them spun off onto the shoulder or into embankments. I felt I had to go at 20-25 to stay in control.... I have never seen anyone get ticketed for tailgating. Whatever happened to requiring keeping one car length for every 10 mph to allow for neurology and physics of reflex and breaking time?... Speed limits by themselves are senseless." Too many drivers behave as if it's entirely innappropriate to respect road conditions and the elements. They'll zip past and around you on on ice-covered freeways, but you see them again later after they've spun out onto the median, facing the wrong direction after coming to a halt. Many of them also seem to feel that tailgating will get them to their destination more quickly, despite the considerable danger which that creates, especially in heavy traffic. So, yes, a chronic inclination to speed is but one symptom of pointlessly aggressive driving that puts health and lives at risk. There exists a number of factors that contribute to roads being needlessly hostile and risky places, and as a society we're thus far unwilling to come to grips with them. We'll have to wait, apparently, for gas prices to rise to $5-$10 per gallon, which will begin to resolve these difficulties through a different, unintended means. In the meantime, though, it won't help any to simply ignore speeding. A general failure to crack down on tailgaters, for example, doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that enforcement in general must be abandoned. Personally, I'm most amazed at the craziness of morning rush hour. Drivers will commit themselves to dangerous stunts in thick freeway traffic in order to shave a few seconds off drive time — all just to get to a place of employment from which most of them can't wait to escape by the end of the afternoon.

Duke_Ganote

Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 7:43 p.m.

100% Right! "Often because they assume they can get away with it, are deliberately breaking the law."...that sums up the Ann Arbor City Council. THEY expect US to slavishly follow rules, but can't hold to theirs. Just following their fine example; watch closely, kids!

fremdfirma

Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 5:34 p.m.

Oh, and what about the ethics of deliberately setting a speed limit artificially low as a form of revenue enhancement? Or the ethics of giving repeat offender DUI/DWIs many more chances to offend, which many suspect has financial motive? When the people who make and/or enforce the law, do so in an unethical way to exploit people or force them under an agenda they have no moral right to inflict (smoking bans, alcohol on sundays, blue laws) upon people who do not share their values, what purpose then, does the law serve? Remember, at one time it was illegal for people of color to sit in the front of a bus, and by your opinion here Rosa Parks was a scofflaw without integrity? No, I reject that, sometimes the law is wrong, or applied wrongly, this is why we have courts, why we have juries, even if they have been reduced to a mere rubber stamp by a corrupted system, the purpose and intent of such things remains the same. A speed limit set too low on purpose is an act of collective punishment against both the just and the unjust, it demeans the purpose of such things, hinders the very credibility such laws need in order to be accepted, and by that action hinders the already tenous credibility of policing itself, leading to a chain of events where the officer is simply seen as one more thug, the police as one more gang, and winds up in contention with the community, seen as a predator rather than protector, causing all manner of other related problems. Or, more simply, when police knowingly enforce a bad law, or enforce one in a malicious way, it demeans the law, the police, and the purpose for both, reducing law enforcement to naught more than a revenue generator on par with a mafia shakedown, a protection racket of the worst kind, different only from any other form of organized crime by the virtue of official sanction. The badge doesn't make an officer a hero or a villain, their conduct does - and knowing participation in a misuse of authority to generate income, via tickets, fines, forfeiture... That is the act of a villain, a highwayman, not a protector.

shepard145

Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 4:32 p.m.

Chuck embraces tyranny every day. He enjoys the comfort of granting those sitting in Lansing or Washington DC or his local town the power to define his personal ethics, regardless of how absurd their decisions are. Well Chuck, I speed because I have observed over the decades that the speed limit is a sham. What was a violation of your personal ethics year ago, traveling at 56mph, is now dangerously slow in zone where it is suddenly perfectly safe and ethical to drive 70mph. How did that happen when our safety was being guided by the force of law at 55?! Or was that a government lie and really about a mistaken belief about oil usage? Further, if 70mph is safe, lets find legislators who will sign their names to a document that says 120mph is perfectly safe! Vehicles on many area roads in good weather safety travel over 90mph every day! Millions of commuters without one speed related accident! How do you explain that Chuck? On the other hand, we do know what causes accidents and its not speed! Driving at posted speeds while drunk, sleeping, texting or sexting regularly kills and maims and such conduct is also unlawful. The difference is that in those cases there is a cause and effect while with simple speeding in normal traffic there is essentially not. How many accidents do you think occur every year due solely to non reckless driving (those not racing other cars, weaving in traffic, equipment failure etc?) by daily commuters? The very few certainly does not justify the massive cash cow collected by city, states and insurance companies from this massive tax based on this lie.

Jayzoh

Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 2:50 p.m.

What should matter is consideration and intelligence on the road. If one is driving within the speed limit and yet is driving stupidly, selfishly, dangerously, for the conditions present, what do police do about that? On icy Sunday Dec. 5, I saw plenty of cars blindly going 50 mph on I-94 on sheer ice. Though they were under the speed limit, at that senseless speed they were changing lanes, passing, causing accidents and many of them spun off onto the shoulder or into embankments. I felt I had to go at 20-25 to stay in control. There were no police radars out that day. I guess they figured it was likely no one was going over 70 so there were no speeding tickets to be given out. Sadly, there were tragic accidents that day from motorists going too fast and losing control. Another example: I have never seen anyone get ticketed for tailgating. Whatever happened to requiring keeping one car length for every 10 mph to allow for neurology and physics of reflex and breaking time? Oh the tickets that should be given! Speed limits by themselves are senseless.

Mike

Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 2:35 p.m.

Apparently, Charles Olsen believes that there are are no unjust laws, merely people who unjustly violate them. Well Charles, perhaps karma awaits you in the next congressional session. And let me second another reader's comment: keep your car in the right hand lane!

Speechless

Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 2:21 p.m.

"... Speeding isn't a crime, it's a civil infraction... different branch of law...." Does chronic speeding also fall under its own branch of pathological narcissism?

Jayzoh

Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 2:02 p.m.

I think posted speed limits should be a guide, and not be used as revenue makers. That is foul. But I have encountered so many instances of dangerous, stupid driving habits that should deserve a big ticket for moving violations, that go uncaught. For example, I see poor, dangerous driving due to motorists weaving, tailgating, trying to get the best advantage on the road at the expense of everyone else's safety, driving distractedly with one hand on the wheel while the other hand holds a cell phone to the ear, or heaven forbid -it's crazy- texting!, driving erratically or in a stupor (who knows; fatigue, booze or drug induced?), these are what are truly dangerous, *these* are what should be fined, and heavily. Getting fined for going 5, 10, of 15 mph over some arbitrarily posted speed limit where the conditions are safe, visibility is perfect, the roads are empty and no one's life is being threatened, that's sheer stupidity and should be changed. I believe driving at an appropriate speed should be one factor that comprises safe driving. If one is driving carefully, with full view of the road ahead and behind, relating consciously to all factors of traffic and road conditions, and one is in full control of one's vehicle and being considerate of all others on the road, whether motorist or pedestrian, that is what should determine what is allowed. Courtesy, safety, conscientiousness, consciousness! and overall good sense should be at work on the road...and the lack thereof should be fined, in my ideal world.

marzan

Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 1:18 p.m.

While I understand the sentiment that local communities should do diligence when setting the speed limit, local government is under a fiscal huge crunch. In terms of priorities, salting the road is a higher priority for me than spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to raise the speed limit by 5mph. I believe the state law could be regarded as an unfunded mandate. I don't know why people believe they should have the right to speed, or text while driving, but there is a vocal segment of the population that really pushes to change the rules to their benefit.

AlphaAlpha

Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 12:06 p.m.

Can anyone recommend a good, local, speedometer calibrator? Have to be sure...

shepard145

Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 10:51 a.m.

State and local governments should be required by law to prove a statistical correlation between speed and safety before enacting any speed limit. It does not exist. Speed and safety in normal conditions (no ice or snow the City fails to remove) are unrelated so guess what - speeding tickets are a racket. They are just another tax on the masses.

Greggy_D

Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 10:13 a.m.

"often because they assume they can get away with it, are deliberately breaking the law." I'd say that sums up the Ann Arbor City Council.

clark

Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 9:38 a.m.

Holy lack of legal insight, Batman! What is the difference between this deliberate violation of posted rules and cheating in sports, shoplifting, or insider trading in the stock market? Easy. Speeding isn't a crime, it's a civil infraction. It's an entirely different branch of law from the other things you're talking about (with the possible exception of "cheating in sports" which is a bit too vague to address directly). People don't get sent to jail for infractions, because they're not crimes by any legal or ethical definition. Seriously, this is like "first day at law school"-level stuff... For those of us for whom "integrity" includes doing the right thing when no one is looking, those who knowingly exceed posted speed limits seem to be demonstrating a lack of this important quality. So what happens when that "posted speed limit" was knowingly set in violation of state law, which is the case on many streets in Ann Arbor? Maybe it's OK that your definition of integrity is to blindly follow whatever happens to be written on the signpost and remain completely ignorant of the definition, history, and consequences. But don't expect everyone else to agree with you.

stunhsif

Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 9:29 a.m.

Brad said: "Thanks for sharing. Please keep your integrity in the right lane." Right on the bullseye Brad. To equate driving 74 MPH on the interstate with shoplifting or insider trading is ridiculous. Go ahead and keep you nose pointed skyward but keep your car in the slow lane please!

Brad

Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 9:03 a.m.

Thanks for sharing. Please keep your integrity in the right lane.

Chip Reed

Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 7:44 a.m.

Perhaps you are confusing "laws" with "rules". It is a characteristic of priggishness to see these as one and the same. Do you really not see the difference between speeding and the other illegal behavior you listed? Speed traps are revenue for government. It's like the lottery, i.e. a voluntary tax. I wish everyone did what I wanted them to, but I don't call that "integrity".

Macabre Sunset

Sun, Dec 26, 2010 : 7:37 a.m.

It must be nice when the world is completely black and white, with no shades of color anywhere.