 |
|
| FORUM | REGISTER | LOGIN | HOAXIPEDIA | TOP 100 APRIL FOOLS | COLLEGE PRANKS | ABOUT THE CURATOR | CONTACT |
| A HISTORY OF HOAXES | HOAX WEBSITES | HOAX PHOTOS | HOAX PHOTO TESTS | GULLIBILITY TESTS | TALL-TALE CREATURES |
About the Museum
The Museum of Hoaxes is dedicated to promoting knowledge about hoaxes. (Click here for opening hours, etc.) On our blog we post about dubious- sounding claims, and whatever else strikes our fancy. The site is also home to the Hoax Photo Database, the Hoax Forum, and the Hoaxipedia.
The Museum of Hoaxes is dedicated to promoting knowledge about hoaxes. (Click here for opening hours, etc.) On our blog we post about dubious- sounding claims, and whatever else strikes our fancy. The site is also home to the Hoax Photo Database, the Hoax Forum, and the Hoaxipedia.
RUDE ROVERThe Christmas dog with no class! He sings and toots Jingle Bells.
INFLATABLE TREEWho needs the hassle of a real Christmas tree?
FARTING SANTAGo ahead and pull his finger!
A Meditation on the Speed Limit
Status: Civil Disobedience Prank
In order to demonstrate the stupidity of the 55 mph speed limit, four Atlanta students pulled a dangerous stunt: they all drove exactly 55 mph on the highway, in a line, thereby blocking the flow of traffic and creating an enormous traffic jam. Check out the video of it. I realize the students thought they were doing something clever, but as I watched the video I found myself getting more and more angry at them. It was like experiencing road rage while sitting behind a computer. I kept imagining the people in the blocked traffic who probably had to get to work, or wanted to get home, and who were instead being held up by these idiots and their road block.Anyway, their argument — that their experiment proves the absurdity of the 55 mph law — is flawed. It didn't prove that at all. All it proved is that if you form a rolling blockade, it's going to create a traffic jam. It would have had the same effect at 65 mph. Plus, it's definitely against the law to form a blockade like they did. Only the police are allowed to do that. So they weren't actually obeying the law.
I realize that pranks are supposed to be obnoxious and annoy some people. But delaying innocent commuters, and creating a situation in which people could easily have gotten hurt as anger escalated, just doesn't seem quite right to me. Though this is probably the angry driver inside of me feeling that way. (One more thing: at the beginning of the video they misspell the word obedience.)
Update: Some quick googling, and I found the section of Georgia law (code 40-6-40, section D) that applies to what they did:
No two vehicles shall impede the normal flow of traffic by traveling side by side at the same time while in adjacent lanes, provided that this Code section shall not be construed to prevent vehicles traveling side by side in adjacent lanes because of congested traffic conditions.
So it was illegal, and they made a video of themselves doing it. Not too smart.
Update 2: David Spear, a spokesman for the Atlanta Police Department, has been quoted as saying that what the students did was legal:
David Spear, a spokesman for the state Department of Transportation, said if the students weren't blocking emergency vehicles and were going the speed limit, "they didn't do a thing wrong." Spear added that the speed limit was lowered to 55 because it saves lives. "In Atlanta, the actual effect of it is we expect the people going 75 to move over so the people going 95 can have the right of way," he said.
So I guess I was wrong. Though I'm still having a hard time understanding how it can be legal, when the code referenced above seems to state that it's not legal.
Posted By: Alex | Date: Wed Mar 01, 2006 | Permalink |
Total Comments: 137
Category: Law/Police/Crime
Category: Law/Police/Crime
Listed in chronological order. Newest comments at the end.
Page 1 of 7 pages 1 2 3 > Last »
Exactly. A rolling blockade at any speed would be a public nuisance. A speed limit is supposed to be a maximum speed, not the exact spedd everyone drives all the time, so if one of them drove 55, one 53, one 51, and one 49 mph, they wouldn't be blocking traffic.
I don't know that they were breaking any laws, though, if they obeyed all other traffic rules and were careful of hazards. They were just jerks.
Posted by Big Gary, ambling along in Dallas, Texas, USA on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 09:13 AMI don't know that they were breaking any laws, though, if they obeyed all other traffic rules and were careful of hazards. They were just jerks.
I couldn't watch the whole thing. I got to the part where the white van tried to pass on the shoulder. I would have done the same thing. I don't know laws, but I think there's something about which lanes are appropriate for driving (i.e., the left lane is passing-only, the center lane(s) is travelling, and the right lane is for emerging or exiting traffic). Most likely, they could have gotten in legal trouble.
However, they're just a bunch of punks. What did James Dean say when asked what he was rebelling against (movie reference).
Posted by Bill on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 09:35 AMHowever, they're just a bunch of punks. What did James Dean say when asked what he was rebelling against (movie reference).
Wow, talk about non-impartial journalistic reporting on this one.
Admitably, I cant hear the sound of what they're saying on the video, but yes, watching their facial expressions and joy at annoying hundreds(thousands) of people is very frustrating. They seem less interested at making a point and more interested at being public nuisances.
But, I do agree with the message they were trying to say. Speed limits are set by bleeding heart politicians, not for practical reasons.
Originally from Australia, I'm used to waves and waves of speed cameras (manned and unmanned) to catch you and fine you. Your chance of getting caught is high.
Here in Canada now, I've gone past police cars doing 20km/h over the limit and they dont seem to care. In fact, everyone speeds if the weather is right.
So, as long as police discretion is used the way it seems to be for me now(you are only stopped if you're driving 'dangerously' over the limit) then I dont think the laws should be changed.
Until, of course, they run low on budget and go on a ticket drive to raise money, then I'll switch sides.
Posted by AussieBruce on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 09:56 AMAdmitably, I cant hear the sound of what they're saying on the video, but yes, watching their facial expressions and joy at annoying hundreds(thousands) of people is very frustrating. They seem less interested at making a point and more interested at being public nuisances.
But, I do agree with the message they were trying to say. Speed limits are set by bleeding heart politicians, not for practical reasons.
Originally from Australia, I'm used to waves and waves of speed cameras (manned and unmanned) to catch you and fine you. Your chance of getting caught is high.
Here in Canada now, I've gone past police cars doing 20km/h over the limit and they dont seem to care. In fact, everyone speeds if the weather is right.
So, as long as police discretion is used the way it seems to be for me now(you are only stopped if you're driving 'dangerously' over the limit) then I dont think the laws should be changed.
Until, of course, they run low on budget and go on a ticket drive to raise money, then I'll switch sides.
Totally disagree with y'all.
If they slowed down traffic, the slowed it down to 55, the legal limit. If a city or state WANTS people to be allowed to drive 75, it should make the speed limit 75 and enforce it as such. Excessively low, unenforced speed limits are hypocracy, and sometimes hypocracy needs a good kick in the ass.
The one thing I would have done differently would be to have some plan in place to make sure an ambulance or fire engine could get through. Like maybe "spotters" with cell phones driving a mile or two back.
Posted by Jeff on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 10:29 AMIf they slowed down traffic, the slowed it down to 55, the legal limit. If a city or state WANTS people to be allowed to drive 75, it should make the speed limit 75 and enforce it as such. Excessively low, unenforced speed limits are hypocracy, and sometimes hypocracy needs a good kick in the ass.
The one thing I would have done differently would be to have some plan in place to make sure an ambulance or fire engine could get through. Like maybe "spotters" with cell phones driving a mile or two back.
"What did James Dean say when asked what he was rebelling against (movie reference)."
You're probably thinking of the scene in "The Wild Ones," where Marlon Brando plays a biker gang leader. Somebody asks Brando's character, "What are you rebelling against?" and he answers, "What have you got?"
Posted by Big Gary, ambling along in Dallas, Texas, USA on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 11:01 AMYou're probably thinking of the scene in "The Wild Ones," where Marlon Brando plays a biker gang leader. Somebody asks Brando's character, "What are you rebelling against?" and he answers, "What have you got?"
I can see where these kids were coming from, although the main problem with speed limits like that are that one day you won't be ticketed at a certain speed and the next day some cop looking to fill his quota will bust you. The actual limit should be posted. However this looks like the work of a bunch of punk kids playing a stupid game and endangering others.
Posted by Zoe on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 11:28 AMI don't think that they did anything wrong. All four of them obeyed the speed limit, and those trying to pass were breaking the law. It sounds like something I would do.
Posted by Dracul on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:17 PMThis is great. i just got a ticket yesterday for going 2 miles per hour over the speed limit.
Posted by Ryan on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:36 PMGeorgia Code 40-6-40 states:
No two vehicles shall impede the normal flow of traffic by traveling side by side at the same time while in adjacent lanes, provided that this Code section shall not be construed to prevent vehicles traveling side by side in adjacent lanes because of congested traffic conditions.
So they were breaking the law.
Posted by Alex in San Diego on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:57 PMNo two vehicles shall impede the normal flow of traffic by traveling side by side at the same time while in adjacent lanes, provided that this Code section shall not be construed to prevent vehicles traveling side by side in adjacent lanes because of congested traffic conditions.
So they were breaking the law.
They weren't breaking the law because they were all traveling the speed limit. The 'two abreast' provision doesn't apply. None of the cars could have passed and moved to the right because in doing so they would have exceeded the speed limit. Additionally, none of the cars could have slowed down to merge right because of congested traffic conditions.
Was this prank great? Yes. Was it dangerous? Yes. Should it be repeated? No. Does it show the hypocrisy of speed limit enforcement? Yes.
I once read that the quickest way to see the legalization of many recreational drugs would be to enact random drug testing as a requirement for carrying a driver's license. So many people would be at risk of failing, the law would have to change. I believe the same thing applies here.
Although I'm personally not a fan of automated photo ticketing systems, they would solve the problem. If everyone who exceeded the speed limit on that highway received a ticket, the speed limit would be 75MPH within a month.
All that said, the risk of death in an automobile accident dramatically rises with an increase in speed. There are lots of reasons this happens but lower speed limits save lives. Its hard to dispute.
Posted by Aaron in Philadelphia on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:32 PMWas this prank great? Yes. Was it dangerous? Yes. Should it be repeated? No. Does it show the hypocrisy of speed limit enforcement? Yes.
I once read that the quickest way to see the legalization of many recreational drugs would be to enact random drug testing as a requirement for carrying a driver's license. So many people would be at risk of failing, the law would have to change. I believe the same thing applies here.
Although I'm personally not a fan of automated photo ticketing systems, they would solve the problem. If everyone who exceeded the speed limit on that highway received a ticket, the speed limit would be 75MPH within a month.
All that said, the risk of death in an automobile accident dramatically rises with an increase in speed. There are lots of reasons this happens but lower speed limits save lives. Its hard to dispute.
Legislation is about to be proposed at the State level that will do away with speed limits in favor of "momentum" limits. The driving force is government studies that prove drivers of heavier vehicles are more likely to cause accidents, and that accidents involving heavier vehicles are more likely to cause fatalities. Because of this, it doesn't make mathematical (or common) sense to let heavy vehicles drive at the same speed as light vehicles.
The study can be found at the R&D site for the Department of Transportation:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-11/aggressivity/980908/980908.html
The basic idea is that a 10,000 pound (Gross Vehicle Weight Rating) SUV moving at 75 MPH has four times as much momentum as a 2,500 pound passenger car moving at 75 MPH. Thus, the SUV in this scenario packs a lot more potential energy, is much more likely to cause an accident and any accident it is involved in is much more likely to be deadly. Therefore, the SUV would be required to reduce its speed.
Actually, the new law would require heavier vehicles to travel at lower speeds, and would actually enable drivers of lighter vehicles to travel faster than current limits.
The expense of implementing this would be supported by "wear and tear" taxes on the heavier vehicles, since they cause degradation of roads, bridges etc. at a faster rate.
Posted by intjudo on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 02:07 PMThe study can be found at the R&D site for the Department of Transportation:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-11/aggressivity/980908/980908.html
The basic idea is that a 10,000 pound (Gross Vehicle Weight Rating) SUV moving at 75 MPH has four times as much momentum as a 2,500 pound passenger car moving at 75 MPH. Thus, the SUV in this scenario packs a lot more potential energy, is much more likely to cause an accident and any accident it is involved in is much more likely to be deadly. Therefore, the SUV would be required to reduce its speed.
Actually, the new law would require heavier vehicles to travel at lower speeds, and would actually enable drivers of lighter vehicles to travel faster than current limits.
The expense of implementing this would be supported by "wear and tear" taxes on the heavier vehicles, since they cause degradation of roads, bridges etc. at a faster rate.
I don't know, Aaron. The way I read the Georgia code, it doesn't mention anything about it being legal to drive side-by-side if you're doing the speed limit. It's just a blanket prohibition: you can't drive side by side and block traffic. They clearly were impeding the flow of traffic.
Posted by Alex in San Diego on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 02:16 PMBut your stuck...the only way to not break that law is to break another. Catch-22.
Posted by Aaron in Philadelphia on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 02:23 PMAaron, you're forgetting that it's legal for certain vehicles (police cars, fire trucks, ambulances) to drive over the speed limit. But the students were indiscriminately blocking all traffic. I think that's the logic behind the "no two abreast" law. A row of cars can't block all lanes, even if they're going the maximum speed limit, because some vehicles might have a legitimate reason to need to get past them.
Posted by Alex in San Diego on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 02:38 PMThey were travelling the legal maximum speed limit. As such, even travelling abreast, they did not "impede the normal flow of traffic". According to the law, the normal flow of traffic is 55 miles per hour. They were impeding *abnormal* flow.
What I would have done different, however, would have been to have the cars travel in a staggered or diagonal line, still not allowing room to move between them, but *technically* not side-by-side.
I might have added bumper stickers saying "Honk if you think the 55 limit sucks"
Then again, had I been one of the unwitting participants in the crowd behind them, I probably would have been the white van...
Posted by Eric K. on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 02:41 PMWhat I would have done different, however, would have been to have the cars travel in a staggered or diagonal line, still not allowing room to move between them, but *technically* not side-by-side.
I might have added bumper stickers saying "Honk if you think the 55 limit sucks"
Then again, had I been one of the unwitting participants in the crowd behind them, I probably would have been the white van...
"Anyway, their argument — that their experiment proves the absurdity of the 55 mph law — is flawed. It didn't prove that at all. All it proved is that if you form a rolling blockade, it's going to create a traffic jam. It would have had the same effect at 65 mph."
Your argument is flawed.
They created a blockade because the majority of traffic exceeds the speed limit. They would have had a lesser effect at 65 since not everyone drives over 65 -- they would only be blockading those who would be driving at or above that speed, other lawful drivers would not notice the effect once the students and the 65+ drivers had pulled sufficiently ahead of them (how long that would take would depend on what percentage drives at 65+). If they were doing this at 75, 85, etc. they would not be causing any blockade worth mentioning since very few people drive that fast (in areas marked 55 at least).
What they proved is what I stated above, that the majority of traffic exceeds the speed limit, from which one could conclude that the 55 law is absurd since it goes against actual practices.
Also, I remember someone once advocating having special traffic police do excactly what the students did -- form a line and maintain a constant speed -- as a way to reduce congestion during rush hours. The reasoning went that congestion is caused by the accumulation of the effect of people breaking -- one car slows down, the next slows down more abruptly because of a delay in reaction time, the next slows even more abruptly, and so on until a stop-and-go congestion pattern develops. By having a line of traffic control cars going at a constant speed suitable for the amount of cars on the road at that time, the stop-and-go pattern would be dusrupted and traffic would move smoothly, the theory went.
Posted by fk on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 02:56 PMYour argument is flawed.
They created a blockade because the majority of traffic exceeds the speed limit. They would have had a lesser effect at 65 since not everyone drives over 65 -- they would only be blockading those who would be driving at or above that speed, other lawful drivers would not notice the effect once the students and the 65+ drivers had pulled sufficiently ahead of them (how long that would take would depend on what percentage drives at 65+). If they were doing this at 75, 85, etc. they would not be causing any blockade worth mentioning since very few people drive that fast (in areas marked 55 at least).
What they proved is what I stated above, that the majority of traffic exceeds the speed limit, from which one could conclude that the 55 law is absurd since it goes against actual practices.
Also, I remember someone once advocating having special traffic police do excactly what the students did -- form a line and maintain a constant speed -- as a way to reduce congestion during rush hours. The reasoning went that congestion is caused by the accumulation of the effect of people breaking -- one car slows down, the next slows down more abruptly because of a delay in reaction time, the next slows even more abruptly, and so on until a stop-and-go congestion pattern develops. By having a line of traffic control cars going at a constant speed suitable for the amount of cars on the road at that time, the stop-and-go pattern would be dusrupted and traffic would move smoothly, the theory went.
Hmmm... they were all travelling the posted legal speed limit in their respective lanes. This means:
A) They can't be "blockading" traffic. To blockade means to impede. To impede you must keep drivers from being able to freely travel at the legal posted limit. If you are already travelling the legal posted limit, then drivers adhering to the same posted limit cannot, as governed by the rules of physics, pass your vehicle.
B) Any driver who passes them is, by definition, breaking the law.
I see a whole host of infractions on the video - tailgaiting, unsafe lane changes, unsafe passing, and speeding to name a few. And none of them by the students. Instead of screaming about what the students did (kudo's to them, by the way) why isn't the media screaming for a bunch of cops to be scouring the video and sending tickets to everyone who intentionally broke traffic laws to unsafely go around four drivers adhering to the posted legal limit?
Posted by Brad in Lubbock, TX on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 03:07 PMA) They can't be "blockading" traffic. To blockade means to impede. To impede you must keep drivers from being able to freely travel at the legal posted limit. If you are already travelling the legal posted limit, then drivers adhering to the same posted limit cannot, as governed by the rules of physics, pass your vehicle.
B) Any driver who passes them is, by definition, breaking the law.
I see a whole host of infractions on the video - tailgaiting, unsafe lane changes, unsafe passing, and speeding to name a few. And none of them by the students. Instead of screaming about what the students did (kudo's to them, by the way) why isn't the media screaming for a bunch of cops to be scouring the video and sending tickets to everyone who intentionally broke traffic laws to unsafely go around four drivers adhering to the posted legal limit?
"B) Any driver who passes them is, by definition, breaking the law"
But is that true? Aren't you allowed to exceed the speed limit while passing? (I'm actually asking, because I don't know.)
Call me impatient, but it would be very time consuming to pass someone going 50 in a 55 zone if you couldn't. And if it were on a road with one lane going each direction at 35, how would you pass someone going 30 without risking head-on collisions?
Posted by fk on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 03:13 PMBut is that true? Aren't you allowed to exceed the speed limit while passing? (I'm actually asking, because I don't know.)
Call me impatient, but it would be very time consuming to pass someone going 50 in a 55 zone if you couldn't. And if it were on a road with one lane going each direction at 35, how would you pass someone going 30 without risking head-on collisions?
This seems to be very like a prank from a book called TTYL by Lauren Myracle.
go look: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0810948214/103-9849153-1115824?v=glance&n=283155
Not a very good book, but there is a scene exactly like this in it.
Posted by Snowy in aeternum on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 03:16 PMgo look: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0810948214/103-9849153-1115824?v=glance&n=283155
Not a very good book, but there is a scene exactly like this in it.
It's a common fallacy that you can speed when passing, but it's not true. Speeding is speeding, regardless, and you can certainly get a ticket for it.
Yes what they did is irritating, but I have to agree that they were doing the legally posted limit. I think a court would have to decide if this constitutes obstructionism since it's generally only applied to people driving under the limit. But I also agree that it was extremely dangerous and should never have been done, regardless of the point they meant to make.
Posted by Charybdis in Hell on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 03:20 PMYes what they did is irritating, but I have to agree that they were doing the legally posted limit. I think a court would have to decide if this constitutes obstructionism since it's generally only applied to people driving under the limit. But I also agree that it was extremely dangerous and should never have been done, regardless of the point they meant to make.
Page 1 of 7 pages 1 2 3 > Last »