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: 139
Category: Law/Police/Crime
Category: Law/Police/Crime
Listed in chronological order. Newest comments at the end.
Page 2 of 7 pages < 1 2 3 4 > Last »
On the other hand, driving in the left lane, except when passing, is evidentally illegal by this law. It seems Georgia went through a crackdown on this practice sometime recently. So yes, the far left driver was breaking the law.
However, the statute in question reads:
(a) Upon all roadways of sufficient width, a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway, except as follows:
(1) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction under the rules governing such movement;
(2) When an obstruction exists making it necessary to drive to the left of the center of the highway, provided that any person so doing shall yield the right of way to all vehicles traveling in the proper direction upon the unobstructed portion of the highway within such a distance as to constitute an immediate hazard;
(3) Upon a roadway divided into three marked lanes for traffic under the rules applicable thereon; or
(4) Upon a roadway restricted to one-way traffic.
This is a eight-lane highway, so I'm not sure what, exactly, that means to the law. I'm just drawing a blank on a three-lane highway.
How this entitles others to break the law is beyond me, but people get aggressive when they're behind the wheel.
Posted by Charybdis in Hell on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 03:39 PM
However, the statute in question reads:
(a) Upon all roadways of sufficient width, a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway, except as follows:
(1) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction under the rules governing such movement;
(2) When an obstruction exists making it necessary to drive to the left of the center of the highway, provided that any person so doing shall yield the right of way to all vehicles traveling in the proper direction upon the unobstructed portion of the highway within such a distance as to constitute an immediate hazard;
(3) Upon a roadway divided into three marked lanes for traffic under the rules applicable thereon; or
(4) Upon a roadway restricted to one-way traffic.
This is a eight-lane highway, so I'm not sure what, exactly, that means to the law. I'm just drawing a blank on a three-lane highway.
How this entitles others to break the law is beyond me, but people get aggressive when they're behind the wheel.
The reality is that the only people who can say definitively whether what the students did was illegal is a) the Atlanta police department, and then b) a judge.
I'd wager it would be found illegal because I really don't think the authorities would find the even-though-they-were-preventing- anyone-from-passing-them-they-were-doing-the-speed-limit argument convincing.
Posted by Alex in San Diego on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 03:43 PM
I'd wager it would be found illegal because I really don't think the authorities would find the even-though-they-were-preventing- anyone-from-passing-them-they-were-doing-the-speed-limit argument convincing.
Sorry, but I gotta side with the students. Good for them, trying to prove that the 55 mph speed limit is stupid. I don't think they broke any laws at all.
Posted by Sakano in Ohio on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 03:49 PM
In the UK, they have adjustable speed limits on the M25 circling London. When the motorway starts to get too full and threatens to create backups on the on-ramps, they actually reduce the speed limit (shown on the electronic signboards overhead). Vehicles travelling slower travel closer together, so you can get more of them on the motorway. Sounds crazy, but it works exceptionally well.
Wikipedia even has an entry about the MIDAS system used to control traffic flow in this way:
M25 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M25_motorway
MIDAS - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorway_Incident_Detection_and_Automatic_Signalling
Posted by Wendy in Wellington NZ on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 03:53 PM
Wikipedia even has an entry about the MIDAS system used to control traffic flow in this way:
M25 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M25_motorway
MIDAS - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorway_Incident_Detection_and_Automatic_Signalling
Oh, this was just on World News Tonight right after I posted here!
Posted by Sakano in Ohio on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 03:58 PM
I wonder how they would have done this experiment in Montana if the state still had their no speed limit (but safe and prudent)law? What would their argument be?
While driving through the state a few years back, I must say it was fun to actually travel in my truck at a high speed without worrying that a state trooper would pull me over.
Posted by Rex in San Diego on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 04:00 PM
While driving through the state a few years back, I must say it was fun to actually travel in my truck at a high speed without worrying that a state trooper would pull me over.
Here is a story about how split speed limits actually increase accidents. Remember when all these cities were putting in "red light cams" to try to stop people from running red lights, and the only thing that happened was rear end collisions increased as well as money flowing to the government and the business that operated the cameras? That's what is happening with the SUV scheme. The government jumps on the PC and pop culture hate of the SUV under the idea of safer streets and better roads. But the bottom line is it's just a way to increase revenue. If they are going to charge the SUVs more then why not charge the smaller cars less? What do they charge motorcycles? Is this really about being fare or just finding a popular way to raise taxes? What about small businesses that need SUVs and such to condcut business? Gas tax, yearly registration fees, and now the new "momentum" fees are just going to hurt the little guy. Remember money is like food, it works in a chain, you kick one end of the chain, the rest of the chain rattles.
Posted by Lonewatchman on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 06:08 PM
All I have to say about this incident is this: what if an ambulance or some emergency vehicle was stuck in that, and needed to get somewhere quickly?
Regardless of if they were obeying the law or not, it was a stupid way to prove a point and caused many problems. They should have at least allowed people to pass them in some way, especially if they were an emergency vehicle.
Posted by Soldant in Australia on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 07:11 PM
Regardless of if they were obeying the law or not, it was a stupid way to prove a point and caused many problems. They should have at least allowed people to pass them in some way, especially if they were an emergency vehicle.
Regarding the ambulance/emergency argument: that is what the road's shoulder is for. Police use the shoulder all the time. How do you think they get to an accident on the highway that has caused total gridlock?
Flip the coin on your 'what if' scenario. What if one of those cars stuck in traffic held a terrorist on his way to commit a suicide bombing at an Atlanta-area mall? What if these humble students foiled his plan by unknowingly ensnaring him in an unexpected traffic jam?
What if your cell phone blabbling and swerving caused a cascade of brake lights that turned rush hour into a crawl? At the front of the wave, you'd never even know it was your fault...but it was. And, because of you, that mother of two didn't make it to the hospital and died.
Get real.
What they did was legal. What they did proves a point. Despite its legality, I have little doubt that they would lose a first and possibly second round in court. But, if they wanted to pursue it, they would without a doubt win in the end.
Posted by Aaron in Philadelphia on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 07:34 PM
Flip the coin on your 'what if' scenario. What if one of those cars stuck in traffic held a terrorist on his way to commit a suicide bombing at an Atlanta-area mall? What if these humble students foiled his plan by unknowingly ensnaring him in an unexpected traffic jam?
What if your cell phone blabbling and swerving caused a cascade of brake lights that turned rush hour into a crawl? At the front of the wave, you'd never even know it was your fault...but it was. And, because of you, that mother of two didn't make it to the hospital and died.
Get real.
What they did was legal. What they did proves a point. Despite its legality, I have little doubt that they would lose a first and possibly second round in court. But, if they wanted to pursue it, they would without a doubt win in the end.
Consider that the fact that most people travel over the speed limit means that most people are breaking the law. In this age of terrorism, our police are empowered in this situation. Think of it. They can pretty much pull over anyone they want, and they don't have to bother with any silly probable cause or anything like that, since all (almost) citizens are criminals anyways. In fact we should probably empower the authorities even more by enacting laws in other areas (besides on the roads) which result in citizens all being guilty of breaking some law, which can be arbitrarily enforced if need be to protect us from terrorists without the need to violate our civil rights.
Posted by reader on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 08:42 PM
Over here in Belgium, we have system called "Blokrijden" (Blockdriving). When there is a lot of traffic (due to the start of the holiday season or something) the police limit the speed on the highway by driving in front of traffic, just as these students did. The cars will drive closer together forming a "block" of cars. The capacity of the highway is increased, and there is less chance for a traffic jam, and less chance for accidents, since every car moves at the same speed. This works pretty effective over here.
Posted by Erik in Belgium on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 11:45 PM
Yeah.. but you forget that over here in the US, people take it as a god-given right to be able to drive as insane as they want. I live within reasonable distance of Highway 680, where the joke runs that you either travel 6 or 80... (speed limit is 65)
Personally, I've always felt that the term 'speed limit' should be changed to read 'Maximum Safe Speed'. Gets the point across a bit better, I think. Though you know some idiot - probably in my home state of California - is going to sue after getting in a lower-speed accident on the basis that they thought it would be completely safe.
Posted by Bobcat on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 12:38 AM
Personally, I've always felt that the term 'speed limit' should be changed to read 'Maximum Safe Speed'. Gets the point across a bit better, I think. Though you know some idiot - probably in my home state of California - is going to sue after getting in a lower-speed accident on the basis that they thought it would be completely safe.
I'm sure it was annoying being stuck behind a bunch of self righteous students, but they did prove that those behind them were breaking the law, as they all must have been speeding(i.e breaking the law), to have caught them up and create such a massive tailback.
Posted by Royale in Bristol,UK on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 02:11 AM
The way I look at speed limit is this: Just because your car can get to a certain speed doesn't mean you have the reflex to handle it. This may come as a damage to "manhood" for many people because somehow fast driving has become something of a macho thing.
I've always had used cars, two of them VW bugs, and those things can hardly go over 60 if I REALLY tried.
So let's say the speed limit is 75 now, what about all the cars thatn can't reach that fast or the people who can't handle that speed?
Some may not give a shit about their lives but who came along and decide certain people should drive faster then anyone else and possibly endanger other people's lives?
Okay, let's say let's take it all away comepletly, 0 speed limit, people can drive as fast as they want.
Then what if some people comes along and decide we SHOULD have speed limit and pull a same stunt and all drive down the highway going 15 mph, what then?
Posted by Tom on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 02:55 AM
I've always had used cars, two of them VW bugs, and those things can hardly go over 60 if I REALLY tried.
So let's say the speed limit is 75 now, what about all the cars thatn can't reach that fast or the people who can't handle that speed?
Some may not give a shit about their lives but who came along and decide certain people should drive faster then anyone else and possibly endanger other people's lives?
Okay, let's say let's take it all away comepletly, 0 speed limit, people can drive as fast as they want.
Then what if some people comes along and decide we SHOULD have speed limit and pull a same stunt and all drive down the highway going 15 mph, what then?
I drive fire trucks for a living. If someone died in a fire because these jerks were causing a traffic jam, someone would be pretty damn mad.
I'd also like to say that driving on the shoulder or in the grass for an emergency vehicle is not always such a good or safe idea. It slows down our response time and makes things a little more dangerous for the fire truck and the crew inside. Weight constantly shifts around due to the water inside the tank. Driving halfway in a ditch and getting stuck or rolling over would not be a fun experience for the fire dept. If we cant get there in a safe and efficent manner, then we can't help our public.
I understand how you feel Aaron, but "what if" your house was on fire and we couldnt get there because of something like this? You'd probably be upset, right? Regardless of the fact that they were driving the speed limit, they have no right to endanger other people's lives or property by purposly causing a traffic jam.
Regarding the total gridlock scenario...emergency responders are also allowed to use the lane of opposite flow of traffic to arrive on scene, however, this is very dangerous and should not be done unless you are passing. On a highway/freeway this is sometimes impossible. Also, the trucks on scene probably caused the gridlock. When there is an accident on a street, we usually set up our fire trucks in a way to block the lanes close to the accident with the fire truck, thus keeping the emergency area safe. Dont want a firefighter getting hit by a passing motorist when he/she is trying to help someone. This has happened before in the past, and that is why we now block the lanes with our trucks. Hopefully there's a way for traffic to go around us, but if not, it's ok because safety is the main issue here.
Posted by Mike in USA on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 03:02 AM
I'd also like to say that driving on the shoulder or in the grass for an emergency vehicle is not always such a good or safe idea. It slows down our response time and makes things a little more dangerous for the fire truck and the crew inside. Weight constantly shifts around due to the water inside the tank. Driving halfway in a ditch and getting stuck or rolling over would not be a fun experience for the fire dept. If we cant get there in a safe and efficent manner, then we can't help our public.
I understand how you feel Aaron, but "what if" your house was on fire and we couldnt get there because of something like this? You'd probably be upset, right? Regardless of the fact that they were driving the speed limit, they have no right to endanger other people's lives or property by purposly causing a traffic jam.
Regarding the total gridlock scenario...emergency responders are also allowed to use the lane of opposite flow of traffic to arrive on scene, however, this is very dangerous and should not be done unless you are passing. On a highway/freeway this is sometimes impossible. Also, the trucks on scene probably caused the gridlock. When there is an accident on a street, we usually set up our fire trucks in a way to block the lanes close to the accident with the fire truck, thus keeping the emergency area safe. Dont want a firefighter getting hit by a passing motorist when he/she is trying to help someone. This has happened before in the past, and that is why we now block the lanes with our trucks. Hopefully there's a way for traffic to go around us, but if not, it's ok because safety is the main issue here.
"But your stuck...the only way to not break that law is to break another. Catch-22."
If they were'nt causing a traffic jam, then no one would have to break the law to pass them.
Posted by Mike on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 03:34 AM
If they were'nt causing a traffic jam, then no one would have to break the law to pass them.
Sorry, I'd like to add one more thing. I was given a ticket once for driving the speed limit in the passing lane. The officer told me that lane was for passing people that were "slow to the right"
I guess he meant people passing on the left were to break the speed limit? Whether or not he was being legit with me, or just filling his quota for the day....a cop told me to break the speed limit when passing.
Posted by Mike on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 03:40 AM
I guess he meant people passing on the left were to break the speed limit? Whether or not he was being legit with me, or just filling his quota for the day....a cop told me to break the speed limit when passing.
Carbon emissions too - 55mph is a pretty good median for the most efficient speed for most cars to go at in terms of fuel consumption. It's the speed I drive on motorways and duel carriageways (where the limit is 70). SF Gate article on this:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/19/MNG3NFAOF11.DTL
As mentioned previously, slowing down can increase the number of cars that can 'fit' on the road, and can actually deacrease congestion.
Apart from emergency vehicales - what the hell is the rush? Is it such a huge deal to leave a few minutes earlier? As far as commercial vehicles are concerned, you won't be impeding them, as most will have speed limiters so they can't exceed the speed limit.
Posted by M on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 03:47 AM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/19/MNG3NFAOF11.DTL
As mentioned previously, slowing down can increase the number of cars that can 'fit' on the road, and can actually deacrease congestion.
Apart from emergency vehicales - what the hell is the rush? Is it such a huge deal to leave a few minutes earlier? As far as commercial vehicles are concerned, you won't be impeding them, as most will have speed limiters so they can't exceed the speed limit.
"Apart from emergency vehicales - what the hell is the rush?"
Well, someone's life is in danger, that's what the rush is all about. Yeah, sure, let's just stroll on over there after lunch. It's only someone's life, right? They'll get another one, I'm sure!
"Is it such a huge deal to leave a few minutes earlier?"
I dont know if this was directed towards emergency responses, but if it was, its clear you dont work in such a type of job.
An emergency can happen at any time and any place. There is no option to "leave a few minutes earlier" When the call comes in - you go NOW!
"Yeah, someone's house is going to catch on fire in 30 minutes! Let's leave early and get there before it happens!" Yeah, right. Not going to happen.
The whole reason to "rush" to the scene of the emergency is to get there as soon as possible. It is an emergency, after all.
Posted by Mike on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 04:03 AM
Well, someone's life is in danger, that's what the rush is all about. Yeah, sure, let's just stroll on over there after lunch. It's only someone's life, right? They'll get another one, I'm sure!
"Is it such a huge deal to leave a few minutes earlier?"
I dont know if this was directed towards emergency responses, but if it was, its clear you dont work in such a type of job.
An emergency can happen at any time and any place. There is no option to "leave a few minutes earlier" When the call comes in - you go NOW!
"Yeah, someone's house is going to catch on fire in 30 minutes! Let's leave early and get there before it happens!" Yeah, right. Not going to happen.
The whole reason to "rush" to the scene of the emergency is to get there as soon as possible. It is an emergency, after all.
Oops, didnt see the "apart" there - I apologise! My mistake! I guess I was kind of enraged thinking someone would think an emergency is no big deal. Sorry about the mix up! 
Posted by Mike on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 04:06 AM
Page 2 of 7 pages < 1 2 3 4 > Last »