In Maryland, 63 in a 65 is speeding

I am often fast driver who's frequently frustrated by slow moving things in front of me, but people on this thread are going a little overboard.

 

fuck her. wish she could have received a larger ticket.

 

And fuck every last one of you dangerous assholes who thinks the words "speed limit" don't apply to you. Slow the fuck down. Assholes.

Oh... and have a nice day

 

As a Los Angelino, I ask, what is this "going over the speed limit" you speak of?

 

Yup.

 

Apparently you folks haven't spent much time in West Virginia.

 

Fuck her and all you "10 MPH is the real speed limit" speeders.

 

If that's your contention, then she has only two other options for that lane: 64 mph or 65, right? Otherwise she's breaking the law by going 66 or faster and we wouldn't want to encourage that, would we? Not knowing the exact details of traffic on that part of the road at the time she was pulled over, sounds like I'd rather be behind her than 99 percent of the clowns I see every day. Since when does an "Exit, 1 mile ahead" sign mean, "Get in the left lane, go 80 so you can pass as many cars as possible, then worry about being in the correct lane to get off the highway about 25 yards before the exit?"

 

True.

Honestly, I'd put Maryland fifth behind Mississippi, Alabama, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Not a ton of separation between 3-4-5, though.

 

There are some highways where the right lanes keep disappearing (becoming "must exit" lanes), while traffic merges onto the highway from the left. Staying right is dangerous, because you keep having to change lanes (move over to the left) before your lane is forced to exit.

If I enter I-95 heading north from Key Biscayne in downtown Miami, I IMMEDIATELY get to the left lane as fast as I can.

Why?

Because the right lanes all become "must exit" lanes, and I can go from the extreme left lane to the extreme right in a matter of 3 miles WITHOUT CHANGING LANES ONCE. Changing lanes is dangerous, and its best to do it only when necessary. If that means I'm in the left lane for a minute or two without speeding . . . tough shit. It's still safer than you having to let me merge into your lane from the right.

Amen. If you must get to your precious destination five minutes sooner . . . leave the house earlier.

 

She deserves a only warning? Why?

People stopped for driving with out-of-date tags, no license or insurance aren't necessarily impeding traffic, either. Do they deserve citations, or should they get only get warnings, too?

She was wrong.

The officer would have been in a better position than you or me to judge if she was impeding traffic. Watching the footage, it seems that anyone not maintaining at least the speed limit would be doing so. That's a busy road.

We have no idea what the traffic stop was like. Maybe the officer was going to give her a warning but the driver acted belligerently. Maybe the officer didn't like the color of her hair or her voice. Maybe the officer witnessed something else related to the stop, or slow drivers in the fast lanes are pet peeves.

Maybe she was impeding traffic badly. We do not know. The woman doesn't dispute driving under the speed limit in the left-hand lane and did not move into the right-hand lane. And that's worthy of a citation.

She had no business being in the left hand lane. If she felt it was unsafe due to the high winds, she REALLY should have stayed in the right hand lane, or at least not the far left one.

The thread title is off - the woman, the reporter and her attorney are the ones comparing this to a speeding ticket. The citation is not for not speeding, it's for failure to keep right. It does not seem the woman is contesting that.