If Speed Limits Are Abolished Then How Can Anyone Be Accused Of Driving Too Fast?

Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Seeing as how Stripe locked his thread I thought I'd reopen the convo with [MENTION=16942]JudgeRightly[/MENTION] here and for anyone else to comment on point.

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?131076-Honest-lawyer&p=5286081&viewfull=1#post5286081

The salient part from JR:

If a child (and this applies to people of all ages, not just children) was killed because someone was driving too fast in an area known to have children in it (for example, a neighborhood, and the child was injured, maimed, or killed, the person who was driving recklessly would be put on trial for negligence resulting in injury (or deadly negligence, if the child died).

My response:

Just to return to this part again. If speed limits have been abolished then there's no such thing as "driving too fast". The way the laws stand now, a motorist can be prosecuted for speeding, endangering life and reckless driving but if there's no limits placed on speed in residential areas then you can't level a charge of reckless driving because the driver hasn't broken any law. All because you've got rid of the very ones that cap speed.
 
ok doser

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Obviously, you've never heard of "driving too fast for conditions" or "driving too fast for circumstances". And I see no reason you wouldn't still have reckless driving and endangering life, which are not tied to speed as they stand now
 
ok doser

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
It's been addressed with logic and rationality, concepts foreign to them. They're ruled by emotion and like a child in the middle of a tantrum, can't stop kicking and fussing long enough to hear reason
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Stripe said:
Why do these morons insist on making threads when their nonsense has been addressed?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It hasn't been and it sure isn't likely to be answered by by you so unless you can answer as to how someone can be accused of driving too fast when there's no speed limits then feel to take your usual spam someplace else.
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Stripe said:
If people drove to the conditions, we'd all get where we're going a lot faster. Moreover, we wouldn't need stupid things like traffic lights.
Click to expand...

Speed limits take conditions, area, condition of the road etc into account. That's why there's much lower speed limits in urban and residential areas than motorways or long open roads in Montana etc. They're sensible, logical, improve road safety and are used around the world. If there's no speed limit then who determines what is "driving too fast"?
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Once again, how can anyone be accused of driving too fast if there's no laws to curtail speed? The logical answer is they can't which is one reason why we have them, to discourage irresponsible driving and to make roads and residential areas safer for motorist and pedestrian alike.
 
Town Heretic

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Arthur Brain said:
Once again, how can anyone be accused of driving too fast if there's no laws to curtail speed? The logical answer is they can't which is one reason why we have them, to discourage irresponsible driving and to make roads and residential areas safer for motorist and pedestrian alike.
Click to expand...
You can't be prosecuted for speeding absent laws on the point. And yes, we have speeding laws to diminish the likelihood of your causing unintended harm and/or damage to others and their property.

That said, you could be prosecuted for harm worked in the event you lost control and damaged someone's property or person, up to and including being the cause of their death. The car would be much like a hammer in that case. You can carry it around legally if there's no law precluding you doing so, but you will be criminally and civilly liable for whatever you do with it.

Is that helpful, AB?
 
Last edited:
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Town Heretic said:
You can't be prosecuted for speeding absent laws on the point. And yes, we have speeding laws to diminish the likelihood of your causing unintended harm and/or damage to other's and their property.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, which is why it's ridiculous to posit that someone can drive too fast having supported there being no speed limits.

That said, you could be prosecuted for harm worked in the event you lost control and damaged someone's property or person, up to and including being the cause of their death. The car would be much like a hammer in that case. You can carry it around legally if there's no law precluding you doing so, but you will be criminally and civilly liable for whatever you do with it.
Click to expand...

Sure, speedings probably the most common form of reckless driving as a loss of control is far more likely along with the likelihood of endangerment to life and damage to property but it's not the only one. Driving under the influence would be another along with ignoring street signs, traffic lights etc.

Is that helpful, AB?
Click to expand...

Yup, good to have a reasoned response.

:cheers:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top