If there's two cars speeding, we'll say 55 in a 35. One car in front is doing 42 and the other behind him is doing much faster, and has an enormous closing rate, and then closes to the first cars back bumper. Say for a second you're on that street. Would you pull over the first car who's setting the pace of traffic or the 2nd one?

This isn't inspired by any incident, just out of curosity.

Me personally, I would pull the second cat over, but you've had the training and are more qualified to make an assessment.

Thank you.

I'm not a police officer, but I would chase the faster traveling vehicle and shoot the tires out of the slower vehicle. That way you get both.

If there's two cars speeding, we'll say 55 in a 35. One car in front is doing 42 and the other behind him is doing much faster, and has an enormous closing rate, and then closes to the first cars back bumper. Say for a second you're on that street. Would you pull over the first car who's setting the pace of traffic or the 2nd one?

This isn't inspired by any incident, just out of curosity.

Me personally, I would pull the second cat over, but you've had the training and are more qualified to make an assessment.

Thank you.
Are they both going 55 or is one going 42 and the other much faster?

If x = y then how much is z?

I would pull over the left lane camper and beat him with my night stick and pepper spray him and claim he resisted arrest.

If there's two cars speeding, we'll say 55 in a 35. One car in front is doing 42 and the other behind him is doing much faster, and has an enormous closing rate, and then closes to the first cars back bumper. Say for a second you're on that street. Would you pull over the first car who's setting the pace of traffic or the 2nd one?
Lemme guess...the first car is being driven by J.Johnson and the car coming up behind is T.Stewart... :killingme (sorry couldn't resist.)

I would pull over the left lane camper and beat him with my night stick and pepper spray him and claim he resisted arrest.

Pepper spray :killingme

If there's two cars speeding, we'll say 55 in a 35. One car in front is doing 42 and the other behind him is doing much faster, and has an enormous closing rate, and then closes to the first cars back bumper. Say for a second you're on that street. Would you pull over the first car who's setting the pace of traffic or the 2nd one?

This isn't inspired by any incident, just out of curosity.

Me personally, I would pull the second cat over, but you've had the training and are more qualified to make an assessment.

Thank you.
I would never pull anyone going just 7 miles over the speed limit over. The second car seems to be more aggressive by driving on the first cars tail, and racing to get to him. So the likely one would be the second car, because he/she seems to be the more dangerous.

This isn't inspired by any incident, just out of curosity.Were you planning on testing this idea on the way home?

Were you planning on testing this idea on the way home?
Um, no. It is just something I've been wondering. I mean, I see people fly down RSR all the time right up until they're on someone's rear deck.

I guess the big picture question is should the first car speed up, if possible, to give himself a comfort zone. If he gets pulled over, than isn't there an injustice?

I don't know. I imagine the first car would pull over if he thinks the police officer is going after the other guy - but who would you (if you were a police officer) go after?

Pull the car over with the best looking women in it. :banana:

If there's two cars speeding, we'll say 55 in a 35. One car in front is doing 42 and the other behind him is doing much faster, and has an enormous closing rate, and then closes to the first cars back bumper. Say for a second you're on that street. Would you pull over the first car who's setting the pace of traffic or the 2nd one?

This isn't inspired by any incident, just out of curosity.

Me personally, I would pull the second cat over, but you've had the training and are more qualified to make an assessment.

Thank you.

I'm sorry. I told my mom to stop antagonizing you. :flowers:

I'm sorry. I told my mom to stop antagonizing you. :flowers:
You said your mom works for CCPS? What department? What building? :lmao:

I guess the big picture question is should the first car speed up, if possible, to give himself a comfort zone. If he gets pulled over, than isn't there an injustice?Personally, I may speed up a few mph to see what the other guy does, but if he stays tight I'd say screw him. If I slam on my brakes he will probably hit me and it will be his fault... and he will pay more than monetarily, guaranteed.

but who would you (if you were a police officer) go after?I don't think I've ever done 42 in a 55 :lol: ... but I don't believe an officer will pull you over for going too slow unless it's really slow - like 30 in a 55 or something. So, presumably, both are doing 42; #1 is doing nothing wrong, but #2 is tailgating and being an ass. Seems pretty straightforward. :shrug:

The original post said 42 in a 35 not in a 55. :whistle:


I don't think I've ever done 42 in a 55 :lol: ... but I don't believe an officer will pull you over for going too slow unless it's really slow - like 30 in a 55 or something. So, presumably, both are doing 42; #1 is doing nothing wrong, but #2 is tailgating and being an ass. Seems pretty straightforward. :shrug:[/QUOTE]

You said your mom works for CCPS? What department? What building? :lmao:

Your building, right down the hall.

How much wood would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood?

How much wood would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood?
Seven.

Your building, right down the hall.
That tells me a whole lot :smack: :killingme

Seven.

Final answer?

I would never pull anyone going just 7 miles over the speed limit over. The second car seems to be more aggressive by driving on the first cars tail, and racing to get to him. So the likely one would be the second car, because he/she seems to be the more dangerous.

You're a bad liar. The first thing you would do is gun em, to see if it's worth your time. Second, you'd get behind the second car and follow him through past the first. There should be a time when the two cars are side-by-side, and you can compare plates on both vehicles. Whoever has out-of-state plates wins your company for the next 20 minutes and gets to make a donation to the county coffers. If both cars have MD plates, you pull over the one that indicates that you'd be able to "smell an odor of burnt marijuana".

Some of you pigs need to get a :smack: to keep you in line.

You're a bad liar. The first thing you would do is gun em, to see if it's worth your time. Second, you'd get behind the second car and follow him through past the first. There should be a time when the two cars are side-by-side, and you can compare plates on both vehicles. Whoever has out-of-state plates wins your company for the next 20 minutes and gets to make a donation to the county coffers. If both cars have MD plates, you pull over the one that indicates that you'd be able to "smell an odor of burnt marijuana".

Some of you pigs need to get a :smack: to keep you in line.
Go away, dick head, just go away.

I would never pull anyone going just 7 miles over the speed limit over. The second car seems to be more aggressive by driving on the first cars tail, and racing to get to him. So the likely one would be the second car, because he/she seems to be the more dangerous.
Would you have pulled me over for "speeding" in an area with a debatable speed limit?

You're a bad liar. The first thing you would do is gun em, to see if it's worth your time. Second, you'd get behind the second car and follow him through past the first. There should be a time when the two cars are side-by-side, and you can compare plates on both vehicles. Whoever has out-of-state plates wins your company for the next 20 minutes and gets to make a donation to the county coffers. If both cars have MD plates, you pull over the one that indicates that you'd be able to "smell an odor of burnt marijuana".

Some of you pigs need to get a :smack: to keep you in line.


:rolleyes: You mean the cop would pull over driver # 1 but only if the driver of car #2 and the cop were both black. If driver # 1 was black and the driver of #2 and the cop were both white, then he'd pull over #1, right? If they were all black, then they'd high-five while driving and say screw the white man. If they're all white, then they obviously aren't doing anything wrong.

If x = y then how much is z?
Well.. X2 + y2= z2...
Well that is if you are not square and like the number 3. :lmao:

I would never pull anyone going just 7 miles over the speed limit over. The second car seems to be more aggressive by driving on the first cars tail, and racing to get to him. So the likely one would be the second car, because he/she seems to be the more dangerous.

I like that answer. :yay:

You're a bad liar. The first thing you would do is gun em, to see if it's worth your time. Second, you'd get behind the second car and follow him through past the first. There should be a time when the two cars are side-by-side, and you can compare plates on both vehicles. Whoever has out-of-state plates wins your company for the next 20 minutes and gets to make a donation to the county coffers. If both cars have MD plates, you pull over the one that indicates that you'd be able to "smell an odor of burnt marijuana".

Some of you pigs need to get a :smack: to keep you in line.
Well, we know you wouldn't do that. You said you saw some police beating a poor defensless little girl and you are too much a coward to help her, you would never challenge a police officer who could see your face!

Would you have pulled me over for "speeding" in an area with a debatable speed limit?
I don't really do traffic enforcement in my current job. However, when I did the traffic stuff, I did what was reasonable. If it's three o'clock in the morning and a Navy guy is leaving the base going home after his shift, why pull him over, or if he is pulled over, give him a ticket for going 55 in a 40 when there is NO other traffic around? It doesn't seem reasonable to me, so I wouldn't have done it.

Would you have pulled me over for "speeding" in an area with a debatable speed limit?
So I guess my answer is no. I may pull you over, because traffic stops often lead to other things, but I doubt if I would have given you a ticket in a place where I might speed myself.

Would you have pulled me over for "speeding" in an area with a debatable speed limit?

Andy we aren't talking about Radio Station Rd again are we? :nono:

Be glad you work for the BOE of CC and not PG and have to contend with the Marlboro Town Cops and all their hiding places to run radar everyday. :smack:

Personally, I may speed up a few mph to see what the other guy does, but if he stays tight I'd say screw him. If I slam on my brakes he will probably hit me and it will be his fault... and he will pay more than monetarily, guaranteed.
It would be your fault, you caused the accident, but you should test this theory with a big truck.

Would you have pulled me over for "speeding" in an area with a debatable speed limit?

What the he!! is a "debatable" speed limit? I didn't realize they were open to negotiation.

Pull over the one driven by the muslim animal and give em a wood shampoo. :yay: :lmao:

What the he!! is a "debatable" speed limit? I didn't realize they were open to negotiation.
I think one could debate a speed limit depending on the time of day, flow of traffic, or other factors. We can write tickets for going the "speed limit" in bad conditions, why shouldn't a citizen be able to explain why he/she might be speeding under the conditions they are speeding?

I'm going to keep this one in mind. Forming my statement now.
"Well officer, the way I see it...the speed limit is 55 and that holds even with the heaviest of traffic. Now, since it's 2:00 a.m. and there is NOBODY on the road, I figure since I have the road all to myself, I should be able to do at least 110"! :lmao:



I think one could debate a speed limit depending on the time of day, flow of traffic, or other factors. We can write tickets for going the "speed limit" in bad conditions, why shouldn't a citizen be able to explain why he/she might be speeding under the conditions they are speeding?

I should be able to do at least 110"! :lmao:

In my perfect world this would be true. :sigh: I loathe slow drivers. :burning:

It would be your fault, you caused the accident, but you should test this theory with a big truck.
I don't think so. Pretty sure, the rear ender always gets charged.

I think one could debate a speed limit depending on the time of day, flow of traffic, or other factors. We can write tickets for going the "speed limit" in bad conditions, why shouldn't a citizen be able to explain why he/she might be speeding under the conditions they are speeding?
I agree with this. I don't have a problem with someone doing 80 on 301 if there is nobody on the road.

What I meant by debateable speed limit is in the particular area, to a complete stranger, that speed limit would be unknown. There is no speed limit sign between the board of Ed and the 40 MPH. On the other side of the road, the 40 MPH Speed limit would hold up until The CCPS Maintence far entrance. You're allowed a legal assumption of 35 mph if the speed limit is unknown, I'm not sure if that's still the case but it was when I took Driver's Ed.

These school zones are set up to protect children, not to be used a police traps three feet from where most people at the Board of Education central office believe the Speed Limit is different. As far away from the school as I was and the time of day it was - no student was in danger.

I don't think so. Pretty sure, the rear ender always gets charged.
If you slam your brakes, an Insurance company would find you at fault. There's no legal justification for a "brake check" when someone is right behind you. In fact, slamming the brakes shows intent.

I think one could debate a speed limit depending on the time of day, flow of traffic, or other factors. We can write tickets for going the "speed limit" in bad conditions, why shouldn't a citizen be able to explain why he/she might be speeding under the conditions they are speeding?


Ya know, I've tried in other posts to stick up for you with "R.C.", but man!!!!

If the speed limit is debatable, why the he!! does the state pay to post signs with the words "Speed Limit" and then put a number. Why not put a sign up that says "Go as fast as you feel you can justify"?

Personally, I may speed up a few mph to see what the other guy does, but if he stays tight I'd say screw him. If I slam on my brakes he will probably hit me and it will be his fault... and he will pay more than monetarily, guaranteed.

I don't think I've ever done 42 in a 55 :lol: ... but I don't believe an officer will pull you over for going too slow unless it's really slow - like 30 in a 55 or something. So, presumably, both are doing 42; #1 is doing nothing wrong, but #2 is tailgating and being an ass. Seems pretty straightforward. :shrug:

Many times a week I get stuck behind somebody doing 30 in a 50 on 231, especially with that new light at the college. I just swerve around behind them until they pull over, I guess they are afraid I'm drunk. Nope, just bored and annoyed. :bigwhoop:

These school zones are set up to protect children, not to be used a police traps three feet from where most people at the Board of Education central office believe the Speed Limit is different. As far away from the school as I was and the time of day it was - no student was in danger.

What time of day was it? Was school in session? :coffee:

What time of day was it? Was school in session? :coffee:

Checked the original thread. He said it was two hours before LaPlata HS got out. So that would put it around noon. School was in session, so I'm throwing the :bs: flag on "no students being in danger.".

Ya know, I've tried in other posts to stick up for you with "R.C.", but man!!!!

If the speed limit is debatable, why the he!! does the state pay to post signs with the words "Speed Limit" and then put a number. Why not put a sign up that says "Go as fast as you feel you can justify"?
I can't speak for all police officers, but I can tell you that if you were going 60 in the 40 mile per hour zone near the base at midnight on a Monday night, and I pulled you over, I would agree with the argument that you were driving at a safe speed. This is why the legislature gives us discretion as to writing tickets. As I see it, our job is to protect the public and keep the roads safe. If you are doing 40 in a 40 mile speed zone during an ice storm around curvy roads, that is speed greater than reasonable. If you are going 60 in a 40 at midnight when there is no other pedestrian or vehicular traffic around, than are you unsafe? I would say no. Again, I can only speak for myself and those police officers I know and all that I know would agree with my line of thinking.

I can't speak for all police officers, but I can tell you that if you were going 60 in the 40 mile per hour zone near the base at midnight on a Monday night, and I pulled you over, I would agree with the argument that you were driving at a safe speed. This is why the legislature gives us discretion as to writing tickets. As I see it, our job is to protect the public and keep the roads safe. If you are doing 40 in a 40 mile speed zone during an ice storm around curvy roads, that is speed greater than reasonable. If you are going 60 in a 40 at midnight when there is no other pedestrian or vehicular traffic around, than are you unsafe? I would say no. Again, I can only speak for myself and those police officers I know and all that I know would agree with my line of thinking.

Okay: Midnight, doing 60 in a 40 and some drunk staggers out into the roadway. Investigation reveals: Road conditions: Dry, and smooth. Length of skidmarks and damage to vehicle indicate speed in excess of limit. but since it was midnight: "It's okay, just be more careful next time.".

:shakinghead:

Okay: Midnight, doing 60 in a 40 and some drunk staggers out into the roadway. Investigation reveals: Road conditions: Dry, and smooth. Length of skidmarks and damage to vehicle indicate speed in excess of limit. but since it was midnight: "It's okay, just be more careful next time.".

:shakinghead:
What I am saying is the law is based on reasonableness. Is the fact that you were going twenty miles over the speed limit the person was struck, or is it reasonable to assume that the subject caused the accident by pulling out into the roadway because of his intoxication? What I can tell you Don is I have extensive experience with the criminal justice system, and if this came to court, the prosecutors, judges and juries look at the totality of the event. I would submit that nobody would prosecute the driver of the automobile who was merely speeding with any sort serious crime. Perhaps at that time you may receive the speeding ticket. Now I didn't say it was ok, and every police officer is different. I am saying the circumstances I pointed out, I pulled you over for 20 over in the situation I described, nobody I know would issue you a ticket merely for that reason.

You need a cool av try this one

You need a cool av try this one


Young man, I've probably got more experience with the criminal justice system THIS YEAR than you have had in your LIFE. And pay attention to what I wrote. i said "staggered". That means walking NOT driving.

Okay: Midnight, doing 60 in a 40 and some drunk staggers out into the roadway. Investigation reveals: Road conditions: Dry, and smooth. Length of skidmarks and damage to vehicle indicate speed in excess of limit. but since it was midnight: "It's okay, just be more careful next time.".

:shakinghead:

This example reminds me of the woman that stumbled out of Hill's Club and into the roadway and was hit by an officer and killed.

Pick me! I have a question. Why don't the police try to get the vehicles from a small rear-end collision out of the travel lanes? Why do they need to all get behind them or in front of them in, say the middle lane, and totally screw up traffic?

Pick me! I have a question. Why don't the police try to get the vehicles from a small rear-end collision out of the travel lanes? Why do they need to all get behind them or in front of them in, say the middle lane, and totally screw up traffic?
I don't know? Once they arrive, assuming there are no injuries, they should have minor accidents moved from the roadway.

Pick me! I have a question. Why don't the police try to get the vehicles from a small rear-end collision out of the travel lanes? Why do they need to all get behind them or in front of them in, say the middle lane, and totally screw up traffic?


The real answer is because vehicle #2's occupants hear the cash register ding and the dollar signs light up in their eyes and claim backs/necks and anything else that they can think of. So we are forced to investigate, no matter how minor. Of course, if we get the right EMS people on scene, they outfit these morons in the most uncomfortable c-collar(usually a "peds") and cinch the straps a little extra tight to make them as uncomfortable as possible for their trip to the hospital.

This example reminds me of the woman that stumbled out of Hill's Club and into the roadway and was hit by an officer and killed.

The difference was he had his emergency equipment activated and was responding to a call. In spite of the warning system, she still ran into the roadway directly in his path. I cannot fault the officer in any way.

Young man, I've probably got more experience with the criminal justice system THIS YEAR than you have had in your LIFE. And pay attention to what I wrote. i said "staggered". That means walking NOT driving.
Don, I was well aware of you meaning the person was a pedestrian. I would submit to you, that there have been numerous pedestrian accidents when the motor vehicle operator was speeding, but the pedestrian was intoxicated and STEPPED in front of the speeding vehicle, and the operator of the motor vehicle was not charged with any serious charge. A perfect example of that was mentioned in an earlier thread. I think it's presumptuous of you to assume I am a young man, (I am not) and I would say that I have dealings with the States Attorney's Office, Judges, and Defense Attorneys every day here in St. Mary's, therefore I am not certain how you could have more experience in a year than I have had all my life? I have been involved in the Criminal Justice System for over twenty years!

I have all the respect in the world for your experience, however I am a current police officer here in St. Mary's County, and I know how the police, courts, states attorney's and defense attorneys here in the county work.

I would cops are more easy going on tickets during certain times of the day, i can understand the reason to pull people over between certain hours, and if there doing 60 in a 40 how are they doing something wrong if there are a few cars on the road. What if you have the guy who just left the bar doing the speed limit, but he cant keep the car straight. are you going to let him go because hes doing the speed limit. I hate driving 40 by the base its boring, and i would rather get home then watch the cops pass me and disapear a few minutes later. Im not bad mouthing cops but if i have to do the speed why dont the cops on traffic patrol. Thats one of the few things that piss me off about cops.

As for the drunk people walking in front of cars isnt that why being drunk in public is a crime, and if people would pay attention accidents wouldnt happen. But its not a perfect world.

It would be your fault, you caused the accident, but you should test this theory with a big truck.


Actually, in MD, the person who does the rear ending is automatically at fault unless they can prove contributory negligence on the part of the person who was rear ended.

The difference was he had his emergency equipment activated and was responding to a call. In spite of the warning system, she still ran into the roadway directly in his path. I cannot fault the officer in any way.
Thank you for clearing that up.

Jazz Lady, sorry to correct you, but his emergency equipment was not activated when this occurred, however he was trying to catch up to a speeder who came through his radar.

Originally Posted by jazz lady
The difference was he had his emergency equipment activated and was responding to a call. In spite of the warning system, she still ran into the roadway directly in his path. I cannot fault the officer in any way.

Actually, in MD, the person who does the rear ending is automatically at fault unless they can prove contributory negligence on the part of the person who was rear ended.

so if i rear end someone who slams on their brakes because they just HAVE to get their beer for the night? whos fault is that? Lets say the light just turned green. We start to go, no turn signal and then brakes.

Jazz Lady, sorry to correct you, but his emergency equipment was not activated when this occurred, however he was trying to catch up to a speeder who came through his radar.

So catching up to a speeder is more important than paying attention to your surroundings or looking for potential hazards while catching up to the speeder? Nice logic, idiot.

So catching up to a speeder is more important than paying attention to your surroundings or looking for potential hazards while catching up to the speeder? Nice logic, idiot.
It wasn't me Dick! I wasn't the person driving. My personal opinion is the officer shouldn't have been speeding up to catch the speeder without his emergency equipment on in that circumstance.

Don't worry Dick. I'm sure your mommy didn't breast feed you for some reason other than she immediately identified you as an ass bag!

It wasn't me Dick! I wasn't the person driving. My personal opinion is the officer shouldn't have been speeding up to catch the speeder without his emergency equipment on in that circumstance.

Don't worry Dick. I'm sure your mommy didn't breast feed you for some reason other than she immediately identified you as an ass bag!

Of course that's your opinion now. Anyone can look back and say coulda/woulda/shoulda. Most of you morons want to throw caution to the wind when you have a chance at catching up to your quota.

Of course that's your opinion now. Anyone can look back and say coulda/woulda/shoulda. Most of you morons want to throw caution to the wind when you have a chance at catching up to your quota.
You seem to second guess a lot Dick! I am shocked you are accusing me of second guessing this guy! I have this opinion now, and I practice what I preach!

Wrong again Coward boy!

[QUOTE=smcop]...I practice what I preach![QUOTE]

Yep, you sure do :baby: