Are the police allowed to speed without sirens? [WA]

[Cappy]

I read somewhere that the police aren't allowed to violate traffic rules unless they're flashing their lights and using their siren. Is this true? If so, can you use it in traffic court to fight a ticket somehow?

 

[Zigner]

I read somewhere that the police aren't allowed to violate traffic rules unless they're flashing their lights and using their siren. Is this true? If so, can you use it in traffic court to fight a ticket somehow?

No and No.

 

[Cappy]

Whoa, that was a fast reply. I didn't even have a chance to get off the website.

I had a feeling that information was false. That would be too good to be true.

 

[racer72]

The fact anyone else violated the law and was not cited is irrelevant when it comes to your defense to fighting a citation, police included. Police officers have 3 levels of responding to a call, they are called codes. Code one is no lights or siren, proceed cautiously with expediency, code two is with lights, code three is lights and siren. An officer could be on a code one call and legally speeding.

 

[gkisystems]

The fact anyone else violated the law and was not cited is irrelevant when it comes to your defense to fighting a citation, police included. Police officers have 3 levels of responding to a call, they are called codes. Code one is no lights or siren, proceed cautiously with expediency, code two is with lights, code three is lights and siren. An officer could be on a code one call and legally speeding.

It's interesting that it's PERFECTLY legal and "morally acceptable" for a police officer to drive at speeds above the posted limit in the name of public safety.

Yet, when anybody else drives at least 1mph over the speed limit they are breaking the law, being a "bad" and "unsafe" motorist.

The speeding laws don't make sense for the people they are supposed to protect. However, they make perfect sense for cash-strapped governmental bodies that need a nice income stream of ticket revenue.

 

[The Occultist]

It's interesting that it's PERFECTLY legal and "morally acceptable" for a police officer to drive at speeds above the posted limit in the name of public safety.

Yet, when anybody else drives at least 1mph over the speed limit they are breaking the law, being a "bad" and "unsafe" motorist.

The speeding laws don't make sense for the people they are supposed to protect. However, they make perfect sense for cash-strapped governmental bodies that need a nice income stream of ticket revenue.

I'm sorry, you must have mistaken this as a debate forum, which is clearly not the case being that the site is labeled in such a way as to imply that advice is given (and at a low cost, at that!).

 

[racer72]

It's interesting that it's PERFECTLY legal and "morally acceptable" for a police officer to drive at speeds above the posted limit in the name of public safety.

Yet, when anybody else drives at least 1mph over the speed limit they are breaking the law, being a "bad" and "unsafe" motorist.

The speeding laws don't make sense for the people they are supposed to protect. However, they make perfect sense for cash-strapped governmental bodies that need a nice income stream of ticket revenue.

Next time someone wants to violate yours or your family's safety or damage your property, let's hope the police obey all civilian traffic laws when they respond to your call.

 

[gkisystems]

Next time someone wants to violate yours or your family's safety or damage your property, let's hope the police obey all civilian traffic laws when they respond to your call.

No, you missed the point. The point is not that the police should have to drive at or below the posted speed limit, but motorists, just like police, should be able to exceed the posted limits too...or essentially just eliminate the limits. Except for a few idiots, nobody is going to drive their car at a speed faster than they think it is safe because people are self-interested in protecting their own safety and property.

How do we deal with those few idiots? We already have negligence laws to deal with them.

 

[CdwJava]

Except for a few idiots, nobody is going to drive their car at a speed faster than they think it is safe because people are self-interested in protecting their own safety and property.

Apparently, you do not know too many teenagers.

- Carl

 

[gkisystems]

Apparently, you do not know too many teenagers.

- Carl

While there are many safe teen drivers, the vast majority of the "idiots" group is also the teen driver group. However, there are already laws on the books to take care of those idiot drivers, no matter who the demographic is.

When I was in court for a speeding ticket 3 years ago, the judge not only found me guilty, but gave me a strong scolding for driving unsafe. He event went so far to bring my mother in it and say that she wouldn't be happy if I was found dead on the roadside for driving too fast.

That's simply ridiculous. I was accused of going 88 mph in a 65, I probably WAS going 88 or somewhere around that speed, and so was everybody else. It was the expressway, it was completely safe, and there was nothing dangerous about it. Drivers in Germany think 88 is too slow for the autobahn.

It's one thing to drive 88 on a clear dry day on the expressway while its another doing 88 in a school zone with balls rolling into the street with all the kids chasing after them.

 

[CdwJava]

While there are many safe teen drivers, the vast majority of the "idiots" group is also the teen driver group. However, there are already laws on the books to take care of those idiot drivers, no matter who the demographic is.

Yep. And among those laws are speed limits.

That's simply ridiculous. I was accused of going 88 mph in a 65, I probably WAS going 88 or somewhere around that speed, and so was everybody else. It was the expressway, it was completely safe, and there was nothing dangerous about it. Drivers in Germany think 88 is too slow for the autobahn.

The autbahn is a different situation for a host of reasons. It is also a stretch of roadway for which the odds of a collision resulting in a fatality is far higher than a highway collision here.

Currently, the law says you must adhere to established speed limits. Each state has slightly differing laws governing the establishment and enforcement of speed laws.

You may wish for an abolition of speed limits, but it will not happen. Speed kills. If you want to advocate for an abolition of speed limits, go ahead. However, this site is for the discussion of the law as it is. There are sites for wishful thinking, but this is not that place.

- Carl

 

[I_Got_Banned]

We already have negligence laws to deal with them.

Your inference that we should wait until a negligent driver broadsides a car and kills someone, possibly you (and you know your Mom wouldn’t be happy about that) is just as ridiculous as your idea to abolish speed limits.

Even in a country where the idea of the autobahn is acceptable, do they not have speed limits for when you're NOT on the autobahn?

 

[DRTDEVL]

The Autobahn argument is bunk, period. Over half of the Autobahn has speed limits enforced (probably closer to 80%), and every inch of it has a speed limit for anyone towing a trailer or in a commercial vehicle (44, 50, 56, or 62 mph, depending on the vehicle's characteristics).

MOST Germans in regular cars keep their speeds below 80 mph... Driving faster uses too much fuel, which is much more expensive (about $8/gal). Those who choose to drive faster do so at their own risk... Any accident in excess of 80 mph is automatically at-fault. Most insurance policies have clauses in effect holding the driver personally responsible for any accidents over 100 mph.

Yes, there is technically no speed limit on certain stretches of the Autobahn... But there are many additional responsibilities shouldered if you choose to exceed the national recommended speed limit of 80 mph.

 

[gkisystems]

Your inference that we should wait until a negligent driver broadsides a car and kills someone, possibly you (and you know your Mom wouldn’t be happy about that) is just as ridiculous as your idea to abolish speed limits.

It looks like you don't buy my argument that negligence laws would deter people from driving reckless, but speed limits would. I don't understand that reasoning.

Additionally, negligence laws aren't the number one deterrent from driving reckless - self-preservation is. All I'm saying is that you can easily be driving above the current posted limits while at the same time not be driving reckless, but the government pretends like you are when in reality, they just want ticket revenue.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

... Additionally, negligence laws aren't the number one deterrent from driving reckless - self-preservation is....

Interesting... Did you do that study on your own or did someone help you?

Where is Zigner? I'd like to borrow a line out of his signature...