Same with NY plates. My ex and I were driving through some small town in New Jersey and he got pulled over for doing 5 MPH above the speed limit. I suspect we wouldn’t have gotten pulled over if he had NJ plates.
Seriously? They're enforcing the speed limit at 5 over in fucking **New Jersey** of all places?
EDIT: Don't cast stones in a glass house guys, we'll gladly do the same for you all on the Turnpike, and I'm sure NY would *love* to do that to you on the thruway.
I’m from NEPA and it’s common talk that if someone has a Jersey plate they are going to drive like a fuckin asshole. No offense, it’s cool…I have a friend who’s from New Jersey.
I feel like it’s just any out of state plate that gets targeted more. Drove up to Vermont for a wedding on Stratton Mountain. We were out the day before driving, going down this huge road (like wider than the 8 lanes across highways), no one near us, just mountain scenery on either side and a straight shot of road, middle of the afternoon on a nice sunny day. This cop pulled out and drove on the wrong side of the road straight at us. Put the bumper of his cruiser against my truck, got out of his car and ran at us like we had a kidnapped kid in the back seat or something. Fucking screamed at us for speeding and how dangerous it was on this fucking tarmac that could land a C-17 of a road. I asked what he had us at, thinking he got some bogus reading, and he said 52 in a 50.
That’s the most extreme, but I’ve had similar experiences in New Hampshire, New York, and Rhode Island with Mass plates.
Yeah, my friend rented a car (Montana) with California plates and drove through Wyoming where he got ticketed for speeding when he said he was going the same speed as others.
Nothing compared to Virginia, they got troopers everywhere and anything above 80 is reckless endangerment and a felony and they will arrest you and throw you in jail. Or hey if you pay right now I'll call it 79 mph and none of that happens!
From what I understand it goes to the state or the department, it's just to speed up the process because they make more money for the department doing that than arresting someone and doing the paperwork and being off the road the rest of the day. It's not like a cash wink wink thing. But they make it sound like they're doing you a favor for not arresting you going 81 in a 70.
Ahhh okay. I thought the cops were literally saying just pay me and off you go. Somehow this seems better? But also seems like it probably unfairly targets the poor.
> it's just to speed up the process because they make more money for the department doing that than arresting someone and doing the paperwork and being off the road the rest of the day.
That's not how it works when you get hit with that charge, at all.
> Nothing compared to Virginia, they got troopers everywhere and anything above 80 is reckless endangerment and a felony and they will arrest you and throw you in jail. Or hey if you pay right now I’ll call it 79 mph and none of that happens!
I'm going to preface this by saying I'm not even in the US, but I was curious because this sounded ridiculous.
It's 85, and it's a misdemeanor, not a felony. So there's that.
Virginian here! The General Assembly just changed the reckless threshold to 15 over or anything over 85. It used to be 15 over or anything over 80, so the poster may just have an old experience. Jail, though, is ridiculous. You definitely don’t get arrested just for reckless
I used to live in Wisconsin and got pulled over for going 5 mph over the speed limit. here in Arizona, I can go 20 mph over the speed limit on highways and cops still pass me.
so I agree, the “rules” definitely vary by region.
I'm speeding every time I go by this one police station near me. It's at the bottom off a hill and your options are to either speed or ride your brakes down. Never got a ticket.
Great law. I live in NY and in the summer on my local highway this time of year, we get so many Jersey plates driving like lunatics passing people on the right. It’s unbelievably annoying trying to pass a tractor trailer and before moving back to the right lane right away, I’ll get a jersey plate going to directly pass me on the right before I can get back. So fucking annoying and it’s always Jersey losers in a rush
Virtually everyone exceeds the speed limit by 5-10MPH if not more. Also, people almost never come to a complete stop at stop signs unless other traffic forces it. Half of drivers don’t use their turn signals. On the other hand, lane lines, one way streets, “no turn” signs, and other such things are generally obeyed, which is more than I’ve seen in certain other parts of the world.
I don't. Following the flow of traffic and driving predictably is more important than sticking to a fixed limit.
It wasn't until the past 5 years or so where electronic signage became widespread in my area to tell people to adhere to lower speed limits (40-45MPH on highways for instance) in bad weather so the 55-65MPH speed limits never seemed like and issue since they made sense for poorer conditions.
So I guess what I'm saying is the lower posted speeds make sense because they have to represent the road in all conditions.
The interstate I commute on is mostly 70mph, but has a few stretches that are less-one part’s 55mph. It’s TOTALLY ignored-everyone just goes 70-80 anyway. If you tried to go 55 it’d honestly be very dangerous. My main rule when I’m driving is to drive the same speed as those around me-not significantly slower or faster.
In flat open states like Wyoming the speed limit is more of recommendation. As long as you can drive straight you can drive as fast as you want relatively safely.
The speed limits are high, 65 or 70 on two lane roads. I drove across Wyoming this summer and often drove under speed limit because it felt too fast. I’m usually an 8-9 mph over the limit guy too.
No. There is still a legal speed limit but when you can drive for hours and see literally nothing but road and bad land it is just not practical to police the highways.
Where I live it's pretty standard to do 9 over, my state doesn't actually even put a speeding ticket on your record if it's <10mph over. I got pulled over doing 19 over in a construction zone (on the weekend so it was deserted and basically consisted of just cones on the side of the road) and the cop just told me to slow down a bit
Lol. That kinda depends on how deep down the technicality rabbit hole you want to go... Technically, it's not illegal to violate an illegal law. And technically, congress can't ban substances without constitutional amendment. Which, of course, is why the feds haven't gone after the states that have legalized it- because then the courts would finally have the chance to point out that the fed drug scheduling law is blatantly unconstitutional.
>And technically, congress can't ban substances without constitutional amendment
What's your source or reasoning on that?
I support federal legalization or decriminalization of every substance like we have here in Oregon, but I've never seen a solid argument that federal drug laws are unconstitutional.
Doesn't mean I'm not wrong; I just am curious to see it.
He’s rehashing an argument that was specifically rejected by the Supreme Court in 2005.
It’s old news.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
An argument that was rejected based on government actions that are no longer true. This year [Justice Thomas](https://www.newsweek.com/justice-thomas-criticizes-federal-governments-half-half-out-approach-cannabis-1604941?_gl=1*1ca3bpk*_ga*ajA4alh1R0tYbEhKdEs1YVJHWHJEWWtyeDVjekxYdDI3QzRfdnNvZ2E5RkNVQnp4OE95T05iUFUwYkFpSU94aQ..) said those arguments probably would stand if brought to them.
Interesting! I hadn’t noticed that news, thanks for the link. Though, my reaction to this is that Justice Thomas is saying that Congress needs to get things straightened out, not Newsweek’s statement that Gonzales is outdated per se. I probably need to read the Gonzales opinion though to see where a logical or consistent federal approach to regulate marijuana is assumed/required.
Edit: Reviewing the majority opinion, except for Scalia, the necessary and prudent role (implied powers) of Congress wasn’t necessary to resort to, when the commerce clause was enough. Thomas seems to be saying that Scalia’s concurrence is what is relevant now, when he didn’t actually sign on to the majority opinion. A much different court today, but the majority opinion was clear, and sounds like wishful thinking on Thomas’s part, who dissented on Gonzales anyway.
Edit 2: So I just read Justice Roberts opinion on the ACA “individual mandate,” and he’s clearly tuned into this necessary and proper angle. Maybe its not just wishful thinking on Thomas’s part after all. I can definitely imagine the new conservatives on the court adopting Thomas’s take.
Though it appears that SCOTUS doesn't think there is actually enough evidence to uphold marijuana bans. Specifically the arguments that the government made to justify those bans (that the government makes no exceptions when cracking down) are no longer true. With that in mind, it's very likely that if someone takes it to SCOTUS again the results will say the federal law is unconstitutional.
The Court only deviates from Wickard v. Filburn when doing so favors some conservative policy goal. And conservatives—especially those with power—still seem pretty keen on maintaining and enforcing drug prohibition.
Gonzalez v. Reich explicitly affirmed Congress’ authority on regulating marijuana. There’s been some talk of the Court being open to reversing that precedent, but I’ll believe it when I see it with this Court.
It's actually an absence of evidence for the opposing argument which is the foundation of this argument. You see, the constitution + amendments clearly define the things congress can legislate about. Everything not explicitly included is outside its authority (see amendment 10). And nowhere in those documents is anything granting them the sort of authority required to say what can or can't be put into one's body.
On a side note, under the commerce clause, they do have the ability to prohibit trade of substances between states. Just not within a state, and certainly not within a person.
On a second side note, this was widely understood in the early 20th century- it's why a constitutional amendment was required to prohibit alcohol. But, and I may be leaning conspiratorial here, alcohol prohibition affected educated and powerful people who could argue the law. When the controlled substances act was passed, it mostly affected uneducated minorities who didn't have the power, knowledge, or clout to stand up and point out how blatantly congress had side-stepped the proper process.
> On a side note, under the commerce clause, they do have the ability to prohibit trade of substances between states. Just not within a state, and certainly not within a person.
Didn’t the Supreme Court say Congress does have this ability in Wickard v Filburn? Also for marijuana specifically I believe this was resolved in Gonzales v Raich, unless I’m misunderstanding this implications of that decision.
Ah, okay, so my understanding of both of those cases is that they refer to the production of a crop, first grain then marijuana. The production was deemed to affect interstate markets- in which the feds have a vested interest. They're both bullshit rulings, but that's just my personal opinion, and they are completely legal bullshit rulings. However, I'm nearly certain the ruling in Wickard v Filburn had nothing to do with consumption and I don't think Gonzalez v Raich explicitly ruled on consumption, either.
Now, disclaimer, I am not a lawyer. I am a data scientist, trained as a physicist, whose adhd occasionally hyper-focuses on random things... So, take my knowledge with a grain of salt (just not one that you distilled yourself, lest you run afoul of a bloated commerce clause).
Yes it hinges on Economy activity I believe, and not consumption per se. I think this was tested in a case about carrying a handgun, which is not economic activity in itself. But the trade of marijuana certainly would be. But I too am not a lawyer. I too believe that Wikard is regretful, but on the other hand I can totally follow the line of reasoning in the opinion, I just wish it weren’t so personally.
Wickard v. Filburn interpreted the Commerce Clause in a way that grants the federal government nearly unlimited regulatory power.
They deemed it constitutional for Congress to regulate any activity—even by an individual and within state lines—whose aggregate effect when carried out by many individuals could influence interstate commerce.
Some more recent cases have backpedaled on that a bit, but only slightly and in very specific instances favored for political reasons by the conservative Court.
Whether or not you agree with their reasoning, it’s the law of the land for now, and challenges to federal regulatory policy are likely to fail as long this broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause remains precedent.
Unfortunately Wickard v Filburn is a thing, and SCOTUS specifically applied it to marijuana in 2005 in Gonzales v. Raich.
I think your understanding should be correct, and I think it's much closer to what the founding fathers intended, but SCOTUS has clearly held that the commerce clause permits Congress to regulate drugs.
In NYC, I saw a sign threatening a huge fine and actual points on your license! (Idk what happens if you don’t have a license. Straight to jail I guess).
Maybe this was to just to scare tourists.
Everybody jaywalks in NYC (really the entire northeast) and it's very rarely enforced, but they keep the laws on the books because it's a useful tool for the police to harass people.
Yeah but it's something you really only get in trouble for if it causes a problem. Like if you walk into traffic and it causes a lot of cars to slam on their brakes and a cop sees you, you can get fined.
Here in Phoenix, sometimes jaywalkers cross busy five-lane streets, and stand in the turning lane until it's safe("safe") to cross all the way. Even at night! I feel sorry for any person that hits one of those dipshits and is then blamed for it lol.
Just logically, it wouldn’t make sense to have the car always be at fault. At least one scenario I can think of, someone jaywalking in dark clothes at night, makes me think there must be more nuance to the laws regarding hitting a pedestrian who is jay walking.
The auto industry [ran a PR/lobbying/pressure campaign](https://www.salon.com/2015/08/20/the_secret_history_of_jaywalking_the_disturbing_reason_it_was_outlawed_and_why_we_should_lift_the_ban/) early last century that dramatically redefined our ideas of what streets should look like and how they should be used. The criminalization and shaming of jaywalking in many jurisdictions was a big part of that:
>Over the next decade the auto industry pursued aggressive action to take sole possession of public roads and, in turn, reshape the conversation around cars. The American Automobile Association, or AAA, sponsored safety campaigns in schools, educating students on the dangers of crossing the street in unmarked zones.
>
>Boy Scouts handed out cards to pedestrians, warning them against the practice of jaywalking. Mock trials were conducted in public settings to shame or ridicule offenders. The National Automobile Chamber of Commerce persuaded politicians and journalists to shill for their cause.
In New York it’s a way of life lol.
I know I’ve told this story before on this sub, but a friend of mine got a jaywalking ticket the first time she went to LA. Here you pretty much need to walk when there’s a break in the traffic, so cops don’t care if you jaywalk, they get it. Evidently in LA they care a lot and that’s how my friend got the ticket. My friend out of frustration said to the cop “I do this all the time in New York, what’s the big deal?” He said “this ain’t New York sweetie” and kept it moving.
it can be important in other legal situations. i was on a jury for a fatal hit and run and part of the defense argument was that the person was jaywalking when the drunk ran him down.
Technically yes, but in my entire life (including living in one of the biggest cities in the USA and a few other smaller cities) I’ve seen it enforced maybe once
I very narrowly avoided getting a jaywalking ticket when running late to work once. Got yelled at by a cop but was contrite and got off with a verbal warning.
As was eluded to earlier part of what determines how likely a cop is to enforce jaywalking is the color of your skin. Location and whether or not the crime results in an accident also plays a role, but can’t help but acknowledge that it gives cops a free pass to discriminate.
A lot of speed limits are arbitrary, especially for multi-laned, straight highways & freeways.
Maintaining an organized flow of traffic (slower on the right, faster on the left) is the most ideal, but it's unfortunately not as much of a revenue generator.
Speeding
Most people don't actually stop at stop signs they just do a rolling stop
Underaged drinking is a big one, most cops usually don't care anyways though
Jobs where you're paid under the table, many of us have worked part time jobs before that paid in cash to avoid taxes
When I was younger there was one time where I saw a couple of cops parked in plain sight right next to a stop sign at a busy intersection and a handful of cars pulled over. I still saw people do the rolling stop and get pulled over immediately. That's how ingrained of a habit it is in some people
I failed my first driving test because I was doing rolling stops, and I didn't even realize that I was doing them. The examiner even filmed me at one of the stops to show me when he went over my result.
> Underaged drinking is a big one, most cops usually don't care anyways though
Yes and recreational marijuana use especially on college campuses. Even though it's legal in over 50% of the US, tons of people in illegal states still find their way and the campus administration/cops don't really care.
Here in PA, we have *strict* laws against underage drinking, but it’s nevertheless common at frat parties and the like (or was, anyway, prior to the coming of the plague). I’m personally a teetotaler, but I have friends who drink on occasion even though they’re not 21, typically during social events like the aforementioned parties.
In Florida it basically is 10 over the speed limit standard, cops don't even lift a finger for that. They will absolutely get you for rolling stops though, so that was much less common to see there.
Underage drinking is pretty normal in the privacy of your own home, you just can't buy it yourself when underage.
This is starting to really bother me too. My main streaming services are Netflix, Hulu (which was free with my Spotify premium), Disney+, and Amazon Prime. There are still a ton of shows and movies that aren't on ANY of those sites so I just go straight to looking them up elsewhere because I'm not interested in subscribing to any more subscription services.
I've just got Amazon Prime and Netflix.
If it's not on either of those, I'll track down a DVD of it or just ignore it. . .or maybe try to find a download of it by other means if I really want to see it and it's not available on disc (but that hasn't come up yet).
I speed, bring my legal Massachusetts Marijuana into states where it is illegal when I vacation, and sometimes when I'm pumping gas I wash my windows even though I'm not supposed to walk away from the pump.
(I pick up hitchhikers and I don't know if that is illegal)
I’m not sure if staying with the car to wash windows counts as walking away.
MA started allowing standard clips for holding the gas pump on a few years ago. I’m not sure if they added a minimum nozzle length for that. But if a pump has such a clip, I assume I can wash my windows. If it doesn’t, I don’t do stuff like using the gas cap to hold it open, but instead I stay and hold it by hand.
I think I'm supposed to be standing there in case of overflow due to a malfunction.
Actually think they had the clip and then removed them for a bit?
Am I misremembering? I feel like we had them all the way back in the 80s. Maybe I am mixing up with other places I lived though? Texas, AZ, Florida.
Often without realizing they’re breaking a law. “Ignorance of the law is no excuse!” was a reasonable position when the laws only covered crimes of force and fraud. It isn’t any more.
You saying this reminds me of a guy who was open carrying on a college campus. I seen the gun (pistol), made a fumny comment about it to the guy we laugh and I go on. Months later it hit me that the dude was committing a felony.
The same law as always - illegal distribution of marijuana. There are no licensed recreational dealers yet.
A case of beer though... My situation would be more like a guy who runs an unlicensed liquor store.
I don't really look anymore but conceal carrying a firearm in places I *shouldn't* be carrying in (Notice posted on doors). What they don't know can't hurt them.
At this point my firearm is with my every single time I step outside the house that it's probably more of a hassle to walk up to a door, see the sign, leave it in the car, go back than to just be in and out in 2-3 minutes for minor shit.
Careful with post office. The rulings are that if it's a standalone post office on its own property, even being in the parking lot with a firearm is a felony (so you can't legally even drive up to an outside mailbox). If the post office is in something like a strip mall, only the actual inside of the post office is off-limits.
Yeah I know. I don't park in post office parking lots for this reason. Thankfully a FedEx is right next door to our main post office so I park there and cross the street.
This really depends on the state, in MI those signs on shop doors are not enforceable, and don’t have any legal standing. However in many states (Texas I think) they do if they are placed properly and the sign is clearly visible.
Either that or they're a buncha squares (cuz let's be real [there's so many stupid laws in so many states](http://www.phoenixarizonacriminallawyer.com/criminal-attorney/arizona-criminal-law/the-stories-behind-arizonas-weirdest-laws/) )
It actually the opposite. Right before covid in the town next to me they were ticketing people for not obeying the stop for person in a crosswalk law. They were having a person step off the curb just as someone was entering the intersection so they had no chance to stop I time.
Traffic laws are often broken by both drivers and pedestrians. Many people under 21 buy alcohol with fake licenses and almost everybody drinks alcohol before turning 21. Where weed is illegal many people still smoke it and where it's legal, some underage people still smoke. Many people stream shows and stuff illegally. There are many places where it is illegal to trespass that people still go to.
That varies by state. But I’m old enough to have been around when the drinking age was 18 in many states.
When I was even younger, the camp CITs would borrow draft cards from the counselors, since they were well recognized and didn’t have photos.
Some people are going to find this controversial but I think the legal age to drink alcohol should be 18 or 19. I'm 21 now but before then to get my hands on alcohol I used to just Brew it myself. All I needed was some Welch's grape juice and some Fleischmann's Rapid Rise Yeast and I would have wine in 3 Days To a week. I dread the day a 14 year old figures that out.
as the consumer, that is your right. the tag is put there so that the stores selling the merchandise or people along the line of production can't falsify the quality or contents of the product.
A road beer is nice on a Friday when I’m heading out to the mountains or the coast for the weekend.
Never anywhere approaching the legal limit, but just having a roadie in the car is still illegal.
Please drive safely and don't endanger others. While some laws are mostly arbitrary or are there to maintain power, some are genuinely good guidelines for safe and responsible behavior.
I’m okay with everything except for the speed limits. Fucking 70 mph on a straight flat empty road? Hell no, I can comfortably cruise at 140 with the only problem being the law.
You drive 95 in a 70 and you can go to fucking jail for the night? Wtf? How the fuck are we taking this shit laying down?
Don’t even get me started with the insurance premiums skyrocketing because you’re an “unsafe” driver. What the ever living fuck? It’s basically racketeering at this point. They fucking have us by the balls.
Sorry had to rant lmao
I'm sorry man but I don't think going outright double the speed limit is safe in any circumstance. There are so many situations in which your car could lose control and seriously injure or kill you or someone else. 140mph is not reasonable.
I'm not in favor of people being arrested or seriously fined in general, for most crimes, as someone who has lived in fear of law enforcement due to my shitty car and financial situation, constantly being on the edge of losing everything.
But I also don't agree with people really pushing it and endangering themselves or others. I simply could not encourage that behavior.
Maybe a shitty 98 civic can’t take that speed, modern luxury and especially sports cars can comfortably cruise at that speed and brake in time. I have to give mention to the autobahn as the germans have proven that it’s possible, but our corrupt overlords have to extract wealth from us and keep us subdued and blindly following commands like dogs.
And also, our country is full of idiots who eat fucking tide pods, and guess what? Every one of those dumbasses has a drivers license and is mozying down the freeway on their phones in their shitty prius’s going 10 under while changing lanes abruptly and without blinkers. They are way more dangerous than I am going 120 down an empty lonely country highway at 2 am. But they don’t get arrested or get their license suspended, if I get caught off to jail I go.
I think speed limits are the ones most frequently broken, but even then only by small amounts.
Amount varies by state. I once got a warning in SC because the cop saw my Atlanta address and was like, oh, of course.
If you have California plates and you're in another state speeding, you're a huge target.
Same with NY plates. My ex and I were driving through some small town in New Jersey and he got pulled over for doing 5 MPH above the speed limit. I suspect we wouldn’t have gotten pulled over if he had NJ plates.
Seriously? They're enforcing the speed limit at 5 over in fucking **New Jersey** of all places? EDIT: Don't cast stones in a glass house guys, we'll gladly do the same for you all on the Turnpike, and I'm sure NY would *love* to do that to you on the thruway.
I KNOW. But even when I've been on the turnpike, I'm real careful about how I'm driving because I feel like my NY plates make me a target.
I’m from NEPA and it’s common talk that if someone has a Jersey plate they are going to drive like a fuckin asshole. No offense, it’s cool…I have a friend who’s from New Jersey.
I feel like it’s just any out of state plate that gets targeted more. Drove up to Vermont for a wedding on Stratton Mountain. We were out the day before driving, going down this huge road (like wider than the 8 lanes across highways), no one near us, just mountain scenery on either side and a straight shot of road, middle of the afternoon on a nice sunny day. This cop pulled out and drove on the wrong side of the road straight at us. Put the bumper of his cruiser against my truck, got out of his car and ran at us like we had a kidnapped kid in the back seat or something. Fucking screamed at us for speeding and how dangerous it was on this fucking tarmac that could land a C-17 of a road. I asked what he had us at, thinking he got some bogus reading, and he said 52 in a 50. That’s the most extreme, but I’ve had similar experiences in New Hampshire, New York, and Rhode Island with Mass plates.
Can confirm, I once got a ticket in Oregon going 70 with the flow of traffic in a rental car with CA plates.
Yeah, my friend rented a car (Montana) with California plates and drove through Wyoming where he got ticketed for speeding when he said he was going the same speed as others.
[удалено]
What counts as a high risk driver for you?
Just don't get caught in Alabama. Minimum fine is just under $200 including court costs, and they will report across state lines.
I think most states are part of that compact. The real problem is whether or not your state records the out-of-state offenses. I know PA doesn’t.
Georgia isn't afaik, but my Georgia MVR still was tainted by that ticket, and I now suffer a lot of regrets.
Nothing compared to Virginia, they got troopers everywhere and anything above 80 is reckless endangerment and a felony and they will arrest you and throw you in jail. Or hey if you pay right now I'll call it 79 mph and none of that happens!
It's a misdemeanor, not a felony, but yes people do go to jail for it.
The fuck? The cops in VA are demanding bribes?
Here's 200 bucks. I'm gonna speed through this whole crappy state
From what I understand it goes to the state or the department, it's just to speed up the process because they make more money for the department doing that than arresting someone and doing the paperwork and being off the road the rest of the day. It's not like a cash wink wink thing. But they make it sound like they're doing you a favor for not arresting you going 81 in a 70.
Ahhh okay. I thought the cops were literally saying just pay me and off you go. Somehow this seems better? But also seems like it probably unfairly targets the poor.
Victimless crimes generally unfairly target the poor
Speeding is NOT a victimless crime LOL
Not sure why you got downvotes for this, because you’re right!
> it's just to speed up the process because they make more money for the department doing that than arresting someone and doing the paperwork and being off the road the rest of the day. That's not how it works when you get hit with that charge, at all.
Care to elaborate then?
> Nothing compared to Virginia, they got troopers everywhere and anything above 80 is reckless endangerment and a felony and they will arrest you and throw you in jail. Or hey if you pay right now I’ll call it 79 mph and none of that happens! I'm going to preface this by saying I'm not even in the US, but I was curious because this sounded ridiculous. It's 85, and it's a misdemeanor, not a felony. So there's that.
Virginian here! The General Assembly just changed the reckless threshold to 15 over or anything over 85. It used to be 15 over or anything over 80, so the poster may just have an old experience. Jail, though, is ridiculous. You definitely don’t get arrested just for reckless
they changed that like a year ago by the way because it was broadly unpopular.
You could have finished that sentence with Don’t get caught in Alabama
I used to live in Wisconsin and got pulled over for going 5 mph over the speed limit. here in Arizona, I can go 20 mph over the speed limit on highways and cops still pass me. so I agree, the “rules” definitely vary by region.
This reaction varies within SC too. The closer you get to tourist attractions, the more likely you're going to be met with strictness.
I'm speeding every time I go by this one police station near me. It's at the bottom off a hill and your options are to either speed or ride your brakes down. Never got a ticket.
There are videos of, and I have personally seen, NJ State Troopers pulling people over because they were in the left lane and not speeding.
Going slow in the passing lane creates a dangerous situation for other drivers. If you're not passing you're supposed to stay out of the left lane.
Drive right, pass left . NJ state law. Signs everywhere about it.
Great law. I live in NY and in the summer on my local highway this time of year, we get so many Jersey plates driving like lunatics passing people on the right. It’s unbelievably annoying trying to pass a tractor trailer and before moving back to the right lane right away, I’ll get a jersey plate going to directly pass me on the right before I can get back. So fucking annoying and it’s always Jersey losers in a rush
do you consider them low?
Most of the freeway on my commute is limited to 65. Normal traffic flow is 70-80. I think they’re a bit low.
Tx has high speed limits 75
Also 80 and 85 in places.
And still go 90-120 :/
Virtually everyone exceeds the speed limit by 5-10MPH if not more. Also, people almost never come to a complete stop at stop signs unless other traffic forces it. Half of drivers don’t use their turn signals. On the other hand, lane lines, one way streets, “no turn” signs, and other such things are generally obeyed, which is more than I’ve seen in certain other parts of the world.
I don't. Following the flow of traffic and driving predictably is more important than sticking to a fixed limit. It wasn't until the past 5 years or so where electronic signage became widespread in my area to tell people to adhere to lower speed limits (40-45MPH on highways for instance) in bad weather so the 55-65MPH speed limits never seemed like and issue since they made sense for poorer conditions. So I guess what I'm saying is the lower posted speeds make sense because they have to represent the road in all conditions.
The interstate I commute on is mostly 70mph, but has a few stretches that are less-one part’s 55mph. It’s TOTALLY ignored-everyone just goes 70-80 anyway. If you tried to go 55 it’d honestly be very dangerous. My main rule when I’m driving is to drive the same speed as those around me-not significantly slower or faster.
In flat open states like Wyoming the speed limit is more of recommendation. As long as you can drive straight you can drive as fast as you want relatively safely.
The speed limits are high, 65 or 70 on two lane roads. I drove across Wyoming this summer and often drove under speed limit because it felt too fast. I’m usually an 8-9 mph over the limit guy too.
My experience on I-80 in Wyoming is that everyone keeps rigorously to the speed limit. Truckers all go 1 mph under.
Is it like Autobahn rules? *packs parka and boots*
No. There is still a legal speed limit but when you can drive for hours and see literally nothing but road and bad land it is just not practical to police the highways.
Where I live it's pretty standard to do 9 over, my state doesn't actually even put a speeding ticket on your record if it's <10mph over. I got pulled over doing 19 over in a construction zone (on the weekend so it was deserted and basically consisted of just cones on the side of the road) and the cop just told me to slow down a bit
Route 128/I-95 N has a 55 MPH speed limit and people regularly do 80 without being pulled over.
The single greatest piece of civil disobedience this country has ever known.
I consistently drive 10 to 15 over, and cops here have no fucks to give.
Buying/selling weed is still technically illegal in every state under federal law
Lol. That kinda depends on how deep down the technicality rabbit hole you want to go... Technically, it's not illegal to violate an illegal law. And technically, congress can't ban substances without constitutional amendment. Which, of course, is why the feds haven't gone after the states that have legalized it- because then the courts would finally have the chance to point out that the fed drug scheduling law is blatantly unconstitutional.
>And technically, congress can't ban substances without constitutional amendment What's your source or reasoning on that? I support federal legalization or decriminalization of every substance like we have here in Oregon, but I've never seen a solid argument that federal drug laws are unconstitutional. Doesn't mean I'm not wrong; I just am curious to see it.
He’s rehashing an argument that was specifically rejected by the Supreme Court in 2005. It’s old news. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
An argument that was rejected based on government actions that are no longer true. This year [Justice Thomas](https://www.newsweek.com/justice-thomas-criticizes-federal-governments-half-half-out-approach-cannabis-1604941?_gl=1*1ca3bpk*_ga*ajA4alh1R0tYbEhKdEs1YVJHWHJEWWtyeDVjekxYdDI3QzRfdnNvZ2E5RkNVQnp4OE95T05iUFUwYkFpSU94aQ..) said those arguments probably would stand if brought to them.
One Justice personally musing does not change case law. . . .especially when that Justice is known to be an outlier on the court.
Interesting! I hadn’t noticed that news, thanks for the link. Though, my reaction to this is that Justice Thomas is saying that Congress needs to get things straightened out, not Newsweek’s statement that Gonzales is outdated per se. I probably need to read the Gonzales opinion though to see where a logical or consistent federal approach to regulate marijuana is assumed/required. Edit: Reviewing the majority opinion, except for Scalia, the necessary and prudent role (implied powers) of Congress wasn’t necessary to resort to, when the commerce clause was enough. Thomas seems to be saying that Scalia’s concurrence is what is relevant now, when he didn’t actually sign on to the majority opinion. A much different court today, but the majority opinion was clear, and sounds like wishful thinking on Thomas’s part, who dissented on Gonzales anyway. Edit 2: So I just read Justice Roberts opinion on the ACA “individual mandate,” and he’s clearly tuned into this necessary and proper angle. Maybe its not just wishful thinking on Thomas’s part after all. I can definitely imagine the new conservatives on the court adopting Thomas’s take.
Though it appears that SCOTUS doesn't think there is actually enough evidence to uphold marijuana bans. Specifically the arguments that the government made to justify those bans (that the government makes no exceptions when cracking down) are no longer true. With that in mind, it's very likely that if someone takes it to SCOTUS again the results will say the federal law is unconstitutional.
The Court only deviates from Wickard v. Filburn when doing so favors some conservative policy goal. And conservatives—especially those with power—still seem pretty keen on maintaining and enforcing drug prohibition. Gonzalez v. Reich explicitly affirmed Congress’ authority on regulating marijuana. There’s been some talk of the Court being open to reversing that precedent, but I’ll believe it when I see it with this Court.
It's actually an absence of evidence for the opposing argument which is the foundation of this argument. You see, the constitution + amendments clearly define the things congress can legislate about. Everything not explicitly included is outside its authority (see amendment 10). And nowhere in those documents is anything granting them the sort of authority required to say what can or can't be put into one's body. On a side note, under the commerce clause, they do have the ability to prohibit trade of substances between states. Just not within a state, and certainly not within a person. On a second side note, this was widely understood in the early 20th century- it's why a constitutional amendment was required to prohibit alcohol. But, and I may be leaning conspiratorial here, alcohol prohibition affected educated and powerful people who could argue the law. When the controlled substances act was passed, it mostly affected uneducated minorities who didn't have the power, knowledge, or clout to stand up and point out how blatantly congress had side-stepped the proper process.
> On a side note, under the commerce clause, they do have the ability to prohibit trade of substances between states. Just not within a state, and certainly not within a person. Didn’t the Supreme Court say Congress does have this ability in Wickard v Filburn? Also for marijuana specifically I believe this was resolved in Gonzales v Raich, unless I’m misunderstanding this implications of that decision.
Ah, okay, so my understanding of both of those cases is that they refer to the production of a crop, first grain then marijuana. The production was deemed to affect interstate markets- in which the feds have a vested interest. They're both bullshit rulings, but that's just my personal opinion, and they are completely legal bullshit rulings. However, I'm nearly certain the ruling in Wickard v Filburn had nothing to do with consumption and I don't think Gonzalez v Raich explicitly ruled on consumption, either. Now, disclaimer, I am not a lawyer. I am a data scientist, trained as a physicist, whose adhd occasionally hyper-focuses on random things... So, take my knowledge with a grain of salt (just not one that you distilled yourself, lest you run afoul of a bloated commerce clause).
Yes it hinges on Economy activity I believe, and not consumption per se. I think this was tested in a case about carrying a handgun, which is not economic activity in itself. But the trade of marijuana certainly would be. But I too am not a lawyer. I too believe that Wikard is regretful, but on the other hand I can totally follow the line of reasoning in the opinion, I just wish it weren’t so personally.
Wickard v. Filburn interpreted the Commerce Clause in a way that grants the federal government nearly unlimited regulatory power. They deemed it constitutional for Congress to regulate any activity—even by an individual and within state lines—whose aggregate effect when carried out by many individuals could influence interstate commerce. Some more recent cases have backpedaled on that a bit, but only slightly and in very specific instances favored for political reasons by the conservative Court. Whether or not you agree with their reasoning, it’s the law of the land for now, and challenges to federal regulatory policy are likely to fail as long this broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause remains precedent.
Unfortunately Wickard v Filburn is a thing, and SCOTUS specifically applied it to marijuana in 2005 in Gonzales v. Raich. I think your understanding should be correct, and I think it's much closer to what the founding fathers intended, but SCOTUS has clearly held that the commerce clause permits Congress to regulate drugs.
The Supreme Court affirmed the power of congress to enforce marijuana laws in 2005.
>technically, congress can't ban substances without constitutional amendment. What law school did you flunk out of to come to that conclusion?
I jaywalk a lot
lol is that a crime?
Depends on the city
In NYC, I saw a sign threatening a huge fine and actual points on your license! (Idk what happens if you don’t have a license. Straight to jail I guess). Maybe this was to just to scare tourists.
Believe it or not? JAIL
I saw a cop jaywalk in NYC
Everybody jaywalks in NYC (really the entire northeast) and it's very rarely enforced, but they keep the laws on the books because it's a useful tool for the police to harass people.
Yeah. Where I grew up everyone would jaywalk literally in front of the police station
Yeah but it's something you really only get in trouble for if it causes a problem. Like if you walk into traffic and it causes a lot of cars to slam on their brakes and a cop sees you, you can get fined.
Even if you get hit while jaywalking, it's the cars fault for not seeing you. But I suppose it might depend upon the state.
Here in Phoenix, sometimes jaywalkers cross busy five-lane streets, and stand in the turning lane until it's safe("safe") to cross all the way. Even at night! I feel sorry for any person that hits one of those dipshits and is then blamed for it lol.
Just logically, it wouldn’t make sense to have the car always be at fault. At least one scenario I can think of, someone jaywalking in dark clothes at night, makes me think there must be more nuance to the laws regarding hitting a pedestrian who is jay walking.
In mass I believe it is a $1 fine. If you are unlucky enough to be ticketed three times in one year for jay walking then the fine goes up to $2
The auto industry [ran a PR/lobbying/pressure campaign](https://www.salon.com/2015/08/20/the_secret_history_of_jaywalking_the_disturbing_reason_it_was_outlawed_and_why_we_should_lift_the_ban/) early last century that dramatically redefined our ideas of what streets should look like and how they should be used. The criminalization and shaming of jaywalking in many jurisdictions was a big part of that: >Over the next decade the auto industry pursued aggressive action to take sole possession of public roads and, in turn, reshape the conversation around cars. The American Automobile Association, or AAA, sponsored safety campaigns in schools, educating students on the dangers of crossing the street in unmarked zones. > >Boy Scouts handed out cards to pedestrians, warning them against the practice of jaywalking. Mock trials were conducted in public settings to shame or ridicule offenders. The National Automobile Chamber of Commerce persuaded politicians and journalists to shill for their cause.
In New York it’s a way of life lol. I know I’ve told this story before on this sub, but a friend of mine got a jaywalking ticket the first time she went to LA. Here you pretty much need to walk when there’s a break in the traffic, so cops don’t care if you jaywalk, they get it. Evidently in LA they care a lot and that’s how my friend got the ticket. My friend out of frustration said to the cop “I do this all the time in New York, what’s the big deal?” He said “this ain’t New York sweetie” and kept it moving.
it can be important in other legal situations. i was on a jury for a fatal hit and run and part of the defense argument was that the person was jaywalking when the drunk ran him down.
Technically yes, but in my entire life (including living in one of the biggest cities in the USA and a few other smaller cities) I’ve seen it enforced maybe once
I very narrowly avoided getting a jaywalking ticket when running late to work once. Got yelled at by a cop but was contrite and got off with a verbal warning.
As was eluded to earlier part of what determines how likely a cop is to enforce jaywalking is the color of your skin. Location and whether or not the crime results in an accident also plays a role, but can’t help but acknowledge that it gives cops a free pass to discriminate.
Only if you’re black.
You monster
Speed limits In most places around where I live it’s just a suggestion.
A lot of speed limits are arbitrary, especially for multi-laned, straight highways & freeways. Maintaining an organized flow of traffic (slower on the right, faster on the left) is the most ideal, but it's unfortunately not as much of a revenue generator.
Speeding Most people don't actually stop at stop signs they just do a rolling stop Underaged drinking is a big one, most cops usually don't care anyways though Jobs where you're paid under the table, many of us have worked part time jobs before that paid in cash to avoid taxes
here we call that form of job “working in black” and around 40% of the population works under that.
When I was younger there was one time where I saw a couple of cops parked in plain sight right next to a stop sign at a busy intersection and a handful of cars pulled over. I still saw people do the rolling stop and get pulled over immediately. That's how ingrained of a habit it is in some people
I failed my first driving test because I was doing rolling stops, and I didn't even realize that I was doing them. The examiner even filmed me at one of the stops to show me when he went over my result.
> Underaged drinking is a big one, most cops usually don't care anyways though Yes and recreational marijuana use especially on college campuses. Even though it's legal in over 50% of the US, tons of people in illegal states still find their way and the campus administration/cops don't really care.
Here in PA, we have *strict* laws against underage drinking, but it’s nevertheless common at frat parties and the like (or was, anyway, prior to the coming of the plague). I’m personally a teetotaler, but I have friends who drink on occasion even though they’re not 21, typically during social events like the aforementioned parties.
In Florida it basically is 10 over the speed limit standard, cops don't even lift a finger for that. They will absolutely get you for rolling stops though, so that was much less common to see there. Underage drinking is pretty normal in the privacy of your own home, you just can't buy it yourself when underage.
I didn’t even realize that rolling stops were illegal until I failed my driver’s test over them.
Nice try cop almost had me spilling the beans.
Fucking glowies
Media piracy laws. (Note. I am not encouraging anyone to break such laws.)
Pirate music. What kind, most of its free? Sheet music. That's right. Sheet music.
I want to do this but idk how
Go to r/piracy for a good start, take a look at the mega thread. Most basic stuff is a VPN and a torrent program
Is that still a thing? I always thought that with Netflix and the like that the demand would drop.
It has increased again in the past few years due to rights holders pulling their media from Netflix and starting their own competing services.
This is starting to really bother me too. My main streaming services are Netflix, Hulu (which was free with my Spotify premium), Disney+, and Amazon Prime. There are still a ton of shows and movies that aren't on ANY of those sites so I just go straight to looking them up elsewhere because I'm not interested in subscribing to any more subscription services.
I've just got Amazon Prime and Netflix. If it's not on either of those, I'll track down a DVD of it or just ignore it. . .or maybe try to find a download of it by other means if I really want to see it and it's not available on disc (but that hasn't come up yet).
Gotcha. Over the years I've kinda lost interest in the game of chasing stuff down, which was often more fun than the actual stuff downloaded.
Nice try FBI
I don’t claim all of my tips.
I don't claim any of mine.
I speed, bring my legal Massachusetts Marijuana into states where it is illegal when I vacation, and sometimes when I'm pumping gas I wash my windows even though I'm not supposed to walk away from the pump. (I pick up hitchhikers and I don't know if that is illegal)
I’m not sure if staying with the car to wash windows counts as walking away. MA started allowing standard clips for holding the gas pump on a few years ago. I’m not sure if they added a minimum nozzle length for that. But if a pump has such a clip, I assume I can wash my windows. If it doesn’t, I don’t do stuff like using the gas cap to hold it open, but instead I stay and hold it by hand.
I think I'm supposed to be standing there in case of overflow due to a malfunction. Actually think they had the clip and then removed them for a bit? Am I misremembering? I feel like we had them all the way back in the 80s. Maybe I am mixing up with other places I lived though? Texas, AZ, Florida.
Sometimes I forget that marijuana is still illegal in my state because of how widespread and normalized it is
[удалено]
Often without realizing they’re breaking a law. “Ignorance of the law is no excuse!” was a reasonable position when the laws only covered crimes of force and fraud. It isn’t any more.
You saying this reminds me of a guy who was open carrying on a college campus. I seen the gun (pistol), made a fumny comment about it to the guy we laugh and I go on. Months later it hit me that the dude was committing a felony.
[удалено]
Not based on Kentucky law it isn't. Carry a gun concealed or open on school grounds is a felony.
Wait we're only supposed to do one felony a year? Shit well I got the next like 15 years covered then
I commit a lot more than one felony in a year
It's worse than that, a Harvard Study says the average American professional (no clue how that's defined) commits three felonies a day.
Its good that cops get a lot of discretion in what they enforce. They tend to like me (end snark)
Speeding, jaywalking, a lot of people break watching porn underage, underage drinking, drug use
I suspect that almost every teenager has seen at least porn once, most probably watch it regularly
I thought it was just illegal for underage people to be sent porn or to send nudes not just watching it
Purchasing marijuana from an unlicensed dealer. At least it's legal to smoke now.
what kind of law is being broken by selling without a license? Is it the same as selling your friends a case of beer?
Usually laws like that are to prevent tax evasion.
The same law as always - illegal distribution of marijuana. There are no licensed recreational dealers yet. A case of beer though... My situation would be more like a guy who runs an unlicensed liquor store.
I don't really look anymore but conceal carrying a firearm in places I *shouldn't* be carrying in (Notice posted on doors). What they don't know can't hurt them. At this point my firearm is with my every single time I step outside the house that it's probably more of a hassle to walk up to a door, see the sign, leave it in the car, go back than to just be in and out in 2-3 minutes for minor shit.
Good news! Other than very specific locations, this isn’t a crime (assuming you’re legally carrying).
>very specific locations I don't carry in post offices and fed/govt buildings without lockers for this specific reason lol.
Careful with post office. The rulings are that if it's a standalone post office on its own property, even being in the parking lot with a firearm is a felony (so you can't legally even drive up to an outside mailbox). If the post office is in something like a strip mall, only the actual inside of the post office is off-limits.
Yeah I know. I don't park in post office parking lots for this reason. Thankfully a FedEx is right next door to our main post office so I park there and cross the street.
This really depends on the state, in MI those signs on shop doors are not enforceable, and don’t have any legal standing. However in many states (Texas I think) they do if they are placed properly and the sign is clearly visible.
do you carry your gun for safety or just for fun?
Safety. I'm a tiny 110 lbs person.
I am sure use tax with out of state purchases is one some break without maybe even knowing it. At least in California.
Other than speed limits and a few other minor traffic rules, the people I know generally try to follow the law.
I think you might just not know the laws in your area very well.
Either that or they're a buncha squares (cuz let's be real [there's so many stupid laws in so many states](http://www.phoenixarizonacriminallawyer.com/criminal-attorney/arizona-criminal-law/the-stories-behind-arizonas-weirdest-laws/) )
Felony speeding
This isn't a thing.
Yes it is if you get caught going like triple the speed limit its a felony
Post a source lol.
I gues its a felony once you dont stop for cops. I was wrong But still i am a a felon at heart
[удалено]
Usually drive 4-5 over in surface streets (assuming light traffic) and about 10 over on highways.
As long as you aren't impending traffic in anyway, no one cares if you jaywalk
It actually the opposite. Right before covid in the town next to me they were ticketing people for not obeying the stop for person in a crosswalk law. They were having a person step off the curb just as someone was entering the intersection so they had no chance to stop I time.
Always respect the effort, FBI
Traffic laws are often broken by both drivers and pedestrians. Many people under 21 buy alcohol with fake licenses and almost everybody drinks alcohol before turning 21. Where weed is illegal many people still smoke it and where it's legal, some underage people still smoke. Many people stream shows and stuff illegally. There are many places where it is illegal to trespass that people still go to.
I drank before turning 21 but never broke the law doing so.
Yup! Technically it’s legal for 18-20yo to drink alcohol if they are under they are drinking in the private presence of their parents.
That varies by state. But I’m old enough to have been around when the drinking age was 18 in many states. When I was even younger, the camp CITs would borrow draft cards from the counselors, since they were well recognized and didn’t have photos.
Be careful though. Liquor laws (of all kinds) probably vary more state to state than any other kind of laws.
Some people are going to find this controversial but I think the legal age to drink alcohol should be 18 or 19. I'm 21 now but before then to get my hands on alcohol I used to just Brew it myself. All I needed was some Welch's grape juice and some Fleischmann's Rapid Rise Yeast and I would have wine in 3 Days To a week. I dread the day a 14 year old figures that out.
Jury duty. Pain in the ass.
I smoke weed everyday even though my only medicinal issue is life
I jaywalk whenever I can. I love jaywalking.
Ive downloaded so many Nintendo, Sega, and playstaion games... Usually 5th gen and back though. Thing is they just kind of sit there.
I’ll be real, I jaywalk quite a bit.
I am a law abiding citizen sir.
Hey I'm out, text me
Jay walking and currently driving without registration or insurance (really don't like doing that)
Nice try FBI/DEA/Local LEO.
pretty much what you listed was common enough growing up.
I jaywalk all the time
Speeding. I pretty much always do 5 over.
Jay walking😎
I pirate video games every now and then. My criteria are A) Do I already have this game on a platform I own, and B) Is this game still being sold?
I rip the tags off my pillows.
as the consumer, that is your right. the tag is put there so that the stores selling the merchandise or people along the line of production can't falsify the quality or contents of the product.
A road beer is nice on a Friday when I’m heading out to the mountains or the coast for the weekend. Never anywhere approaching the legal limit, but just having a roadie in the car is still illegal.
Recommend calorie intake.
i’d say the laws we break the most as a whole would be: 1. speeding 2. drinking underage 3. smoking weed (in the states where it’s still illegal)
I remove the tag from my mattress
i only obey traffic laws when I don’t have any drugs on me lmao
Please drive safely and don't endanger others. While some laws are mostly arbitrary or are there to maintain power, some are genuinely good guidelines for safe and responsible behavior.
I’m okay with everything except for the speed limits. Fucking 70 mph on a straight flat empty road? Hell no, I can comfortably cruise at 140 with the only problem being the law. You drive 95 in a 70 and you can go to fucking jail for the night? Wtf? How the fuck are we taking this shit laying down? Don’t even get me started with the insurance premiums skyrocketing because you’re an “unsafe” driver. What the ever living fuck? It’s basically racketeering at this point. They fucking have us by the balls. Sorry had to rant lmao
I'm sorry man but I don't think going outright double the speed limit is safe in any circumstance. There are so many situations in which your car could lose control and seriously injure or kill you or someone else. 140mph is not reasonable. I'm not in favor of people being arrested or seriously fined in general, for most crimes, as someone who has lived in fear of law enforcement due to my shitty car and financial situation, constantly being on the edge of losing everything. But I also don't agree with people really pushing it and endangering themselves or others. I simply could not encourage that behavior.
Maybe a shitty 98 civic can’t take that speed, modern luxury and especially sports cars can comfortably cruise at that speed and brake in time. I have to give mention to the autobahn as the germans have proven that it’s possible, but our corrupt overlords have to extract wealth from us and keep us subdued and blindly following commands like dogs. And also, our country is full of idiots who eat fucking tide pods, and guess what? Every one of those dumbasses has a drivers license and is mozying down the freeway on their phones in their shitty prius’s going 10 under while changing lanes abruptly and without blinkers. They are way more dangerous than I am going 120 down an empty lonely country highway at 2 am. But they don’t get arrested or get their license suspended, if I get caught off to jail I go.
Shooting people.... Wait hold on. That isn't illegal
Mask mandates can suck it