ATLANTA (Reuters) - Atlanta Thrashers hockey star Dany Heatley was sentenced to three years probation on Friday after pleading guilty to second-degree vehicular homicide and several other driving offenses in connection with a 2003 car crash that killed teammate and friend Dan Snyder.



Heatley, 24, who was at the wheel of a Ferrari when it hit a brick wall in an Atlanta neighborhood on Sept. 29, 2003, will not be prosecuted for the more serious charges of first-degree vehicular homicide and reckless driving.

He could have faced up to 20 years in prison had he been convicted on all six charges he faced.

"I'm sorry for what I did," Heatley told a packed Atlanta court before Fulton County Superior Court Judge Roland Barnes sentenced him. "The mistake I made that night was driving too fast and it will stay with me for the rest of my life." Atlanta prosecutors said police believed Heatley was driving between 60 and 90 mph at the time of the crash. The posted speed limit in the area is 35 mph.
So the moral of the story is that pro athletes can do what they want and get a minimal penalty... kill people, traffic drugs, cover up a murder... its all good as long as you're good at what you do.

and this surprises you why Easy?? It's just the latest in a long line of examples of this.

well, seeing as how there is a girl in New Mexico who had no idea she was an immigrant (story is she was moved here when she was a child and her parents never told her) who the US won't let back in after a foreign study trip, you'd think that a foreigner killing someone would be far worse a crime than not knowing you're illegal.

When the Heatley thing happened, my grandparents told me about two guys from Montreal they met here shortly after they moved down from Canada. They were crazy guys who were always driving fast and wrecking their cars in single vehicle accidents. Anyway, the end result was they were both deported although no one, other than themselves, were ever injured in the incidents.

Maybe they would have been alright if they had been NHL players, though. I think he got off easy. The punishment does not seem to fit the crime.

I think Daunte Culpepper should be deported.

Having seen an awful lot of this story in the media through the course of events, I'm really not sure how much of this was "star treatment" vs how much impact the input of the Snyder family had on the D.A. This particular prosecutor is not known for cutting a whole lot of slack AFAIK.

Also, regarding 1st-degree (felony) vs 2nd-degree (misdemeanor)
http://www.georgiacriminaldefense.com/crimes/motorvehicle.htm
and/or
http://www.lawhelp.org/GA/showdocument.cfm/County/%20/City/%20/demoMode/%3D%201/Language/1/State/GA/TextOnly/N/ZipCode/%20/LoggedIn/0/rpc/2040099/doctype/dynamicdoc/ichannelprofileid/2425/idynamicdocid/2684/iorganizationid/2504/itopicID/638/iProblemCodeID/2040099/iChannelID/54/isubtopicid/3/iproblemcodeid/2040099

First Degree Vehicular Homicide – If the death of another by vehicle results from any of five serious driving violations: (1) a violation of the driver’s duty to stop for a school bus; (2) duty to stop at a scene of an accident [sometimes called hit and run]; (3) reckless driving: (4) driving under the influence [DUI]; or (5) fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, it constitutes homicide by vehicle in the first degree.

Punishment: Felony, 3 to 20 years in prison or 5 to 20 years if the defendant is a habitual violator.

Second Degree Vehicular Homicide – If a person’s death results from a violation of any other motor vehicle law besides those listed in the First Degree Vehicular Homicide section, then the offense is homicide by vehicle in the second degree.

And, with regard to the deportation, that might not have been an option in either case
http://www.recorder.ca/cp/Sports/050201/s020185A.html
A November U.S. Supreme Court decision could help Heatley on the deportation issue. The court ruled that a drunken driving accident that injured two people was not a crime of violence allowing the government to deport a Florida man to his native Haiti. Josue Leocal had pleaded guilty to a felony charge of drunken driving in the Miami area.

The high court also said that the statute suggests the felony offence must require intent in causing harm - not mere negligence as in Leocal's case - before immigrants are subject to the drastic consequence of deportation.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but this certainly is a case that brings up the question of what the criminal justice is for--punishment, rehabilitation, or both?

Jon hit it on the head. The Snyder family has supported Heatley from the beginning, and asked for leniency.

First Degree Vehicular Homicide – If the death of another by vehicle results from any of five serious driving violations: (1) a violation of the driver’s duty to stop for a school bus; (2) duty to stop at a scene of an accident [sometimes called hit and run]; (3) reckless driving: (4) driving under the influence [DUI]; or (5) fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, it constitutes homicide by vehicle in the first degree.

So he pled guilty to reckless driving, but that didn't count towards #3 mentioned above?? I agree it's a very sad story, and clearly it was a mistake. Putting Heatley in jail really accomplishes nothing since he can do more good in society than behind bars...but it does bring up a festering debate.

Jon hit it on the head. The Snyder family has supported Heatley from the beginning, and asked for leniency.

I *believe* they went one step further and asked that he not be prosecuted. The two of them went back a way apparently.

I realize a lot of pro athletes do get special treatment in the courts, but not all of them, just ask Mike Danton.

So the moral of the story is that pro athletes can do what they want and get a minimal penalty... kill people, traffic drugs, cover up a murder... its all good as long as you're good at what you do.From all of the court stats I've heard quoted regarding Fulton County, Heatley's punishment was in line with the norm for someone with no priors and no alcohol involvement. To assume that he's getting preferential treatment because he's an athlete is short-sighted and prejudicial.

So he pled guilty to reckless driving, but that didn't count towards #3 mentioned above?? I agree it's a very sad story, and clearly it was a mistake. Putting Heatley in jail really accomplishes nothing since he can do more good in society than behind bars...but it does bring up a festering debate.

Re-read the story (I didn't catch this the first time I read it either) -- he pled guilty to speeding, 2nd degree vehicular homicide,and other lesser charges and they dropped the reckless driving charge & the felony vehicular homicide.

http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/0205/05family.html
Snyder family plays pivotal role in plea bargain

By JOHN MANASSO
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 02/04/05

Graham Snyder never was certain his message was getting across.

Friday was the first time he had met Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard, and one thing was certain: Snyder was going to use all of his legal rights to prevent Dany Heatley from going to jail.

As the case was finally resolved with the outcome the Snyder family had pined for, many of the key players in the case — Superior Court Judge Roland Barnes, Howard and Heatley's lawyer Ed Garland — cited the pivotal role played by the victim's family.

"Southerners are full of phrases, and you may not know that," Barnes told Snyder. "There's one about not having a dog in the hunt. As you were talking, some phrases came to mind. This one might not be Southern, but you are a better man than I. I don't know if I could do this if I were you. . . .

"I know your regard for Mr. Heatley is high and it is one of the reasons you are here. You all are a prime reason the parties in this case here have been able to come together and reach an accord. It takes a lot to do what you did."

Howard was asked if he had ever seen a victim's family go to the lengths that it did working for a defendant.

"As we said before, we've seen it," he said. "It happens in cases — in vehicular homicide cases. But this case marks the most aggressive stance of a victim's family in support of a defendant. I don't recall one in which they've been this outspoken."

Garland said no judge could look the Snyders in the eye and face them down on their request.

"They played a very major role in us resolving this case," he said.

Ask the Snyders how they came to forgive Dany Heatley and the response is that the decision was never conscious. It was just in their blood.

Although they are admittedly not the most religious people, Graham is a member of the Mennonite Church in Elmira and his children all attended Sunday school there. Mennonites believe in forgiveness and pacifism.

Snyder also said the Canadian hockey culture played a role. The family believed it was acting on what its late son's wishes would have been.

"Our belief and our feeling was that [jail] wouldn't serve Dany Heatley very well," Snyder said. "It wouldn't have been productive. It wouldn't have been a positive step. . . . We encouraged [Heatley] to do some things the judge talked about," in terms of community service.

One person who helped Graham Snyder was Mark Yantzi, a former city councilman in Kitchener, Ontario, the closest major city to Elmira. The son of a Mennonite minister, Yantzi also is an author and a pioneer in restorative justice.

While working as a probation officer in Kitchener, Yantzi is credited with having founded the region's Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program — a program that has served as a model for thousands of others throughout the world.

When Dan died, Yantzi sent Graham a condolence letter, which led to a reunion. Graham Snyder credited Yantzi with giving him ideas to present to the prosecution as to how to resolve the case.

After Heatley was indicted in July, Graham Snyder communicated often with the district attorney's office.

"I spent quite a bit of time from week to week," he said.

The Snyders said the last few days were nerve-racking for them. As late as Thursday afternoon, they met with Heatley's lawyers and were unsure of what the outcome would be.

But it appears their determination swayed Howard. Friday they met him for the first time.

"It was fine," LuAnn Snyder said of the meeting. "He talked about if he had a son of his own [killed in a similar accident] how would he feel? It didn't always come across that way. But it was the best outcome we could have asked for."

Yeah, I am not sure if the victim's family does not seek punishment, why society ought to clamor for it.

And don't give me the whole "deterrence" argument on this one.

Yeah, I am not sure if the victim's family does not seek punishment, why society ought to clamor for it.

And don't give me the whole "deterrence" argument on this one.

In this case:


So the moral of the story is that pro athletes can do what they want and get a minimal penalty... kill people, traffic drugs, cover up a murder... its all good as long as you're good at what you do.


it's not deterance, it's plain out vindictiveness.

I think you are right on that one.

Yeah, I am not sure if the victim's family does not seek punishment, why society ought to clamor for it.

If you kill my aunt, whom most of my family despises because she is a leech, you should go free simply because we think so? Where do you draw the line? When does a crime become an act against society, rather than just the "victim" involved? It is sheer luck that Heatley did not injure, or kill, another person on that street that night. Being familiar with the street involved, the way he was driving on it is extremely irresponsible and showed a complete disregard for everyone that travels on and lives near that road. Given his history of speeding violations, including one given to him in another state that he has never paid, I hope this really has changed him or he will be getting a probation violation for sure.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but this certainly is a case that brings up the question of what the criminal justice is for--punishment, rehabilitation, or both?
Well, in this case it seems to be neither. He isn't particularly punished, and it did nothing to rehabilatate him.

And on another note, why should you get a lesser sentence when you don't drink? If anything, you're even more irresponsible because you have all of your faculties and yet still fail to avoid danger. I never understood why there is a distinction in the first place.

Also, I'd say 90% of the time, families want stricter penalties and don't get them, so I don't see why them wanting a more lenient sentence should factor in at all.

And on another note, why should you get a lesser sentence when you don't drink?

This is one that I can't figure out. If anything, the drunk at least has a reason that he acted like an idiot. The sober person has no excuse, does he? If, with all of your faculties (not under the influence), you engage in terribly dangerous activities and kill someone, is it really an accident? Is Dany Heatley stupid enough to think that was a great idea? Being familiar with the road, I have a hard time considering this an "honest mistake." If I can't trust you to consider the consequences of your actions on a public (even residential) road while sober, how am I supposed to ever trust you on the road?

I have since read that Heatley's punishment was tougher than over 90% of the other people in Georgia that were convicted on the same charges. It seems that the problem is not Heatley's punishment, per se, but rather the system that lets people off easy in general.

I have since read that Heatley's punishment was tougher than over 90% of the other people in Georgia that were convicted on the same charges. It seems that the problem is not Heatley's punishment, per se, but rather the system that lets people off easy in general.

so, can we at least scale back the "Heatley got special treatment" talk then?

so, can we at least scale back the "Heatley got special treatment" talk then?

Another clarification is in order...his punishment was tougher than 90% of others who were convicted of 2nd degree vehicular homicide. What was not factored in was how the other charges may or may not have been relevant to the punishment levied. Even with that info, it doesn't seem like he is getting it easier than most. I still think he got an easy punishment, but the problem is clearly a system that does not punish harsh enough to satisfy me.

Another thing I have thought about...

Personally, I don't understand how Jamal Lewis should go to prison for 4 months for arranging a drug deal on a cellphone when you can kill somebody by driving like an asshole and you just get probation. Heatley was just as sober as Jamal Lewis was. Calling somebody on the cellphone and arranging a drug deal does not directly put as many lives in danger as driving down Lenox Road at twice the speed limit does. How do you reconcile that? Especially if you consider the fact that the "drug deal" Lewis tried to arrange never happened.

I'm sure I would be more harsh on the verdict if his fun drinking time had killed my wife or kids. But as long as it's just some other persons family that got fucked by this guy. I think it's a fair and just punishment.

Another thing I have thought about...

Personally, I don't understand how Jamal Lewis should go to prison for 4 months for arranging a drug deal on a cellphone when you can kill somebody by driving like an asshole and you just get probation. Heatley was just as sober as Jamal Lewis was. Calling somebody on the cellphone and arranging a drug deal does not directly put as many lives in danger as driving down Lenox Road at twice the speed limit does. How do you reconcile that? Especially if you consider the fact that the "drug deal" Lewis tried to arrange never happened.

I posted that I thought the Jamal Lewis sentence was IMO quite excessive, but I didn't think anyone else agreed with me. Of course, I don't think EITHER Heatley or Lewis deserve jail time...

I posted that I thought the Jamal Lewis sentence was IMO quite excessive, but I didn't think anyone else agreed with me. Of course, I don't think EITHER Heatley or Lewis deserve jail time...

I probably skipped that thread... :)

I think I could agree that neither do jail time. I don't think I can ever understand why Jamal Lewis goes to prison and Heatley doesn't do any time. I don't have any data, but I have a suspicion that more people are killed by idiot drivers than by people on cellphones arranging drug deals.

How do you reconcile that? Especially if you consider the fact that the "drug deal" Lewis tried to arrange never happened.

Very easily. Lewis' activities pose a greater threat to society than Heatley's.

Very easily. Lewis' activities pose a greater threat to society than Heatley's.

How so? Heatley killed someone who, from all accounts, did not want to die. Lewis killed no one and engaged in no activity that was likely to kill anyone. Heatley is lucky that Snyder was the only person he killed.

How so?

We're never gonna agree on this of course, but the general argument would be that willful participation in drug activity is more harmful to society as a whole than an driver who was involved in an accident.
{searching for analogy}
Like someone who steals car stereos on purpose may get a longer sentence than someone involved in an accidental shooting that kills someone.

Like someone who steals car stereos on purpose may get a longer sentence than someone involved in an accidental shooting that kills someone.

The presumption is that it is an "accident" when you lose control of your vehicle while speeding on a winding, bumpy residential road. Wrecking your car and killing somebody should not be a completely unexpected event when engaging in that sort of activity. (EDIT:unless you are a moron. Admittedly, it is not a crime to be an idiot, but when you being an idiot kills somebody...idiocy should not be a defense.)

A further edit... :

Who is endangered by calling someone to arrange a drug deal? Who is endangered by meeting the person you called? Are you making the case that more people were in imminent danger from Jamal Lewis than Dany Heatley? Seriously?

Who is endangered by calling someone to arrange a drug deal?

All of us.

I think Lewis got off very lightly. What he chose to involve himself with is something I fervently believe should be a capital offense (trafficking/ distribution). I really don't see much difference in his role & that of, say, a financier of terrorism. His willingly involved himself with some of the lowest form of vermin on earth AFAIC, I'm not exactly inclined to feel much pity for him.

Like I said, we're not gonna agree on this, and we're likely so far apart on it that I don't know if I'm really going to be able to help you understand the reasoning behind the various sentences.

All of us.

I certainly don't feel threatened by it.

I think all the people using SUVs as single-person vehicles jack us into the Middle East and terrorism far more than the illegal drug trade does.

And on another note, why should you get a lesser sentence when you don't drink? If anything, you're even more irresponsible because you have all of your faculties and yet still fail to avoid danger. I never understood why there is a distinction in the first place.


DUI + Charge > Charge

That's why.

If you kill my aunt, whom most of my family despises because she is a leech, you should go free simply because we think so? Where do you draw the line? When does a crime become an act against society, rather than just the "victim" involved? It is sheer luck that Heatley did not injure, or kill, another person on that street that night. Being familiar with the street involved, the way he was driving on it is extremely irresponsible and showed a complete disregard for everyone that travels on and lives near that road. Given his history of speeding violations, including one given to him in another state that he has never paid, I hope this really has changed him or he will be getting a probation violation for sure.

The Heatley family didn't despise their son, so your example is irrelevant. Where to draw the line? Just look at the facts. Judges, juries and prosecutors do it all the time. And actually, luck plays a big part in every prosecution and sentence. Felony murder for example.

By the way, do you ever speed yourself? I am interested in your response. Cause if you do (even just 10 mph over) you are a hypocrite. You can argue 10 is a lot less than 50 mph, but if you killed someone doing it, and it was the cause of the accident (i.e. less reaction time by you or other driver), then you would be no different that Danny Heatley.

Edit: Upon second thought, that is a little harsh. I say you would be a little bit of a hypocrite. 10 is different from 50, but if someone gets killed, it will probably matter very little to the family of the victim.

I think all the people using SUVs as single-person vehicles jack us into the Middle East and terrorism far more than the illegal drug trade does.

Clarification -- My intent was not to link drug trade & terrorism specifically. That reference was just a comparison of the level of severity with which I consider the two genres, any other links between them is entirely coincidental to my mention of terrorism.

By the way, do you ever speed yourself? I am interested in your response. Cause if you do (even just 10 mph over) you are a hypocrite. You can argue 10 is a lot less than 50 mph, but if you killed someone doing it, and it was the cause of the accident (i.e. less reaction time by you or other driver), then you would be no different that Danny Heatley.

I never speed on residential roads. I never speed on anything other than multi-lane highways. Does that make me a hypocrite? Not at all. I was specifically referring to a particular road here in Atlanta (Lenox Road, the one where the incident was). Lenox Road has multiple apartments/condos along it, with sidewalks, and business centers as well. The road, especially near the area it happened, has lots of hills, curves, and the quality of the road surface is always lacking. He knew all of this because he just left a restaurant he frequents that was one street over. Anything above 40, or 45 at best, on this particular road is taking a serious chance with your life and anyone else on it or near it.

But society also says that you shouldn't travel more than 60 (max. speed, remember) on your highway. If you go over that, and cause an accident, and someone gets hurt because of it, I don't see a whole lot of difference.

But society also says that you shouldn't travel more than 60 (max. speed, remember) on your highway. If you go over that, and cause an accident, and someone gets hurt because of it, I don't see a whole lot of difference.

Then that is certainly a strange point of view. You don't see a difference between an accident on a highway and one on a residential road? Besides, where did you pull out this 60 mph thing? I routinely travel on highways with speed limits of 65 and 70.

And also speeding 10 mph over and speeding 50 mph over are VASTLY different things!

Another thing I have thought about...

Personally, I don't understand how Jamal Lewis should go to prison for 4 months for arranging a drug deal on a cellphone when you can kill somebody by driving like an asshole and you just get probation.
My understanding of this is that the Federal prosecutors are generally better prepared to prosecute certain crimes while Federal judges are also much harsher on violators than their state and local counterparts.

I *believe* they went one step further and asked that he not be prosecuted. The two of them went back a way apparently.

I realize a lot of pro athletes do get special treatment in the courts, but not all of them, just ask Mike Danton.


Danton wasn't a star either.. replace danton with say.. Jeremy Roenick.. and i bet its a different story

And also speeding 10 mph over and speeding 50 mph over are VASTLY different things!

Actually, they are not really if both are illegal and cause death. Neither are intentional.

Actually, they are not really if both are illegal and cause death. Neither are intentional.
We need a head hitting the wall smily. Serious, if you think speeding 10 miles over the limit and 50 miles over the limit are the same, then you have seriously lost it. You have far less control over your own vehicle if you are going 50 miles over rather than 10 miles over. That's why traffic fines are so much more expensive if you go 50 miles over. It shows greater negligence, and I'd bet you'd be sentanced more harshly for going 50 mph rather than 10 mph.

That's like saying if you end up shooting someone accidently because you forgot to put the safety on your gun is the same as shooting into the air and it happens to hit someone on the way down!

This is one that I can't figure out. If anything, the drunk at least has a reason that he acted like an idiot. The sober person has no excuse, does he? If, with all of your faculties (not under the influence), you engage in terribly dangerous activities and kill someone, is it really an accident?
Because if not, the moral of the story is to have some liquor in your backseat so you can pretend you'd been drinking then you get a lower charge or at least some leniency from the court.

No, a drunk doesn't have an excuse for acting like an idiot. If you're a dumb enough fuck to get behind the wheel of a vehicle while drunk then you shouldn't ever get drunk. Period. Drunkeness is not an excuse or even reason for why you do something. You have to take responsibility for those actions just as if you were sober.

As a human being, perhaps you judge people differently- for instance, someone who maliciously does something versus someone drunk who does something malicious when their inhibitions are somewhat loosened, perhaps there's a little room for difference. Regardless, the impulse is still there- it's a matter of how close to the surface it goes.

But we're talking about stupid. And if you're that dumb and drunk then you shouldn't drink.

SI

We need a head hitting the wall smily. Serious, if you think speeding 10 miles over the limit and 50 miles over the limit are the same, then you have seriously lost it. You have far less control over your own vehicle if you are going 50 miles over rather than 10 miles over. That's why traffic fines are so much more expensive if you go 50 miles over. It shows greater negligence, and I'd bet you'd be sentanced more harshly for going 50 mph rather than 10 mph.

That's like saying if you end up shooting someone accidently because you forgot to put the safety on your gun is the same as shooting into the air and it happens to hit someone on the way down!

Well, I am sorry, but if you speed over by 10 and kill someone, you are in a lot more trouble than if you speed over by 50 and don't kill someone. Plus, your example is a little off base because it is not illegal to leave the safety off of your gun. I think it is a better example to say one guy shoots one bullet in the air and another shoots 5. Both are illegal and will get you in trouble if somebody gets hit. I already admitted above that there is a slight difference between the two but not as much as you think. The point here is if one of the posters here is clamoring for hard justice was to speed by just 10 miles an hour over the speed limit and killed someone, they would be in a lot of trouble, regardless of how much they were speeding. Thus, the poster is lucky that it hasn't happened. That's all I'm saying.

The point here is if one of the posters here is clamoring for hard justice was to speed by just 10 miles an hour over the speed limit and killed someone, they would be in a lot of trouble, regardless of how much they were speeding. Thus, the poster is lucky that it hasn't happened. That's all I'm saying.

I rarely speed by more than 5 over the limit. I do often go as much as 5 over the limit when on a multi-lane highway. I have been driving for 11 years or so and have never had a ticket, nor have I ever been pulled over by the police. I have had three very minor accidents during that time that resulted in no damage and the police were never called to the scene. Contrast this with Mr. Dany Heatley, who has had three speeding tickets and a high-speed accident on a residential road that killed his passenger. Trying to compare me to him is laughable and way off-base.

I admit that if I caused an accident due to me acting like an idiot that I deserve to have the book thrown at me. The problem is, I don't drive around like a jackass. If the highway is crowded, I don't weave in and out of traffic. If I did, I would expect the book to be thrown at me. I don't speed unless it can be done safely, which is usually when there are very few other vehicles on the road. I am talking about times when you can drive 30-40 miles and see not more than a dozen cars along the way.

Why am I defending/explaining myself? It isbecause you think you've made some magical argument that defeats all of my points and opinions expressed on this matter.

Danton wasn't a star either.. replace danton with say.. Jeremy Roenick.. and i bet its a different story

Maybe, and maybe not. Replace Jeremy Roenick with say... Rae Carruth...and I bet it's a different story.

Alright, I am getting your goat a little bit. So, I will say one last thing. Society says don't go faster than a certain speed, but yet you do. You must see at least a tiny bit of hypocrisy in that. You say you don't speed unless it is safe to do so. But society has already said that "safely" means do not go over the posted MAXIMUM limit.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but this certainly is a case that brings up the question of what the criminal justice is for--punishment, rehabilitation, or both?

I don't have any stake here either - indeed, I didn't read the whole article - but I think your question is fascinating.

My personal perception is that the criminal justice system is mostly for keeping undesirables away from regular society. As most people don't want to be imprisoned, this is a form of punishment. I think putting criminals with other criminals is a pretty poor form of rehab, but nobody asks me such things.

With a general lack of prison space and the growing feeling that (IMO) incarceration is mostly a waste of money, I try to think of alternatives - more executions, confiscation of assets, more house arrests, more liberal use of community service - but I can't think of anything that wouldn't cause more problems than we already have. Back to the drawing board...

Alright, I am getting your goat a little bit. So, I will say one last thing. Society says don't go faster than a certain speed, but yet you do. You must see at least a tiny bit of hypocrisy in that. You say you don't speed unless it is safe to do so. But society has already said that "safely" means do not go over the posted MAXIMUM limit.

Bingo!

Of course, safety really isn't the issue. Society has determined for whatever reason that they'd prefer that you not exceed certain speed limits but we as individuals decide not to accept societies rules when they don't suit us.

As long as we do that, and I think it's inevitable because I basically see humans as a push the limits kinda species, it is hypocricy to judge others for doing the same thing. The whole "I'm less criminal than you" argument still means you're a criminal. Doesn't it?

I agree with Honolulu Blue that keeping society safe from those who take this tendency to push limits too far. It's the only thing that makes sense. Now, rehabiliation is a good thing to try while you've got them there as this attempts to serve the same need but as the reason to put them in jail, no.

Society sets the speed limits? They've generally been set arbitrarily by the government, at least for the past 30 years. If society determined the speed limit, the limits would be set by taking the average speed from each stretch of road. When I drive and am going 60 in a 55 and every car on the road passes me, it is obvious that "society" is not setting the limit at 55.

Society sets the speed limits? They've generally been set arbitrarily by the government, at least for the past 30 years. If society determined the speed limit, the limits would be set by taking the average speed from each stretch of road. When I drive and am going 60 in a 55 and every car on the road passes me, it is obvious that "society" is not setting the limit at 55.

Oh, I didn't realize that society didn't elect the government that arbitrarily set the speed limits. My bad.

Oh, I didn't realize that society didn't elect the government that arbitrarily set the speed limits. My bad.

Oh yes. A valid point in theory, but not in practice.

Society sets the speed limits? They've generally been set arbitrarily by the government, at least for the past 30 years. If society determined the speed limit, the limits would be set by taking the average speed from each stretch of road. When I drive and am going 60 in a 55 and every car on the road passes me, it is obvious that "society" is not setting the limit at 55.

I think you lost the argument right there. Sorry. If "society" really wanted higher speed limits, enough pressure could be put on the government to do it, but they don't. And here's why. While I speed occasionally and would love the limit to be increased for me, I sure as hell like it the way it is for all the other "jokers" on the road. While most people in their car believe the limit should be higher for them, they don't for others. Believe me, faced with the choice of getting a ticket now or then, but feeling safer because all the deadbeats of society are at least not given permission to endanger me by speeding, or the opposite, I take the former.

You see, I am part of society, and I am very glad Tekneek and others face as low a speed limit as possible.

If society determined the speed limit, the limits would be set by taking the average speed from each stretch of road.
The speed limit should be set to approximately the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic. This has been accepted (at least in transportation engineering circles) as the speed which best combines safety and driver acceptance. A speed limit that is too low for most drivers to accept simply increases the speed differential between drivers, which is much more of a safety hazard than high speed itself.

You see, I am part of society, and I am very glad Tekneek and others face as low a speed limit as possible.

Then you have plenty of work left to do.

The speed limit should be set to approximately the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic. This has been accepted (at least in transportation engineering circles) as the speed which best combines safety and driver acceptance.

I am curious just how often that has been used to determine speed limits. People around Atlanta seem to drive faster when the limit is 55 than they do when it is 65.

I am curious just how often that has been used to determine speed limits. People around Atlanta seem to drive faster when the limit is 55 than they do when it is 65.
Well, it was first used when setting a speed limit for a road that previously had no restriction. In today's reality, politicans have way too much influence, and many speed limits are set by anything but engineering judgement. Usually, it's a misguided attempt at improving safety.

Your second sentence raises a good point, and I don't think you're alone in feeling that way. Most drivers are going to drive at a speed they think is safe for the conditions, whether that's 25, 65, or 90 mph. If they feel the speed limit is proper, they're much more likely to obey it (or at least stay close to it). If they feel it's too low, they're going to get pissed off and speed, sometimes substantially. Often, someone will get stuck behind a driver obeying the low speed limit, and then feel the need to floor it once they have an opportunity to get free. I know I'm often guilty of this. We're an impatient society, and that's only magnified when we're behind the wheel.