Hey, there! Log in / Register
He can't drive 55, so he sues
By adamg on Thu, 10/14/2021 - 11:05am
A man who has gotten two speeding tickets on Rte. 3 in Burlington - one for doing 96 m.p.h. - has sued the state and one of the troopers who ticketed him, alleging the current 55-m.p.h. limit there is illegal.
Mikhail El-Bayeh of Woburn had been fighting his ticket for getting his Imprezza up to 96 m.p.h. on July 26, 2018 in state court, where he keeps losing. But now the state trooper who wrote him a ticket for doing 72 on Rte. 3 earlier this year has had his most recent appeal transferred to federal court in Boston, because El-Bayeh is alleging violations of his civil rights under federal law.
El-Bayeh contends that state highway law requires MassDOT to take into account actual conditions on the highway, which he alleges means setting a speed limit that reflects the fact that most drivers now zip along the road at greater than 70 m.p.h. Therefore, he concludes, the speed limit should be set to at least that speed, if not 80 m.p.h. - which would be 15 m.p.h. higher than on any other highway in the state. He notes that the speed limit on the road was 60 until 1974, when the federal government required national speed limits of no more than 55 m.p.h. in a since repealed order related to the national oil crisis at the time. It is past time, he charges, for MassDOT to repeal its "special speed restriction" on the road.
In a ruling this past April, the Massachusetts Appeals Court agreed with El-Bayeh that the state can't ignore highway laws in setting speed limits, but dismissed his case anyway, saying that even if the speed limit on Rte. 3 were set to 80, he still would have gotten a ticket for doing 96, so he had no "standing," or legal grounds, to sue over his ticket.
Last month, El-Bayeh filed a new suit, this time over a ticket he got on Aug. 4 of this year, for doing 72 on Rte. 3.
In his lawsuit, filed pro se, El-Bayeh reiterates his claims about the current speed limit being illegal. He asks that a judge order the state to change the speed limit and to grant him whatever damages the judge sees fit. Normally, that would include a return of the money he paid for the first speeding ticket, but El-Bayeh acknowledges he never paid the fine - even after a Middlesex County judge reduced it from the original $415 to $300.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 El-Bayeh's latest complaint | 683.39 KB |
| Trooper's motion to move the case to federal court | 85.79 KB |
| Appeals Court ruling on his initial suit | 112.33 KB |
| Separate Appeals Court ruling on the validity of the LIDAR reading that he was speeding | 87.06 KB |
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Why no standing?
Isn't the fine for 96 in an 80 lower than 96 in a 55?
Here's a blog post about the history of the speed limit on Route 3, and the political decisions behind not raising it: https://www.motorists.org/blog/warning-pay-no-attention-to-this-message/
"Route 3 was completely rebuilt [around 2001]. The design speed for the project was 110 km/h (68 mph).
...
The 85th percentile speed, which is supposed to be used for setting speed limits, is around 75 mph. A little over by my measurement, which found 1% compliance with the speed limit.
Eventually the absurdity of the 55 mph speed limit sunk in and in 2006 Mass Highway traffic engineers recommended a speed limit increase. State Police vetoed the change, preferring the 99% violation rate that let them write tickets at will.
...
The state hired a consultant to do a Road Safety Audit. The consultant’s report blamed the low speed limit, among other factors, for the high crash rate. The report explicitly recommended raising the speed limit."
Rare that I'd agree with higher speed limits
But if I-93 in the Fells and north through the 128 intersection is 65, there's no reason Route 3 shouldn't be as well. Or at least 60, which would match Route 3 on the South Shore. Every other roadway outside of 128 is at least 65 mph (Route 3 south is the only one that is 60). When the roadway was still two lanes (RIP all the trees they tore out when it was expanded, and expanding the roadway solved all out traffic problems … not) 55 probably made sense. 65 would make sense now.
Interesting that State Police vetoed this … god forbid they would advocate for a lower speed limit from, say, Reading to Medford where it is probably warranted (the only roadway inside 128 with a 65 mph speed limit.
Sometimes I wonder what is going on with MassDOT.
Of course, this clown shouldn't be driving at all.
Safety and higher emissions are good ….
…. reasons for not raising the the speed limits.
Except you fail to understand
The higher speed limit is actually safer. On a road where the speed limit is too low (because it is far below the speed at which virtually all motorists drive) cars traveling at or below the speed limit end up being a safety hazard.
If you're concerned about emissions, then perhaps we could enact higher speed limits for EVs to help drive further adoption.
Citation, please. This notion is
counterintuitive to me. Higher speeds mean longer braking times/distances, greater damage from collisions, more difficult avoidance maneuvers, and other factors that make them more dangerous on balance, not less, yes?
Here you go
https://www.lincoln.ne.gov/files/sharedassets/public/ltu/transportation/...
he can't drive 65 either
Even if they did raise the speed limit...he's still be going too fast. Math is hard.
Terminate his license. Then
Terminate his license. Then this dangerous cry baby won’t have to worry about speed limits.
Anyone driving 96 on that road
at any point should have their license revoked. I don't care if you have a dull day job as an accountant: that is unforgivably reckless. Find your thrills where they don't put the lives of more responsible drivers and their passengers at risk.
Of course he's guilty of
Of course he's guilty of speeding either way, but his complaint does make a convincing case that the 55 MPH limit isn't compliant with federal rules and should be changed to 65.
Horrible driver, but I respect the guy for seeing a problem and being so persistent in getting it fixed.
By his own admission
he hasn't paid a 3-year-old speeding ticket. Why does this chucklehead still have a license?
Why should he pay it while
Why should he pay it while the case is still pending?
Bravo, he's just fighting for
Bravo, he's just fighting for the rights of all Massholes.
Plus, if you drive fast, you
Plus, if you drive fast, you get places quicker, and then you have more time for other things, like frivolous lawsuits.
I thought speeding tickets
I thought speeding tickets over the limit by 40+ mph usually resulted in arrest and vehicle seizure?
Also, the guy is right in that most speed limits are not set according to the law that requires a speed study
The case is well made
I expected to find a bunch of Libertarian claptrap, but he makes a fairly good case in a couple of ways. One is procedural; the State did not follow the rules it set for itself, which require it to undertake engineering studies and to use the results of those studies in specific ways. The other argument is more fundamental, and addresses something that everyone knows; speed limits on our larger limited-access highways are not observed at all, and have a negligible effect on the speeds that people actually drive at. The disturbing corollary to this is that it leaves speed-limit enforcement entirely up to the judgement, whim, or malign intent of police officers. Since nearly everybody on the highway is breaking the law, they can arrest who they choose. The complaint, arguing in favor of the 85th percentile method for determining speed limits that the State has prescribed for itself (but not observed), says this:
It then goes on to point out that this "de facto general warrant" is easily abused, and disproportionately used against people of color.
I have no problem with the state imposing lower speed limits than engineering analysis requires, if it does so for a clear purpose in the general interest, such as reducing damage to the climate. If it does so, however, it must enforce those lower limits. Putting signs saying 55 on a highway where the average speed is over 70, does nothing to make anyone safer, or to protect the climate. It just means that if you're doing 60, and a police officer doesn't like your looks, he can pull you over for speeding, even if you're the slowest car on the road.
this makes no sense, but...
it makes no sense, but there are a number of roads in the commonwealth that are completely the wrong speed limit. Soliders Field road in Brighton.. speed limit 35! The last speed survey done on that road was in the 60's. This is why its a favorite speed trap for staties.