Early in his project, we also agreed to participate in his Speed Trap Challenge, where we will pay 10,000 dollars to the first person who can show us a single speed limit in the Untied States that is properly set, where the exercise of police powers for routine speed limit traffic stops is based on factual probable cause(s), and their court adjudication practices meets all the governing constitutional protections, including substantive and procedural due process etc.

Unfortunately, there is no such example in the US or its territories, due in part because there is no federal standards that meet the needed substantive due process to be applied, thus, due process is impossible at this time in the US in any traffic court!  Therefore, our traffic engineering and enforcement practices and court adjudication standards are unconstitutional, because absent standards, due process is denied.

The reason for this will come as a surprise to most, the U.S. Constitution, Article 1§8 (1) national defense; (3) commerce;(7) post roads (transportation regulation); and (18)... necessary and proper (clause)[1] were symbiotic Constitutional powers our Founding Fathers deemed essential for the General Welfare of the Nation and they delegated their oversight to Congress; thus they’re not powers enumerated to States in the 10th Amendment.

Federal Regulatory Supremacy in this Field became incontrovertible when Congress invoked its Commerce Clause authority in “The Highway Safety Act of 1966”[2] with an expressed emphasis on “roadway safety”, to “regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce” and “to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce”[3]; thereby directly, by implication, or de facto effect[4] Congress encompassed all Constitutional rights, modalities, means, instrumentalities, adjudication standards and Constitutional protections governing federal regulations, standards or acts in this field.

From a regulatory and police powers perspective all instruments of travel became federally regulated and protected within these travel enclaves, and once a person enters an instrument of travel all their Constitutional Rights are preserved therein and the exercise of police powers thereof shall be uniform, transparent, and fact based regardless of stateliness or entity type or classification.

In legal terms it’s stare decisis under any interpretation of the US Constitution et al when a State exercises police powers under the color of federal law, law embodied by Declaration of Independence and Article 1 § 8(1)(3)(7) of US Constitution itself and Congress’ Intent in a federal Constitutional field, the Supremacy Clause et al displaces conflicting inferior federal agency regulations, State’s jurisprudence, laws and the exercise of police powers thereof.

Under our Constitution’s prescripts citizens’ have a natural unalienable right to travel within our millions of miles of transportation corridors that traverse approximately 80 thousand regulatory entities; and the regulation thereof (sic traffic control, vehicle codes and laws) shall not impinge on their rights within these federal protected and regulated travel enclaves and the exercise of police powers thereof shall be fact based with full due process; and since 1990 and 1997 respectively they shall be predicated on actual unsafe acts applying substantially uniform implementation, expectation and beyond a reasonable doubt substantive due process adjudication standards.  Any inferior Act of Congress, a Federal Agency or Regulation or State etc respectively that does meet these core tenets on its face is unconstitutional, and is void.

We have also been trying to teach engineers and lawyers about these responsibilities in regard to our governing laws because peoples’ lives, property and liberty turn on their decisions, and teach lawyers the actual foundations of our traffic laws.  All of this is necessary because our nation's body of traffic laws have been devolved to ignore the mandates of the Constitution et al and best safety practices.

The most incredible fact is that after decades and billions of citations issued, the USDOT hasn't conducted a single comprehensive root cause analysis for accidents.  Therefore all our enforcement and practices in the US is based on conjecture and propaganda, not fact, in law this means it lacks foundation.  When you look at the purported studies they're circular references or ordained outcome findings, not original empirical scientific studies and that have been peer reviewed and vetted.

On urban arterials, there were a few helpful studies done before 1991 that charted relative risk and speed; helpful, but these studies too were not comprehensive root cause evaluations.  Worse, there have been no studies whatsoever on interstates and rural two lane highways; and their FARS data is intentionally void of primary causal factors and attributions as a matter of practice in order to distort the data for political purposes, to the clear detriment of meaningful safety programs.

Who writes these non-complying federal regulations and laws, those with a financial or power interest to act, or not; ie insurance companies, enforcement lobbies, regulators and other direct beneficiaries of these enterprises.  Nobody representing the interest, rights or safety of the people is invited, it's non transparent, special interest and the process is closed to the public, without checks or balances.

The USLIMITS, TRB, and ITE recommended practices etc are not fact based findings either and cannot be trusted anymore; the have become the political pontifications and the views of a few, rather than empirical findings that are vetted for efficacy and unintended consequence, and when other NGOs have studied the issues, they have come to very different conclusions. 

Engineering findings require fact, and here there was a dearth of facts on urban roadways, and none for the rest of our 4 million miles of roadways.  The most alarming part is the USDOT and the myriad of subject matter committees have as a matter of practice excluded any consideration of substantive due process, and when this issue is raised it has been rejected out of hand.  Simply none of these papers or recommended practices, as published, can withstand a point-by-point cross-examination as to their recommend practices, guidance or application under our laws.

The safety value posted, and enforced, on a federal device must be fact based to establish the probable cause threshold, which must be narrowly tailored to achieve a legitimate government objective.   Probable cause founded on invented numbers and invented enforcement thresholds are illegitimate justification for search and seizure under the 4th Amendment; aside from the fact that the safety value to post and enforce must be established in accord with nationally recognized engineering practices i.e.2003 MUTCD: Section 1A.13 et al.

Which begs the question, what happens when these standards are no longer fact based or the standards are unconstitutional, void as in this instance?

More specifically per a basic tenet of engineering for probable cause, when a posted limit is set to the recommended[8] federal 85th percentile speed, the 85th percentile speed is the safest speed (lowest risk) on the relative risk curve, thus speeds in excess up to 100 percent of the measured traffic speeds can still be presumptively safe.  Thus, a violation of the number on the sign does not in itself constitute an unsafe act.

In both instances herein per UVC § 11-802 et al “a person shall not drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed in excess of these maximum limits” clause(s) lacks foundation because it turns on an invented numeric, threshold or a numeric value below the maximum safe speed in itself vis-à-vis nationally recognized engineering tenets, not on an unsafe act.

All laws and the exercise of police powers thereof in this federally regulated field shall be subordinate, fact based, uniform and in substantial conformance because once the law encompassed the entire field in 1966, Congress cannot recede superior authority back to the States if the said adjudication would impinge federal due process rights of the US Constitution et al; Equal Protection, Supremacy, Commerce, Confrontation Clause(s), habeas corpus, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 14th Amendments etc.

On point: The US Supreme Court in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (6/25/2009) ruled again Constitutional rights cannot be suspended.

Nor can a federal agency in manner through administrative convenience adopt a regulation or through nonfeasance permit under the color of federal law inferior authorities to deny these rights; and within the USDOT’s statutory oversight authority they have remedy to reign in non conforming practices; and 5 USC 706 gives parties with standing to cause them to compel compliance; separately, individuals retain all Constitutional rights and remedies to plead not guilty when charged with an unconstitutional act or law et al.

Few also know that all fees, fines, assessments, expectations, service requirements and remedies shall be substantially uniform, provide all U.S. Constitutional rights et al, and be accessible regardless of state lines or jurisdiction.

Basic Speed Rule per the UVC § 11-801 (reasonable and prudent) trumps the posted limit.

Federal safety interest must be predicated solely on an unsafe act as long as the basis is narrowly tailored and legally valid, ie, real safety, which is in turn based on interference with the Inalienable Rights of others - the Right to Life/SAFETY. - UVC § 11-801 “No person shall drive a vehicle greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing”.

The standard applied must be both reliable and credible in identifying the threshold between safety and probable cause for a traffic stop and the subsequent exercise of police powers, and it cannot be based on invented values or premises.

An invented value, enforcement threshold and or speed in itself in excess of an invented value lacks foundation; because the public consensus for what they have found safe for a particular section of roadway is determined by a complying “comprehensive engineering study” applying nationally recognized vetted practices.

Comprehensive studies can be the only standard that complies with our laws in determining factual safety thresholds because it does not rely on the personal opinion of one, or a few.

The 5th Amendment requires Equal Protection and when the USDOT oversight nonfeasance and intentional[5] malfeasance purportedly sanctions 80 thousand political entities in the US and its Territories to establish disparate standards of expectation, adjudication and fees and fines[6] in a field under the color of federal law, which on its face alone violates the void for vagueness[7] doctrine.

 
Void for Vagueness doctrine: “If a person of ordinary intelligence cannot determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed under a particular law, then the law will be deemed unconstitutionally vague.  The U.S. Supreme Court has said that no one may be required at peril of life, liberty, or property to speculate as to the meaning of a penal law.  Everyone is entitled to know what the government commands or forbids.”

 
Under the Color of Federal Law: All federal regulations, laws and the exercise of police powers in this field are subordinate to the US Constitution and Congress' Intent and shall conform.  Each act in its promulgation and the exercise of police powers thereof SHALL:

1. Be narrowly tailored and vetted as to factual foundations, that it will achieve its desired affect, unintended consequences, it effects on commerce and substantive due process;
2. Be promulgated in substantial conformance with a single uniform application, appearance, expectation and adjudication standard regardless of entity type or jurisdiction in the United States and its Territories;
3. Be fact based per nationally recognized engineering institutions and scientific methodologies et al; in which all subordinate act’s applications, foundation or justification can be cross-examined in court of law; and
4. Shall be in conformance with the domain of the Constitution per the Commerce, Supremacy and Equal Protection Clause(s), and Congress’ intent et al in this field.

Contrary to our laws the USDOT has now declared that invented values and probable cause trumps factual findings and local courts are permitted to suspend those pesky constitutional rights in order to improve their fine collection efficiencies.  In addition, each of the 80,000 government entities in the country can make up whatever laws they wish, or remove rights, and those charged with oversight, the USDOT, will not interfere as a matter of stated practice.

Let's rephrase this, instead the USDOT via enforcement grants is promoting and giving awards to politicians, states and agencies that deny due process applying inherently unsafe practices in order for all involved can earn extra take home pay or agency stipends for writing citations et al, if they meet the USDOT’s assigned per man-hour quotas.

The breadth of this malfeasance includes the entire spectrum of purported federal regulations in this field which are reflected in the anarchy of local local traffic laws, manifest unsafe practices and arbitrary and capricious federal regulations designed to eliminate the nuisance of due process in fine collections efficiencies or unwarranted insurance premium surcharges etc.  The USDOT is also providing federal grants to automate this malfeasance; the new revenue and powers justification promised land for its constituents, which sadly does not include 'We the People'.

There is a little irony here because the FHWA from an engineering perspective does not consider automated enforcement safety devices, but the NHTSA grants do.  Not to worry, the gatekeeper to safety practices and standards oversight, the FHWA, has now removed all factual foundations from the MUTCD that could interfere with these for-profit enterprises that require sustained unsafe practices and the denial of due process to be financially viable.

Despite its characterizations, the video's premise and content doesn’t seem so extreme anymore and Mr. Colter is both technically and literally correct.

If you have any question about the law, the processes, how, who and when or the related engineering practices we can guide you to the answers, or if you would like to help or have us to speak to your group etc, please feel free to contact us.