Flashing High Beams for Speed Trap Warnings

[etypeJohn]

That seems to be the case with all Texas cities, less so in other states.

Phoenix and Denver come to mind. 

Last year in Colorado I was almost a bit uncomfortable keeping up with traffic on I70 west of town heading east into Denver.  Bumper to bumper at 80 MPH on that particular stretch of road is a bit much. 

[3.0L V6]

In an area of heavy traffic, wouldn't the traffic be flowing too slow for anyone to be speeding?

401 through Toronto usually has an average speed of 20mph over at least. Granted, the limit is 62mph, so traffic's usually cruising at mid-80s mph.

[Tave]

Phoenix and Denver come to mind.?

Last year in Colorado I was almost a bit uncomfortable keeping up with traffic on I70 west of town heading east into Denver.? Bumper to bumper at 80 MPH on that particular stretch of road is a bit much.?

It only gets worse as you push on. Hitting the mountains, I-70 starts to fall apart, and during the winter on weekends it's a friggin nightmare.

I always found Pheonix traffic to be either really horrible (i.e. gridlocked rush), or fairly nice. Of course, I didn't have to screw with the 17 or 10 much, but unless you're trying to get through the city in the middle of the day they aren't bad. The one exception is the 60, which turns into a free-for-all after people get off work.

[the nameless one]

But, you're talking about laws that are in place for the sole purpose of collecting fines.? How is that right??

Where do you get THAT idea? Speeding laws, nor the entire V & T Law,  are not in place solely to collect the money. The fine is the penalty for the violation. Without the penalty there would be no incentive for people to follow the law. If the fine was  the sole reason for traffic tickets, why do we have fix it forms that throw the ticket out if the problem is fixed?

[the nameless one]

Catching someone going a few over the limit is a good way to show you are doing something without much real effort and you don't even risk spilling the "complementary" coffee you picked up at the local Quik-E-Mart.  Bleat about public safety all you want, in your heart of hearts you know its about the money.

Actually, around here its responding to the requests of the taxpayers. Few miles over? Not many people around here even get cited for anything less than 15 over.
Theres no complimentary coffee around here, but nice assumption on your part...you know what they say when you assume something......

[James Young]

bing oh writes:

I've told people before, if you don't like the laws, complain to the politicians. The cops don't write the laws, we just enforce them.

Easier said than done.  I?ve been refused admission to representative?s offices in three different states because I had not contributed to their campaign.  And note that enforcement agencies frequently request and lobby for specific laws, so you do a lot more than just enforce them.  The Texas DPS spends a significant amount of (public tax) money to lobby the legislature for stuff that harms motorists.

Depends on the department. Some departments like alot of traffic enforcement, others prefer directed enforcement, and other don't care. Personally, I don't do alot of traffic enforcement and, when I do, it's directed toward finding other violations (OVI, DUS, drug violations, etc).

I have no doubt that that is true.  However, those guys in Katy, TX and Stringtown, OK do nothing but speed enforcement and the money that goes to them is just as real as what your agency gets.

Once again, it's an imperfect solution for an imperfect world. Just because enforcement won't stop all violations isn't a reason to stop enforcement all together.

Nor is it sufficient justification to continue it as a near-exclusive public policy, except that ?all? should read ?significant.?   While the situation may not be perfect, we know how to improve it, only the money gets in the way.  If the goal is truly to improve key safety rates, engineering solutions are far superior to enforcement solutions.

[James Young]

bing oh writes:

I've told people before, if you don't like the laws, complain to the politicians. The cops don't write the laws, we just enforce them.

Easier said than done.  I?ve been refused admission to representative?s offices in three different states because I had not contributed to their campaign.  And note that enforcement agencies frequently request and lobby for specific laws, so you do a lot more than just enforce them.  The Texas DPS spends a significant amount of (public tax) money to lobby the legislature for stuff that harms motorists.

Depends on the department. Some departments like alot of traffic enforcement, others prefer directed enforcement, and other don't care. Personally, I don't do alot of traffic enforcement and, when I do, it's directed toward finding other violations (OVI, DUS, drug violations, etc).

I have no doubt that that is true.  However, those guys in Katy, TX and Stringtown, OK do nothing but speed enforcement and the money that goes to them is just as real as what your agency gets.

Once again, it's an imperfect solution for an imperfect world. Just because enforcement won't stop all violations isn't a reason to stop enforcement all together.

Nor is it sufficient justification to continue it as a near-exclusive public policy, except that ?all? should read ?significant.?   While the situation may not be perfect, we know how to improve it, only the money gets in the way.  If the goal is truly to improve key safety rates, engineering solutions are far superior to enforcement solutions.

[James Young]

Whats not logical about the need [of] keeping speeds lower in school zones, residential areas, around public parks, etc.

Yeah, and that pesky wheelchair ramp on I-80.   

[James Young]

Should those people on those routes not be able to expect some relief from unfettrered speeding?

LOL.  The relief from "unfettered speeding" is to stay as far to the right as possible. 

If I'm running 50 mph on an 80 mph highway (or 22.5 mph in a 30 mph zone for Ithaca), then my responsibility is to stay out of the way since my behavior affects other drivers who happen to encounter me.  Conversely, if I'm running 80 mph in a 70 mph zone, then I affect nobody.

[James Young]

I flash people all the time.? Sometimes they speed up, sometimes they slow down.? Every once in a while someone stops.? And every once in a while it's even a girl!

And sometimes she says, "Put that on the mantle; I'll smoke it in the morning."   :P

[James Young]

First of all, theres no such thing as a speed "trap" . No one traps you into speeding. You CHOSE to drive that speed that you were clocked at.

The problem isn?t our choice of speed but your choice of limits.

The problem is that virtually all limits are set significantly below the optimal speed for any particular roadway, intentionally so by those who openly do so because they want the money, as they have told us.

A speedtrap is defined by one or more characteristics:

1.   The intent to collect money for the jurisdiction.
2.   The use of limits posted significantly below engineering standards
3.   The use of camouflage, hiding spots or other visibility-reducing mechanisms
4.   The gerrymandering of village limits to include only highways, enhancing the hunting area
5.   The creation of police departments where none had existed before and where current legitimate law enforcement is being handled by county sheriffs.
6.   The use of untrained, non-certified low-paid officers.

There are others as well.

[James Young]

The fine is the penalty for the violation. Without the penalty there would be no incentive for people to follow the law. If the fine was? the sole reason for traffic tickets, why do we have fix it forms that throw the ticket out if the problem is fixed?

Nonsense.  The incentive to follow the law should spring from the validity and utility of the law.  It should be apparent that we all benefit from not killing each other, all without regard to the existence of any law.  There is new research that it seems to be inherent in people.  It should be equally apparent that the fundamental traffic law -- URROW, the legal solution to our organizational problem -- benefits all of us.  I stop to allow you to go only under certain conditions and you do the same.  Also equally apparent -- to those of us who actually think about this stuff -- is that speed limits were not part of URROW, have never been and never will be.  They are superflouous additions explained not by the myriad excuses offered for them but better by the desire to drive revenue.

My challenge to you is still open:  if speed limits are so necessary, there must a rational, measureable reason, some societal benefit.  Please show us that benefit.

[the nameless one]

LOL.? The relief from "unfettered speeding" is to stay as far to the right as possible.?

If I'm running 50 mph on an 80 mph highway (or 22.5 mph in a 30 mph zone for Ithaca), then my responsibility is to stay out of the way since my behavior affects other drivers who happen to encounter me.? Conversely, if I'm running 80 mph in a 70 mph zone, then I affect nobody.

You assume that the routes I am speaking of are multilane roads. Drivers keeping to the right has nothing to do with the residents needing relief from speeders on the road they live on.

[the nameless one]

Nonsense.? The incentive to follow the law should spring from the validity and utility of the law.? It should be apparent that we all benefit from not killing each other, all without regard to the existence of any law.? There is new research that it seems to be inherent in people.? It should be equally apparent that the fundamental traffic law -- URROW, the legal solution to our organizational problem -- benefits all of us.? I stop to allow you to go only under certain conditions and you do the same.? Also equally apparent -- to those of us who actually think about this stuff -- is that speed limits were not part of URROW, have never been and never will be.? They are superflouous additions explained not by the myriad excuses offered for them but better by the desire to drive revenue.

My challenge to you is still open:? if speed limits are so necessary, there must a rational, measureable reason, some societal benefit.? Please show us that benefit.

Sorry, but there will always be people who feel the law doesn't apply to them, yet it still does. You need some form of penalty to keep those people in line.

The benefits for speed limits are numerous, depending on the type of road being discussed. Only a die-hard speeding fan such as yourself would claim there are no benefits to imposing speed limits.

[Raza]

There certainly are benefits to speed limits.


Oh, you meant for drivers.

[etypeJohn]

Actually, around here its responding to the requests of the taxpayers. Few miles over? Not many people around here even get cited for anything less than 15 over.
Theres no complimentary coffee around here, but nice assumption on your part...you know what they say when you assume something......

No comp coffee? I feel for you.? If you are correct I suspect you are in one of the minority of areas where that is true.? Down here cops act like it's their god given right to free coffee at the local convenience stores.? Many stores stock "courtesy cups" just for that purpose.

Of course I could avoid most tickets just by contributing $100 to the local "100 Club" that solicits money for the families of cops killed inthe line of duty.? For that $100 you get a nifty sticker for your rear window.? Does it work?? I've been told by both contributors and cops that the sticker will get you a verbal warning instead of a ticket unelss you do something really stupid.? I refuse to buy that sticker however, it reeks of tribute.

[Raza]

No comp coffee? I feel for you.? If you are correct I suspect you are in one of the minority of areas where that is true.? Down here cops act like it's their god given right to free coffee at the local convenience stores.? Many stores stock "courtesy cups" just for that purpose.

Of course I could avoid most tickets just by contributing $100 to the local "100 Club" that solicits money for the families of cops killed inthe line of duty.? For that $100 you get a nifty sticker for your rear window.? Does it work?? I've been told by both contributors and cops that the sticker will get you a verbal warning instead of a ticket unelss you do something really stupid.? I refuse to buy that sticker however, it reeks of tribute.

It is.

But I'd be in favor of a speeding license.

You pay a fee (say, $200 or $300 every 2-3 years) and you take a more intense driving test.  This gives you a special license and plate (or sticker) that gives you the right to speed on motorways and non-res roads (35 and 45mph roads) to a point (derestricted on highways, 55 in 35s, 65 in 45s). 

I think I (might) have used parenthetical phrase (a little bit) too much (in that last paragraph). 

[James Young]

Sorry, but there will always be people who feel the law doesn't apply to them, yet it still does. You need some form of penalty to keep those people in line.

The benefits for speed limits are numerous, depending on the type of road being discussed. Only a die-hard speeding fan such as yourself would claim there are no benefits to imposing speed limits.

Why would we need punishments to force people to follow a law that does them no good in the first place?

My challenege for you is to tell us what those benefits are.  Perhaps there are some organization limits under some circumstances but they pale in comparison to the damages wrought by ill-conceived and ill-applied limits.  Speed limits are not benign creaures without costs so any analysis must incorporate those in a cost/benefit  comparison.  Consider, for example, that the lost productivity of the NMSL was over a trillion dollars (1975 dollars).  Consider also that some people are now driving from Tulsa to Dallas via Oklahoma City (I-44 & I-35) just to avoid the CS little speedtraps along US 69.  That uses additional fuel and creates additional pollution, very real consequences of inappropriate speed limits.

[the nameless one]

Why would we need punishments to force people to follow a law that does them no good in the first place?

My challenege for you is to tell us what those benefits are.? Perhaps there are some organization limits under some circumstances but they pale in comparison to the damages wrought by ill-conceived and ill-applied limits.? Speed limits are not benign creaures without costs so any analysis must incorporate those in a cost/benefit? comparison.? Consider, for example, that the lost productivity of the NMSL was over a trillion dollars (1975 dollars).? Consider also that some people are now driving from Tulsa to Dallas via Oklahoma City (I-44 & I-35) just to avoid the CS little speedtraps along US 69.? That uses additional fuel and creates additional pollution, very real consequences of inappropriate speed limits.

Only you would say theres no benefit to someone obeying the speed limit.
If soemone would rather drive far out of their way rather than obey the speed limit while driving a more direct route, the only person to blame for that choice  is that driver.

[Raza]

Only you would say theres no benefit to someone obeying the speed limit.
If soemone would rather drive far out of their way rather than obey the speed limit while driving a more direct route, the only person to blame for that choice? is that driver.

I would say that. 

[James Young]

Only you would say theres no benefit to someone obeying the speed limit.
If soemone would rather drive far out of their way rather than obey the speed limit while driving a more direct route, the only person to blame for that choice? is that driver.

And my challenge is still pending -- something like four years now, IIRC -- for you to tell us what those benefits are.  I'm waiting.

That drivers would be willing to go farther, albeit on better roads, than to tempt the local revenue collectors should tell you just how p!ssed off they are at all those speedtraps, at least seven of them on just one ~ 80 mile section in Oklahoma. 

[etypeJohn]

And my challenge is still pending -- something like four years now, IIRC -- for you to tell us what those benefits are.? I'm waiting.

That drivers would be willing to go farther, albeit on better roads, than to tempt the local revenue collectors should tell you just how p!ssed off they are at all those speedtraps, at least seven of them on just one ~ 80 mile section in Oklahoma.?

I drive through Oklahoma occasionally, sometimes on US69.  Where is this 80 mile stretch?

[James Young]

I drive through Oklahoma occasionally, sometimes on US69.? Where is this 80 mile stretch?

From the intersection of US 69 and the Indian Nations Turnpike southbound on US 69 to the Red River.? It includes Savannah, Kiowa, Stringtown, Tushka, Caney, Caddo and Calera.?

NB:? Another huge problem village on US 69 is Big Cabin, near the Turner Will Rogers Turnpike (I-44) but it is not part of the Tulsa-Dallas route.

[etypeJohn]

From the intersection of US 69 and the Indian Nations Turnpike southbound on US 69 to the Red River.? It includes Savannah, Kiowa, Stringtown, Tushka, Caney, Caddo and Calera.?

NB:? Another huge problem village on US 69 is Big Cabin, near the Turner Turnpike (I-44) but it is not part of the Tulsa-Dallas route.

Thanks, I am familiar with 69 up to the Will Rogers Turnpike (Big Cabin).  Used to be a god awful two lane road the whole way.

[TBR]

No comp coffee? I feel for you.  If you are correct I suspect you are in one of the minority of areas where that is true.  Down here cops act like it's their god given right to free coffee at the local convenience stores.  Many stores stock "courtesy cups" just for that purpose.

Of course I could avoid most tickets just by contributing $100 to the local "100 Club" that solicits money for the families of cops killed inthe line of duty.  For that $100 you get a nifty sticker for your rear window.  Does it work?  I've been told by both contributors and cops that the sticker will get you a verbal warning instead of a ticket unelss you do something really stupid.  I refuse to buy that sticker however, it reeks of tribute.

Any cops who eat in at my particular Chick-fil-A get completely free food and drink, whatever they want.

[bing_oh]

My challenge to you is still open:? if speed limits are so necessary, there must a rational, measureable reason, some societal benefit.? Please show us that benefit.

Wait...are you actually saying that you believe that speed limit laws are totally unnecessary? You actually believe that?

I'll show you the benefit. Come to Ohio. I'll give you a ride along for a few shifts and we'll see if we can get ourselves a speed-related fatality crash (shouldn't be too tough...they're relatively common even in a corn county like mine). Once you see a few unrecognizable hunks of metal that were once highly-engineered vehicles and the bloody remains that were once (frequently very young) people, you might not think that speed limits are so stupid.

[James Young]

Wait...are you actually saying that you believe that speed limit laws are totally unnecessary? You actually believe that?

I'll show you the benefit. Come to Ohio. I'll give you a ride along for a few shifts and we'll see if we can get ourselves a speed-related fatality crash (shouldn't be too tough...they're relatively common even in a corn county like mine). Once you see a few unrecognizable hunks of metal that were once highly-engineered vehicles and the bloody remains that were once (frequently very young) people, you might not think that speed limits are so stupid.

That is what the science tells us.  I have been challenging the nameless one for several years now to present the evidence that connects speed limits with empirical measures of traffic safety.¹  He can?t because they don?t exist.  There is no correlation between speed limits (or changes in speed limits) with changes in traffic safety.  The insurance industry has been trying to establish such a correlation for 60+ years, even manufacturing evidence a decade or so ago that was later exposed to their embarrassment.  The anti-destination league has been spouting verbiage that ?speed kills? since the effort to keep the National Safety Council out of bankruptcy but even their own data contradict their verbiage.

In short, the very assumption that speed limits are necessary is false.  To the contrary, we know that when Montana?s no-limit was changed to 75 mph (to establish a standard for the courts), that the fatality rate increased.

However, we can use institutional behavior as a much better predictor of the vehemence to keep limits artificially low than science.  Enforcement agencies, municipalities, NHTSA, insurance companies, much of the media have a lot to lose if speed limits are eliminated or set according to strict engineering standards.  As with any economic behavior, follow the money.

As to your offer to participate in a live Signal 32-type experience, I?ve been there and done that, having worked in the emergency room of a major trauma hospital.  It was a poor tactic then and it?s still a poor tactic.  I prefer to have my drivers skilled rather than scared, but that?s just me. 

Further, the assumption that those Ohio crashes could have been prevented with lower limits is but mere self-serving conjecture.  Again, the science tells us different.  Were I in your position, what I would want to know is exactly why that car crashed.  Was it equipment-related such as sunlight refracting off a dirty windshield?  What was the driver doing ? exactly ? just before and during the crash, eating, drinking, arguing with passengers?  Was there an environmental factor such as a sharp ridge between sections of roadway?  This goes well beyond the accident reconstruction PC programs, which have themselves been a very valuable aid.

Let?s get serious:  all vehicular crashes are ?speed-related? since, absent any movement at all, there could be no crashes.  On the other hand, the number of crashes caused by speeds unsafe for conditions is a miniscule portion of the crashes each year.  According to NHTSA, ?speed-involved? or ?speed-related? crashes include exceeding the posted limit (without regard to prevailing speed or design speed), too fast for conditions, too slow for conditions and ?unsafe lane changes.?

¹ Those empirical measures are the crash rate, injury rate and fatality rate, each per 100 million veehicle miles traveled (VMT).

[the nameless one]

That is what the science tells us.? I have been challenging the nameless one for several years now to present the evidence that connects speed limits with empirical measures of traffic safety.¹? He can?t because they don?t exist.? There is no correlation between speed limits (or changes in speed limits) with changes in traffic safety.? The insurance industry has been trying to establish such a correlation for 60+ years, even manufacturing evidence a decade or so ago that was later exposed to their embarrassment.? The anti-destination league has been spouting verbiage that ?speed kills? since the effort to keep the National Safety Council out of bankruptcy but even their own data contradict their verbiage.

Only you cannot see the benefit of a crash at, say, 65 MPH instead of 90 MPH. Only YOU would say there is no benefit to keeping speed limits low in residential areas because of the greater need to be able to react to the hazards around the vehicle. I don't respond to your challenge because its clear that you'll accepot any level of carnage as long as you get to drive as fast as your heart desires.

[dazzleman]

Only you cannot see the benefit of a crash at, say, 65 MPH instead of 90 MPH. Only YOU would say there is no benefit to keeping speed limits low in residential areas because of the greater need to be able to react to the hazards around the vehicle. I don't respond to your challenge because its clear that you'll accepot any level of carnage as long as you get to drive as fast as your heart desires.

James is pretty single-minded.

I often violate the speed limits, but I recognize the necessity of having speed limits in most cases.

[James Young]

Only you cannot see the benefit of a crash at, say, 65 MPH instead of 90 MPH. Only YOU would say there is no benefit to keeping speed limits low in residential areas because of the greater need to be able to react to the hazards around the vehicle. I don't respond to your challenge because its clear that you'll accepot any level of carnage as long as you get to drive as fast as your heart desires. 

That?s not the argument and you know it (or should know it since I?ve told over and over).  The argument made by NHTSA, enforcement agencies and the rest of the anti-destination league is that lower speed limits will reduce the number of crashes.  And that is where the engineering data tell us it just ain?t so.

The original design specification for the Interstate system was 100 mph (in a 1950-era car).  That design speed has since gone up (but is not now specified) because of such things as rumble strips, collapsible barriers, impenetrable median barriers, reflective paints, side markings, grooved pavement for drainage, breakaway signage, changeable electronic messages, not to mention improvements on the cars themselves.  We did this for a reason and that reason is called higher speeds, because higher speeds mean higher productivity.  The design was improved just so we could have higher speeds. 

In your terms, we removed most of those hazards around the vehicle so that we could go faster.

You have no idea how much slowing down average speeds costs us but we can help you estimate it.  Let?s say ? of our 200 million vehicles slow from 70 mph average to 55 mph average for 1 day and an average of 50 mph.  That slowdown takes more than 19 million hours or about $130 million a day at minimum wage. 

Do not assign motives to me for which you have no basis.  I?ve been working for decades to keep the ?carnage? down through the use of information and reason rather than force and faith.  On my recent trip out to Southern California, I never hit triple digits and my speeds were commonly 83-87 mph from Kerrville, TX to LA and back, all without incident.  I get no thrill out of ?speed? and my speed is the result of a rational internal calculus that weighs my risks and rewards, just like 100+ million other drivers.