Whoops... :(

[TBR]

Law should only exist to protect the constitutional rights of citizens, mandatory seat belt regulations do not do that and therefore should not exist.

[Tave]

The above assertion is absurd. The vast majority of collisions to not result in a fatality.

The state has a vested interest in that unbelted occupants' injuries are substantially worse, further burdening the insurance, healthcare and emergency response systems - thereby adversely affecting everyone.

I don't see a viable argument against mandatory seatbelt usage. There's virtually zero downside to their use, yet there is profound upside.

The person injured is already paying premiums for those, so I say let them get their money's worth.

There are plenty of good decisions the government can make for me, but if I'm not directly harming anyone I'd rather make those decisions for myself. Obesity is a bigger burden on the healthcare system than anything, but we don't make it a ticketable offense to down 3 BigMacs for lunch.

[GoCougs]

Law should only exist to protect the constitutional rights of citizens, mandatory seat belt regulations do not do that and therefore should not exist.

What are you talking about?

[James Young]

[Possible duplicate post.  My laptop is giving me fits.]

the nameless one writes:

Nope, I live in the real universe. The only agency around here that was that strict on ticketsing was only so strict because they covered what was essentially a bedroom community whose residents WANTED that level of enforcement. Every other agency in the area wont even look at you for anything less than 10 over, and thats only in school zones.

Assuming that your experience is real, it is certainly anomalous in the universe of traffic enforcement that the rest of us see.  We see villages of 250 people with 12 officers on force, writing citations for five-over because they want the money ant that is because there is limited or no economic opportunity there.  And the police force and the administration of the village are one and the same.

Typical of such scams is the saga of New Rome, OH, which is closer to you than to me.  Google ?New Rome Ohio? or just go to www.newromesucks.com then click on ?Archives.?  New Rome has been decommissioned because of their enforcement abuses.

You can't argue the benefit of being belted in.

You start designating some scholarship fund as a beneficiary and ten every non-profit group would want to be included in the funding.

I argue for seatbelt usage.  I argue against imposition of a nanny-state.

The scholarship corporation is a public corporation, truly a state agency, not a private charity.  The point is to maintain your beloved punishment system for drivers but to remove control, direction and benefit from the enforcing, authorizing or supporting agencies.

States without inspections have rolling wrecks on the highways. Inspections FORCE the owner to maintain their vehicle to a certain level.

I thought my statement was clear and unequivocal.  States with mandatory inspection do not have better injury or fatality rates than those who do not.  In very simple terms:  mandatory inspection does not result in improved safety.  This is for all fifty states.  If it doesn?t work, why do it?

You have your own definition of dangerous driving; I would define your driving habits as dangerous.

Since you don?t know my driving habits, I assume your assertion is but hyperbole.

I have been driving legally since I was 14 (nearly 48 years), farm trucks and tractors before that.  I?ve covered 2 million miles without a single at-fault crash.  I have been hit from behind five times and have been forced off the road by the carelessness of both Texas DPS and California Chippies.  I?ve gone through the Bondurant School on my own dime and my own time.  I?ve had probably a dozen cites, all for speeding and none that were ever for anything dangerous.  I routinely drive across the Western US at speeds concordant with most traffic wherever I am.  I rarely reach triple digits and I?m usually near what I estimate as the 95th percentile, which, if limits were set scientifically, would be the limit on such roadways.

Those habits and that success are goals to be emulated.

MOST officers do speed enforcement as  afiller activity between calls. Those designated as full time traffic guys are in that position because the agency feels that the problem is serious enough to warrant a full time position.

I don?t know why you won?t get this:  cops in speedtrap village do nothing but speed enforcement.  Note that they are usually not CLEET-certified, not trained, often not even HS graduates.  These are largely poor guys from poverty-stricken areas struggling in a world that has passed them by.

YOu don't seem to acknowledge that the revenue in many cases is exceeded by the cost of administering the ticket.

Okay, I?ll bite.  Show us one.

Traffic is ALWAYS an issue here, as it is everywhere, including your own hometown.

My hometown ? Austin, Texas ? has a speed problem.  Actually, it?s lack of speed because traffic is so bad.  Austin grew so rapidly despite efforts to keep it small that the cars grew faster than the roads. 

A grant is only a benefit in that that amount of funding doesn't have to come specifically out of the local taxpayers wallet. We certainly have differing definitions of benefit.

My definition comes from two places:  dictionaries and my economics training.  I stand by it.

[Soup DeVille]

You start designating some scholarship fund as a beneficiary and ten every non-profit group would want to be included in the funding.

You say that like its going to create a problem.

States without inspections have rolling wrecks on the highways. Inspections FORCE the owner to maintain their vehicle to a certain level.

Hey, I actually agree with you on something! Properly set up inspections i think should be mandatory; and by proper i mean by focusing on what ot what doesn't make the car safe for use on public roads; not using them to crack down on modified cars as has been done in certain jurisdictions.

You have your own definition of dangerous driving; I would define your driving habits as dangerous.

What do you know of his driving habits? He hasn't mentioned his personal driving habits at all. You're making nothing more than a baseless assumption.

A grant is only a benefit in that that amount of funding doesn't have to come specifically out of the local taxpayers wallet.

Wrong. The local taxpayers are also the State's taxpayers, and the state and local taxes both come out of taxpayers' wallets; and money spent has to be collected, either through fines or through taxes.

[Soup DeVille]

The above assertion is absurd. The vast majority of collisions to not result in a fatality.

The state has a vested interest in that unbelted occupants' injuries are substantially worse, further burdening the insurance, healthcare and emergency response systems - thereby adversely affecting everyone.

I don't see a viable argument against mandatory seatbelt usage. There's virtually zero downside to their use, yet there is profound upside.

Since when are the healthcare and insurance industries a state run concern?

[GoCougs]

Since when are the healthcare and insurance industries a state run concern?

Healthcare - A fair number of motorists are not insured, and eventually a seriously-injured uninsured driver will end up at a public hospital, on the public's dime.

Insurance - More payout due to more serious injuries equates to higher premiums for everyone (insurance is regulated at the state level).

[Soup DeVille]

Healthcare - A fair number of motorists are not insured, and eventually a seriously-injured uninsured driver will end up at a public hospital, on the public's dime.

Insurance - More payout due to more serious injuries equates to higher premiums for everyone (insurance is regulated at the state level).

Of course insurance is regulated: everything is regulated! Hairdressers are regulated, but that doesn't mean the state can decide how I can cut my hair. It remains however, a private concern.

The healthcare debate can also be taken the same way: because you insure me does not mean you decide my behavior.

You're so pro-free trade on so many things Cougs that this seems like a small reversal of opinion for you.

[Catman]

Healthcare - A fair number of motorists are not insured, and eventually a seriously-injured uninsured driver will end up at a public hospital, on the public's dime.

Insurance - More payout due to more serious injuries equates to higher premiums for everyone (insurance is regulated at the state level).

Exactly.  I once had the "freedom" mentality when it came to seat belts.  However, when I saw how many uninsured victims routinely get seriously injured I changed my mind.  Where's the freedom in someone else costing me money because they're too lazy or ignorant to put a seat belt on? 

[the nameless one]

You say that like its going to create a problem.

It will.

Hey, I actually agree with you on something! Properly set up inspections i think should be mandatory; and by proper i mean by focusing on what ot what doesn't make the car safe for use on public roads; not using them to crack down on modified cars as has been done in certain jurisdictions.

Also a legitimate issue for officers to be cracking down on; I hadn't thought about modified vehicles when I made my post.

What do you know of his driving habits? He hasn't mentioned his personal driving habits at all. You're making nothing more than a baseless assumption.

Long time reading his posts.

Wrong. The local taxpayers are also the State's taxpayers, and the state and local taxes both come out of taxpayers' wallets; and money spent has to be collected, either through fines or through taxes.

You and I both know that ultimtately both are funded by taxes, but the TAXPAYERS in many cases will not think of the grant money as coming from THEIR pocket as taxed money.

[the nameless one]

Typical of such scams is the saga of New Rome, OH, which is closer to you than to me.? Google ?New Rome Ohio? or just go to www.newromesucks.com then click on ?Archives.?? New Rome has been decommissioned because of their enforcement abuses.

Guys like you keep[ throwing the rare examples like New Rome out there. Thats what they are: rare.

I don?t know why you won?t get this:? cops in speedtrap village do nothing but speed enforcement.? Note that they are usually not CLEET-certified, not trained, often not even HS graduates.? These are largely poor guys from poverty-stricken areas struggling in a world that has passed them by.

There are NO calls for service there, is that what you are saying? No domestics? No bar fights? No larceny? My, my, didn't know that some areas of this nation were magically so crime-free.

Okay, I?ll bite.  Show us one.

I could tell you about dozens; cases where the person took the ticket to trial and got a 25 or 30 dollar fine out of it, or even an ACD. Its not like every city is like NYC where every ticket is going to net you a multi-hundred dollar fine.

My hometown ? Austin, Texas ? has a speed problem.  Actually, it?s lack of speed because traffic is so bad.  Austin grew so rapidly despite efforts to keep it small that the cars grew faster than the roads. 

Much the same here. Doesn't help that the greenies are trying to get entire lanes of traffic or parking spaces taken out of service for things like bike lanes or walking lanes.

[GoCougs]

Of course insurance is regulated: everything is regulated! Hairdressers are regulated, but that doesn't mean the state can decide how I can cut my hair. It remains however, a private concern.

The healthcare debate can also be taken the same way: because you insure me does not mean you decide my behavior.

You're so pro-free trade on so many things Cougs that this seems like a small reversal of opinion for you.

I'm not so sure it's a free trade issue, and really not much of a freedom issue.

If one can pitch to me the benefits of not wearing a seat belt, I'm all ears.

I can somewhat see the argument that giving power to government is a slippery slope, but only minutely so.

There's nothing but downside; profoundly so for the individual, mild-to-moderately so for the public at large.

[James Young]

the nameless one writes:

Guys like you keep[ throwing the rare examples like New Rome out there. Thats what they are: rare.

No, they are very common, which is why I said ?typical.?   I can name about three dozen of them right in Oklahoma, six of which had had their authorization to cite on state and federal highways revoked by the state.  There are thousands of these places and more and more big cities are using traffic enforcement for revenue purposes.  I have no idea why you?re so naive about this.

There are NO calls for service there, is that what you are saying? No domestics? No bar fights? No larceny? My, my, didn't know that some areas of this nation were magically so crime-free.

They are not crime-free.  The county sheriff -- a statutory agency -- handles those duties.  The villages -- which are at-choice agencies -- collect traffic fines and do nothing other than traffic.

I could tell you about dozens; cases where the person took the ticket to trial and got a 25 or 30 dollar fine out of it, or even an ACD. Its not like every city is like NYC where every ticket is going to net you a multi-hundred dollar fine.

I don?t want to know about specific cases; I want to know what system accumulates cots faster than revenue from traffic fines.  What city?  What county?  What village?

[TurboDan]

So last night, we all went out drinking.  The designated driver was a guy named Mike.  We pull out of the bar, and Mike immediately goes the wrong way down a one-way street by mistake.  Three patrol cars instantly flashing their lights. They give him a sobriety test, and (obviously) he passes. 

The cop seemed nice, but he still gave him a "no seat belt" ticket for $46.    

Apparently, in NJ, the seat belt tickets aren't moving violations so they are not reported to the state directly.  They're the same as parking tickets and such.  So, Seaside Heights, NJ made a few bucks last night.

[Catman]

So last night, we all went out drinking.  The designated driver was a guy named Mike.  We pull out of the bar, and Mike immediately goes the wrong way down a one-way street by mistake.  Three patrol cars instantly flashing their lights. They give him a sobriety test, and (obviously) he passes. 

The cop seemed nice, but he still gave him a "no seat belt" ticket for $46.    

Apparently, in NJ, the seat belt tickets aren't moving violations so they are not reported to the state directly.  They're the same as parking tickets and such.  So, Seaside Heights, NJ made a few bucks last night.

Good place to sandbag being a one way street.  I'm sure a lot of drunks pull that move.

[TurboDan]

Good place to sandbag being a one way street.  I'm sure a lot of drunks pull that move.

Hehe, definitely.  Can't say I feel sorry for him.  I mean, he DID go the wrong way down a one week street.  How could you NOT get some kind of ticket for that if a cop sees it?  It's only $46, so I doubt he even cares.

[the nameless one]

the nameless one writes:
No, they are very common, which is why I said ?typical.?? ?I can name about three dozen of them right in Oklahoma, six of which had had their authorization to cite on state and federal highways revoked by the state.? There are thousands of these places and more and more big cities are using traffic enforcement for revenue purposes.? I have no idea why you?re so naive about this.

Because its not done thatw ay here or any place whose officers I've spoken to.

They are not crime-free.? The county sheriff -- a statutory agency -- handles those duties.? The villages -- which are at-choice agencies -- collect traffic fines and do nothing other than traffic.

Once again, not done that way here. Maybe you need to move to a different part of the country.

I don?t want to know about specific cases; I want to know what system accumulates cots faster than revenue from traffic fines.? What city?? What county?? What village?

Thats pretty simple; HERE. The revenue in many cases is a loss compared to the costs. Tickets get written because thats what the public wants to see. If you don't believe me, fine. You are welcome to your opinion.

[James Young]

the nameless one writes:

Because its not done that way here or any place whose officers I've spoken to.

Then you need to get out more and to pay more attention to those things going on right around you.? ?Sweet chocolate Jesus, you must live in a bubble.

Your stance reminds me of the blind man (of six in the Jainist tale) who assumed that the elephant was a rope-like creature, long and skinny with rough hair, because he happened to grab the tail.  What you see is not always indicative of the larger picture.

Once again, not done that way here. Maybe you need to move to a different part of the country.

Hmmmm.? The cops are misbehaving, citing for revenue, only now it?s my fault because I won?t move.? ?The only thing you seem to have missed is that? (1) I am all over the western US with some regularity and have lived multiple places in the west,? and? (2) I actually pay attention to these kinds of things.

?I don?t want to know about specific cases; I want to know what system accumulates cots faster than revenue from traffic fines.? What city?? What county?? What village??? -- JY

Thats pretty simple; HERE. The revenue in many cases is a loss compared to the costs. Tickets get written because thats what the public wants to see. If you don't believe me, fine. You are welcome to your opinion.

OK, are you saying that Tompkins County loses money on each marginal citation that they write?? Are you saying that if TC write their 1000th citation of the year, for which they collect, say $120 but the costs associated with that cite are > $120?? I just want to get this narrowed down.?

[Catman]

Taste great.  Less filling.

[the nameless one]

the nameless one writes:

Then you need to get out more and to pay more attention to those things going on right around you.? ?Sweet chocolate Jesus, you must live in a bubble.

As I've said, none of the officers I've ever spoken to from around the country describe their way of doing business as anything close to how you describe it.

Hmmmm.? The cops are misbehaving, citing for revenue, only now it?s my fault because I won?t move.? ?The only thing you seem to have missed is that? (1) I am all over the western US with some regularity and have lived multiple places in the west,? and? (2) I actually pay attention to these kinds of things.

If things are so bad there, which I really doubt, then maybe it IS time you look elsewhere where things ARE better than how you descibe.

OK, are you saying that Tompkins County loses money on each marginal citation that they write?? Are you saying that if TC write their 1000th citation of the year, for which they collect, say $120 but the costs associated with that cite are > $120?? I just want to get this narrowed down.?

This is not strictly a Tompkins County issue. You know how many tickets get tossed out with fix it forms, in the interest of justice, with minimal fines or ACD'd? A LOT. Every one of those tickets has costs associated with them, particularly if they go to trial. Factor those zero value tickets into the overall number of tickets and the courts and the state aren't exactly rolling in dough. Particularly the town and village justice courts, which had a fit a year or two back when the state wanted to step in and take over the small surcharge the court levies to cover its expenses. Taking that money would have left the courts operating at a larger loss than they already do. That surcharge was the only thing keeping some smaller justice courts solvent.

[James Young]

As I've said, none of the officers I've ever spoken to from around the country describe their way of doing business as anything close to how you describe it.

I have presented the evidence that multiple places use traffic citations as major revenue sources.  You don?t believe the evidence, seemingly because you don?t want to.  Look, you can believe any damn fool thing that you want.  There are people who believe in ESP, anal probes by space aliens and that the Earth is flat. 

I have quoted the budgets and the public pronouncements of the places who openly use citations for revenue, that is they don?t even try to cover it up.  Yet you continue to say it?s not true.

Apparently you see what you want to see and no amount of evidence is going to change that.

Al Gore is correct:  there truly is an assault on reason

[Raza]

Taste great.  Less filling.

I disagree!

[TurboDan]

Err, can we all disagree that speeding tickets suck?

[dazzleman]

Err, can we all disagree that speeding tickets suck?

Dan, I think you mean, can we AGREE that speeding tickets suck?

The people receiving them would rarely disagree that speeding tickets suck, but the cops might.

So I guess the answer to your question is no.  Some people think they suck, and some think they're pretty swell....

[TurboDan]

Dan, I think you mean, can we AGREE that speeding tickets suck?

The people receiving them would rarely disagree that speeding tickets suck, but the cops might.

So I guess the answer to your question is no.  Some people think they suck, and some think they're pretty swell....

Hehe.  Wow, I flubbed that post big time!

[hounddog]

quote]

Well, no.  They called me Sgt. in two different departments and in the Marine Corp.  Then I bought back Marine Corp time and retired early.  Otherwise, illness not withstanding, they would still be calling me seargent.

No, in fact, they do not.? There is no statistical correlation that shows that traffic safety (as measured by the three key rates) can be changed by changes in speeds, speed limits, or level of enforcement.? Even your own statistics through NHTSA show that.

To start with, they are not my numbers.  Were they my numbers, they would be collected in a far more scientific manner.  Also, I can make statistical configurations mean anything I want.  That is their power, and their flaw.

According to NHTSA in 2005, ?speeding-related? or speeding as ?a contributing factor? accounted for 30% of fatal crashes.? Now, this does not mean, and NHTSA is careful to avoid the assertion, that speeding ?caused? these crashes.? Academic experts outside NHTSA who have no political agenda have estimated that ?speed unsafe for conditions,? without regard to the posted limit, is a major factor in about 10% of fatal crashes, including suicides, which NHTSA does not even recognize.? Note also that, again according to NHTSA, 86% of their 30% of fatal crashes occur away from Interstate highways.

I do not think I read any one post on this thread where any one person stated they believed speeding causes crashes. ?

Sorry, that?s just not true.? We now have more drivers, more cars and more roads than ever, all with higher speeds than during the dark days of NMSL, yet our fatality rate just continues to fall.? Oddly, the two times we lowered speed limits ? 1942-43 and 1973-74 ? the fatality rates increased.p? Lets think about why that might be; 40's had almost no speed enforcement; 70's had very very little in the way of enforcement; currently there is far more speed enforcement.  Where are your data for that?

[hounddog]

Regardless of how long the reaction time is, distance travelled before the reaction takes place would still be directly proportional with speed, not quadrupling every extra ten MPH.

Use any number you wish, but any driver taking 2.5 seconds to react; much less 3.5, has no business driving any vehicle.

That number, according to my notes, came from extensive studies done by one of the most respected traffic safety programs in the country, the University of Michigan.  Blah, just saying that makes me want to wretch!  But, it is the truth.  Think about the average driver, and what they are doing as they travel merrily along the roadway.  I have personally seen men shaving, women putting on eyeliner with both hands, people reading newspapers on the steering wheel, kids having sex while driving, cell phone conversations, people using the texting options, people brushing their pets, parents turned around dealing with two or three kids in the back seat, I even stopped a guy once eating a steak dinner his wife made for him on his way to his night school.  In honesty, I would say that 2.5 is probably a pretty forgiving number.   

[Soup DeVille]

That number, according to my notes, came from extensive studies done by one of the most respected traffic safety programs in the country, the University of Michigan.? Blah, just saying that makes me want to wretch!? But, it is the truth.? Think about the average driver, and what they are doing as they travel merrily along the roadway.? I have personally seen men shaving, women putting on eyeliner with both hands, people reading newspapers on the steering wheel, kids having sex while driving, cell phone conversations, people using the texting options, people brushing their pets, parents turned around dealing with two or three kids in the back seat, I even stopped a guy once eating a steak dinner his wife made for him on his way to his night school.? In honesty, I would say that 2.5 is probably a pretty forgiving number.? ?

That simply has to be an upper extreme number or a "worst case scenario" number. I mean, amber lights at intersections only last about 3.5 seconds or thereabouts. I don't see everybody slamming on their brakes at the last second for those and screeching to a stop. Well, at least not most people.

Your cases- the shaving man, the make-up woman- yeah, they're out there, but by no means do they represent the average driver. They're far too common, yes: but in no way are they average. Those people have no business driving like that either: and I'm willing to believe that they might be distracted enough to take 2.5 seconds to notice a problem.

In all honesty, your first statement was 1.75 seconds, your second 0.75 seconds, and now you state 2.5 to 3.5 seconds. I'm not sure what to believe.

Regardless however, my original point stands: the stopping distance does not quadruple every ten MPH.

[hounddog]

That simply has to be an upper extreme number or a "worst case scenario" number. I mean, amber lights at intersections only last about 3.5 seconds or thereabouts. I don't see everybody slamming on their brakes at the last second for those and screeching to a stop. Well, at least not most people.

Your cases- the shaving man, the make-up woman- yeah, they're out there, but by no means do they represent the average driver. They're far too common, yes: but in no way are they average. Those people have no business driving like that either: and I'm willing to believe that they might be distracted enough to take 2.5 seconds to notice a problem.

In all honesty, your first statement was 1.75 seconds, your second 0.75 seconds, and now you state 2.5 to 3.5 seconds. I'm not sure what to believe.

Regardless however, my original point stands: the stopping distance does not quadruple every ten MPH.

Do you drive in urban, suburban, or rural areas?  There are lots of people in urban and suburban areas slamming on brakes at the last minute at reds/yellows.  I realize my examples are far from the everyday driver, but not as far as you might like to think.  Again, in urban areas the morning rush hour is just plain crazy with what you see people doing as routine driving habits.  The man reading the newspaper or magazine on his way to work, shaving and makeup examples are not at all uncommon in Detroit and Chicago.

You are right, I did write out the much lower response times.  Those were times where during our Night Pursuit and Advanced Precision driving instructor schools at MSP academy, they would have you sit in this little booth thing and have you pretend you were driving.  Then they would tell you "stop" and you had to hit the brake pedal.  The longest response times they regularly saw were 1.75 and the shortest they regularly saw was .75.  I had to go back and figure out what those meant after you posted this.   Hey, I am getting old in my old age!   Leave me alone.   

They also did a night vision interruption deal where they had you looking into a blacked out device.  They would then turn on two little lights which were to represent a car coming toward you with its headlights on.  Then they would turn them off, and count the time until your sight returned to normal and you could again see the indicator.  I did not write that down, but I remember thinking it took forever to get my night sight back.  Seems like it was around 3-4 seconds.?.

[Soup DeVille]

The night vision thing I think you're dead on about, but i still think 2.5 seconds is way high. Everyday on my way to work goes down 275, and traffic is not only usuall very heavy, but often still moving at 75 MPH+. Cars aren't more than 40 feet apart at the most. If it was taking even 10% of these people 2.5 seconds to react to the brake lights in front of them, my ride to work would invlove danger verging on suicidal.

Its nowhere near that bad.


At least not most days.