What do you guys make of this?
_______________________________________________________________________
http://time.com/money/3762033/traffic-ticket-decrease-speed-limits-police/ (http://time.com/money/3762033/traffic-ticket-decrease-speed-limits-police/)
Police All Over the U.S. Are Issuing Fewer Traffic Tickets
Brad Tuttle @bradrtuttle March 30, 2015
Drivers appear to be catching a break from cops, who are writing fewer tickets of late. But don't think for a second the decrease is because police have become softies all of a sudden.
The Nevada Supreme Court says it could be completely broke by May 1. The primary reason the court won't have enough cash to operate? Not enough people are breaking the law. Or rather, not enough people are being caught breaking the law.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal recently reported that the number of traffic and parking citations has plummeted in Nevada, from 615,267 in 2010 to 484,913 last year. That's a dip of more than 21% over five years. The state court system's budget relies on millions of dollars in funding from such citations, so when significantly fewer tickets are issued, it can wreak havoc on the court's ability to do its job, and even just keep the lights on.
In mid-March, Nevada Chief Justice James Hardesty raised the problem to a group of state lawmakers, asking the legislature to provide emergency funding to make up for the shortfall in citation revenues. The court's budget is currently running $700,000 short. As for why the number of tickets issued by police has steadily declined, Hardesty doesn't think it's simply because a broad swath of drivers has suddenly seen the error of their ways and stopped speeding.
"With all due respect to the citizens of Nevada, I don't think anyone is driving better," Hardesty said to lawmakers. "I think the truth is that we're seeing less traffic violations because law enforcement's priorities have changed and it has changed dramatically."
What, then, are the new priorities? The Review-Journal noted that police have put new "emphasis on violations that could cause crashes," with citations up for drunk driving and cellphone use behind the wheel. Understaffing may be a factor as well.
In any event, the decrease in traffic citations is hardly limited to Nevada. Speeding tickets are down sharply in Wisconsin, from 294,000 convictions in 2004 to 156,000 in 2013. In Washington, D.C., police officers issued 76,832 traffic tickets last year, down from 81,161 in 2012 and 116,509 in 2010. Citations issued on interstates in Ohio are down as well, especially on busy I-70, where the monthly number of tickets is down 25%. Over in Pennsylvania, the number of tickets issued by state police was down 22% in September 2014 and 11% in October compared with the same months the year before.
Speed Limits Up, Revenue Down
What's to explain the decline in tickets? In some cases, it's a matter of not having the funds to keep police out on patrol looking for violators. Police in Wisconsin, for instance, say that federal grant money that used to support anti-speeding campaigns has dried up.
What's interesting—or perhaps sad, in a which-came-first, dog-chasing-its-own-tail sorta way—is that budget tightening is often blamed for why ticket issuance is down, at the same time a decline in citations is pointed to as a prime reason for budget shortfalls in the first place. Understaffing due to budgetary constraints has been blamed for the sudden and dramatic decline in ticket revenues in Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York as well in recent years.
Higher speed limits that are more in line with how people actually drive also appear to have handcuffed the need to issue speeding tickets. When Ohio upped its speed limit to 70 mph in 2013, it became the 37th state to OK speeds of 70 or above. In light of that, it's no coincidence that speeding tickets have dropped 7% on Ohio's 70 mph stretches, and they're down 25% on rural areas of I-70 where the limit is 70 mph.
In some cases, especially in D.C., there are indications that police are writing fewer traffic tickets because automated red-light camera systems are doing the job for them. In Pennsylvania, meanwhile, traffic tickets were supposedly down steeply last fall partly because police were occupied in a seven-week manhunt for alleged cop killer Eric Frein. What many drivers might find alarming is that even as citations were down during this period, ticket revenues were up significantly compared with the year before. How could this be? The average traffic fine simply got more expensive, hitting $125 in 2014, up from $114 the year before.
The cynics among us may think that police are writing fewer tickets mainly because they have little incentive to write more tickets. This certainly seems to be the case in parts of Illinois, where police issue traffic tickets at a tiny fraction of the rate their citation-happy brethren in law enforcement do across the border in Missouri. The most infamous example of this is Ferguson, Mo., where the killing of an unarmed Michael Brown by police inspired months of protests, and where police are known to write more and more tickets to fund local budgets. Nearly 12,000 traffic tickets were issued in Ferguson (population: 21,111) last year. Across the border in Illinois, where municipalities see very little of the money taken in from traffic fines, police in cities of similar size like Alton (population: 27,690) and Edwardsville (population: 24,663) handed out only 6,653 and 3,128 tickets, respectively, in 2013.
"None of us want an officer to have a financial incentive to write citations," Edwardsville Police Chief Jay Keevan said to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
For that matter, traffic tickets aren't supposed to be about money, right? They're supposed to exist in order to incentivize drivers into behaving better behind the wheel and keep roads safer. The purpose of lower speed limits is supposed to be to save lives as well. With that in mind, one might assume that since speed limits have risen, and since police seem to have grown lax in their approach to writing tickets, roads would become more dangerous. But the statistics don't bear this out.
According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, there were 30,057 car crashes in which someone died on American roads in 2013, the most recent year for which data is available. That's the second-lowest fatal car crash total ever (2011 had slightly fewer), and it marked an all-time low for the death rate per 100,000 vehicle occupants.
In other words, roads today are safer, not more dangerous, and it's hard to argue that writing more tickets is going to make anyone safer.
I'll just leave this here......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjpmT5noto (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjpmT5noto)
Good article.
But why don't courts downsize in light of less tickets to track/prosecute. Why ask for more money?
Quote from: HotRodPilot on April 05, 2015, 05:20:14 AM
Good article.
But why don't courts downsize in light of less tickets to track/prosecute. Why ask for more money?
Government downsize voluntarily? You must be joking.... :lol:
We'll sooner get demands that police ramp up the issuance of tickets in order to get the courts busy again.
Quote from: Madman on April 05, 2015, 02:48:16 AM
I'll just leave this here......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjpmT5noto (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjpmT5noto)
What is this and it was awful.
Well, I've seen the same as well in my area, anecdotally - I almost never see speed traps or LEOs trolling for tickets anymore.
Lots of (real) data shows speeding isn't really a factor crashes, or, at best, it's a byproduct of some other bad behavior - like a drunk careening through a red light at 60 mph and hitting someone - the cause isn't speeding the cause is a drunk running a red light.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 05, 2015, 06:51:47 AM
Well, I've seen the same as well in my area, anecdotally - I almost never see speed traps or LEOs trolling for tickets anymore.
Lots of (real) data shows speeding isn't really a factor crashes, or, at best, it's a byproduct of some other bad behavior - like a drunk careening through a red light at 60 mph and hitting someone - the cause isn't speeding the cause is a drunk running a red light.
I would guess that speeding alone is a factor in a much lower percentage of crashes than the safety nazis claim. Still, there are times it is a factor. I have long thought that there should be higher speed limits, coupled with strict enforcement and meaningful penalties for breaking the higher limits. What we have done, which is to have random enforcement of speed limits that are too low, coupled with meaningless penalties in a lot of cases, has turned the whole thing into a joke. And people driving dangerously have been punished no worse than people driving at safe but illegal speeds.
Quote from: dazzleman on April 05, 2015, 09:55:55 AMI would guess that speeding alone is a factor in a much lower percentage of crashes than the safety nazis claim. Still, there are times it is a factor. I have long thought that there should be higher speed limits, coupled with strict enforcement and meaningful penalties for breaking the higher limits. What we have done, which is to have random enforcement of speed limits that are too low, coupled with meaningless penalties in a lot of cases, has turned the whole thing into a joke. And people driving dangerously have been punished no worse than people driving at safe but illegal speeds.
Assuming you ignore the correlation between speed and perhaps the most common non-parking lot crashes...ACDA, or assured clear distance ahead (ie, rear end collisions). Higher speeds also mean less reaction time and greater stopping distances, both of which have a direct connection to crashes and crash avoidance. So, while statistically most crashes are not directly attributed to speed alone, trying to claim that speed is not a contributing factor in many crashes simply isn't true...it's just an underlying factor.
IME "underlying factor" is quite a red herring, most notably, philosophically. Let's say a car traveling 75 mph sideswipes a car traveling 55 mph - lots of damages and there are injuries. In one instance it happens on the interstate with a 70 mph speed limit. In another instance it happens on a rural two-lane highway with a 55 mph speed limit. So is the underlying factor speeding or one car sideswiping another?
Or let's take my example of a drunk running a red light and t-boning a car. In one instance the drunk is dong 25 mph and in another instance the drunk is doing 80 mph. Obviously the latter is infinitely more damaging. So is the underlying factor speeding or running a red light?
Wash/rinse/repeat for innumerable factors - capability of the car or driver especially.
I will say some time ago I saw a legit study about pedestrian injury and at ~25+ mph there is a profound increase of likelihood of serious injury/death.
Another is the philosophical argument that accidents will always happen and the slower cars are moving the less
Speed is an underlying factor in every crash. Stationary cars don't crash into things.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 06, 2015, 11:04:25 PMIME "underlying factor" is quite a red herring, most notably, philosophically.
"Philosophically?" Really? Physics really doesn't care about philosophical arguments.
QuoteLet's say a car traveling 75 mph sideswipes a car traveling 55 mph - lots of damages and there are injuries. In one instance it happens on the interstate with a 70 mph speed limit. In another instance it happens on a rural two-lane highway with a 55 mph speed limit. So is the underlying factor speeding or one car sideswiping another?
Or let's take my example of a drunk running a red light and t-boning a car. In one instance the drunk is dong 25 mph and in another instance the drunk is doing 80 mph. Obviously the latter is infinitely more damaging. So is the underlying factor speeding or running a red light?
Wash/rinse/repeat for innumerable factors - capability of the car or driver especially.
I will say some time ago I saw a legit study about pedestrian injury and at ~25+ mph there is a profound increase of likelihood of serious injury/death.
Another is the philosophical argument that accidents will always happen and the slower cars are moving the less
You can make up lost of scenarios where speed may not be a major contributor in a crash, the same way that I can give you plenty of them where it is. Let's just give three simple facts about speed and crashes.
All other factors being equal...
1. The higher the speed, the greater the stopping distance. Physics is physics and this can't be argued.
2. The higher the speed, the greater the impact and damage. Again, physics is physics.
3. The higher the speed, the lesser the reaction time for the driver.
All three of these have a direct and major impact on crashes, crash avoidance, and potential injury or damage from a crash.
Quote from: bing_oh on April 07, 2015, 07:34:47 AM
"Philosophically?" Really? Physics really doesn't care about philosophical arguments.
Yes, really, per my rural highway vs. interstate scenario - the only difference is what someone decides is the speed "limit."
Also, most everyone speeds, so is it realistic that most drivers engage in an action that is a contributing factor in a crash?
Quote from: bing_oh on April 07, 2015, 07:34:47 AM
You can make up lost of scenarios where speed may not be a major contributor in a crash, the same way that I can give you plenty of them where it is. Let's just give three simple facts about speed and crashes.
All other factors being equal...
1. The higher the speed, the greater the stopping distance. Physics is physics and this can't be argued.
2. The higher the speed, the greater the impact and damage. Again, physics is physics.
3. The higher the speed, the lesser the reaction time for the driver.
All three of these have a direct and major impact on crashes, crash avoidance, and potential injury or damage from a crash.
My point, is, crashes cause crashes, and emphasis must be placed on preventing and punishing for actions that cause crashes.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 07, 2015, 01:06:11 PMYes, really, per my rural highway vs. interstate scenario - the only difference is what someone decides is the speed "limit."
Also, most everyone speeds, so is it realistic that most drivers engage in an action that is a contributing factor in a crash?
Do you know how speed limits are determined? There's actually a formula for it. It involves the type of roadway, the specific engineering of the roadway, the area in which it's in (rural, urban, business, etc), and the number of access points (ie, driveways). Oh, and it's all determined by the state engineering department.
QuoteMy point, is, crashes cause crashes, and emphasis must be placed on preventing and punishing for actions that cause crashes.
Actions like...speed? :hmm:
Quote from: bing_oh on April 07, 2015, 09:22:14 PM
Do you know how speed limits are determined? There's actually a formula for it. It involves the type of roadway, the specific engineering of the roadway, the area in which it's in (rural, urban, business, etc), and the number of access points (ie, driveways). Oh, and it's all determined by the state engineering department.
Actions like...speed? :hmm:
Where half the time, the engineering is tossed out in favor of political reasons.
Quote from: NomisR on April 07, 2015, 11:44:54 PMWhere half the time, the engineering is tossed out in favor of political reasons.
Why would a state/county engineer toss out the engineering in favor of political reasons? Road work is paid for through gas, income, and (sometimes) sales taxes, not ticket income.
Quote from: bing_oh on April 08, 2015, 07:13:09 AM
Why would a state/county engineer toss out the engineering in favor of political reasons? Road work is paid for through gas, income, and (sometimes) sales taxes, not ticket income.
Who says anything about the engineers doing so.
Quote from: NomisR on April 08, 2015, 07:14:10 AMWho says anything about the engineers doing so.
Who else would? I can tell you from experience that state/county engineers have significant (and sometimes final) say on speed limits. For example, two of the major streets in my city are also state routes. One of them had been marked as 25 mph for a long time. During a repave, the state engineering department did an assessment of the speed limit, decided that 35 mph was appropriate, posted the signs, and that was that...the city had absolutely no say in the speed limit increase and, if they wanted to bitch, their only recourse would have been to request a re-assessment from the state engineering department.
Like... politicians? I think the whole 55 save lives BS is the perfect example of this.
Most of the 55 mph limits are in areas with lots of traffic, however. Most states have been doing a good job of raising rural limits, where it's possible to cruise at 80 without issue.
Quote from: NomisR on April 08, 2015, 08:40:37 AM
Like... politicians? I think the whole 55 save lives BS is the perfect example of this.
Yea various areas are still reeling. Not uncommon in NYC for a major highway to be rated at 45 MPH while everyone's cruising at 65+. Plus there are plenty of podunk towns with bizarre speed limit drops and coincidentally stringent traffic enforcement. Maybe in a perfect world on paper or in carefully selected examples speed limits are set scientifically, but in the real world there are plenty of examples that show it's not that simple.
Quote from: hotrodalex on April 08, 2015, 10:14:10 AM
Most of the 55 mph limits are in areas with lots of traffic, however. Most states have been doing a good job of raising rural limits, where it's possible to cruise at 80 without issue.
Finally improvement after how many years? And even then, there's still more examples of politics actually setting the speed limits than actual engineering. Same thing applies to a lot of red light timing.
I figured the economy is so bad, fewer people can afford to speed. maybe and maybe not.
Too busy shootin the blacks to be able to write tickets too. There's only so many hours in the day.
Quote from: MrH on April 08, 2015, 09:48:59 PM
Too busy shootin the blacks to be able to write tickets too. There's only so many hours in the day.
Shootin' the blacks in the backs
Quote from: bing_oh on April 07, 2015, 09:22:14 PM
Do you know how speed limits are determined? There's actually a formula for it. It involves the type of roadway, the specific engineering of the roadway, the area in which it's in (rural, urban, business, etc), and the number of access points (ie, driveways). Oh, and it's all determined by the state engineering department.
Actions like...speed? :hmm:
At least in my state, the most of miles of road do not have "engineered" speed limits, if but for nothing else the roads I've been driving for 25+ years haven't had changes in speed limits (except for the interstates, when the national 55 mph limit was repealed, IIRC about the time I started driving) despite revolutionary changes in vehicle safety and performance. At best there are guild lines, which definitely isn't engineering.
Speeding as a primary cause or major factor isn't that common. DUI, falling asleep behind the wheel, distracted driving, aggressive driving - these are the actual problems. Focusing on speed enforcement has diverted resources from addressing these actual problems - and it's sad really, considering the damage that auto crashes take on society every year.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 09, 2015, 12:33:41 AMAt least in my state, the most of miles of road do not have "engineered" speed limits, if but for nothing else the roads I've been driving for 25+ years haven't had changes in speed limits (except for the interstates, when the national 55 mph limit was repealed, IIRC about the time I started driving) despite revolutionary changes in vehicle safety and performance. At best there are guild lines, which definitely isn't engineering.
You know for certain that the speed limit on the roadways isn't determined by a specific engineering formula or you just assume? The speed limits on most roadways are determined at the time of initial construction and re-evaluated by engineers during major repair work.
QuoteSpeeding as a primary cause or major factor isn't that common. DUI, falling asleep behind the wheel, distracted driving, aggressive driving - these are the actual problems. Focusing on speed enforcement has diverted resources from addressing these actual problems - and it's sad really, considering the damage that auto crashes take on society every year.
Well, considering you decided to just ignore my three points that related speed to crashes (unsurprising, since they can't be disputed and don't support your belief on the subject), I'll just go ahead and smack around your points a little. One in particular, that speed enforcement has somehow diverted resources from other enforcement, is actually somewhat laughable considering LE frequently uses speed as a pre-textual stop for DUI enforcement.
Quote from: bing_oh on April 09, 2015, 08:48:24 AM
You know for certain that the speed limit on the roadways isn't determined by a specific engineering formula or you just assume? The speed limits on most roadways are determined at the time of initial construction and re-evaluated by engineers during major repair work.
Well, considering you decided to just ignore my three points that related speed to crashes (unsurprising, since they can't be disputed and don't support your belief on the subject), I'll just go ahead and smack around your points a little. One in particular, that speed enforcement has somehow diverted resources from other enforcement, is actually somewhat laughable considering LE frequently uses speed as a pre-textual stop for DUI enforcement.
If things change - cars, medical science, etc., and speed limits don't - there is no engineering going on. It's mostly cookie cutting rules of thumb - residential, highway, freeway, school zone, etc.
I didn't ignore your points, I redirected per my example of a drunk running a red light at 80 mph and t-boning someone one. The problem isn't speeding the problem is DUI, ergo, target DUI.
My point about speed enforcement diverting resources is system level - from untold $millions spent on speed enforcement tech (including airplanes :facepalm:) to the clogging up of courts dealing with speeding tickets.
Speeding can be a problem but it's usually not.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 09, 2015, 08:25:40 PMIf things change - cars, medical science, etc., and speed limits don't - there is no engineering going on. It's mostly cookie cutting rules of thumb - residential, highway, freeway, school zone, etc.
I didn't ignore your points, I redirected per my example of a drunk running a red light at 80 mph and t-boning someone one. The problem isn't speeding the problem is DUI, ergo, target DUI.
My point about speed enforcement diverting resources is system level - from untold $millions spent on speed enforcement tech (including airplanes :facepalm:) to the clogging up of courts dealing with speeding tickets.
Speeding can be a problem but it's usually not.
"Redirected," huh? :rolleyes: Are you practicing for your run for Congress? "I didn't avoid the question, I just didn't like the answer so I redirected."
I find it amusing that you seem to think that, by doing speed enforcement, that prevents officers from doing other enforcement. Generally, we do
traffic enforcement. Sometimes we might do directed patrols for specific violations if we have specific complaints, but even that doesn't prevent an officer from stopping someone for another violation. And, as I already mentioned (and you ignored...or redirected...or whatever), speed enforcement can lead to arrests for other violations like DUI.
As for "clogging up the courts," I thought that you always claimed that speed enforcement was a purely money-making activity. If everybody's making a profit off of speed enforcement, that's not exactly an "inefficiency" or a "diversion of resources" now is it? The same can be said for the "untold millions spent on speed enforcement," right? I mean, obviously if this is a money-making scheme, all that equipment (and more!) is being paid for by those very tickets. You can't have it both ways, Cougs.
Using speeding as a pretense for DUI enforcement, while perhaps effective, is very problematic.
Again, the toll that speed enforcement takes is systemic - wasted tax dollars, wasted resources.
And you thought wrong - I've always been of the opinion that there is little if any "money making" in speed enforcement. There's simply too much overhead for any "profit." It's overused through "speed kills" hysteria and because it is easy to determine.
Traffic enforcement my ass
Quote from: GoCougs on April 09, 2015, 09:30:22 PMUsing speeding as a pretense for DUI enforcement, while perhaps effective, is very problematic.
Why is that? Are you going to dispute pretextual stops now?
QuoteAgain, the toll that speed enforcement takes is systemic - wasted tax dollars, wasted resources.
And you thought wrong - I've always been of the opinion that there is little if any "money making" in speed enforcement. There's simply too much overhead for any "profit." It's overused through "speed kills" hysteria and because it is easy to determine.
So, what's the point in speed enforcement if it's not for safety and not for money? For fun?
Btw, you still havn't addressed my three points relating speed to crashes...or are you going to keep "redirecting" away from those?
Quote from: bing_oh on April 09, 2015, 09:50:44 PM
Why is that? Are you going to dispute pretextual stops now?
So, what's the point in speed enforcement if it's not for safety and not for money? For fun?
Btw, you still havn't addressed my three points relating speed to crashes...or are you going to keep "redirecting" away from those?
I've already answered these....
I do dispute such stops. People should NOT be pulled over under false pretenses - dangerous escalation IMO.
Again, the point is primarily satiating the "speed kills" hysteria and that unlike most all other infractions speeding is easy to determine, esp. from afar.
I already addressed your "three points" with my example of a drunk blasting through a red light at 80 mph. Speeding made it worse but speeding wasn't the cause - DUI is.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 09, 2015, 10:47:02 PMI've already answered these....
I do dispute such stops. People should NOT be pulled over under false pretenses - dangerous escalation IMO.
"False pretenses?" There's no "false pretenses" if the initial violation is valid (exactly as the courts have ruled).
QuoteAgain, the point is primarily satiating the "speed kills" hysteria and that unlike most all other infractions speeding is easy to determine, esp. from afar.
I already addressed your "three points" with my example of a drunk blasting through a red light at 80 mph. Speeding made it worse but speeding wasn't the cause - DUI is.
In other words, you really can't explain speed enforcement from your stated point of view and you've decided to continue to "redirect" when it comes to the points I made correlating speed and crashes. Gotcha.
Im surprised bing_oh is even engaging, usually he just writes everybody off for being civilians and by extension having no understanding or capacity to even begin to understand how policing works
U want to target DUIs, to me it would make sense to target DUIs, but apparently it's better to target other offenses and then hopefully catch a DUI on the side. In pretty much every other profession/walk of life problems are solved by addressing them directly but I guess traffic safety operates under different rules
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 10, 2015, 06:39:17 AMIm surprised bing_oh is even engaging, usually he just writes everybody off for being civilians and by extension having no understanding or capacity to even begin to understand how policing works
U want to target DUIs, to me it would make sense to target DUIs, but apparently it's better to target other offenses and then hopefully catch a DUI on the side. In pretty much every other profession/walk of life problems are solved by addressing them directly but I guess traffic safety operates under different rules
Well, Sporty, since you seem to have infinite wisdom when it comes to all subjects (law enforcement included), please tell me how you stop someone
JUST for DUI without any other criminal or traffic violation.
Quote from: bing_oh on April 09, 2015, 11:46:17 PM
"False pretenses?" There's no "false pretenses" if the initial violation is valid (exactly as the courts have ruled).
In other words, you really can't explain speed enforcement from your stated point of view and you've decided to continue to "redirect" when it comes to the points I made correlating speed and crashes. Gotcha.
Again, the "violation" of speeding is invalid, unless it is excessive (which in most cases it is not).
Sure I explained it - "speed enforcement" is a red herring and its over emphasis has cost lives and money. Traffic enforcement MUST be concerned with things that cause crashes, not things that don't.
Quote from: bing_oh on April 10, 2015, 08:10:06 AM
Well, Sporty, since you seem to have infinite wisdom when it comes to all subjects (law enforcement included), please tell me how you stop someone JUST for DUI without any other criminal or traffic violation.
Never claimed such omniscience, just surprised you didnt draw on your "civilians dont know shit" cop out, thats all. If DUIs are a heightened issue seems to me it would make sense to heighten efforts towards that, not turn up on everything and hope to catch DUI like some kind of LE bird shot. But again what do I know, Im just a civilian, I will just comply and hopefully make it out alive.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 10, 2015, 08:59:59 AMNever claimed such omniscience, just surprised you didnt draw on your "civilians dont know shit" cop out, thats all. If DUIs are a heightened issue seems to me it would make sense to heighten efforts towards that, not turn up on everything and hope to catch DUI like some kind of LE bird shot. But again what do I know, Im just a civilian, I will just comply and hopefully make it out alive.
Can't answer the question, huh? You specifically said LE should "target DUI's" but not other offenses. Of course, probably 95%+ of DUI stops are technically pretextual, so I wanted to know how you would want LE to get DUI's without pretextual stops. I guess we should just "know" when someone's DUI, stop them, and arrest them, right?
So, I think I'm gonna stick with the "YOU don't know shit" line on this one, considering you're sitting there saying
what LE should do but have no idea
how we should do it.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 10, 2015, 08:21:48 AMAgain, the "violation" of speeding is invalid, unless it is excessive (which in most cases it is not).
Sure I explained it - "speed enforcement" is a red herring and its over emphasis has cost lives and money. Traffic enforcement MUST be concerned with things that cause crashes, not things that don't.
And I've already explained how speed can not just cause crashes but make crashes for other circumstances worse...you know, those three things that I mentioned that you "redirected" away from instead of addressing.
Lots of new cars can safely go a lot faster than the speed limits, but there are still trucks and stuff that shouldn't be going that fast. Speed limits are for everyone, so they depend on the least common denominator.
Quote from: hotrodalex on April 10, 2015, 02:08:53 PM
Lots of new cars can safely go a lot faster than the speed limits, but there are still trucks and stuff that shouldn't be going that fast. Speed limits are for everyone, so they depend on the least common denominator.
There are places with different speed limits for semis and cars. Said places also prohibit semis from driving in the left lane.
Quote from: bing_oh on April 09, 2015, 11:46:17 PM
In other words, you really can't explain speed enforcement from your stated point of view and you've decided to continue to "redirect" when it comes to the points I made correlating speed and crashes. Gotcha.
You've exposed THE classic Cougs debate tactic: When losing the argument, REDIRECT!
Quote from: bing_oh on April 10, 2015, 10:09:11 AM
And I've already explained how speed can not just cause crashes but make crashes for other circumstances worse...you know, those three things that I mentioned that you "redirected" away from instead of addressing.
You did explain but it is illogical, which I've also explained many times, on many levels.
Quote from: hotrodalex on April 10, 2015, 02:08:53 PM
Lots of new cars can safely go a lot faster than the speed limits, but there are still trucks and stuff that shouldn't be going that fast. Speed limits are for everyone, so they depend on the least common denominator.
Yet one of the many many many logical arguments against "speed kills."
Quote from: GoCougs on April 10, 2015, 09:09:22 PMYou did explain but it is illogical, which I've also explained many times, on many levels.
Physics is illogical, now?
All other factors being equal...
1. The higher the speed, the greater the stopping distance. Physics is physics and this can't be argued.
2. The higher the speed, the greater the impact and damage. Again, physics is physics.
3. The higher the speed, the lesser the reaction time for the driver.
I mean, one and two are based on simply and accepted physics. I could argue that three is just as scientifically-supported. Please, explain to me how any of these three points are the least bit "illogical."
Quote from: GoCougs on April 10, 2015, 09:12:09 PMYet one of the many many many logical arguments against "speed kills."
You know, I've never mentioned the phrase "speed kills" once...that's been you every time. However, if you want to keep bringing it up, let's put it up against the list.
That simple little phrase actually fits perfectly with #2...the higher the speed, the greater the impact and damage. That impact and damage doesn't just apply to the vehicle, but the contents...including the human occupants. Physics dictates that higher speeds = greater damage...with "greater damage" to a living human being = a greater chance of
fatal damage. So, ignoring that "speed kills" is a catchy little phrase (and one I haven't heard used in the ad campaigns related to speed enforcement in probably a decade), physics would actually support it.
Quote from: bing_oh on April 10, 2015, 09:14:30 PM
Physics is illogical, now?
All other factors being equal...
1. The higher the speed, the greater the stopping distance. Physics is physics and this can't be argued.
2. The higher the speed, the greater the impact and damage. Again, physics is physics.
3. The higher the speed, the lesser the reaction time for the driver.
I mean, one and two are based on simply and accepted physics. I could argue that three is just as scientifically-supported. Please, explain to me how any of these three points are the least bit "illogical."
Hmmm. I've already done this but will do so again:
Most drivers speed = illogical to state that most drivers are lawbreakers (= speeding is rarely a factor).
Most speed limits are arbitrary = speeding is rarely a factor.
LE must focus on stopping crashes not on things that don't cause crashes. It is hoped that this is what is happening with LE writing far fewer speeding tickets as shown ITT (I'm not convinced but remain hopeful). Safer roads >>>>> illogical action.
Quote from: MX793 on April 10, 2015, 03:13:15 PM
There are places with different speed limits for semis and cars. Said places also prohibit semis from driving in the left lane.
Most of the west is 65/55, 70/60, 75/65, or 80/70 cars/semis on freeways, and trucks are absolutely allowed in the left lane.
If you want proof of non-engineered speed limits, look to Oregon. Freeways are never more than 65, and 55 through towns. There are maybe two places around Portland where the limit is 60. Two-lane highways are never more than 55, despite miles and miles of excellent 70-grade road (see US20 in eastern Oregon). In Montana, the same roads would be 70.
Quote from: Rupert on April 11, 2015, 12:27:46 PM
If you want proof of non-engineered speed limits, look to Oregon. Freeways are never more than 65, and 55 through towns. There are maybe two places around Portland where the limit is 60. Two-lane highways are never more than 55, despite miles and miles of excellent 70-grade road (see US20 in eastern Oregon). In Montana, the same roads would be 70.
A wreck at 70 mph on a MT highway is deemed to have had speeding as a "contributing factor" if it happens on a 55 mph Oregon highway, despite the roads being identical.
Not every single mile of what must me a million+ miles of roads in the US can have a rigid engineering analysis which is another logical argument against rigid speed limits.
Quote from: Rupert on April 11, 2015, 12:23:23 PM
Most of the west is 65/55, 70/60, 75/65, or 80/70 cars/semis on freeways, and trucks are absolutely allowed in the left lane.
I've seen a number of highways that prohibit trucks in the left-most lane, though generally only on highways with 3-lanes in each direction. Seen it both in the east and out west.
Quote from: MX793 on April 11, 2015, 03:24:43 PM
I've seen a number of highways that prohibit trucks in the left-most lane, though generally only on highways with 3-lanes in each direction. Seen it both in the east and out west.
And it's far from the absolute you seemed to think it is. There are a few mountain passes and maybe a few urban freeways like that in OR, WA, and ID, but it is always with three lanes or more.
Quote from: Rupert on April 11, 2015, 05:14:27 PM
And it's far from the absolute you seemed to think it is. There are a few mountain passes and maybe a few urban freeways like that in OR, WA, and ID, but it is always with three lanes or more.
No, it's not absolute and, yes, it requires at least 3 travel lanes in each direction. Sorry if I implied otherwise. It is, however, more common from what I've seen in states that have staggered speed limits. Even on large hills that have 3-lanes, it is uncommon here for trucks to be barred from the leftmost lane. A stretch of I-90 near Rochester is perhaps the only bit of highway that I can recall ever encountering that in NY. I've encountered it in other states in the southwest and along the eastern seaboard, and not just on hills or mountainous areas. I recall seeing it in Florida and there are no hills in Florida.
Watching a lot of Russian car crashes- speed doesn't kill or cause crashes, going faster/slower than other cars around you does.
Biggest cause of crashes seems to be dummies speeding past other stopped/slow traffic. When the slow/stopped traffic was waiting for someone else to get out of the way. In other words the speeder should have adjusted speed to match everyone else's.
Second cause seems to be running red lights. No speed limits in the world will affect idiots who decide to barrel through an intersection 5 seconds after it turned green for cross-traffic.
Third is people passing when they shouldn't be and hit oncoming traffic.
-------------------- ------------------------ --------------------------- ---------------------------
The German Autobahn proves that speed can be handled reasonably. In a country the size of Montana, they have "unlimited" speed limits in SOME areas. Cars doing 120mph+ safely drive with 80hp econoboxes and trucks which by law must drive 62mph or slower.
-everyone checks mirrors
-very strict lane discipline
-rigorous safety inspections of vehicles
Their roadway fatality rate is about the same as ours. I used to set the cruise at 90mph and pass 80% of traffic, but also have people go flying past me.
Well it has been almost a year...
Quote from: 68_427 on April 22, 2015, 03:49:10 AM
Well it has been almost a year...
Is this your longest stretch?
Quote from: dazzleman on April 22, 2015, 05:42:50 AM
Is this your longest stretch?
No I think I hit 13 months once.
Quote from: 68_427 on April 22, 2015, 05:46:30 AM
No I think I hit 13 months once.
You're not trying hard enough.
I'm just trying for little fuck yous that don't cost me money :lol:
Revenues from citations should never go to the authorities involved in their issuance, collection etc. Just donate them to oversea charities & avoid the conflicts of interest.
Quote from: Morris Minor on April 30, 2015, 12:28:48 PM
Revenues from citations should never go to the authorities involved in their issuance, collection etc. Just donate them to oversea charities & avoid the conflicts of interest.
Then I would be doing a public service... Excellent...
Quote from: VTEC_Inside on May 07, 2015, 12:38:15 PM
Then I would be doing a public service... Excellent...
How much do you think you've paid in traffic fines during your years of driving?
Quote from: dazzleman on May 07, 2015, 04:34:50 PM
How much do you think you've paid in traffic fines during your years of driving?
Not much really. I think I've only ever really gotten 5-6 speeding tickets total and generally managed to get them reduced to $50 or $100 fines.
It seems as though lately the cops have been letting the speed of traffic dictate actual speeding offenses. Its not uncommon for traffic on the way to work to be moving along at 130kph and I've been flat out ignored at 123ish kph...
For what ever perception people have about my speeding habits, the simple reality is that there are few occasions where I really push my luck. I just have an extremely low tolerance for people that IMO shouldn't have a license and the result is usually venting my frustration by stomping with my right foot (alternating with left)...
Edit: That said, I've been driving the RSX more since the weather has gotten better and its resulted in a lot of giggling..
Quote from: VTEC_Inside on May 08, 2015, 09:04:31 AM
Not much really. I think I've only ever really gotten 5-6 speeding tickets total and generally managed to get them reduced to $50 or $100 fines.
It seems as though lately the cops have been letting the speed of traffic dictate actual speeding offenses. Its not uncommon for traffic on the way to work to be moving along at 130kph and I've been flat out ignored at 123ish kph...
For what ever perception people have about my speeding habits, the simple reality is that there are few occasions where I really push my luck. I just have an extremely low tolerance for people that IMO shouldn't have a license and the result is usually venting my frustration by stomping with my right foot (alternating with left)...
Edit: That said, I've been driving the RSX more since the weather has gotten better and its resulted in a lot of giggling..
My numbers are about the same. But of course, I've been driving about 15 years longer than you have.... ;) Good job, man. :lol:
Yesterday some girl in a new S4 was weaving in and out of the carpool lane to pass slow drivers in the left lane. Entitled left lane campers are a major problem here, and as I've said in the past it's the most common dangerous action I see (in that it compels people to pass either on right or to weave in and out of the carpool lane).
Anyway, she blew past me at probably 90 in a 60. She gets up a few hundred yards and after a carpool lane pass she cruises by a nondescript white F-150 in the middle lane - and BOOM - on come of the berries. State Patrol here uses such unmarked vehicles for big rig compliance. Not sure if he got her speed but if so that could be neg driving.
I'm a bit on the fence with this one. On one hand, undercover in-traffic enforcement of obvious/legit unsafe infractions is the proper way to do traffic enforcement. On the other hand the trooper let the left lane camping slide. Meh, on balance I'd rather be inconvenienced by morons than endangered by morons.
Driving i-95 fairly frequently it is so easy to tell the campers when they are coming at you- no traffic for a minute then way backed up.