CarSPIN Forums

Yesterday, I was on a local road with a speed limit that is far too low.  I saw a marked car hiding behind a bush in a town parking lot clocking cars that were driving by.  I was OK, since I had just turned onto the street and hadn't gotten up to speed yet, but my fellow drivers would be easy victims to the trap.  Once again, this is a road with a terribly artificial speed limit in a town whose officers are well known for being quite merciless. 

As I passed several other cars in the upcoming stretch of roadway before I turned off the road, I flicked my high-beams on and off, in hopes of warning them of the trap ahead.  It was during the day.  I don't see alot of this anymore, and I'm not sure why.  I don't even know if many people would even know what my "signal" meant.  Is it just this area, or is this a practice that has gone to the wayside in most areas?

good on  ya dude, good karma

Quote from: TurboDan on July 29, 2007, 11:34:50 AM
Yesterday, I was on a local road with a speed limit that is far too low.  I saw a marked car hiding behind a bush in a town parking lot clocking cars that were driving by.  I was OK, since I had just turned onto the street and hadn't gotten up to speed yet, but my fellow drivers would be easy victims to the trap.  Once again, this is a road with a terribly artificial speed limit in a town whose officers are well known for being quite merciless. 

As I passed several other cars in the upcoming stretch of roadway before I turned off the road, I flicked my high-beams on and off, in hopes of warning them of the trap ahead.  It was during the day.  I don't see alot of this anymore, and I'm not sure why.  I don't even know if many people would even know what my "signal" meant.  Is it just this area, or is this a practice that has gone to the wayside in most areas?

My thought is this: I would hate to think that I warned someone who's guilty of some criminal action (not necessarily speeding) that the police are ahead.

I almost never see this anymore. When I do get flashed, I figure there's a 50/50 chance there's either a speed trap ahead, I'm dragging a dead body under my car.
I'll flash if I can clearly see there is a speed trap, but usually I'm afraid to flash people because there is always that chance that they will take it as a personal insult and try to attack me. It's happened before.

Quote from: IrishGuy on July 29, 2007, 11:39:53 AM
My thought is this: I would hate to think that I warned someone who's guilty of some criminal action (not necessarily speeding) that the police are ahead.

Eh, there's no crime anywhere near where I live.  And if there is a criminal wandering down the road, it'll catch up with him eventually.

One reason people don't do this, at least in Texas, is because it isn't legal. 

Quote from: CJ on July 29, 2007, 12:05:43 PM
One reason people don't do this, at least in Texas, is because it isn't legal. 

Eh, this was a two-lane road in a small town.  There weren't any other cops ahead.  You could see for a mile if there were anyway.

I do it.

Quote from: CJ on July 29, 2007, 12:05:43 PM
One reason people don't do this, at least in Texas, is because it isn't legal. 

It isn't legal here either (improper use of high beams), but that never stopped people from doing it.  I think because flashing high beams is often linked to "road rage" or "agressive drivng" you don't see many people doing it anymore.

I've heard that flashing lights to warn oncoming drivers of police presence is illegal in Connecticut -- something like "interfering with government administration."  I know of somebody who supposedly got a ticket for it.

This was a big practice when I first started driving.  My driver's ed teacher even told me about it.  It involved flashing lights, not necessarily high beams.  Back then, on most cars, the high-beams didn't work unless the low-beams were already on, so during the day, if you wanted to warn oncoming drivers about speed enforcement, you just turned your headlights on and off.

You're right Dan in noticing that it seems to have fallen into disuse.  I still see it occasionally, and did it myself a couple of weeks ago when I saw a speedtrap in the other direction.  Still, I don't do it very much at this point, even if I pass a speedtrap.

I'll flick my lights if there's a potentially dangerous situation ahead, like a car stopped on the road just around a blind turn, but not for a speed trap. I mostly see speed traps on the interstate anyway.

Quote from: CJ on July 29, 2007, 12:05:43 PM
One reason people don't do this, at least in Texas, is because it isn't legal. 

Is it really now??  Never heard of it being illegal, plenty of people have flashed.  But most are too stupid and lazy to warn others. :rolleyes:

There is some stupid rumor going around about cars driving around with their brights on or no lights at all and waiting for people to flash them and then they follow them home and shoot them as part of a gang initiation.  But i have heard no proof of this other than word of mouth, and we all know this is always 100% true. :rolleyes:

Quote from: ifcar on July 29, 2007, 03:41:39 PM
I'll flick my lights if there's a potentially dangerous situation ahead, like a car stopped on the road just around a blind turn, but not for a speed trap. I mostly see speed traps on the interstate anyway.

I did that just the other day...truck lost sight of the road and stuck the first half stuck in the ditch on a unlit road.  So i flashed a few people to let them know there was something ahead

Quote from: CJ on July 29, 2007, 12:05:43 PM
One reason people don't do this, at least in Texas, is because it isn't legal.?

I'd like to know if anyone has ever been ticketed for flashing their high beams a few times.

I also flashy my lights if there is a deer in the middle of the road, but I never know if people understand what I'm doing.  :huh:

Quote from: NACar on July 29, 2007, 03:44:24 PM
I'd like to know if anyone has ever been ticketed for flashing their high beams a few times.

As would I.  How would they enforce this? ;)

Quote from: footoflead on July 29, 2007, 03:42:38 PM
Is it really now??  Never heard of it being illegal, plenty of people have flashed.  But most are too stupid and lazy to warn others. :rolleyes:

There is some stupid rumor going around about cars driving around with their brights on or no lights at all and waiting for people to flash them and then they follow them home and shoot them as part of a gang initiation.  But i have heard no proof of this other than word of mouth, and we all know this is always 100% true. :rolleyes:

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/lightsout.asp

Quote from: ifcar on July 29, 2007, 03:46:51 PM
http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/lightsout.asp

I didn't think this was true.

Usually when people do it for me it takes me awhile to realize what's going on. I think:

"What the hell is his problem, I don't have my lights on? Does someone in front of me have them on? Someone behind? I can't see. What the hell could he be talking about? Is he just nuts? Maybe there's an accident.........................



"Oh, maybe there's a trooper clocking --"

-- and then I see the cop.

I actually had someone flash their brights at me today warning of a state trooper sitting on the road. But, I don't think he was clocking people as he was on the shoulder with parking lights on early. In fact, I would tend to think that there wasn't even a person in the car. Additionally, it was probably half a mile before the speed limit went down, not a logical place.

Quote from: NACar on July 29, 2007, 03:44:24 PM
I'd like to know if anyone has ever been ticketed for flashing their high beams a few times.

Why, YES, I have ticketed somebody for flashing their high-beams at me! :evildude: Some rocket scientist flashed their brights to warn me of another officer who was running a little radar. Apparently, he didn't notice the reflective "POLICE" on the car and the lightbar on top (not to mention I didn't need the warning...I knew exactly where those sneaky cops were  :lol: ). He got a ticket for Failure to Dim. I suppose I could have been really nasty and arrested him for Obstructing Official Business, but I wasn't feeling quite that mean that night.

 :rolleyes:  :lol:

It doesn't seem to happen very often, you're right.  Whenever I do it, maybe one car in 10 sees it, realizes what it means, and then either flashes back or waves, and then slows down.  I think it should be a very common practice.  There's no seems to be very little camaraderie left on the roads nowadays. 

I think that's generally a good thing to do.  However, if you save the group of cars you are passing from a ticket, then the cop will just get someone from the next group.  So it's not really preventing any tickets, it's just postponing the ticket and giving it to someone else.  That brings up the question:  should we only flash our lights at crappy cars, with the thinking that the driver is more likely poor and will be hurt more by the ticket?  Nothing against rich folks, and of course gauging a persons financial worth by the car they drive isn't very accurate, but I would rather see a rich person get a ticket if someone has to get it.  Also, this is assuming that the only "crime" being commited is minor/safe speeding.

Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=10389.msg524107#msg524107 date=1185796936
There's no seems to be very little camaraderie left on the roads nowadays.?

I blame it on the SUV's.

Quote from: footoflead on July 29, 2007, 03:42:38 PM
Is it really now??? Never heard of it being illegal, plenty of people have flashed.? But most are too stupid and lazy to warn others. :rolleyes:

Yes, it's illegal.  Considered the same as you going down the road a couple of miles before a speed trap and standing on the side of the road with a big sign that says,  "Traffic radar ahead, slow down."  Cops don't like that, despite the fact you are actually causing people to obey the speed limit, at least for the next couple of miles.    ;)

Quote from: bing_oh on July 29, 2007, 11:22:08 PM
I suppose I could have been really nasty and arrested him for Obstructing Official Business, but I wasn't feeling quite that mean that night.

Don't you mean impeding local jurisdiction revenue enhancement?   :lol:

Quote from: etypeJohn on July 30, 2007, 08:56:46 AM
Don't you mean impeding local jurisdiction revenue enhancement?   :lol:

And that's the thing. If speed traps were about slowing people down, then ANYTHING that got people to slow down would be ok. The fact that it's illegal means they don't want to slow you down (or let you slow others down), they want to make money off of people. And as you say, it impedes them making money if you actually tell/remind people to slow down.

Any wonder why some of us say it's all about the money and not about safety? If it WAS about safety it wouldn't matter HOW that safe driving came about. Whether it was you flashing your lights or them seeing an officer beside the road.

Quote from: etypeJohn on July 30, 2007, 08:56:46 AM
Don't you mean impeding local jurisdiction revenue enhancement?? ?:lol:

That's exactly what it is.  It should be no more illegal than driving the speed limit. 

Quote from: ChrisV on July 30, 2007, 09:35:30 AM
And that's the thing. If speed traps were about slowing people down, then ANYTHING that got people to slow down would be ok. The fact that it's illegal means they don't want to slow you down (or let you slow others down), they want to make money off of people. And as you say, it impedes them making money if you actually tell/remind people to slow down.

Any wonder why some of us say it's all about the money and not about safety? If it WAS about safety it wouldn't matter HOW that safe driving came about. Whether it was you flashing your lights or them seeing an officer beside the road.

I'll just get this out of the way right off the bat. I could really care less how much money the city or the local courts make off of each citation I write. It's not as if I get a bonus check for each ticket, so I'm not padding my paycheck or anything. In my area, the court gets the vast majority of the fines, and the rest (as little as it is) goes to the state and into the city's general fund, so my department doesn't directly benefit from the fines either. In the end, even if I write 1000 tickets a month, it would neither put me in a new vehicle in my driveway at home nor would it get me a new cruiser to drive at work. Compaired to the amount of the department's budget that just comes from taxes, the cash we get from fines is laughably paltry.

Speed enforcement and the fines related to getting a ticket are intended to change driving behavior. Punishment is one way to do that. We all know that the warnings we're talking about don't change behavior any longer than till that cruiser has disappeared from the rearview mirror, so saying that they accomplish the same thing is just rationalization.

Quote from: bing_oh on July 30, 2007, 11:19:09 AM
We all know that the warnings we're talking about don't change behavior any longer than till that cruiser has disappeared from the rearview mirror, so saying that they accomplish the same thing is just rationalization.

That's a good point, but do speeding tickets really change behavior either? I'd argue no, if for nothing other than the fact that tickets are fairly common and speeders even moreso.

Quote from: bing_oh on July 30, 2007, 11:19:09 AM
We all know that the warnings we're talking about don't change behavior any longer than till that cruiser has disappeared from the rearview mirror, so saying that they accomplish the same thing is just rationalization.

That's not necessarily true. If someone just wasn't paying attention to their speed and they get flashed, that might very well wake them up for the rest of the day. Or maybe it won't. The same thing can be said about actually getting a traffic ticket. After the first couple of tickets I got, they no longer have any affect on my behavior at all. For example, after the last speeding ticket I got, once the officer had turned around to go back to his hiding spot, I took off and began driving even faster than I was before.  Partially out of spite, and partially because I now had to make up for all the time that was just wasted, but mostly out of spite.
:evildude:

bing oh writes:

QuoteI could really care less how much money the city or the local courts make off of each citation I write. It's not as if I get a bonus check for each ticket, so I'm not padding my paycheck or anything. In my area, the court gets the vast majority of the fines, and the rest (as little as it is) goes to the state and into the city's general fund, so my department doesn't directly benefit from the fines either.

But how many of those thousands of speed traps and legitimate municipalities that enhance their treasury with speeding fines do keep the money? 

QuoteIn the end, even if I write 1000 tickets a month, it would neither put me in a new vehicle in my driveway at home nor would it get me a new cruiser to drive at work.

What about if you wrote zero tickets?  How long would you keep your job?

QuoteCompaired to the amount of the department's budget that just comes from taxes, the cash we get from fines is laughably paltry.

Yet, there are thousands of places that created their own police departments just to collect fines and where the fines are a critical part of their ?budget.?  Remember, they have just as much authority as any state trooper in America and the money they extract is just as real as for any citation that you issue.

QuoteSpeed enforcement and the fines related to getting a ticket are intended to change driving behavior. Punishment is one way to do that.

We have known for years that citations do not alter long-term driving behavior, which is predicated upon the calculus of the car, the driver and the environment.  Consider, for example, that a two-lane roadway in upgraded to a four-lane divided highway; speeds increase with the improvement, yet the fatality rate will invariably drop.  If you put cops all over that upgraded road, you still couldn?t reduce the optimal and actual driving speeds on it.

Quote from: Tave on July 30, 2007, 11:21:55 AM
That's a good point, but do speeding tickets really change behavior either? I'd argue no, if for nothing other than the fact that tickets are fairly common and speeders even moreso.

No, you're absolutely correct that tickets don't always change behavior. Heck, I'm one of the guys who writes the tickets and I speed! However, I think that (at least for most people), citations do have a tendency to moderate behavior to a certain degree. The risk of a ticket keeps most people at a somewhat reasonable...if slightly higher than legal...speed. I don't see alot of 110 mph's in a School Zone.

In the end, punishment through monitary fines is an imperfect system for changing behavior. But, until someone comes up with a better solution, it's what we've got and what will continue to be used.

I don't know about anybody else, but the maine reason I dont' do 110 in School Zones is because I don't want to kill people.
But unless I see a bunch of kids running around near the road, I'm not likely to slow down to 15mph either.

Quote from: bing_oh on July 30, 2007, 12:03:55 PM
In the end, punishment through monitary fines is an imperfect system for changing behavior. But, until someone comes up with a better solution more profitable solution, it's what we've got and what will continue to be used.

fixed :lol:

Dont' worry, Virginia is already on it  :ohyeah:

Quote from: James Young on July 30, 2007, 12:02:14 PMBut how many of those thousands of speed traps and legitimate municipalities that enhance their treasury with speeding fines do keep the money?

Yet, there are thousands of places that created their own police departments just to collect fines and where the fines are a critical part of their ?budget.?? Remember, they have just as much authority as any state trooper in America and the money they extract is just as real as for any citation that you issue.

?
I don't, personally, agree with municipalities that do speed or other traffic enforcement just for monitary gain. Yes, those departments exist, though they're significantly less common that most people think. Most departments are very similar to the ones I've worked for...they enforce speed and other traffic violations in problem areas with the purpose to try to reduce crashes. AND, in the end, it's my job to enforce the law. That includes the traffic laws. Like 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.

QuoteWhat about if you wrote zero tickets?? How long would you keep your job?

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).

QuoteWe have known for years that citations do not alter long-term driving behavior, which is predicated upon the calculus of the car, the driver and the environment.? Consider, for example, that a two-lane roadway in upgraded to a four-lane divided highway; speeds increase with the improvement, yet the fatality rate will invariably drop.? If you put cops all over that upgraded road, you still couldn?t reduce the optimal and actual driving speeds on it.

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. Arresting, prosecuting, and (potentially) executing murders won't stop all murders from happening, but I still do it. And, before somebody even says it, no, speeding isn't murder. It's just an example.

But you're enforcing laws which shouldn't even be in place because they're not logical...

Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=10389.msg524590#msg524590 date=1185819952
But you're enforcing laws which shouldn't even be in place because they're not logical...

:rolleyes:

Raza talking about logic. Pot. Kettle. Black.

I would have a very hard time writing speeding tickets as a police officer.  Sure it's illegal, but I don't like being hypocritical.

I would, however, like to write tickets for improper merging (my best guess at the correct name).  People who merge onto the highway going under 40mph need to rethink some things...

LEO's here:  Do you ever write tickets or pull someone over to tell them merging at stupidly low speeds is dangerous and shouldn't happen?

Quote from: bing_oh on July 30, 2007, 12:29:04 PM
:rolleyes:

Raza talking about logic. Pot. Kettle. Black.

I'm completely logical all the time. 

Quote from: Champ on July 30, 2007, 01:38:02 PM
I would have a very hard time writing speeding tickets as a police officer.? Sure it's illegal, but I don't like being hypocritical.

I would, however, like to write tickets for improper merging (my best guess at the correct name).? People who merge onto the highway going under 40mph need to rethink some things...

LEO's here:? Do you ever write tickets or pull someone over to tell them merging at stupidly low speeds is dangerous and shouldn't happen?

I do that all the time!

Quote from: bing_oh on July 30, 2007, 12:03:55 PM
No, you're absolutely correct that tickets don't always change behavior. Heck, I'm one of the guys who writes the tickets and I speed! However, I think that (at least for most people), citations do have a tendency to moderate behavior to a certain degree. The risk of a ticket keeps most people at a somewhat reasonable...if slightly higher than legal...speed. I don't see alot of 110 mph's in a School Zone.

In the end, punishment through monitary fines is an imperfect system for changing behavior. But, until someone comes up with a better solution, it's what we've got and what will continue to be used.

Still though at the end  of the day its about the money.  I last got a speeding ticket in 01.  New vehicle, I wasn't used to it, I was 52 in a 45 zone.  Cop steps out of the driveway and zaps me with instant on.  I tell him my new car story.  He says, sorry I hve to ticket you but he then tells me how to beat the ticket.  Deferred adudication.  No other tickets for 3 months and this one goes away.    One can also take defensive driving to wipe a ticket off the books.  In each case the true pain of the ticket, higher insurance premiums, is negated but the jusisdiction gets its money in fees.  Its a game, they might as well call it a speed tax and be done with it.

Around here I rarely see cops setting up in areas of heavy traffic, areas where one might argue speed enforcement would have the greatest impact on safety.  No, 99 out of 100 times they set up on roads where the speed limit is low in comparison to the capabilities of the road (say where the speed limit changes from 55 to 45) and traffic is light, so they can easily pick out the offender.

Funny how study after study shows that the great majority of people tend to drive the safe speed for road conditions regardless of the posted limit. 

Where you guys out to be is in traffic, nailing the tailgater, the guy trying to weave through traffic at 20 MPH over the average, the dope reading a sales report and talking on his cell phone while pretenting to drive. 

Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=10389.msg524660#msg524660 date=1185824446
I'm completely logical all the time.?

No one is completely logical all the time.

Even ifcar's logic algorithms fail once in a while.

Well, I am never unlogical  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=10389.msg524590#msg524590 date=1185819952
But you're enforcing laws which shouldn't even be in place because they're not logical...

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

Quote from: the nameless one on July 30, 2007, 03:44:52 PM
Whats not logical about the need keeping speeds lower in school zones, residential areas, around public parks, etc.

That is somewhat logical. What isn't logical is getting a ticket for 80mph on a rural limited-access highway with very light traffic.

Quote from: bing_oh on July 30, 2007, 11:19:09 AM
I'll just get this out of the way right off the bat. I could really care less how much money the city or the local courts make off of each citation I write. It's not as if I get a bonus check for each ticket, so I'm not padding my paycheck or anything.

BS. How long would you HAVE the job if you stopped writing tickets? Hmm? It's part of what pays you, even if you don't think it does.

Quote
Speed enforcement and the fines related to getting a ticket are intended to change driving behavior. Punishment is one way to do that.

Warning about that punishment is another, And really what's the difference between warning someone that a speed trap is up ahead by flashing at them, or warning them that a speed trap is oput there if you were to see them at home before they left on that errand? or telling someone to be careful because the police announced enhanced enforcment? In every case, it's telling someone to be careful. So the difference is simply warning someone you don't know vs someone you DO. If you really want people to slow down in that area, then it's the same end result.

QuoteWe all know that the warnings we're talking about don't change behavior any longer than till that cruiser has disappeared from the rearview mirror, so saying that they accomplish the same thing is just rationalization.

And we all know that seeing the cruiser doesn't change the behavior any longer than till that cruiser is no longer visible, so yes, whether the person gets a warning and slows down or sees the cruiser and slows down, it DOES accomplish the same thing. The ONLY reason why it would be illegal is because with a flash warning the officer doesn't have the opportunity to write the ticket.

Quote from: the nameless one on July 30, 2007, 03:44:52 PM
Whats not logical about the need keeping speeds lower in school zones, residential areas, around public parks, etc.

I'm sorry, but I missed the part where people brought that shit up.

Oh yeah, it was you: because that's the only trick your pony knows, aint it?

Try actually reading any of these posts, and you'll see people are talking specifically about highways.

Quote from: the nameless one on July 30, 2007, 03:44:52 PM
Whats not logical about the need keeping speeds lower in school zones, residential areas, around public parks, etc.

That doesn't make all speed related laws logical. If they were, you wouldn't have officers even here admitting they don't always obey the speed laws. Why? Because most of them are arbitrary and not set by engineering principles, but financial ones, and '50s era safety ideas. (e.g. the Washington State Patrol had a pamphlet out that stated flat out that it took 900 ft to stop from 65 mph in a typical passenger car! I wish I still had a copy to scan...)

Quote from: bing_oh on July 30, 2007, 12:13:15 PM
 
Like 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.

We do complain to politicians, And we complain on forums like this with specific areas set up to vent about traffic laws.

Quote from: bing_oh on July 30, 2007, 12:13:15 PM
 
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. Arresting, prosecuting, and (potentially) executing murders won't stop all murders from happening, but I still do it. And, before somebody even says it, no, speeding isn't murder. It's just an example.

To use that analogy, what if I warned someone that they better not kill somone because it's stupid and they might get caught? I walk into a convenience store and someone tries to rob it. Shoudl I get in trouble if I tell teh robber that he'd better not kill anyone, as he's gonna get caught? Am I illegally getting in the way of a cop catching a potential murderer? Maybe that murder is only deflected by a week or month, but still happens? Is the logic that I, as a civilian, shouldn't tell people not to kill others?

It's just a speeding ticket and I'm warning someone to slow down. Me getting in trouble for that seems like the officer is being petty.

+ a bazillion, ChrisV, + a bazillion million :clap:

Quote from: Soup DeVille on July 30, 2007, 04:24:54 PM
I'm sorry, but I missed the part where people brought that shit up.

Oh yeah, it was you: because that's the only trick your pony knows, aint it?

Try actually reading any of these posts, and you'll see people are talking specifically about highways.

Ah, you guys keep CLAIMING you only mean highways, and then you guys get a glimmer of honesty and admit that many of you don't even want slower speeds in residential areas.
quote author=ChrisV link=topic=10389.msg524832#msg524832 date=1185834594]
That doesn't make all speed related laws logical. If they were, you wouldn't have officers even here admitting they don't always obey the speed laws. Why? Because most of them are arbitrary and not set by engineering principles, but financial ones, and '50s era safety ideas. (e.g. the Washington State Patrol had a pamphlet out that stated flat out that it took 900 ft to stop from 65 mph in a typical passenger car! I wish I still had a copy to scan...)

Quote

My main issue with your comment is that many of you guys apparently fail to realize that not every car out there is modern, well maintained or high performance. i see plenty of cars and trucks out there on the road that probably have no better performance than the cars of the 1950s you mentioned. Aside from that, you STILL have things that wont change with improved technology...issues like cars outrunning their headlights at night which is already a problem. Even if they did away with all daytime speed limits, issues like that would still require speed limits at night, for large trucks, etc.

Quote from: the nameless one on July 30, 2007, 04:40:47 PM
Ah, you guys keep CLAIMING you only mean highways, and then you guys get a glimmer of honesty and admit that many of you don't even want slower speeds in residential areas.

Bullshit :rolleyes:

Quote from: the nameless one on July 30, 2007, 04:40:47 PM
Ah, you guys keep CLAIMING you only mean highways, and then you guys get a glimmer of honesty and admit that many of you don't even want slower speeds in residential areas.

So you can read my mind too, huh Kreskin?

What, are you afraid to argue for the speed limits on highways so much you need to change the subject?

Quote from: NACar on July 30, 2007, 04:42:20 PM
Bullshit :rolleyes:

Not BS at all.

Quote from: Soup DeVille on July 30, 2007, 04:45:53 PM
So you can read my mind too, huh Kreskin?

What, are you afraid to argue for the speed limits on highways so much you need to change the subject?

I don't see where the subject is being changed at all. Nor do i see where the discussion was being limited to highways. While we are at it, by highways are you strictly talking about Interstates, or are we including, for instance, state routes? Should those people on those routes not be able to expect some relief from unfettrered speeding?

Quote from: the nameless one on July 30, 2007, 04:50:26 PM
Not BS at all.

Ok.

Quote from: the nameless one on July 30, 2007, 04:50:26 PM


I don't see where the subject is being changed at all. Nor do i see where the discussion was being limited to highways. While we are at it, by highways are you strictly talking about Interstates, or are we including, for instance, state routes? Should those people on those routes not be able to expect some relief from unfettrered speeding?

Then start reading at the beginning again and figure out what the subject is. It's OK, you can take your time.

And then maybe you can point out for me the instances where people endorsed "unfettered" speeding in "school zones, residential areas, around public parks, etc."

Or if you can't do that, put your strawman down and learn to actually think about what you're writing.

Quote from: Soup DeVille on July 30, 2007, 05:25:09 PM

And then maybe you can point out for me the instances where people endorsed "unfettered" speeding in "school zones, residential areas, around public parks, etc."

Or if you can't do that, put your strawman down and learn to actually think about what you're writing.

Its not a strawman; it was in earlier threads and i don't feel like digging back through them to prove my point.
i've read this thread from the beginning, no need to go back through it again.

from the OP:

Quote from: TurboDan on July 29, 2007, 11:34:50 AM
Yesterday, I was on a local road with a speed limit that is far too low. 

"Local road". Please tell me how thats an interstate being discussed, again?

Quote from: the nameless one on July 30, 2007, 05:41:41 PM
Its not a strawman; it was in earlier threads and i don't feel like digging back through them to prove my point.
i've read this thread from the beginning, no need to go back through it again.

So do you have a problem distinguishing between people or distinguishing between threads?

Or is it that if one person says one thing once, then you universally apply that statement to everyone?

Quote from: the nameless one on July 30, 2007, 05:41:41 PM


from the OP:

"Local road". Please tell me how thats an interstate being discussed, again?

Tell me where the fuck I said "interstate." Or do you not know the difference?

Quote from: the nameless one on July 30, 2007, 03:44:52 PM
Whats not logical about the need keeping speeds lower in school zones, residential areas, around public parks, etc.

You're back on that again? 

Quote from: 93JC on July 30, 2007, 02:52:18 PM
No one is completely logical all the time.

Even ifcar's logic algorithms fail once in a while.

:huh:

Well, I've been known to exaggerate. 

The road to get to my girlfriend's house has a 25 mph speed limit. Nobody drives that slowly; this is an open, winding residential road where 30-35 is more comfortable and perfectly safe. Occasionally cops will sit in someone's driveway just below a hill or in a driveway to the middle school on the same road. I always flash my beams if I see them. People never bomb down the road at an unsafe speed, the speed limit is simply stupidly low. I'm all for speed traps in high-risk areas, but I really don't want people driving at a reasonable speed to become victims of the local ticket quota.

I always flash my lights if I pass through a speed trap.

Quote from: the nameless one on July 30, 2007, 04:40:47 PM
Ah, you guys keep CLAIMING you only mean highways, and then you guys get a glimmer of honesty and admit that many of you don't even want slower speeds in residential areas.

schools zones =! speed traps. We're discussing slowing people down by flashing lights, vs letting officers slow them down. Either way people get slowed down.

Quote
My main issue with your comment is that many of you guys apparently fail to realize that not every car out there is modern, well maintained or high performance. i see plenty of cars and trucks out there on the road that probably have no better performance than the cars of the 1950s you mentioned. Aside from that, you STILL have things that wont change with improved technology...issues like cars outrunning their headlights at night which is already a problem. Even if they did away with all daytime speed limits, issues like that would still require speed limits at night, for large trucks, etc.

And yet, those of us with modern cars (and cars newer than 10 years old account for the bulk of cars on the road) are thus held to the same standards as clapped out cars from the '50s and heavy trucks. And you think that proves that sound engineering principles are behind speed laws? Speed traps aren't about catching those clunkers and big trucks that are low performance, they are about generating revenue and forcing everyone (and I daresay that a high performance car like, say a new Porsche, will be MORE likely to get pulled over for the same speeding offense as a beige '78 Fairmont, even though the Porsche is more safe at elevated speeds and able to stop faster and avoid more) to act like they are driving clapped out '50s cars.

Do you really think the officer will show educated discretion and let the new Porsche do 10-15 over in a 45 zone and pull over the Fairmont due to the elevated safety equipment of said Porsche? Or are those 15" disc brakes and sticky performance tires completely worthless as safety features?

If what you say is correct, then the emphasis patrols and speed traps would not be looking for mere speeders, but speeders in cars that are LESS SAFE. They do NOT do that. Therefore engineering principles and educated enforcement is not the goal.

BTW, even in the '50s, it didn't take 900 ft to stop a car from the 70 mph speed limits that were in effect. The WSP was merely wrong. But they acted on the assumption that they weren't.

Actually, in my area the code signal is flashing lights on/off.

Nonetheless, I used to do it, but now I don't.

Most choose to speed despite the well-known consequences - I just don't want to get involved.

Quote from: etypeJohn on July 30, 2007, 08:55:20 AM
Yes, it's illegal.  Considered the same as you going down the road a couple of miles before a speed trap and standing on the side of the road with a big sign that says,  "Traffic radar ahead, slow down."  Cops don't like that, despite the fact you are actually causing people to obey the speed limit, at least for the next couple of miles.    ;)

I was honestly asking if that was really illegal.  Never heard of it, but it sorta makes sense......oh btw...i'm still going to flash people if i have the chance, most of the time though its to warn of an accident behind me or something.... :huh:

Quote from: footoflead on July 31, 2007, 10:07:58 AM
oh btw...i'm still going to flash people if i have the chance

Keep livin' wild, girlfriend.

Quote from: Secret Chimp on July 31, 2007, 10:52:03 AM
Keep livin' wild, girlfriend.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote from: Secret Chimp on July 31, 2007, 10:52:03 AM
Keep livin' wild, girlfriend.

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!

Quote from: footoflead on July 31, 2007, 10:07:58 AM
I was honestly asking if that was really illegal.? Never heard of it, but it sorta makes sense......oh btw...i'm still going to flash people if i have the chance, most of the time though its to warn of an accident behind me or something.... :huh:

If it makes sense, then shouldn't the road commision guys who put up the "warning: speed checked by radar" signs also be ticketed?

 :lol:

I think it'd be interesting to see what happens if they put an unmarked photo radar unit on the highway in a large U.S. city. My bet is traffic court would come to a grinding halt.

Hell, in Scottsdale they had more tickets than they could do something with, and those units had a sign in front of them.

If I see a cop in hiding,I flash to oncoming drivers for a half mile or so.Many down my way seem to know what it is and often flash back to give a "OK".

Edit: post by accident

Quote from: ChrisV on July 31, 2007, 09:43:32 AM

schools zones =! speed traps. ........
And yet, those of us with modern cars (and cars newer than 10 years old account for the bulk of cars on the road) are thus held to the same standards as clapped out cars from the '50s and heavy trucks. And you think that proves that sound engineering principles are behind speed laws? Speed traps aren't about catching those clunkers and big trucks that are low performance, they are about generating revenue and forcing everyone (and I daresay that a high performance car like, say a new Porsche, will be MORE likely to get pulled over for the same speeding offense as a beige '78 Fairmont, even though the Porsche is more safe at elevated speeds and able to stop faster and avoid more) to act like they are driving clapped out '50s cars.

Do you really think the officer will show educated discretion and let the new Porsche do 10-15 over in a 45 zone and pull over the Fairmont due to the elevated safety equipment of said Porsche? Or are those 15" disc brakes and sticky performance tires completely worthless as safety features?

If what you say is correct, then the emphasis patrols and speed traps would not be looking for mere speeders, but speeders in cars that are LESS SAFE. They do NOT do that. Therefore engineering principles and educated enforcement is not the goal.

BTW, even in the '50s, it didn't take 900 ft to stop a car from the 70 mph speed limits that were in effect. The WSP was merely wrong. But they acted on the assumption that they weren't.

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.

Yes, all vehicles are held to the same standards. Just because you are behind the wheel of an expensive  sports car does NOT mean that you are any safer a driver than the guy behind the wheel of an older car. "Educated discretion"..yeah, right. That sports car will wrap itself around a tree just as well as a clunker. A local guy did that a while back..took a Porsche out for a test drive from the dealership..he didn't even OWN it...wrapped it around a tree in an S curve. Driver was DRT. So please, spare us the "my cars REAL expoensive so I desreve a break" argument.

BTW, contrary to your belief that older car is just as likely to get pulled over, but usually for something other than speeding...stuff like equipment violations. If that older car is being pulled over, odds are its some young kid whose driving because that all they can afford and they are driving unsafely ( speeding, reckless driving, etc ).

Get over this "its all about the revenue" argument guys like James make. Sure, he can point to a few cities that used their police to inflate their coffers...fines are the penalty for breaking the law. No fines= no penalty for breaking the law.

I've seen the same arguments made on this board over and over, I don't need to dig back to every thread to say exactly which poster made which claim.

There definitely are speed traps.  You've obviously never been to New Jersey.

A road that has a 40mph speed limit that suddenly drops to 30 for no reason (that is, the composition of the road does not change), and conveniently there's a cop sitting right there. 

Or if the cop is exceptionally cheeky and in an unmarked car, he can tailgate you so you don't slow down and then he hits the lights as soon as you cross into the 30mph zone, getting you for at least 10 over. 

That's a speed trap. 

Quote from: the nameless one on August 02, 2007, 05:46:35 AM
Get over this "its all about the revenue" argument guys like James make. Sure, he can point to a few cities that used their police to inflate their coffers...fines are the penalty for breaking the law. No fines= no penalty for breaking the law.

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

Quote from: the nameless one on August 02, 2007, 05:46:35 AM

Yes, all vehicles are held to the same standards.
LOL, yeah right.  Two times I have been ticketed in the Jaguar.  both times I was in the middle of a pack all going about 5-8 over the speed limit, both times the roads were three lanes each way and the speed limit was 50.  In each case I was in the middle lane, in the middle of the pack going no faster than the SUVs and invisible grey or beige Camrys around me.  My red sports car stuck out like a sore thumb. 

Get over this "its all about the revenue" argument guys like James make. Sure, he can point to a few cities that used their police to inflate their coffers...fines are the penalty for breaking the law. No fines= no penalty for breaking the law.  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.

Quote from: etypeJohn on July 30, 2007, 08:55:20 AM
Yes, it's illegal.  Considered the same as you going down the road a couple of miles before a speed trap and standing on the side of the road with a big sign that says,  "Traffic radar ahead, slow down."  Cops don't like that, despite the fact you are actually causing people to obey the speed limit, at least for the next couple of miles.    ;)

Haha, I read about a case a few years ago where someone actually did that.  The police, for whatever reason, only had permission to set up a speed trap along one portion of a road, and a guy who owned a store nearby posted a huge sign on his property warning people of a possible trap ahead.  I think the guy may have actually won in court when the town tried to sue him or something.

(http://www.vdofunny.com/data/cop-warning-sign.jpg)

Quote from: etypeJohn on July 30, 2007, 02:15:05 PM
Around here I rarely see cops setting up in areas of heavy traffic, areas where one might argue speed enforcement would have the greatest impact on safety. 

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

Quote from: the nameless one on July 30, 2007, 05:41:41 PM
"Local road". Please tell me how thats an interstate being discussed, again?

Yeah, but I wasn't going 80, either.  It is a semi-rural road (in the middle of NJ, with alot of fields on either side, houses 1/2 mile apart, well set back in the woods), with a speed limit of 35.  Traffic, generally, moves at about 45-50, and in 15 years of living in the area, I have never seen a single accident on the road. 

Quote from: Raza  on August 02, 2007, 05:55:44 AM

Or if the cop is exceptionally cheeky and in an unmarked car, he can tailgate you so you don't slow down and then he hits the lights as soon as you cross into the 30mph zone, getting you for at least 10 over. 

That's a speed trap. 

I haven't seen the tailgating thing done by any local departments, but it's an NJSP specialty.  I've seen it done multiple times, including once where the NJSP car left another car he had pulled over and finished with, got in the left lane doing well over the limit, got behind a minivan who had ZERO opportunity to change lanes, tailgated until the van got fast enough to pass the other cars and got in the right lane, then swooped in with lights flashing.  Disgusting.

Quote from: TurboDan on August 02, 2007, 09:05:37 AM
I haven't seen the tailgating thing done by any local departments, but it's an NJSP specialty.? I've seen it done multiple times, including once where the NJSP car left another car he had pulled over and finished with, got in the left lane doing well over the limit, got behind a minivan who had ZERO opportunity to change lanes, tailgated until the van got fast enough to pass the other cars and got in the right lane, then swooped in with lights flashing.? Disgusting.

They got my brother on 206 in Princeton; 42 in a 40, which changed to 30.  Cop wasn't hearing anything.  License, regs, insurance, ticket. 

I had a cop dogging me today.  I drove exactly the speed limit until he got in the left lane, accelerated quickly and passed me, continuing to do at least 10-15mph over the limit.  No lights. 

Quote from: Raza  on August 02, 2007, 05:55:44 AM
There definitely are speed traps.  You've obviously never been to New Jersey.

A road that has a 40mph speed limit that suddenly drops to 30 for no reason (that is, the composition of the road does not change), and conveniently there's a cop sitting right there. 

Just wanted to reply to that one.  Most of the time, I've seen this in summer beach towns, not regular residential areas in NJ.  In New Jersey, at least, many of the mayors/councils will openly talk about ticket revenue generation.  In many towns, the police departments actually oppose this and have even fought the towns on it.  In other places, like Belmar, the mayor basically uses the department as his personal ATM machine and the department (because the mayor micro-manages the whole show) just takes it.

Quote from: TurboDan on August 02, 2007, 08:56:29 AM
In an area of heavy traffic, wouldn't the traffic be flowing too slow for anyone to be speeding?

Most urban freeways I've been on have heavy traffic going anywhere between the speed limit and 15 over.

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

Quote from: etypeJohn on August 02, 2007, 09:13:32 AM
Most urban freeways I've been on have heavy traffic going anywhere between the speed limit and 15 over.

It is quite a thrill driving through the NYC freeways, everyone doing 75-80mph, cars just inches apart. It's like NASCAR or something.? :lol:

Quote from: TBR on August 02, 2007, 10:24:29 AM
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. 

Quote from: TurboDan on August 02, 2007, 08:56:29 AM
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.

Quote from: etypeJohn on August 02, 2007, 10:57:25 AM
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.

Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=10389.msg527431#msg527431 date=1186055860
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?

QuoteCatching 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......

bing oh writes:

QuoteI'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.

QuoteDepends 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.

QuoteOnce 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.

bing oh writes:

QuoteI'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.

QuoteDepends 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.

QuoteOnce 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.

Quote from: the nameless one on July 30, 2007, 03:44:52 PM
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.   :banghead:

Quote from: the nameless one on July 30, 2007, 04:50:26 PM
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.

Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=10389.msg525529#msg525529 date=1185901503
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

Quote from: the nameless one on August 02, 2007, 05:46:35 AM
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.

Quote from: the nameless one on August 02, 2007, 05:08:31 PM
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.

Quote from: James Young on August 02, 2007, 09:16:25 PM
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.

Quote from: James Young on August 02, 2007, 10:03:37 PM
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.

There certainly are benefits to speed limits.


Oh, you meant for drivers.

Quote from: the nameless one on August 02, 2007, 05:13:28 PM
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.

Quote from: etypeJohn on August 03, 2007, 06:08:51 AM
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). 

:lol:

Quote from: the nameless one on August 03, 2007, 05:24:26 AM
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.

Quote from: James Young on August 03, 2007, 10:06:10 AM
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.

Quote from: the nameless one on August 03, 2007, 11:22:02 AM
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. 

Quote from: the nameless one on August 03, 2007, 11:22:02 AM
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. 

Quote from: James Young on August 03, 2007, 12:43:22 PM
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?

Quote from: etypeJohn on August 03, 2007, 01:01:33 PM
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.

Quote from: James Young on August 03, 2007, 01:11:43 PM
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.

Quote from: etypeJohn on August 03, 2007, 06:08:51 AM
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.

Quote from: James Young on August 02, 2007, 10:03:37 PMMy 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.

QuoteWait...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).

Quote from: James Young on August 04, 2007, 01:04:48 PM
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.

Quote from: the nameless one on August 04, 2007, 05:21:26 PM
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.

Quote from: the nameless one on August 04, 2007, 05:21:26 PM
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.

James, I'm not going to sit here and try to convince you that increased speeds always mean increased numbers of crashes. I've worked in my job long enough to know that the reasons behind crashes are unique and that speed may or may not be a contributing factor. However, for you to imply that increased speeds don't also increase the chances of serious injury or death is ludicrous! No matter the advanced engineering we put into our roadways and vehicles, the laws of physics and the durability of the human body are pretty much static things. The damage done in an impact at 65mph vs. the same impact at 95mph is a matter of physics and physiology, and there's no doubt in my mind that the damage done at 95mph is going to be greater.

We can argue all day that changes in the speed limits may or may not have an effect on the number of crashes. But, when the crashes DO happen, higher speeds will effect the likelihood of serious injury or death.

bing oh writes:

QuoteJames, I'm not going to sit here and try to convince you that increased speeds always mean increased numbers of crashes.

Yet, that is exactly the argument NHTSA, the insurance industry, et al have been making.? And it is a large part of the ?thinking? behind our irrational speed limit patchwork.

QuoteI've worked in my job long enough to know that the reasons behind crashes are unique and that speed may or may not be a contributing factor.

Excellent progress; I applaud you for that.? There are still a lot of people out there who don?t have the confidence to even raise the question.

QuoteHowever, for you to imply that increased speeds don't also increase the chances of serious injury or death is ludicrous! No matter the advanced engineering we put into our roadways and vehicles, the laws of physics and the durability of the human body are pretty much static things. The damage done in an impact at 65mph vs. the same impact at 95mph is a matter of physics and physiology, and there's no doubt in my mind that the damage done at 95mph is going to be greater.

That is a separate argument.? The physics are widely-known and not in dispute.? The reason we have implemented many of those technological improvements, e.g., collapsible barriers, seatbelts and airbags, is to mitigate the physics.? That is why ? along with improved traffic flow ? our newer highways don?t have intersections, which are high-risk locations.? Remember, our whole system is designed around the concept of keeping speeds up because higher speeds have a value for us, individually and collectively.? The economic cost of the NMSL ? not counting the elevated crashes due to traveling less than optimal speed ? has been estimated at over a trillion dollars.? What did that cost us, perhaps research leading to a cure for diabetes, or extra pollution that threatens millions??

QuoteWe can argue all day that changes in the speed limits may or may not have an effect on the number of crashes. But, when the crashes DO happen, higher speeds will effect the likelihood of serious injury or death.

The statistical trends of higher speeds and lower injury rates (per 100 million VMT) tell us that that effect has been largely mitigated.?

Edited to add:  NB: I'll be out of touch for a few days as I'm moving back to So Cal.  I'll respond as necessary once I get set up out there.  As the Texas surfer says, "Hang loose, y'all."

I'm the same as Dazzleman. I recognize speed limits and general traffic enforcement as necessary, though I (like the vast majority of the driving public) don't always follow suit.

I have to ask James Young: What is your specific vision for safer roads in regards to traffic enforcement? A de-emphasis? Lesser fines? Simply no enforcement?

Quote from: GoCougs on August 05, 2007, 09:37:19 AM
I'm the same as Dazzleman. I recognize speed limits and general traffic enforcement as necessary, though I (like the vast majority of the driving public) don't always follow suit.

I have to ask James Young: What is your specific vision for safer roads in regards to traffic enforcement? A de-emphasis? Lesser fines? Simply no enforcement?

What speed do you generally do on the highway, GoCougs?? Are you a 70 mph guy, and 80 mph guy, or higher?? I'm generally an 80 mph guy under the right conditions.? Are you ticket-prone, or are they a rare thing for you?

Have you ever heard the old saying, "Laws are meant to guide wise men, and restrain fools"?  There are lots of fools out there who need restraining.... :rolleyes:

Quote from: GoCougs on August 05, 2007, 09:37:19 AM
I have to ask James Young: What is your specific vision for safer roads in regards to traffic enforcement? A de-emphasis? Lesser fines? Simply no enforcement?

First and foremost, all traffic laws must adhere to scientific principles, that is, any assertions made by the law must have a testable basis rather than mere conjecture.  If they can?t prove the worth of a law, they can?t have the law.

The two key words are dangerous and flow.  If you?re dangerous or you?re interfering with traffic flow, you should be the target of enforcement.

I would do away with ?speeding? enforcement altogether in favor of a refocus on egregiously dangerous behavior AND on keeping traffic flowing smoothly.  I don?t care if dazzleman runs 85 mph on a current 70 mph highway, nor does society.  If dazzleman is running 70 mph in a 70 mph zone and eating a meal (with a knife and fork!  I just saw it today!)  then we need to step in.  The real reasons we enforce "speeding" are it's common, it's easy to measure, and it's profitable, none of which is a legitimate reason for a law. 

If a driver is running 70 mph and the rest of traffic wants to run 80 mph, that driver must move over to the far right.  That?s a legitimate focus for enforcement. 

Enforcement of law for profit is a crime against society, particularly evil because it is conducted under cover of authority and it gives reason not to trust those who enforce all laws.  If all fines, courts costs, administrative fees and the plethora or other surcharges were to be paid to a public corporation and to be used for scholarships only, enforcement would evaporate except that which is justifiable to be paid out of taxes. 

I have to say, I am glad I didn't get pulled over by that Mass state trooper who was tailgating me for a few minutes today while I was doing 75-80 in a 65. No, I didn't even slow down, because I was going with the flow. After there was a break in traffic, I pulled to the right so he could go intimidate some other people instead. All the n00bs ahead of me slowed down and moved over real quick for him, and that's when I had to hit the brakes because all of a sudden all these slow people were in front of me.

Quote from: James Young on August 04, 2007, 07:59:04 PM
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.

To a degree it will. The other day I witnessed a guy have to do a last minute manuever around a person that was stoped in the road turning left. i have no doubt that had the trail vehicle been going faster than s/he was, I would have witnessed a rear end impact. who knows how many of those almost happen every year but because theres no impact theres no documentation of the incident.

QuoteThe 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.?

Fine and dandy on Interstates then, except for the issue then of seasonal differences on roadways; what do we do about the REST of the US road system. The Interstates are only a per centage of all US roadways. I don't see you limiting your arguments to interstates for the most part unless its convenient for you.

QuoteYou 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.?

Howe much are the dead and maimed around us worth to you?

QuoteDo 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.

My basis are your on-going posts. You are entirely self-centered in wanting all speed limits removed. That much is obvious.

Quote from: dazzleman on August 05, 2007, 11:22:42 AM
What speed do you generally do on the highway, GoCougs?? Are you a 70 mph guy, and 80 mph guy, or higher?? I'm generally an 80 mph guy under the right conditions.? Are you ticket-prone, or are they a rare thing for you?

Have you ever heard the old saying, "Laws are meant to guide wise men, and restrain fools"?? There are lots of fools out there who need restraining.... :rolleyes:

Around the city, the freeway limit is 60 mph, and like just about any major population center, the flow can move faster (up to 70 mph), so I'll follow suit. Outside the city, especially in the eastern part of the state, the limit is 70 mph. I'll usually do 5-7 mph over. My average time between infractions is about 4 years. I simply view it as taxation.

And yes, there are a lot of fools out on the roads. One kicking enforcement program is the Washington state patrol's unmarked car patrol. They use random average unmarked cars (Volvo, F-150, Subaru, etc.) that drive with the flow of traffic looking for aggregious offenders. That is brilliant because that is how the fools are best found IMO. However, I still see a lot of the side-of-the-road speed enforcement, so I don't know the exact mix of the two. One is far more effective in making the roads safer.

Quote from: GoCougs on August 05, 2007, 07:16:03 PM
Around the city, the freeway limit is 60 mph, and like just about any major population center, the flow can move faster (up to 70 mph), so I'll follow suit. Outside the city, especially in the eastern part of the state, the limit is 70 mph. I'll usually do 5-7 mph over. My average time between infractions is about 4 years. I simply view it as taxation.

And yes, there are a lot of fools out on the roads. One kicking enforcement program is the Washington state patrol's unmarked car patrol. They use random average unmarked cars (Volvo, F-150, Subaru, etc.) that drive with the flow of traffic looking for aggregious offenders. That is brilliant because that is how the fools are best found IMO. However, I still see a lot of the side-of-the-road speed enforcement, so I don't know the exact mix of the two. One is far more effective in making the roads safer.

How do you manage to get nailed for an infraction even every four years if you only go around 10 mph over the speed limit, typically?? That sounds pretty frequent for such a low level of speeding.  Do you log a lot of miles a year on the road?

The only thing that saves me from more frequent tickets is the fact that I only drive about 8,000 miles per year.

Quote from: dazzleman on August 05, 2007, 08:02:09 PM
How do you manage to get nailed for an infraction even every four years if you only go around 10 mph over the speed limit, typically?? That sounds pretty frequent for such a low level of speeding.? Do you log a lot of miles a year on the road?

The only thing that saves me from more frequent tickets is the fact that I only drive about 8,000 miles per year.

I do drive a lot; 25,000/year the last 7 years or so.

The last ticket was for 10 mph over, but prior to that it was a right turn on a red arrow.

Quote from: James Young on August 05, 2007, 06:45:35 PM
First and foremost, all traffic laws must adhere to scientific principles, that is, any assertions made by the law must have a testable basis rather than mere conjecture.? If they can?t prove the worth of a law, they can?t have the law.

The two key words are dangerous and flow.? If you?re dangerous or you?re interfering with traffic flow, you should be the target of enforcement.

I would do away with ?speeding? enforcement altogether in favor of a refocus on egregiously dangerous behavior AND on keeping traffic flowing smoothly.? I don?t care if dazzleman runs 85 mph on a current 70 mph highway, nor does society.? If dazzleman is running 70 mph in a 70 mph zone and eating a meal (with a knife and fork!? I just saw it today!)? then we need to step in.? The real reasons we enforce "speeding" are it's common, it's easy to measure, and it's profitable, none of which is a legitimate reason for a law.?

If a driver is running 70 mph and the rest of traffic wants to run 80 mph, that driver must move over to the far right.? That?s a legitimate focus for enforcement.?

Enforcement of law for profit is a crime against society, particularly evil because it is conducted under cover of authority and it gives reason not to trust those who enforce all laws.? If all fines, courts costs, administrative fees and the plethora or other surcharges were to be paid to a public corporation and to be used for scholarships only, enforcement would evaporate except that which is justifiable to be paid out of taxes.?

What you are proposing is forced subjective enforcement. This presents myriad issues; effective LE training likely being the most pronounced. Enter the fairly rigid, known (by both sides) and measurable system that is current traffic enforcement. That is is such a thing is its importance.

The closest that you'll get IMO is the "road rage" patrols performed by the Washington State Patrol. In this program they use completely random, unmarked vehicles (Volvo, F-150, Accord, etc.) that spend an entire shift driving with traffic incognito looking for aggregious driving behaviors. I do not know how much the WSP spends on this program. I would not be opposed to seeing the majority of their efforts spent doing such things.

Quote from: etypeJohn on August 03, 2007, 06:08:51 AMI refuse to buy that sticker however, it reeks of tribute.

It reeks of good investment to me.  If they had something similar here I'd be all over it.  If you can't beat them then you have to somehow survive.

Quote from: James Young on August 05, 2007, 08:43:12 AMThat is a separate argument.? The physics are widely-known and not in dispute.? The reason we have implemented many of those technological improvements, e.g., collapsible barriers, seatbelts and airbags, is to mitigate the physics.? That is why ? along with improved traffic flow ? our newer highways don?t have intersections, which are high-risk locations.? Remember, our whole system is designed around the concept of keeping speeds up because higher speeds have a value for us, individually and collectively.? The economic cost of the NMSL ? not counting the elevated crashes due to traveling less than optimal speed ? has been estimated at over a trillion dollars.? What did that cost us, perhaps research leading to a cure for diabetes, or extra pollution that threatens millions?

It seems you love the science and statistics of speed enforcement, but you miss one major factor...THE HUMAN FACTOR. No matter what amazing technological and engineering advancements we implement on the roadways (except, perhaps, totally removing the human driver from the vehicle), there WILL be crashes. People make poor choices. People act on impulse. People just plain screw up. Remember that the vast majority of crashes can be directly attributed to human error, as opposed to some mechanical or engineering defect. Speed limits are in place to try to mitigate some of the risk when someone screws up.

You may consider it a separate argument, but I see them at undeniably linked.

And that mentality gives us limited driver training, arbitrarily low "limits" and massive dollars spent in enforcement and clean up after the fact.

"People are stupid and can't be trained." You didn't say it directly, but you sure implied it. And you wonder why people feel so badly about the officers who feel that the public is stupid and has to be saved from themselves...

Quote from: ChrisV on August 06, 2007, 07:38:28 AM
And that mentality gives us limited driver training, arbitrarily low "limits" and massive dollars spent in enforcement and clean up after the fact.

"People are stupid and can't be trained." You didn't say it directly, but you sure implied it. And you wonder why people feel so badly about the officers who feel that the public is stupid and has to be saved from themselves...

I implied no such thing. You took my statements and applied your own personal bias about LEO's and what you believe they think to interpeting it.

I basically stated that people are prone to error and poor judgement. Note that I said "people," not civilians or non-LEO's or whatever...human beings. Do you disagree with that?

Quote from: the nameless one on August 05, 2007, 06:54:55 PM
To a degree it will. The other day I witnessed a guy have to do a last minute manuever around a person that was stoped in the road turning left. i have no doubt that had the trail vehicle been going faster than s/he was, I would have witnessed a rear end impact. who knows how many of those almost happen every year but because theres no impact theres no documentation of the incident.? Of course this ignores the possibility that the driver of the trailing vehicle might have been playing with his car radio, yakking on the phone, reading or anything else that might have distracted him.? Sounds to me lik e the guy was distracted or following too close.? Aren't those ticketable offenses in your jurisdiction?? ?And if a lot of that is going on in that area perhaps a left turn lane is needed.

My personal theory is that the police spend so much time of speeders is that speeding is the easiest to prove, it's black and white.? You clock someone going 50 in a 35 zone you have quantifiable evidence.? Following too closely, C&R, C&I, distracted driving and the like are more difficult to prove which means more are probably willing to fight the ticket, which increases enforcement costs and lowers revenue.?

Speeding on the other hand is a slam dunk.? And the cops don't even need to invest in equipment.? Don't insurance companies still offer radar and laser guns to police departments? talk about self interest.? Insurance companies giving cops the means to write more tickets which will in turn increase the insurance rates of drivers.? Sweet.



Howe much are the dead and maimed around us worth to you?? Depends on who you ask.  But I like that.  When every other argument falls apart, go for the tear jerker statement.

Quote from: etypeJohn on August 06, 2007, 10:56:07 AMSpeeding on the other hand is a slam dunk.  And the cops don't even need to invest in equipment.  Don't insurance companies still offer radar and laser guns to police departments? talk about self interest.  Insurance companies giving cops the means to write more tickets which will in turn increase the insurance rates of drivers.  Sweet.

Could you tell me what insurance company gives out free radar units? I'm using a radar right now that's probably older than most of the posters on here, and that's the same for about 90% of the vehicles in our fleet.

Quote from: ChrisV on August 06, 2007, 07:38:28 AM
And that mentality gives us limited driver training, arbitrarily low "limits" and massive dollars spent in enforcement and clean up after the fact.

"People are stupid and can't be trained." You didn't say it directly, but you sure implied it. And you wonder why people feel so badly about the officers who feel that the public is stupid and has to be saved from themselves...

In general it's true- sorry if it makes you mad at me- but in general it is true. 

Quote from: bing_oh on August 06, 2007, 10:44:06 PM
Could you tell me what insurance company gives out free radar units? I'm using a radar right now that's probably older than most of the posters on here, and that's the same for about 90% of the vehicles in our fleet.

Honestly, if you have a good, working and certified X-band unit, you'll catch a lot of us unawares, as most people have long since ignored X-band signals.

BTW, insurance companies have occasionally "donated" some equipment to different departments, but it happens in such limitted quantities that I doubt you have much of a chance. Give AAA a call though, they've done it in the past, and it might be worth a shot.

Quote from: bing_oh on August 06, 2007, 10:44:06 PM
Could you tell me what insurance company gives out free radar units? I'm using a radar right now that's probably older than most of the posters on here, and that's the same for about 90% of the vehicles in our fleet.

My car has a Decatur that says "commission date 1994" and then the certification number assigned by Dr. Lee.  He doesn't even do certifications for like the last 8 years.

Quote from: Soup DeVille on August 06, 2007, 11:13:50 PM
Honestly, if you have a good, working and certified X-band unit, you'll catch a lot of us unawares, as most people have long since ignored X-band signals.

BTW, insurance companies have occasionally "donated" some equipment to different departments, but it happens in such limitted quantities that I doubt you have much of a chance. Give AAA a call though, they've done it in the past, and it might be worth a shot.

My understanding is Geico has given a significant number of guns to police departments.? This was reported both in CandD and R&T a while back.

Quote from: etypeJohn on August 07, 2007, 05:21:14 AM
My understanding is Geico has given a significant number of guns to police departments.  This was reported both in CandD and R&T a while back.

http://www.motorists.org/fightticket/home/economics-behind-free-laser-guns/

Geico invested heavily into Laser Tech, the leading traffic LIDAR manufacturer, and they give away radar and laser units to any police agency that wants to write more tickets.

Quote from: rohan on August 06, 2007, 11:14:06 PM
My car has a Decatur that says "commission date 1994" and then the certification number assigned by Dr. Lee.  He doesn't even do certifications for like the last 8 years.

Is that a Decatur Genesis? the kind that gives off notoriously false readings?

http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=2&aid=62159

Quote from: rohan on August 06, 2007, 11:12:38 PM
In general it's true- sorry if it makes you mad at me- but in general it is true. 

Then don't be surprised when the general public you are sworn to serve and protect, consider you a donut eating revenue generating taxman with no clue.  :banghead:

Quote from: ChrisV on August 07, 2007, 05:48:54 AM
http://www.motorists.org/fightticket/home/economics-behind-free-laser-guns/

Geico invested heavily into Laser Tech, the leading traffic LIDAR manufacturer, and they give away radar and laser units to any police agency that wants to write more tickets.

Your choice of link is interesting. Somehow, I don't think that a website specifically dedicated to "motorists rights" and beating tickets is an unbiased one when it comes to the subject of speeding. And, their article says that insurance companies donate radar/laser units to LE, but doesn't back up the claim, using a fictional insurance company for their article.

So, I decided to Google, looking for anything that supported your claim that insurance companies (specifically Geico) have a practice of donating radar or laser units to law enforcement agencies at no cost. I found several blogs and personal websites where the posters claim that they "know for a fact" that Geico has this practice but, once again, no documented proof. Of course, I can also find several websites where the posters "know for a fact" that the government has implanted radio tracking devices into their teeth or that they're being abducted by little green men from Regulus, but they don't have documented proof, either. The internet is a wonderful place where you can find support for pretty much any belief. ;)

Now, is it possible that Geico, at some point in the past, donated speed measurement devices to police agencies? Yep. It's relatively common for large corporations to donate funds to police agencies in the area in which they're headquartered. The donations make very good PR for the company and are tax deductable. However, unless I see unbiased information that shows that this is a common practice (and it's sure one I've never heard of, I'll tell you that right now), I won't believe that it's any more than perhaps an isolated donation made by a corporation.

Quote from: ChrisV on August 07, 2007, 05:51:26 AM
Then don't be surprised when the general public you are sworn to serve and protect, consider you a donut eating revenue generating taxman with no clue.? :banghead:

that's fine as long as the general public doesn't get upset that we see them as whiney little women who only think they can drive but have no real clue how to handle a car and no real or formal driver training beyond what they got in high school making most driving Americans more dangerous than swimming in a tank with a great white shark- and that the general public is mostly morons with no social graces or common sence.

Quote from: ChrisV on August 07, 2007, 05:48:54 AM
Is that a Decatur Genesis? the kind that gives off notoriously false readings?

Sorry- not a Decatur.  It's a Kustom Signal- apologies.

Quote from: ChrisV on August 07, 2007, 05:51:26 AM
Then don't be surprised when the general public you are sworn to serve and protect, consider you a donut eating revenue generating taxman with no clue. :banghead:

I found this comment funny.  When I got into my accident, the fire dept and paramedic arrived before the police dept to the scene of the accident, even though the police department was within view right behinid the Krispy Kreme.  The Officers didn't arrive on scene until about 10 mins after tha paramedics and fire dept arrived.   And when the officers were arriving, I heard the firemen making remarks, sayng " oh, they're finally here, I bet their faces are covered in the glazes from the donuts".

Not a bash, just thought this was interesting..

Let?s begin with a point of agreement.  Do you believe that law should be based on fact rather than conjecture?  I assume that you do.

?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.?  -- JY

the nameless one writes:

QuoteTo a degree it will.

Do you dispute the data or do you just not understand the premise?

We have more drivers in more cars on more roads and the crash rate just continues to decline year after year, the injury and fatality rates more so. 

QuoteFine and dandy on Interstates then, except for the issue then of seasonal differences on roadways; what do we do about the REST of the US road system. The Interstates are only a per centage of all US roadways. I don't see you limiting your arguments to interstates for the most part unless its convenient for you.

Roads are roads.  The 85th and 95th percentile speeds automatically adjust for the road type.  I think the bigger issue is that you are just obsessively opposed to reasonable speeds.

QuoteHowe much are the dead and maimed around us worth to you?

Fair question.  Actuarial science can ascertain that and compare to the cost of the limits.  However, implicit in your question is the incorrect assumption that higher limits mean more deaths.  It just ain?t so.   

QuoteMy basis are your on-going posts. You are entirely self-centered in wanting all speed limits removed. That much is obvious.

Not self-centered at all since everybody  benefits from rational laws.

Quote from: GoCougs on August 05, 2007, 09:37:59 PM
What you are proposing is forced subjective enforcement. This presents myriad issues; effective LE training likely being the most pronounced. Enter the fairly rigid, known (by both sides) and measurable system that is current traffic enforcement. That is is such a thing is its importance.

We have too long substituted the precisely quantifiable for the effective.  The assumption that because we can differentiate between two vehicles traveling in different lanes to a fraction of an mph, that it is important that we do so.  It doesn't really make a rat's @ss.  We should be looking at three things and three things only:  crash-rate, injury-rate and fatality-rate, each per 100 million VMT.  Period.  Any traffic law must be judged on those criteria alone.

Subjective?  Perhaps, but that is why we recruit, train, equip and commission professionals, expecting judgment and discretion.  Why would we want to waste those resources by doing something that doesn?t work?

Quote from: bing_oh on August 05, 2007, 10:29:04 PM
It seems you love the science and statistics of speed enforcement, but you miss one major factor...THE HUMAN FACTOR. No matter what amazing technological and engineering advancements we implement on the roadways (except, perhaps, totally removing the human driver from the vehicle), there WILL be crashes. People make poor choices. People act on impulse. People just plain screw up. Remember that the vast majority of crashes can be directly attributed to human error, as opposed to some mechanical or engineering defect. Speed limits are in place to try to mitigate some of the risk when someone screws up.

You may consider it a separate argument, but I see them at undeniably linked.

The science and the data already reflect the human factor.  That is why we have developed these mitigating technologies. 

There are two separate arguments at bar.  One is that the number of crashes is reduced if speed limits are reduced.  This is the NHTSA and IIHS argument.  There is no data to support it.  It is false.

The second is that lower speed limits translate to lower driving speeds that mitigate the physics of crashes.  Again, the physics are not in dispute.  However, the reason we have all those crumple zones and bumpers, airbags, padded interiors, and seatbelts is so that we can travel faster because faster has a very real value.

I flash my headlights to warn of speed traps all the time. Why? Because most places I see cops is where enforcement is NOT needed for safety, but is rather to exploit an under-posted speed limit or an inadequately posted drop in the speed limit (like the 4 lane that runs a couple of miles from my house, I had been driving on it for 6+ months and never noticed it went down to 45 until my wife pointed it out to me one night...the new speed limit sign is about 2/3rds the size of all the other signs on the road).

Start enforcing the limit on a regular basis AWAY from a 55-65 mph highway and I'll beleive that its not all about looking good on a review or a town making extra money to build a new community center.

Quote from: James Young on August 07, 2007, 06:15:46 PMThe second is that lower speed limits translate to lower driving speeds that mitigate the physics of crashes.? Again, the physics are not in dispute.? However, the reason we have all those crumple zones and bumpers, airbags, padded interiors, and seatbelts is so that we can travel faster because faster has a very real value.

You have more confidence in vehicle safety technology than I do, that's for sure. I don't imagine that anything I say will change your opinion one iota, but I wouldn't rely too heavily on that technology to save you in a serious high-speed crash. Technology has its limits, and I've seen what happens when those "high tech innovations" come face-to-face with physics. Physics remains but the technology tends to be shredded and scattered across a corn field.

Quote from: bing_oh on August 06, 2007, 10:44:06 PM
Could you tell me what insurance company gives out free radar units?

GEICO, State Farm, Allstate.  Also IIHS, the tax-exempt lob bying arm of the insurance industry.

Quote from: James Young on August 07, 2007, 10:55:57 PM
GEICO, State Farm, Allstate.? Also IIHS, the tax-exempt lob bying arm of the insurance industry.

Once again, I can locate absolutely no unbiased information that indicates that any of these insurance companies or the IIHS regularly donate speed measurement devices to police agencies. The only mention of this supposed practice shows up on "motorists rights" sites that tell you how to (supposedly) get out of a ticket and give you the contact info for traffic attornies and places like buyradardetectors.com.

At this point, I'm not believing this at all. It sounds like some sort of giant anti-driver conspiracy theory between the cops and the insurance companies. Apparently, you guys don't realize that we probably hate the insurance companies more than you do! They're the bastards that keep making our crash reports longer, more complicated, and more time-consuming! Plus, we pay insurance premiums just like everybody else...

Quote from: James Young on August 07, 2007, 05:43:18 PM
Roads are roads.? The 85th and 95th percentile speeds automatically adjust for the road type.? I think the bigger issue is that you are just obsessively opposed to reasonable speeds.

Roads are NOT "just roads". There are plenty of non-Interstate roads that can clearly not handle anywhere near the speeds you'd like to drive on them. Your definition of "reasonable speeds" would be downright reckless around here. If western states with flat open roads wants to up the speed limit a few MPH, which they've done in the past few years..then fine. To say there should be NO speed limit though? Sorry, can't agree there.


[ quote]
Not self-centered at all since everybody? benefits from rational laws.

Quote

Doing away with speed limits does not constitute a "rational law".

Quote from: bing_oh on August 07, 2007, 11:19:44 PM
Once again, I can locate absolutely no unbiased information that indicates that any of these insurance companies or the IIHS regularly donate speed measurement devices to police agencies. The only mention of this supposed practice shows up on "motorists rights" sites that tell you how to (supposedly) get out of a ticket and give you the contact info for traffic attornies and places like buyradardetectors.com.

At this point, I'm not believing this at all. It sounds like some sort of giant anti-driver conspiracy theory between the cops and the insurance companies. Apparently, you guys don't realize that we probably hate the insurance companies more than you do! They're the bastards that keep making our crash reports longer, more complicated, and more time-consuming! Plus, we pay insurance premiums just like everybody else...

They used to publicize such donations as a PR gimmick, their contribution to highway traffic safety.  Now, they obfuscate and sidestep.

Of course, we can all believe what we want, including Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and truth in advertising.  The economics of such donations dictates that the insurance industry provide such units to enforcement.  As a beginning to any critical analysis complying with Ockham's Razor, we must determine which explanation provides the best explanation of any institutional behavior.  This model tells us far more than any alternative.

It does not require any conspiracy at all but a mere convergence of interests.  Insurance companies benefit from providing radar/laser units to the police because they generate tickets that, in turn, generate surcharges, literally a charge for nothing.  That is a great business model.  A convergence of interests requires only that independent parties perform certain actions that are good for them and coincidentally benefit another independent party.  It isn?t necessary that they even cooperate, much less like each other.

OTOH, the police benefit because they get equipment that they would otherwise have to pay for.  This way, they can get  K-9 unit or a radio.

Quote from: the nameless one on August 07, 2007, 11:36:49 PM
Roads are NOT "just roads". There are plenty of non-Interstate roads that can clearly not handle anywhere near the speeds you'd like to drive on them. Your definition of "reasonable speeds" would be downright reckless around here. If western states with flat open roads wants to up the speed limit a few MPH, which they've done in the past few years..then fine. To say there should be NO speed limit though? Sorry, can't agree there.

I don't think i've ever seen James argue for the complete abolishment of speed laws: I've seen him argue for changes in the way we set and enforce them, but never have I once seen him say anything about outright abolishing them.

Quote from: James Young on August 07, 2007, 10:55:57 PM
GEICO, State Farm, Allstate.  Also IIHS, the tax-exempt lob bying arm of the insurance industry.

Geico was a founding member of the IIHS. ;)

Quote from: Soup DeVille on August 08, 2007, 12:18:14 AM
I don't think i've ever seen James argue for the complete abolishment of speed laws: I've seen him argue for changes in the way we set and enforce them, but never have I once seen him say anything about outright abolishing them.

None of us have. We've advocated using engineering principles and common sense. Apparently petulance is rampant amongst police officers who seem to think that if we don't like the current laws (or the way they are enforced), we must not want ANY laws. That sort of extremist argument/response is childish.

Oh, and there's a beautiful example of a speed trap on my way to work. A 35 mph road (wide, 2 lane street) that has a downhill curve in it that halfway through this sweeping curve, the speed limit drops to 25 mph, and right after that sign, officers regularly sit radaring traffic coming down the hill around the corner. The sign sneaks up on you and by the time you see it, it's hard to get slowed down in time to miss getting caught on radar at 35 (which is now 10 over). Heaven forbid you were doing 5 over in the 35 zone. A LOT of tickets are generated there, and I always flash to warn people to spow down after I go by it in the other direction.

Oh, and the speed limit rises back to 35 a block or so after the corner...

I go the opposite way and for some reason they never look that direction.

Quote from: ChrisV on August 08, 2007, 05:39:50 AM
Oh, and there's a beautiful example of a speed trap on my way to work. A 35 mph road (wide, 2 lane street) that has a downhill curve in it that halfway through this sweeping curve, the speed limit drops to 25 mph, and right after that sign, officers regularly sit radaring traffic coming down the hill around the corner. The sign sneaks up on you and by the time you see it, it's hard to get slowed down in time to miss getting caught on radar at 35 (which is now 10 over). Heaven forbid you were doing 5 over in the 35 zone. A LOT of tickets are generated there, and I always flash to warn people to spow down after I go by it in the other direction.

Oh, and the speed limit rises back to 35 a block or so after the corner...

I go the opposite way and for some reason they never look that direction.

There's one near a dealership area 40 minutes.  Four lanes, 45mph, and a steep enough downhill that if you're not actively on the brakes, you'll gain 10-15mph just coasting down.