Preface: Entirely my fault and I wasn't paying attention at all.
75 in a 60 (good thing he didn't see me a few miles earlier).
Undercover guy in a Chevy Malibu, had like 1 antenna in the back and was burried in a ton of cars.? I glanced at it but didn't look twice, he was some old guy so I didn't even think about it since that is a pretty popular car.? Some guy cut in front of me so I used one of the lanes that was about to end to pass this group of cars.? I get out in front of everybody and it's smooth sailing til I see the Malibu feverishly trying to work his way through the pack of cars.? Crap.
Here he comes? :pullover:
He didn't get radar on me but said he would guess me at 75.? I didn't really want to argue because I was probably going 80ish.
I don't think I'm going to do the court option because he got me fair and square. I'm a honorable guy and if you treat speeding like a game, this time I slipped and he won... I'll say "good game" and move on.
$140 for the ticket.
That sucks, but you're a good sport about it.
No radar? He "guessed" you were going 75? This sounds like an easily winnable case. Go to court.
Quote from: TurboDan on May 14, 2007, 12:00:03 PM
No radar?? He "guessed" you were going 75?? This sounds like an easily winnable case.? Go to court.
I don't like that attitude. I've been busted a few times and every time I deserved it. I was speeding and I got caught. He knows he was speeding and he got caught. The guy didn't have a gun on him, but he knew he was speeding and actually guessed low. He got caught...fair and square. If the cop guessed high or he wasn't speeding at all, he should fight it.
Quote from: HEMI666 on May 14, 2007, 12:42:09 PM
I don't like that attitude. I've been busted a few times and every time I deserved it. I was speeding and I got caught. He knows he was speeding and he got caught. The guy didn't have a gun on him, but he knew he was speeding and actually guessed low. He got caught...fair and square. If the cop guessed high or he wasn't speeding at all, he should fight it.
It's all a game.? If they catch me fair-and-square, fine.? I don't complain.? But if they catch me without any evidence and only "think" I was speeding, why should I readily hand over my money without a fight?? There's nothing honorable about paying a speeding ticket.?
Personally, I think EVERYONE who receives a speeding ticket should choose to go to court and take advantage of their right to a trial. If enough people did it, it wouldn't be as much of a money maker.
I have been discussing on another forum, and I think I may just try to talk to the prossecutor at the courthouse and see if I can get some kind of plea bargain.
The money for the ticket or the ticket itself isn't the issue, it's the corresponding insurance hike I am worried about. I wouldn't mind a $150 taillight out ticket for instance.
insurance companies donate radar guns to teh police
thats because they know they'll get their money back and then some
and it's good press
Quote from: TurboDan on May 14, 2007, 12:54:44 PM
It's all a game.? If they catch me fair-and-square, fine.? I don't complain.? But if they catch me without any evidence and only "think" I was speeding, why should I readily hand over my money without a fight?? There's nothing honorable about paying a speeding ticket.?
Personally, I think EVERYONE who receives a speeding ticket should choose to go to court and take advantage of their right to a trial. If enough people did it, it wouldn't be as much of a money maker.
We have a winner!
Basic speed enforcement takes way too much of our valued police officiers' time, and it does so for one and only one reason: to make up for revenue shortfalls.
I hold no ill will towards the good men and women who are doing their job; but that doesn't mean i'm going to roll over and play dead either.
I think most would agree 15 over does deserve a ticket on all but the largest and most barren of freeways. IMO, the no-ticket threshold should be 10 over or less; unless it's a crowded arterial, school zone, etc.
I just got popped two weeks ago for 65 in a 55 on a four lane controlled access highway. The citing officer didn't even check my insurance, or call in my license. It was literally a two minute process.
Nonetheless, as at least a few have stated, that's the game: people know the consequences if caught.
I, like many, don't want to take at least half a day to go to a court date; in this specific case my only recourse would be to lie - which I'm not going to do.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 14, 2007, 09:49:31 PM
I, like many, don't want to take at least half a day to go to a court date; in this specific case my only recourse would be to lie - which I'm not going to do.
No, there's no need to lie, and I would never endorse doing so in court.
Most times you can plea bargain to a lesser-points or no points infraction.
If you really want to be a pain the ass, file a motion for discovery to check the certifications for whatever speed measuring device you got popped with. File for a continuance.
I wouldn't lie in court either, but I've generally found it's not necessary to lie in order to get a reduced fine or points.
The whole thing is a game, no different than negotiating on the price of a new car. Would you go into the dealer and pay full sticker price? This is really no different.
The thing to remember is that in order to make money, they depend upon people just mailing in the fine. As soon as you show up in court, they lose money, even if they charge you the full fine. And the more of their time you take up, the more they lose. So at that point, as long as your record is not terrible, their goal is to get rid of you with the least possible involvement on their part. That's why they usually offer you a sweetheart deal when you first show up not to contest the ticket further, in my experience.
My attitude is -- I'll speed; I know I'll get nailed occasionally, and when I do, I'll deal with it without complaint. It's all part of the game. When you get nailed, you make the best deal you can, and suck it up. And then get back on the road and keep speeding. :evildude:
So I thought I'd be nice and go slow yesterday afternoon - you know, to see what all the fuss is about "driving the speed limit."
So I set my cruise for 60 in a 60. Felt like I was going to cause an accident because people were screaming by me like I was a brick wall. Bumped it up to 65. I passed 2 cars in about 6 miles of this, and lost track of how many passed me, one of which included a school bus!
I found myself to start daydreaming and not paying attention like I usually do. The speed has an added benefit of keeping you alert.
So back to speeding.
Unless things have changed very recently, there isn't a point system in Washington state. A moving violation is a moving violation; a no-blinker ticket is the same as 15 mph over. The only other possible outcome record-wise is to win or otherwise have the ticket thrown out. Not very likely in most cases I would think.
My ticket was only $71 (he wrote it for 5mph over). It's just not worth the hassle for me to fight the system and spend hours at the court house. And yes, you bet that the powers that be know this fact. This was an out-of-town ticket as well (250 miles from home) adding profoundly so to the hassle factor.
I'm worried about my insurance more than the cost of ticket. A non-moving violation doesn't change your insurance rate.
Cougs, depending on the situation, you could easily have a 5mph infraction thrown out alltogether. The judge might even reprimand the officer for issuing such a petty ticket.
But I can understand not wanting to make that drive.
My insurance wouldn't go up for a ticket like that anyways, so I wouldn't care about it, but seventy bucks ain't pidgin feed, though it might be less than you'd spend on gas going there and back.
It may not be pidgeon feed to you, but it probably is to Cougs.
Quote from: Tave on May 15, 2007, 01:17:09 PM
Cougs, depending on the situation, you could easily have a 5mph infraction thrown out alltogether. The judge might even reprimand the officer for issuing such a petty ticket.
But I can understand not wanting to make that drive.
My insurance wouldn't go up for a ticket like that anyways, so I wouldn't care about it, but seventy bucks ain't pidgin feed, though it might be less than you'd spend on gas going there and back.
The ticket was actually written as "65+ in a 60." Either the judge will know what "+" means, or he'd ask me, which I was told by the officer was a gimme such that he could write the cheapest ticket possible. Even so, I can't ever imagine a judge remprimanding an officer in such a manner.
Even if the courthouse were local I wouldn't contest. Experience has shown me that it simply isn't worth the time and hassle; of which there is plenty when having to go to traffic court (I've done it three times).
Quote from: GoCougs on May 15, 2007, 09:41:07 PM
The ticket was actually written as "65+ in a 60." Either the judge will know what "+" means, or he'd ask me, which I was told by the officer was a gimme such that he could write the cheapest ticket possible. Even so, I can't ever imagine a judge remprimanding an officer in such a manner.
Even if the courthouse were local I wouldn't contest. Experience has shown me that it simply isn't worth the time and hassle; of which there is plenty when having to go to traffic court (I've done it three times).
So you're a repeat offender, man...... :nono: :lol:
I've been to traffic court a few times too. In its own way, it can be pretty entertaining. I really didn't mind going at all.
Last time I went to court for a ticket, I took the whole day off from work, and I was home from court by 10:30 AM and able to thoroughly enjoy the rest of the day. It was one of the nicest days of the year, so it worked out great.
Quote from: dazzleman on May 15, 2007, 10:26:24 PM
So you're a repeat offender, man...... :nono: :lol:
I've been to traffic court a few times too.? In its own way, it can be pretty entertaining.? ?I really didn't mind going at all.?
Last time I went to court for a ticket, I took the whole day off from work, and I was home from court by 10:30 AM and able to thoroughly enjoy the rest of the day.? It was one of the nicest days of the year, so it worked out great.
Actually, I guess I am. I've also had a few wrecks in there, too...
Up until two weeks ago, I've had a clean record for the last five years or so. The last time I went to court I got a pretty sweet deal, come to think of it.
The district had just implemented a no-contest policy where by someone with a clean record could plead no-contest, and have the ticket expunged with a $100 fine. Any infraction within a year though and the ticket (and original fine) would be reinstated though. I kept it clean until this, however.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 15, 2007, 09:41:07 PM
Even so, I can't ever imagine a judge remprimanding an officer in such a manner.
I had a friend written for 3 over in a 30. When he took it to court, the judge looked the officer square in the eyes and said, "don't ever bring me another ticket like this again. Case dismissed."
Quote from: TBR on May 15, 2007, 07:38:49 PM
It may not be pidgeon feed to you, but it probably is to Cougs.
Well in that case, I've got a few pidgeon's in my back yard that are getting hungry. Cougs, if you would be so kind...
:lol:
Quote from: Tave on May 16, 2007, 09:30:58 AM
I had a friend written for 3 over in a 30. When he took it to court, the judge looked the officer square in the eyes and said, "don't ever bring me another ticket like this again. Case dismissed."
I completely agree with the judge. That margin is probably with many a car's speedo error. My case wasn't exactly that, however ("60+ in a 55").
And cut me some slack; the ticket was 250 miles from home! $50 in gas a full day of driving just wouldn't be worth it!
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 14, 2007, 08:18:06 PM
We have a winner!
Basic speed enforcement takes way too much of our valued police officiers' time, and it does so for one and only one reason: to make up for revenue shortfalls.
I hold no ill will towards the good men and women who are doing their job; but that doesn't mean i'm going to roll over and play dead either.
Nope. Speeding is the single largest category of complaint received by agencies.
The fine money doesn't come close to covering the costs of the ticket if it goes to trial.
edited to clarify language
I feel bad for those who have to fight tickets. :(
Quote from: the nameless one on May 16, 2007, 07:03:13 PM
Nope. Speeding is the single greatest type of complaint received by agencies.
The fine money doesn't come close to covering the costs of the ticket if it goes to trial.
Absolutely, 100% wrong. Most numerous (which unsubstantiated) does not equal the "greatest," not even by the most drug-and-NHTSA induced stretch of the imagination. By far the most numerous complaints are the most petty. Noise disturbances rank pretty high on complaint lists too. But they are not "great" complaints either.
My point is that not enough tickets go to trial: and it is an undeniable fact that speeding fines are a huge net gain. Taking more to trial would reduce the economic benefits of speeding fines greatly.
Go ahead and look it up: city and state budgets are public domain.
Quote from: Tave on May 16, 2007, 09:30:58 AM
I had a friend written for 3 over in a 30. When he took it to court, the judge looked the officer square in the eyes and said, "don't ever bring me another ticket like this again. Case dismissed."
wow i would have laughed in the cops face after that if he gave me that ticket :lol:
Quote from: TheIntrepid on May 16, 2007, 08:59:50 PM
I feel bad for those who have to fight tickets. :(
Why feel sorry for them?? It's very easy to avoid a ticket if you really don't want to deal with one, and most tickets are well deserved.
Don't get me wrong.? I'm not trying to be a 'holier than thou' type here.? I've had my share of tickets, and so have a lot of my friends.? But for the most part, we deserved all of them, and a lot more, so I don't think anybody should have felt sorry for us.? With some of the stuff we got away with, the tickets we got were nothing.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 16, 2007, 08:38:54 AM
Actually, I guess I am. I've also had a few wrecks in there, too...
Up until two weeks ago, I've had a clean record for the last five years or so. The last time I went to court I got a pretty sweet deal, come to think of it.
The district had just implemented a no-contest policy where by someone with a clean record could plead no-contest, and have the ticket expunged with a $100 fine. Any infraction within a year though and the ticket (and original fine) would be reinstated though. I kept it clean until this, however.
I'd take a ticket over a wreck any day of the week.
Maybe you can get the same outcome this time as you got for your last ticket. It sounds like a sweet deal.
Quote from: TheIntrepid on May 16, 2007, 08:59:50 PM
I feel bad for those who have to fight tickets. :(
Why? It really isn't that big a deal, at least not in NYS.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 16, 2007, 09:55:13 PM
Absolutely, 100% wrong. Most numerous (which unsubstantiated) does not equal the "greatest," not even by the most drug-and-NHTSA induced stretch of the imagination. By far the most numerous complaints are the most petty. Noise disturbances rank pretty high on complaint lists too. But they are not "great" complaints either.
My point is that not enough tickets go to trial: and it is an undeniable fact that speeding fines are a huge net gain. Taking more to trial would reduce the economic benefits of speeding fines greatly.
Go ahead and look it up: city and state budgets are public domain.
OK, I meant numerous. You put/ read your own definition of "greatest" into what I said.
Fines are not a net gain. How do you figure a ticket that will garner on average around a hundred and fifty bucks ( or less ) is a profit for the writing agency/officer or the court? Since in most places the fine money doesn't stay local, looking up city budgets is meaningless unless the agency are citing under a local law. Around here and in many places the money goes to the state, and when everything is balanced out those fines dont cover the expenses involved. Of course there will be those states where the money stays local and of course all the speed demons here and elsewhere like to point to those few examples.....
Quote from: HEMI666 on May 14, 2007, 12:42:09 PM
I don't like that attitude. I've been busted a few times and every time I deserved it. I was speeding and I got caught. He knows he was speeding and he got caught. The guy didn't have a gun on him, but he knew he was speeding and actually guessed low. He got caught...fair and square. If the cop guessed high or he wasn't speeding at all, he should fight it.
You don't "deserve" to get caught unless you're doing three times the limit on a surface street.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 15, 2007, 08:57:21 AM
Unless things have changed very recently, there isn't a point system in Washington state. A moving violation is a moving violation; a no-blinker ticket is the same as 15 mph over. The only other possible outcome record-wise is to win or otherwise have the ticket thrown out. Not very likely in most cases I would think.
My ticket was only $71 (he wrote it for 5mph over). It's just not worth the hassle for me to fight the system and spend hours at the court house. And yes, you bet that the powers that be know this fact. This was an out-of-town ticket as well (250 miles from home) adding profoundly so to the hassle factor.
$71 and 5 over is a throwaway in PA. No points. I'd have loved that, but since I was doubling the speed limit, I had to take a 6 over.
Quote from: the nameless one on May 20, 2007, 09:32:50 PM
OK, I meant numerous. You put/ read? your own definition of "greatest" into what I said.
Fines are not a net gain. How do you figure a ticket that will garner on average around a hundred and fifty bucks ( or less ) is a profit for the writing agency/officer? or the court? Since in most places the fine money doesn't stay local, looking up city budgets is meaningless unless the agency? are citing under a local law. Around here and in many places the money goes to the state, and when everything is balanced out those fines dont cover the expenses involved. Of course there will be those states where the money stays local and of course all the speed demons here and elsewhere like to point to those few examples.....
In most places it goes to the municipality. Period. Not only does it go to the municipality, but there are federal funds that are dependant on certain levels of enforcement.
Do you know what A-133 or GASB 34 is?
Look, my wife audits the city governments of most of southest Michigan. Not only is traffic enforcement a huge net gain, but if you look at the ratio of tickets given per capita and compare that to the financial troubles of that same city the correlation is obvious.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 21, 2007, 05:41:30 PM
In most places it goes to the municipality. Period. Not only does it go to the municipality, but there are federal funds that are dependant on certain levels of enforcement.
Do you know what A-133 or GASB 34 is?
Look, my wife audits the city governments of most of southest Michigan. Not only is traffic enforcement a huge net gain, but if you look at the ratio of tickets given per capita and compare that to the financial troubles of that same city the correlation is obvious.
Fine amounts must be tremendously more where you live, then.
Quote from: NACar on May 14, 2007, 01:49:00 PM
insurance companies donate radar guns to teh police
thats because they know they'll get their money back and then some
and it's good press
Who do I call to get free radar units? :huh:
Quote from: Catman on May 21, 2007, 07:52:04 PM
Who do I call to get free radar units? :huh:
Who do
I call to get free radar guns? I really want to see how fast I can wave my hand in front of my face.
Quote from: the nameless one on May 21, 2007, 07:44:42 PM
Fine amounts must be tremendously more where you live, then.
They seem to be pretty consistant throughout the US.
Honestly, think about. Police officers have to be on duty- whether they are actively ticketing people or not we still need a police force for more important matters. The labor cost of having police ticketing people is debatable, as are court costs. Even if there were no speed limits, we would still need courts and police forces.
How long does it take to write a ticket anyways? 10 minutes? 15? And the fine is going to be at least $70, more often $100 to $200. How is this not a profitable exercise?
The following is an excerpt from a May 2007 story ran in the Canton Ohio newspaper:
Troopers stopped 1.4 million drivers and wrote 563,565 tickets in 2006, including citations to 1,410 drivers for driving faster than 100 mph, the newspaper said...
...Fifty-seven of the state?s 1,537 troopers wrote more than 1,000 tickets, including one state trooper who issued 1,530 citations while working Interstate 80, which runs east-to-west in northern Ohio. That's right- across the state of Ohio, 1537 trooper wrote an average of 366 tickets apiece: levying an estimated $50 million on fines.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 21, 2007, 05:41:30 PM
In most places it goes to the municipality. Period. Not only does it go to the municipality, but there are federal funds that are dependant on certain levels of enforcement.
Do you know what A-133 or GASB 34 is?
Look, my wife audits the city governments of most of southest Michigan. Not only is traffic enforcement a huge net gain, but if you look at the ratio of tickets given per capita and compare that to the financial troubles of that same city the correlation is obvious.
In MA all traffic fines are divided 50/50 between the municipality and the state. In my town it goes into the town's general fund. It's really not any kind of benefit to us financially and in the eleven years I've been there I haven't seen any pressure from the town hall to write more citations. If anything I've seen a bit of pressure from the chief since he hears so many speeding complaints from residents.
Quote from: Catman on May 21, 2007, 07:58:34 PM
In MA all traffic fines are divided 50/50 between the municipality and the state.? In my town it goes into the town's general fund.? It's really not any kind of benefit to us financially and in the eleven years I've been there I haven't seen any pressure from the town hall to write more citations.? If anything I've seen a bit of pressure from the chief since he hears so many speeding complaints from residents.
I've heard that argument before, and I believe you when you say you've never had any pressure from the town hall: but then again, how many times has the mayor ever given you an order? Would you listen to it if he did?
When you hear a speeding complaint from a resident, tell me: is that resident complaining about a speeder on the interstate, or about one zooming down the street in front of his house yards away from where his kids play?
Why then does it seem that speed enforcement is more concerned with higher traffic areas than residential neighborhoods? It couldn't possibly be simply "fishing where the fish are plentiful," could it?
I love the "there's no financial benefit" argument as well. No, the police department rarely sees any direct benefit, and "quotas" are against most union work rules. However, that's like me taking 20 dollars from you, putting ten into my left pocket, ten into my right and then showing you my empty hands. Except in this case, you are the hands, the state is one pocket, and the city is another.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 21, 2007, 08:06:16 PM
I've heard that argument before, and I believe you when you say you've never had any pressure from the town hall: but then again, how many times has the mayor ever given you an order? Would you listen to it if he did?
When you hear a speeding complaint from a resident, tell me: is that resident complaining about a speeder on the interstate, or about one zooming down the street in front of his house yards away from where his kids play?
Why then does it seem that speed enforcement is more concerned with higher traffic areas than residential neighborhoods? It couldn't possibly be simply "fishing where the fish are plentiful," could it?
I love the "there's no financial benefit" argument as well. No, the police department rarely sees any direct benefit, and "quotas" are against most union work rules. However, that's like me taking 20 dollars from you, putting ten into my left pocket, ten into my right and then showing you my empty hands. Except in this case, you are the hands, the state is one pocket, and the city is another.
I think I need to act that one out, but I'm a big picture guy. Give me 80 dollars.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=9120.msg455759#msg455759 date=1179799940
I think I need to act that one out, but I'm a big picture guy.? Give me 80 dollars.?
Only if you have eight hands.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 21, 2007, 08:16:34 PM
Only if you have eight hands.
I've got five pockets. 50 bucks?
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=9120.msg455778#msg455778 date=1179800407
I've got five pockets.? 50 bucks?
Sure, next time you catch me speeding, and convince me to pull over.
Quote from: Catman on May 21, 2007, 07:58:34 PM
In MA all traffic fines are divided 50/50 between the municipality and the state. In my town it goes into the town's general fund. It's really not any kind of benefit to us financially and in the eleven years I've been there I haven't seen any pressure from the town hall to write more citations. If anything I've seen a bit of pressure from the chief since he hears so many speeding complaints from residents.
I thought it went into the police officer's donut fund. It kind of takes care of itself. You eat too many donuts and the less people you can catch.
Quote from: sparkplug on May 21, 2007, 08:26:56 PM
I thought it went into the police officer's donut fund.
Doesn't work like that really. Every three months we get a catalog with all kinds of cool merchandise listed. You can order stuff based on the number of citations you write, not unlike the candy bar sales drive they have in elementary school. I'm really struggling to get the all-in-one flashlight/microwave this quarter. Looks like I'll be hanging around the school zone tomorrow. :rockon:
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 21, 2007, 08:23:13 PM
Sure, next time you catch me speeding, and convince me to pull over.
You don't want to tempt me with that, Sir Loyn. I have 6 seasons of Dukes of Hazzard on DVD. I
know how make people pull over.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=9120.msg455817#msg455817 date=1179801125
You don't want to tempt me with that, Sir Loyn.? I have 6 seasons of Dukes of Hazzard on DVD.? I know how make people pull over.?
Jesus Christ dude, I just spit my coffee all over my keyboard!
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 21, 2007, 08:06:16 PM
I've heard that argument before, and I believe you when you say you've never had any pressure from the town hall: but then again, how many times has the mayor ever given you an order? Would you listen to it if he did?
When you hear a speeding complaint from a resident, tell me: is that resident complaining about a speeder on the interstate, or about one zooming down the street in front of his house yards away from where his kids play?
Why then does it seem that speed enforcement is more concerned with higher traffic areas than residential neighborhoods? It couldn't possibly be simply "fishing where the fish are plentiful," could it?
I love the "there's no financial benefit" argument as well. No, the police department rarely sees any direct benefit, and "quotas" are against most union work rules. However, that's like me taking 20 dollars from you, putting ten into my left pocket, ten into my right and then showing you my empty hands. Except in this case, you are the hands, the state is one pocket, and the city is another.
We don't do hardly any enforcement on the highway, the state does. Most of the complaints center around secondary roads and neighborhoods. We catalog the complaints and assign officers accordingly. We don't have quotas during normal operations. When the state sponsors click it or ticket or OUI/seat belt enforcement they want citations (call it a quota). If you want the OT you write tickets, if not don't work. Whether you love the argument or not really doesn't matter much to me. I'm not going to sugar coat anything for you. You have a disdain toward enforcement and that's fine but often the argument on your side is overstated.
If it makes you feel better I haven't written a citation in over a year. :praise:
Quote from: Catman on May 21, 2007, 08:38:10 PM
We don't do hardly any enforcement on the highway, the state does. Most of the complaints center around secondary roads and neighborhoods. We catalog the complaints and assign officers accordingly. We don't have quotas during normal operations. When the state sponsors click it or ticket or OUI/seat belt enforcement they want citations (call it a quota). If you want the OT you write tickets, if not don't work. Whether you love the argument or not really doesn't matter much to me. I'm not going to sugar coat anything for you. You have a disdain toward enforcement and that's fine but often the argument on your side is overstated.
If it makes you feel better I haven't written a citation in over a year. :praise:
I used to be pretty sympathetic to people complaining about drivers going fast on local streets. I, personally, do not go fast on residential streets - but some people are insane and do go fast. That said, I really think that the IQs of most parents have gone down exponentially in recent years. In my parents' neighborhood, I often see toddlers playing ALONE in the street. The parents put up little "caution, children playing" signs that they bought at Target or something, expecting cars to slow down so that their children can continue playing in the middle of the street unsupervised.
There was one day when the kids had actually set up a little fort in the middle of the street, and drivers had to nervously navigate around it, fearing that they'd accidentally hit a kid and wind up being sued and losing their car, home, and everything else. And if a kid did get hit - the media wouldn't frame it as a lunatic parent who's too lazy to supervise their children, they'd frame it as "speeders going too fast down streets where children play." Honestly, the people on my parents' street are the extreme. There are literally 3 year olds playing in the middle of the street without anyone around. I've contemplated reporting them anonymously to DYFS (child welfare in NJ) or putting a note in their mailbox. One of those kids is going to end up dead some day if their parents don't get on the ball.
Quote from: TurboDan on May 14, 2007, 12:00:03 PM
No radar?? He "guessed" you were going 75?? This sounds like an easily winnable case.? Go to court.
If their laws are anything like Michigans, I would just void that ticket if he fought it, and write "prima-facia speed violation" . He was probably traveling the speed limit when you passed him. If that's the case- you lose.
Quote from: TurboDan on May 14, 2007, 12:54:44 PM
It's all a game.? If they catch me fair-and-square, fine.? I don't complain.? But if they catch me without any evidence and only "think" I was speeding, why should I readily hand over my money without a fight?? There's nothing honorable about paying a speeding ticket.?
Speeding isn't a game- it's a dangerous thing and it 's results often kill people. Seeing you drive past him when he's doing the speed limit is evidence enough- And it's completely honorable to be honest.
For every 10 mph more you travel the stopping distance quadrupples- or so the accident investigations god in his classes-
Dr. Daniel G. Lee, Ph.D., Director of Highway Traffic Safety Programs, Civil & Environmental Engineering, Michigan State University.
Speed doesn't kill.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 15, 2007, 12:14:24 AM
No, there's no need to lie, and I would never endorse doing so in court.
Most times you can plea bargain to a lesser-points or no points infraction.
If you really want to be a pain the ass, file a motion for discovery to check the certifications for whatever speed measuring device you got popped with. File for a continuance.
In Michigan they are not required anymore to be certified by Dr. Lee at MSU. Now the manufacturers are the ones who certify them. There is nothing to discover anymore- been that way for about 10 years.
Quote from: rohan on May 21, 2007, 09:29:29 PM
where did I say speed kills?
"Speeding isn't a game- it's a dangerous thing and it 's results often kill people."
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 21, 2007, 05:41:30 PM
In most places it goes to the municipality. Period. Not only does it go to the municipality, but there are federal funds that are dependant on certain levels of enforcement.
Do you know what A-133 or GASB 34 is?
Look, my wife audits the city governments of most of southest Michigan. Not only is traffic enforcement a huge net gain, but if you look at the ratio of tickets given per capita and compare that to the financial troubles of that same city the correlation is obvious.
Since your in Michigan I can you're wrong.? If the municipality has adopted the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code, then that municipality gets 1/3 of the FINES only -on most tickets the fines only make up somewher e around $30 or so bucks- ther rest are court costs and fees.? The other 2/3's of the fines go the the county sheriff department and the state police.? The court of the county the ticket was written gets those.? Most tickets only get the municipality around 10-15 bucks per citation- but the? bigger ones like DWLS or OUIL get them alot more.? A OUIL gets the municipality somewhere around $600 and then the department can ask for a judgement against the defedant for "eemergency response fees" up to $650 but generally they are given only about $200-350 for that.? Now if the municipality has their own traffic court and magistrate they can collect all of the money but they have to pay all the clerks and magistrates in that court so in the end it's usually more than they collect.
Quote from: Raghavan on May 21, 2007, 09:30:10 PM
"Speeding isn't a game- it's a dangerous thing and it 's results often kill people."
Rag- having trouble understanding tonight? It doesn't say speed kills- reread it!
Quote from: rohan on May 21, 2007, 09:40:13 PM
Rag- having trouble understanding tonight? It doesn't say speed kills- reread it!
yes it does. :confused:
Quote from: Raghavan on May 21, 2007, 09:28:27 PM
Speed doesn't kill.
No it doesn't. It's the impact.
Quote from: Raghavan on May 21, 2007, 09:43:12 PM
yes it does. :confused:
No- it doesn't.? Are you really that hard-headed?? it's right in front of you-? IT'S RESULTS- hence the impact as
you sparkplug puts it.? ?:banghead:
Ok....
Speeding doesn't kill people, guns kill people! :P
Jumping out of an airplane won't kill you but the impact will, especially if you land on a bicycle with no seat, or get impaled by a skyscraper. But if you land on a really fat woman you'll be alright.
Quote from: NACar on May 21, 2007, 09:48:44 PM
Speeding doesn't kill people, guns kill people!? :P
Ok- I'm going home now ---------> :partyon:
Quote from: rohan on May 21, 2007, 09:51:29 PM
Ok- I'm going home now? ---------> :partyon:
Drinking kills people!
Quote from: Catman on May 21, 2007, 08:38:10 PM
We don't do hardly any enforcement on the highway, the state does.? Most of the complaints center around secondary roads and neighborhoods.? We catalog the complaints and assign officers accordingly.? We don't have quotas during normal operations.? When the state sponsors click it or ticket or OUI/seat belt enforcement they want citations (call it a quota).? If you want the OT you write tickets, if not don't work.? Whether you love the argument or not really doesn't matter much to me.? I'm not going to sugar coat anything for you.? You have a disdain toward enforcement and that's fine but often the argument on your side is overstated.?
If it makes you feel better I haven't written a citation in over a year. :praise:
I have no disdain towards normal and prudent traffic enforcement: its necessary, its required, and in most cases that's exactly what is out there. Some departments are an exception to the rule.
But let's call a spade a spade and not blow smoke up each other's asses either. Fines go towards the general fund. That money benefits the coffers of the state and the municipality that it goes to. This is pretty much undeniable. Overtime also benefits an officer's paycheck, does it not? Therefore, an officer getting paid time and a half to write tickets is directly benefitting from writing those tickets, is he not?
Every time I get in this discussion, I am accused of having some sort of disdain for law enforcement in general, but I assure you that this could not be further from the truth. You guys do a difficult and demanding job, and I sleep safer in my house because of it. Don't think that this is unappreciated.
But that doesn't mean that everything is flawless and innocent either.
Quote from: rohan on May 21, 2007, 09:39:28 PM
municipality gets 1/3 of the FINES only -on most tickets the fines only make up somewher e around $30 or so bucks- ther rest are court costs and fees.? The other 2/3's of the fines go the the county sheriff department and the state police.? The court of the county the ticket was written gets those.? Most tickets only get the municipality around 10-15 bucks per citation- but the? bigger ones like DWLS or OUIL get them alot more.? A OUIL gets the municipality somewhere around $600 and then the department can ask for a judgement against the defedant for "eemergency response fees" up to $650 but generally they are given only about $200-350 for that.? Now if the municipality has their own traffic court and magistrate they can collect all of the money but they have to pay all the clerks and magistrates in that court so in the end it's usually more than they collect.
Let's see, I live in a state, a county, and a city.
Pocket A, Pocket B, Pocket C.
Now, if you can find a state without any cities or county in it: or any combination where any of these entities can exist without the others, then your argument has merit, otherwise all you're doing is that little sleight of hand trick I mentioned before.
Of course you have to pay the magistrates and the clerks! But courts, police departments, and all government entities do not exist as for-profit enterprises. They never have. If they did, I wouldn't have to pay taxes, would I?
But no matter how you slice it:
money collected is added to the bottom line when fines are collected. There are so many communities in Michigan right now that are having trouble balancing their budgets and are already legally maxed out on their property tax millages that revenue from the collecting of fines is the only way they are keeping out of receivership.
Quote from: NACar on May 21, 2007, 09:48:44 PM
Speeding doesn't kill people, guns kill people!? :P
Only if the bullet is going fast enough. :P
Quote from: rohan on May 21, 2007, 09:29:09 PM
In Michigan they are not required anymore to be certified by Dr. Lee at MSU.? Now the manufacturers are the ones who certify them.? There is nothing to discover anymore- been that way for about 10 years.
There is still the serial unit of the gun and the verification of the validity of the manufacturer's certification.
Petty? Yes, I know.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 21, 2007, 10:07:39 PM
I have no disdain towards normal and prudent traffic enforcement: its necessary, its required, and in most cases that's exactly what is out there. Some departments are an exception to the rule.
Very few, but thats what most people seem to focus on as being the norm.
QuoteBut let's call a spade a spade and not blow smoke up each other's asses either. Fines go towards the general fund. That money benefits the coffers of the state and the municipality that it goes to. This is pretty much undeniable. Overtime also benefits an officer's paycheck, does it not? Therefore, an officer getting paid time and a half to write tickets is directly benefitting from writing those tickets, is he not?
Of course he benefits, but its no different than any other OT they might have access to and benefit financially from; the point is though that if the agency and the government is willing to support the costs associated with that ticketing/ enforcement drive, thats because of the seriousness of the problem. You seem to focus on the dollar aspect of the ticket. If there was no penalty attached, what woule motivate the driver to avoid the ticket by following the law?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 21, 2007, 07:58:18 PM
They seem to be pretty consistant throughout the US.
Honestly, think about. Police officers have to be on duty- whether they are actively ticketing people or not we still need a police force for more important matters. The labor cost of having police ticketing people is debatable, as are court costs. Even if there were no speed limits, we would still need courts and police forces.
How long does it take to write a ticket anyways? 10 minutes? 15? And the fine is going to be at least $70, more often $100 to $200. How is this not a profitable exercise?
It will cost the agency alone a hundred bucks or so in salary just to ensure the officer appears on OT for that ticket, if the trial happens to fall on a day when s/he isn't working. Add in the expenses of the court, the DAs office, etc and you've exceeded the revenue generated by that ticket. Of course the court will still be there; the police will still be there...the point is, you calculate the labor put into addressing that ticket by all levels, and the cost/ "loss" of the labor involved is exceeding the "gain" of the fine money.
Average stop time here barring a problem is 10 minutes.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 21, 2007, 10:07:39 PM
I have no disdain towards normal and prudent traffic enforcement: its necessary, its required, and in most cases that's exactly what is out there. Some departments are an exception to the rule.
But let's call a spade a spade and not blow smoke up each other's asses either. Fines go towards the general fund. That money benefits the coffers of the state and the municipality that it goes to. This is pretty much undeniable. Overtime also benefits an officer's paycheck, does it not? Therefore, an officer getting paid time and a half to write tickets is directly benefitting from writing those tickets, is he not?
Every time I get in this discussion, I am accused of having some sort of disdain for law enforcement in general, but I assure you that this could not be further from the truth. You guys do a difficult and demanding job, and I sleep safer in my house because of it. Don't think that this is unappreciated.
But that doesn't mean that everything is flawless and innocent either.
The access to the coffers isn't as simplistic as you make it out to be. We have an approved operating budget and we work within it. Citation money doesn't factor into that budget at all. Yes you can make an argument that we benefit from it somehow but there's always strings on every level, doesn't mean it's as defined as you make it out to be. Recently the chief made a decision to remove all the radar units from the cars that allow speed measurement while moving. So now, all the guys have are hand helds. I told the chief it was a bad decision. The reason was that it was costing too much to keep them repaired and calibrated. You'd think that the citation money could be used to actually maintain the device that allows for the fine but for some reason it doesn't work that way. :huh: I'm not blowing smaoke Soup, just telling you how we operate. It's different everywhere so I can only comment on my dept.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 21, 2007, 08:33:45 PM
Jesus Christ dude, I just spit my coffee all over my keyboard!
:lol: :praise:
Quote from: rohan on May 21, 2007, 09:25:52 PM
Speeding isn't a game- it's a dangerous thing and it 's results often kill people. Seeing you drive past him when he's doing the speed limit is evidence enough- And it's completely honorable to be honest.
Let's be realistic here - 60mph limit, on a 6 lane divided highway with large shoulders, entrance and exits further than a mile apart, and dedicated merge lanes to get up to speed, is a little too much "on the safe side"
Quote from: rohan on May 21, 2007, 09:25:52 PM
Speeding isn't a game- it's a dangerous thing and it 's results often kill people.? Seeing you drive past him when he's doing the speed limit is evidence enough-? And it's completely honorable to be honest.
For every 10 mph more you travel the stopping distance quadrupples- or so the accident investigations god in his classes-
Dr. Daniel G. Lee, Ph.D., Director of Highway Traffic Safety Programs, Civil & Environmental Engineering,? Michigan State University.
Speed does not often kill people. Speed is the primary factor in LESS than 10% of deadly crashes, according to every statistic out there. Additionally, if traffic is flowing at 15MPH above the number on the limit sign (an arbitrary number set by politicians, mind you), and you're going exactly the limit, you're the one causing the danger on the road as you are acting as an obstruction to the flow of traffic.
And no, there's nothing honorable about simply mailing in a speeding ticket. It's giving in to "the system" when you don't have to.
Quote from: rohan on May 21, 2007, 09:25:52 PM
For every 10 mph more you travel the stopping distance quadrupples- or so the accident investigations god in his classes-
Dr. Daniel G. Lee, Ph.D., Director of Highway Traffic Safety Programs, Civil & Environmental Engineering,? Michigan State University.
If that is indeed Dr. Lee's assertion, he is wrong as wrong gets. I suspect though that that is not his assertion.
Even given a distance to react, there's no way the average individual, in the average car, together capable of braking from 60 - 0 in 200 ft will require 800 ft to brake from 70 - 0.
Quote from: the nameless one on May 22, 2007, 05:32:17 AM
You seem to focus on the dollar aspect of the ticket. If there was no penalty attached, what woule motivate the driver to avoid the ticket by following the law?
Any good investigator will tell you: to find out who's behind it all, just follow the money.
If there were no fines involved, there's more than a fair chance that the speed limits would more realistically reflect the natural speed of the traffic flow
Quote from: Catman on May 22, 2007, 06:15:10 AM
The access to the coffers isn't as simplistic as you make it out to be.? We have an approved operating budget and we work within it.? Citation money doesn't factor into that budget at all.? Yes you can make an argument that we benefit from it somehow but there's always strings on every level, doesn't mean it's as defined as you make it out to be.? Recently the chief made a decision to remove all the radar units from the cars that allow speed measurement while moving.? So now, all the guys have are hand helds.? I told the chief it was a bad decision.? The reason was that it was costing too much to keep them repaired and calibrated.? You'd think that the citation money could be used to actually maintain the device that allows for the fine but for some reason it doesn't work that way. :huh:? I'm not blowing smaoke Soup, just telling you how we operate.? It's different everywhere so I can only comment on my dept.
Where did I ever assert that your department benefitted? No, the governments that receive the fines benefit. I've never stated anything else.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 22, 2007, 01:00:36 PM
Any good investigator will tell you: to find out who's behind it all, just follow the money.
If there were no fines involved, there's more than a fair chance that the speed limits would more realistically reflect the natural speed of the traffic flow
If there were no fines involved to penalize bad driving, we would have no one following any sort of rules of the road. Anyone could drive any way they wanted and there would be no penalty attached. You really want to live in that kind of world?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 22, 2007, 01:02:39 PM
Where did I ever assert that your department benefitted? No, the governments that receive the fines benefit. I've never stated anything else.
Once again, there is no "benefit" because the costs associated with seeing the ticket through to its conclusion outweighs any "benefit" to the general fund. The dollars might wind up in the general fund, but its hardly a cash cow as you claim.
Quote from: rohan on May 21, 2007, 09:40:13 PM
Rag- having trouble understanding tonight? It doesn't say speed kills- reread it!
Sorry dude, but you clearly said speed kills in that phrase. ;)
Quote from: the nameless one on May 22, 2007, 01:29:40 PM
If there were no fines involved to penalize bad driving, we would have no one following any sort of rules of the road. Anyone could drive any way they wanted and there would be no penalty attached. You really want to live in that kind of world?
:rolleyes: Yeah, fines are the
only way to penalize people.
You could, for example, just pull the license after a certain number of infractions.
Quote from: the nameless one on May 22, 2007, 01:31:08 PM
Once again, there is no "benefit" because the costs associated with seeing the ticket through to its conclusion outweighs any "benefit" to the general fund. The dollars might wind up in the general fund, but its hardly a cash cow as you claim.
The costs only go up when a ticket is contested- which is what I said in the first place: Not enough people contest their tickets.
OT comes from the pre-approved PD budget. The fines add to the bottom line of the governmental budgets.
See, I can play the pocket game too!
Quote from: Tave on May 22, 2007, 01:31:58 PM
:rolleyes: Yeah, fines are the only way to penalize people.
You could just pull the license after a certain number of infractions.
Or immobilize the car: or donate all collected fines to a third party charity (not the FOP ;) ): or require community service.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 21, 2007, 10:15:01 PM
Let's see, I live in a state, a county, and a city.
Pocket A, Pocket B, Pocket C.
Now, if you can find a state without any cities or county in it: or any combination where any of these entities can exist without the others, then your argument has merit, otherwise all you're doing is that little sleight of hand trick I mentioned before.
Of course you have to pay the magistrates and the clerks! But courts, police departments, and all government entities do not exist as for-profit enterprises. They never have. If they did, I wouldn't have to pay taxes, would I?
But no matter how you slice it: money collected is added to the bottom line when fines are collected. There are so many communities in Michigan right now that are having trouble balancing their budgets and are already legally maxed out on their property tax millages that revenue from the collecting of fines is the only way they are keeping out of receivership.
Wow, you seem to know everything about everything even though you have no contact with or involvement in any of it. :rolleyes:
Your original argument equated that municipalities rake in large sums of cash from the citations they write, while Rohan accurately described how the money is divided up in Michigan. Then you go on to say that even though the municipality does not receive much of that money it is "slight of hand" and it is all the same. You can not have it both ways, having them writing tickets and not getting much in return, but still having it them greatly benefiting from it. Rohan was right, the issuing municipality does not receive much in the way of monetary gains when citations are issued. Period.
What he forgot to lay out was that in Michigan when the county or state write tickets the local municipality the in which the ticket was written receives nothing, and the revenues from the fines do not go back into the police budget rather they go into the government bodies general fund as per state law. From there, most municipalities spend that money directly on basic needs for their police; i.e. uniforms, training, etc. Money that our worthless democrat ultra-liberal Canadian governor has cut from their budgets. Yes, there are some benefits to receiving back monies from citations, however, after all the court time, mileage, and witness fees paid out there is usually a short fall. In the end, most departments in Michigan actually lose money when their officers are busy writing tickets. But remember, most departments in Michigan are small departments with less than 20 officers. In example, my neighbor who passed this winter owned a home in Crystal Township which is in Montcalm county. The police department there write lots of tickets, yet they only take in about $5,000 per year in revenues from said citations while their budget is north of about $150,000. Where is the huge benefit you claim?
In the last place I worked, a township in the middle of Michigan, we received annually about $54,000 in ticket revenues which included the large sums from OUIL and DWLS and those Emergency Response Fees Randy noted. Our operating budget was about $850,000. Again, where is this huge benefit? That amount did not even cover the cost of one full time officer which was in the area of $75,000.
As with most of your other arguments regarding law enforcement, you are all wet.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 21, 2007, 10:07:39 PM
I have no disdain towards normal and prudent traffic enforcement: its necessary, its required, and in most cases that's exactly what is out there. Some departments are an exception to the rule.
But let me guess, you have personally never received a citation you deserved, right?
QuoteBut let's call a spade a spade and not blow smoke up each other's asses either. Fines go towards the general fund. That money benefits the coffers of the state and the municipality that it goes to. This is pretty much undeniable. Overtime also benefits an officer's paycheck, does it not? Therefore, an officer getting paid time and a half to write tickets is directly benefitting from writing those tickets, is he not?
How, exactly, will an officer receiving overtime help the department he is working for if those fines he is ultimately manufacturing are going directly into his paycheck?
QuoteEvery time I get in this discussion, I am accused of having some sort of disdain for law enforcement in general, but I assure you that this could not be further from the truth. You guys do a difficult and demanding job, and I sleep safer in my house because of it. Don't think that this is unappreciated.
Good to hear, and nice that you can spell it out in public. As for being accused, people can only surmise from what they read.
QuoteBut that doesn't mean that everything is flawless and innocent either.
Does not mean that it is inherently flawed or evil, either.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 22, 2007, 01:41:31 PM
Or immobilize the car: or donate all collected fines to a third party charity (not the FOP? ;) ):? or require? community service.
Again, you are in the clouds.? Can you please explain to me EXACTLY what the FOP has to do with actual law enforcement? in Michigan?? In fact, general fund donations are strictly prohibited by law.? In other words, municipalities are actually prevented from giving cash donations to others (such as Rotary Club, Boy Scouts, Lions, School districts, etc..) by law.
And where exactly is the money going to come from to immobilize cars? Who is going to go out and do it? Who is going to pay for the equipment to do this immobilizing?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 21, 2007, 10:15:01 PM
But no matter how you slice it: money collected is added to the bottom line when fines are collected. There are so many communities in Michigan right now that are having trouble balancing their budgets and are already legally maxed out on their property tax millages that revenue from the collecting of fines is the only way they are keeping out of receivership.
Name one.
Quote from: hounddog on May 22, 2007, 04:19:35 PM
Wow, you seem to know everything about everything even though you have no contact with or involvement in any of it. :rolleyes:
I thought I was the only one who noticed. :huh: :P
Hey Hounddog: can you think of one single justification for writing a $125.00 ticket to a motorist for failing to sign the back of a registration card other than shameless revenuing grabbing?
Since you live in Michigan, and since this is actually a law here, you should have a pretty good answer for that, shouldn't you?
"How, exactly, will an officer receiving overtime help the department he is working for if those fines he is ultimately manufacturing are going directly into his paycheck?"
Umm, did I say that? No, I said that it benefits himself directly. Aren't you the guy that kept harping on me for "reading comprehension?"
"Wow, you seem to know everything about everything even though you have no contact with or involvement in any of it. "
Baseless and incorect assumption.
"Can you please explain to me EXACTLY what the FOP has to do with actual law enforcement? in Michigan?"
That was a joke, son: laugh.
"But let me guess, you have personally never received a citation you deserved, right? "
Once, and only once do I believe I got a truly unfair ticket. It was thrown out because the judge agreed with me. I've only ever been written four tickets in my lifetime though, and in the majority of my dealings with law enforcement i've found most officers to be professional and balanced. Notice that nowhere in my statements do I bash officers in general.
"Your original argument equated that municipalities rake in large sums of cash from the citations they write, while Rohan accurately described how the money is divided up in Michigan. "
I perhaps used the wrong word when I said municipality. "Government" would have been better. But yes, in the end, the result is the same.
"Name one"
Wyandotte. Brownstown. Westland. Hamtramck. Pleasant Ridge.
"And where exactly is the money going to come from to immobilize cars?? Who is going to go out and do it?? Who is going to pay for the equipment to do this immobilizing?"
That's funny, friend: I've never heard of a free storage impound yard in my life.
"As with most of your other arguments regarding law enforcement, you are all wet."
Exactly what arguments have I made about law enforcement? I can't say that I've ever made an argument against law enforcement. I've argued against laws, and I've argued about the legality of certain things. I've never made an argument, po or con about law enforcement.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 22, 2007, 05:39:32 PM
Hey Hounddog: can you think of one single justification for writing a $125.00 ticket to a motorist for failing to sign the back of a registration card other than shameless revenuing grabbing?
As a traffic officer earlier in my career I wrote several, maybe could even say plenty of them.? It is the law, and if you do not sign it, it is a valid citation.?
Quote"How, exactly, will an officer receiving overtime help the department he is working for if those fines he is ultimately manufacturing are going directly into his paycheck?"
Umm, did I say that? No, I said that it benefits himself directly. Aren't you the guy that kept harping on me for "reading comprehension?"
I did in fact misunderstand what you were saying.? ?Unlike you, I am able to admit when I have made a mistake in my posting.
QuoteBaseless and incorect assumption.
Oh.? Thanks for clearing that up.?
You see, Catman, we were both wrong.? ?:rolleyes:
I guess then, you are educated or perhaps highly educated in physics, lidar operations, radar operation, light mechanics, mathematics, law, government, the auto industry and computers?
Quote from: hounddog"Can you please explain to me EXACTLY what the FOP has to do with actual law enforcement? in Michigan?"
QuoteThat was a joke, son: laugh.
First off, if you respect us so much, why patronize and disrespect me?? Secondly, even if you are not patronizing or disrespecting me on purpose, I am not your son.? In fact, it is likely I am your elder.? Lastly, what exactly is the joke?? Your post seemed genuinely sincere.
Quote
Once, and only once do I believe I got a truly unfair ticket. It was thrown out because the judge agreed with me. I've only ever been written four tickets in my lifetime though, and in the majority of my dealings with law enforcement i've found most officers to be professional and balanced. Notice that nowhere in my statements do I bash officers in general.
Fair enough.?
QuoteI perhaps used the wrong word when I said municipality. "Government" would have been better. But yes, in the end, the result is the same.
How then, does a "government" entity receive large benefits from the small fines they receive?? And, exactly how do you differentiate between municipality and "government?"
QuoteWyandotte. Brownstown. Westland. Hamtramck. Pleasant Ridge.
So when I call the "governments" you listed tomorrow, they are going to tell me they are operating in the black solely because of the fines they receive from the citations their respective police departments generate?? Oh, and I will be calling them and asking for copies of their budgets.
QuoteThat's funny, friend: I've never heard of a free storage impound yard in my life.
Just for the record, I am fine with friend.? I try not to dislike anyone until I really get to know them.? But what has a storage impound yard to do with what I asked?? My questions on this are still on the table.
QuoteExactly what arguments have I made about law enforcement? I can't say that I've ever made an argument against law enforcement. I've argued against laws, and I've argued about the legality of certain things. I've never made an argument, po or con about law enforcement.
If you are arguing what you have mentioned, you are in fact arguing about law enforcement in general.?
I noticed you did not respond to my question about how ticket writing actually helps "governments" when I can show actual budgets from around the state disproving your claims.? ????
I really try not to argue about these things. Often times the frustration is directed at the officers who are doing what they are paid to do. Fines were instituted because society recognized along time ago that not every violation of law be a criminal offense. It wasn't that long ago where an officer could arrest a speeder (I think it's still arrestable in NH). While there are some agencies who use citations as a revenue stream for their respective governments I think most of the time there is no net gain when you consider the peripheral costs involved with enforcement.
What has really mucked up the pond here is th insurance companies. Most people can accept the sting of a citation once in a great while but the levy imposed by the insurance companies can be a very hard pill to swallow. MA recently increased stop sign violations to $150. Consider the total cost over five years. I'm not sure what the final numbers are but I would bet it's north of $500. Obviously the punishment does not fit the crime and most police officers agree with that. Unfortunately, the legislatures have allowed this.
speeding should be a capital offense. hahahahahahaha. Then we'd all die.
"As a traffic officer earlier in my career I wrote several, maybe could even say plenty of them. It is the law, and if you do not sign it, it is a valid citation"
I didn't ask whether or not it was valid: I asked what the justification was for it. Tell me, who is the injured party? A motorist produces the proper license, insurance card, and regiatration, but is fined for forgetting to sign the bnack of the registration.
What is the justification?
"Oh. Thanks for clearing that up.
You see, Catman, we were both wrong.
I guess then, you are educated or perhaps highly educated in physics, lidar operations, radar operation, light mechanics, mathematics, law, government, the auto industry and computers?"
What, there's no difference between "no contact" and being highly educated?
For the record, much of what I do has to do with designing gallium/arsenide diodes which are the basic operating component of LIDAR guns, so yes: I am intimately familiar with the physics behind their operation, the light mechanics involved, the mathematics to figure out their physics, and the computers that control them. I also worked most of my career in the auto industry- and my current work is an extension of the automation applications I worked with there.
I will admit that my experience with the law and government is somehwhat less extensive, but I know several people who are and converse with them quite frequently: including deputies from the Macomb County Sheriff's office and lawyers on both sides of the bench.
"First off, if you respect us so much, why patronize and disrespect me?"
An institution is one thing, an individual is another, and while I respect the job that you guys do, personal respect is another matter entirely. Not saying that I disrespect you, but Jesus Christ man, lighten up a little. And try to understand the subtle implications of the winking smiley.
" And, exactly how do you differentiate between municipality and "government?"
For the purposes of my argument, and in the current context, I do not. A municipality is simply the local government.
"So when I call the "governments" you listed tomorrow, they are going to tell me they are operating in the black solely because of the fines they receive from the citations their respective police departments generate? Oh, and I will be calling them and asking for copies of their budgets."
Bring a checkbook: local budgets run hundreds of pages, and they usually charge anywhere from $.25 to a $1.00 per page for copying. Of course you can stand in city hall and thumb through the damned thing all day, but that's a helluva way to spend an afternoon.
"But what has a storage impound yard to do with what I asked?"
Impounding a vehicle is an effective way to immobilize one, is it not? A little extreme and unnecesary in most cases, but quite effective. Also costly for the offender, but in this case: the "gubbiment" doesn't see a dime.
Are you familiar with the 24 hour rule in interstate trucking? That a trucker running hot (over their alotted work hours) can be commanded to leave his rig in a certain spot until its released? If the rig does leave, a warrant is issued. Next to zero cost and quite effective as well.
"If you are arguing what you have mentioned, you are in fact arguing about law enforcement in general.
I noticed you did not respond to my question about how ticket writing actually helps "governments" when I can show actual budgets from around the state disproving your claims. ????"
No, I am arguing about the law, and the lawful disbursement of funds. I have never claimed that law enforcement for speeding should cease, only that the financial incentive for doing so should cease, and I proposed a legal way of eliminating that incentive.
No, you can't: you in fact showed that money does indeed benefit the local budget. Youll argue scale, and how much it benefits it, but what you seem to be forgetting is that government never was a for-profit- concern in the first place. Of course you still have a bigger budget than what you take in! Writing tickets is not the only thing you do (unless you're New Rome)! Police departments don't exist to make money- so they shouldn't benefit financially from any single thing they do. That's what taxes are for.
"Often times the frustration is directed at the officers who are doing what they are paid to do."
And often times officers take any criticism of any aspect of their job as directed towards them on a personal level. I feel that that is what's going on here, yet I repeat: this is not my intent
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 22, 2007, 07:08:59 PM
"Often times the frustration is directed at the officers who are doing what they are paid to do."
And often times officers take any criticism of any aspect of their job as directed towards them on a personal level. I feel that that is what's going on here, yet I repeat: this is not my intent
The reason we take it personal is because it often is. Actually, I really didn't take you posts that way but my responses are usually based on a long time of hearing people directing their frustrations toward me and the reality that many people don't appreciate the work that officers do because their only first hand knowledge of police work is the citation they just got. My only issue with you is you're a little overconfident in your opinions. Your theory on how the money trail filters out almost implies a conspiracy at all levels of government.
Quote from: Catman on May 22, 2007, 06:15:10 AM
The access to the coffers isn't as simplistic as you make it out to be. We have an approved operating budget and we work within it. Citation money doesn't factor into that budget at all. Yes you can make an argument that we benefit from it somehow but there's always strings on every level, doesn't mean it's as defined as you make it out to be. Recently the chief made a decision to remove all the radar units from the cars that allow speed measurement while moving. So now, all the guys have are hand helds. I told the chief it was a bad decision. The reason was that it was costing too much to keep them repaired and calibrated. You'd think that the citation money could be used to actually maintain the device that allows for the fine but for some reason it doesn't work that way. :huh: I'm not blowing smaoke Soup, just telling you how we operate. It's different everywhere so I can only comment on my dept.
I know the truth. You use it for that rewards programs. A dozen tickets is a dozen donuts. Or better yet a new electric stun gun combo service pistol, phazer. :rockon: :tounge: :mrcool: :partyon: :banghead: :huh: :devil: ;)
Quote from: Catman on May 22, 2007, 07:20:55 PM
The reason we take it personal is because it often is.? Actually, I really didn't take you posts that way but my responses are usually based on a long time of hearing people directing their frustrations toward me and the reality that many people don't appreciate the work that officers do because their only first hand knowledge of police work is the citation they just got.? My only issue with you is you're a little overconfident in your opinions.? Your theory on how the money trail filters out almost implies a conspiracy at all levels of government.?
You guys have strong opinions too, if I didn't respond in kind I wouldn't get very far.
Its not a "conspiracy theory," or really a theory at all: Its just the way it is. Fines generate revenue. Governments always find a use for revenue, and they always want more. That's why I brought up one of Jennifer Granholm's nasty little pet fines (that would be the
worthless democrat ultra-liberal Canadian governor that Hounddog was speaking of): the "oops, I forgot to sign my registration fine." No victim, no need for the law. Just revenue grabbing.
They make the laws, and you guys do your job. That doesn't mean the laws are always right, or that they never have anything but the good of the populace in mind. Government is in constant need of correction. That's one of the basic concepts of what old Abe called a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people," not above the people or on the people.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 22, 2007, 07:29:21 PM
You guys have strong opinions too, if I didn't respond in kind I wouldn't get very far.
Its not a "conspiracy theory," or really a theory at all: Its just the way it is. Fines generate revenue. Governments always find a use for revenue, and they always want more. That's why I brought up one of Jennifer Granholm's nasty little pet fines (that would be the worthless democrat ultra-liberal Canadian governor that Hounddog was speaking of): the "oops, I forgot to sign my registration fine." No victim, no need for the law. Just revenue grabbing.
They make the laws, and you guys do your job. That doesn't mean the laws are always right, or that they never have anything but the good of the populace in mind. Government is in constant need of correction. That's one of the basic concepts of what old Abe called a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people," not above the people or on the people.
I don't disagree with that. And, for the record the registration signature fine is pretty ridiculous. I don't think I could write one of those and sleep at night. :P I think I'd stick to written warnings on that statute. The last time MA raised all their fines citations went down significantly. Contrary to popular belief police offiers do not enjoy slamming average citizens with crazy fines. Although some people make it very easy. :ohyeah:
Quote from: hounddog on May 22, 2007, 06:26:53 PM
As a traffic officer earlier in my career I wrote several, maybe could even say plenty of them. It is the law, and if you do not sign it, it is a valid citation.
Are you serious? That sounds pretty lame to me. Someone HAS their legal registration, and simply didn't sign the back of the card, and you think that they should have to pay over a hundred dollars for that? You seem like a stand-up guy, but someone who would write a ticket for something as dumb as that would have me questioning their personality. Additionally, writing pointless tickets only makes drivers more hostile to law enforcement to begin with.
Of course, the officers are the ones who will get the flack for bad traffic laws. My problem isn't necessarily that officers write tickets, but what they write them for. I wish highway-based departments (State Troopers, etc.) would become more active in fighting the root causes of accidents. What use is a State Trooper hiding behind a bush on the side of a highway looking for a car surpassing an arbitrary number on a screen? I want Staties out there patrolling the highways, looking for poor lane discipline, tailgating, swerving, drunk driving, and other forms of stupidity and aggressiveness that leads to accidents. I'm sure some DO, in fact, do this. But, the data shows that the vast majority of tickets written are for speeding. Speeding is easy to prove. The things I mentioned are not, they're subjective to the officer's discretion. You might not always win in court, and you might not always even be able to write a citation. But for highway safety, I believe targeting unsafe driving would be much more effective than simply targeting speed.
When I got my ticket (68 in a 55) as long as I paid it on time it was made clear that the state would know nothing about it. Now of course that was fine with me because if the state didn't find out about it my insurance company wouldn't either, but that would also mean that the state isn't getting their share of my $179. I suppose in principal I should be pissed, but in reality I am just happy that I didn't have to sit through defensive driving to keep it off my record.
Also, 55 was an absolutely ridiculous speed limit for that stretch of road.
Quote from: TurboDan on May 22, 2007, 07:48:08 PM
Are you serious? That sounds pretty lame to me. Someone HAS their legal registration, and simply didn't sign the back of the card, and you think that they should have to pay over a hundred dollars for that? You seem like a stand-up guy, but someone who would write a ticket for something as dumb as that would have me questioning their personality. Additionally, writing pointless tickets only makes drivers more hostile to law enforcement to begin with.
Well, it is a valid citation. I think it's valid even though I disagree with the fine. But, we have no say in that. :huh:
Quote from: Catman on May 22, 2007, 07:55:09 PM
Well, it is a valid citation. I think it's valid even though I disagree with the fine. But, we have no say in that. :huh:
Nah, but I couldn't picture most officers writing one of those. If I was on the job, I'd only pull out something like that when the person was being an asshole.
Quote from: TurboDan on May 22, 2007, 07:56:41 PM
Nah, but I couldn't picture most officers writing one of those. If I was on the job, I'd only pull out something like that when the person was being an asshole.
;)
Quote from: TBR on May 22, 2007, 07:53:28 PM
When I got my ticket (68 in a 55) as long as I paid it on time it was made clear that the state would know nothing about it. Now of course that was fine with me because if the state didn't find out about it my insurance company wouldn't either, but that would also mean that the state isn't getting their share of my $179. I suppose in principal I should be pissed, but in reality I am just happy that I didn't have to sit through defensive driving to keep it off my record.
Like Greg said, I think most people who get cited for something realize they did something wrong and would pay the fine that is levied. Chronic speeders will always speed, but for someone who doesn't stop at a stop sign or blows through a light, a citation could be a good reality check. The problem is that one mistake could cost you for years to come. That's not the fault of government, but private insurance companies. I wish they would somehow pass some type of law that could contain that problem.
They took the signature off the back of the ones for SC. I reckon the police didn't understand that people signed with a X and wrote them up anyway.
Quote from: Tave on May 22, 2007, 01:31:58 PM
:rolleyes: Yeah, fines are the only way to penalize people.
You could, for example, just pull the license after a certain number of infractions.
So til that point they basically get a free ride? Just issue them a bunch of tickets but no financial penalty eh?How about we just flat oput suspend you on the first offense. Zero tolerance. Don't want to pay a fine? OK, you don't get to drive after that first ticket either.
Quote from: TurboDan on May 22, 2007, 07:59:05 PM
Like Greg said, I think most people who get cited for something realize they did something wrong and would pay the fine that is levied. Chronic speeders will always speed, but for someone who doesn't stop at a stop sign or blows through a light, a citation could be a good reality check. The problem is that one mistake could cost you for years to come. That's not the fault of government, but private insurance companies. I wish they would somehow pass some type of law that could contain that problem.
I always thought that everyone should get one a year without surcharge or three in five years, etc.
Quote from: TurboDan on May 22, 2007, 07:48:08 PM
I wish highway-based departments (State Troopers, etc.) would become more active in fighting the root causes of accidents.? What use is a State Trooper hiding behind a bush on the side of a highway looking for a car surpassing an arbitrary number on a screen?? I want Staties out there patrolling the highways, looking for poor lane discipline, tailgating, swerving, drunk driving, and other forms of stupidity and aggressiveness that leads to accidents.? I'm sure some DO, in fact, do this.? But, the data shows that the vast majority of tickets written are for speeding.? Speeding is easy to prove.? The things I mentioned are not, they're subjective to the officer's discretion.? You might not always win in court, and you might not always even be able to write a citation.? But for highway safety, I believe targeting unsafe driving would be much more effective than simply targeting speed.
People drive like an angel when they know a marked unit is in the area. I sometimes see more violations in my 15 minute ride home in my POV than I do just driving around for a couple of hours looking for violations of rules of the road...non speeding or equipment type violations.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 22, 2007, 01:38:26 PM
The costs only go up when a ticket is contested- which is what I said in the first place: Not enough people contest their tickets.
Not true. There are costs associated with tracking every ticket by the agency and the Court, not just those that are contested. Even tickets which may not go ultimately to trial but for which the Defendant requests a Supporting Deposition for, for instance ....that type of thing is an added expense to the court, the officer, the agency.
Quote from: the nameless one on May 22, 2007, 08:12:21 PM
Not true. There are costs associated with tracking every ticket by the agency and the Court, not just those that are contested. Even tickets which may not go ultimately to trial but for which the Defendant requests a Supporting Deposition for, for instance ....that type of thing is an added expense to the court, the officer, the agency.
Umm, I think you're agreeing with me, but I'm not sure.
I get a ticket. I can
A: pay it and forget about it.
B: contest it in some way.
Are we agreeing the B is more expnsive for the courts?
Quote from: the nameless one on May 22, 2007, 08:06:29 PM
People drive like an angel when they know a marked unit is in the area. I sometimes see more violations in my 15 minute ride home in my POV than I do just driving around for a couple of hours looking for? violations of rules of the road...non speeding or equipment type violations.
Look at that this way then: for those couple of hours you were manifestally making the roads safer by your very presence.
You are dismayed then by what? That you didn't get to write any tickets?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 22, 2007, 08:35:54 PM
Umm, I think you're agreeing with me, but I'm not sure.
I get a ticket. I can
A: pay it and forget about it.
B: contest it in some way.
Are we agreeing the B is more expnsive for the courts?
I am saying that there are expenses for tickets even if they do not go to trial; you stated that the cost of the ticket being processed only exists if the ticket goes to trial.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 22, 2007, 08:37:47 PM
Look at that this way then: for those couple of hours you were manifestally making the roads safer by your very presence.
You are dismayed then by what? That you didn't get to write any tickets?
I'm saying that those who think that officers should just drive up and down the road looking for people violating the rules of the road are not being realistic. Unless the officer can catch them unawares, the drivers will be scrupulously following the VTL until they think the officer is no longer nearby. Too bad they can't be as careful ALL of the time.
Quote from: the nameless one on May 22, 2007, 08:43:59 PM
I am saying that there are expenses for tickets even if they do not go to trial; you stated that the cost of the ticket being processed only goes up if the ticket goes to trial.
I still fail to see how that contradicts anything I said.
Quote from: the nameless one on May 22, 2007, 08:45:50 PM
I'm saying that those who think that officers should just drive up and down the road looking for people violating the rules of the road are not being realistic. Unless the officer can catch them unawares, the drivers will be scrupulously following the VTL until they think the officer is no longer nearby. Too bad they can't be as careful ALL of the time.
People already do that; you've seen it yourself.
If people get used to the idea that officers are regularly circulating in traffic, they will also be more careful when you're not directly behind them.
Maybe you're in front of them: Maybe your at the next intersection or in front of the car they're about to pass. Having a more visible, mobile, and less predictable deterrant force out there can't be a bad thing, can it? Even if it results in fewer fines being levied?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 22, 2007, 08:47:26 PM
I still fail to see how that contradicts anything I said.
Do you understand that there are costs associated with tickets that do not go to trial?
Quote from: the nameless one on May 22, 2007, 08:56:47 PM
Do you understand that there are costs associated with tickets that do not go to trial?
Do you understand what the word "up" means?
Hint: it doesn't mean "begin to exist."
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 22, 2007, 08:51:35 PM
People already do that; you've seen it yourself.
If people get used to the idea that officers are regularly circulating in traffic, they will also be more careful when you're not directly behind them.
Maybe you're in front of them: Maybe your at the next intersection or in front of the car they're about to pass. Having a more visible, mobile, and less predictable deterrant force out there can't be a bad thing, can it? Even if it results in fewer fines being levied?
They slow down and obey the laws now when an officer is around because of the fines they anticipate they'd get for being ticketed; take away the fines or other legal incentives to obey the law and they would be driving recklessly and with no regard for others.
Quote from: the nameless one on May 22, 2007, 08:06:29 PM
People drive like an angel when they know a marked unit is in the area.
That's my point. ;)
Quote from: TurboDan on May 22, 2007, 07:59:05 PM
Like Greg said, I think most people who get cited for something realize they did something wrong and would pay the fine that is levied. Chronic speeders will always speed, but for someone who doesn't stop at a stop sign or blows through a light, a citation could be a good reality check. The problem is that one mistake could cost you for years to come. That's not the fault of government, but private insurance companies. I wish they would somehow pass some type of law that could contain that problem.
Did I break a law? Yes. Did I do something wrong? No, not really. I didn't put anyone in danger and I am sure that past midnight during spring break the officer could have found something more productive to do. This was a straight, flat 4 lane road in a pretty much rural area, the 55 mph speed limit was too low and I just assumed it was higher. I wasn't even doing it delibrately.
Speaking of stop signs, why is it so many cities are quick to just put them in randomly. There are so many intersections around my house where a yield sign would work fine. My roommate got pulled over in the middle of the night (2am on a weeknight) for rolling a stop sign one block from our house. It's a 3-way stop sign and is generally pointless outside of the daytime. He didn't blow right through it but slowed down - noticed there is NOTHING around, and just went. Because really, what is going to happen if rolled it at 10-15 vs. stopping. He was issued a ticket.
For you guys in the know - who would I contact about traffic intersections and issues in my city? They are exceptional at creating good traffic slowdowns (with lights and said stop signs) and they make a 2 minute drive into a 6-7 minute drive really often. They replaced a traffic light last weekend at the bottom of the highway exit/entrance. For the whole weekend it was just flashing red all ways. TRAFFIC HAS NEVER BEEN SO FAST!!!(not speed but time through intersection) Hardly ever any waiting. Usually you come up to the light and have to sit for 45 seconds.
I also want to give them a piece of my mind about left turn only green arrows. Give me a stupid green circle along with it - let me make the turn when traffic is clear instead of waiting until the next cycle!
Sometimes I think these people WANT cars to be on the road, idling, wasting gas and causing more traffic.
Quote from: the nameless one on May 22, 2007, 09:04:46 PM
They slow down and obey the laws now when an officer is around because of the fines they anticipate they'd get for being ticketed; take away the fines or other legal incentives to obey the law and they would be driving recklessly and with no regard for others.
Yes, you understand completely: I'm advocating total anarchy and the complete repeal of all traffic laws. :rolleyes:
Quote from: the nameless one on May 22, 2007, 08:02:34 PM
So til that point they basically get a free ride? Just issue them a bunch of tickets but no financial penalty eh?How about we just flat oput suspend you on the first offense. Zero tolerance. Don't want to pay a fine? OK, you don't get to drive after that first ticket either.
Not bad. Give 'em a couple weeks, then more, etc...
QuoteAs I said, it is a valid citation; most people recognize that failure to comply as "justification" for issuing a citation.? ? ?:rolleyes:?
Immediately above the line you are supposed to sign are these words,
"The vehicle owner must sign this registration certificate before using it.
This registration and your curent Certificate of Michigan No-Fault Insurance must be carried in the vehicle or by the driver.? Both must be presented upon request of a police officer."
In Michigan the word "must" means just that and there is no room for interpretation.? In order to even use the certificate it MUST be signed under Michigan law.?
My answer remains the same as it did on the previous page; 1) it is a valid citation 2) failure to comply with the type written instructions on the paper.
Quote from: Catman on May 22, 2007, 07:37:00 PM
I don't disagree with that.? And, for the record the registration signature fine is pretty ridiculous.?
Ticket costs vary greatly across the state, and are set by the individual county traffic courts.? The state does mandate to the court how much they must collect in SOS oversight fees, and the maximum certain portions of the fines and costs can be but they do not set them across the state as a whole.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 22, 2007, 07:29:21 PM
That's why I brought up one of Jennifer Granholm's nasty little pet fines (that would be the worthless democrat ultra-liberal Canadian governor that Hounddog was speaking of): the "oops, I forgot to sign my registration fine." No victim, no need for the law. Just revenue grabbing.
Once again, you are wrong. Granholm did not invoke that, it has been in place since before I became a police officer. Long before. I remember as a newly licensed driver at 16 reading those very words on the back of the registration certificate, and our driver educations instructor telling us to make certain we signed our registration certificate because we could get a ticket if it was unsigned.
Quote from: TurboDan on May 22, 2007, 07:48:08 PM
Are you serious??
Did it sound like I was joking? If it did, I apologize.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
But seriously, I did write many of them. And I have absolutely no regrets about anything I did during my career. Was I a hard ass? You bet. Was I crusty, and did I have a take no shit policy? Yup. Did I do my job to the absolute definition of law enforcement officer? Yes. Were people scared of me if they happened to know who I was by name and reputation? I hope so. Did people who knew me or my reputation wish to be pulled over by me? I would like to think they hoped to not get pulled over by me. Of course, this attitude may very well have come from my time in the Marine Corp. But, when I arrived somewhere and the people knew who I was, any problems there may have been ceased. Immediately.
QuoteThat sounds pretty lame to me.? Someone HAS their legal registration, and simply didn't sign the back of the card, and you think that they should have to pay over a hundred dollars for that??
Under Michigan law, it is not a legal registration UNTIL it has been signed. It is spelled out very clearly on the back of the paper, and it is not up to me who should or who should not have to pay fines when they violate the law. That is up to a higher power, I was just a simple street cop doing what I was paid to do; enforce the laws of the State of Michigan.
QuoteYou seem like a stand-up guy, but someone who would write a ticket for something as dumb as that would have me questioning their personality.? Additionally, writing pointless tickets only makes drivers more hostile to law enforcement to begin with.
Try this then, work a traffic car (or a complaint car for that matter) for a couple years and listen to all the lies, b.s. stories, and verbal insults people tell you. After a while you stop caring what they have to say, and just start doing your job. It becomes almost like an assembly line mentality; you go to work, do your job, go home. You can not afford to think about how what you write and how it may affect people, it was their choice to violate the law. And simply forgetting to comply is tantamount to ignorance of the law, which there is no legal defense. If an officer has regrets about doing his job to the best of his ability, he has no business doing that job. Plus, we are sworn by an oath to God to uphold the laws. If the people of this, or any other state, feel that this ticket should not be written it is up to them to have it removed by the law makers. Otherwise, police are only going to do what they are supposed to do.
QuoteOf course, the officers are the ones who will get the flack for bad traffic laws.? My problem isn't necessarily that officers write tickets, but what they write them for.? I wish highway-based departments (State Troopers, etc.) would become more active in fighting the root causes of accidents.? What use is a State Trooper hiding behind a bush on the side of a highway looking for a car surpassing an arbitrary number on a screen?? I want Staties out there patrolling the highways, looking for poor lane discipline, tailgating, swerving, drunk driving, and other forms of stupidity and aggressiveness that leads to accidents.? I'm sure some DO, in fact, do this.? But, the data shows that the vast majority of tickets written are for speeding.? Speeding is easy to prove.? The things I mentioned are not, they're subjective to the officer's discretion.? You might not always win in court, and you might not always even be able to write a citation.? But for highway safety, I believe targeting unsafe driving would be much more effective than simply targeting speed.
Usually, most people who cut in and out, tailgate, drive drunk, etc. have a habit of speeding as well. In fact, I would venture a guess, and this is just a guess mind you, that maybe 40% of OUILs come from speed alone. Same or higher for suspended violations. Traffic safety and speed enforcement go hand in hand, like it or not. Again, just a guess, but I would say that a large majority of traffic crashes involve speeding. Perhaps as high as 65% or more. If people would just slow down, fatal accidents would fall. I remember watching a show, I do not remember what it was, on the Autobahn. It seemed like there was a significantly higher fatality vs. traffic crash ratio in the portions where the speeds were higher or where there were no limits. I no longer remember the specifics, but it did support the notion that high speed was involved in most of those crashes.
Quote from: Champ on May 22, 2007, 09:35:37 PM
Speaking of stop signs, why is it so many cities are quick to just put them in randomly.? There are so many intersections around my house where a yield sign would work fine.? My roommate got pulled over in the middle of the night (2am on a weeknight) for rolling a stop sign one block from our house.? It's a 3-way stop sign and is generally pointless outside of the daytime.? He didn't blow right through it but slowed down - noticed there is NOTHING around, and just went.? Because really, what is going to happen if rolled it at 10-15 vs. stopping.? He was issued a ticket.
I'm guessing that you live in a residential area. Stopping will keep the average vehicle speed down. Yield signs are not as effective doing that. Stopping also forces you to stop, look around and actually make sure that the area is clear and there isn't some vehicle or pedestrian in a blind spot that you are about to run over.
QuoteFor you guys in the know - who would I contact about traffic intersections and issues in my city?? They are exceptional at creating good traffic slowdowns (with lights and said stop signs) and they make a 2 minute drive into a 6-7 minute drive really often.? They replaced a traffic light last weekend at the bottom of the highway exit/entrance.? For the whole weekend it was just flashing red all ways.? TRAFFIC HAS NEVER BEEN SO FAST!!!(not speed but time through intersection)? Hardly ever any waiting.? Usually you come up to the light and have to sit for 45 seconds.
Again, sounds like a residential area thats trying to slow down through traffic.
If the light doesn't normally flash red but it was over the weekend, there was probably a malfunction with the light that can only be rectified by someone who works M-F; the PD probably puts it on the flashing red in the meantime; thats what happens here.
I don't know the size of your city, but call city hall; they can probably direct you to the appropriate department.
Quote from: the nameless one on May 23, 2007, 06:19:05 AM
I'm guessing that you live in a residential area. Stopping will keep the average vehicle speed down. Yield signs are not as effective doing that. Stopping also forces you to stop, look around and actually make sure that the area is clear and there isn't some vehicle or pedestrian in a blind spot that you are about to run over.
Again, sounds like a residential area thats trying to slow down through traffic.
If the light doesn't normally flash red but it was over the weekend, there was probably a malfunction with the light that can only be rectified by someone who works M-F; the PD probably puts it on the flashing red in the meantime; thats what happens here.
I don't know the size of your city, but call city hall; they can probably direct you to the appropriate department.
Thanks. I understand putting stopsigns all over because they want to keep the speed down. They just get a little too frisky with them. I am mostly refering to stop signs used to control intersections.
The light wasn't malfuctioning, they had put up a whole new light. This had been going on for a while, they were putting the new one up while the old one was still directing traffic. Then on a Saturday they tore the old one down and started using the new one, but all weekend it was just flashing red. Hopefully that M-F guy happened to go through the intersection and say wow, this is way better with a flashing red than the light itself has ever been.....
Quote from: hounddog on May 23, 2007, 03:32:42 AM
Usually, most people who cut in and out, tailgate, drive drunk, etc. have a habit of speeding as well. In fact, I would venture a guess, and this is just a guess mind you, that maybe 40% of OUILs come from speed alone. Same or higher for suspended violations. Traffic safety and speed enforcement go hand in hand, like it or not. Again, just a guess, but I would say that a large majority of traffic crashes involve speeding. Perhaps as high as 65% or more. If people would just slow down, fatal accidents would fall. I remember watching a show, I do not remember what it was, on the Autobahn. It seemed like there was a significantly higher fatality vs. traffic crash ratio in the portions where the speeds were higher or where there were no limits. I no longer remember the specifics, but it did support the notion that high speed was involved in most of those crashes.
Few comments:
I'll agree that speed is a factor - but it ALWAYS is.? If no one was moving there would be no accidents.? Everyone uses the term speeding so loosely.? Sure it was a
factor, but what was the actual
cause of the accident?? Speeding itself rarely is the sole cause of an accident, and typically that only happens in incliment weather.? From what I understand, the number 1 cause of accidents is inattentive (spelling?) driving.? Now if someone was going 65 in a 60, looked away at the radio or their kid, and then got in an accident - would you attribute that to speeding?? I think people lump it in too often.? They most likely would have gotton in an accident had they been going 60.
Question for the police officers:
Do you guys ever look at intertia vs. speeding?? Or do you just look at strictly speed numbers?? Take the sports car going 75 passing a semi going 70 in a 60.? Which do you pull over?? Logically if you are trying to keep people safe, you should pull over the semi right?? He has a MUCH longer stop time and can't manuever nearly as well.
I like that we are talking about officers setting speed traps vs. officers driving around.? This one gets me the most, as it seems when you are sitting behind a bush under a bridge staring up the highway with a radar gun - you can't tell me you are looking for inattentive drivers, left lane campers, people who can't merge etc.? I think it mostly irks people because all you are looking for is that number on your radar gun.
Some examples:
My first ticket ever was in the middle of nowhere on the interstate.? I was sitting in a line of probably 10 cars (I was second in line) behind a SUV for many many miles that WOULD NOT pass the guy in the right lane.? FINALLY a gap opened up and as soon as I jumped into it, just my luck a cop was sitting under a bridge.? He gave me a ticket, but didn't care for the SUV blocking traffic like crazy.
The other day I encountered TWO poor highway mergers on the same day, I thought the apocolypse was coming.? Both happened on a long 1/2mile or so on ramp.? The lady went 45mph down the entire thing, came to the end and STOPPED.? (not slowed down a lot, but seriously 0mph).? She looked over her shoulder, WAITED for traffic to clear entirely then went.? This happened twice in one day!!!? Do officers ever pull people over like that?? Talk about dangerous.? How many rear end accidents occur on on-ramps because the person in front slams their brakes on while the person behind is looking for a spot to merge and doesn't see it?
"How many rear end accidents occur on on-ramps because the person in front slams their brakes on while the person behind is looking for a spot to merge and doesn't see it?"
Preludedriver who used to frequent C/D had an incident exactly like that.
Quote from: Champ on May 23, 2007, 08:14:23 AM
Few comments:
I'll agree that speed is a factor - but it ALWAYS is.? If no one was moving there would be no accidents.? Everyone uses the term speeding so loosely.? Sure it was a factor, but what was the actual cause of the accident?? Speeding itself rarely is the sole cause of an accident, and typically that only happens in incliment weather.? From what I understand, the number 1 cause of accidents is inattentive (spelling?) driving.? Now if someone was going 65 in a 60, looked away at the radio or their kid, and then got in an accident - would you attribute that to speeding?? I think people lump it in too often.? They most likely would have gotton in an accident had they been going 60.
Yes and no. Speed is not always considered a factor in every traffic crash. And, speed is often a major, if not main contributing factor on dry hot roads in the middle of summer. How often? I do not know, but I do know it often is. Often it is combined with with one or more other factors, yet the point remains that if the person involved in a traffic crash were driving slower, to say within the speed limit, the chances of that person being able to make correct moves to avoid a crash are pretty greatly increased. In other words, if you go slower, you have more time to recognize the threat, form a plan of action, put into action that plan (respond physically). As for the question on the 65 in a 60, that would be a case where speed played little in the traffic crash.
QuoteQuestion for the police officers:
Do you guys ever look at intertia vs. speeding?? Or do you just look at strictly speed numbers?? Take the sports car going 75 passing a semi going 70 in a 60.? Which do you pull over?? Logically if you are trying to keep people safe, you should pull over the semi right?? He has a MUCH longer stop time and can't manuever nearly as well.
I can not answer for other officers, but I would usually get the truck. For one thing, it will take him a much farther distance to stop if need be. Also, if the car is a sports car, it was designed to handle better as you said. Now, that means little as most people THINK they can drive well. The reality is, most people have ZERO training other than basic drivers ed from when they were 16, while that truck driver had to go through a lengthy driving school and prove that he can drive that rig. Making him likely the better driver. But his vehicle makes him inherently more dangerous. Most street officers try to take both the inertia and the speed into account as they go hand in hand and you can not have one without the other. But again, I can not speak for all LEO's.
QuoteI like that we are talking about officers setting speed traps vs. officers driving around.? This one gets me the most, as it seems when you are sitting behind a bush under a bridge staring up the highway with a radar gun - you can't tell me you are looking for inattentive drivers, left lane campers, people who can't merge etc.? I think it mostly irks people because all you are looking for is that number on your radar gun.
What you mention is not a speed trap. A speed trap is when the officer sits very very near the beginning of a reduced speed zone and writes tickets for people not going the speed limit at the start of the new zone. Even though that sounds unethical, it is not. In Michigan the speed zone starts AT THE SIGNAGE or markings, not where you can first see it or after 150 feet after the sign when you let off the gas. The officer is well within his rights to set up a true speed trap, it just is not very sporting of him. I have set at speed signs before, but I was trying to catch people who sped up well before the new zones, not the other way around.
QuoteSome examples:
My first ticket ever was in the middle of nowhere on the interstate.? I was sitting in a line of probably 10 cars (I was second in line) behind a SUV for many many miles that WOULD NOT pass the guy in the right lane.? FINALLY a gap opened up and as soon as I jumped into it, just my luck a cop was sitting under a bridge.? He gave me a ticket, but didn't care for the SUV blocking traffic like crazy.
Which side did you pass him on? If it was on the right, most states allow that but I think there are some that do not. If you went to the shoulder to pass, I can see why you got a ticket. :pullover:
QuoteThe other day I encountered TWO poor highway mergers on the same day, I thought the apocolypse was coming.? Both happened on a long 1/2mile or so on ramp.? The lady went 45mph down the entire thing, came to the end and STOPPED.? (not slowed down a lot, but seriously 0mph).? She looked over her shoulder, WAITED for traffic to clear entirely then went.? This happened twice in one day!!!? Do officers ever pull people over like that? Talk about dangerous.? How many rear end accidents occur on on-ramps because the person in front slams their brakes on while the person behind is looking for a spot to merge and doesn't see it?
It depends on the circumstances of her stopping. If she did not have an area to merge into, then no. If she did it because she just wanted to be extra cautious, or whatever, and there was plenty room to merge and we saw it happen then we probably would. If nothing else to check on her sobriety.
Quote from: hounddog on May 23, 2007, 11:44:47 AM
Yes and no. Speed is not always considered a factor in every traffic crash. And, speed is often a major, if not main contributing factor on dry hot roads in the middle of summer. How often? I do not know, but I do know it often is. Often it is combined with with one or more other factors, yet the point remains that if the person involved in a traffic crash were driving slower, to say within the speed limit, the chances of that person being able to make correct moves to avoid a crash are pretty greatly increased. In other words, if you go slower, you have more time to recognize the threat, form a plan of action, put into action that plan (respond physically). As for the question on the 65 in a 60, that would be a case where speed played little in the traffic crash.
Right but why aren't speed limits looked at more closely in certain areas, to actually reflect the average speed of traffic? I have to wonder why some highways have a 55mph limit, then nothing in the highway itself changes, and the limit will bump up to 60. Or how about accross state lines? Who is the guy researching all this saying it should be this or that. I read some research a while back and I'm trying to look it up again but having trouble finding it. It showed that raising the speed limit by 5mph on certain highways didn't change the average speed of traffic, but accidents went DOWN. Where as at the same area, LOWERING the speed limit 5mph didn't change traffic, but accidents went UP. I am going to keep looking for this data, as I still think speed limits are set to collect a certain amount of revenue.
QuoteI can not answer for other officers, but I would usually get the truck. For one thing, it will take him a much farther distance to stop if need be. Also, if the car is a sports car, it was designed to handle better as you said. Now, that means little as most people THINK they can drive well. The reality is, most people have ZERO training other than basic drivers ed from when they were 16, while that truck driver had to go through a lengthy driving school and prove that he can drive that rig. Making him likely the better driver. But his vehicle makes him inherently more dangerous. Most street officers try to take both the inertia and the speed into account as they go hand in hand and you can not have one without the other. But again, I can not speak for all LEO's.
At least you understand what I am talking about. I haven't seen this happen one way or the other so I'm not sure how officers would handle it. Just seems like common sense to pull over the more dangerous vehicle.
QuoteWhat you mention is not a speed trap. A speed trap is when the officer sits very very near the beginning of a reduced speed zone and writes tickets for people not going the speed limit at the start of the new zone. Even though that sounds unethical, it is not. In Michigan the speed zone starts AT THE SIGNAGE or markings, not where you can first see it or after 150 feet after the sign when you let off the gas. The officer is well within his rights to set up a true speed trap, it just is not very sporting of him. I have set at speed signs before, but I was trying to catch people who sped up well before the new zones, not the other way around.
What do you call it when an officer is just sitting behind bridges/signs/bushes when the speed limit doesn't change? He is doing exactly the same thing there is just no speed limit change. Just curious for terminology.
QuoteWhich side did you pass him on? If it was on the right, most states allow that but I think there are some that do not. If you went to the shoulder to pass, I can see why you got a ticket. :pullover:
In the right lane of course. How do you pass someone who won't get out of the left lane? If it's illegal to pass on the right, and an officer witnesses someone doing it... do they pull over the guy in the left lane not moving (for abstructing traffic), or do they pull over the guy passing on the right?
QuoteIt depends on the circumstances of her stopping. If she did not have an area to merge into, then no. If she did it because she just wanted to be extra cautious, or whatever, and there was plenty room to merge and we saw it happen then we probably would. If nothing else to check on her sobriety.
She definitely had space to merge. You always do as near as I can tell. In my 8 years of driving I have never been unable to merge, so I'm not sure why people have difficulty with this aspect of driving. Seems like every other time I merge onto the highway I always get stuck behind the guy going 45, forcing into traffic - then speeding up to the speed of traffic. Why not just be GOING the speed of traffic? :/
I believe I was told in drivers ed (yes something useful!) that when merging, if there is no space, you should keep driving on the shoulder until space opens up. Never to stop. It really only makes sense if you think about it.
Quote from: Champ on May 23, 2007, 07:53:30 AM
Thanks.? I understand putting stopsigns all over because they want to keep the speed down.? They just get a little too frisky with them.? I am mostly refering to stop signs used to control intersections.
There are intersections in residential areas too ya know.
QuoteThe light wasn't malfuctioning, they had put up a whole new light.? This had been going on for a while, they were putting the new one up while the old one was still directing traffic.? Then on a Saturday they tore the old one down and started using the new one, but all weekend it was just flashing red.? Hopefully that M-F guy happened to go through the intersection and say wow, this is way better with a flashing red than the light itself has ever been.....
There ya have it. They were replacing a light. So you had to put up with a blinking light over a weekend. Really now. You KNOW the circumstances of why this happened, you know its not a normal situation, yet you make it sound like it was some planned event that by god, just inconvenienced you SO bad. Do we have any legitimate complaints?
QuoteWhat do you call it when an officer is just sitting behind bridges/signs/bushes when the speed limit doesn't change? He is doing exactly the same thing there is just no speed limit change. Just curious for terminology.
Where he sits doesn't change the fact that the driver was speeding. The officer sitting behind a tree doesn't somehow force that driver to exceed the posted speed limit.
OK I found an article of a study done in 1992, which still applies today. I found the actual article I remember reading, but you need to be registered and logged in at some obscure website so I wasn't able to view it.
http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html
Preface: A lot of this data is just random highways or streets they picked to watch over time, then to raise or lower the speed limit and then watch what happens over another period of time.
QuoteThe results of the study indicated that lowering posted speed limits by as much as 20 mi/h (32 km/h), or raising speed limits by as much as 15 mi/h (24 km/h) had little effect on motorist' speed. The majority of motorist did not drive 5 mi/h (8 km/h) above the posted speed limits when speed limits were raised, nor did they reduce their speed by 5 or 10 mi/h (8 or 16 km/h) when speed limits are lowered. Data collected at the study sites indicated that the majority of speed limits are posed below the average speed of traffic. Lowering speed limits below the 50th percentile does not reduce accidents, but does significantly increase driver violations of the speed limit. Conversely, raising the posted speed limits did not increase speeds or accidents.
QuoteThe lack of consensus on how to establish safe and reasonable speed limits has led to nonuniform limits. While newspapers and scientific articles dating to the early 1900's discuss the problem and need for uniform limits, engineers such as Bearwald, in 1964, criticized traffic engineers for using nonuniform limits in both rural and urban areas and called for the establishment of speed zones of a factual and scientific basis as opposed to opinion and political expediency. Bearwald's suggestion apparently received little attention.
QuoteAccidents at the 58 experimental sites where speed limits were LOWERED increased by 5.4 percent.
Accidents at the 41 experimental sites where speed limits were RAISED decreased by 6.7 percent.
QuoteThe accident involvement rates on streets and highways in urban areas was highest for the slowest 5 percent of traffic, lowest for traffic in the 30-to-95-percentile range and increased for the fastest 5 percent of traffic.
But wait! Tell me it's not true! I thought the slower you went the less likely you were to crash? Speed is a large factor right? Not quite, speed DIFFERENTIAL is a large factor.
QuoteMany current speed limits coincide with 30-percentile speed, which is near the lower bound of safe travel speed. Speed limits should be set in the 70-to-90-percentile range or roughly 5 to 10 mph above the average speed to correctly reflect maximum safe speed. Speed limits are set in multiples of 5 mph; the 70-to-90-percentile range will almost always include a 5-mph multiple. Allowing a 5-mph tolerance, enforcement would then be targeted at drivers who are clearly at risk. If speed limits were raised to more realistic levels, would drivers automatically drive 5 to 10 mph over the new speed limit as is commonly believed? The answer is no. Raising the speed by various amounts up to 15 mph has little or no effect on speeds over a broad range of road types and speed levels.
Shows speed limits are set arbitrarily too low.
CONCLUSION of one of the studies:
QuoteIt would be premature to draw any firm conclusions since the research is still underway. However, the findings to date suggest that, on the average, current speed limits are set too low to be accepted as reasonable by the vast majority of drivers. Only about 1 in 10 speed zones has better than 50-percent compliance. The posted speeds make technical violators out of motorists driving at reasonable and safe speeds.
For the traffic law system to minimize accident risk, then speed limits need to be properly set to define maximum safe speed. Our studies show that most speed zones are posted 8 to 12 mph below the prevailing travel speed and 15 mph or more below the maximum safe speed. Increasing speed limits to more realistic levels will not result in higher speeds but would increase voluntary compliance and target enforcement at the occasional violator and high-risk driver.
One way for restoring the informational value of speed limits requires that we do a better job of engineering speed limits. Hopefully, the results of this research will provide engineers with the knowledge and tools needed to set maximum safe speed limits that are defensible and accepted by the public and the courts.
Quote from: the nameless one on May 23, 2007, 12:51:40 PM
There ya have it. They were replacing a light. So you had to put up with a blinking light over a weekend. Really now. You KNOW the circumstances of why this happened, you know its not a normal situation, yet you make it sound like it was some planned event that by god, just inconvenienced you SO bad. Do we have any legitimate complaints?
Maybe you didn't read what I said before. I noted that when the light was blinking red, time through the intersection was SHORTER on average, than when it was functioning as a normal light. My legitimate complaint is that they are purposely delaying us. They SAW traffic moving faster. All you had to do was go through the intersection 1-2 times to notice a difference.
I was happy it went to blinking red, not unahppy. :D
Quote from: the nameless one on May 23, 2007, 12:54:49 PM
Where he sits doesn't change the fact that the driver was speeding. The officer sitting behind a tree doesn't somehow force that driver to exceed the posted speed limit.
I asked because I had called it a speed trap, and was corrected to say a speed trap is when an officer sits at a speed limit change and gets people when the speed up too early or don't slow down fast enough. I understand where he sits doesn't change what the driver does, I was just looking for terminoligy :/
Near where I live, there is a ramp that connects one highway (Route I-195/SR-138) to another major highway (NJ 18). At the end of the on-ramp from I-195 to NJ-18, there is a stop sign. I could never understand this. It is completely unsafe to merge from one highway to another from a speed of "0." I always treat it as a Yield sign. I never have come anywhere near a full stop there, for my own safety.
My defensive driving instructor always stressed how important it is to be moving the speed of traffic by the time you're ready to merge onto the highway. He had me gunning the 4runner like a race car so I'd be up to speed by the end of the on-ramp.
"As I said, it is a valid citation; most people recognize that failure to comply as "justification" for issuing a citation."
Wrong! Laws do not justify themselves, they are only justified when there is a legitimate need for them. The existence of a law does not justify that law.
As for the law I'm talking about? Refer to SB 79 of 2007.
For a quick lesson on how CMVs are immobilized, and the laws that provide for such, check the Hours-of-Service (HOS) regulations (49 CFR, Part 395).
Nothing else you've written requires response to. I'm tired of being accused of saying things i haven't said. (where did I claim I was highly educated?, and why does that keep coming up with you anyways? Where did I say "huge benefit? The list could go on, but you make a habit of continually either choosing to misinterpret what I write or not having the ability to think about it at all ).
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 23, 2007, 01:33:02 PM
"As I said, it is a valid citation; most people recognize that failure to comply as "justification" for issuing a citation."
Wrong! Laws do not justify themselves, they are only justified when there is a legitimate need for them. The existence of a law does not justify that law.
As for the law I'm talking about? Refer to SB 79 of 2007.
For a quick lesson on how CMVs are immobilized, and the laws that provide for such, check the Hours-of-Service (HOS) regulations (49 CFR, Part 395).
Nothing else you've written requires response to. I'm tired of being accused of saying things i haven't said. (where did I claim I was highly educated?, and why does that keep coming up with you anyways? Where did I say "huge benefit? The list could go on, but you make a habit of continually either choosing to misinterpret what I write or not having the ability to think about it at all ).
You did not ask me to justify the law.? You ask where the justification in writing the tickets came from, which, I clearly answered.? By the way, there need not be an injured party for a law to be broken, it is called a victimless crime.? But, being a cracker-box, err cracker-jack lawyer yourself I would have thought you would already know that.?
"
As for you question as to where my education comes from, I have a BSMET from Lawrence."? Sound familiar?? You claimed then you are highly educated, not me.? Or, am I misinterpreting what you wrote?? ?As for nothing else I have writen requiring responses, you claim to be involved in the design of certain operating systems within lidar units~ why not answer the question "What exactly do you do?"? I make the habit of misinterpreting what you write or do not have the ability to think about it at all?? Did you even read some of your ignorant and utterly rediculous posts in the Radar thread?? ?Tell me then, oh master of many trades, how does Sine and Cos effect radar or lidar operation?? Or, what are the recognized methods for performing internal verification on a lidar unit?? If you can answer both of those I will lighten up on you.
As for me being the "only cop in existance with a master's degree in engineering,"? I suppose the three officers I know who hold Ph.D.s in pshycology, finance, and the other in politics are the only ones in existance in their perspective fields as well??
And, geez, thanks for laying out information on red tagging vehicles.? I never knew about that, I am so glad you know everything or I might have spent a 17 year career in law enforcement for nothing.? ?:rolleyes:? But I am still waiting on who will pay for all of this immobilization when clearly most of the communities are teetering on the verge of financial collapse and only able to maintain solvency due to the influx of ticket revenues.?
By the way, I have spoken with two of the municipalities you indicated are keeping their heads above water soley because of those ticket funds.? I happen to have friends in both police departments and they both faxed their cities budgets to me and I have them in hand, neither of which are even close to one hundred, let alone hundreds of pages, long.? ?I will be getting the others in the next couple of days, care to retract or edit your statements??
I've been following this discussion pretty closely and can't figure out how those questions have ANYTHING to do with what we're talking about. It seems like you're carrying over some frustration with another thread. Who gives a fuck what his background is with radar units? We were talking about ticket revenue and alternative forms of traffic enforcement. No one is questioning your job performance, we're questioning whether or not we have the system set-up right. That's our responsibility as citizens.
Quote from: Tave on May 23, 2007, 02:14:15 PM
I've been following this discussion pretty closely and can't figure out how those questions have ANYTHING to do with what we're talking about. It seems like you're carrying over some frustration with another thread. Who gives a fuck what his background is with radar units? We were talking about ticket revenue and alternative forms of traffic enforcement. No one is questioning your job performance, we're questioning whether or not we have the system set-up right. That's our responsibility as citizens.
Because he is making sweeping statements of how many muncipalities across Michigan are only staving off bankruptcy by relying on the ticket revenues to keep them in the black.? He makes other claims as well, in a couple different threads about this or that and I am simply trying to get him to provide credible information.? Who gives a farque if you care or not?? Are you the thread police now?
Wow, there are calls being made and faxes being sent all because of this thread. I feel extra special as the admin today.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 22, 2007, 07:06:40 PM
What, there's no difference between "no contact" and being highly educated?
For the record, much of what I do has to do with designing gallium/arsenide diodes which are the basic operating component of LIDAR guns, so yes: I am intimately familiar with the physics behind their operation, the light mechanics involved, the mathematics to figure out their physics, and the computers that control them. I also worked most of my career in the auto industry- and my current work is an extension of the automation applications I worked with there.
If he does not want his statements challenged for credability, he should not make them.
His credibility rests with the arguments he makes and the way he presents them. If he can throw together a meaningful insight, who cares what his experience is?
I, for one, would rather participate in a discussion about alternative traffic enforcement than I would about Soup's radar credentials. One topic I have a vested interest in, as both a participant and beneficiary of the system, and the other won't bother me even if I have to put up with it for a billion years.
Quote from: Champ on May 23, 2007, 12:30:18 PM
Right but why aren't speed limits looked at more closely in certain areas, to actually reflect the average speed of traffic?? I have to wonder why some highways have a 55mph limit, then nothing in the highway itself changes, and the limit will bump up to 60.? Or how about accross state lines?? Who is the guy researching all this saying it should be this or that.?
I can not answer for other states, but in Michigan the state sets the limits, signage and whatnot along state roads, primary roads and highways. Local municipalities have the right to set speeds along what we call secondary roads. I am not certain if on the secondary roads the municipalities are able to change general signage, or that has to be done at the county road commission level. I really do not know that part. Other states may have different rules.
QuoteAt least you understand what I am talking about.? I haven't seen this happen one way or the other so I'm not sure how officers would handle it.? Just seems like common sense to pull over the more dangerous vehicle.What do you call it when an officer is just sitting behind bridges/signs/bushes when the speed limit doesn't change?? He is doing exactly the same thing there is just no speed limit change.? Just curious for terminology.
I think speed trap pretty much only applies when the speed is reduced into the next zone, especially when there is little or no prior warning. The officer who is sitting behind something to catch speeders, most of us call that "creative." But, it is pretty unsportsmanlike. Most guys I know or worked with do not sit behind stuff, but do or did sit off to the side at more of an angle. I never sat behind anything that I can remember.
QuoteIn the right lane of course.? How do you pass someone who won't get out of the left lane?? If it's illegal to pass on the right, and an officer witnesses someone doing it... do they pull over the guy in the left lane not moving (for abstructing traffic), or do they pull over the guy passing on the right?
Here it is ok to pass on the right providing there is enough paved area to keep your entire vehicle on to safely effect a pass. On a freeway, there is clearly enough room because it is another lane. I do not know what the law was in your state. Also, here we do pull over people and cite for being left lane hogs. It is called, "Fail to allow overtaking vehicle to pass."
QuoteShe definitely had space to merge.? You always do as near as I can tell.? In my 8 years of driving I have never been unable to merge, so I'm not sure why people have difficulty with this aspect of driving.? Seems like every other time I merge onto the highway I always get stuck behind the guy going 45, forcing into traffic - then speeding up to the speed of traffic.? Why not just be GOING the speed of traffic? :/
Not everyplace has enough room to merge, Detroit at rush hour on I-696 west is almost impossible to merge without a fight for your life. But if there is, you are right keep going.
QuoteI believe I was told in drivers ed (yes something useful!) that when merging, if there is no space, you should keep driving on the shoulder until space opens up.? Never to stop.? It really only makes sense if you think about it.
What do you do when you run out of merging lane?
Quote from: Tave on May 23, 2007, 02:34:28 PM
His credibility rests with the arguments he makes and the way he presents them. If he can throw together a meaningful insight, who cares what his experience is?
I, for one, would rather participate in a discussion about alternative traffic enforcement than I would about Soup's radar credentials. One topic I have a vested interest in, as both a participant and beneficiary of the system, and the other won't bother me even if I have to put up with it for a billion years.
The problem is some of, or alot of, his arguments here hold no validity.? He makes claims, but fails to back them.? Sometimes, but not always to be fair to him.? If someone makes an incredulous statement, I am going to call them on it.? If you do not wish to read about it, then by all means skip it.?
Quote from: hounddog on May 23, 2007, 02:47:46 PM
What do you do when you run out of merging lane?
Use the shoulder, like noted?
Only place this wouldn't apply is seldomly you run into areas where there is construction, and the on ramp is made of cones or whatever, and if you don't make it on you have to stop. That is a special instance and I believe to be much less than 1% of all merging situations.
I guess I take merging more seriously than other people do. As I come down the ramps, I look onto the highway to see where I can fit in. I then plan my speed around where I can fit in. Sometimes the gap may be a little farther up so I need to catch up to it.
Quote from: Tave on May 23, 2007, 02:14:15 PM
I've been following this discussion pretty closely and can't figure out how those questions have ANYTHING to do with what we're talking about. It seems like you're carrying over some frustration with another thread. Who gives a fuck what his background is with radar units? We were talking about ticket revenue and alternative forms of traffic enforcement. No one is questioning your job performance, we're questioning whether or not we have the system set-up right. That's our responsibility as citizens.
I have nothing to do with LIDAR unit design, that's another statement that Hdog is putting in my mouth. I do work on and with engineers on the design of special types of gallium/arsenide diodes. These are the main emitters involved with LIDAR guns; but they also are used in hundreds of other applications from barcode scanners to golf rangefinders. Specifically, I work with them on color-sensing photodetectors. I work in the process development team of a large plastic bottle manufacturer. There are no commercially available photoeyes that will give the cyclical rate and polarization detection on a transparent, nonmagnetic object that we need for a certain application. This has caused me to have to learn more about them than I ever expected to. And while I have little experience with actual LIDAR guns, the physics involved is exactly the same.
And yes, when i was grilled in the past about my education, I stated that I have a BSMET. I would not call a standard undergrad engineering technician degree "highly educated," especially when I'm conversing with someone claiming to have a Master's.
"You did not ask me to justify the law"
Yes I did. If my previous verbiage confused you, or if it was misunderstood, then I apologize.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 22, 2007, 05:39:32 PM
Hey Hounddog: can you think of one single justification for writing a $125.00 ticket to a motorist for failing to sign the back of a registration card other than shameless revenuing grabbing?
Not to sound nasty, but this is what you wrote. You asked me to give a justification for writing the ticket, not for the law. Read your own post. If you meant something else, so be it. Clarify what you meant, but please do not tell me what your post clearly did not say.
Quote from: hounddog on May 23, 2007, 04:43:47 PM
Not to sound nasty, but this is what you wrote.? You asked me to give a justification for writing the ticket, not for the law.? Read your own post.? If you meant something else, so be it.? Clarify what you meant, but please do not tell me what your post clearly did not say.
OK then, now that we've cleared up what I meant, do you have an answer?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 23, 2007, 03:32:25 PM
I have nothing to do with LIDAR unit design, that's another statement that Hdog is putting in my mouth. I do work on and with engineers on the design of special types of gallium/arsenide diodes. These are the main emitters involved with LIDAR guns; but they also are used in hundreds of other applications from barcode scanners to golf rangefinders. Specifically, I work with them on color-sensing photodetectors. I work in the process development team of a large plastic bottle manufacturer. There are no commercially available photoeyes that will give the cyclical rate and polarization detection on a transparent, nonmagnetic object that we need for a certain application. This has caused me to have to learn more about them than I ever expected to. And while I have little experience with actual LIDAR guns, the physics involved is exactly the same.
And yes, when i was grilled in the past about my education, I stated that I have a BSMET. I would not call a standard undergrad engineering technician degree "highly educated," especially when I'm conversing with someone claiming to have a Master's.
To respond, your other post was written in a manner that led me to think you were involved somehow in the lidar manufacture.? That apparently not the case, I apologize for that misunderstanding on my part.? How can someone be so intimately involved with this kind of work, and not understand some of the most basic of theories regarding light?? Not trying to sound like a turd, just surprises me is all.? ?
For the record, which is something you like to say, anyone who has any college level degree in engineering is pretty highly educated in my opinion.? If Lawrence has an engineering program that is anything at all as hard as MSU's,? which I am sure it is, it makes you highly educated.? I am uncertain as to what the 'technician' part means but it still is a four year degree, right?
I hope our PM's back and forth will provide better, well, back and forth in the future.? Hope there are no hard feelings.
Just above the line where you are supposed to sign it says:
"The vehicle owner must sign this registration certificate before using it.
This registration and your current Certificate of Michigan No-Fault Insurance must be carried in the vehicle or by the driver.? Both must be presented upon request of a police officer."
My answer remains the same as it did on the previous page;? 1) it is a valid citation? 2) failure to comply with the type written instructions on the paper? 3) under the law, the registration certificate is invalid until it is signed.? You will not hear me say it is not a minor violation, but it is in fact a violation of Michigan law to the same effect as not having proper insurance certificates with you.? Both are moving non-point citations with somewhat large fines.
Unfortunately, in quoting what I wrote I accidentally edited the page.? But at least the information is basically still there.
Do you allow the person to sign it before they hand it to you?
I don't think the problem is with the officer who is under oath to enforce the law, it's with the stupid law itself.
Quote from: Tave on May 23, 2007, 05:27:27 PM
I don't think the problem is with the officer who is under oath to enforce the law, it's with the stupid law itself.
Bingo. If the law is on the books and the officer enforces it then it is valid.
Quote from: Champ on May 23, 2007, 05:24:41 PM
Do you allow the person to sign it before they hand it to you?
Sometimes I did, sometimes not. It depended on alot of things, I did not usually write full doubles or triples. For instance, if I caught you running 75/55 and you did not have your proof of insurance with you I might write 65/55 & no proof. Same for most everything else except in cases of drunk driving or suspended licenses, which case you got everything I could find because you had no business behind the wheel to begin with. Sometimes the only way to get through to people like that is to force them to realize the consequences of their actions.
Sometimes you pulled a person over and they were sincere in their apologies, those people most often got the bigger breaks. Everything I did was done pretty much along a similar line, meaning I tried to give everyone similar treatment for similar violations. I felt, and still feel, that was a fair way of handling things.
Quote from: Catman on May 23, 2007, 05:31:42 PM
Bingo.? If the law is on the books and the officer enforces it then it is valid.?
But I agree, some laws are stupid. It is up to the people of that state to have stupid laws changed or repealed, not the police. We are required to enforce laws we may or may not agree with. It is just a part of the job we have to accept. I for one have no idea why we are arresting people on warrants for not paying child support. It is a civil matter, and police have jurisdiction over civil matters yet we are required to arrest these people. :huh:
Quote from: hounddog on May 23, 2007, 05:08:26 PM
Just above the line where you are supposed to sign it says:
"The vehicle owner must sign this registration certificate before using it.
This registration and your current Certificate of Michigan No-Fault Insurance must be carried in the vehicle or by the driver.? Both must be presented upon request of a police officer."
My answer remains the same as it did on the previous page;? 1) it is a valid citation? 2) failure to comply with the type written instructions on the paper? 3) under the law, the registration certificate is invalid until it is signed.? You will not hear me say it is not a minor violation, but it is in fact a violation of Michigan law to the same effect as not having proper insurance certificates with you.? Both are moving non-point citations with somewhat large fines.
Unfortunately, in quoting what I wrote I accidentally edited the page.? But at least the information is basically still there.
Okay, I think we are mistakenly talking about two different laws. There has always been the NPOR citation, and technically, the signature has always been part of that. A couple of years ago however, it became a completely seperate offense to not have the rgistration signed, rather than the standard NPOR offense. This was in the same bill as those "driver responsibility" fines that were instituted in October of 2003 (public act 165 of 2003). These fines are issued by the State, and are in addition to the fines imposed at the municipal level.
This was nothing more than a blatant money grab, and increased fines on NPOI alone were specifically intended to create as much as $25 million worth of revenue for the state.
Senate Bill 79 and House Bill 4665 are currently coming up on the agenda to try and repeal some of the more ludicrous fines.
Now, having clarified that, and repeating that I am not asking if the law is valid, but whether the law has any justification outside of revenue grabbing, can you answer the question?
Quote from: hounddog on May 23, 2007, 04:58:28 PM
For the record, which is something you like to say, anyone who has any college level degree in engineering is pretty highly educated in my opinion.? If Lawrence has an engineering program that is anything at all as hard as MSU's,? which I am sure it is, it makes you highly educated.? I am uncertain as to what the 'technician' part means but it still is a four year degree, right?
The technician part means that it is slightly less math intensive than the outright mechanical engineering degree. In my case it means I didn't take Differential Equations II. Normal it would mean I didn't have to take thermo either, but I did: I just ran out of money to complete the degree I wanted. Yes, its a four year degree. In my case, six years of part time school.
can you sign it with an X.
Just so everybody is on the same page here:
http://www.michiganvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?Year=2003&PublicActNumber=165&op=View
"This is one of many bills authorizing tax and fee increases proposed to close a gap between state spending and expected revenue."
It's right there in black and white: the expressed intent of SB 509, which became PA 165 of 2003 was to produce revenue, and nothing else. That is part of codified, verifiable, legal documents. No other reasoning is ever offered.
Now, to those who claim that the collecting of fines does not financially benefit the government at large, and claim that there is no financial motivation behind the creation of such laws: do you have a rebuttal?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 23, 2007, 07:07:43 PM
Just so everybody is on the same page here:
http://www.michiganvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?Year=2003&PublicActNumber=165&op=View
"This is one of many bills authorizing tax and fee increases proposed to close a gap between state spending and expected revenue."
It's right there in black and white: the expressed intent of SB 509, which became PA 165 of 2003 was to produce revenue, and nothing else. That is part of codified, verifiable, legal documents. No other reasoning is ever offered.
Now, to those who claim that the collecting of fines does not financially benefit the government at large, and claim that there is no financial motivation behind the creation of such laws: do you have a rebuttal?
I never doubted the intent of politicians to come up with revenue to minimize the affect of their miserable spending habits. My only issue is with people who imply that police write citations in order to financially benefit their department. Examples of that are out there but, in my opinion, rare. If we benifited directly I'd get off the keyboards and write a few when I go out for lunch every day. We could use a few new laptops.
Quote from: Catman on May 23, 2007, 07:39:05 PM
I never doubted the intent of politicians to come up with revenue to minimize the affect of their miserable spending habits.? My only issue is with people who imply that police write citations in order to financially benefit their department. Examples of that are out there but, in my opinion, rare.? If we benifited directly I'd get off the keyboards and write a few when I go out for lunch every day.? We could use a few new laptops.
Although it may not be your motivation (and i honestly don't think it is); it can have that effect.
That's why I think that something has to be done to eliminate the financial benefits (or even the appearance therof) of collecting fines, and that if that were done, we would eventually see more sane speed laws and enforcement techniques.
Let me pay some arbitrary number like $500 or $1k a year to speed and give me some little card that I can show the police when they pull me over. It would require me to take some sort of class also. That would be awesome!
Not saying it would let you go like 120 down the highway, but when I get pulled over for doing like 65 in a 55, with said card they'd be like oh you know what you are doing, carry on.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 23, 2007, 07:46:39 PM
Although it may not be your motivation (and i honestly don't think it is); it can have that effect.
That's why I think that something has to be done to eliminate the financial benefits (or even the appearance therof) of collecting fines, and that if that were done, we would eventually see more sane speed laws and enforcement techniques.
It can't "have that effect" if the money, regardless of how many tickets are written, doesn't stay local, and the enforcement/ prosecution costs of every ticket outweigh the fine that is received. I don't know how many times the same thing has to be said. There are no "financial benefits" for most agencies or lacales. Without fines as penalties, there is no incentive for drivers to obey the law, unless you want to impose my earlier suggestion of immediately suspending the drivers license for the first ticket. After that what...jail time? Thats even more costsly.
Quote from: the nameless one on May 24, 2007, 02:41:46 AM
It can't "have that effect" if the money, regardless of how many tickets are written, doesn't stay local, and the enforcement/ prosecution? costs of every ticket outweigh the fine that is received. I don't know how many times the same thing has to be said.? There are no "financial benefits" for most agencies or lacales. Without fines as penalties, there is no incentive for drivers to obey the law, unless you want to impose my earlier suggestion of immediately suspending the drivers license for the first ticket. After that what...jail time? Thats even more costsly.
Apparently, if you say something often enough, that makes it true, huh?
Wow, this has turned into one of those intractible fights. I might have been luck mediating the Israeli-Arab conflict..... :lol:
I think it's fair to say that IF A PERSON CHALLENGES A TICKET, the costs of administering a ticket outweigh the revenues from the fines. However, only a small percentage of people challenge their tickets, so overall fines bring revenue to SOMEBODY.
The beneficiaries of the income from fines depends on the state. As Greg stated, in his state, Massachusetts, the fines are split 50/50 between the state and municipality. In my state, Connecticut, all fines go to the state. Some other states such as New York allow the local jurisdiction to keep most of the fine, with the surcharge going to the state.
Whatever the case is, there is little suggestion that I know of that fines directly benefit the police departments, or the officers themselves. When it comes to writing tickets, the officers are generally following either direct orders or general policies imposed by higher-ups, often outside the department.
In local speed enforcement, it is often local residents who complain and put pressure on the police to issue tickets. Most people operate on two tracks when it comes to the law -- they get angry when other people break it, but make excuses when they do it themselves.
In any case, the police are not to blame for stupid laws, though they can sometimes use stupid laws against people they don't like, people who have pissed them off. That's a standard practice in a different form in corporate America, so it's not limited to law enforcement.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 24, 2007, 03:47:31 PM
Apparently, if you say something often enough, that makes it true, huh?
What part of what I said is not true, in your opinion? There has to be some penalty in place to levy against those who break the law or there is no incentive to follow the law.
Quote from: dazzleman on May 24, 2007, 09:49:52 PM
In my state, Connecticut, all fines go to the state.? Some other states such as New York allow the local jurisdiction to keep most of the fine, with the surcharge going to the state.
The fine goes to the state in NYS. The only way a local jurisdiction keeps the money is if its a local law violation.
Quote from: the nameless one on May 24, 2007, 09:55:49 PM
What part of what I said is not true, in your opinion? There has to be some penalty in place to levy against those who break the law or there is no incentive to follow the law.
This part:
"There are no "financial benefits" for most agencies or locales"
Quote from: the nameless one on May 24, 2007, 09:57:53 PM
The fine goes to the state in NYS. The only way a local jurisdiction keeps the money is if its a local law violation.
I thought only the surcharge went to the state in New York. Maybe they've changed the setup.
Quote from: the nameless one on May 24, 2007, 09:57:53 PM
The fine goes to the state in NYS. The only way a local jurisdiction keeps the money is if its a local law violation.
And the local jurisdiction never, ever receives any money from the State, do they?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 25, 2007, 12:59:52 AM
This part: "There are no "financial benefits" for most agencies or locales"
That statement is true.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 25, 2007, 03:11:15 PM
And the local jurisdiction never, ever receives any money from the State, do they?
In terms of grant money, sure. For things like traffic enforcement, etc. As has been stated though, you are oversimplifying things if you think there is a direct line between ticket fines and money that eventually goes to an agency. If an agency doesn't make grant applications, for instance, they aren't going to get the grant money.
Quote from: the nameless one on May 25, 2007, 07:14:56 PM
In terms of grant money, sure. For things like traffic enforcement, etc. As has been stated though, you are oversimplifying things if you think there is a direct line between ticket fines and money that eventually goes to an agency. If an agency doesn't make grant applications, for instance, they aren't going to get the grant money.
Oh, gee, you have to fill out paperwork!
Money goes to the state. The state spends that money. If the state had less money they wouldn't be able to give out as many grants, or fund as many programs.
Some of the programs the state funds are specifically intended to collect fines.
It is exactly as simple as that.
Quote from: the nameless one on May 25, 2007, 07:12:19 PM
That statement is true.
The post you made directly after this one directly contradicts this post.
Ugh. We're just going in circles now.
Quote from: TurboDan on May 26, 2007, 08:31:27 AM
Ugh.? We're just going in circles now.
You noticed?..... :lol:
Quote from: TurboDan on May 26, 2007, 08:31:27 AM
Ugh. We're just going in circles now.
Thanks for the heads-up, Daniel!!! :P
:cheers: I'm just playing, man.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 25, 2007, 08:16:33 PM
The post you made directly after this one directly contradicts this post.
Not at all.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 25, 2007, 08:00:42 PM
Oh, gee, you have to fill out paperwork!
Money goes to the state. The state spends that money. If the state had less money they wouldn't be able to give out as many grants, or fund as many programs.
Some of the programs the state funds are specifically intended to collect fines.
It is exactly as simple as that.
Those grants address issues that the people, through their elected representatives, feel are important to fund. If the funds weren't there through monies received in the general fund from fines, the amount would simply be raised by income taxation. Its not like the grants will go away as long as there is support for them.
Its "not as simple as that" as you claim.
Hemi666 writes:
QuoteI don't like that attitude. I've been busted a few times and every time I deserved it. I was speeding and I got caught. . . .He got caught...fair and square
There is nothing ?fair and square? about speeding citations. They are an unnecessary adjunct to but not a part of the Universal Rule of Right of Way (URROW) that we use as the legal solution to an organizational problem. Aside from the blatant use of speeding citations to fund municipal coffers, there is no legitimate benefit from having speed limits and none of the various excuses used throughout their history have proved true.
Quote from: the nameless one on May 26, 2007, 06:17:06 PM
Not at all.
Exactly how is a state grant funding traffic enforcement
not a financial benefit derived from engaging in traffic enforcement activities?
Quote from: GoCougs on May 14, 2007, 09:49:31 PM
I think most would agree 15 over does deserve a ticket on all but the largest and most barren of freeways.
I don't agree at all.? The only reason to give a citation is an egregiously dangerous act, one that results in a crash, or obstructing the normal flow of traffic.? Since the purpose of all the new designs and improvements is to speed up the flow of traffic, trying to slow it down is silly.
QuoteNonetheless, as at least a few have stated, that's the game: people know the consequences if caught.
Continuing to improve traffic safety is an important consideration and not a game, although most cops and many drivers treat it as such.
QuoteI, like many, don't want to take at least half a day to go to a court date; in this specific case my only recourse would be to lie - which I'm not going to do.
If all or even half the ticket recipients went to court, the system would shut down in a single day.
Quote
Catman writes in Reply #49:
QuoteWe don't do hardly any enforcement on the highway, the state does.
The State of Oklahoma (where I'm finishing up disposing of my uncle's estate) just rescinded a law that prohibited small towns and villages from enforcing traffic laws on state, federal and Interstate highways that had been in effect about a year. As of yesterday, all the little speedtraps went back into operation, collecting lots of money but having no effect on key traffic safety measures.
1 Crash-, injury- and fatality-rates, each per 100 million VMT (vehicle miles traveled).
James, please refrain from making blanket statements. The purpose of this category is for LEOs to lend their advice on matters pertaining to cars, not for people to beat up on the LEOs.
Quote from: rohan on May 21, 2007, 09:25:52 PM
Speeding isn't a game- it's a dangerous thing and it 's results often kill people.?
I agree, speeding is not a game and speeding citations are not a game.? However, that does not make them a legitimate measure to be used to perform whatever the reason du jour is for speed control.? Speeding is not dangerous, otherwise the International Space Stationwould not be habitable.? ?Law enforcement and insurance companies have been trying for nearly sixty years? to prove that "speed kills" but facts are stubborn things and just don't support that assertion.? We now have more drivers driving more cars on more roads at higher speeds than ever but the key safety rates just keep improving.
QuoteFor every 10 mph more you travel the stopping distance quadrupples- or so the accident investigations god in his classes-
Dr. Daniel G. Lee, Ph.D., Director of Highway Traffic Safety Programs, Civil & Environmental Engineering,? Michigan State University.
Excuse me?? If my Bimmer stops from 60 mph in, say 150 feet, then if I stop from 70 mph, it takes 600 feet?? Then when I stop from 80 mph, it will take 2,400 feet?? I could coast to a stop and still beat that.
Quote from: BMWDave on May 26, 2007, 08:53:04 PM
James, please refrain from making blanket statements.? The purpose of this category is for LEOs to lend their advice on matters pertaining to cars, not for people to beat up on the LEOs.
What I wrote is true. If the readers want to read [sometimes, much of the time, most of the time] in place of [all the time], please be my guest; I won't argue that. The phenomenon I described ("testilying") is real as given to us by LEOs themselves. Further, courts generally do not believe traffic defendants as anybody with any observational skills can ascertain for themselves in asingle sesson of court. The truth is sometimes ugly.
As to the value of the advice given by some of the LEOs, I believe that they could learn much more from the readers than the readers can learn from the LEOs. Much of what they assert just does not stand up to critical analysis. If they are so easily offended, perhaps they should go into a different profession.
Quote from: BMWDave on May 26, 2007, 08:53:04 PM
James, please refrain from making blanket statements.? The purpose of this category is for LEOs to lend their advice on matters pertaining to cars, not for people to beat up on the LEOs.
"Come here to lament your ticket, get some tips on going to traffic court, or talk about any of the legal aspects of cars and driving. Our resident LEOs often put in their .02 as well!"That doesn't seem to jibe with the forum description.
Quote from: James Young on May 26, 2007, 09:06:12 PMExcuse me? If my Bimmer stops from 60 mph in, say 150 feet, then if I stop from 70 mph, it takes 600 feet? Then when I stop from 80 mph, it will take 2,400 feet? I could coast to a stop and still beat that.
You forgot to add reaction time traveled also, but I still think quadruple is a bit much. By a lot.
Quote from: Champ on May 26, 2007, 11:01:19 PM
You forgot to add reaction time traveled also, but I still think quadruple is a bit much.? By a lot.
It is, and i have to believe that that's simply a misquote.
Reaction time travelled would be directly proportional to the percentage of increase of speed: The reaction time is the same at 90 as it is at 60: you just travel farther in that time. Given an average reaction time of 0.75 seconds, your "reaction travel" would be 66 ft at 60 MPH, and 99 ft at 90 MPH. Looking at old car magazines, a believable average stop impending lockup from 60 MPH is 250 ft, so its fair to say it takes about 316 feet to stop from 60 MPH.
Assuming that a single stop from 90 won't cause appreciable brake fade, and referring to Newton's old friend? x = x0 + v0t + (1/2) at^2., we can derive the approximate stopping distance from there. "a" (acceleration) will be equal for both equations, and we're not concerned with "t" (time), so all we have to do is plug in 250 ft for vO on the first equation, solve for x: plug that x into the second equation and solve that one for vO. Or we can leave all the numbers out of it and simply add those two equations together and solve for x, which gives you x= a * v^2.
Or to take the geek out of it: Braking distance= acceleration times the square of speed: Or that that same car that stopped from 60 in 316 ft will stop from 90 in 662 ft: (not 20,224 ft!)
So, it's fair to say that
doubling your speed will
almost quadruple your reaction time including braking distance: which means that rohan's statement is true in one case and one case only: It will take you four times the distance to stop from 20 MPH as it will from 10 MPH.
And people were trying to play "gotcha" on me with high school level trig? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Champ on May 26, 2007, 11:01:19 PM
You forgot to add reaction time traveled also, but I still think quadruple is a bit much.? By a lot.
I have forgotten some of what I knew, however, that is in fact what Dr. Lee is teaching.? Rohan is a level six accident investigator, and knows quite a bit.? What I think he was trying to say, was that the inertia grows? with every mile per hour and conversly so is the stopping distance in relation to the gained inertia.?
It is not as simple as adding up the sum total of face forward stopping distances, but rather includes reaction times and? ?Initial Velocity, Coeficient of Friction, Grade,? Gravity, Mass (which actually cancels out the equation).? For instance, at about 150mph you are traveling the distance of one football field every second, or roughly 300 fps.? If you go to full stop the car it may require quadrupple the distance to stop due to brake fade, reaction time,? according to Dr. Lee's teaching combined with basic physics; the above mentioned factors as well.? Another factor not taken into account is brake fade.? Brake fade is where the glues used to bond the friction agents in brake pads heats to the point where it becomes gaseous.? The gas then creates a barrier which will not allow the pad to actually make contact with the rotor, instead it hovers just above the surface of the rotor , but does have a friction affect due to the compression of the gases, and will greatly increase stopping distances.? All brake pads are subject to this phenomenum, and it occurs very quickly often causing stopping distances to more than double.? So if your car is traveling at 75 mph and your brakes experience brake fade you could in fact travel several hundred feet or more before stopping.? The only way to limit this is by Burnishing the brakes when they are brand new, out of the box.
The parent equation would be;
Vf2=Vo2+2ad
Vf= Final velocity
Vo=Initial velocity
a= Acceleration rate
d=Distance traveled during acceleration
When calculating you assume Final Velocity of zero- which is the total speed when stopped.? Based on this, Distance traveled during braking can be solved.
d=-Vo2/(2a)
The distance should be positive if a negative acceleration rate is used.
acceleration rate is calculated by multipling the acceleration due to gravity by the sum of the coeficient of friction and grade of the road.? This is the final step in calculating braking distance;
d=V2/(2g(f+G))
d= Braking distance (ft)
g= Acceleration due to gravity (32.2 ft/sec2)
G= Road grade as a percentage= for 8% use 0.02
V= Vehicle initial speed (ft/sc)
f= Coeficient of friction between the tires and roadway surface
In other words;
Initial Speed;? 60
Grade; 0% (or 0.00)
Coefficient of friction;? 0.29?
Braking distance;? 413.6 ft
That coeficient of friction is for pavement which is wet.? Most roadway surfaces are about 0.40 or higher up to a 1.0 which would be the roughest damn road you have ever been on.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 26, 2007, 11:23:50 PM
Given an average reaction time of 0.75 seconds, your "reaction travel" would be 66 ft at 60 MPH, and 99 ft at 90 MPH.
I was reading through some notes from my last class on traffic crash reconstruction we were quizzed on stopping distance vs. reaction time vs. sight distance vs. centripical force... etc. I came across this in my handwriting in the border of the class text:
"Some drivers have a reaction time of less than one second while others take as long as 3.5 seconds. Reaction time depends on several factors to include; fatigue, weather, experience, time of day, properties of hazard ie size and shape and color. UofM traffic safety studies have shown the average driver can react in 2.5 seconds or less. Therefore the brake reaction time normally used should be 2.5 seconds." So I guess you need to adjust your math, according to MSU and Dr. Lee.
Hounddog, James is the Rosie O'Donnell of speed enforcement discussions and often has an extreme point of few that's even further in the opposite direction than most cops. While I agree that stereotypical, blanket statements are uncalled for, he is often not rude or disrespectful. He has shown in the past that he is very supportive of LE just not the speeding enforcement part. ;)
Catman, did you get my PM? :huh:
Quote from: Catman on May 27, 2007, 07:52:07 AM
Hounddog, James is the Rosie O'Donnell of speed enforcement discussions and often has an extreme point of few that's even further in the opposite direction than most cops.? While I agree that stereotypical, blanket statements are uncalled for, he is often not rude or disrespectful.? He has shown in the past that he is very supportive of LE just not the speeding enforcement part. ;)
Rosie O'Donnell?? That's a pretty damning indictment, Greg..... :lol:
This is one of those arguments that's going nowhere.? I'll sum up my own views, and then duck for cover:
1.? Rules are meant to guide wise men, and restrain fools.? For that reason, we need traffic laws, and they need to be enforced with meaningful penalties.? This is for the overall safety and greater good of society, and for that reason, I support enforcement in concept, even when I am the target of it.
2.? Reasonable people can disagree about what type of enforcement is best.? Personally, I think that there is too much emphasis on speed enforcement over other types, but I understand the practical reasons for this.? I also think speed limits are set too low in many cases, which serves to make lawbreakers out of the majority of drivers.
3.? When you make lawbreakers out of the majority of drivers, the social stigma of being a lawbreaker is gone, and it is impossible to impose meaningful penalties.? That is the situation we have right now with speed enforcement.? Penalties are too weak to really discourage committed speeders, and the most powerful deterrent of all -- social stigma -- is gone.
4.? This situation also blurs the line between real dangerous driving, and driving at a reasonable safe but illegal speed.
5.? LEOs are not primarily responsible for this situation.? The citizens are, because we are hypocritical and make contradictory demands on our politicians and police.? We want the law to restrain other people, but leave us alone.? We want to nail people who go more than 5 mph through our own neighborhoods, while we speed through somebody else's neighborhood.
6.? The financial incentive that exists to write tickets for revenue accrues to the politicians, not LEOs.? The politicians spend the money.? Maybe they throw the LEOs a few crumbs occasionally, but the general MO is to give the department as little as possible, and use the money for other programs that the politicians think will get them votes.? Again, this is ultimately the fault of the citizens for putting these people in power.
7.? I decry this broad trend we have to address every problem with a tightening of laws rather than enforcing the laws we have.? I think it's the diametrically wrong approach.? Speed enforcement is only one example.? There is a trend toward lowering the BAC at which a person can be charged with DUI.? This simply brings more marginal cases into the system, those least likely to cause an accident.? Better to put the resources into going after drunks with a higher BAC.? Ditto with gun control -- enforce the laws we have before passing new ones.? With speed limits, there is also too much of a tendency to put the speed limit down to, say, 25 mph on residential streets because we're concerned about the guy who drives around at 45 mph.? Let's go after the guy who goes 45 mph, but we don't need to put the speed limit at a painfully low speed that nobody will follow in order to do that.
8.? I think that unless you were framed by a crooked LEO, which happens occasionally but not often, if you get a ticket, it's your own fault.? That's the attitude I've always taken when I've gotten nailed.? I can't honestly think of a case of anybody I know getting a ticket who didn't deserve it, from a legal standpoint.? If you don't like the law, work to change the law, and don't spend time blaming those who are charged with administering it.? We all know the laws, or should, and know what we can get away with and what will lead to a roadside encounter with an LEO.? If you can't handle the prospect of getting nailed, stay within tolerance.? If, like me, you are prepared to run the risk of a ticket in order to drive beyond tolerance, then be prepared to accept the consequences if and when it does happen.
9. When you do get nailed, take it with a stiff upper lip; don't cry like a little bitch. For me, it's just a point of pride. I was never willing to give an authority figure the satisfaction of knowing that he had the power to really upset me. Even if I got a punishment that was killing me, I pretended it wasn't, and took the "thank you sir, may I have another" attitude. I think that a lot better than doing stuff you know could get you in trouble, and then pissing and moaning when that actually happens.
Quote from: Catman on May 27, 2007, 07:52:07 AM
Hounddog, James is the Rosie O'Donnell of speed enforcement discussions and often has an extreme point of few that's even further in the opposite direction than most cops.? While I agree that stereotypical, blanket statements are uncalled for, he is often not rude or disrespectful.? He has shown in the past that he is very supportive of LE just not the speeding enforcement part. ;)
Catman, thanks for the kind words, although I prefer to be known as the Bill Maher of speed enforcement discussions. Rosie and I do like women though. ;)
Quote from: James Young on May 27, 2007, 10:59:21 AM
although I prefer to be known as the Bill Maher of speed enforcement discussions.?
Yeah - I can see that- your both tools who have no real grasp on things happening outside of your little planet!? :P
Quote from: rohan on May 27, 2007, 11:00:55 AM
Yeah - I can see that- your [sic] both tools who have no real grasp on things happening outside of your little planet!? :P
Or perhaps we speak the uncomfortable truth. Think of me what you will; it won't change what the facts.
I suspect my grasp is greater than you wish.
houndog writes in Reply #88:
QuoteYour original argument equated that municipalities rake in large sums of cash from the citations they write, while Rohan accurately described how the money is divided up in Michigan. Then you go on to say that even though the municipality does not receive much of that money it is "slight of hand" and it is all the same. You can not have it both ways, having them writing tickets and not getting much in return, but still having it them greatly benefiting from it. Rohan was right, the issuing municipality does not receive much in the way of monetary gains when citations are issued. Period.
Michigan is hardly the universe of driving experience. State laws vary as to distribution. In my own Texas, even DPS cites are handled in different level courts (JP, municipal, county) and
that distribution varies as well. The municipalities whose officers write cites keep the money. In Oklahoma, the towns and villages that write the cites keep the money, which is why we have an explosion of speedtraps in villages throughout the state. California is very similar to Texas with multiple courts for Chippie cites and
most money staying at the original level of jurisdiction.
Stringtown, OK is typical of such places: 276 residents, median income less than $15,000, 30%+ unemployment. They do have US 69 running along side the village and they ?annexed? about 12 miles of the right-of-way to become part of their jurisdiction, i.e., to expand their hunting ground. They have 12 officers and six patrol vehicles; there are no stop signs or lighted signals on the highway; the only business for years was a convenience store, now there is a tribal casino just north of town.
During the past year, just rescinded two days ago, Stringtown was prohibited by state law from enforcing traffic law on a federal highway because of past abuses and they are near bankruptcy.
Their budget for 2003 showed (this is from memory since my copy is in storage) revenues of $200,000, of which $175,000 came from speeding fines. They do nothing other than traffic enforcement and that only on US 69; they respond to and investigate no other crimes because that is handled by the county sheriff. The officers are not CLEET certified and make minimum wage as far as I can tell.
Their revenue is used almost exclusively to pay for the officers, the patrol cars, the mayor (fulltime farmer, part-time mayor) and the ?judge,? who is not even a college graduate. Thus, we have a cycle of writing tickets to make fines to collect money that is used to buy officers and cars, which are used to write more tickets.
I dwell on Stringtown because it is notorious, because I have their budgets and financial statements and because they are emblematic of villages in Oklahoma and elsewhere. Even the City of Tulsa has announced that they will step up traffic enforcement for the money, even adding more officers to do so.
The key point is that all of the money collected by these villages or cities stays there except for a token fee that goes to the state in order to help track such citations. Even then, Stringtown got busted for telling motorists that if they just mailed in the fine it would not go on their driving record. The only way to do that is to not report it to the state, in other words, they?re keeping all the money.
Think for a moment why we have such notorious speedtraps as Selma, TX; New Rome, OH; and Waldo, FL. Why would they go to such lengths to not make any money?
Nationwide, speed control is a $100+ billion a year industry. That money comes out of motorist pockets and goes into government pockets. Which particular pocket it goes into matters little to the motorist, only that it is gone with no particular benefit, personal or societal.
Quote from: James Young on May 27, 2007, 11:32:22 AM
houndog writes in Reply #88:
Michigan is hardly the universe of driving experience.? State laws vary as to distribution.? In my own Texas, even DPS cites are handled in different level courts (JP, municipal, county) and that distribution varies as well. The municipalities whose officers write cites keep the money.? In Oklahoma, the towns and villages that write the cites keep the money, which is why we have an explosion of speedtraps in villages throughout the state.? California is very similar to Texas with multiple courts for Chippie cites and most money staying at the original level of jurisdiction.
Yup, you've got a good grasp on somehitn allright.? hounddog and Soupdeville and I were talking ABOUT Michigan-? thankfully your grasp is better than I might care to admit!!!!!! :wtf:
Soup Deville writes in Reply #101:
QuoteYou guys have strong opinions too, if I didn't respond in kind I wouldn't get very far.
Its not a "conspiracy theory," or really a theory at all: Its just the way it is. Fines generate revenue. Governments always find a use for revenue, and they always want more.
They make the laws, and you guys do your job. That doesn't mean the laws are always right, or that they never have anything but the good of the populace in mind.
The problem is that LEOs cannot stand to be challenged; intimidation is a typical tactic. What they don?t realize or won?t admit is that their own organizations (FOP, unions, public relations units within specific departments, chiefs and colonels, et al) lobby for passage of a lot of those laws, e.g., lowered speed limits and primary seatbelt enforcement, thereby helping create their own job. Then they cry ?foul? when we point out the absurdity or inefficacy of those laws, that they ?only enforce them, they don?t write them.?
Turbo Dan writes in Reply #103:
QuoteAdditionally, writing pointless tickets only makes drivers more hostile to law enforcement to begin with.
Yet, when we point this out it is called ?cop bashing.?
QuoteOf course, the officers are the ones who will get the flack for bad traffic laws. My problem isn't necessarily that officers write tickets, but what they write them for. I wish highway-based departments (State Troopers, etc.) would become more active in fighting the root causes of accidents. What use is a State Trooper hiding behind a bush on the side of a highway looking for a car surpassing an arbitrary number on a screen? I want Staties out there patrolling the highways, looking for poor lane discipline, tailgating, swerving, drunk driving, and other forms of stupidity and aggressiveness that leads to accidents. I'm sure some DO, in fact, do this. But, the data shows that the vast majority of tickets written are for speeding. Speeding is easy to prove. The things I mentioned are not, they're subjective to the officer's discretion. You might not always win in court, and you might not always even be able to write a citation. But for highway safety, I believe targeting unsafe driving would be much more effective than simply targeting speed.
[Emphasis added by JY]
Amen.
Statistics about the magnitude of traffic fines are very difficult to ascertain and often obscured in official documents. We got a glimpse of the truth in a report prepared by Texas DPS for a lawsuit regarding racial profiling in, I believe, 2000. They wrote 1.3 million tickets, with speeding outnumbering all others combined by a little more than two to one. Again, this is from memory, since all my stuff is in storage. That?s
one agency of
one state. Texas has 254 counties, some of which are very aggressive with speed control, an hundreds of cities, towns and villages, each with their own police department.
Law enforcement targets the low-hanging fruit, the easy rather than the effective. With electronic toys giving precise measurements, the LEOs have fooled themselves into believing that they are doing good. Speed too fast for conditions accounts for a little less than 10% of the causes of crashes, including suicides. Speeding is a completely different creature, that is, simply exceeding an arbitrary number and has no statistical correlation to crash-, injury- or fatality rates. The sad truth is that it is enforced because it is easy, easy to measure and easy to prove in the rare occasions that it goes to court.
the nameless one (tcsd1236) writes in Reply #113
QuotePeople drive like an angel when they know a marked unit is in the area.
Consider why that is. There is no rational measure of why particular motorists are stopped. What gets ignored on Monday will be cited on Tuesday; 15-over gets ignored at 10 AM and 7 over gets cited at 10:30 AM. Driving in the presence of an officer is an exercise in avoiding trigger events rather than performing in a safe and reasonable manner. Driving out of the presence of an officer is a calculus of self-preservation.
And in Reply #114:
QuoteThere are costs associated with tracking every ticket by the agency and the Court, not just those that are contested. Even tickets which may not go ultimately to trial but for which the Defendant requests a Supporting Deposition for, for instance ....that type of thing is an added expense to the court, the officer, the agency.
Those costs are insignificant, requiring little more than some data entry time. Something like 95% of citations are simply paid without any court involvement. Again, the statistics are educated guesses because the data are obscured.
What you continue to ignore is that those costs ? officer time and benefits, data entry, storage, even bailiffs, clerks, court reporters and judges ? are paid from taxes before any cites are issued. The fines are gravy.
hounddog writes in Reply #132:
QuoteAnd I have absolutely no regrets about anything I did during my career. Was I a hard ass? You bet. Was I crusty, and did I have a take no shit policy?
Do you know what we call people that act that way in the real world? Unemployed.
QuoteUsually, most people who cut in and out, tailgate, drive drunk, etc. have a habit of speeding as well.
And all serial murderers drank milk as a youngster. I?m sure that you understand what ?speeding? means, that it is any speed in excess of an arbitrary number set politically and that it has no correlation to dangerous driving.
QuoteIn fact, I would venture a guess, and this is just a guess mind you, that maybe 40% of OUILs come from speed alone. Same or higher for suspended violations.
So, speeding is common. We agree on that.
Traffic safety and speed enforcement go hand in hand, like it or not.No, in fact, they do not. There is no statistical correlation that shows that traffic safety (as measured by the three key rates) can be changed by changes in speeds, speed limits, or level of enforcement. Even your own statistics through NHTSA show that.
QuoteAgain, just a guess, but I would say that a large majority of traffic crashes involve speeding. Perhaps as high as 65% or more.
According to NHTSA in 2005, ?speeding-related? or speeding as ?a contributing factor? accounted for 30% of fatal crashes. Now, this does not mean, and NHTSA is careful to avoid the assertion, that speeding ?caused? these crashes. Academic experts outside NHTSA who have no political agenda have estimated that ?speed unsafe for conditions,? without regard to the posted limit, is a major factor in about 10% of fatal crashes, including suicides, which NHTSA does not even recognize. Note also that, again according to NHTSA, 86% of their 30% of fatal crashes occur
away from Interstate highways.
QuoteIf people would just slow down, fatal accidents would fall.
Sorry, that?s just not true. We now have more drivers, more cars and more roads than ever, all with higher speeds than during the dark days of NMSL, yet our fatality rate just continues to fall. Oddly, the two times we lowered speed limits ? 1942-43 and 1973-74 ? the fatality rates increased.
QuoteI remember watching a show, I do not remember what it was, on the Autobahn. It seemed like there was a significantly higher fatality vs. traffic crash ratio in the portions where the speeds were higher or where there were no limits. I no longer remember the specifics, but it did support the notion that high speed was involved in most of those crashes.
That is a different measure than the rate per 100 million VMT. The fatality rate per 100 billion vehicle Km traveled for the autobahns is 3.2; the US Interstate system was 5.0 per 100 billion VKmT in 2003. In miles, the fatality rate is about 0.97 per 100 million VMT on the Interstates. Note also that although the autobahns carry over a third of German traffic, they account for 6% of injury-crashes and 12% of fatality-crashes.
Quote from: rohan on May 27, 2007, 11:00:55 AM
Yeah - I can see that- your both tools who have no real grasp on things happening outside of your little planet!? :P
More than any poster on this board, James consistently backs-up his assertions with objective facts, statistics, and coherent logic. His position seems extreme even to me, but I don't see many holes in his arguments. More often than not, any rebuttal to his points doesn't include like evidence or any true debate, but results in the mindless sort of "you don't have any grasp on reality" crap that doesn't hold water.
It is plainly obvious that he has spent more time researching, studying, and pondering the situation than anyone else involved in this discussion. I think it's awfully rude to dismiss him out of hand: he doesn't have to spend his time providing us with this sort of in-depth analysis. James is a source of wealth on the topic, and we should treat him accordingly. To me, it would show a lot more class if someone who disagrees with him would fashion a response than shows a tenth of the involvement with the topic that his do.
Quote from: Tave on May 27, 2007, 01:35:49 PM
More than any poster on this board, James consistently backs-up his assertions with objective facts, statistics, and coherent logic. His position seems extreme even to me, but I don't see many holes in his arguments. More often than not, any rebuttal to his points doesn't include like evidence or any true debate, but results in the mindless sort of "you don't have any grasp on reality" crap that doesn't hold water.
It is plainly obvious that he has spent more time researching, studying, and pondering the situation than anyone else involved in this discussion. I think it's awfully rude to dismiss him out of hand: he doesn't have to spend his time providing us with this sort of in-depth analysis. James is a source of wealth on the topic, and we should treat him accordingly. To me, it would show a lot more class if someone who disagrees with him would fashion a response than shows a tenth of the involvement with the topic that his do.
REally?? He got the first paragraph of this page completely wrong.? After that I dont' have much use for him if he can't even read the posts hounddog was responding to.? Rude?? I haven't even begun to get rude yet- blowhole.
Champ writes in Reply #138:
QuoteI read some research a while back and I'm trying to look it up again but having trouble finding it. It showed that raising the speed limit by 5mph on certain highways didn't change the average speed of traffic, but accidents went DOWN. Where as at the same area, LOWERING the speed limit 5mph didn't change traffic, but accidents went UP. I am going to keep looking for this data, as I still think speed limits are set to collect a certain amount of revenue.
While I see that you later found a secondary source for it, what you want is ?Synthesis Of Safety Research Related To Speed And Speed Limits? by US Department of Transportation by Martin Parker Associates and popularly known as the Parker Report. When first presented, the administration of NHTSA/DOT did not like the conclusions ? that speed limits were largely irrelevant to traffic safety -- and suppressed the report and it took a lawsuit to force its release, albeit in a censored version.
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm
Quote from: rohan on May 27, 2007, 01:53:00 PM
REally?? He got the first paragraph of this page completely wrong.? After that I dont' have much use for him if he can't even read the posts hounddog was responding to.? Rude?? I haven't even begun to get rude yet- blowhole.
And you have seemed to miss the point of hounddog and soup's discussion. The argument over Michigain municipality revenue started when soup mentioned alternative traffic enforcement. The reason they were talking about Michigain is because that's what they were familiar with. Soup's point is that traffic fines (specifically speeding tickets) are a source of revenue for state governments. James' mentioning of other state's statistics is germane to that discussion.
Do you guys who regress to pointless name-calling do the same thing in your everyday lives? I'm thinking it must be an internet thing, because I rarely see people act that immature, and I'm a college student.
Guys, there's no reason to get so nasty about this.
It's OK for different people to have different opinions.
Quote from: Tave on May 27, 2007, 02:04:46 PM
And you have seemed to miss the point of hounddog and soup's discussion. The argument over Michigain municipality revenue started when soup mentioned alternative traffic enforcement. The reason they were talking about Michigain is because that's what they were familiar with. Soup's point is that traffic fines (specifically speeding tickets) are a source of revenue for state governments. James' mentioning of other state's statistics is germane to that discussion.
Do you guys who regress to pointless name-calling do the same thing in your everyday lives? I'm thinking it must be an internet thing, because I rarely see people act that immature, and I'm a college student.
Uhm- I was the one who started that conversation - so I guess I didn't miss anything. :rolleyes: It wasn't relavent because he started off with an insulting tone. Read the first paragraph on this page.
Dazzleman- I wasn't being nasty- he accused me of being rude and I jsut wanted to demonstrate I wasn't being rude- yet.
Quote from: rohan on May 27, 2007, 02:32:35 PM
Uhm- I was the one who started that conversation - so I guess I didn't miss anything.? ?:rolleyes:? It wasn't relavent because he started off with an insulting tone.? Read the first paragraph on this page.?
Dazzleman- I wasn't being nasty- he accused me of being rude and I jsut wanted to demonstrate I wasn't being rude- yet.?
Rohan -- what did you think of my opinions?
Quote from: rohan on May 27, 2007, 02:32:35 PM
Uhm- I was the one who started that conversation - so I guess I didn't miss anything.? ?:rolleyes:? It wasn't relavent because he started off with an insulting tone.? Read the first paragraph on this page.?
Dazzleman- I wasn't being nasty- he accused me of being rude and I jsut wanted to demonstrate I wasn't being rude- yet.?
I've read it, multiple times. It talks about how various states channel their money differently than Michigain. He speaks about Oklahoma's municiple sequestering of fines, and Texas' and California's monetary benefit due to citations. How is that not related towards Soup's larger point that governments recieve funds through speed enforcement? He's saying that even though Soup may be wrong about the vectors of the money trail, his idea that police forces get cash (indirectly or directly) from tickets has merit.
Quote from: Tave on May 27, 2007, 04:13:44 PM
I've read it, multiple times. It talks about how various states channel their money differently than Michigain. He speaks about Oklahoma's municiple sequestering of fines, and Texas' and California's monetary benefit due to citations. How is that not related towards Soup's larger point that governments recieve funds through speed enforcement? He's saying that even though Soup may be wrong about the vectors of the money trail, his idea that police forces get cash (indirectly or directly) from tickets has merit.
One can draw a relationship between fees, fines or taxes and almost any government expenditure. It would actually be nice if the fine payments were dropped into the police budget so I could buy some new computers for the cars. For some reason that doesn't happen though. :(
Quote from: Catman on May 27, 2007, 04:38:37 PM
One can draw a relationship between fees, fines or taxes and almost any government expenditure.? It would actually be nice if the fine payments were dropped into the police budget so I could buy some new computers for the cars.? For some reason that doesn't happen though. :(
You mean you don't get a percentage of the fines from the tickets you write added directly to your paycheck, Greg?? :lol:
As far as fines go, the Sallie Safedriver types love traffic fines because they're taxes that they don't have to pay. Everybody favors taxing somebody else. That's why smokers are always targeted with higher taxes.
Quote from: dazzleman on May 27, 2007, 08:45:34 AM
Rosie O'Donnell?? That's a pretty damning indictment, Greg..... :lol:
This is one of those arguments that's going nowhere.? I'll sum up my own views, and then duck for cover
1.? Rules are meant to guide wise men, and restrain fools.? For that reason, we need traffic laws, and they need to be enforced with meaningful penalties.? This is for the overall safety and greater good of society, and for that reason, I support enforcement in concept, even when I am the target of it.
I think your right? on- o problems with that at all
Quote2.? Reasonable people can disagree about what type of enforcement is best.? Personally, I think that there is too much emphasis on speed enforcement over other types, but I understand the practical reasons for this.? I also think speed limits are set too low in many cases, which serves to make lawbreakers out of the majority of drivers.
Even if do-do heads right and only 30% of all fatalities involve speed - which I can tell you is low from my own experience as a traffic crash investigator-? that means that if we can stop even 10% of all speeding crashes how many people does that save?? Almost every fatal accident - but not all by any means- I;ve ever worked where it was a 2 car someone was going faster than the posted speed- and not by just a couple miles per hour either.? There are easy ways to tell that- crush factors- skid marks- distance of vehicles traveled after point of impact- actual degree of deflection- not to mention good old fasion I witnesses.? It's pretty rare that people get killed where they were going at or below posted speed - except on the freeway where speed is already high.? ?For that reason your post is roght.
Quote3.? When you make lawbreakers out of the majority of drivers, the social stigma of being a lawbreaker is gone, and it is impossible to impose meaningful penalties.? That is the situation we have right now with speed enforcement.? Penalties are too weak to really discourage committed speeders, and the most powerful deterrent of all -- social stigma -- is gone.
Getting caught speeding hardly makes someone a law breaker - it makes them a speeder.? I think that I like my ideas on "would you rather" thread- and I think if we picked one froma that it would work.
Quote4.? This situation also blurs the line between real dangerous driving, and driving at a reasonable safe but illegal speed.
But it's not the driver who gets to determine reasonable and safe speed- at least not here- it's the public who hire/elect people to make those decisions for them.? It doesnt' blur the lines because the term reasonable is pretty basic- it is reasonable to go 75 in a residential/commercial 40 zone where people and kids may be on foot??
Quote5.? LEOs are not primarily responsible for this situation.? The citizens are, because we are hypocritical and make contradictory demands on our politicians and police.? We want the law to restrain other people, but leave us alone.? We want to nail people who go more than 5 mph through our own neighborhoods, while we speed through somebody else's neighborhood.
Funny you mention that- almost everytime our command or me gets a complaint about speeders in a neighborhood somewhere in the county it's almost always the people who live on that road or in that town that are the ones who are doing to most speeding!? what's more funny is hwen we catch the person who complained and write them the ticket!? Priceless.? And your couldn't be more right on than you are here.
Quote6.? The financial incentive that exists to write tickets for revenue accrues to the politicians, not LEOs.? The politicians spend the money.? Maybe they throw the LEOs a few crumbs occasionally, but the general MO is to give the department as little as possible, and use the money for other programs that the politicians think will get them votes.? Again, this is ultimately the fault of the citizens for putting these people in power.
I only know how Michigan works and we've already gone over and over that here- but I haveto agree.
Quote7.? I decry this broad trend we have to address every problem with a tightening of laws rather than enforcing the laws we have.? I think it's the diametrically wrong approach.? Speed enforcement is only one example.? There is a trend toward lowering the BAC at which a person can be charged with DUI.? This simply brings more marginal cases into the system, those least likely to cause an accident.? Better to put the resources into going after drunks with a higher BAC.? Ditto with gun control -- enforce the laws we have before passing new ones.? With speed limits, there is also too much of a tendency to put the speed limit down to, say, 25 mph on residential streets because we're concerned about the guy who drives around at 45 mph.? Let's go after the guy who goes 45 mph, but we don't need to put the speed limit at a painfully low speed that nobody will follow in order to do that.
You made me look up the word decry so I was sure I really knew the meaning.? Jackass.? Now the BAC is something I don't agree with- when I started you could go out and get a hattrick every night of the week if you wanted and a good portion of them were over 0.18- then the people start doing what the governemtn wants and starts being responsible making it rare to ge people over that.? So what does the Fed do?? they lower the limit again- talk about punishing the people for following the rules!? We're not concerned about the guy driving around at 45 in a residential as a reason to lower the limits- we're concerned about the pedestrians who probably aren't paying enough attention- like kids who run out in front of the cars.? The driver needs to be going slow enough to avoid that kid or he may get charged with Negligent Homicide.? That one's to protect both sides and I agree with it personally.
Quote8.? I think that unless you were framed by a crooked LEO, which happens occasionally but not often, if you get a ticket, it's your own fault.? That's the attitude I've always taken when I've gotten nailed.? I can't honestly think of a case of anybody I know getting a ticket who didn't deserve it, from a legal standpoint.? If you don't like the law, work to change the law, and don't spend time blaming those who are charged with administering it.? We all know the laws, or should, and know what we can get away with and what will lead to a roadside encounter with an LEO.? If you can't handle the prospect of getting nailed, stay within tolerance.? If, like me, you are prepared to run the risk of a ticket in order to drive beyond tolerance, then be prepared to accept the consequences if and when it does happen.
Bravo!? See- that's how MEN think- any other thought process is just plain cowardess (sp?).? I've never written a active or former serviceman but I've had many- maybe 25 over the years that I've stopped and knew they served ask me "what- no ticket?"? They're men and they understand what it takes to live life by rules.
Quote9.? When you do get nailed, take it with a stiff upper lip; don't cry like a little bitch.? For me, it's just a point of pride.? I was never willing to give an authority figure the satisfaction of knowing that he had the power to really upset me.? Even if I got a punishment that was killing me, I pretended it wasn't, and took the "thank you sir, may I have another"? attitude.? I think that a lot better than doing stuff you know could get you in trouble, and then pissing and moaning when that actually happens.
It honestly shouldnt' be upsetting unless you didn't happen to be doing what the officer was saying- and I'm talking REALLY didn't happen to be doing it.? Sometimes it happens- we make mistakes- but if the cop is properly doing his job and he's not sure after interviewing the driver he actually did what the officer thinks- the officer should have the courage to just say slow down.? I don't think you're far off at all I like what you wrote.
You shouldn't get upset by the random enforcement of an unjust law?
Quote from: dazzleman on May 27, 2007, 04:44:08 PM
You mean you don't get a percentage of the fines from the tickets you write added directly to your paycheck, Greg? :lol:
As far as fines go, the Sallie Safedriver types love traffic fines because they're taxes that they don't have to pay. Everybody favors taxing somebody else. That's why smokers are always targeted with higher taxes.
A few years ago groups got $50 added to speeding fines to support some head injury foundation.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=9120.msg461627#msg461627 date=1180306530
You shouldn't get upset by the random enforcement of an unjust law?
Unjust in who's eyes? The people of that area can change the law if they chose- but they don't so they don't see it as unjust.
Dazzle is always the voice of intelligent thought, reason and reality. :ohyeah:
Quote from: rohan on May 27, 2007, 04:58:03 PM
Unjust in who's eyes? The people of that area can change the law if they chose- but they don't so they don't see it as unjust.
There are people that believe you should be able to legislate morality. Just because it is of popular opinion does not make it just.
And I see it as unjust. Any law so arbitrary must be.
Rohan --
On the speed issue, clearly the faster one is going, the worse the accident will be if there is one.
But I don't think that means that speed necessarily CAUSES the accident, though it may.
In my experience, people who like to drive a little on the fast side are often safer drivers than the slower ones.? They are often more engaged with their driving, and less likely to be 'multi-tasking' as they're driving.? I find that the self-righteous slow driver can sometimes cause more problems, by blocking up traffic and often not paying enough attention to what they're doing.
Of course, there are some fast drivers who are very unsafe.
Unlike some extremists like, say, James Young, I recognize that no enforcement strategy can be perfect, and I don't expect it to be.? Still, I think the strategy of putting speed limits unreasonably low is not really a good one for encouraging safety, though it's a very good one for driving up fine revenue.
I generally favor a higher speed limit on highways, but the tradeoff for that would be much stiffer penalties for those who violate those higher speed limits.? That would show that we're serious about enforcement.? Right now, the penalties for speeding, even serious speeding, aren't enough to really deter people, and only wusses really fear those penalties, or allow them to alter their driving.
As far as getting nailed goes, it's natural to be upset about being censured by an authority figure, even if you know you're wrong. Mature adults can rise above that, though. I learned a long time ago that minor things like traffic tickets really bother you only as much as you allow them to. If you get your panties in a bunch over a ticket you deserve, it will affect you a lot worse than if you just laugh it off, or maturely accept it and move on.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=9120.msg461627#msg461627 date=1180306530
You shouldn't get upset by the random enforcement of an unjust law?
You couldn't possibly have experienced any real injustice if you call speeding laws unjust. Even if the speed limits are too low in your judgment, it's a real stretch to call them unjust.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=9120.msg461637#msg461637 date=1180306892
There are people that believe you should be able to legislate morality.? Just because it is of popular opinion does not make it just.?
And I see it as unjust.? Any law so arbitrary must be.
I don't see it as legislating morality to pass a law designed to protect other people from the recklessness of those they may randomly encounter on the road.
Law abiding citizens deserve that protection. You can argue about the details, but laws that restrain you from directly harming others are not 'legislating morality.'
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=9120.msg461637#msg461637 date=1180306892
There are people that believe you should be able to legislate morality.? Just because it is of popular opinion does not make it just.
Depends on the moral issue.? I don't really want to see people humping in the open everytime I drive by the ice cream store- or some guy getting his weasle waxed when I'm at dinner- or some woman selling herself for money on my street corner. So I guess it is just- and enforcement of those things are arbitrary.
QuoteAnd I see it as unjust.? Any law so arbitrary must be.
Define arbitrary and how it relates to people who take drivers ed- are told not to speed or they can get pulled over and tickets-? are tested on that informatio by the State- then sign their names legally acknowleging they will obey the laws enacted by the people through lawfully and duly elected means.? What's so hard to understand about that?? Sometime s the greater good actually does outweigh peoples own self-serving belief that they should be allowed to do what ever they want- whenever they want- how ever they want.? ?Even I know that the bible says to obey mans law- and I'm not a religious person at all.? It's the most basic concept of a civilized society and if a person doesn't like it theres nothing holding him here- please feel free to go somewhere where you can do whatever you want when your driving.? What- theres no place like that?? Huh.? EVERY SINGLE INDUSTRIALIZED AND CIVILIZED NATION IN THE WORLD HAD SPEED LIMITS.? ?That would put you in the minority- and don't forget in our system the minority side of a topic doesnt' make the rules.
Okay, I'm not going to change your mind, and I'm not going to bother trying. I've said my piece. The vast majority of speed limits are hilariously low.
Quote from: Catman on May 27, 2007, 04:59:16 PM
Dazzle is always the voice of intelligent thought, reason and reality. :ohyeah:
Thanks Greg.
I can reason through these things because I can place myself, at various times, on both sides of the argument.
When it comes to law enforcement, I have a bit of a split personality, in that I favor strict law enforcement in general, but at the same time, part of me is still a rebel who enjoys violating rules and pushing limits.
I only do these things in the most minor way, of course, but unlike the Sally Safedriver types, I can understand to some degree the mentality of the lawbreaker, even while favoring relatively strict penalties.
I have a fairly strong sense of justice for some reason. When people do something that really is wrong, I like to see them punished in a meaningful way. Even if I am the person who's gotten busted, I feel that justice has been cheated if the penalty for doing something wrong is too light.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=9120.msg461655#msg461655 date=1180307710
Okay, I'm not going to change your mind, and I'm not going to bother trying.? I've said my piece.? The vast majority of speed limits are hilariously low.
No- I'm actually listening- I always listen to what you have to say-
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=9120.msg461655#msg461655 date=1180307710
Okay, I'm not going to change your mind, and I'm not going to bother trying.? I've said my piece.? The vast majority of speed limits are hilariously low.
I think highway speed limits are generally too low.
But keep in mind that most the people on this forum probably have higher than average driving skills, and interest in driving, and drive better than average cars.
The speed that is safe varies not only with road and weather conditions, but with the type of car and the skill of the driver.
There has been a tendency to base the speed limits on the lowest common denominator, but that is a political decision, and I think it's overkill to call it 'injustice.'
Quote from: dazzleman on May 27, 2007, 05:20:41 PM
I think highway speed limits are generally too low.
But keep in mind that most the people on this forum probably have higher than average driving skills, and interest in driving, and drive better than average cars.
The speed that is safe varies not only with road and weather conditions, but with the type of car and the skill of the driver.
There has been a tendency to base the speed limits on the lowest common denominator, but that is a political decision, and I think it's overkill to call it 'injustice.'
Which is why I wish they would scientifically set speed limits, instead of a random number. I think overall safety would go UP.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=9120.msg461655#msg461655 date=1180307710
Okay, I'm not going to change your mind, and I'm not going to bother trying.? I've said my piece.? The vast majority of speed limits are hilariously low.
For instance- I have a car with about 450 after some things were switched by the previous owner. Do you really believe I drive the speed limit or below every time I go out in it? No- but I understand that if I get caught I might not only get a ticket but I will probably get 1-10 days depending on how bad it was- but I understnad that and am willing to accept the consequences of my actions- why? Because it's what I've been taught to do by the only dad I've ever really known.
I would like to add, that I generally don't have a problem with residential or city street speed limits. It's typically highway limits that frustrate me, save some of the larger in town streets
Quote from: dazzleman on May 27, 2007, 05:20:41 PM
I think highway speed limits are generally too low.
But keep in mind that most the people on this forum probably have higher than average driving skills, and interest in driving, and drive better than average cars.
The speed that is safe varies not only with road and weather conditions, but with the type of car and the skill of the driver.
There has been a tendency to base the speed limits on the lowest common denominator, but that is a political decision, and I think it's overkill to call it 'injustice.'
Perhaps injustice is too harsh a word.
Quote from: rohan on May 27, 2007, 05:23:08 PM
For instance- I have a car with about 450 after some things were switched by the previous owner.? ?Do you really believe I drive the speed limit or below every time I go out in it?? No- but I understand that if I get caught I might not only get a ticket but I will probably get 1-10 days depending on how bad it was- but I understnad that and am willing to accept the consequences of my actions- why?? Because it's what I've been taught to do by the only dad I've ever really known.?
In all fairness though, as an LEO, you'll probably never get a ticket, and you know that.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=9120.msg461668#msg461668 date=1180308294
Perhaps injustice is too harsh a word.
'Bad policy' is a better way to describe it.
I think any law that is violated by a large majority of people can't be a good law, because law enforcement depends ultimately on public support for the laws.
LEOs only operate on the margins; laws are never effective unless the vast majority voluntarily complies with them. There can never be enough police to enforce laws that most people don't want.
The problem is that people are hypocritical. They support laws that they don't abide by, because they want to restrain others. Then they cry like little babies when enforcement lands in their lap.
Honestly, I don't see getting popped for speeding as being a big enough deal to get too upset about. It's happened to me, and virtually all of my friends, multiple times, and never had any real long-term negative effect on our lives. You have to keep these things in perspective. Honestly, I'm a lot more worried about the misuse of our legal system by people with much more deleterious agendas than misguided speed enforcement.
Quote from: rohan on May 27, 2007, 05:18:44 PM
No- I'm actually listening- I always listen to what you have to say-
Daz is probably right. I think "unjust" might be a little harsh, but I still think speed limits are set too low. Just by casual observation in my home town, I'd say that the average speed of traffic in a 35mph zone is 50mph, and that's about the average in a 45mph zone as well (although at times it can seem lower than that, which I find very strange). Average in a neighborhood is around 40mph (which I personally find disgusting, since the 25mph residential zone is the only one I think is appropriate). And on motorways, I've noticed that people tend to go faster (not just as a percentage above the speed limit) in 55 zones than 65 zones. Of course, this is all just observation, but I do tend to drive a lot, and many times, over long distances on motorways that fluctuate between 65 and 55mph zones. I think if we move 35s to 45mph, and 45s to 55, the speed limits would be much more reasonable. I also don't see traffic accidents increasing, since people are already driving at that speed anyway. Of course, since my observations are limited geographically, it may be different in other parts of the country.
Quote from: dazzleman on May 27, 2007, 05:20:41 PM
I think highway speed limits are generally too low.
But keep in mind that most the people on this forum probably have higher than average driving skills, and interest in driving, and drive better than average cars.
The speed that is safe varies not only with road and weather conditions, but with the type of car and the skill of the driver.
There has been a tendency to base the speed limits on the lowest common denominator, but that is a political decision, and I think it's overkill to call it 'injustice.'
"
Speed that is safe varies not only with road and weather....but with the type of car and the skill of the driver."And the maintainance or condition of that car- if I take my car and let the tires down by just 10 pounds and let the brakes go to about 10% of pad that makes for a horrible unsafe car no matter how good I am behind the wheel. At the MSP Advanced Precision Driving and Night Pursuit they wheel out an extra car and tell the guys just standing around to do something- like drive. (only on the precision course later in the week) They let the guys try to make it through the course and usually at only 35 mph- speed of the course- it is almost impossible to keep the car from skidding out of control and hitting cones which represent kids. Or as they say- the Governors kids because the state owns them. The times Ive gone through I've never seen anyone make it with that car. All they did was let just 10 pounds of air out of the tires- 10 pounds- that means that the tires were at 25 pounds. Your tires cant' possibly be that low you say? When did you check them last? On average tires lose 1 pound of air per month- so if you don't check them for some reason in 10 months you might just have an unsafe vehicle. My point- which I see took a long time to get to- is there's more to speed enforcement that just arbitrary tickets. All most of us want is to not have to go to a fatal accident because somone was going too fast- and I'm sorry Jerry John June - whatever your name is- speed's results does kill in many cases.
Quote from: Champ on May 27, 2007, 05:22:24 PM
Which is why I wish they would scientifically set speed limits, instead of a random number.? I think overall safety would go UP.
Here in Michigan - traffic surveys and civil engineers are supposed toset the original speed based on scientific information but of course that's limited to what's allowable for them to post by law. Then if it's not a state road or highway the local government can do a survey and set them how they want them.
Quote from: rohan on May 27, 2007, 05:35:19 PM
- and I'm sorry Jerry John June - whatever your name is-
You can call me Dave, or D-Man, as you see fit. But my name's not Jerry, John or June.
Quote from: dazzleman on May 27, 2007, 05:08:44 PM
Rohan --
On the speed issue, clearly the faster one is going, the worse the accident will be if there is one.
But I don't think that means that speed necessarily CAUSES the accident, though it may.
Right- but I don't think I ever said speed CAUSES accidents I've tried to stay with the results of the speed cause the injuries and deaths. If I ever said speed causes I didn't mean to.
Quote from: dazzleman on May 27, 2007, 05:29:29 PM
'Bad policy' is a better way to describe it.
I think any law that is violated by a large majority of people can't be a good law, because law enforcement depends ultimately on public support for the laws.
LEOs only operate on the margins; laws are never effective unless the vast majority voluntarily complies with them. There can never be enough police to enforce laws that most people don't want.
The problem is that people are hypocritical. They support laws that they don't abide by, because they want to restrain others. Then they cry like little babies when enforcement lands in their lap.
Honestly, I don't see getting popped for speeding as being a big enough deal to get too upset about. It's happened to me, and virtually all of my friends, multiple times, and never had any real long-term negative effect on our lives. You have to keep these things in perspective. Honestly, I'm a lot more worried about the misuse of our legal system by people with much more deleterious agendas than misguided speed enforcement.
That sounds pretty fair. However, as of now, with one ticket 3 years ago, I'm paying 4 grand a year in insurance. And I got popped on pretty much the biggest offender of low speed limits. It's an unlimited access 4 lane highway with a maximum speed limit of 35mph, with some parts at only 30. Granted, I still would have been nicked were it a 55 (I was going too fast, though I don't exactly fully believe that I was doing 70), but even if you roll around at 40mph, you'll get cut off and stared at by the majority of people. And tailgated. Tailgated galore.
Quote from: rohan on May 27, 2007, 05:37:33 PM
Here in Michigan - traffic surveys and civil engineers are supposed toset the original speed based on scientific information but of course that's limited to what's allowable for them to post by law. Then if it's not a state road or highway the local government can do a survey and set them how they want them.
Why even have them do a study if they are still bound by some other law? A law to set a law seems redundant. :confused:
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=9120.msg461686#msg461686 date=1180309192
That sounds pretty fair.? However, as of now, with one ticket 3 years ago, I'm paying 4 grand a year in insurance.? And I got popped on pretty much the biggest offender of low speed limits.? It's an unlimited access 4 lane highway with a maximum speed limit of 35mph, with some parts at only 30.? Granted, I still would have been nicked were it a 55 (I was going too fast, though I don't exactly fully believe that I was doing 70), but even if you roll around at 40mph, you'll get cut off and stared at by the majority of people.? And tailgated.? Tailgated galore.
Dude, I can't feel great sympathy for you on the insurance. You caught a major break on a serious speeding offense, and I'm sure you've violated the speed limit countless times, and to a major degree, without getting popped.
Quote from: dazzleman on May 27, 2007, 05:25:10 PM
In all fairness though, as an LEO, you'll probably never get a ticket, and you know that.
Not
entirely unlikely- but I understand what your saying. Even if I don't but I crash because I'm driving too fast to control my car there will be tickets and time off- and if I crash into someone I will get and extended unpaid vacation.
Quote from: dazzleman on May 27, 2007, 05:41:47 PM
Dude, I can't feel great sympathy for you on the insurance. You caught a major break on a serious speeding offense, and I'm sure you've violated the speed limit countless times, and to a major degree, without getting popped.
The ticket was recorded as a 41 in a 35, and still the insurance premiums.
Quote from: rohan on May 27, 2007, 05:39:47 PM
Right- but I don't think I ever said speed CAUSES accidents I've tried to stay with the results of the speed cause the injuries and deaths.? If I ever said speed causes I didn't mean to.
I think certain accidents are caused by speed. I won't deny that.
And I don't deny that higher speeds make crashes that are caused by other things more serious.
My only point is that there is no particular magic to the speed limit. The risk increases incrementally as speed increases, so there's no magic point below which there is little to no risk.
You could of course enact a 20-mph speed limit on highways and if it could be enforced (it couldn't) that would lower fatalities.
It's human nature to push limits. A certain percentage of people (myself included) simply don't like to follow rules, and driving fast is one of the few venues we have to indulge our rebel streaks. Some people do it to different degrees than others, but most people do it to some degree.
I read an interesting study once that said that since the invention of the automobile, fatality rates per mile driven have remained roughly the same, through all the improvements in roads, auto technology, etc. This suggests that no matter how safe you try to make roads and cars, a certain percentage of people will always push a certain amount beyond that safety zone. It's human nature to test limits, and I think things would be a lot worse if we lost that tendency across the board.
Still, as I've said before, I favor strict enforcement for dangerous driving. I'm not one of these 'there should be no speed limits' people. And I'm perfectly willing to accept my penalties when I get popped. It's necessary for the greater good of society.
I think that pretty much all accidents can be chalked up to inattentiveness.
Quote from: Champ on May 27, 2007, 05:40:03 PM
Why even have them do a study if they are still bound by some other law?? A law to set a law seems redundant.? :confused:
This thread is moving too fast for me! I didn't say it was good system!- I was just saying how it works here and was hoping for a comparison elsewhere.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=9120.msg461668#msg461668 date=1180308294
Perhaps injustice is too harsh a word.
Not harsh in my eyes- just to large.
Quote from: rohan on May 27, 2007, 05:50:59 PM
This thread is moving too fast for me! I didn't say it was good system!- I was just saying how it works here and was hoping for a comparison elsewhere.
(http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/502761/2/istockphoto_502761_f5_key_refresh.jpg)
Camp that shit!
Quote from: rohan on May 27, 2007, 05:46:43 PM
Not entirely unlikely- but I understand what your saying.? Even if I don't but I crash because I'm driving too fast to control my car there will be tickets and time off- and if I crash into someone I will get and extended unpaid vacation.
I don't mean to be too cynical, but I've heard of many cases where LEOs were driving really drunk, and it was repeatedly covered up.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned here is corruption in the issuing of tickets and enforcement. If you know the right people, it's fairly easy to get out of a ticket.
Last time I went to court for a speeding ticket, I was talking to the guy on line behind me. He said he had a friend who worked security at the courthouse. Once we got inside, he was talking to his buddy. In a few minutes, he disappeared from the line, and I didn't see him again. It was obvious what happened -- his buddy talked to the prosecutors, and the ticket got thrown out. Had he known somebody with more clout, he wouldn't have had to show up at all -- the ticket would have been 'lost' and that would have been the end of it.
I don't use this to justify anything I've done wrong, and I don't mind taking my penalty when I get nailed, but it's nice to know that others are getting the same treatment. Nobody likes to be a chump.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=9120.msg461694#msg461694 date=1180309741
I think that pretty much all accidents can be chalked up to inattentiveness.?
Driving at an inappropriate speed can be a form of inattentiveness.
I've caught myself driving too fast sometimes and slowed down.
When will people bring cell phone usage into the equation? They have little stuff here and there but it is still an issue that IMO needs to be addressed pretty badly.
Quote from: dazzleman on May 27, 2007, 05:52:34 PM
I don't mean to be too cynical, but I've heard of many cases where LEOs were driving really drunk, and it was repeatedly covered up.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned here is corruption in the issuing of tickets and enforcement.? If you know the right people, it's fairly easy to get out of a ticket.
Last time I went to court for a speeding ticket, I was talking to the guy on line behind me.? He said he had a friend who worked security at the courthouse.? Once we got inside, he was talking to his buddy.? In a few minutes, he disappeared from the line, and I didn't see him again.? It was obvious what happened -- his buddy talked to the prosecutors, and the ticket got thrown out.? Had he known somebody with more clout, he wouldn't have had to show up at all -- the ticket would have been 'lost' and that would have been the end of it.
I don't use this to justify anything I've done wrong, and I don't mind taking my penalty when I get nailed, but it's nice to know that others are getting the same treatment.? Nobody likes to be a chump.
I've heard all those stories too- never let any cops drive away that I stopped drunk but I've called wives and girlfriends for them. It's not so much about courtesy but more about if I ever need them when I'm working and I've arrested them when I could maybe have done something different- how much can I really count on them if my life is in danger? I don't know - but I don't want to find out. Its hypocritical I know but sometimes the figh has to swim with the school. In Michigan prosecutors can't dismiss a ticket without cause.
Quote from: Champ on May 27, 2007, 05:52:26 PM
(http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/502761/2/istockphoto_502761_f5_key_refresh.jpg)
Camp that shit!
LOL- I haven't got a clue what that means! :confused:
Quote from: rohan on May 27, 2007, 05:58:30 PM
I've heard all those stories too- never let any cops drive away that I stopped drunk but I've called wives and girlfriends for them.? It's not so much about courtesy but more about if I ever need them when I'm working and I've arrested them when I could maybe have done something different- how much can I really count on them if my life is in danger?? I don't know - but I don't want to find out.? Its hypocritical I know but sometimes the figh has to swim with the school.? In Michigan prosecutors can't dismiss a ticket without cause.
I understand the reality. As I said earlier, I don't expect perfection from any human system or group of people. Still, what's right is right, and strictly speaking, your practice is not right.
Cause can always be found to dismiss a ticket. If there's nothing, something can be made up. Who's going to complain -- the person who received the ticket?
Quote from: rohan on May 27, 2007, 05:59:57 PM
LOL- I haven't got a clue what that means! :confused:
F5 is "refresh". :P
The F5 key generally causes the webpage you are on to refresh, updating with any new posts since you last loaded it.
Quote from: dazzleman on May 27, 2007, 06:02:00 PM
I understand the reality.? As I said earlier, I don't expect perfection from any human system or group of people.? Still, what's right is right, and strictly speaking, your practice is not right.
Cause can always be found to dismiss a ticket.? If there's nothing, something can be made up.? Who's going to complain -- the person who received the ticket?
I'll adress the first in a while- dinners ready- the officer is going to complain- we have a right to appeal any prosecutor/magistrate decisions in traffic cases.
Quote from: rohan on May 27, 2007, 06:06:12 PM
I'll adress the first in a while- dinners ready- the officer is going to complain- we have a right to appeal any prosecutor/magistrate decisions in traffic cases.
Do officers really follow up on the disposition of individual traffic tickets? And what happens if the officer does complain? Do officers really have any power over how a court chooses to dispose of cases? Under our justice system, the answer technically is 'no.'
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=9120.msg461691#msg461691 date=1180309635
The ticket was recorded as a 41 in a 35, and still the insurance premiums.
Dude, you're a 21-year-old male. Even with a spotless record, you'd be getting kicked in the nuts with insurance. 21-year-old males are not a coveted demographic for auto insurers.
Wow, speaking of driving for conditions, the rain just went biblical while I was out, and I had to put my hazards on, slow down to 10 to 15mph and feel my way through my neighborhood, since people leave their cars and shit out on the streets. Hell, if it weren't for the lightning, I probably would have hit my neighbor's trash can, which they left out. Fucking trash pickup was on Saturday.
Passat or Boxster?
Quote from: TheIntrepid on May 27, 2007, 07:18:39 PM
Passat or Boxster?
Passat. Good thing I wasn't in the Boxster. I don't have a garage door opener for that, so I'd have had to get out, open the garage, and then get back into the car. I would have drowned!
Quote from: Tave on May 27, 2007, 01:35:49 PM
More than any poster on this board, James consistently backs-up his assertions with objective facts, statistics, and coherent logic. His position seems extreme even to me, but I don't see many holes in his arguments. More often than not, any rebuttal to his points doesn't include like evidence or any true debate, but results in the mindless sort of "you don't have any grasp on reality" crap that doesn't hold water.
It is plainly obvious that he has spent more time researching, studying, and pondering the situation than anyone else involved in this discussion. I think it's awfully rude to dismiss him out of hand: he doesn't have to spend his time providing us with this sort of in-depth analysis. James is a source of wealth on the topic, and we should treat him accordingly. To me, it would show a lot more class if someone who disagrees with him would fashion a response than shows a tenth of the involvement with the topic that his do.
Tave, thanks for the kind words. I have been studying this for nearly 50 years and I like to think that I have been able to offer cogent, factual, supported views useful to all who take driving as both serious and fun. :ohyeah:
James Young, you're my hero.
:wub:
Quote from: James Young on May 27, 2007, 07:47:34 PM
Tave, thanks for the kind words.? I have been studying this for nearly 50 years and I like to think that I have been able to offer cogent, factual, supported views useful to all who take driving as both serious and fun.? ?:ohyeah:
James, you're very well-prepared with facts on the subject. There's no disputing that. You come to the discussion prepared, which many people don't. :ohyeah:
Can the circle-jerking about James please finish? :rolleyes:
:lol: :devil:
Quote from: Raghavan on May 27, 2007, 09:04:26 PM
Can the circle-jerking about James please finish? :rolleyes:
:lol: :devil:
Hah, I hope you're not including me in the circle-jerk thing, Rag.
James does present his facts well. I don't totally agree with him because, while his facts may be accurate as far as they go, I don't think they represent the whole picture. His approach would be perfect if everybody had good driving skills and took their driving responsibilities seriously, but unfortunately, that is far from being the case.
Quote from: dazzleman on May 27, 2007, 05:39:40 PM
You can call me Dave, or D-Man, as you see fit.? But my name's not Jerry, John or June.
I was tlaking to that James guy- sorry for the confusion I couldnt' remember his name.
Quote from: dazzleman on May 27, 2007, 06:02:00 PM
I understand the reality.? As I said earlier, I don't expect perfection from any human system or group of people.? Still, what's right is right, and strictly speaking, your practice is not right.
Right or wrong it's part of our society- and that's just the way it is someone like me can get hurt because of what I did a week ago to someones friend so he responds to my call for help at the speed limit instead of response spee.d I can't change it- neither can any of my guys we can only do what we have to do to make sure we're goning to make it home. Sometimes we just have to bite the bullet and let him go- but dont' think for a minute that I'm not going to have a intense conversation with the guy later.
Quote from: dazzleman on May 27, 2007, 06:12:04 PM
Do officers really follow up on the disposition of individual traffic tickets?? And what happens if the officer does complain?? Do officers really have any power over how a court chooses to dispose of cases?? Under our justice system, the answer technically is 'no.'
Some do some don't- most of us don't check them on nearly every case but if it happens that we stumble on a ticket that gets dismissed for any reason and we didn't sign off on it someone is going to hear about it- chief- judge- prosecutor- but someone will hear about it. Officers have alot of power over how courts choose to dispose of traffic cases- I've told magistrates several times that if they wanted to amend the ticket I wouldn't have a problem with that both ni favor for and against defendants. Our testimony and suggestions carry lots of weight in the court room and in the private office areas. If the officer complains about a ticket being summarily dismissed for no solid reason there can be an investigation- I remember reading about it not long ago where a court clerk was dismissing tickets somewhere on the west side of the state and she got jail time.
Quote from: Champ on May 27, 2007, 05:40:03 PM
Why even have them do a study if they are still bound by some other law?? A law to set a law seems redundant.? :confused:
I gave this one some thought - it's not really a law to set a law - it's actually a law that sets the standards for signage- but we have lots of laws to set laws. The federal constitution is a group of laws that govern other laws- same with state constitutions- and there are laws that set laws for lawmakers on how to make new laws. :lol:
Quote from: rohan on May 28, 2007, 06:40:26 AM
I was tlaking to that James guy- sorry for the confusion I couldnt' remember his name.
No problem, dude. It appeared you were talking to me. :rockon:
Quote from: rohan on May 28, 2007, 06:52:33 AM
Some do some don't- most of us don't check them on nearly every case but if it happens that we stumble on a ticket that gets dismissed for any reason and we didn't sign off on it someone is going to hear about it- chief- judge- prosecutor- but someone will hear about it.? Officers have alot of power over how courts choose to dispose of traffic cases- I've told magistrates several times that if they wanted to amend the ticket I wouldn't? have a problem with that both ni favor for and against defendants.? Our testimony and suggestions carry lots of weight in the court room and in the private office areas.? If the officer complains about a ticket being summarily dismissed for no solid reason there can be an investigation- I remember reading about it not long ago where a court clerk was dismissing tickets somewhere on the west side of the state and she got jail time.?
I imagine that the ticket fixing you're talking about would be an issue if it were really blatant, and involved monetary payoffs, as I suspect the case you describe did.? But I can also see a scenario where an officer who complains about a ticket being thrown out is told that the defendant is a friend of so-and-so, and if you want us to throw out tickets for your buddies or kids, don't make waves.? One hand washes the other, and if you want a favor, you have to go along with favors for others. This system is the same reason you don't actually arrest cops you stop for drunk driving.
I can't believe that it's impossible to intervene and show favoritism toward certain defendants, but I can believe that it has to be kept below a certain level, so it can't be done for just anybody.? I imagine it's akin to a privilege that must not be overused or abused, or else it will attract too much attention and may be curtailed.
Quote from: rohan on May 28, 2007, 06:44:32 AM
Right or wrong it's part of our society- and that's just the way it is someone like me can get hurt because of what I did a week ago to someones friend so he responds to my call for help at the speed limit instead of response spee.d? I can't change it- neither can any of my guys we can only do what we have to do to make sure we're goning to make it home.? ?Sometimes we just have to bite the bullet and let him go- but dont' think for a minute that I'm not going to have a intense conversation with the guy later.
I understand what you're saying.? You have to work within a flawed system.? Still, it's not right to let one person go because he's a cop, and prosecute another person for the same thing.? If the system effectively forces you to do this, then the system is wrong.
Not to mention that letting him go enables his problem, and guarantees that he will continue to do it, possibly with fatal consequences to somebody down the road.
I recognize that there will always be a certain level of this, but when it reaches a certain point, it undermines public confidence in law enforcement.? I hope you recognize that I'm far from a cop basher, and will take what I say in that spirit, just as I recognize and understand the reasons that this system can prove beneficial in certain ways sometimes.
I also recognize that this special treatment is not limited just to cops themselves.? A few years back, there was a priest in my town who was the police department's chaplain.? He had a serious drinking problem, and was repeatedly caught driving drunk.? Most of the time, the cops just took him home, but a couple of times they arrested him.? It came out later that he was also having a sexual relationship with an 18-year-old male parishioner, so the whole thing was an embarrassing debacle, though of course the police department was in no way responsible for the last thing I mentioned (which wasn't even illegal strictly speaking since the young man was of age).
Speed limits are imperative for safer roadways. I know this a stacked audience but c'mon guys.
I can give enough quarter to state that up to about 5-10 mph should be a gimmie in many instances.
If people truly want to make a difference in safety, spend your efforts on lobbying your state for stricter penalities for DUI, habitual bad drivers, and for serious driving offenses.
And also: correlations are not necessarily data.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 28, 2007, 11:50:44 AM
Speed limits are imperative for safer roadways. I know this a stacked audience but c'mon guys.
I can give enough quarter to state that up to about 5-10 mph should be a gimmie in many instances.
If people truly want to make a difference in safety, spend your efforts on lobbying your state for stricter penalities for DUI, habitual bad drivers, and for serious driving offenses.
And also: correlations are not necessarily data.
What are your general driving habits, GoCougs?? Do you ever get popped for speeding, or is your record pretty clean? How much above the speed limit do you generally drive?
I agree with you on the need for speed limits.? I am opposed to the practice of setting the speed limits artificially low, which we often see, but I have no argument with the need for speed limits. I think to argue that they're not needed is highly utopian and unrealistic.
I also believe in harsh penalties for DUI if the BAC is above a certain point, and for serious driving offenses.? I think part of the problem is that our enforcement efforts keep going more and more into non-serious offenses and lower-BAC DUI cases, rather than the bad cases. This is a broad trend in our society, not just related to motor vehicle issues, and I think it's a bad trend.
Quote from: dazzleman on May 28, 2007, 12:18:30 PM
What are your general driving habits, GoCougs?? Do you ever get popped for speeding, or is your record pretty clean?? How much above the speed limit do you generally drive?
I agree with you on the need for speed limits.? I am opposed to the practice of setting the speed limits artificially low, which we often see, but I have no argument with the need for speed limits.? I think to argue that they're not needed is highly utopian and unrealistic.
I also believe in harsh penalties for DUI if the BAC is above a certain point, and for serious driving offenses.? I think part of the problem is that our enforcement efforts keep going more and more into non-serious offenses and lower-BAC DUI cases, rather than the bad cases.? This is a broad trend in our society, not just related to motor vehicle issues, and I think it's a bad trend.
I would say the last 5 years I've been pretty good. The 10 mph over ticket a few weeks ago was my first in about 6 years. I take 5 mph over as a gimme but that's about the extent of it for the most part.
I would like to see some good stratified data on traffic stops. I have a couple of thoughts (not backed up with data) which naturally colors my POV. I'll gladly eat crow if my haunches are wrong:
1.) Of all traffic stops, a relatively small percentage are for minor speeding (up to 10 mph over).
2.) A relatively high percentage (25%-33%?) of traffic stops result in discovery of a more serious offense or crime (DUI, no insurance, warrants, suspended license, etc.).
I have no doubt that some LE agencies abuse the system for less than noble aims, but I am of the opinion that by and large the system works quite well. Of course this is not to state that I like getting pulled over, or that I have some fascination with LE, or that I too once upon a time I didn't buy into speed limit enforcement.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 28, 2007, 06:21:24 PM
I would say the last 5 years I've been pretty good. The 10 mph over ticket a few weeks ago was my first in about 6 years. I take 5 mph over as a gimme but that's about the extent of it for the most part.
I would like to see some good stratified data on traffic stops. I have a couple of thoughts (not backed up with data) which naturally colors my POV. I'll gladly eat crow if my haunches are wrong:
1.) Of all traffic stops, a relatively small percentage are for minor speeding (up to 10 mph over).
2.) A relatively high percentage (25%-33%?) of traffic stops result in discovery of a more serious offense or crime (DUI, no insurance, warrants, suspended license, etc.).
I have no doubt that some LE agencies abuse the system for less than noble aims, but I am of the opinion that by and large the system works quite well. Of course this is not to state that I like getting pulled over, or that I have some fascination with LE, or that I too once upon a time I didn't buy into speed limit enforcement.
It's good to hear a guy who just got a ticket arguing for speed enforcement. We need more people in this society who stand up for the greater good, even when it goes against their short-term narrow self interest.
I agree with you on #1, but I'm not so sure about #2. It's probably right for general traffic stops that aren't specific speed details, but with specific speed details, I wouldn't be so sure.
With general traffic stops, LEOs use their greater judgment and aren't just playing a numbers game, as they are with speed enforcement. Their instincts and experience will often lead them to pull over people who are responsible for crimes other than just moving violations. Most people that commit crimes do it across the spectrum, so if you go after license plate, inspection and equipment violations, you'll often find other things. It's the same theory used to lower subway crime in New York -- the same people jumping the turnstiles without paying were the people carrying guns, robbing people, and who had arrest warrants. Cracking down on turnstile jumping pulled in a lot of these people.
But in a way, you've also made my point, that the greater focus should be on more serious violators. If the speed limit is set artificially low, even 10-15 mph over it isn't really that fast, so even if there's a 10 mph tolerance over the speed limit, many people going at a safe speed could be pulled over and ticketed.
For the reasons I've described earlier, I think this is bad for the overall interest of road safety. When too many people are defined as lawbreakers, the stigma of it goes away, and meaningful penalties can't be applied. That's where we are now with speed enforcement. And the line between safe speeding and dangerous driving is blurred. We need a crisper line, and harsher penalties for those who cross it, while leaving the guy who's doing 70-75 on the interstate alone.
GoCougs, what is the fastest you will generally go on the highway under good conditions? Have you slowed down from what you've done in the past?
Quote from: dazzleman on May 28, 2007, 06:40:03 PM
It's good to hear a guy who just got a ticket arguing for speed enforcement.? We need more people in this society who stand up for the greater good, even when it goes against their short-term narrow self interest.
I agree with you on #1, but I'm not so sure about #2.? It's probably right for general traffic stops that aren't specific speed details, but with specific speed details, I wouldn't be so sure.
With general traffic stops, LEOs use their greater judgment and aren't just playing a numbers game, as they are with speed enforcement.? Their instincts and experience will often lead them to pull over people who are responsible for crimes other than just moving violations.? Most people that commit crimes do it across the spectrum, so if you go after license plate, inspection and equipment violations, you'll often find other things.? It's the same theory used to lower subway crime in New York -- the same people jumping the turnstiles without paying were the people carrying guns, robbing people, and who had arrest warrants.? Cracking down on turnstile jumping pulled in a lot of these people.
But in a way, you've also made my point, that the greater focus should be on more serious violators.? If the speed limit is set artificially low, even 10-15 mph over it isn't really that fast, so even if there's a 10 mph tolerance over the speed limit, many people going at a safe speed could be pulled over and ticketed.
For the reasons I've described earlier, I think this is bad for the overall interest of road safety.? When too many people are defined as lawbreakers, the stigma of it goes away, and meaningful penalties can't be applied.? That's where we are now with speed enforcement.? And the line between safe speeding and dangerous driving is blurred.? We need a crisper line, and harsher penalties for those who cross it, while leaving the guy who's doing 70-75 on the interstate alone.
GoCougs, what is the fastest you will generally go on the highway under good conditions?? Have you slowed down from what you've done in the past?
+1
E-mail that to your congressman. And throw in there that all interstates outside of cities should have 75mph limits. :ohyeah:
Quote from: NACar on May 28, 2007, 06:45:05 PM
+1
E-mail that to your congressman. And throw in there that all interstates outside of cities should have 75mph limits. :ohyeah:
Thanks Nick. I know it would be futile to make this argument to my congressman. Too many people are wedded to artificially low speed limits, and benefit from them, for there to be any realistic prospect of change.
Truth be told, it's not a burning issue for me. There are other things that bother me a great deal more.
Rohan writes:
QuoteEven if do-do heads right and only 30% of all fatalities involve speed - which I can tell you is low from my own experience as a traffic crash investigator- that means that if we can stop even 10% of all speeding crashes how many people does that save? Almost every fatal accident - but not all by any means- I;ve ever worked where it was a 2 car someone was going faster than the posted speed- and not by just a couple miles per hour either. There are easy ways to tell that- crush factors- skid marks- distance of vehicles traveled after point of impact- actual degree of deflection- not to mention good [old-fashioned eye] witnesses. It's pretty rare that people get killed where they were going at or below posted speed - except on the freeway where speed is already high. For that reason your post is roght.
That isn?t ?do-do head? [LOL] speaking but NHTSA gets its data from. . .drumroll. . .police reports! Since speed is overstated as a factor by the police (for personal political safety) in their reports, it is therefore overstated in the NHTSA data set. That data set is still pretty good because it is very large, so the data are still useful. In fact,
every fatal crash is included by law, and a huge majority of injury crashes. Did you also know that NHTSA defines ?speed-related? to include in excess of the posted limit, too fast for conditions, too slow for conditions and ?unsafe lane changes??
Sidebar about NHTSA: This reporting bias and their anti-speed bias are well known. Often, their anti-speed verbiage is not supported by their own data. One benefit that this gives contrarians such as me is that it precludes any claim by our detractors of using data biased in our favor. It is great fun to use their own ammunition to shoot them down.
It should be no surprise to anybody that crashes ?involve? a vehicle exceeding the posted limit since limits are commonly posted at the 50th to 65th percentile; thus, at any given time, about half the population of vehicles are speeding.
From a policy POV, what are we trying to accomplish with our highway transportation system? Why have we made all of the technology improvements to roadways ? breakaway signs, collapsible barriers, reflective paint and railings, wide medians with barriers, limited access, one-way traffic, larger signage, grooved surfaces, emergency lanes, etc? Is it merely to make travel safer? No, it is to make much faster travel safer because faster travel is more productive travel. The opportunity cost of NMSL has been estimated at over a trillion dollars (1970 dollars) by Michigan State University and even that has been criticized as understated.
Let us be very clear that speed limits are not benign creatures without costs and to present them as such is intellectual dishonesty of the vilest kind.
QuoteBut it's not the driver who gets to determine reasonable and safe speed- at least not here- it's the public who hire/elect people to make those decisions for them. It doesnt' blur the lines because the term reasonable is pretty basic- it is reasonable to go 75 in a residential/commercial 40 zone where people and kids may be on foot?
Sorry, that?s just not correct; it is, in fact, drivers who get to determine R&P (reasonable and prudent). The basic assumption by traffic engineers is that drivers will determine what their best speed is, by an internal calculus of risk/reward. In simple terms, the engineers make the assumption that drivers will not consciously exceed a personal level of risk likely to endanger them. This is exemplified every day when drivers routinely travel double-digits above the posted limit and arrive without incident at their destination. The plane that doesn?t crash never makes the news.
This is the fundamental assumption behind the 85th percentile concept used across the nation, mandated nationally by
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and all fifty state traffic engineering divisions, who are signatories to MUTCD. In simple terms, engineers measure and rank actual driving speeds and use that ranking to determine the speed limit (at the 85th percentile speed rounded to the next higher 5 mph increment), so yes, it is drivers who get to determine safe and reasonable.
Sidebar: In Montana, after rescission of NMSL, the limit automatically reverted to R&P and drivers took advantage of that. MSP cited drivers for running 100 mph but some of the courts found that, absent some other compelling factor, 100 mph was, in fact, a reasonable and proper speed. The legislature stepped in to provide guidance for the courts and established a 75 mph limit. As a result, the fatality rate went up. Go figure.
To assert that people must hire/elect somebody to make their driving decisions for them is a gross insult to the people and flies in the face of the reasoning behind traffic engineering. I have never seen a serious political election campaign at any level based on lowering (or raising) speed limits and I have never voted on raising (or lowering) speed limits. I have great faith in the driving public and this is borne out by the best safety rates in the history of the automobile.
We are well aware, however, that once the traffic engineers ascertain a limit for a particular roadway through a traffic study, the politicians come in and set whatever limit they want, based on fear-mongering (?55 is just so damn fast it scares me!? ? unnamed Michigan State legislator) and input from special interests. Therefore, speed limits are not set by scientific methods but by those with a vested interest, usually financial, in keeping low limits.
I also find it disingenuous, although typical, to bring up the example of kids playing their yards or school zones, when the focus of so much enforcement is on high-speed roadways. I suppose that is just part of the marketing effort.
QuoteBravo! See- that's how MEN think- any other thought process is just plain cowardess (sp?). I've never written a active or former serviceman but I've had many- maybe 25 over the years that I've stopped and knew they served ask me "what- no ticket?" They're men and they understand what it takes to live life by rules.
Unless the rules are stupid. The idea that law enforcement is a game and one should accept a punishment for a reasonable action is repugnant for it merely excuses and enables a fraud. The first step to reform is to change the laws rather than the enforcement and I was a part of the group that got the hated and counterproductive NMSL rescinded. I was also active in getting the limit raised to 80 mph in West Texas. While I fight these things on a political level, I also try to educate through fora such as this one, so that we don?t continue to hear the same discredited assertions again and again. Unfortunately, not everybody learns at a rate consistent with a rational society.
The assumption that it?s acceptable to differentiate similar behavior based on the status of the perpetrator ? essentially that certain uniforms carry a dispensation from punishment ? is contrary to reason and equity. Professional courtesy ? even if it?s based on some potential future reciprocal benefit ? is an assault on the dignity of your profession.
Quote from: dazzleman on May 28, 2007, 06:40:03 PM
GoCougs, what is the fastest you will generally go on the highway under good conditions?? Have you slowed down from what you've done in the past?
In Washington, outside of metropolitan areas, the interstates are 70 mph (60 mph for trucks), so compared to some of you guys, we're doing pretty good with decent speed limits. Driving these roads at 60 mph would indeed be a crime.
I've always generally been a 5 mph over driver. The times I am/was a speeder, it is/was excessively so (never got caught, however). I have rarely simply done 10 - 15 mph over. (My recent ticket for 10 mph over I was late for an appointment.)
Nowadays I'm a bit more careful about watching out for the other guy, but pretty much drive the same.
Raza writes:
QuoteYou shouldn?t get upset by the random enforcement of an unjust law?
Much has been made about the use of ?unjust? in this assertion. I find the ?random? just as bothersome as the ?unjust,? which I?ll address in a moment. Enforcement of a law to be equitable must fulfill several elements: rationality, predictability, and equality. Speed limits are not rational (that is, they are not scientific and not efficacious), nor is enforcement predictable (what gets ignored today is cited tomorrow), and professional courtesy violates the very idea of equality.
?Unjust?? I find inequitable, undeserved, inefficacious, unjustified, unmerited, superfluous, hostile, iniquitous, oppressive, even exigent to be more descriptive. When we try to measure the benefit of speed limits, they fare poorly. All of this should be apparent by the near universal disregard of limits by drivers without consequences.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 28, 2007, 06:59:33 PM
In Washington, outside of metropolitan areas, the interstates are 70 mph (60 mph for trucks), so compared to some of you guys, we're doing pretty good with decent speed limits. Driving these roads at 60 mph would indeed be a crime.
I've always generally been a 5 mph over driver. The times I am/was a speeder, it is/was excessively so (never got caught, however). I have rarely simply done 10 - 15 mph over. (My recent ticket for 10 mph over I was late for an appointment.)
Nowadays I'm a bit more careful about watching out for the other guy, but pretty much drive the same.
So you generally go about 75 mph on the interstate? You would probably do that speed even if the speed limit were 55 mph as it is around here, but in that case, you'd be doing 20 mph over rather than 5 mph over. Big difference from a penalty perspective.
What's the worst ticket you've ever gotten? How much over were you?
Quote from: dazzleman on May 28, 2007, 07:07:39 PM
So you generally go about 75 mph on the interstate?? You would probably do that speed even if the speed limit were 55 mph as it is around here, but in that case, you'd be doing 20 mph over rather than 5 mph over.? Big difference from a penalty perspective.
What's the worst ticket you've ever gotten?? How much over were you?
I probably wouldn't drive 75 mph in a 55 mph as the State Patrol uses aircraft to patrol the interstates, and even with 70 mph limits, I see people pulled over all the time (meaning, they have quite a presence just with cars and motor bikes).
Actually, the worst ticket I got wasn't for speeding. While still in high school, I got a criminal negligent driving (not a driving infraction mind you but a criminal offense) for driving on a bike lane. The bike lane used to be a road, but it was one of those nights when a bunch of us were following each other around (not racing though), and someone juked me on a turn, and to get back into line, the bike lane (which I repeat, was a road up until a year or two before my infraction), was the path of least resistance. Further, it was only about 50 feet long. Anyway, that was about $250 in 1990 dollars, or probably $500 today.
Turns out that the citing LEO knew some locals that I knew. Though I related my story to these locals, I didn't know at the time they knew this LEO. Turns out that these locals took pitty on me, and lobbied the LEO without me knowing to see what he could do. Well, there I am siting at my court date (which was mandatory being a criminal offense) in criminal court (i.e., guys in jump suits, cuffs, and the works), and the LEO actually comes up to me and says, "don't worry, I heard that are a decent kid, so I asked the prosecutor to take it easy on you." The prosecutor then starts the court session by stating that he had a case he wanted to take care of quickly, calls me to the bench, and simply states that after careful consideration the court didn't wish to pursue the matter futher.
In hindsight I hadn't a friggin' clue what was going on. I had no idea that I was cited for a criminal offense. I had no idea that if found guilty it would be permanently on my record. I had no idea that I'd be in real court. I had no idea I'd being going up against a prosecutor. It was the real deal all around. Oh man, did I ever get lucky.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 28, 2007, 07:26:06 PM
I probably wouldn't drive 75 mph in a 55 mph as the State Patrol uses aircraft to patrol the interstates, and even with 70 mph limits, I see people pulled over all the time (meaning, they have quite a presence just with cars and motor bikes).
Actually, the worst ticket I got wasn't for speeding. While still in high school, I got a criminal negligent driving (not a driving infraction mind you but a criminal offense) for driving on a bike lane. The bike lane used to be a road, but it was one of those nights when a bunch of us were following each other around (not racing though), and someone juked me on a turn, and to get back into line, the bike lane (which I repeat, was a road up until a year or two before my infraction), was the path of least resistance. Further, it was only about 50 feet long. Anyway, that was about $250 in 1990 dollars, or probably $500 today.
Turns out that the citing LEO knew some locals that I knew. Though I related my story to these locals, I didn't know at the time they knew this LEO. Turns out that these locals took pitty on me, and lobbied the LEO without me knowing to see what he could do. Well, there I am siting at my court date (which was mandatory being a criminal offense) in criminal court (i.e., guys in jump suits, cuffs, and the works), and the LEO actually comes up to me and says, "don't worry, I heard that are a decent kid, so I asked the prosecutor to take it easy on you." The prosecutor then starts the court session by stating that he had a case he wanted to take care of quickly, calls me to the bench, and simply states that after careful consideration the court didn't wish to pursue the matter futher.
In hindsight I hadn't a friggin' clue what was going on. I had no idea that I was cited for a criminal offense. I had no idea that if found guilty it would be permanently on my record. I had no idea that I'd be in real court. I had no idea I'd being going up against a prosecutor. It was the real deal all around. Oh man, did I ever get lucky.
You did get lucky, man.? Ignorance and luck together can sure save a guy a lot of grief.... :lol:
Were your parents with you for this whole thing, or did you hide it from them and go it alone?
GoCougs writes:
QuoteSpeed limits are imperative for safer roadways.
If that is true, then you should be able to quantify it by showing a correlation between changes in speed limits and changes in key safety rates.
1? If speed limits change either up or down? then you should be able to determine which direction and how much the rates would change.? This has already been done, notably in the Parker Report, and the results of that and similar continuing studies show that, given a speed limit decrease, (1) actual speeds do not change and (2) the number of crashes increases, albeit insignificantly.
QuoteIf people truly want to make a difference in safety, spend your efforts on lobbying your state for stricter penalities for DUI, habitual bad drivers, and for serious driving offenses.
We don?t need stricter penalties for DUI because even Draconian penalties do not deter the truly dangerous DUI drivers.? Any of the LEOs here can probably name ten people in their jurisdiction who are problem drinkers.? A BAC of 0.08 is irrelevant to those particular drivers, who routinely exceed 0.20.? All 0.08 does is enlarge the pool and thereby dilute the resources available for problem drunks.
A better approach is to target the driving rather than the drinking.? Ignition interlocks are required for problem drinkers in New Mexico and it seems to have had a positive effect.? A long-term technical solution seems to lie in the likely genetic basis for alcoholism.? Many studies are underway, especially in the Navajo nation, which has a particular sad proclivity toward alcoholism
and a particular genetic anomaly.? That is far in the future, however.
QuoteAnd also: correlations are not necessarily data.
Correlations are specific, quantifiable relationships between data sets, used to predict changes in the dependent variable.? What you are saying is that the independent variable is speed and the dependent variable is the set of safety rates.? This is, by empirical evidence, false.
1? These are crash-, injury-, and fatality-rates, each per 100 million VMT (vehicle miles traveled).
Quote from: James Young on May 28, 2007, 08:01:42 PM
GoCougs writes:
If that is true, then you should be able to quantify it by showing a correlation between changes in speed limits and changes in key safety rates. 1? If speed limits change either up or down? then you should be able to determine which direction and how much the rates would change.? This has already been done, notably in the Parker Report, and the results of that and similar continuing studies show that, given a speed limit decrease, (1) actual speeds do not change and (2) the number of crashes increases, albeit insignificantly.
Correlations are rarely standalone arguments. Further, I am not familiar with the report, but am skeptical of it (or at least your citation) based upon your last statement.
Quote
We don?t need stricter penalties for DUI because even Draconian penalties do not deter the truly dangerous DUI drivers.? Any of the LEOs here can probably name ten people in their jurisdiction who are problem drinkers.? A BAC of 0.08 is irrelevant to those particular drivers, who routinely exceed 0.20.? All 0.08 does is enlarge the pool and thereby dilute the resources available for problem drunks.
The US' road safety ranking among industrialized (Western) nations has consistently slipped the last few decades primarily because of its laxed DUI laws. Germany for example has but half the DUI problem of the US (25% of accidents/deaths vs. 50%) because the threshold is low (0.03 BAC) and the penalties extremely stiff (license revocation, huge fines).
Quote
A better approach is to target the driving rather than the drinking.? Ignition interlocks are required for problem drinkers in New Mexico and it seems to have had a positive effect.? A long-term technical solution seems to lie in the likely genetic basis for alcoholism.? Many studies are underway, especially in the Navajo nation, which has a particular sad proclivity toward alcoholism and a particular genetic anomaly.? That is far in the future, however.
Though that sounds interesting, it is not much more than a novelty. One DUI should result in many months' suspension of driving and mandatory jail time. A second DUI should be at least a year hiatus and a month in the slammer. A third DUI should be a lifetime ban on the endeavor and many months in jail.
Oh, and people
choose to become drunks.
Quote
Correlations are specific, quantifiable relationships between data sets, used to predict changes in the dependent variable.? What you are saying is that the independent variable is speed and the dependent variable is the set of safety rates .? This is, by empirical evidence, false.
Statistics 101 plainly states that a correlation is not a proxy for causality.
What I am saying is that high school physics is about all anyone needs to know IMO.
GoCougs writes:
QuoteCorrelations are rarely standalone arguments. Further, I am not familiar with the report, but am skeptical of it (or at least your citation) based upon your last statement.
Statistics 101 plainly states that a correlation is not a proxy for causality.
Correlations are but a tool to help us see relationships between phenomena.? Without relationships there can be no causality.? The absence of significant correlations in this case clearly shows that there is no relationship between changes in speed limits and changes in crash rates, a case long made by the anti-speed forces.?
?
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm for the Parker Report synopsis.
QuoteThe US' road safety ranking among industrialized (Western) nations has consistently slipped the last few decades primarily because of its laxed DUI laws.
What is your source for this?? And is that your conclusion or the original author?s?
Note that NHTSA uses ?alcohol-related? rather than ?drunk driving,? and that
any party with
any amount of alcohol is considered ?alcohol-related? crash.? Thus, a pedestrian who consumed a single glass on wine hit by an 85-year old legally blind man who ran a stop sign is considered ?alcohol-related."
?
QuoteThough that sounds interesting, it is not much more than a novelty.
Well, that ?novelty? has had some pretty good early successes in New Mexico.
QuoteOne DUI should result in many months' suspension of driving and mandatory jail time. A second DUI should be at least a year hiatus and a month in the slammer. A third DUI should be a lifetime ban on the endeavor and many months in jail.
It looks like all you want to do is punish people for drinking.? I want to stop dangerous driving.?
QuoteOh, and people choose to become drunks.
Then you need to present your case.? An expanding body of research is pointing towards a specific genetic anomaly as a predictor of alcoholism.
QuoteWhat I am saying is that high school physics is about all anyone needs to know IMO.
Then you need to reconsider your opinion.? Physics is a fine, useful discipline but it hardly completes the repertoire of knowledge or skills required to determine the best policy to operate a traffic system.
I'm gassed on the subject for now.
The battle against speed limit enforcement is long lost IMO. It is becoming stricter and more expensive by the day.
If people truly want safer roads, lobby for for much stricter penalties for DUI. Perhaps a nice byproduct will be lower emphasis on speed enforcement.
Onboard GPS nanny systems are just around the proverbial corner. Want a battle? That'll be a lot more fun I think.
Here's a question; if there's so much of a problem on speeding, why don't they limit road cars to 85mph or something?
I'd be totally against the idea, but why has this never been considered?
People don't like their control taken away from them.
That still wouldn't solve the problem of speeding in areas not on the highway.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 29, 2007, 11:44:59 AM
I'm gassed on the subject for now.
The battle against speed limit enforcement is long lost IMO. It is becoming stricter and more expensive by the day.
If people truly want safer roads, lobby for for much stricter penalties for DUI. Perhaps a nice byproduct will be lower emphasis on speed enforcement.
Onboard GPS nanny systems are just around the proverbial corner. Want a battle? That'll be a lot more fun I think.
You and I will be long dead and james will still be posting...... :P
Quote from: hounddog on May 27, 2007, 01:21:54 AM
I was reading through some notes from my last class on traffic crash reconstruction we were quizzed on stopping distance vs. reaction time vs. sight distance vs. centripical force... etc.? ?I came across this in my handwriting in the border of the class text:
"Some drivers have a reaction time of less than one second while others take as long as 3.5 seconds.? Reaction time depends on several factors to include; fatigue, weather, experience, time of day, properties of hazard ie size and shape and color.? UofM traffic safety studies have shown the average driver can react in 2.5 seconds or less.? Therefore the brake reaction time normally used should be 2.5 seconds."? So I guess you need to adjust your math, according to MSU and Dr. Lee.?
Regardless of how long the reaction time is, distance travelled before the reaction takes place would still be directly proportional with speed, not quadrupling every extra ten MPH.
Use any number you wish, but any driver taking 2.5 seconds to react; much less 3.5, has no business driving any vehicle.
Quote from: James Young on May 27, 2007, 12:16:03 PM
Consider why that is.? There is no rational measure of why particular motorists are stopped.? What gets ignored on Monday will be cited on Tuesday; 15-over gets ignored at 10 AM and 7 over gets cited at 10:30 AM.? Driving in the presence of an officer is an exercise in avoiding trigger events rather than performing in a safe and reasonable manner.? Driving out of the presence of an officer is a calculus of self-preservation.
So you think that there should be some form of universal, across the board response to a given violation? Say, 10 over automatically results in a ticket? Officers are human beings, not robots. You will never get a universal, 100 % all-the-time response to a given violkation.
QuoteAnd in Reply #114:
Those costs are insignificant, requiring little more than some data entry time.? Something like 95% of citations are simply paid without any court involvement.? Again, the statistics are educated guesses because the data are obscured.?
What you continue to ignore is that those costs ? officer time and benefits, data entry, storage, even bailiffs, clerks, court reporters and judges ? are paid from taxes before any cites are issued.? The fines are gravy.
The costs...particularly for tickets that go to trial..are hardly "insignificant". Tickets still get entered by the departments, tracked by the courts, etc....even the sizeable number which are fix-it type tickets which get tossed when the defect is corrected. No revenue is received at all from those, yet they still incur expenses to the agency and the court.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 26, 2007, 07:46:37 PM
Exactly how is a state grant funding traffic enforcement not a financial benefit derived from engaging in traffic enforcement activities?
You and I must have different definitions of "financial benefit". Its a "benefit" in that the traffic details will be funded to allow a certain level of manpower to be on the streets and roads addressing the traffic related complaints of the community members. If it wasn't for that grant money, those patrols would have to be funded as a seperate budget line item in the departments budget and paid for out of everyones already-too-high property taxes. Or worse yet not exist at all, in which case the traffic complaints of the community would not be as readily addressed due to a lack of manpower and the traffic problems would continue unabated. Other than that "benefit", its hardly a "benefit". Its not like the agency is able to add millions of dollars to its budget by collecting fine money, which you seem to think of as a universal "benefit" of traffic enforcement.
the nameless one writes:
QuoteSo you think that there should be some form of universal, across the board response to a given violation? Say, 10 over automatically results in a ticket? Officers are human beings, not robots. You will never get a universal, 100 % all-the-time response to a given violkation.
No, the better solution is to target dangerous behavior and only dangerous behavior. Ignore the people driving 77 mph in a 70 mph zone, the people that are now targeted because they are easy pickings. Do away with helmet and seatbelt laws, mandatory vehicle inspection, electronic toys such as radar and laser, and concentrate instead on maintaining the integrity and efficacy of the system, especially as measured by average speed of flow.
Let the cops now on traffic patrol move to crimes against people and property. And let those who excuse their hypocritical behavior suffer the consequences of that behavior. Or better yet, let those cops run a real public driving school that teaches real driving with a skid pad, track, computerized training similar to pilot training, and let the insurance companies pay for it. It?s time for those two groups to put up or shut up.
Since a citation seems to be your answer to everything from burned-out license plate lights to crabgrass, I?m led to believe that you must have been a priest in the Tower of London in a previous life.
QuoteThe costs...particularly for tickets that go to trial..are hardly "insignificant".
Get serious. Ninety-five percent of the tickets are just paid and never see a courtroom. The cost of administering these tickets is minimal, essentially nothing more than some data entry time, usually just indexing a ticket that is already scanned. Regardless of the cost, if traffic enforcement is that important to the jurisdiction, then it?s important enough to pay out of tax revenues. Just don?t BS us or worse, yourself.
I have to side with James Young on the revenue issue.
While it's true that tickets that are challenged don't produce revenue, it's also true that most tickets aren't challenged. Traffic fines overall are a revenue source in most jurisdictions, and it's foolish to deny that.
Quote from: the nameless one on May 29, 2007, 08:03:22 PM
You and I must have different definitions of "financial benefit". Its a "benefit" in that the traffic details will be funded to allow a certain level of manpower to be on the streets and roads addressing the traffic related complaints of the community members. If it wasn't for that grant money, those patrols would have to be funded as a seperate budget line item in the departments budget and paid for out of everyones already-too-high property taxes. Or? worse yet not exist at all, in which case the traffic complaints of the community would not be as readily addressed due to a lack of manpower and the traffic problems would continue unabated. Other than that "benefit", its hardly a "benefit". Its not like the agency is able to add millions of dollars to its budget by collecting fine money, which you seem to think of as a universal "benefit" of traffic enforcement.
So wait a second, if traffic enforcement (in its current state) is of such utmost importance to the community members, why shouldn't they be willing to pay for it?
"Its a "benefit" in that the traffic details will be funded to allow a certain level of manpower"In other words: it pays the paycheck of a sizable number of officers. Furthermore, taking those costs out of the hands of the taxpayers and making it dependant on the ability to collect fines creates a self-serving and self-justifying aspect to law enforcement.
Quote from: Catman on May 29, 2007, 12:44:19 PM
You and I will be long dead and james will still be posting...... :P
Thanks Catman. I hope you?re right. This year will be my 50th year of doing this, the result of a superb 8th grade English teacher who challenged us to write a research paper presenting a statistical argument in conjunction with our math class, which was teaching some basic statistics. I happened to come across a
Reader?s Digest synopsis of a Harvard College (now University) School of Public Health study that the real reasons for fatal automobile crashes were frequently
not what the police said on the official report. A contrarian was born.
About two weeks ago, I ran into that teacher and we talked about that assignment and my paper. Teachers can have a profound effect on students, often in unanticipated ways. :ohyeah:
Soup DeVille writes:
?Exactly how is a state grant funding traffic enforcement not a financial benefit derived from engaging in traffic enforcement activities??
the nameless one responds:
QuoteYou and I must have different definitions of "financial benefit".
The usual definition of benefit revolves around the term ?advantage,? that is one gains something that they did not enjoy previously, particularly through a payment or gift. In terms of monetary receipts, benefits refers to income or in an agency?s case, revenue. Your agency received funding, which it previously did not enjoy, in exchange for some particular traffic enforcement. What you received is clearly a benefit.
Don?t try to read too much into it.
The Washington State Patrol has been advertising recently on TV. Some of the interesting facts that they report (and that I got off the website):
1.) 77% of all fatalities involve DUI, and/or excessive speed, and/or non-belted driver/occupant(s)
2.) 47% of all fatalities involve DUI
3.) 48% of all fatalities were non-belted driver/occupant(s)
4.) 43% of all fatalities were excessive speed related
5.) 18% of all fatalities were at the hands of unlicensed drivers (suspended, revoked, illegals, etc.)
6.) 97% of all fatalities happen by leaving the roadway (56%), head-ons (21%) and at intersections (20%)
5.) Fatality rate increases by a factor of 4 at night
6.) Teen drivers have double the fatality rate
I do not know what "excessive speed" is.
Quote from: James Young on May 29, 2007, 08:36:30 PM
No, the better solution is to target dangerous behavior and only dangerous behavior.? Ignore the people driving 77 mph in a 70 mph zone, the people that are now targeted because they are easy pickings.? Do away with helmet and seatbelt laws, mandatory vehicle inspection, electronic toys such as radar and laser, and concentrate instead on maintaining the integrity and efficacy of the system, especially as measured by average speed of flow.
How many people get cited already for 77 in a 70? Not many. So it already IS essentially ignored.
Seatbelts are good. Why do away with laws requiring them? You think the rest of us don't pay in some fashion when an unbelted person is hurt or killed in a wreck because they weren't restrained? Or are you one of those "if I was belted in in my wreck I would have died " guys.
Vehicle inspections= keeps the vehicle up to a minimum level of maintenance on critical components which some drivers if theyw ere not forced to do so would not do. That endangers the rest of us.
You'll never see things like RADAR or LASER done away with because even if your beloved Interstates had no speed limits tomorrow, there would still be enforcement in communities in residential neighborhoods, etc. Of course you'd LOVE to have officers forced to rely on things like visual estimates or pacing because it would give you more room to argue error in the event you DID get ticketed, right James?
QuoteLet the cops now on traffic patrol move to crimes against people and property.? And let those who excuse their hypocritical behavior suffer the consequences of that behavior.? Or better yet, let those cops run a real public driving school that teaches real driving with a skid pad, track, computerized training similar to pilot training, and let the insurance companies pay for it.? It?s time for those two groups to put up or shut up.
There are private schools where you can pay for that training if you really want it. The police shouldn't be doing that sort of training, any more than they should be providing firearms training to concealed carry permit applicants. In this era of litigation, the agency would be assuming too much liability.
Officers already work on crimes against people and property. The reality is that in most areas, speed enforcement is a time filler activity. Areas with dedicated traffic enforcement guys who do nothing BUT traffic enforcement, have made that investment because of the amount of traffic issues they deal with.
QuoteSince a citation seems to be your answer to everything from burned-out license plate lights to crabgrass, I?m led to believe that you must have been a priest in the Tower of London in a previous life.
I don't recall ever discussing crabgrass with you James; I'll advise you to use Roundup in that case. As for burnt out license plate bulbs, if someone has that sort of equipment violation, a simple fix it ticket prompts them to fix the problem with zero financial penalty to them. It ensures that the defect will be corrected.
QuoteGet serious.? Ninety-five percent of the tickets are just paid and never see a courtroom.? The cost of administering these tickets is minimal, essentially nothing more than some data entry time, usually just indexing a ticket that is already scanned.? Regardless of the cost, if traffic enforcement is that important to the jurisdiction, then it?s important enough to pay out of tax revenues.? Just don?t BS us or worse, yourself.
Costs are going down thanks to the newer generation of E tickets and scanned tickets, but you multiply the number of tickets and even at "minimal" cost per ticket, it still adds up. I'm not BSing you at all.
Who said the jurisdiction DOESN'T pay already out of tax revenue for traffic enforcement? I assume that you are referring to the grant issue. The reality is that grants allow a dedicated response in time and manpower to traffic issues that might have not been possible without the grant. In this day and age of the public shooting down budgets, getting grant money to extend the funding and services available through regular taxation is important.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 29, 2007, 08:46:28 PM
In other words: it pays the paycheck of a sizable number of officers. Furthermore, taking those costs out of the hands of the taxpayers and making it dependant on the ability to collect fines creates a self-serving and self-justifying aspect to law enforcement.
Lets clarify something here:
The grants I am thinking of allow agencies to put officers on the road in an OT status to deal specifically with traffic complaints. The reality is that agencies receive far more traffic related complaints for specific time frames than they are able to deal with by using available regularly scheduled personnel, most of whom have to deal with calls for service before they can focus on traffic enforcement. The majority of such public traffic complaints center around specific timeframes: 6 AM to 9 AM, 3 PM to 6 PM, 11 PM to 2 AM for example: basically high volume times people with drivers going back and forth to work, or closing time for the bars. Too many complaints from too many people in that narrow a time frame to allow the available officers to be everywhere they need to be for those few hours. Holding a couple of guys over from their normal shifts for a short time and funding them through a grant to address those problems in those limited times is addressing a specific problem that otherwise the agency might not have been able to do with available funding.
If some areas use the grant money to fund an officer full time, it has to be because there are enough traffic related issues in that area that the agency can justify assigning someone on a full time status to traffic enforcement. The stats provided above:
"1.) 77% of all fatalities involve DUI, and/or excessive speed, and/or non-belted driver/occupant(s)
2.) 47% of all fatalities involve DUI
3.) 48% of all fatalities were non-belted driver/occupant(s)
4.) 43% of all fatalities were excessive speed related
5.) 18% of all fatalities were at the hands of unlicensed drivers (suspended, revoked, illegals, etc.)
6.) 97% of all fatalities happen by leaving the roadway (56%), head-ons (21%) and at intersections (20%)
5.) Fatality rate increases by a factor of 4 at night
6.) Teen drivers have double the fatality rate "
shows exactly why agencies take trafic enforcement seriously and why its not just about fine revenue.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 29, 2007, 11:12:26 PM
The Washington State Patrol has been advertising recently on TV. Some of the interesting facts that they report (and that I got off the website):
1.) 77% of all fatalities involve DUI, and/or excessive speed, and/or non-belted driver/occupant(s)
2.) 47% of all fatalities involve DUI
3.) 48% of all fatalities were non-belted driver/occupant(s)
4.) 43% of all fatalities were excessive speed related
5.) 18% of all fatalities were at the hands of unlicensed drivers (suspended, revoked, illegals, etc.)
6.) 97% of all fatalities happen by leaving the roadway (56%), head-ons (21%) and at intersections (20%)
5.) Fatality rate increases by a factor of 4 at night
6.) Teen drivers have double the fatality rate
I do not know what "excessive speed" is.
Do you have a source for these stas, something more specific than just WSP ad?
"Excessive speed" can cover several different concepts. In NHTSA parlance, it means any speed exceeding the posted limit, too fast for condtions, too slow for conditions, and "unsafe lane changes." I can't make up stuff this good.
Since I'm not on my own laptop (undergoing some repair right now), I'll address just #2 above. DUI is interpreted by the public as "drunk driving." As I said in a previous example (real, BTW), a pedestrian after having consumed a single glass of wine was struck by an 80-something year old legally blind man. Since alcohol was "involved" it goes down under that DUI, although the alcohol in no way contributed to the crash. Yes, it dishonest but that's the way NHTSA has worked for years.
Quote from: the nameless one on May 30, 2007, 04:35:39 AM
How many people get cited already for 77 in a 70? Not many. So it already IS essentially ignored.
You must live in a parallel universe. The thousands of speed traps across the nation (and their city brethren who have openly opted to use traffic enforcement for profit) routinely cite for five-over.
QuoteSeatbelts are good. Why do away with laws requiring them? You think the rest of us don't pay in some fashion when an unbelted person is hurt or killed in a wreck because they weren't restrained?
I would not drive without my seatbelt. However, the government's role is not that of a nanny. Let's compromise: leave the belt laws on the books but any fines arising therefrom go to a scholarship fund and never to the jurisdiction or any agency thereof.
QuoteVehicle inspections= keeps the vehicle up to a minimum level of maintenance on critical components which some drivers if theyw ere not forced to do so would not do. That endangers the rest of us.
States with mandatory inspection have injury and fatality rates no different from those states without them. In short, they impose a burden without a benefit.
QuoteYou'll never see things like RADAR or LASER done away with because even if your beloved Interstates had no speed limits tomorrow, there would still be enforcement in communities in residential neighborhoods, etc. Of course you'd LOVE to have officers forced to rely on things like visual estimates or pacing because it would give you more room to argue error in the event you DID get ticketed, right James?
It would force the LEOs to focus on the real job instead of relying on their toys. What I want them to do is concentrate on dangerous driving, not the routine stuff where they cite for a 75th percentile speed. That's immoral.
I've only had one cite in the last 12 years and that was because I was the only car out of about 20 that had foreign plates. Mission, KS, a notorious speedtrap.
QuoteThere are private schools where you can pay for that training if you really want it. The police shouldn't be doing that sort of? training, any more than they should be providing firearms training to concealed carry permit applicants. In this era of litigation, the agency would be assuming too much liability.
I have already utilized those private schools (Bondurant) but I'm trying to offer up something that the cops could do with a real benefit.
QuoteOfficers already work on crimes against people and property. The reality is that in most areas, speed enforcement is a time filler activity. Areas with dedicated traffic enforcement guys who do nothing BUT traffic enforcement, have made that investment because of the amount of traffic issues they deal with.
I never implied that they didn't work crimes against people and property. However, there is huge contingent of cops who do nothing but speed enforcement. There are about three dozen very bad speed traps who enforce nothing but speed because there are no signals in their jurisdiction and the county sheriff handles criminal matters.
QuoteCosts are going down thanks to the newer generation of E tickets and scanned tickets, but you multiply the number of tickets and even at "minimal" cost per ticket, it still adds up. I'm not BSing you at all.
The point that you refuse to get is that the revenue adds up a lot faster than the administration costs.
QuoteThe reality is that grants allow a dedicated response in time and manpower to traffic issues that might have not been possible without the grant.
If traffic issues are really that bad (a very long stretch of the imagination for Ithaca), then the taxpayers should be happy to provide the necessary funds to handle that traffic. But even the, a grant is an inflow of revenue, by any definition a benefit.
Quote from: James Young on May 30, 2007, 10:10:49 AM
Do you have a source for these stas, something more specific than just WSP ad?
"Excessive speed" can cover several different concepts.? In NHTSA parlance, it means any speed exceeding the posted limit, too fast for condtions, too slow for conditions, and "unsafe lane changes."? I can't make up stuff this good.
Since I'm not on my own laptop (undergoing some repair right now), I'll address just #2 above.? DUI is interpreted by the public as "drunk driving."? As I said in a previous example (real, BTW), a pedestrian after having consumed a single glass of wine was struck by an 80-something year old legally blind man.? Since alcohol was "involved" it goes down under that DUI, although the alcohol in no way contributed to the crash.? Yes, it dishonest but that's the way NHTSA has worked for years.
WSP's report: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/nr/rdonlyres/bc9c8bdb-a735-4948-850a-47b72696e4d9/0/shsp.pdf.
(Also note that the above stats were for 2001 - 2005.)
As to your counter to point #2: The 47% number does indeed include drinking nonmotorists killed by nondrinking drivers, but bumps the number up by only 3-4% or so, and IMO, nullifying in spirit your critique of the stat. Stripping all the rest of it way,
impared drivers with at least a BAC > 0.08 or toxilogical test confirming drug use were responsible for 44% of fatalities.
I did find the definition of "excessive speed": Speeding was defined as Driving Too Fast for Conditions or in Driving in Excess of Posted Maximum for at least one driver involved in the collision."
I see your issue with this definition; though it's not quite as open-ended as the one you mentioned. I did not see in the report the method of determination of speed. If the Powers that Be (through accident investigation, mere opinon or whatever) are assigning blame for fatalities solely on the fact that a driver was doing 55 in a 50, I agree that that is a problem. However, I am extremely skeptical that the speeding stat is abused in this manner; if but for nothing else that such a succinct determination of such a small speed variance is impossible.
Quote from: the nameless one on May 30, 2007, 04:50:36 AM
Lets clarify something here:
...shows exactly why agencies take trafic enforcement seriously and why its not just about fine revenue.
So you agree that there is an aspect to traffic enforcement which
is about fine revenue then?
Quote from: GoCougs on May 29, 2007, 11:12:26 PM
The Washington State Patrol has been advertising recently on TV. Some of the interesting facts that they report (and that I got off the website):
6.) 97% of all fatalities happen by leaving the roadway (56%), head-ons (21%) and at intersections (20%)
That is the most useless statistic I've ever seen!
Statistics show that 96% of statistics are bullshit.
Okay, my statistics show that.
Quote from: Brian FantanaThey've done studies, you know. 60% of the time it works, every time.
Quote from: Ron BurgundyThat doesn't make any sense.
GoCougs writes:
Quote
WSP's report: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/nr/rdonlyres/bc9c8bdb-a735-4948-850a-47b72696e4d9/0/shsp.pdf.
As to your counter to point #2: The 47% number does indeed include drinking nonmotorists killed by nondrinking drivers, but bumps the number up by only 3-4% or so, and IMO, nullifying in spirit your critique of the stat. Stripping all the rest of it way, impared drivers with at least a BAC > 0.08 or toxilogical test confirming drug use were responsible for 44% of fatalities.
Very cool site.? Thanks.? Washington State has been moderately progressive but very open in what, how and why they do things, at least in relation to traffic management and safety.? I see that they have proposed using photo-speed enforcement to mitigate ?speed-involved? crashes but the efficacy of this system is unproven at best, counterproductive at worst.? However, it does ? I know this will shock you! ? raise a lot of revenue for the state.? ?Who?d a thunk it?
However, I?m wary of their ?impaired? driver statistics because of what they omit:? sleep-deprived drivers, the fastest growing category of problematic drivers.? They essentially limit ?impairment? to alcohol and drugs but sleep deprivation is growing much too fast.? Of course, the LEOs don?t enforce for that because you cannot easily and remotely measure how sleepy a driver is.?
QuoteI see your issue with this definition; though it's not quite as open-ended as the one you mentioned. I did not see in the report the method of determination of speed. If the Powers that Be (through accident investigation, mere opinon or whatever) are assigning blame for fatalities solely on the fact that a driver was doing 55 in a 50, I agree that that is a problem. However, I am extremely skeptical that the speeding stat is abused in this manner; if but for nothing else that such a succinct determination of such a small speed variance is impossible.
The way NHTSA reporting works is this.? All fatal crashes are required to be reported by law.? Most injury and some non-injury crashes are routinely reported in data sent to NHTSA by
local police departments. They do not do their own investigations for their recurring reporting but only special projects.
The cause of the crash as reported to NHTSA comes from the judgment of the local cop, not necessarily any scientific criteria.? Local cops use ?excessive speed? for almost everything, unless another compelling reason jumps out at them.? Why do they do this?? Personal political safety because nobody will likely question them, whereas if they put ?ROW violation? or ?fell asleep,? then they expose themselves to political risk.?
Quote from: James Young on May 30, 2007, 07:14:13 PM
GoCougs writes:
Very cool site.? Thanks.? Washington State has been moderately progressive but very open in what, how and why they do things, at least in relation to traffic management and safety.? I see that they have proposed using photo-speed enforcement to mitigate ?speed-involved? crashes but the efficacy of this system is unproven at best, counterproductive at worst.? However, it does ? I know this will shock you! ? raise a lot of revenue for the state.? ?Who?d a thunk it?
However, I?m wary of their ?impaired? driver statistics because of what they omit:? sleep-deprived drivers, the fastest growing category of problematic drivers.? They essentially limit ?impairment? to alcohol and drugs but sleep deprivation is growing much too fast.? Of course, the LEOs don?t enforce for that because you cannot easily and remotely measure how sleepy a driver is.?
The way NHTSA reporting works is this.? All fatal crashes are required to be reported by law.? Most injury and some non-injury crashes are routinely reported in data sent to NHTSA by local police departments.? They do not do their own investigations for their recurring reporting but only special projects.
The cause of the crash as reported to NHTSA comes from the judgment of the local cop, not necessarily any scientific criteria.? Local cops use ?excessive speed? for almost everything, unless another compelling reason jumps out at them.? Why do they do this?? Personal political safety because nobody will likely question them, whereas if they put ?ROW violation? or ?fell asleep,? then they expose themselves to political risk.?
Hey, look at that. Some common ground.
I did see the blurb about the recommendation of the "proven" method of speed cameras. Open season on 5 mph over drivers will never solve a thing. I think in at least this we are in agreement. Luckily, here I've never seen a camera; red-light, speed or otherwise.
IIRC in that report, sleepy drivers are lumped in with distracted drivers, and I think the only way you'll know for sure is if someone cops to it.
I agree with James on photo radar. They did it in Scottsdale and that's exactly what it was. The first day they had annhilated ticket records, and it went on to become quite the cashcow. Only problem was it didn't make the interstate safer and nobody paid the citations.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=9120.msg464922#msg464922 date=1180566356
That is the most useless statistic I've ever seen!
Sounds like they are breaking it down by type of accident.
Quote from: James Young on May 30, 2007, 10:30:19 AM
You must live in a parallel universe.? The thousands of speed traps across the nation (and their city brethren who have openly opted to use traffic enforcement for profit) routinely cite for five-over.
Nope, I live in the real universe. The only agency around here that was that strict on ticketsing was only so strict because they covered what was essentially a bedroom community whose residents WANTED that level of enforcement. Every other agency in the area wont even look at you for anything less than 10 over, and thats only in school zones.
QuoteI would not drive without my seatbelt.? However, the government's role is not that of a nanny.? Let's compromise:? leave the belt laws on the books but any fines arising therefrom go to a scholarship fund and never to the jurisdiction or any agency thereof.
You can't argue the benefit of being belted in. It helps you control the vehicle, and can help you maintain control of the car when you might have been thrown across the passenger compartment. It helps you stay IN your seat so the airbag can do what ITS designed to do.
You start designating some scholarship fund as a beneficiary and ten every non-profit group would want to be included in the funding.
QuoteStates with mandatory inspection have injury and fatality rates no different from those states without them.? In short, they impose a burden without a benefit.
States without inspections have rolling wrecks on the highways. Inspections FORCE the owner to maintain their vehicle to a certain level.
QuoteIt would force the LEOs to focus on the real job instead of relying on their toys.? What I want them to do is concentrate on dangerous driving, not the routine stuff where they cite for a 75th percentile speed.? That's immoral.
You have your own definition of dangerous driving; I would define your driving habits as dangerous.
QuoteI have already utilized those private schools (Bondurant) but I'm trying to offer up something that the cops could do with a real benefit.
Liability
QuoteI never implied that they didn't work crimes against people and property.? However, there is huge contingent of cops who do nothing but speed enforcement.? There are about three dozen very bad speed traps who enforce nothing but speed because there are no signals in their jurisdiction and the county sheriff handles criminal matters.
MOST officers do speed enforcement as afiller activity between calls. Those designated as full time traffic guys are in that position because the agency feels that the problem is serious enough to warrant a full time position.
QuoteThe point that you refuse to get is that the revenue adds up a lot faster than the administration costs.
YOu don't seem to acknowledge that the revenue in many cases is exceeded by the cost of administering the ticket.
QuoteIf traffic issues are really that bad (a very long stretch of the imagination for Ithaca), then the taxpayers should be happy to provide the necessary funds to handle that traffic.? But even the, a grant is an inflow of revenue, by any definition a benefit.
Traffic is ALWAYS an issue here, as it is everywhere, including your own hometown.
A grant is only a benefit in that that amount of funding doesn't have to come specifically out of the local taxpayers wallet. We certainly have differing definitions of benefit.
"You can't argue the benefit of being belted in. It helps you control the vehicle, and can help you maintain control of the car when you might have been thrown across the passenger compartment. It helps you stay IN your seat so the airbag can do what ITS designed to do."
He isn't even arguing that, what he is arguing is that the government doesn't need to be micromanaging our lives to the point of ticketing anyone who doesn't buckle his or her set belt. If a person wants to make such a stupid decision, let them. We'll be better off as a society anyway.
There is little to no risk of an accident occurring due to a lack of seat belt usage, no more than there is due to a defective seat belt (ie: one that rachets too tightly and the driver gets distracted trying to fix it).
Quote from: TBR on May 31, 2007, 10:11:27 AM
"You can't argue the benefit of being belted in. It helps you control the vehicle, and can help you maintain control of the car when you might have been thrown across the passenger compartment. It helps you stay IN your seat so the airbag can do what ITS designed to do."
He isn't even arguing that, what he is arguing is that the government doesn't need to be micromanaging our lives to the point of ticketing anyone who doesn't buckle his or her set belt. If a person wants to make such a stupid decision, let them. We'll be better off as a society anyway.
There is little to no risk of an accident occurring due to a lack of seat belt usage, no more than there is due to a defective seat belt (ie: one that rachets too tightly and the driver gets distracted trying to fix it).
The above assertion is absurd. The vast majority of collisions to not result in a fatality.
The state has a vested interest in that unbelted occupants' injuries are substantially worse, further burdening the insurance, healthcare and emergency response systems - thereby adversely affecting everyone.
I don't see a viable argument against mandatory seatbelt usage. There's virtually zero downside to their use, yet there is profound upside.
Law should only exist to protect the constitutional rights of citizens, mandatory seat belt regulations do not do that and therefore should not exist.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 31, 2007, 10:29:54 AM
The above assertion is absurd. The vast majority of collisions to not result in a fatality.
The state has a vested interest in that unbelted occupants' injuries are substantially worse, further burdening the insurance, healthcare and emergency response systems - thereby adversely affecting everyone.
I don't see a viable argument against mandatory seatbelt usage. There's virtually zero downside to their use, yet there is profound upside.
The person injured is already paying premiums for those, so I say let them get their money's worth.
There are plenty of good decisions the government can make for me, but if I'm not directly harming anyone I'd rather make those decisions for myself. Obesity is a bigger burden on the healthcare system than anything, but we don't make it a ticketable offense to down 3 BigMacs for lunch.
Quote from: TBR on May 31, 2007, 10:44:32 AM
Law should only exist to protect the constitutional rights of citizens, mandatory seat belt regulations do not do that and therefore should not exist.
What are you talking about?
[Possible duplicate post. My laptop is giving me fits.]
the nameless one writes:
QuoteNope, I live in the real universe. The only agency around here that was that strict on ticketsing was only so strict because they covered what was essentially a bedroom community whose residents WANTED that level of enforcement. Every other agency in the area wont even look at you for anything less than 10 over, and thats only in school zones.
Assuming that your experience is real, it is certainly anomalous in the universe of traffic enforcement that the rest of us see. We see villages of 250 people with 12 officers on force, writing citations for five-over because they want the money ant that is because there is limited or no economic opportunity there. And the police force and the administration of the village are one and the same.
Typical of such scams is the saga of New Rome, OH, which is closer to you than to me. Google ?New Rome Ohio? or just go to www.newromesucks.com then click on ?Archives.? New Rome has been decommissioned because of their enforcement abuses.
QuoteYou can't argue the benefit of being belted in.
You start designating some scholarship fund as a beneficiary and ten every non-profit group would want to be included in the funding.
I argue
for seatbelt usage. I argue
against imposition of a nanny-state.
The scholarship corporation is a public corporation, truly a state agency, not a private charity. The point is to maintain your beloved punishment system for drivers but to remove control, direction and benefit from the enforcing, authorizing or supporting agencies.
QuoteStates without inspections have rolling wrecks on the highways. Inspections FORCE the owner to maintain their vehicle to a certain level.
I thought my statement was clear and unequivocal. States with mandatory inspection do not have better injury or fatality rates than those who do not. In very simple terms: mandatory inspection does not result in improved safety. This is for all fifty states. If it doesn?t work, why do it?
QuoteYou have your own definition of dangerous driving; I would define your driving habits as dangerous.
Since you don?t know my driving habits, I assume your assertion is but hyperbole.
I have been driving legally since I was 14 (nearly 48 years), farm trucks and tractors before that. I?ve covered 2 million miles without a single at-fault crash. I have been hit from behind five times and have been forced off the road by the carelessness of both Texas DPS and California Chippies. I?ve gone through the Bondurant School on my own dime and my own time. I?ve had probably a dozen cites, all for speeding and none that were ever for anything dangerous. I routinely drive across the Western US at speeds concordant with most traffic wherever I am. I rarely reach triple digits and I?m usually near what I estimate as the 95th percentile, which, if limits were set scientifically, would be the limit on such roadways.
Those habits and that success are goals to be emulated.
QuoteMOST officers do speed enforcement as afiller activity between calls. Those designated as full time traffic guys are in that position because the agency feels that the problem is serious enough to warrant a full time position.
I don?t know why you won?t get this: cops in speedtrap village do nothing
but speed enforcement. Note that they are usually not CLEET-certified, not trained, often not even HS graduates. These are largely poor guys from poverty-stricken areas struggling in a world that has passed them by.
QuoteYOu don't seem to acknowledge that the revenue in many cases is exceeded by the cost of administering the ticket.
Okay, I?ll bite. Show us one.
QuoteTraffic is ALWAYS an issue here, as it is everywhere, including your own hometown.
My hometown ? Austin, Texas ? has a speed problem. Actually, it?s lack of speed because traffic is so bad. Austin grew so rapidly despite efforts to keep it small that the cars grew faster than the roads.
QuoteA grant is only a benefit in that that amount of funding doesn't have to come specifically out of the local taxpayers wallet. We certainly have differing definitions of benefit.
My definition comes from two places: dictionaries and my economics training. I stand by it.
Quote from: the nameless one on May 31, 2007, 08:01:21 AM
You start designating some scholarship fund as a beneficiary and ten every non-profit group would want to be included in the funding.
You say that like its going to create a problem.
QuoteStates without inspections have rolling wrecks on the highways. Inspections FORCE the owner to maintain their vehicle to a certain level.
Hey, I actually agree with you on something! Properly set up inspections i think should be mandatory; and by proper i mean by focusing on what ot what doesn't make the car safe for use on public roads; not using them to crack down on modified cars as has been done in certain jurisdictions.
QuoteYou have your own definition of dangerous driving; I would define your driving habits as dangerous.
What do you know of his driving habits? He hasn't mentioned his personal driving habits at all. You're making nothing more than a baseless assumption.
QuoteA grant is only a benefit in that that amount of funding doesn't have to come specifically out of the local taxpayers wallet.
Wrong. The local taxpayers are also the State's taxpayers, and the state and local taxes both come out of taxpayers' wallets; and money spent has to be collected, either through fines or through taxes.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 31, 2007, 10:29:54 AM
The above assertion is absurd. The vast majority of collisions to not result in a fatality.
The state has a vested interest in that unbelted occupants' injuries are substantially worse, further burdening the insurance, healthcare and emergency response systems - thereby adversely affecting everyone.
I don't see a viable argument against mandatory seatbelt usage. There's virtually zero downside to their use, yet there is profound upside.
Since when are the healthcare and insurance industries a state run concern?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 31, 2007, 03:38:06 PM
Since when are the healthcare and insurance industries a state run concern?
Healthcare - A fair number of motorists are not insured, and eventually a seriously-injured uninsured driver will end up at a public hospital, on the public's dime.
Insurance - More payout due to more serious injuries equates to higher premiums for everyone (insurance is regulated at the state level).
Quote from: GoCougs on May 31, 2007, 03:58:22 PM
Healthcare - A fair number of motorists are not insured, and eventually a seriously-injured uninsured driver will end up at a public hospital, on the public's dime.
Insurance - More payout due to more serious injuries equates to higher premiums for everyone (insurance is regulated at the state level).
Of course insurance is regulated: everything is regulated! Hairdressers are regulated, but that doesn't mean the state can decide how I can cut my hair. It remains however, a private concern.
The healthcare debate can also be taken the same way: because you insure me does not mean you decide my behavior.
You're so pro-free trade on so many things Cougs that this seems like a small reversal of opinion for you.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 31, 2007, 03:58:22 PM
Healthcare - A fair number of motorists are not insured, and eventually a seriously-injured uninsured driver will end up at a public hospital, on the public's dime.
Insurance - More payout due to more serious injuries equates to higher premiums for everyone (insurance is regulated at the state level).
Exactly. I once had the "freedom" mentality when it came to seat belts. However, when I saw how many uninsured victims routinely get seriously injured I changed my mind. Where's the freedom in someone else costing me money because they're too lazy or ignorant to put a seat belt on?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 31, 2007, 03:31:10 PM
You say that like its going to create a problem.
It will.
QuoteHey, I actually agree with you on something! Properly set up inspections i think should be mandatory; and by proper i mean by focusing on what ot what doesn't make the car safe for use on public roads; not using them to crack down on modified cars as has been done in certain jurisdictions.
Also a legitimate issue for officers to be cracking down on; I hadn't thought about modified vehicles when I made my post.
QuoteWhat do you know of his driving habits? He hasn't mentioned his personal driving habits at all. You're making nothing more than a baseless assumption.
Long time reading his posts.
QuoteWrong. The local taxpayers are also the State's taxpayers, and the state and local taxes both come out of taxpayers' wallets; and money spent has to be collected, either through fines or through taxes.
You and I both know that ultimtately both are funded by taxes, but the TAXPAYERS in many cases will not think of the grant money as coming from THEIR pocket as taxed money.
Quote from: James Young on May 31, 2007, 11:06:44 AM
Typical of such scams is the saga of New Rome, OH, which is closer to you than to me.? Google ?New Rome Ohio? or just go to www.newromesucks.com then click on ?Archives.?? New Rome has been decommissioned because of their enforcement abuses.
Guys like you keep[ throwing the rare examples like New Rome out there. Thats what they are: rare.
QuoteI don?t know why you won?t get this:? cops in speedtrap village do nothing but speed enforcement.? Note that they are usually not CLEET-certified, not trained, often not even HS graduates.? These are largely poor guys from poverty-stricken areas struggling in a world that has passed them by.
There are NO calls for service there, is that what you are saying? No domestics? No bar fights? No larceny? My, my, didn't know that some areas of this nation were magically so crime-free.
QuoteOkay, I?ll bite. Show us one.
I could tell you about dozens; cases where the person took the ticket to trial and got a 25 or 30 dollar fine out of it, or even an ACD. Its not like every city is like NYC where every ticket is going to net you a multi-hundred dollar fine.
QuoteMy hometown ? Austin, Texas ? has a speed problem. Actually, it?s lack of speed because traffic is so bad. Austin grew so rapidly despite efforts to keep it small that the cars grew faster than the roads.
Much the same here. Doesn't help that the greenies are trying to get entire lanes of traffic or parking spaces taken out of service for things like bike lanes or walking lanes.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 31, 2007, 04:04:39 PM
Of course insurance is regulated: everything is regulated! Hairdressers are regulated, but that doesn't mean the state can decide how I can cut my hair. It remains however, a private concern.
The healthcare debate can also be taken the same way: because you insure me does not mean you decide my behavior.
You're so pro-free trade on so many things Cougs that this seems like a small reversal of opinion for you.
I'm not so sure it's a free trade issue, and really not much of a freedom issue.
If one can pitch to me the benefits of not wearing a seat belt, I'm all ears.
I can somewhat see the argument that giving power to government is a slippery slope, but only minutely so.
There's nothing but downside; profoundly so for the individual, mild-to-moderately so for the public at large.
the nameless one writes:
QuoteGuys like you keep[ throwing the rare examples like New Rome out there. Thats what they are: rare.
No, they are very common, which is why I said ?typical.? I can name about three dozen of them right in Oklahoma, six of which had had their authorization to cite on state and federal highways revoked by the state. There are thousands of these places and more and more big cities are using traffic enforcement for revenue purposes. I have no idea why you?re so naive about this.
QuoteThere are NO calls for service there, is that what you are saying? No domestics? No bar fights? No larceny? My, my, didn't know that some areas of this nation were magically so crime-free.
They are not crime-free. The county sheriff -- a statutory agency -- handles those duties. The villages -- which are at-choice agencies -- collect traffic fines and do nothing other than traffic.
QuoteI could tell you about dozens; cases where the person took the ticket to trial and got a 25 or 30 dollar fine out of it, or even an ACD. Its not like every city is like NYC where every ticket is going to net you a multi-hundred dollar fine.
I don?t want to know about specific cases; I want to know what
system accumulates cots faster than revenue from traffic fines. What city? What county? What village?
So last night, we all went out drinking. The designated driver was a guy named Mike. We pull out of the bar, and Mike immediately goes the wrong way down a one-way street by mistake. Three patrol cars instantly flashing their lights. They give him a sobriety test, and (obviously) he passes.
The cop seemed nice, but he still gave him a "no seat belt" ticket for $46. :devil:
Apparently, in NJ, the seat belt tickets aren't moving violations so they are not reported to the state directly. They're the same as parking tickets and such. So, Seaside Heights, NJ made a few bucks last night.
Quote from: TurboDan on June 01, 2007, 11:39:57 AM
So last night, we all went out drinking. The designated driver was a guy named Mike. We pull out of the bar, and Mike immediately goes the wrong way down a one-way street by mistake. Three patrol cars instantly flashing their lights. They give him a sobriety test, and (obviously) he passes.
The cop seemed nice, but he still gave him a "no seat belt" ticket for $46. :devil:
Apparently, in NJ, the seat belt tickets aren't moving violations so they are not reported to the state directly. They're the same as parking tickets and such. So, Seaside Heights, NJ made a few bucks last night.
Good place to sandbag being a one way street. I'm sure a lot of drunks pull that move. :tounge:
Quote from: Catman on June 01, 2007, 07:58:17 PM
Good place to sandbag being a one way street. I'm sure a lot of drunks pull that move. :tounge:
Hehe, definitely. Can't say I feel sorry for him. I mean, he DID go the wrong way down a one week street. How could you NOT get some kind of ticket for that if a cop sees it? It's only $46, so I doubt he even cares.
Quote from: James Young on May 31, 2007, 09:14:31 PM
the nameless one writes:
No, they are very common, which is why I said ?typical.?? ?I can name about three dozen of them right in Oklahoma, six of which had had their authorization to cite on state and federal highways revoked by the state.? There are thousands of these places and more and more big cities are using traffic enforcement for revenue purposes.? I have no idea why you?re so naive about this.
Because its not done thatw ay here or any place whose officers I've spoken to.
QuoteThey are not crime-free.? The county sheriff -- a statutory agency -- handles those duties.? The villages -- which are at-choice agencies -- collect traffic fines and do nothing other than traffic.
Once again, not done that way here. Maybe you need to move to a different part of the country.
QuoteI don?t want to know about specific cases; I want to know what system accumulates cots faster than revenue from traffic fines.? What city?? What county?? What village?
Thats pretty simple; HERE. The revenue in many cases is a loss compared to the costs. Tickets get written because thats what the public wants to see. If you don't believe me, fine. You are welcome to your opinion.
the nameless one writes:
QuoteBecause its not done that way here or any place whose officers I've spoken to.
Then you need to get out more and to pay more attention to those things going on right around you.? ?Sweet chocolate Jesus, you must live in a bubble.
Your stance reminds me of the blind man (of six in the Jainist tale) who assumed that the elephant was a rope-like creature, long and skinny with rough hair, because he happened to grab the tail. What you see is not always indicative of the larger picture.
QuoteOnce again, not done that way here. Maybe you need to move to a different part of the country.
Hmmmm.? The cops are misbehaving, citing for revenue, only now it?s my fault because I won?t move.? ?The only thing you seem to have missed is that? (1) I am all over the western US with some regularity and have lived multiple places in the west,? and? (2) I actually pay attention to these kinds of things.
?I don?t want to know about specific cases; I want to know what system accumulates cots faster than revenue from traffic fines.? What city?? What county?? What village??? -- JY
QuoteThats pretty simple; HERE. The revenue in many cases is a loss compared to the costs. Tickets get written because thats what the public wants to see. If you don't believe me, fine. You are welcome to your opinion.
OK, are you saying that Tompkins County loses money on each marginal citation that they write?? Are you saying that if TC write their 1000th citation of the year, for which they collect, say $120 but the costs associated with
that cite are > $120?? I just want to get this narrowed down.?
Taste great. Less filling.
Quote from: James Young on June 02, 2007, 03:17:24 PM
the nameless one writes:
Then you need to get out more and to pay more attention to those things going on right around you.? ?Sweet chocolate Jesus, you must live in a bubble.
As I've said, none of the officers I've ever spoken to from around the country describe their way of doing business as anything close to how you describe it.
QuoteHmmmm.? The cops are misbehaving, citing for revenue, only now it?s my fault because I won?t move.? ?The only thing you seem to have missed is that? (1) I am all over the western US with some regularity and have lived multiple places in the west,? and? (2) I actually pay attention to these kinds of things.
If things are so bad there, which I really doubt, then maybe it IS time you look elsewhere where things ARE better than how you descibe.
QuoteOK, are you saying that Tompkins County loses money on each marginal citation that they write?? Are you saying that if TC write their 1000th citation of the year, for which they collect, say $120 but the costs associated with that cite are > $120?? I just want to get this narrowed down.?
This is not strictly a Tompkins County issue. You know how many tickets get tossed out with fix it forms, in the interest of justice, with minimal fines or ACD'd? A LOT. Every one of those tickets has costs associated with them, particularly if they go to trial. Factor those zero value tickets into the overall number of tickets and the courts and the state aren't exactly rolling in dough. Particularly the town and village justice courts, which had a fit a year or two back when the state wanted to step in and take over the small surcharge the court levies to cover its expenses. Taking that money would have left the courts operating at a larger loss than they already do. That surcharge was the only thing keeping some smaller justice courts solvent.
QuoteAs I've said, none of the officers I've ever spoken to from around the country describe their way of doing business as anything close to how you describe it.
I have presented the evidence that multiple places use traffic citations as major revenue sources. You don?t believe the evidence, seemingly because you don?t want to. Look, you can believe any damn fool thing that you want. There are people who believe in ESP, anal probes by space aliens and that the Earth is flat.
I have quoted the budgets and the public pronouncements of the places who openly use citations for revenue, that is they don?t even try to cover it up. Yet you continue to say it?s not true.
Apparently you see what you want to see and no amount of evidence is going to change that.
Al Gore is correct: there truly is an assault on reason
Err, can we all disagree that speeding tickets suck?
Quote from: TurboDan on June 02, 2007, 10:14:21 PM
Err, can we all disagree that speeding tickets suck?
Dan, I think you mean, can we AGREE that speeding tickets suck?
The people receiving them would rarely disagree that speeding tickets suck, but the cops might.
So I guess the answer to your question is no. Some people think they suck, and some think they're pretty swell.... :lol:
Quote from: dazzleman on June 02, 2007, 10:27:27 PM
Dan, I think you mean, can we AGREE that speeding tickets suck?
The people receiving them would rarely disagree that speeding tickets suck, but the cops might.
So I guess the answer to your question is no. Some people think they suck, and some think they're pretty swell.... :lol:
Hehe. Wow, I flubbed that post big time!
Quote from: James Young link=topic=9120.msg461465#msg461465 date=118029410
Do you know what we call people that act that way in the real world?? Unemployed.?quote]
Well, no. They called me Sgt. in two different departments and in the Marine Corp. Then I bought back Marine Corp time and retired early. Otherwise, illness not withstanding, they would still be calling me seargent.
QuoteNo, in fact, they do not.? There is no statistical correlation that shows that traffic safety (as measured by the three key rates) can be changed by changes in speeds, speed limits, or level of enforcement.? Even your own statistics through NHTSA show that.
To start with, they are not my numbers. Were they my numbers, they would be collected in a far more scientific manner. Also, I can make statistical configurations mean anything I want. That is their power, and their flaw.
QuoteAccording to NHTSA in 2005, ?speeding-related? or speeding as ?a contributing factor? accounted for 30% of fatal crashes.? Now, this does not mean, and NHTSA is careful to avoid the assertion, that speeding ?caused? these crashes.? Academic experts outside NHTSA who have no political agenda have estimated that ?speed unsafe for conditions,? without regard to the posted limit, is a major factor in about 10% of fatal crashes, including suicides, which NHTSA does not even recognize.? Note also that, again according to NHTSA, 86% of their 30% of fatal crashes occur away from Interstate highways.
I do not think I read any one post on this thread where any one person stated they believed speeding causes crashes. ?
QuoteSorry, that?s just not true.? We now have more drivers, more cars and more roads than ever, all with higher speeds than during the dark days of NMSL, yet our fatality rate just continues to fall.? Oddly, the two times we lowered speed limits ? 1942-43 and 1973-74 ? the fatality rates increased.p? Lets think about why that might be; 40's had almost no speed enforcement; 70's had very very little in the way of enforcement; currently there is far more speed enforcement. Where are your data for that?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 29, 2007, 06:02:55 PM
Regardless of how long the reaction time is, distance travelled before the reaction takes place would still be directly proportional with speed, not quadrupling every extra ten MPH.
Use any number you wish, but any driver taking 2.5 seconds to react; much less 3.5, has no business driving any vehicle.
That number, according to my notes, came from extensive studies done by one of the most respected traffic safety programs in the country, the University of Michigan. Blah, just saying that makes me want to wretch! But, it is the truth. Think about the average driver, and what they are doing as they travel merrily along the roadway. I have personally seen men shaving, women putting on eyeliner with both hands, people reading newspapers on the steering wheel, kids having sex while driving, cell phone conversations, people using the texting options, people brushing their pets, parents turned around dealing with two or three kids in the back seat, I even stopped a guy once eating a steak dinner his wife made for him on his way to his night school. In honesty, I would say that 2.5 is probably a pretty forgiving number.
Quote from: hounddog on June 04, 2007, 11:11:27 PM
That number, according to my notes, came from extensive studies done by one of the most respected traffic safety programs in the country, the University of Michigan.? Blah, just saying that makes me want to wretch!? But, it is the truth.? Think about the average driver, and what they are doing as they travel merrily along the roadway.? I have personally seen men shaving, women putting on eyeliner with both hands, people reading newspapers on the steering wheel, kids having sex while driving, cell phone conversations, people using the texting options, people brushing their pets, parents turned around dealing with two or three kids in the back seat, I even stopped a guy once eating a steak dinner his wife made for him on his way to his night school.? In honesty, I would say that 2.5 is probably a pretty forgiving number.? ?
That simply has to be an upper extreme number or a "worst case scenario" number. I mean, amber lights at intersections only last about 3.5 seconds or thereabouts. I don't see everybody slamming on their brakes at the last second for those and screeching to a stop. Well, at least not most people.
Your cases- the shaving man, the make-up woman- yeah, they're out there, but by no means do they represent the average driver. They're far too common, yes: but in no way are they average. Those people have no business driving like that either: and I'm willing to believe that they might be distracted enough to take 2.5 seconds to notice a problem.
In all honesty, your first statement was 1.75 seconds, your second 0.75 seconds, and now you state 2.5 to 3.5 seconds. I'm not sure what to believe.
Regardless however, my original point stands: the stopping distance does not quadruple every ten MPH.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on June 04, 2007, 11:22:44 PM
That simply has to be an upper extreme number or a "worst case scenario" number. I mean, amber lights at intersections only last about 3.5 seconds or thereabouts. I don't see everybody slamming on their brakes at the last second for those and screeching to a stop. Well, at least not most people.
Your cases- the shaving man, the make-up woman- yeah, they're out there, but by no means do they represent the average driver. They're far too common, yes: but in no way are they average. Those people have no business driving like that either: and I'm willing to believe that they might be distracted enough to take 2.5 seconds to notice a problem.
In all honesty, your first statement was 1.75 seconds, your second 0.75 seconds, and now you state 2.5 to 3.5 seconds. I'm not sure what to believe.
Regardless however, my original point stands: the stopping distance does not quadruple every ten MPH.
Do you drive in urban, suburban, or rural areas? There are lots of people in urban and suburban areas slamming on brakes at the last minute at reds/yellows. I realize my examples are far from the everyday driver, but not as far as you might like to think. Again, in urban areas the morning rush hour is just plain crazy with what you see people doing as routine driving habits. The man reading the newspaper or magazine on his way to work, shaving and makeup examples are not at all uncommon in Detroit and Chicago.
You are right, I did write out the much lower response times. Those were times where during our Night Pursuit and Advanced Precision driving instructor schools at MSP academy, they would have you sit in this little booth thing and have you pretend you were driving. Then they would tell you "stop" and you had to hit the brake pedal. The longest response times they regularly saw were 1.75 and the shortest they regularly saw was .75. I had to go back and figure out what those meant after you posted this. Hey, I am getting old in my old age! Leave me alone.
They also did a night vision interruption deal where they had you looking into a blacked out device. They would then turn on two little lights which were to represent a car coming toward you with its headlights on. Then they would turn them off, and count the time until your sight returned to normal and you could again see the indicator. I did not write that down, but I remember thinking it took forever to get my night sight back. Seems like it was around 3-4 seconds.?.
The night vision thing I think you're dead on about, but i still think 2.5 seconds is way high. Everyday on my way to work goes down 275, and traffic is not only usuall very heavy, but often still moving at 75 MPH+. Cars aren't more than 40 feet apart at the most. If it was taking even 10% of these people 2.5 seconds to react to the brake lights in front of them, my ride to work would invlove danger verging on suicidal.
Its nowhere near that bad.
At least not most days.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on June 05, 2007, 12:12:24 AM
The night vision thing I think you're dead on about, but i still think 2.5 seconds is way high. Everyday on my way to work goes down 275, and traffic is not only usuall very heavy, but often still moving at 75 MPH+. Cars aren't more than 40 feet apart at the most. If it was taking even 10% of these people 2.5 seconds to react to the brake lights in front of them, my ride to work would invlove danger verging on suicidal.
Its nowhere near that bad.
At least not most days.
No offense, but I would have a hard time believing that 275 ever moves at 75 during morning commute.? Especially as you draw nearer to the city.? Now, if you are traveling away from the city toward the suburbs I can believe it.? ?Although, I give you that 275 is pretty far out from Detroit. Try that on I-696 E/B sometime! :P But if that reaction time is far too high, why are rear end collisions the most common crash in Michigan?? Speed?? Following too closely?? Long reaction times?? Combinations of all above?? Others?
2.5 seconds to react to brake lights is a lot! :confused:
Quote from: Raghavan on June 05, 2007, 12:25:36 AM
2.5 seconds to react to brake lights is a lot! :confused:
Exactly. That is why the most common traffic crash in Michigan is the Fail to Stop In Assured Clear Distance Ahead. (rear ender)
Quote from: hounddog on June 05, 2007, 12:28:12 AM
Exactly. That is why the most common traffic crash in Michigan is the Fail to Stop In Assured Clear Distance Ahead. (rear ender)
So you're saying that most people have horrible reaction times?
Quote from: Raghavan on June 05, 2007, 12:29:20 AM
So you're saying that most people have horrible reaction times?
No, the Unversity of Michigan, Traffic Safety Program is. I am only agreeing with them because they have people far smarterer then me working for them.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on June 05, 2007, 12:12:24 AM
but i still think 2.5 seconds is way high.
Try this then;
Count "one, one thousand, two one thousand."
You just basically counted 2.5ish seconds and at 75mph you traveled about ________ feet.
Quote from: Raghavan on June 05, 2007, 12:25:36 AM
2.5 seconds to react to brake lights is a lot! :confused:
That's the beauty of LED brake lights. I know, personally, it lowers my reaction time significantly.
The worst are the older American cars that have the brake light and turn signal light using the same bulb. You never know if they're braking or turning, and since everything is flashing at once, which way they are turning.
Quote from: TurboDan on June 05, 2007, 10:53:41 AM
That's the beauty of LED brake lights. I know, personally, it lowers my reaction time significantly.
The worst are the older American cars that have the brake light and turn signal light using the same bulb. You never know if they're braking or turning, and since everything is flashing at once, which way they are turning.
However, they are awesomely cool, which outweighs any safety concerns that may exist.
Quote from: hounddog on June 05, 2007, 12:24:30 AM
No offense, but I would have a hard time believing that 275 ever moves at 75 during morning commute.? Especially as you draw nearer to the city.? Now, if you are traveling away from the city toward the suburbs I can believe it.? ?Although, I give you that 275 is pretty far out from Detroit.? Try that on I-696 E/B sometime!? ?:P? ?But if that reaction time is far too high, why are rear end collisions the most common crash in Michigan?? Speed?? Following too closely?? Long reaction times?? Combinations of all above?? Others?
Well, I don't go to work in the morning, but yes it does. I drive from Rochester Hills to Westland, so right through the heart of I-696 as well.
Yes, rear end collisions are common, but nowhere near as commn as your numbers would seem to suggest. On either of these roads we're talking about they carry over 100,000 cars per hour and sometimes way more than that. Yet there aren't more than half a dozen fender benders on the worst day.
Quote from: hounddog on June 05, 2007, 12:35:18 AM
Try this then;
Count "one, one thousand, two one thousand."?
You just basically counted 2.5ish seconds and at 75mph you traveled about ________? ?feet.?
275 ft.
Now, if I leave more than about forty feet between me and the car in front of me, somebody will see that as an open spot and pull into it.
Alll I'm saying is that when you start adding up all the times and distances something doesn't, well, add up.
Quote from: TurboDan on June 05, 2007, 10:53:41 AM
That's the beauty of LED brake lights.? I know, personally, it lowers my reaction time significantly.
The worst are the older American cars that have the brake light and turn signal light using the same bulb.? You never know if they're braking or turning, and since everything is flashing at once, which way they are turning.
Old school "standard" 12V incandescent lights can take between 200 and 250 ms to reach 90% luminosity. Modern brake light bulbs are what are considered "fast" incandescent, and take about 75 to 115 ms to light the same amount. LEDs take about 50 ms: making the difference between the worst and the best about 2/10ths of a second.
Which would be a significant percentage of your "standard" reaction time was about .75 seconds, but not very consequential if it was in the 2.5 second range.
hounddog responds to Raghaven:
QuoteNo, the Unversity of Michigan, Traffic Safety Program is [saying that most people have horrible reaction times] ?
The University of Michigan has a Transportation Research Institute, of which Traffic Safety Program is a minor part denominated as ?Community-based Traffic Safety,? and which conducts no research.? Assuming that you are referring to one of these studies from UMTRI, I?d like to know which one so that I can get it through inter-library loan system.
?Reaction Times to Body-Color Brake Lamps,? D. Chandra, 1994
?Reaction Times to Body-Color Brake Lamps,? D. Chandra, 1992
?Reaction Times to High-Contrast Brake Lamps,? M. Sivak, 1990
?Reaction Times to Neon, LED, and Fast Incandescent Brake Lamps,? M. Sivak, 1993
?Reaction Times to Neon, LED, and Fast Incandescent Brake Lamps,? M. Sivak, 1994
If it is another study to which you refer, please indicate and I?ll go after it.?
According to NHTSA research conducted at the University of Iowa, on both a driving simulator and a test track, we obtained the following summarized data:
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?IDS ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ?Test Track
Initial Accel 0.96 second? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 1.28 second
Release ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?0.21 SD ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0.29 SD
Total Brake RT 2.2 second ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 2.3 second
(to max brake) 0.44 SD ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?0.46 SD
Time to initial
steering ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 1.64 second ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?1.67 second
Note and explanation:? ?IDS? is the Iowa Driving Simulator, the test track is at Iowa City.? ?Initial Accel Release? is the total elapsed time from the incursion requiring a reaction to the release of the accelerator pedal.? ?Total Brake RT to max. brake? is the total time from incursion to maximum braking efficiency (both ABS and conventional).? ?Time to initial steering,? itself a legitimate evasive action, in addition to the braking is the total elapsed time from incursion to first movement (defined as x degrees of rotation?? Not given) of wheel.? Note that these actions occur simultaneously.?
Note also that these definitions are more stringent than time from recognition to time of first braking.
?DRIVER REACTION TIME IN CRASH AVOIDANCE RESEARCH:? VALIDATION OF A DRIVING SIMULATOR STUDY ON A TEST TRACK? by Daniel V. McGehee Elizabeth N. Mazzae? and G.H. Scott Baldwin, ?University of Iowa NHTSA VRTC TRC, Inc.
See also, Broen, N. and Chaing, D. (1996). ?Braking response time for 100 drivers in the avoidance of an unexpected obstacle as measured in a driving simulator.?
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 40th Annual Meeting. pp. 900-904.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on June 05, 2007, 03:34:23 PM
Well, I don't go to work in the morning, but yes it does. I drive from Rochester Hills to Westland, so right through the heart of I-696 as well.
Yes, rear end collisions are common, but nowhere near as commn as your numbers would seem to suggest. On either of these roads we're talking about they carry over 100,000 cars per hour and sometimes way more than that. Yet there aren't more than half a dozen fender benders on the worst day.
:confused: My numbers? I do not think I gave numbers for "REC" crashes.
Quote from: hounddog on June 05, 2007, 08:25:33 PM
:confused: My numbers?? I do not think I gave numbers for "REC" crashes.?
Your reaction time numbers.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on June 05, 2007, 03:37:49 PM
Now, if I leave more than about forty feet between me and the car in front of me, somebody will see that as an open spot and pull into it.
I hate that! Those people need to be run over. Thrice. Once when I run over them going forward, once when I back up to see if I knew them, and once when I drive away.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on June 05, 2007, 03:45:07 PM
Old school "standard" 12V incandescent lights can take between 200 and 250 ms to reach 90% luminosity. Modern brake light bulbs are what are considered "fast" incandescent, and take about 75 to 115 ms to light the same amount. LEDs take about 50 ms: making the difference between the worst and the best about 2/10ths of a second.
Which would be a significant percentage of your "standard" reaction time was about .75 seconds, but not very consequential if it was in the 2.5 second range.
All I'm saying is that I can tell that my response to the LEDs is faster.
Additionally, it wasn't the response to the old American car lights that bothered me - it was that the brake lights and turn signals used the same bulb. It was sometimes hard to tell if a car was braking or turning, or which way it was turning, since all of the lights would be going on an off as someone was slowing down.
Quote from: TurboDan on June 05, 2007, 08:41:52 PM
All I'm saying is that I can tell that my response to the LEDs is faster.
Additionally, it wasn't the response to the old American car lights that bothered me - it was that the brake lights and turn signals used the same bulb.? It was sometimes hard to tell if a car was braking or turning, or which way it was turning, since all of the lights would be going on an off as someone was slowing down.
I don't see what the big issue is, Dan. People who drive those types of cars never use directional signals anyway.... :lol:
Quote from: dazzleman on June 05, 2007, 08:43:13 PM
I don't see what the big issue is, Dan.? People who drive those types of cars never use directional signals anyway.... :lol:
Heck, I used to use hand signals...
People who don't use signals are in my very special, very exclusive "I'm Going to Shoot You in the Face" Club. The best thing is that you earn benefits quite quickly.
I think Dan is saying that the brightness of LED lights catch his attention faster.
Quote from: TurboDan on June 05, 2007, 08:41:52 PM
All I'm saying is that I can tell that my response to the LEDs is faster.
Additionally, it wasn't the response to the old American car lights that bothered me - it was that the brake lights and turn signals used the same bulb. It was sometimes hard to tell if a car was braking or turning, or which way it was turning, since all of the lights would be going on an off as someone was slowing down.
Worse is the design in which taillights just get brighter in braking, often accentuated by the third brakelight being burned out.
I never understood why there isn't some kind of regulation on lights @ the rear of the car.
Separate turn signals, separate lights that come on when you brake, and a regular set of taillights that are always on when the headlights are on. Also all cars should have side markers, separate from the headlamp/parkinglight assembly up front. (Usually behind the front wheel well on most cars that do have them)
Quote from: Champ on June 06, 2007, 12:30:10 PM
I never understood why there isn't some kind of regulation on lights @ the rear of the car.
Separate turn signals, separate lights that come on when you brake, and a regular set of taillights that are always on when the headlights are on. Also all cars should have side markers, separate from the headlamp/parkinglight assembly up front. (Usually behind the front wheel well on most cars that do have them)
Never! '65 Thunderbird sequentials all the way!
Quote from: James Young on June 02, 2007, 07:21:30 PM
I have presented the evidence that multiple places use traffic citations as major revenue sources.?
You've presented that a few places do that; just a few places. Even if it WAS a LOT of places, the overriding issue was whether the violation was commited or not,. not the revenue that resulted . No fine imposed is no incentive to obey the traffic laws, as I've stated before. They could be making millions of dollars and thats not in and of itself a bad thing, as long as the violation was actually commited and the fine imposed as a result. Maybe a whole bunch of people need to be better drivers, and they wouldn't be paying fines.
the nameless one writes:
QuoteYou've presented that a few places do that; just a few places. Even if it WAS a LOT of places, the overriding issue was whether the violation was commited or not,. not the revenue that resulted . No fine imposed is no incentive to obey the traffic laws, as I've stated before. They could be making millions of dollars and thats not in and of itself a bad thing, as long as the violation was actually commited and the fine imposed as a result. Maybe a whole bunch of people need to be better drivers, and they wouldn't be paying fines.
Do you really get more obtuse with every post or is that just my imagination?
Oklahoma has nearly 200 speedtraps of varying degrees, including those that have been shut down by the state for abuse of their enforcement
privileges [official state terminology]. Texas has nearly 500 speedtraps of varying degrees, not including Three famous ones that no longer feel the need for Draconian enforcement since they have developed vast retail resources and no longer need to enforce for money. Isn?t it funny how Home Depot and Neiman-Marcus mitigate a speeding problem? But I digress.
Sorry, the overriding issue is the
intent of the decision by the jurisdiction ? not the officer ? how vigorously to pursue speeding as well as the degree to which the jurisdictional budget is driven by fines. Any budget that is 80% speeding fines is a problem and degrades the legitimacy of the jurisdiction so structured.
Speeding ? exceeding an arbitrary number ? is ubiquitous. To cite for it, absent an egregiously dangerous accompanying act, is criminal and degrades the jurisdiction demanding such cites as well as the cop who prostitutes himself to write them.
Keep in mind that ?better drivers? are determined by the absence of crashes, injuries, and fatalities as well as that driver?s contribution to rapid and efficient traffic flow rather than avoiding tickets.
Also keep in mind that redirecting all fines, fees and costs collected to a non-profit public corporation (i.e., away from the issuing jurisdiction) would retain the economic disincentive that you like so much but remove any incentive to cite, thus assuring that any cites would be for legitimate reasons.
Quote from: James Young on June 06, 2007, 06:11:37 PM
Also keep in mind that redirecting all fines, fees and costs collected to a non-profit public corporation (i.e., away from the issuing jurisdiction) would retain the economic disincentive that you like so much but remove any incentive to cite, thus assuring that any cites would be for legitimate reasons.?
That much I could go for.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 06, 2007, 08:04:08 PM
That much I could go for.
Sweet Chocolate Jesus! I think the Earth just wobbled in its orbit. :ohyeah:
Quote from: James Young on June 06, 2007, 06:11:37 PM
the nameless one writes:
Do you really get more obtuse with every post or is that just my imagination?
Oklahoma has nearly 200 speedtraps of varying degrees, including those that have been shut down by the state for abuse of their enforcement privileges [official state terminology].? Texas has nearly 500 speedtraps of varying degrees, not including Three famous ones that no longer feel the need for Draconian enforcement since they have developed vast retail resources? and no longer need to enforce for money.? Isn?t it funny how? Home Depot and Neiman-Marcus mitigate a speeding problem?? But I digress.
Tinfoils on too tight James; you see a "speedtrap" behind every billboard and roadside tree.
QuoteSorry, the overriding issue is the intent of the decision by the jurisdiction ? not the officer ? how vigorously to pursue speeding as well as the degree to which the jurisdictional budget is driven by fines.? Any budget that is 80% speeding fines is a problem and degrades the legitimacy of the jurisdiction so structured.
A jurisdictions intent to pursue speeding vigerously does not mean they have sucumbed to the Dark Side, James. Perhaps they truly view speed as a pressing problem. Maybe these are jurisdictions where they are doing a lot of interdiction stops where the speed isn't their primary concern but the pretext for the stop, but the agency has no written warning alternative to the speed cite so thats what gets issued. There are a multitude of reasons beyond what you offer that could reasonably explain things.
I don't automatically see a problem with a budget being 80 % fine based. No tax base and a lot of tickets means the per centage will be skewed.
Once again, was the offense committed or not? Now, if you are going to suggest that the tickets and their cited violations were fabricated, thats an issue.
QuoteSpeeding ? exceeding an arbitrary number ? is ubiquitous.? To cite for it, absent an egregiously dangerous accompanying act, is criminal and degrades the jurisdiction demanding such cites as well as the cop who prostitutes himself to write them.?
We know, we know...you worship at the alter of unrestricted speed.
No, it doesn't make the officer a criminal.
QuoteKeep in mind that ?better drivers? are determined by the absence of crashes, injuries, and fatalities as well as that driver?s contribution to rapid and efficient traffic flow rather than avoiding tickets.?
No, I can think of plenty of drivers who avoid crashes, injuries and fatalities buit are in fact horrendous drivers.
QuoteAlso keep in mind that redirecting all fines, fees and costs collected to a non-profit public corporation (i.e., away from the issuing jurisdiction) would retain the economic disincentive that you like so much but remove any incentive to cite, thus assuring that any cites would be for legitimate reasons.?
And exactly WHAT non-profit gets designated to receive this cash flow? How do you handle the bitching from the other non-profits who would certainly clamour to get a slice of the pie?
I'll buy that, ON AVERAGE, stopping distances increase 4-fold in relation to speed. In emergency situations they do not, but in the course of normal driving, no one is stomping on their brakes at every opportunity. To maintain a pleasant ride, people brake long and soft comming off the interstate.
Quote from: Tave on June 07, 2007, 08:13:38 AM
I'll buy that, ON AVERAGE, stopping distances increase 4-fold in relation to speed. In emergency situations they do not, but in the course of normal driving, no one is stomping on their brakes at every opportunity. To maintain a pleasant ride, people brake long and soft comming off the interstate.
But we are talking about emergency braking.
the nameless one writes:
QuoteTinfoils on too tight James; you see a "speedtrap" behind every billboard and roadside tree.
What you fail, refuse or cannot see is that speedtraps do not require a conspiracy for their existence when mere greed or economic desperation will suffice.? You also fail to see that several states have already perceived speedtraps to be a problem and have revoked enforcement privileges due to abuse.? Perhaps the state sees a problem that you don?t.
QuoteA jurisdictions intent to pursue speeding vigerously does not mean they have sucumbed to the Dark Side, James. Perhaps they truly view speed as a pressing problem.
They?re pursuing money, not speeding.? What that means is that the decision was made with the
intent to generate revenue for that town or village.? The police forces in many of these towns are by choice rather than by statute; that is, they were created with the expressed intent to generate revenue since they have no other function.? The county sheriff ? a statutory agency ? is the enforcer of criminal and civil law.? Somebody stole your boat?? Call the Adair county sheriff because Big Cabin PD won?t help you (real case).
The vigor with which they pursue speeding is driven more by the need for cash than any true public safety interest.? In the 40+ years of these traps (with more villages joining them every year), they have not affected the three key safety measures.
Speeding is hardly a pressing problem, particularly when the design speed is probably 30 mph above the posted limit,
1 but it is a great opportunity to create a little cash.? I use Stringtown because they are notorious, arrogant and criminal in their pursuit of speeding fines.? Think Appalachia and you?ll have a pretty good idea of the economic circumstances of Stringtown.? The population is 401 with a per capita income of $9,612 a year.? Unemployment is estimated at 30%.? There is one convenience store/caf?/service station but no other business.? There is now a Choctaw casino just north of town.?
They are desperate for money and jobs and speeding fines are just fine with them.? They don?t care that traveling at 65 mph is hardly dangerous, only that it means $120.?
QuoteMaybe these are jurisdictions where they are doing a lot of interdiction stops where the speed isn't their primary concern but the pretext for the stop, but the agency has no written warning alternative to the speed cite so thats what gets issued. There are a multitude of reasons beyond what you offer that could reasonably explain things.
The moon
could be made of green cheese and George W. Bush
could really be genius in a moron?s suit, too, but it ain?t likely.?
QuoteI don't automatically see a problem with a budget being 80 % fine based.? No tax base and a lot of tickets means the per centage will be skewed.
Except that the State of Oklahoma does see a problem with such skewness because it degrades the legitimacy of that jurisdiction.? 80% fine revenue is, by definition, criminal.?
QuoteOnce again, was the offense committed or not? Now, if you are going to suggest that the tickets and their cited violations were fabricated, thats an issue.
Stories abound about fabricated cites, some of them likely true.? The real point is that cites are not needed to control an epidemic of speeding that is killing people right and left because they just ain?t happening.? Even if that were the case, OHP would move in to cover that area.? What you can?t seem to grasp is that it doesn?t matter if the ?offense? was committed or not because the offense is not the key issue here because it merely serves as the vehicle to make some money.? What was reasonable and legal one mile north suddenly becomes the target of an overzealous, untrained HS dropout with a badge and radar.?
QuoteNo, it doesn't make the officer a criminal.
But it does make him a prostitute.
QuoteNo, I can think of plenty of drivers who avoid crashes, injuries and fatalities buit are in fact horrendous drivers.
Then you need to lay out your exact definition of ?better driver? and ?horrendous driver? along with your reasoning and some evidence to support it.
QuoteAnd exactly WHAT non-profit gets designated to receive this cash flow? How do you handle the bitching from the other non-profits who would certainly clamour to get a slice of the pie?
Very interesting that you would deny that speedtraps exist for economic gain and then use the analogy of ?a slice of the pie.?? Note that I said ?non-profit public corporation,? that is, a corporation at the state level to which all fines, fees, and costs are paid.? This money is then invested to create income used to fund scholarships to state universities.? The driver still has to pay (your favorite); the towns and villages get no revenue so they have no incentive to cite for money; since the ultimate recipients (students) are unknown, there can be no cite-and-fine in anticipation of future benefit.? Any jurisdiction that perceives a need to patrol traffic for legitimate public safety can certainly do so and to pay for that need out of tax revenues raises its legitimacy.? Note that this is not a charity and does not compete for revenue.? The Red Cross and Salvation Army have no claim on this money.
1? The highway (US 69) is a four-lane, divided semi-limited-access with sightlines varying between ? mile to nearly a mile.? The Village had changed the limit to 40 mph (illegally) but the State of Oklahoma changed it back to 60 mph.? There are no lighted signals, no stop signs, and only three roads that connect to the highway, no roadside attractions (the actual village is off the highway to the East), and no businesses or residences of any note.? ?The key 95th percentile is probably about 67 mph and, absent enforcement, would probably be 75-77 mph as it is on that same highway outside the village.?
Quote from: Tave on June 07, 2007, 08:13:38 AM
I'll buy that, ON AVERAGE, stopping distances increase 4-fold in relation to speed. In emergency situations they do not, but in the course of normal driving, no one is stomping on their brakes at every opportunity. To maintain a pleasant ride, people brake long and soft comming off the interstate.
No. I absolutely slam on the brakes every time I come to a stop.
Quote from: James Young on June 07, 2007, 10:30:10 AM
What you fail, refuse or cannot see is that speedtraps do not require a conspiracy for their existence when mere greed or economic desperation will suffice.? You also fail to see that several states have already perceived speedtraps to be a problem and have revoked enforcement privileges due to abuse.? Perhaps the state sees a problem that you don?t.
Ora few disgruntled legislators who found themselves ticketed. Thats what I've heard was the case in at least one state. Or maybe they were mad these cities were not sending their fine money to the state coffers?
QuoteThey?re pursuing money, not speeding.? What that means is that the decision was made with the intent to generate revenue for that town or village.? The police forces in many of these towns are by choice rather than by statute; that is, they were created with the expressed intent to generate revenue since they have no other function.? The county sheriff ? a statutory agency ? is the enforcer of criminal and civil law.? Somebody stole your boat?? Call the Adair county sheriff because Big Cabin PD won?t help you (real case).
So says you. Its chicken and egg. Fighting speeding by fines will generate revenue. You say its all about the revenue....citizens want their streets safer, and that requires speeed enforcement. Of course you'll say its all about the money.
QuoteSpeeding is hardly a pressing problem, particularly when the design speed is probably 30 mph above the posted limit,
Of course you are only talking about interstates there.
No way can you claim that residential streets are safer at 75 than at, say, 45 MPH. Or are you? I've seen you shift back and forth in the past.
Quotebut it is a great opportunity to create a little cash.? I use Stringtown because they are notorious, arrogant and criminal in their pursuit of speeding fines.? Think Appalachia and you?ll have a pretty good idea of the economic circumstances of Stringtown.? The population is 401 with a per capita income of $9,612 a year.? Unemployment is estimated at 30%.? There is one convenience store/caf?/service station but no other business.? There is now a Choctaw casino just north of town.?
So speeding should be justifiable because the locale is a poor or economically depressed one, in your mind?
Quote
Stories abound about fabricated cites, some of them likely true.? The real point is that cites are not needed to control an epidemic of speeding that is killing people right and left because they just ain?t happening.? Even if that were the case, OHP would move in to cover that area.?
Meaning the state would get the revenue from OSP tickets, of course, right, which is what the state wants and why some of these states as you mentioned are shutting down local operations. The same thing is encountered here in truck enforcement; the state tries to monopolize commercial truck enforcement because they don't want the locals getting that fine money, even though there aren't enough state guys around to enforce the trucks adequately. Budgeted monery to train locals on truck enforcement goes unspent every year because the state guys don't want to see any of that fine money NOT go to the state.. The reality is that state patrols can't be as many places as they are needed. Thats why half the counties in this state have county road patrols...because relying on state police alone would not work. I am sure the same reality applies there.
QuoteWhat you can?t seem to grasp is that it doesn?t matter if the ?offense? was committed or not because the offense is not the key issue here because it merely serves as the vehicle to make some money.? What was reasonable and legal one mile north suddenly becomes the target of an overzealous, untrained HS dropout with a badge and radar.?
Really, James, what makes you think any agency hires HS dropouts, eh? The fact that something was legal a mile up the road and is illegal now is pointless. If it was a 65 zone a mile up the road and its 40 here, you are required to drive 40. Doesn't matter what it was a mile back up the road.
QuoteBut it does make him a prostitute.
Nope
QuoteVery interesting that you would deny that speedtraps exist for economic gain and then use the analogy of ?a slice of the pie.?? Note that I said ?non-profit public corporation,? that is, a corporation at the state level to which all fines, fees, and costs are paid.? This money is then invested to create income used to fund scholarships to state universities.? The driver still has to pay (your favorite); the towns and villages get no revenue so they have no incentive to cite for money; since the ultimate recipients (students) are unknown, there can be no cite-and-fine in anticipation of future benefit.? Any jurisdiction that perceives a need to patrol traffic for legitimate public safety can certainly do so and to pay for that need out of tax revenues raises its legitimacy.? Note that this is not a charity and does not compete for revenue.? The Red Cross and Salvation Army have no claim on this money.
There is still money. Slice of the pie is a good analogy, so I used it.
Here, the towns already don't get the money, I mentioned that. The courts get their surcharge and thats about it.
Agencies by and large don't cite for the cash, regardless of what you claim, but of course you'll never admit that.
the nameless one writes:
QuoteOr a few disgruntled legislators who found themselves ticketed. Thats what I've heard was the case in at least one state. Or maybe they were mad these cities were not sending their fine money to the state coffers?
Which means that it?s still all about the money. No doubt some legislators have been nabbed since speeding is ubiquitous, the only real way to get to many state capitols (OKC and Austin in particular) from many of the rural areas is by car, and speedtraps are as common as mosquitoes.
Stringtown is noted as one speedtrap whose standard spiel by the cop includes the ?advice? that if the ticket is just paid and not contested that it won?t go on the driver?s record. Un huh. The only way for that to happen is if the ticket is not reported to the state as required by state law, which, of course, means that the village is keeping all the money.
QuoteSo says you. Its chicken and egg. Fighting speeding by fines will generate revenue. You say its all about the revenue....citizens want their streets safer, and that requires speeed enforcement. Of course you'll say its all about the money.
There is no public need to ?fight speeding? because speeding is a trivial matter, having no bearing on the universe of traffic safety. It does, however, provide economic opportunity for those with the authority to stop and cite motorists. Keep in mind that most of the speedtraps did not exist until after a few places got rich quickly as an unforeseen consequence of enforcement of the NMSL in 1974. Now, they all want to jump on the bandwagon. You do the calculus as to what came first.
It is not just me saying that speed control is all about the money; it is also the plethora of speedtraps as well as more and more larger, legitimate jurisdictions who open tout speed enforcement for the money. Tulsa City Counselor John Eagleton (Jr.) wants to add 159 (or 189 or 213, all his numbers) cops to the Tulsa PD, to ?be paid for directly by the increase in traffic fines.? It is also the various estimates of the size of the industry: $100+ billion a year. And it is the explosion of photo-radar sold with the explicit promise of $X in ?profit.? Their words, not mine.
?Speeding is hardly a pressing problem, particularly when the design speed is probably 30 mph above the posted limit,? -- JY
QuoteOf course you are only talking about interstates there.
Not necessarily. I write about abuse without regard to where it happens. Design speeds of city streets certainly don?t match interstate-grade roadways but still exceed the posted limits by significant margins.
QuoteNo way can you claim that residential streets are safer at 75 than at, say, 45 MPH. Or are you? I've seen you shift back and forth in the past.
Nobody is claiming that 75 is safer than 45 on ?residential streets? except you in your strawman argument. But 75 on residential streets is not what gets enforced. No, what gets enforced is the 7-10 mph over on arterials or secondary streets where the limit is set at the 50th percentile and where there is a convenient hiding spot.
QuoteSo speeding should be justifiable because the locale is a poor or economically depressed one, in your mind?
No,
speed enforcement should not be justified just because the locale is economically depressed. It is not OK to prey on motorists just because the village needs the money, yet that is the raison d?etre for enforcement in these speedtrap villages. In my mind -- in fact for most rational people who actually think about these things -- speeding need be neither justified nor condemned but merely ignored or defined out of existence. You do realize that ?speeding? is the result of a definition and not some intrinsic crime against humanity?
QuoteMeaning the state would get the revenue from OSP tickets, of course, right, which is what the state wants and why some of these states as you mentioned are shutting down local operations.
No, it doesn?t mean that at all. Very little of the fines go to the state, even if issued by OHP, because they stay in the local court.
Oklahoma has taken note of the speedtraps because they are interfering with the state?s efforts at economic development. You can?t recruit new industry into the state if you turn right around and slam their employees, customers and officers with speeding fines for chickensh!t ?violations.?
QuoteReally, James, what makes you think any agency hires HS dropouts, eh?
Oh, the minor fact that they have so disclosed it during the state and FBI investigations of their practices.
QuoteThe fact that something was legal a mile up the road and is illegal now is pointless. If it was a 65 zone a mile up the road and its 40 here, you are required to drive 40. Doesn't matter what it was a mile back up the road.
Sure it does. Drivers should be able to rely on the consistency of conditions. The conditions have not changed, only the speed limit and that only because the village ?limits? have been extended into rural areas for several miles. If 70 was ?safe? and reasonable then, why is 60 dangerous and illegal now?
"But it does make him a prostitute." -- JY
QuoteNope
Let?s see. HS dropout with minimal sills and no chance for a job opts to become a village cop whose sole function is to cite speeders who are causing harm to nobody and overcomes his integrity to help perpetrate a scam for money. Yep, sounds like he?s a whore to me.
Quote from: James Young on June 08, 2007, 09:50:12 AM
the nameless one writes:
There is no public need to ?fight speeding? because speeding is a trivial matter, having no bearing on the universe of traffic safety.?
So says you. The public who complains about speeders disagrees with you. Look James, I view you the same as I view the pro-gun people who complain about gun laws on their boards, druggies who complain about drug laws on THEIR boards, etc. You all pitch a bitch about laws concerning something that is near and dear to your heart. The reality is that most of society does not agree with you. In a law abiding society, you have a say in the laws that are written and passed. You can work to defeat them, but once they are passed, as a member of society you are expected to obey them or suffer the consequences of not obeying them. On the issue of speeding, that penalty is monetary. Don't like it? get the law changed. Its a free counttry
QuoteNobody is claiming that 75 is safer than 45 on ?residential streets? except you in your strawman argument.? But 75 on residential streets is not what gets enforced.? No, what gets enforced is the 7-10 mph over on arterials or secondary streets where the limit is set at the 50th percentile and where there is a convenient hiding spot.?
Thats funny, around here its usually 15 over unless its a school zone. Some will even give you as much as 20 over. If you are going 20 over in a residential area, you deserve the ticket.
?There is no public need to ?fight speeding? because speeding is a trivial matter, having no bearing on the universe of traffic safety.? -- JY
the nameless one writes:
QuoteSo says you. The public who complains about speeders disagrees with you.
I?m hardly by myself. At any given time on American roads, about half of the drivers are giving a hearty flick of the finger to speed laws by driving over the posted limits. And all ? repeat,
all ? drivers exceed the posted limit at one time or another.
You have made much ado about the public that complains about speeders but that is apparently unique to Ithaca because it certainly is not prevalent, if it exists at all, in the areas that I?m familiar with. LAPD does hardly any traffic patrol because they have much larger issues to deal with, yet none of their many PR flacks claim that the public is clamoring for more speed control. In Tulsa, the number one public complaint is bad roads; number two is the tactics of TPD by hiding to prey upon drivers. (Sources, KRMG radio and
Tulsa World). In Austin, the number one complaint is congestion. In San Francisco, the number one complaint is illegal parking. I cannot think of a single place where speed too fast for conditions is a pressing issue.
You also confuse public complaints with a scientific need for specific enforcement.
Apparently, you live in a bubble vastly different from the rest of the nation or suffer from selective hearing.
QuoteThe reality is that most of society does not agree with you. In a law abiding society, you have a say in the laws that are written and passed. You can work to defeat them, but once they are passed, as a member of society you are expected to obey them or suffer the consequences of not obeying them. On the issue of speeding, that penalty is monetary. Don't like it? get the law changed. Its a free country
Have you ever voted on a change in speed limits? Has speed control or any kind of enforcement ever been an issue in a significant political campaign?
Aside from the arrogance of the ?don?t-like-it?-get-the-law-changed? mantra, you fail to consider the political climate of traffic control. You failed to mention the billions of dollars that the anti-destination league puts into the hands of politicians who can help maintain the status quo (or even retrogression), thus putting $100+ billion a year under their control, all of it coming out of the pockets of motorists who are acting reasonably.
With that said, yes, I have helped get the laws changed. We got NMSL rescinded and saved thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. We got the ?65? rescinded. We got limits raised almost across the nation, to 80 mph in west Texas. Was it the ?bloodbath? predicted by Joan Claybrook and Ricardo Martinez? Not even close; in fact, things just got safer, proving that all these assertions by the anti-destination league were a load of crap.
A ?free country?? Please, don?t condescend us like that. In a free country, one does not need a five-figure campaign contribution as an admission ticket to see a state legislator. My group and I have been denied access to legislators in Oklahoma, Texas and California because we had made no such contribution.
In order to be effective and to have true legitimacy, laws must be based on sound reasoning and a perceived need with a specific benefit that would be lost absent that particular law. Speed laws have no such sound scientific reasoning since there is no connection between them and safer highways. Further, since there is no specific benefit that can be isolated or measured by their application, speed laws enjoy no legitimacy. Yes, speed laws exist but not for the reason that other laws exist. Speed laws have been excused on several different bases, none of which endure critical examination. In short, speed laws cause much more harm than benefit but endure because they support a huge industry that uses political power rather than science to keep it alive.
This affects you personally. Every time enforcement claims the need for speed control, a claim that the public knows is not supported by science, it loses a little credibility. When the time comes for a truly legitimate need, say port security, law enforcement claims are degraded by their prior illegitimate claims.
Sidebar:
Tulsa County has essentially nine different enforcement jurisdictions (seven municipal, county sheriff, OHP) in addition to at least four tribal authorities, which utilize federal courts. Additionally, there are at least eight different courts in addition to the feds. The sheriff cites go to county court, OHP to any of the municipals, the county or several JP courts. Multiply this by the 77 counties in Oklahoma and you literally have thousands of combinations of possible fees, court costs and fines.
Ten state-mandated fees for a 1-10 over speeding cite are $89.90 and the ?fine? is determined by the DA for the county, the traffic DA for the City of Tulsa, the JP in those courts, a judge if it goes to trial, and the DA/court clerk or fee schedule in the smaller jurisdictions. The ten fees go some to the state, some to dedicated funds within the county. $20 that goes to the state is for ?DPS patrol vehicle revolving fund;? in other words, OHP has the incentive of new vehicles to cite as often as possible.
Unincorporated municipalities ? such as the myriad speedtraps ? determine their own schedules and they create their own ?courts? as well. While they are required to report the cite and pay the $89.90 in fees to the state, it is common practice for these cites to never show up on one?s driving record, which means that they were never reported and the fees never paid. In harsher terms, they?re stealing money from the state.
A real ticket issued by the county sheriff to some guy named Matowa (for 1-10 over) was for $161.90. OHP tickets, per OHP spokesman and new schedule, (for 1-10 over) are $209.90 and go up to $618.90 for 35 over.
Who gets the money? The fees are distributed as noted above. The ?fines? go to the general fund of the jurisdiction (county or municipality) or to the JP general fund, which is then subdivided among that jurisdiction (essentially political spoils) and the county.
Texas, California, Utah and Colorado are very similar with layered jurisdictions.
Note that regardless of whether the jurisdiction is East Dog Tick or Oklahoma City, the fees, the fine, or whether the cite was reported or not, the motorist is still out that money.
James, do you think Paris Hilton deserved to be sentenced to a jail term for repeated incidents of reckless and drunk driving?
QuoteJames, do you think Paris Hilton deserved to be sentenced to a jail term for repeated incidents of reckless and drunk driving?
No, because it was not necessary. I think we are confusing the public need for effective protection against wanton acts by dangerous people with baser human jealousy.
While I care little about Paris Hilton and believe that ultimately she should be treated the same as Josephine Sixpack, I can't help but wonder at all the wasted resources spent on this case. Los Angeles County looks foolish around the world today. A petty judge gets p!ssy that she got early release and convenes a full court session, the sheriff sends out a patrol car, the PR arms of the sheriff and the courts go into overdrive, and the public can't get enough of it.
All of this was done because PH is a celebrity (or perhaps just notorious); had Josephine Sixpack been early-released, the judge probably would not even have known it. Instead, the judge hears it on TV and overreacts, triggers a circus and nationwide we get a bunch of women who wish they were Paris gloating that Paris has been brought down to their level.
Are we better off now that PH is back in jail? Are we safer now that that cell is being used to house PH rather than a father-raper and mother-stabber? Or does it just not matter?
Perhaps 20 hours of picking up trash along the 405 through Sepulveda Pass would cause PH to reconsider taking charge of her own life-administration issues better than 20+ days in jail. In any case and quite separate from the system fiasco, Paris needs to get her act together and I suspect the Hilton family will set her straight, warning her away from relying on publicists for important information. I would wish the same thing for Josephine Sixpack if such intervention would prevent future misbehavior.
I no longer live in LA but I am there frequently for business interests in Beverly Hills, within a stones throw of PH. I am in much greater danger of being beaten up by an out of control LA cop than being run down by Paris.
If you read C&D and/or CarSpin fora with any regularity, you would know that I find no particular peril in speeding drivers and that I find the dilution of enforcement resources to chase down the casual drinker to be counterproductive.
This case is no longer about equity under law or even about Paris Hilton but has morphed into a d!ck-waving contest between judge Sauer (sp?) and sheriff Baca, demeaning and degrading the law.
I think Paris is probably quite a bit more than a casual drinker. And if her family were going to straighten her out, they probably would have already done so. Instead, they spent big money on lawyers so they could effectively enable her. I wouldn't count on much from those trashy and delusional people.
In any case, you're very consistent in your approach to things, no matter what the facts of the case are, or how severe the case is. I think consistency is good to a point.
And I doubt you have much to fear from 'out of control' LA cops.
QuoteI think Paris is probably quite a bit more than a casual drinker. . . . I wouldn't count on much from those trashy and delusional people.
Paris? big problem is narcissism not alcohol.? This case, however, is no longer about Paris because she is not the force driving the foolishness that pervades LA.? BTW, I have no connection to the family except that I did meet her great-grandfather Conrad (Sr) when I worked for Hilton.? He is probably spinning in his grave.
QuoteAnd I doubt you have much to fear from 'out of control' LA cops.
Probably not since I?m an old white guy in a Bimmer.? Minorities beware, however.
Sidebar: my advice to her would have been to STFU, drop all the appeals and go straight to jail (the first time, before the release) because it would have been to her ultimate benefit to show that she really cannot be intimidated by the legal system and elevated her in the eyes of her audience. Too late now.
I am also concerned that something may happen during her jail time and we'll have endless lawsuits and appearances from Nancy Grace and Greta Van Sustern. Jesus! I think I'd rather stab myself in the face with a soldering iron than endure all that.
Quote from: James Young on June 09, 2007, 03:51:30 PM
Paris? big problem is narcissism not alcohol.? This case, however, is no longer about Paris because she is not the force driving the foolishness that pervades LA.? BTW, I have no connection to the family except that I did meet her great-grandfather Conrad (Sr) when I worked for Hilton.? He is probably spinning in his grave.
Probably not since I?m an old white guy in a Bimmer.? Minorities beware, however.
I don't care about her narcissism per se, except to the extent that it makes her think nothing of driving recklessly with a suspended license, and thereby endangering others.
I'm glad to see locked up because I hate 'celebrity justice.' Now if we could just lock up OJ and Robert Blake, LA might lose a little of its reputation for empty-headed insanity.
Quote from: Champ on June 06, 2007, 12:30:10 PM
I never understood why there isn't some kind of regulation on lights @ the rear of the car.
Separate turn signals, separate lights that come on when you brake, and a regular set of taillights that are always on when the headlights are on.? Also all cars should have side markers, separate from the headlamp/parkinglight assembly up front.? (Usually behind the front wheel well on most cars that do have them)
There is, every brake light must be manufactured and maintained within a very tight tint spectrum. They all have to be
almost exactly the same red. Ever look down the road and notice that all the taillights are the same color?
Quote from: James Young on June 09, 2007, 02:42:56 PM
No, because it was not necessary.? I think we are confusing the public need for effective protection against wanton acts by dangerous people with baser human jealousy.
While I care little about Paris Hilton and believe that ultimately she should be treated the same as Josephine Sixpack, I can't help but wonder at all the wasted resources spent on this case.? Los Angeles County looks foolish around the world today.? A petty judge gets p!ssy that she got early release and convenes a full court session, the sheriff sends out a patrol car, the PR arms of the sheriff and the courts go into overdrive, and the public can't get enough of it.
All of this was done because PH is a celebrity (or perhaps just notorious); had Josephine Sixpack been early-released, the judge probably would not even have known it.? Instead, the judge hears it on TV and overreacts, triggers a circus and nationwide we get a bunch of women who wish they were Paris gloating that Paris has been brought down to their level.
Are we better off now that PH is back in jail?? Are we safer now that that cell is being used to house PH rather than a father-raper and mother-stabber?? Or does it just not matter?
Perhaps 20 hours of picking up trash along the 405 through Sepulveda Pass would cause PH to reconsider taking charge of her own life-administration issues better than 20+ days in jail.? ?In any case and quite separate from the system fiasco, Paris needs to get her act together and I suspect the Hilton family will set her straight, warning her away from relying on publicists for important information.? I would wish the same thing for Josephine Sixpack if such intervention would prevent future misbehavior.?
I no longer live in LA but I am there frequently for business interests in Beverly Hills, within a stones throw of PH.? I am in much greater danger of being beaten up by an out of control LA cop than being run down by Paris.?
If you read C&D and/or CarSpin fora with any regularity, you would know that I find no particular peril in speeding drivers and that I find the dilution of enforcement resources to chase down the casual drinker to be counterproductive.? ?
This case is no longer about equity under law or even about Paris Hilton but has morphed into a d!ck-waving contest between judge Sauer (sp?) and sheriff Baca, demeaning and degrading the law.?
Oh boy.
:nutty:
Quote from: the nameless one on June 07, 2007, 05:11:05 AM
Tinfoils on too tight James; you see a "speedtrap" behind every billboard and roadside tree.
That is because he does not know what a speedtrap really is. He believes that a speedtrap is any place which issues tickets.
Quote from: hounddog on June 10, 2007, 08:35:32 PM
There is, every brake light must be manufactured and maintained within a very tight tint spectrum. They all have to be almost exactly the same red. Ever look down the road and notice that all the taillights are the same color?
I meant the entirety of the lights on the back. That's sweet that the brake lights are all the same color, but it sucks that they function as a turn signal as well. Give me a yellow blinker and a different set of brake lights - instead of just the two lights on the back getting brighter than normal and/or blinking.
Quote from: Raza on June 07, 2007, 12:28:46 PM
No. I absolutely slam on the brakes every time I come to a stop.
well this post got completely ignored :lol:
hounddog writes:
QuoteThat is because he does not know what a speedtrap really is.? He believes that a speedtrap is any place which issues tickets.
Implicit in the puerile barb is a fair question:? What is a speedtrap?
Different people and different places define them differently.? The states of Oklahoma and Texas (perhaps others as well) define speedtrap as any jurisdiction that obtains 50% or more of their budget from traffic citations.? Further, until 25 May 2007, these were illegal and about a dozen had had their enforcement
privileges restricted by the State of Oklahoma.? A quirky amendment attached to a larger more critical measure at the last-minute sneaked through the legislature, allowing these places to once again prey on motorists.?
The resultant uproar from the people will force a correction of this measure so it will be in force at most two years.? Also, my measure will be introduced into the next legislative sessions in OK, TX and CA and it would end enforcement-for-profit forever.
Back to the definitions.? Even more important than the rather malleable percentage is the
intent of the enforcement.? Is the enforcement done for the money or for some perceived public safety need?? Let?s take the case of the dozen or so villages which are state-recognized speedtraps.? Most of them did not even have police departments until after 1974 when they saw their neighbors citing thousands of drivers due to the new much lower limits imposed by NMSL.? They wanted to get in on the act so they formed their own police departments.? Such departments are not statutory departments, i.e., required by state law or constitution, but were formed ?at-choice? for the expressed purpose of making money from citations.?
This
intent can easily be extended to any number of larger, legitimate departments who use aggressive enforcement to help balance their budgets, such places as Tulsa, OK; Garland; TX; Washington, DC; Aurora, CO; Phoenix, AZ; and Ventura, CA.? Now these are just places that we know about because they have told us their intent.?
Why speeding cites?? They?re easy because ?speeding? is ubiquitous, easily measured, and since all drivers speed, they figure that the occasional cite is the price of driving.? Precision of measurement has replaced efficacy as the
sine qua non as metric by which speed enforcement is measured, at least by those on the insde.? All this enforcement attention has no effect on key safety measures so it cannot be justified (or even rationalized) on scientific grounds.? Therefore, the only reason left is the money that accrues due to these citations.? Do the calculus for yourself.
Also noteworthy is a case of the dog that didn?t bark.? I?m very familiar with two villages (Sunset Valley, TX and Selma, TX), both of which used to be open notorious speedtraps, until economic development and a hugely expanded tax base purged any need to cite for money.? Now, despite a geometric growth in roads, cars and drivers, even freeways with high speeds, they no longer patrol for speed.? It is amazing how Home Depot and Neiman-Marcus somehow cause drivers to be safer.
Quote from: hounddog on June 10, 2007, 08:35:32 PM
There is, every brake light must be manufactured and maintained within a very tight tint spectrum.? They all have to be almost exactly the same red.? Ever look down the road and notice that all the taillights are the same color?
I think what Champ may be getting at here is that turn signals should always be a separate color than brake lights, and that possibly a different shade of red for running lights and brake lights.
Obviously, its easier to distinguish between turn signals and taillights on cars that have amber turn signals, but not all do.
I don't know how effective that would be myself, as people who aren't paying attention to one shade probably won't pay attention to two shades any better, but i can see the merit in the idea.
Just got pulled over on my way to work, right outside of my house, for "suspision of illegal window tint." Sure it's illegal (35% with 50% being the 'limit'), but is this really the most exciting thing you have going today?
Of course as I was sitting there, I counted 3 cars also with illegal window tint go by me.
I've had the tint for coming on 2 years, and have never had a problem with it (been pulled over with it and they don't care). I also have never talked to anyone who has been given a ticket or specifically pulled over for it.
And he didn't even give me a ticket, which I suppose I can be happy about. But seriously..
Quote from: Catman on May 27, 2007, 07:52:07 AM
Hounddog, James is the Rosie O'Donnell of speed enforcement discussions and often has an extreme point of few that's even further in the opposite direction than most cops.? While I agree that stereotypical, blanket statements are uncalled for, he is often not rude or disrespectful.? He has shown in the past that he is very supportive of LE just not the speeding enforcement part. ;)
You know, Greg, the more I think about this post, and the more I read his subsequent posts I realize that you have not read through some of his more anti-police drivel. Take in example, his saying that police lie under oath as a general action.
Quote from: James Young on May 26, 2007, 09:20:26 PM
What I wrote is true.? If the readers want to read [sometimes, much of the time, most of the time] in place of [all the time], please be my guest; I won't argue that.? The phenomenon I described ("testilying") is real as given to us by LEOs themselves.? Further, courts generally do not believe traffic defendants as anybody with any observational skills can ascertain for themselves in asingle sesson of court.? The truth is sometimes ugly.
As to the value of the advice given by some of the LEOs, I believe that they could learn much more from the readers than the readers can learn from the LEOs.? Much of what they assert just does not stand up to critical analysis.? If they are so easily offended, perhaps they should go into a different profession.
Quote from: hounddog on June 18, 2007, 11:36:49 AM
You know, Greg, the more I think about this post, and the more I read his subsequent posts I realize that you have not read through some of his more anti-police drivel.? Take in example, his saying that police lie under oath as a general action.?
?Testilying? is police slang for testimony that is exaggerated or outright false for the purpose of enhancing a case against somebody they legitimately feel is guilty or, more rarely, to fabricate a case against an innocent defendant.
Perhaps you missed this:
The New York Times 2 May 1994, ?Accomplices to Perjury,? page A1 by Alan M. Dershowitz. ?As I read about the disbelief expressed by some prosecutors... I thought of Claude Rains's classic response, in
Casablanca on being told there was gambling in Rick's place: ?I'm shocked?shocked.? For anyone who has practiced criminal law in the state or Federal courts, the disclosures about rampant police perjury cannot possibly come as a surprise. ?Testilying??as the
police call it?has long been an open secret among prosecutors, defense lawyers, and judges.? [Emphasis added by JY]
Or this:
Los Angeles Times 11 February 1996, "Has the Drug War Created an Officer Liars' Club?" Joseph D. McNamara, then chief of police of San Jose [CA], said "Not many people took defense attorney Alan M. Dershowitz seriously when he charged that Los Angeles cops are taught to lie at the birth of their careers at the Police Academy. But as someone who spent 35 years wearing a police uniform, I've come to believe that hundreds of thousands of law-enforcement officers commit felony perjury every year testifying about drug arrests." He noted that "Within the last few years, police departments in Los Angeles, Boston, New Orleans, San Francisco, Denver, New York and in other large cities have suffered scandals involving police personnel lying under oath about drug evidence."
I?ll let you decide how ?general? it is.
If you don?t do this and expose those who do, then you have my full support.
Quote from: hounddog on June 18, 2007, 11:36:49 AM
You know, Greg, the more I think about this post, and the more I read his subsequent posts I realize that you have not read through some of his more anti-police drivel. Take in example, his saying that police lie under oath as a general action.
It certainly is not general action. However, guys like James will always find an example to back up their claims. The reality is that there will always be examples of bad police behavior that can be pointed out. As long as a minority of examples are available for James to use, he will use them. That being said, I am not naive, there is always room for improvement. I think, as a profession, we've made some very significant gains over the years in regards to ethics.
To be honest here, I read his posts and think that his overall ideology is one of demanding professionalism but he often places his ideals in a utopian frame. I think his assumptions and observations give too much weight to stereotypes and the belief that police officers are the engine that drives government corruption.
When he comments on how he would like police to carry out their duties I read it and consider his perspective. Not because I think he is right all the time but because I believe it's important to remove myself from a perspective I am exposed to on a daily bases and consider a view which originates from another direction. That shouldn't imply that I agree with the majority of his claims, but on occasion he does say things that I agree with. I think the important perspective that's missing is that James is not a police officer and he has a hard time putting himself in the shoes of the average cop.
Catman, no need to respond unless you wish. My comments are not necessarily aimed at you. I appreciate the honest input.
QuoteIt certainly is not general action. However, guys like James will always find an example to back up their claims. The reality is that there will always be examples of bad police behavior that can be pointed out. As long as a minority of examples are available for James to use, he will use them.
This triggers two questions. First, how general is the behavior? Absent police cooperation, this cannot be adequately ascertained but we need to try nonetheless. Second, how pervasive does it have to be before it gets addressed? Is it OK if just one cop obtains sexual favors to make a citation ?go away? or is the limit six?
Ancillary questions are ?How does law enforcement respond to criticism?? The answer is ?not very well.? The usual response is based on authority and/or power rather than the validity of their argument. ?Because it?s the law? is a typical reason given to support enforcement for a particular law, without regard to the legitimacy of the law. ?If the law supposes that,? said Mr. Bumble,? ?the law is a ass?a idiot. If that?s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience?by experience.? Charles Dickens,
Oliver TwistQuoteThat being said, I am not naive, there is always room for improvement. I think, as a profession, we've made some very significant gains over the years in regards to ethics.
The behavior that bothers me is the failure to hold your fellow professionals accountable. When unethical or illegal behavior is observed, how is it dealt with? Is there a blue wall of silence, a blue omerta?
QuoteTo be honest here, I read his posts and think that his overall ideology is one of demanding professionalism but he often places his ideals in a utopian frame.
This is true. I want law enforcement to be professional, trained as professionals, equipped as professionals, and paid as professionals. I want their job to be as safe as is possible given the nature of the job, which is why I call for them to develop techniques to minimize risk during traffic stops rather than stick their butt out into the road. Therefore, we have the right to expect them to be professionals. Anything less calls for removal from the ranks.
QuoteI think his assumptions and observations give too much weight to stereotypes and the belief that police officers are the engine that drives government corruption.
We need to make a distinction between the legitimate, statutory enforcement agencies and the by-choice agencies created to generate profit for their particular village. Officers in those villages are not professionals ? largely untrained, unqualified, and uncertified ? yet they have the same authority as a captain in Austin or NYC and the money they extract is just as real in Selma, Texas, as it is in Detroit. The stereotype of Buford T. Justice prevails in thousands of jurisdictions that legitimate cops never see, yet they degrade your image just as surely as an Abner Louima incident. What has hounddog done to eliminate this contamination upon your profession?
QuoteWhen he comments on how he would like police to carry out their duties I read it and consider his perspective. Not because I think he is right all the time but because I believe it's important to remove myself from a perspective I am exposed to on a daily bases and consider a view which originates from another direction.
Bravo. Exactly. A major fault of too many officers (and nearly ubiquitous) is that their only contact with the public is the human debris that fill their day or with other cops. As I?ve pointed out in the past, this takes a very heavy toll on officers, a toll manifested in elevated levels of substance abuse, divorce, violence and suicide among the cop population. The police perspective is far too narrow and unidirectional in my opinion and they tend to extrapolate the behavior of drunks, addicts, the mentally ill, and the sociopathic to the general public. I also believe that they and the public would be better served if they dropped the ?We don?t write the law, we only enforce it,? mantra and relied more on science, reason and logic. That would be very difficult for them but well worth the effort.
QuoteThat shouldn't imply that I agree with the majority of his claims, but on occasion he does say things that I agree with. I think the important perspective that's missing is that James is not a police officer and he has a hard time putting himself in the shoes of the average cop.
I cannot and will not put myself into the shoes of the average cop, nor do I ever pretend to do so. However, equally important is that the officers have just as hard a time putting themselves into the shoes of the average citizen. Indicative of this is the substitution of jargon or techno-speak for insightful analyses ? ?Let me guess, Rodney King was brutally beaten by wayward police who had no reason to even hit him with their PR-24's.? What does using a ?PR-24? have to do with their behavior other than to infer some nebulous legitimacy through the use of insider terms? What about addressing the behavior and the three decades of background that led up to it? What about addressing the near digital wall separating the police view of that beating as justified and the public view that it was contemptible?
LAPD is still under an ongoing investigation by the FBI, correct? Whatever the circumstances, there is an obvious tension between certain minority populations and law enforcement in that city.
The LA Times article James posted intruiges me. I knew people in high school who got picked up for petty drug violations, and often they would point out inconsistencies in the arresting officer's testimony. I noticed that most of these "testilies" where inconsequential and didn't affect their case (other than making the defense upset). I bet most of this "perjury" is accidental, as law enforcement is involved in these situations day in and day out, while the people who get caught experience a singular event. It makes sense that they could recall the situation more vividly than the officer, because they don't deal with any case but their own.
Quote from: James Young on June 19, 2007, 01:13:57 PM
This triggers two questions.? First, how general is the behavior?? Absent police cooperation, this cannot be adequately ascertained but we need to try nonetheless.? ?Second, how pervasive does it have to be before it gets addressed?? Is it OK if just one cop obtains sexual favors to make a citation ?go away? or is the limit six?? ?
Why do you assume it is every ok in our society?(that is the law enforcement society)? We prosecute our own, we lock our own up, sometimes we throw away the key.? How many times do you see on the nightly news, or read about a police officer who has been charged and or jailed?? Too often, I am afraid.? There are roughly 700,000 police officers in America, yet the vast majority are rarely ever given credit for the good they do.? ?Again, it can only be through anti-police thinking that you believe we would ever turn the other cheek to such reprehensible behavior as that which you mentioned.
QuoteAncillary questions are ?How does law enforcement respond to criticism??? ?The answer is ?not very well.?? The usual response is based on authority and/or power rather than the validity of their argument.? ?Because it?s the law? is a typical reason given to support enforcement for a particular law, without regard to the legitimacy of the law.?
Because we are hired and required to uphold the law, not question its virtue.? We do not hold that luxury, nor should we.? To allow officers to question that which they were hired to do can only cause anarchy within our societies. (both civil and police)? That police must police themselves I do not argue, however, you would have us all believe that we are unwilling to do that very thing.
QuoteThe behavior that bothers me is the failure to hold your fellow professionals accountable.? When unethical or illegal behavior is observed, how is it dealt with?? Is there a blue wall of silence, a blue omerta??
In 2005 and 2006 former chief Mark Hunter, Columbia Township Police, Jackson County Mi., was charged with and plead guilty of several things; False records to ATF, unlawfully selling firearms, ATF dearler license violations, false police reports, child pornography, and possession of cocaine not to mention the couple of local charges for obstructing an investigation.? He was by all accounts a very well liked supervisor among his men.? He was friendly and funny, treating his men well.? Yet it was one of his own rank and file officers who turned him over to the MSP when they found out about it.? Not in the news you say?? It happened.
QuoteThis is true.? I want law enforcement to be professional, trained as professionals, equipped as professionals, and paid as professionals.? I want their job to be as safe as is possible given the nature of the job, which is why I call for them to develop techniques to minimize risk during traffic stops rather than stick their butt out into the road.? Therefore, we have the right to expect them to be professionals.? ?Anything less calls for removal from the ranks.?
No problems with this statment.? However, there is no money for training, they are not recognized as professionals by ANY other professional organization, there is little money now for equipment upgrades, and most salaries across the country hang in the $30,000 dollar range.? I do not know you see things, but none of this falls under professionals as you describe it in my eyes.? I know not one single professional position where the staff makes less than $40,000 as the general rule across the nation.? ?Teachers do not even fall into this catagory, the vast majority of them make north of $40,000.
QuoteWe need to make a distinction between the legitimate, statutory enforcement agencies and the by-choice agencies created to generate profit for their particular village.? Officers in those villages are not professionals ? largely untrained, unqualified, and uncertified ? yet they have the same authority as a captain in Austin or NYC and the money they extract is just as real in Selma, Texas, as it is in Detroit.? The stereotype of Buford T. Justice prevails in thousands of jurisdictions that legitimate cops never see, yet they degrade your image just as surely as an Abner Louima incident.? What has hounddog done to eliminate this contamination upon your profession?
It is just that, a stereotype.? My stereotype of lawyers is that they are all money hungry, false lawsuit filing, low life scum who are going to hell because they will all lie cheat and steal.? Stereotypes are a dangerous thing, and it is people like you who actually believe them and only serve to propegate them who are the really dangerous ones.
QuoteBravo.? Exactly.? ?A major fault of too many officers (and nearly ubiquitous) is that their only contact with the public is the human debris that fill their day or with other cops.? As I?ve pointed out in the past, this takes a very heavy toll on officers, a toll manifested in elevated levels of substance abuse, divorce, violence and suicide among the cop population.? The police perspective is far too narrow and unidirectional in my opinion and they tend to extrapolate the behavior of drunks, addicts, the mentally ill, and the sociopathic to the general public.? I also believe that they and the public would be better served if they dropped the ?We don?t write the law, we only enforce it,? mantra and relied more on science, reason and logic.? That would be very difficult for them but well worth the effort.
Once again, their situation is their fault in your eyes.? My suggestion to you,? get to know some real police officers.? Become a reserve officer somewhere for a year or more.? Then you will have a valid platform from which to make these insulting claims.?
QuoteI cannot and will not put myself into the shoes of the average cop, nor do I ever pretend to do so.? However, equally important is that the officers have just as hard a time putting themselves into the shoes of the average citizen.? Indicative of this is the substitution of jargon or techno-speak for insightful analyses ? ?Let me guess, Rodney King was brutally beaten by wayward police who had no reason to even hit him with their PR-24's.?? What does using a ?PR-24? have to do with their behavior other than to infer some nebulous legitimacy through the use of insider terms?? What about addressing the behavior and the three decades of background that led up to it?? What about addressing the near digital wall separating the police view of that beating as justified and the public view that it was contemptible??
Wrong, you could not be anymore wrong than you are here.? We have family, friends, distant relatives and other aquaintances which are normal citizens.? In fact, every single cop that is, was or will be, has been a normal citizen.? If you cannot put yourself into our shoes it gives me great insite as to who you are.?
The PR-24 comment is just one that comes out having used them in the past.? But, I noticed that you never really or directly answered by question.? Another insight into who you really are.
Lastly, I am through with you.? I will report any anti-police BS you post from here out, and I hold the moderators responsible for taking any such posts to task.
I'll let Hounddog answer for me as I find his responses appropriate. Besides, I don't like long replies. :tounge:
Quote from: Catman on June 19, 2007, 04:26:23 PM
I'll let Hounddog answer for me as I find his responses appropriate.? Besides, I don't like long replies. :tounge:?
Yes, you're a man of few words, Greg. :ohyeah:
Quote from: dazzleman on June 19, 2007, 08:03:53 PM
Yes, you're a man of few words, Greg. :ohyeah:
Yeah, once in a while I'll throw in a few paragraphs but to be honest, I'm lazy when I get home. :tounge:
hounddog writes:
QuoteWhy do you assume it is every ok in our society?(that is the law enforcement society)? We prosecute our own, we lock our own up, sometimes we throw away the key.? How many times do you see on the nightly news, or read about a police officer who has been charged and or jailed?? Too often, I am afraid.? There are roughly 700,000 police officers in America, yet the vast majority are rarely ever given credit for the good they do.? ?Again, it can only be through anti-police thinking that you believe we would ever turn the other cheek to such reprehensible behavior as that which you mentioned.
The question was rhetorical.? Nonetheless, I suspect that the number of transgressions far exceeds the number of prosecutions.?
How many regular citizens are given credit for fulfilling their duties?? Why should cops, lawyers or economists be any different?
If by ?. . .ever turn the other cheek to such reprehensible behavior. . .? you mean to turn a blind eye, that is to overlook or ignore such behavior, it hardly arises from a singular cause of anti-police thinking but from the empirical evidence that we hear about every day.? Further, let?s not be coy:? we both know that the overwhelming majority of police transgressions, albeit petty, go undetected or ignored.
Despite the endless and clich?d rhetoric from enforcement itself, the police are hardly above criticism and, since they are openly accountable public employees, are subject to greater criticism than private employees.? We have granted you great training, equipped you, certified you and authorized you to use force, even deadly force, tempered by judgment.? How dare you intimate that we have no right to criticize you.
QuoteBecause we are hired and required to uphold the law, not question its virtue.? We do not hold that luxury, nor should we.? To allow officers to question that which they were hired to do can only cause anarchy within our societies. (both civil and police)
Officers do not forfeit their citizenship ? neither the benefits nor the responsibilities -- when they pin on the badge.? However, since police unions and departments actively lobby for or against proposed laws, they cannot claim to be neutral in their enforcement.
QuoteIn 2005 and 2006 former chief Mark Hunter was charged with and plead guilty of several things; False records to ATF, unlawfully selling firearms, ATF dearler license violations, false police reports, child pornography, and possession of cocaine not to mention the couple of local charges for obstructing an investigation.? He was by all accounts a very well liked supervisor among his men.? He was friendly and funny, treating his men well.? Yet it was one of his own rank and file officers who turned him over to the MSP when they found out about it.? Not in the news you say?? It happened.
I applaud that guy [that turned Hunter in].? Or maybe it was the woman employee that {Hunter] recorded having sex with him in his office.? In either case, while I wish none of this stuff ever happened, I?m pleased that that person had the backbone to step up.
On the other hand, we can only speculate on how many times similar behavior gets treated with a wink and a nod.
?
QuoteNo problems with this statment.? However, there is no money for training, they are not recognized as professionals by ANY other professional organization, there is little money now for equipment upgrades, and most salaries across the country hang in the $30,000 dollar range.? I do not know about you, but none of this falls under professionals as you describe it.? ? I know not one single professional position where the staff makes less than $40,000 as the general rule across the nation.? ?Teachers do not even fall into this catagory, the vast majority of them make north of $40,000.
Usually, professionals provide their own training in medicine, law, engineering, or finance.? I certainly provided my own training in economics.? We chose to do this and were lucky enough to have the opportunity, so we cannot complain that we had to pay for it ourselves.? Two obvious exceptions where training is publicly funded are police and firefighters.? Since these are both critical jobs and qualified professionals are required to fill them, I have no issue with providing publicly-funded training.
?A professional works to receive payment for an activity (as a profession), which usually requires expertise and carries with it socially significant mores and folkways. That is to say, behaving professionally would indicate that the person's actions remain in accordance with specific rules, written or unwritten, pertaining to behavior, dress, speech, etc. By extension, the adjective professional can indicate that someone has great expertise or skill in a craft or activity.?? -- Princeton University
The range of resources available for equipment and training varies across the board but most jurisdictions seem to have a handle on it.? For example, OHP replaces their vehicles with funds directly from fines, thus creating an incentive to cite.? Salaries in most places range to double, sometimes triple, the $30K figure.? Texas DPS troopers are paid $33+K upon entry into the Academy.? Austin PD pays $32+K upon entry into the Academy and $47+K? upon graduation and with ?top pay? for officers ? conditions unknown ? of $76+K.?
LAPD pays $52,648 for HS graduates and $54,747 for 60 college hours credit, beginning on the first day in the Academy.? Bonuses are paid for special skills such as foreign languages or ?hazard pay.?
Michigan seems to be a depressed area, unsurprising given the decline in auto and auto-related manufacturing.? Perhaps it is time to move to more favorable circumstances.? I face a similar situation in that I?m ready to ?unretire? and go back to work and go back home to Austin and live in my own house rather than live in Tulsa, where family obligations brought me last year.? This is a depressing place.
QuoteOnce again, their situation is their fault in your eyes.? My suggestion to you,? get to know some real police officers.? Become a reserve officer somewhere for a year or more.? Then you will have a valid platform from which to make these insulting claims.
Sorry, I have no interest in controlling the lives of others through force.? My interest is much more intellectual and in the realm of public policy.
?
The old argument that only an insider is qualified to comment on public policy and public employees? behavior is specious.? Show me evidence to the contrary and I?ll modify my hypothesis.? You should do the same.? Sometimes things that we believe that we know have an alternative POV.? The early bird gets the worm is the old saying; left unstated but equally true is that the early worm gets eaten.
QuoteWrong, you could not be anymore wrong than you are here.? We have family, friends, distant relatives and other aquaintances which are normal citizens.? In fact, every single cop that is, was or will be, has been a normal citizen.? If you cannot put yourself into our shoes it gives me great [insight] as to who you are.
Surely you can distinguish between ?cannot? and ?will not.?? Despite former or future status as normal citizens, the cop culture will overwhelm that status.? Consider, for example, that cops speak a different language, encoded on a meme of membership in a specialized culture.
With the ability to discern who, what and why I am, you?re wasting your time as an officer; you should be in Las Vegas.? Steve Wynn would pay big bucks for that.
QuoteThe PR-24 comment is just one that comes out having used them in the past.? But, I noticed that you never really or directly answered by question.? Another insight into who you really are.
Jargon is not a substitute for thoughtful analysis.
You must have amazing abilities to gain insight without ever having met me, knowing my background, and from a few limited posts.? See above.
Since you seem to want soundbite answers to encyclopedic questions, the answer is no.? Further, I suspect that all those involved also wish they could modify their behavior that night.? There were no winners that night.
QuoteLastly, I am through with you.? I will report any anti-police BS you post from here out, and I hold the moderators responsible for taking any such posts to task.
One can only hope that that is the case.? I doubt that posting factual allegations is a violation of any TOS and certainly unworthy of taking such ?to task.? It is amusing that you revert to the childish, ?I?ll tell on you!? threat.
The sad fact is that absent the ability to threaten or intimidate, your quiver is empty.
You don't have pretrial diversion (traffic school) available to you?
It won't save much money up front but your insurance won't know unless you get caught again within a certain time frame (two years in Nebraska). If caught within the grace period, you're liable for both old and new tickets.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on June 11, 2007, 05:27:56 PM
I think what Champ may be getting at here is that turn signals should always be a separate color than brake lights, and that possibly a different shade of red for running lights and brake lights.
Obviously, its easier to distinguish between turn signals and taillights on cars that have amber turn signals, but not all do.
I don't know how effective that would be myself, as people who aren't paying attention to one shade probably won't pay attention to two shades any better, but i can see the merit in the idea.
But think about different angles and people with bulbs out. Sometimes depending on where other car are, you can misinterpret brake lights or turn signals.
Um, holy crap. How did Champ's thread about being pulled over turn into a 15 page trollfest?
QuoteUsually, professionals provide their own training in medicine, law, engineering, or finance. I certainly provided my own training in economics. We chose to do this and were lucky enough to have the opportunity, so we cannot complain that we had to pay for it ourselves. Two obvious exceptions where training is publicly funded are police and firefighters. Since these are both critical jobs and qualified professionals are required to fill them, I have no issue with providing publicly-funded training.
In my neck of the woods many people have degrees when entering law enforcement. However, just like the private sector, ongoing training is often provided or offered by their employer. But, I can tell you that the public sector union mentality often puts a damper on enthusiasm as almost every second of any activity is expected to be compensated. This is where the main difference is between the public and private sector. It's a cultural problem that I despise and is like a cancer.
Just as an example, we have a great technology program here. Our region partnered with the local community college to bring computer training to officers for free. Now, it's not enough that my Chief will reassign you for the day to go to the training but those that have the training fall on their day off were expecting to get overtime. So it's not enough to get $500+ worth of training but one must get overtime too. :lockedup: These are same assholes who complain they don't know how to use the computers and everything is, Over their head". I hate to admit it but people with that mentality should go pound nails. If you want to be treated like professionals then one should act like one and recognize that training and education has value. But, where is the incentive? They'll still be getting paid the same as me right?
Unions have their place but I see more harm than good lately. The Union culture only cares about money and benefits and they are too stupid to realize that professionalism, hard work and good leadership will get them further than demanding raises simply because they lived and breathed another year.
Rant over.
Quote from: Raza on June 21, 2007, 09:45:46 AM
But think about different angles and people with bulbs out. Sometimes depending on where other car are, you can misinterpret brake lights or turn signals.
Yes, especially when it's an older car, that just has 2 lights on the back. Dim for running lights, bright for brake, and blinking for turn signal. All it takes is for one bulb to go out and you have no idea what is happening. At least with multiple bulbs there is some redundancy built in. And you can't tell the difference sometimes between someone pulsing their brakes or trying to turn - if you don't have separate bulbs.
I completely support continuing training for my employees and urge them to do as I do and take advantage of it. This would be especially true for a new and permanent element of the police culture, such as computer crime. To me, the opportunity to improve one?s value to the organization is an investment of time and effort that will pay off at a personal level in the future, even if I don?t get paid directly for that effort. I expect them to be equally foresighted.
Quote from: James Young on June 22, 2007, 08:52:10 PM
I completely support continuing training for my employees and urge them to do as I do and take advantage of it. This would be especially true for a new and permanent element of the police culture, such as computer crime. To me, the opportunity to improve one?s value to the organization is an investment of time and effort that will pay off at a personal level in the future, even if I don?t get paid directly for that effort. I expect them to be equally foresighted.
While I am heavily involved in the IT side I am not yet involved in the computer crime stuff due to time constraints. Other than the people who actually investigate computer crime the vast majority of police officers seem to think it's not worthy of their attention or effort, mainly because they don't understand it. Yet, while they are looking for traditional crime there's a myriad or internet crimes going on at any given time right under their noses. Fortunately, we have a couple people who are knowledgeable on how to handle these things and I help as needed.
Quote from: Catman on June 22, 2007, 09:05:49 PM
While I am heavily involved in the IT side I am not yet involved in the computer crime stuff due to time constraints.? Other than the people who actually investigate computer crime the vast majority of police officers seem to think it's not worthy of their attention or effort, mainly because they don't understand it.? Yet, while they are looking for traditional crime there's a myriad or internet crimes going on at any given time right under their noses.? Fortunately, we have a couple people who are knowledgeable on how to handle these things and I help as needed.? ?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like it would be easier for a single investigator to work on multiple cases of internet crime at a time too, wouldn't it?
Quote from: Catman on June 22, 2007, 09:05:49 PM
While I am heavily involved in the IT side I am not yet involved in the computer crime stuff due to time constraints.? Other than the people who actually investigate computer crime the vast majority of police officers seem to think it's not worthy of their attention or effort, mainly because they don't understand it.? Yet, while they are looking for traditional crime there's a myriad or internet crimes going on at any given time right under their noses.? Fortunately, we have a couple people who are knowledgeable on how to handle these things and I help as needed.? ?
Very cool. A change in the right direction. :mrcool:
Quote from: Soup DeVille on June 22, 2007, 09:09:50 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like it would be easier for a single investigator to work on multiple cases of internet crime at a time too, wouldn't it?
We have a regional unit that is three months behind on their cases. There are more cases than they can handle. Because the training can take 2-3 years there's not many Chiefs that are willing to give a guy up that long.