Quote from: GoCougs on April 09, 2015, 09:30:22 PMUsing speeding as a pretense for DUI enforcement, while perhaps effective, is very problematic.

Why is that? Are you going to dispute pretextual stops now?

QuoteAgain, the toll that speed enforcement takes is systemic - wasted tax dollars, wasted resources.

And you thought wrong - I've always been of the opinion that there is little if any "money making" in speed enforcement. There's simply too much overhead for any "profit." It's overused through "speed kills" hysteria and because it is easy to determine.

So, what's the point in speed enforcement if it's not for safety and not for money? For fun?

Btw, you still havn't addressed my three points relating speed to crashes...or are you going to keep "redirecting" away from those?

Quote from: bing_oh on April 09, 2015, 09:50:44 PM
Why is that? Are you going to dispute pretextual stops now?

So, what's the point in speed enforcement if it's not for safety and not for money? For fun?

Btw, you still havn't addressed my three points relating speed to crashes...or are you going to keep "redirecting" away from those?

I've already answered these....

I do dispute such stops. People should NOT be pulled over under false pretenses - dangerous escalation IMO.

Again, the point is primarily satiating the "speed kills" hysteria and that unlike most all other infractions speeding is easy to determine, esp. from afar.

I already addressed your "three points" with my example of a drunk blasting through a red light at 80 mph. Speeding made it worse but speeding wasn't the cause - DUI is.

Quote from: GoCougs on April 09, 2015, 10:47:02 PMI've already answered these....

I do dispute such stops. People should NOT be pulled over under false pretenses - dangerous escalation IMO.

"False pretenses?" There's no "false pretenses" if the initial violation is valid (exactly as the courts have ruled).

QuoteAgain, the point is primarily satiating the "speed kills" hysteria and that unlike most all other infractions speeding is easy to determine, esp. from afar.

I already addressed your "three points" with my example of a drunk blasting through a red light at 80 mph. Speeding made it worse but speeding wasn't the cause - DUI is.

In other words, you really can't explain speed enforcement from your stated point of view and you've decided to continue to "redirect" when it comes to the points I made correlating speed and crashes. Gotcha.

Im surprised bing_oh is even engaging, usually he just writes everybody off for being civilians and by extension having no understanding or capacity to even begin to understand how policing works

U want to target DUIs, to me it would make sense to target DUIs, but apparently it's better to target other offenses and then hopefully catch a DUI on the side. In pretty much every other profession/walk of life problems are solved by addressing them directly but I guess traffic safety operates under different rules

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 10, 2015, 06:39:17 AMIm surprised bing_oh is even engaging, usually he just writes everybody off for being civilians and by extension having no understanding or capacity to even begin to understand how policing works

U want to target DUIs, to me it would make sense to target DUIs, but apparently it's better to target other offenses and then hopefully catch a DUI on the side. In pretty much every other profession/walk of life problems are solved by addressing them directly but I guess traffic safety operates under different rules

Well, Sporty, since you seem to have infinite wisdom when it comes to all subjects (law enforcement included), please tell me how you stop someone JUST for DUI without any other criminal or traffic violation.

Quote from: bing_oh on April 09, 2015, 11:46:17 PM
"False pretenses?" There's no "false pretenses" if the initial violation is valid (exactly as the courts have ruled).

In other words, you really can't explain speed enforcement from your stated point of view and you've decided to continue to "redirect" when it comes to the points I made correlating speed and crashes. Gotcha.

Again, the "violation" of speeding is invalid, unless it is excessive (which in most cases it is not).

Sure I explained it - "speed enforcement" is a red herring and its over emphasis has cost lives and money. Traffic enforcement MUST be concerned with things that cause crashes, not things that don't.

Quote from: bing_oh on April 10, 2015, 08:10:06 AM
Well, Sporty, since you seem to have infinite wisdom when it comes to all subjects (law enforcement included), please tell me how you stop someone JUST for DUI without any other criminal or traffic violation.

Never claimed such omniscience, just surprised you didnt draw on your "civilians dont know shit" cop out, thats all. If DUIs are a heightened issue seems to me it would make sense to heighten efforts towards that, not turn up on everything and hope to catch DUI like some kind of LE bird shot. But again what do I know, Im just a civilian, I will just comply and hopefully make it out alive.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 10, 2015, 08:59:59 AMNever claimed such omniscience, just surprised you didnt draw on your "civilians dont know shit" cop out, thats all. If DUIs are a heightened issue seems to me it would make sense to heighten efforts towards that, not turn up on everything and hope to catch DUI like some kind of LE bird shot. But again what do I know, Im just a civilian, I will just comply and hopefully make it out alive.

Can't answer the question, huh? You specifically said LE should "target DUI's" but not other offenses. Of course, probably 95%+ of DUI stops are technically pretextual, so I wanted to know how you would want LE to get DUI's without pretextual stops. I guess we should just "know" when someone's DUI, stop them, and arrest them, right?

So, I think I'm gonna stick with the "YOU don't know shit" line on this one, considering you're sitting there saying what LE should do but have no idea how we should do it.

Quote from: GoCougs on April 10, 2015, 08:21:48 AMAgain, the "violation" of speeding is invalid, unless it is excessive (which in most cases it is not).

Sure I explained it - "speed enforcement" is a red herring and its over emphasis has cost lives and money. Traffic enforcement MUST be concerned with things that cause crashes, not things that don't.

And I've already explained how speed can not just cause crashes but make crashes for other circumstances worse...you know, those three things that I mentioned that you "redirected" away from instead of addressing.

Lots of new cars can safely go a lot faster than the speed limits, but there are still trucks and stuff that shouldn't be going that fast. Speed limits are for everyone, so they depend on the least common denominator.

Quote from: hotrodalex on April 10, 2015, 02:08:53 PM
Lots of new cars can safely go a lot faster than the speed limits, but there are still trucks and stuff that shouldn't be going that fast. Speed limits are for everyone, so they depend on the least common denominator.

There are places with different speed limits for semis and cars.  Said places also prohibit semis from driving in the left lane.

Quote from: bing_oh on April 09, 2015, 11:46:17 PM
In other words, you really can't explain speed enforcement from your stated point of view and you've decided to continue to "redirect" when it comes to the points I made correlating speed and crashes. Gotcha.

You've exposed THE classic Cougs debate tactic: When losing the argument, REDIRECT!

Quote from: bing_oh on April 10, 2015, 10:09:11 AM
And I've already explained how speed can not just cause crashes but make crashes for other circumstances worse...you know, those three things that I mentioned that you "redirected" away from instead of addressing.

You did explain but it is illogical, which I've also explained many times, on many levels.

Quote from: hotrodalex on April 10, 2015, 02:08:53 PM
Lots of new cars can safely go a lot faster than the speed limits, but there are still trucks and stuff that shouldn't be going that fast. Speed limits are for everyone, so they depend on the least common denominator.

Yet one of the many many many logical arguments against "speed kills."

Quote from: GoCougs on April 10, 2015, 09:09:22 PMYou did explain but it is illogical, which I've also explained many times, on many levels.

Physics is illogical, now?

All other factors being equal...
1. The higher the speed, the greater the stopping distance. Physics is physics and this can't be argued.
2. The higher the speed, the greater the impact and damage. Again, physics is physics.
3. The higher the speed, the lesser the reaction time for the driver.

I mean, one and two are based on simply and accepted physics. I could argue that three is just as scientifically-supported. Please, explain to me how any of these three points are the least bit "illogical."

Quote from: GoCougs on April 10, 2015, 09:12:09 PMYet one of the many many many logical arguments against "speed kills."

You know, I've never mentioned the phrase "speed kills" once...that's been you every time. However, if you want to keep bringing it up, let's put it up against the list.

That simple little phrase actually fits perfectly with #2...the higher the speed, the greater the impact and damage. That impact and damage doesn't just apply to the vehicle, but the contents...including the human occupants. Physics dictates that higher speeds = greater damage...with "greater damage" to a living human being = a greater chance of fatal damage. So, ignoring that "speed kills" is a catchy little phrase (and one I haven't heard used in the ad campaigns related to speed enforcement in probably a decade), physics would actually support it.

Quote from: bing_oh on April 10, 2015, 09:14:30 PM
Physics is illogical, now?

All other factors being equal...
1. The higher the speed, the greater the stopping distance. Physics is physics and this can't be argued.
2. The higher the speed, the greater the impact and damage. Again, physics is physics.
3. The higher the speed, the lesser the reaction time for the driver.

I mean, one and two are based on simply and accepted physics. I could argue that three is just as scientifically-supported. Please, explain to me how any of these three points are the least bit "illogical."

Hmmm. I've already done this but will do so again:

Most drivers speed = illogical to state that most drivers are lawbreakers (= speeding is rarely a factor).
Most speed limits are arbitrary = speeding is rarely a factor.

LE must focus on stopping crashes not on things that don't cause crashes. It is hoped that this is what is happening with LE writing far fewer speeding tickets as shown ITT (I'm not convinced but remain hopeful). Safer roads >>>>> illogical action.

Quote from: MX793 on April 10, 2015, 03:13:15 PM
There are places with different speed limits for semis and cars.  Said places also prohibit semis from driving in the left lane.

Most of the west is 65/55, 70/60, 75/65, or 80/70 cars/semis on freeways, and trucks are absolutely allowed in the left lane.

If you want proof of non-engineered speed limits, look to Oregon. Freeways are never more than 65, and 55 through towns. There are maybe two places around Portland where the limit is 60. Two-lane highways are never more than 55, despite miles and miles of excellent 70-grade road (see US20 in eastern Oregon). In Montana, the same roads would be 70.

Quote from: Rupert on April 11, 2015, 12:27:46 PM
If you want proof of non-engineered speed limits, look to Oregon. Freeways are never more than 65, and 55 through towns. There are maybe two places around Portland where the limit is 60. Two-lane highways are never more than 55, despite miles and miles of excellent 70-grade road (see US20 in eastern Oregon). In Montana, the same roads would be 70.

A wreck at 70 mph on a MT highway is deemed to have had speeding as a "contributing factor" if it happens on a 55 mph Oregon highway, despite the roads being identical.

Not every single mile of what must me a million+ miles of roads in the US can have a rigid engineering analysis which is another logical argument against rigid speed limits.

Quote from: Rupert on April 11, 2015, 12:23:23 PM
Most of the west is 65/55, 70/60, 75/65, or 80/70 cars/semis on freeways, and trucks are absolutely allowed in the left lane.

I've seen a number of highways that prohibit trucks in the left-most lane, though generally only on highways with 3-lanes in each direction.  Seen it both in the east and out west.

Quote from: MX793 on April 11, 2015, 03:24:43 PM
I've seen a number of highways that prohibit trucks in the left-most lane, though generally only on highways with 3-lanes in each direction.  Seen it both in the east and out west.

And it's far from the absolute you seemed to think it is. There are a few mountain passes  and maybe a few urban freeways like that in OR, WA, and ID, but it is always with three lanes or more.

Quote from: Rupert on April 11, 2015, 05:14:27 PM
And it's far from the absolute you seemed to think it is. There are a few mountain passes  and maybe a few urban freeways like that in OR, WA, and ID, but it is always with three lanes or more.

No, it's not absolute and, yes, it requires at least 3 travel lanes in each direction.  Sorry if I implied otherwise.  It is, however, more common from what I've seen in states that have staggered speed limits.  Even on large hills that have 3-lanes, it is uncommon here for trucks to be barred from the leftmost lane.  A stretch of I-90 near Rochester is perhaps the only bit of highway that I can recall ever encountering that in NY.  I've encountered it in other states in the southwest and along the eastern seaboard, and not just on hills or mountainous areas.  I recall seeing it in Florida and there are no hills in Florida. 

Watching a lot of Russian car crashes- speed doesn't kill or cause crashes, going faster/slower than other cars around you does.

Biggest cause of crashes seems to be dummies speeding past other stopped/slow traffic. When the slow/stopped traffic was waiting for someone else to get out of the way.   In other words the speeder should have adjusted speed to match everyone else's.

Second cause seems to be running red lights. No speed limits in the world will affect idiots who decide to barrel through an intersection 5 seconds after it turned green for cross-traffic.

Third is people passing when they shouldn't be and hit oncoming traffic.

-------------------- ------------------------ --------------------------- ---------------------------

The German Autobahn proves that speed can be handled reasonably. In a country the size of Montana, they have "unlimited" speed limits in SOME areas. Cars doing 120mph+  safely drive with 80hp econoboxes and trucks which by law must drive 62mph or slower.
-everyone checks mirrors
-very strict lane discipline
-rigorous safety inspections of vehicles

Their roadway fatality rate is about the same as ours. I used to set the cruise at 90mph and pass 80% of traffic, but also have people go flying past me.

Well it has been almost a year...

Quote from: 68_427 on April 22, 2015, 03:49:10 AM
Well it has been almost a year...

Is this your longest stretch?

Quote from: dazzleman on April 22, 2015, 05:42:50 AM
Is this your longest stretch?

No I think I hit 13 months once.

Quote from: 68_427 on April 22, 2015, 05:46:30 AM
No I think I hit 13 months once.

You're not trying hard enough.

I'm just trying for little fuck yous that don't cost me money

Revenues from citations should never go to the authorities involved in their issuance, collection etc. Just donate them to oversea charities & avoid the conflicts of interest.

Quote from: Morris Minor on April 30, 2015, 12:28:48 PM
Revenues from citations should never go to the authorities involved in their issuance, collection etc. Just donate them to oversea charities & avoid the conflicts of interest.

Then I would be doing a public service... Excellent...