I remember this being a big thing years ago... auto insurance donating speed measuring equipment to municipalities.
Does anyone know if this practice has stopped or been legislated against in any states?
I remember Car and Driver had several articles on GEICO going this.
Can't seem to find out a lot about the practice today. Would that be open information to the public?
Check their annual reports or press releases. GEICO used to brag about it.
Insurance is such BS. I would love to see the correlation between moving violations and insurance claims.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on January 02, 2015, 09:10:08 AM
Insurance is such BS. I would love to see the correlation between moving violations and insurance claims.
That would actually be an interesting analysis. I think this is the problem with having speed limits that are too low, that effectively criminalize normal everyday driving. It becomes really difficult to tell the difference between bad driving, and safe driving that is technically illegal, by looking at a person's driving record. Some people who get tickets a lot are dangerous drivers, while others are not. And of course, there are a lot of dangerous drivers who don't get tickets very often or at all.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 03, 2015, 09:50:45 AM
That would actually be an interesting analysis. I think this is the problem with having speed limits that are too low, that effectively criminalize normal everyday driving. It becomes really difficult to tell the difference between bad driving, and safe driving that is technically illegal, by looking at a person's driving record. Some people who get tickets a lot are dangerous drivers, while others are not. And of course, there are a lot of dangerous drivers who don't get tickets very often or at all.
I'm sure insurance companies can trot out reams of data and studies that show for the insured population as a whole there is a positive correlation between moving violation history and claim history. There will always be exceptions; the driver who is unsafe and is never ticketed and the gal who constantly exceeds the speed limit safely because she is an exceptional driver, or just lucky. But insurance companies don't really set rates for individuals, the set rates for groups of drivers. Exhibit behavior that puts you in a high risk group and you get treated as a member of that group whether you are an excellent, average or below average driver.
Common sense will tell you that statistically the driver that runs stop signs and red lights, tailgates, passes in no passing zones, makes illegal turns and speeds is more likely to be involved in an accident.
Quote from: CLKid on January 03, 2015, 07:35:46 PM
I'm sure insurance companies can trot out reams of data and studies that show for the insured population as a whole there is a positive correlation between moving violation history and claim history. There will always be exceptions; the driver who is unsafe and is never ticketed and the gal who constantly exceeds the speed limit safely because she is an exceptional driver, or just lucky. But insurance companies don't really set rates for individuals, the set rates for groups of drivers. Exhibit behavior that puts you in a high risk group and you get treated as a member of that group whether you are an excellent, average or below average driver.
Common sense will tell you that statistically the driver that runs stop signs and red lights, tailgates, passes in no passing zones, makes illegal turns and speeds is more likely to be involved in an accident.
Do you think you're a high or medium high risk driver?
Quote from: dazzleman on January 03, 2015, 07:50:53 PM
Do you think you're a high or medium high risk driver?
I'm low risk.
Quote from: CLKid on January 03, 2015, 07:52:00 PM
I'm low risk.
How long has your record been clean?
Quote from: dazzleman on January 03, 2015, 08:05:07 PM
How long has your record been clean?
At least 10 years.
Quote from: CLKid on January 03, 2015, 08:06:52 PM
At least 10 years.
Then you're low risk, at least on paper.
I went 14 years between speeding tickets but my driving never changed. All that time I was low risk, but now I'd be considered higher risk, at least for a while. The only thing that happened is that I got nailed doing something I've been doing all along. It's all pretty random, but no system is perfect.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 03, 2015, 08:12:19 PM
Then you're low risk, at least on paper.
Good driving records are about not getting caught as much as obeying the laws. Everyone probably commits at least one ticketable offense on a 20 mile drive.
I live in a small town, I'm retired , some weeks I put as little as 20 miles on the cars and truck. So on paper, yeah, low risk.
That aside, I'm a pretty decent driver.
Quote from: CLKid on January 03, 2015, 08:20:26 PM
Good driving records are about not getting caught as much as obeying the laws. Everyone probably commits at least one ticketable offense on a 20 mile drive.
I live in a small town, I'm retired , some weeks I put as little as 20 miles on the cars and truck. So on paper, yeah, low risk.
That aside, I'm a pretty decent driver.
Or if you get nailed, make sure it happens out of state. I switched insurance companies this past year and got a big reduction in my rates because of my perfect driving record, since my recent ticket never came up on the license check because I got it in a neighboring state.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 03, 2015, 08:26:43 PM
Or if you get nailed, make sure it happens out of state. I switched insurance companies this past year and got a big reduction in my rates because of my perfect driving record, since my recent ticket never came up on the license check because I got it in a neighboring state.
Most states share ticket data via the Driver's license compact. I'd bet you got that ticket in Mass., they aren't part of the compact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_License_Compact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_License_Compact)
Quote from: CLKid on January 03, 2015, 08:32:29 PM
Most states share ticket data via the Driver's license compact. I'd bet you got that ticket in Mass., they aren't part of the compact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_License_Compact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_License_Compact)
New York, actually. It may have been reported to Connecticut but as it was explained to me, they only actually apply more serious out of state offenses like DWI to your a Connecticut license.
I would be surprised if a single ticket in 14 years really put you in a higher risk group, at least as far as affecting your rates. Educated guess is two tickets in five years or worse.
Quote from: Rupert on January 03, 2015, 08:33:42 PM
I would be surprised if a single ticket in 14 years really put you in a higher risk group, at least as far as affecting your rates. Educated guess is two tickets in five years or worse.
Insurance companies just look at your record in the prior 3 years. If you're looking to change companies, they'll hold even one ticket against you. If you stay with the same insurance company, it will probably slide as long as you don't have an accident.
Quote from: Rupert on January 03, 2015, 08:33:42 PM
I would be surprised if a single ticket in 14 years really put you in a higher risk group, at least as far as affecting your rates. Educated guess is two tickets in five years or worse.
Anymore one ticket can get you about a 15% surcharge, 2 a 30% and 3 up to 50%+. That's gonna vary by insurance co. This was from a web site discussing insurance premiums.
Quote from: CLKid on January 03, 2015, 07:35:46 PM
I'm sure insurance companies can trot out reams of data and studies that show for the insured population as a whole there is a positive correlation between moving violation history and claim history. There will always be exceptions; the driver who is unsafe and is never ticketed and the gal who constantly exceeds the speed limit safely because she is an exceptional driver, or just lucky. But insurance companies don't really set rates for individuals, the set rates for groups of drivers. Exhibit behavior that puts you in a high risk group and you get treated as a member of that group whether you are an excellent, average or below average driver.
Common sense will tell you that statistically the driver that runs stop signs and red lights, tailgates, passes in no passing zones, makes illegal turns and speeds is more likely to be involved in an accident.
Of all moving traffic citations given, what % are for materially dangerous behavior - running red lights, illegal turns, tailgating, etc.? My hunch is it's preciously small, with most citations being of the speeding variety which I'd bet in the majority if not most cases is not materially dangerous.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 03, 2015, 09:48:49 PM
Of all moving traffic citations given, what % are for materially dangerous behavior - running red lights, illegal turns, tailgating, etc.? My hunch is it's preciously small, with most citations being of the speeding variety which I'd bet in the majority if not most cases is not materially dangerous.
That was the point I was originally making. Since speed limits are often set too low, we have effectively criminalized a decent amount of safe driving, so just the fact of having a couple of speeding tickets does not automatically indicate unsafe driving. Insurance aside, I always thought that was the problem with enforcing speed limits that are too low -- they blur the line between unsafe driving, and driving that is safe but technically illegal. Having a safe but illegal speeding ticket may indicate a propensity to disregard rules under certain circumstances (something most people do), but not necessarily being a bad driver.
Quote from: CLKid on January 03, 2015, 07:35:46 PM
I'm sure insurance companies can trot out reams of data and studies that show for the insured population as a whole there is a positive correlation between moving violation history and claim history. There will always be exceptions; the driver who is unsafe and is never ticketed and the gal who constantly exceeds the speed limit safely because she is an exceptional driver, or just lucky. But insurance companies don't really set rates for individuals, the set rates for groups of drivers. Exhibit behavior that puts you in a high risk group and you get treated as a member of that group whether you are an excellent, average or below average driver.
Common sense will tell you that statistically the driver that runs stop signs and red lights, tailgates, passes in no passing zones, makes illegal turns and speeds is more likely to be involved in an accident.
Yes, insurers can produce studies. Of course any studies that they paid for but showed opposite data will conveniently not get published by them.
It seems a conflict of interest to fund speed measuring equipment when insurers will profit from the results of that equipment over time and have also lobbied the state to make auto insurance mandatory. I liken it to shooting fish in a barrel and living off the misery of the public. To be sure, the state and private insurers both profit and the results seem sinister and based on the result: money for the state and a private concern. Moreover, if you are someone who spends a lot of time on the road every year or earn a living trucking, the odds of traffic citations increase naturally. But are truckers anymore likely to cause fatalities or accidents? The system seems arbitrary and capricious. If this is about safety, the public needs to pay for speed measuring equipment and it's maintenance. Then the public has a say at election time based on results and independent journalism. The feedback loop to local law enforcement is necessary. This would be gifting for quid-pro-quo.
If I have to spell it out...
- company XYZ buy a department speed measuring equipment (and maybe train)
- department writes tickets
- convictions/no shows/plea of guilty go into a database in the sky with a point scheme and an arbitrary time that varies from state to state
- company XYZ collects based on a point scheme which is different from state to state with a blackbox how those points are set
And there seems to be a growing and lucrative system in some states whereby if one gets a ticket, the records are culled and all of a sudden there's a stack of mail in the accused's mailbox soliciting for legal services and pleas to the court. Make no mistakes, this is a rigged system dedicated to the collection of revenue for all players.
Furthermore, states have passed legislation that fines may not go towards the coffers of state bureaucrats. In a neighboring state for example, fines go towards the educators pension fund. Suddenly, "fines" are low and "court costs" are high. A convenient way to get around the legislation. To me, it seems like sinister revenue collection scheme by state governments with insurers in tow. Reckless driving needs to be punished. That's not what we have today.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 04, 2015, 05:22:55 AM
That was the point I was originally making. Since speed limits are often set too low, we have effectively criminalized a decent amount of safe driving, so just the fact of having a couple of speeding tickets does not automatically indicate unsafe driving. Insurance aside, I always thought that was the problem with enforcing speed limits that are too low -- they blur the line between unsafe driving, and driving that is safe but technically illegal. Having a safe but illegal speeding ticket may indicate a propensity to disregard rules under certain circumstances (something most people do), but not necessarily being a bad driver.
I'll ignore the labels "safe driver", "low risk", etc. and focus on the actions of drivers and insurance companies. None of this is rocket science.
We are stuck with the current system for now. Virtually no one likes the current auto insurance system but I've never seen anyone come up with a better system that's actually workable.
If one thinks the current speed limits are too low one has two options; drive at or under the limit and get where you are going a bit later, or exceed the limit and face the potential of being ticketed.
If you get a ticket you face immediate expenses with the legal system and the possibility of higher insurance costs later on.
The law enforcement system, legal system and insurance companies with rare exceptions do not care whether you were speeding safely or not. They, with rare exceptions don't care how good a driver one is (or thinks he or she is). We can debate the motive of law enforcement and the courts but I think we would all agree insurance companies first and foremost goal is to maximize profits and increase shareholder value.
Bottom line, if one wants to commit driving violations one should be prepared to pay whatever costs are involved.
Quote from: CLKid on January 04, 2015, 09:40:36 AM
I'll ignore the labels "safe driver", "low risk", etc. and focus on the actions of drivers and insurance companies. None of this is rocket science.
We are stuck with the current system for now. Virtually no one likes the current auto insurance system but I've never seen anyone come up with a better system that's actually workable.
If one thinks the current speed limits are too low one has two options; drive at or under the limit and get where you are going a bit later, or exceed the limit and face the potential of being ticketed.
If you get a ticket you face immediate expenses with the legal system and the possibility of higher insurance costs later on.
The law enforcement system, legal system and insurance companies with rare exceptions do not care whether you were speeding safely or not. They, with rare exceptions don't care how good a driver one is (or thinks he or she is). We can debate the motive of law enforcement and the courts but I think we would all agree insurance companies first and foremost goal is to maximize profits and increase shareholder value.
Bottom line, if one wants to commit driving violations one should be prepared to pay whatever costs are involved.
Yes, I know.
Quote from: Klackamas on January 04, 2015, 09:13:08 AM
Yes, insurers can produce studies. Of course any studies that they paid for but showed opposite data will conveniently not get published by them.
If I were a betting man I'd bet studies that show a positive correlation are statistically valid.
Quote from: Klackamas on January 04, 2015, 09:13:08 AM
It seems a conflict of interest to fund speed measuring equipment when insurers will profit from the results of that equipment over time and have also lobbied the state to make auto insurance mandatory. I liken it to shooting fish in a barrel and living off the misery of the public. To be sure, the state and private insurers both profit and the results seem sinister and based on the result: money for the state and a private concern. Moreover, if you are someone who spends a lot of time on the road every year or earn a living trucking, the odds of traffic citations increase naturally. But are truckers anymore likely to cause fatalities or accidents? The system seems arbitrary and capricious. If this is about safety, the public needs to pay for speed measuring equipment and it's maintenance. Then the public has a say at election time based on results and independent journalism. The feedback loop to local law enforcement is necessary. This would be gifting for quid-pro-quo.
Looks like a conflict of interest to me as well.
Quote from: Klackamas on January 04, 2015, 09:13:08 AM
And there seems to be a growing and lucrative system in some states whereby if one gets a ticket, the records are culled and all of a sudden there's a stack of mail in the accused's mailbox soliciting for legal services and pleas to the court. Make no mistakes, this is a rigged system dedicated to the collection of revenue for all players.
The ticket is a matter of public record. I don't think this is a matter of the law enforcement agencies selling out to private enterprise. Enterprising individuals and businesses, i.e. money grubbing bloodsuckers, have found yet another method of peddling their services.
Quote from: Klackamas on January 04, 2015, 09:13:08 AM
Reckless driving needs to be punished. That's not what we have today.
Unfortunately, all too often citing for reckless driving is writing a ticket for the driver who caused an accident. Punitive tickets for violations that otherwise caused no harm is an attempt to modify behavior by punishment and an attempt to identify those drivers who are more likely to cost society more through their actions. I'd agree it's flawed.
Its all a scam. I wiolnnw er yabe full can average on a car again after this in m. Police should not be able to pull over anyone except for a criminal offense. Since when did minor civil violations become the primary goal of law enforcementm ? If it doesn't require pulling out a gunz then it doesn't require cops. Enforcing low level traffic laws doesn't make anyone drive better the roads are Stoll q cluster fuck of ignorant assholes. Mandatort 5-year driver education program and then decreace traffic enforcement to criminal voilatonsm.save money, make sager roads.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on January 05, 2015, 05:42:28 PM
Its all a scam. I wiolnnw er yabe full can average on a car again after this in m. Police should not be able to pull over anyone except for a criminal offense. Since when did minor civil violations become the primary goal of law enforcementm ? If it doesn't require pulling out a gunz then it doesn't require cops. Enforcing low level traffic laws doesn't make anyone drive better the roads are Stoll q cluster fuck of ignorant assholes. Mandatort 5-year driver education program and then decreace traffic enforcement to criminal voilatonsm.save money, make sager roads.
Have we been drinking, or are you typing this on the world's tiniest keyboard?
Quote from: CLKid on January 04, 2015, 09:40:36 AM
I'll ignore the labels "safe driver", "low risk", etc. and focus on the actions of drivers and insurance companies. None of this is rocket science.
We are stuck with the current system for now. Virtually no one likes the current auto insurance system but I've never seen anyone come up with a better system that's actually workable.
If one thinks the current speed limits are too low one has two options; drive at or under the limit and get where you are going a bit later, or exceed the limit and face the potential of being ticketed.
If you get a ticket you face immediate expenses with the legal system and the possibility of higher insurance costs later on.
The law enforcement system, legal system and insurance companies with rare exceptions do not care whether you were speeding safely or not. They, with rare exceptions don't care how good a driver one is (or thinks he or she is). We can debate the motive of law enforcement and the courts but I think we would all agree insurance companies first and foremost goal is to maximize profits and increase shareholder value.
Bottom line, if one wants to commit driving violations one should be prepared to pay whatever costs are involved.
Third options - drive however one pleases and just get a lawyer ;).
There's a very easy way to fix the system. End the monopoly (i.e., government thugacracy) of the insurance industry, which will include axing insurance companies' direct line to one's (non criminal) driving record.
Quote from: Rupert on January 05, 2015, 06:26:12 PM
Have we been drinking, or are you typing this on the world's tiniest keyboard?
"Mandatort" is a perfectly cromulent word. And I think we can all agree that we need sager roads.
Mandatort: When the only option is to sue; when you must sue.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 05, 2015, 07:33:13 PM
Third options - drive however one pleases and just get a lawyer ;).
There's a very easy way to fix the system. End the monopoly (i.e., government thugacracy) of the insurance industry, which will include axing insurance companies' direct line to one's (non criminal) driving record.
How would they assess risk though?
I think it would be better to just to ban hiking rates off of moving violations. Insurers pay out based on accidents.... so accidents should be the basis of rates.
Speed limits should be adjusted to reflect modern car capabilities and general driver speed sentiments as well. 10 MPH over is pretty much the norm everywhere.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 03, 2015, 08:26:43 PM
Or if you get nailed, make sure it happens out of state. I switched insurance companies this past year and got a big reduction in my rates because of my perfect driving record, since my recent ticket never came up on the license check because I got it in a neighboring state.
Or out-of-country. Then you can really have basically zero consequences other than the fine. You should tag along with me on on of my 200kph visits to Leon. The autobahn is nothing.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on January 09, 2015, 02:33:32 PM
Or out-of-country. Then you can really have basically zero consequences other than the fine. You should tag along with me on on of my 200kph visits to Leon. The autobahn is nothing.
Somehow I think the consequences for a gringo getting nailed at that speed in Mexico would be worse.than some demerit points back at home..... :lockedup: :lol:
Quote from: dazzleman on January 09, 2015, 04:33:48 PM
Somehow I think the consequences for a gringo getting nailed at that speed in Mexico would be worse.than some demerit points back at home..... :lockedup: :lol:
No way in hell you'd get locked up. It just would be somewhat expensive. $500 tops.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on January 09, 2015, 04:35:00 PM
No way in hell you'd get locked up. It just would be somewhat expensive. $500 tops.
I could live with that. It sounds sort of fun. We'll worth the money. :rockon:
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on January 09, 2015, 12:16:09 PM
How would they assess risk though?
I think it would be better to just to ban hiking rates off of moving violations. Insurers pay out based on accidents.... so accidents should be the basis of rates.
Speed limits should be adjusted to reflect modern car capabilities and general driver speed sentiments as well. 10 MPH over is pretty much the norm everywhere.
No it's not. People in the northwest drive slow as fuck. Average speed around [this] town is probably two under the limit, and on the freeway, probably about the limit or a couple over.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 09, 2015, 04:33:48 PM
Somehow I think the consequences for a gringo getting nailed at that speed in Mexico would be worse.than some demerit points back at home..... :lockedup: :lol:
There are two types of activities in Mexico: legal ones, and expensive ones.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 09, 2015, 09:29:42 PM
There are two types of activities in Mexico: legal ones, and expensive ones.
That's a good way of looking at it.
Quote from: Rupert on January 09, 2015, 05:18:24 PM
No it's not. People in the northwest drive slow as fuck. Average speed around [this] town is probably two under the limit, and on the freeway, probably about the limit or a couple over.
15 out of the 18 Goodguys car shows include an autocross. Wanna guess which shows don't have it? Both shows in Washington.
I don't think those two things are related.
I just think it's funny.
There's also a lot of Mopar guys in the PNW and Mopar guys are usually afraid to drive their cars hard. Don't want the window sticker to fall off!
There are SCCA autocrosses all over the place, though. AKA, real racing.
Quote from: Rupert on January 10, 2015, 02:13:24 PM
There are SCCA autocrosses all over the place, though. AKA, real racing.
Real racing... against cones... that don't move unless you run them.over.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on January 10, 2015, 02:14:40 PM
Real racing... against cones... that don't move unless you run them.over.
Or have sidepipes.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on January 10, 2015, 02:14:40 PM
Real racing... against cones... that don't move unless you run them.over.
This is relative to autocross with huge overpowered American iron.
Quote from: Rupert on January 10, 2015, 06:16:26 PM
This is relative to autocross with huge overpowered American iron.
Most of them are $200k road-legal race cars and would whup the majority of SCCA cars (a lot of the drivers do SSCCA as well)
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on January 09, 2015, 12:16:09 PM
How would they assess risk though?
I think it would be better to just to ban hiking rates off of moving violations. Insurers pay out based on accidents.... so accidents should be the basis of rates.
Speed limits should be adjusted to reflect modern car capabilities and general driver speed sentiments as well. 10 MPH over is pretty much the norm everywhere.
I don't know exactly how risk would be assessed - let the free market decide. Could be anything from an affidavit on driving record, to court history, to criminal record, to credit history, to education level, to career. Or, all of those, or none of those, or nothing at all (and insurance becomes no fault).
No, no bans, or, the only ban that should be instituted is giving insurance companies direct line to one's driving record.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 10, 2015, 11:47:26 PM
I don't know exactly how risk would be assessed - let the free market decide. Could be anything from an affidavit on driving record, to court history, to criminal record, to credit history, to education level, to career. Or, all of those, or none of those, or nothing at all (and insurance becomes no fault).
No, no bans, or, the only ban that should be instituted is giving insurance companies direct line to one's driving record.
What's the difference between all those things, and a direct line to somebody's driving record? There seems to be a distinction without a difference here.
What about those new sensors that some insurance companies are asking people to take, that record the individual's driving practices?
Reality is, as CLKid pointed out earlier, there's no perfect system and never will be. Getting nailed for moving violations is pretty random, but it does provide some indication of how a person views driving responsibilities.
The current system works fine for those of us who have good credit, few accidents and scant moving violations.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 10, 2015, 11:47:26 PM
I don't know exactly how risk would be assessed - let the free market decide. Could be anything from an affidavit on driving record, to court history, to criminal record, to credit history, to education level, to career. Or, all of those, or none of those, or nothing at all (and insurance becomes no fault).
No, no bans, or, the only ban that should be instituted is giving insurance companies direct line to one's driving record.
This makes zero sense. Seems your only gripe is that the free market didn't decide. But none of the alternatives you suggested are any more rational.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 11, 2015, 10:11:33 AM
What's the difference between all those things, and a direct line to somebody's driving record? There seems to be a distinction without a difference here.
What about those new sensors that some insurance companies are asking people to take, that record the individual's driving practices?
Reality is, as CLKid pointed out earlier, there's no perfect system and never will be. Getting nailed for moving violations is pretty random, but it does provide some indication of how a person views driving responsibilities.
The current system works fine for those of us who have good credit, few accidents and scant moving violations.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on January 11, 2015, 05:03:55 PM
This makes zero sense. Seems your only gripe is that the free market didn't decide. But none of the alternatives you suggested are any more rational.
The current system is predicated on monopolies and corporatism = huge distortions in the market, particularly, assessing risk. Time and time again goofy stuff like "speeding" and HOV lane violation have been proven to not be dangerous.
The "perfect" (i.e., rational) system is one what the market decides - the market would NOT decide the current system, that is for damned sure. My hunch is, again, things would primarily tend toward assessing risk based on Things That Matter - DUI, reckless driving, eluding police, etc., and of course accidents and claims.
The sad reality of the current state of traffic enforcement is over emphasis on things that don't matter; speeding, speed traps and click-it/ticket campaigns, etc.; diverts resources away from things that DO matter like DUI, drowsy driving, distracted driving, etc.
The current system works great for me too. Owing to career, credit score, education level, etc., I have the largest discount possible through my insurance company (90th percentile driver) and I use traffic lawyers with abandon.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2015, 06:03:25 PM
The current system works great for me too. Owing to career, credit score, education level, etc., I have the largest discount possible through my insurance company (90th percentile driver) and I use traffic lawyers with abandon.
When did you last use a traffic lawyer? Seems like a while.
Probably 3 years. I use the HOV lane daily, though total mileage is way down as I've found a quicker route to work. I've gone right past state troopers but not pulled over - helps that this time of year in this area it's dark for both the morning and evening commutes.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 12, 2015, 01:50:58 AM
Probably 3 years. I use the HOV lane daily, though total mileage is way down as I've found a quicker route to work. I've gone right past state troopers but not pulled over - helps that this time of year in this area it's dark for both the morning and evening commutes.
HOV lane tickets are totally lame anyway. Maybe you need to drive faster. :devil:
But the benefit of HOV violation is near infinite. It's my favorite violation by far.
I pretty much never pay attention to speed limits but thing is in a good many cases I think speed limits are about right (or within 5-10 mph of being right). I will typically drive 10-15 mph over on the interstate but so many others are doing so as well and I now rarely if ever see state troopers speed trappin'. My hope is they've gotten smart and are de-emphasizing things that don't matter (speeding) in favor of things that do (DUI, reckless driving, gross equipment violations, esp. driving in the dark without headlights which I see pretty much every day).
Quote from: GoCougs on January 12, 2015, 08:22:11 AM
But the benefit of HOV violation is near infinite. It's my favorite violation by far.
I pretty much never pay attention to speed limits but thing is in a good many cases I think speed limits are about right (or within 5-10 mph of being right). I will typically drive 10-15 mph over on the interstate but so many others are doing so as well and I now rarely if ever see state troopers speed trappin'. My hope is they've gotten smart and are de-emphasizing things that don't matter (speeding) in favor of things that do (DUI, reckless driving, gross equipment violations, esp. driving in the dark without headlights which I see pretty much every day).
When I got my last speeding ticket, the cop told me that if I kept it to 15 over or less, I wouldn't be stopped.
Utah HOV lanes have like 0 enforcement methods. It's hilarious.
I'm told ticketing for speeding in an unmarked car in Georgia is illegal, but not enforced by the state.
Must have 3 inch lettering back and sides. Can that be right?
Sho 'nuf
O.C.G.A. § 40-8-91
GEORGIA CODE
Copyright 2009 by The State of Georgia
All rights reserved.
*** Current through the 2009 Regular Session ***
TITLE 40. MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC
CHAPTER 8. EQUIPMENT AND INSPECTION OF MOTOR VEHICLES
ARTICLE 1. EQUIPMENT GENERALLY
PART 5. EQUIPMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND EMERGENCY VEHICLES
O.C.G.A. § 40-8-91 (2009)
§ 40-8-91. Marking and equipment of law enforcement vehicles; motorist allowed to continue to safe location before stopping for law enforcement officer vehicles
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this Code section, any motor vehicle which is used on official business by any person authorized to make arrests for traffic violations in this state, or any municipality or county thereof, shall be distinctly marked on each side and the back with the name of the agency responsible therefor, in letters not less than four inches in height.
(b) Any motor vehicle, except as hereinafter provided in this subsection, used by any employee of the Georgia State Patrol for the purpose of enforcing the traffic laws of this state shall be distinctly painted, marked, and equipped in such manner as shall be prescribed by the commissioner of public safety pursuant to this Code section. The commissioner in prescribing the manner in which such vehicles shall be painted, marked, or equipped shall:
(1) Require that all such motor vehicles be painted in a two-toned uniform color. The hood, top, and the top area not to exceed 12 inches below the bottom of the window opening thereof shall be a light gray color and the remaining portion of said motor vehicle shall be painted a dark blue color;
(2) Require that any such motor vehicle be equipped with at least one lamp which when lighted shall display a flashing or revolving colored light visible under normal atmospheric conditions for a distance of 500 feet from the front and rear of such vehicle; and
(3) Require that any such motor vehicle shall be distinctly marked on each side and the back thereof with the wording "State Patrol" in letters not less than six inches in height of a contrasting color from the background color of the motor vehicle. Notwithstanding the above provisions, it shall be permissible for the commissioner to allow not more than five motor vehicles per State Patrol post to be employed in traffic law enforcement which are painted any solid color designated by the commissioner and marked with "State Patrol" in six inch high letters of a contrasting color.
(c) It shall be unlawful for any person, except persons lawfully entitled to own vehicles for law enforcement purposes, to paint, mark, or equip any motor vehicle in the same manner prescribed by this Code section or by the commissioner for law enforcement vehicles.
(d) When a law enforcement vehicle is disposed of, or is not in use for law enforcement, the lettering and colored lights must be removed. Any person using such vehicle for personal use prior to removing colored lights and lettering shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(e) Whenever a motorist driving on the roadways of this state is directed to stop by a law enforcement officer in a law enforcement vehicle marked as required under this Code section, the motorist may continue to drive until a reasonably safe location for stopping is reached. Such motorist shall indicate to the officer his or her intent to proceed to a safe location by displaying the vehicle's flashing lights or turn signal. In proceeding to a safe location, the motorist shall observe the posted maximum speed limit.
(f) An otherwise lawful arrest shall not be invalidated or in any manner affected by failure to comply with this Code section.
HISTORY: Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dec. Sess., p. 556, § 107A; Ga. L. 1966, p. 166, § 1; Ga. L. 1976, p. 208, § 1; Ga. L. 1986, p. 802, §§ 1-3; Ga. L. 1987, p. 3, § 405; Ga. L. 2006, p. 231, § 3/SB 64; Ga. L. 2006, p. 255, § 1/SB 454.
Quote from: Klackamas on January 13, 2015, 06:38:25 PM
I'm told ticketing for speeding in an unmarked car in Georgia is illegal, but not enforced by the state.
Must have 3 inch lettering back and sides. Can that be right?
NY had issued a similar directive, though it only applied to state police and not local municipalities, due to a series of police impersonation cases. However, they recently eliminated that directive.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 03, 2015, 09:48:49 PM
Of all moving traffic citations given, what % are for materially dangerous behavior - running red lights, illegal turns, tailgating, etc.? My hunch is it's preciously small, with most citations being of the speeding variety which I'd bet in the majority if not most cases is not materially dangerous.
If you are talking nonresidential roads I might be inclined to agree.
For residential areas I would argue speeding is dangerous by the very nature of the environment.
I was surprised to see Alabama roads at 60 most everywhere away from residential and commercial areas.
My problem with speed limits as they are today is that cars are safer and have much better braking and overall handling abilities. On the flip side of that drivers seem much less well trained and overall much more dangerous, partly because of the seriously reduced driver training, at least equally because of the distractions driver have now.
If the states all got together and outlawed using cell phones while driving, specifically texting, and applied seriously harsh penalties to licenses for violations, not fines but actual progrssively increasing license sanctions I would be fine raising all non-residential prima facia speeds by 10 mph.
Haven't all states banned texting? The problem is with enforcement of that ban. Not the easiest thing to catch.
Quote from: hotrodalex on January 15, 2015, 01:09:01 PM
Haven't all states banned texting? The problem is with enforcement of that ban. Not the easiest thing to catch.
Not illegal in Florida.
Quote from: MX793 on January 15, 2015, 03:08:30 PM
Not illegal in Florida.
Old people texting is even scarier than teenagers.
Quote from: hotrodalex on January 15, 2015, 04:36:07 PM
Old people texting is even scarier than teenagers.
Most of them don't drive fast enough to cause a serious accident anyway.
Until they mistake the accelerator for the brake pedal and end up driving through the wall of the nursing home.