Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Traffic Laws & Enforcement Tactics

eltonroneltonron Posts: 33
Rules of the road? Discuss 'em here.
Tagged:
«13456733

Comments

  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 11,722
    Going home I go through a traffic light that usually takes two or three cycles to get through because of the amount of traffic on this road. The road is two lanes in each direction no center lane for turning until you get to the intersection.

    Well as I am waiting in a long line of cars I see one car with its front end sticking into the left lane of oncoming traffic. I at first thought that they had to stop suddenly and veered that way to avoid hitting the car in front of them. But as I watched this guy I noticed that they would nose their way like that as if they were looking to pass.

    Well he finally gets to the point where the road widens to open up for a left turn lane (where it starts to widen but is stripped off as not a lane) this guy darts into the oncoming traffic to pass everyone on this tiny (but growing) medium. Well of course someone in front of all this who actually was following the lane markings starts to enter the left turn at it starts. Well the inconsiderate driver guns it again enters the on coming traffics left lane to pass and cut this guy off. :confuse:

    The sign said "No shoes, no shirt, no service", it didn't say anything about no pants.

  • gee35coupegee35coupe Posts: 3,475
    I don't like arbitrary use of red light cameras either. And I don't run red lights. Don't like the thought of the government monitoring my credit report, email, or phone conversations either. Excuuuuse me.

    Yeah I know.

    Luckily Texas is getting closer to reality, C@D says they raised the speed limit to 80 on some interstates. I hope they don't all die from the increase in speed.
    http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/473.asp

    And as much as I am starting to hate the republican party, if she starts talking this rubbish, I'd vote for Bush(for the first time).
    http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/06/a_notsotimely_p.html

    But if you do a google for "clinton 55 mph" the e-noise tells you that would be HUGELY unpopular.

    Here's an interesting article...
    http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060630/1019905.asp

    And an interesting blurb...
    http://online.wsj.com/google_login.html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticl- e%2FSB115223216789700182.html%3Fmod%3Dgooglenews_wsj
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 14,858
    This piece of TX legislation is a step in the right direction!! Longer term progress can be tracked when it becomes "history".

    NHTSA

    State Traffic Safety System

    http://207.59.85.19/STSI/

    Since Iowa is raising the speed limit to 70 mph, as imbedded sensors show the 85% percentile already being 69.8. I am swagging the accident and fatality rate on interstates (where the speed limits will be raised) will be the same as the year previously. This is hardly "rocket science" as the "speed kills" mantra ists would have us believe.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 11,722
    I don't like arbitrary use of red light cameras either. And I don't run red lights.

    If you don't run red lights then you really shouldn't care if they have red light cameras.

    Luckily Texas is getting closer to reality,

    Thats like saying Pluto is getting closer to the sun.

    The sign said "No shoes, no shirt, no service", it didn't say anything about no pants.

  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 14,858
    ..."If you don't run red lights then you really shouldn't care if they have red light cameras. "...

    I would not agree with the quoted sentiment at all, even as I am not a red light runner.

    But then, even the LAW (as written and adjudicated) is conflicted about this. If you are hit by a CLEARLY at fault red light runner (or you hit an obvious red light runner), in the state of CA, you as the victim can be found partially to fully at fault!!!! This is of course a travesty and dead wrong in my .02 cent opinion. However the law does state that it is against the law to proceed even when it is YOUR GREEN if it is not clear to do so. Again anyone can goggle for the EXACT wording. So as you can see in adjudicating the law MY opinion does not matter much. !!! Things are truly NOT as one would expect either from common sense or whatever one would consider rational.
  • redmaxxredmaxx Posts: 627
    The keep right except to pass rule only applies to multi lane limited access highways and not to roads with cross traffic and the ability to make left turns onto or off of. In this case it is not being inconsiderate. But driving in such a manner as to impede traffic, like driving slow right next to someone else keeping traffic from passing.

    Not in AZ. :) When it says preparing to make a left turn, it doesn't mean two miles away either. I see cars all the time driving for miles in the left lane going 5-10 under looking for their left turn.

    "28-721. Driving on right side of roadway; exceptions

    B. On all roadways, a person driving a vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall drive the vehicle in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway."
  • redmaxxredmaxx Posts: 627
    In addition to what ruking1 said, there is the muddy defintion of what the intersection actually is. I thought it was pretty clear until I read AZ's definition:

    "'Intersection' means the area embraced within the prolongation or connection of the lateral curb lines, or if none, the lateral boundary lines of the roadways of two highways that join one another at, or approximately at, right angles, or the area within which vehicles traveling on different highways joining at any other angle may come in conflict. If a highway includes two roadways thirty or more feet apart, each crossing of each roadway of the divided highway by an intersecting highway is a separate intersection. If the intersecting highway also includes two roadways thirty or more feet apart, each crossing of two roadways of the highways is a separate intersection."

    :surprise:

    You aren't supposed to get a ticket for running a red light unless you are in the area above. Simply crossing the sidewalk doesn't cut it. But, our redlight cameras will happily snap the pictures for those that aren't in and then tickets get issued. I have a particularly difficult time figuring out the extent of the intersection at off-ramps when the right turn lane curves to the right. In some places it would seem that I could make the turn without ever entering the "intersection". :confuse:
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 14,858
    I think also we should not drift too far from the "reality", in that while it is rarer than other forms of fatalities, a "T bone" accident can be very deadly and/or far more injurious. Evidently AZ and CA law is more concerned with the PC ness of it all !!?? :(
  • redmaxxredmaxx Posts: 627
    I think also we should not drift too far from the "reality", in that while it is rarer than other forms of fatalities, a "T bone" accident can be very deadly and/or far more injurious. Evidently AZ and CA law is more concerned with the PC ness of it all !!??

    What makes it more bizzare is that Phoenix is the worst for red light runners. You'd think the state with the problem at it's worst would be more interested cracking down on it (tighter laws, real posted officers), rather than slapping a band-aid on (cameras that lazy about the pictures they take).
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,161
    The best cure for redlight running is having policemen who hang around watching for those. Having cameras at certain intersections doesn't work other than to collect money. Having a real policeman moving from intersection to intersection paying special attention to red light running and blocking the intersection, et cetera, will help.

    I can show you a light 1/2 mile from two red light cameras in Dayton where it is regularly run. Why? No policemen ever in that area watchng. I've seen three cars run that light.
  • redmaxxredmaxx Posts: 627
    The best cure for redlight running is having policemen who hang around watching for those. Having cameras at certain intersections doesn't work other than to collect money. Having a real policeman moving from intersection to intersection paying special attention to red light running and blocking the intersection, et cetera, will help.

    Phoenix did that for a little while and it WORKED. Don't know why they quit though. Maybe they don't have enough officers.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,455
    I noticed a while back that many of the major intersections in town have, what look to be, cameras in them. Some even have multiple. I am not sure of their purpose other than to monitor activity at those locations. I used to see a gal sitting at these same major intersections in a state vehicle, so I wonder if they are just replacing man power with machine. I think intersection monitoring is a good tool (and cameras can record), but then it does lead to possible misuse.

    --

    I wonder if hauling 20' lumber in an 8' bed is inconsiderate. I noticed that a lot of other drivers made a point to keep ahead of me on the roadway yesterday coming home.... :D It rode perfectly though, frost heaves and wash boards be darned! It paid off to load it thoughtfully, secure it well, and slow down when necessary.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,455
    Hahahahaha. If you had not said it, fintail surely would.

    I like to think that they were really making an effort to serve the public interest. :blush:
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,689
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Cops will congregate where revenues can be raised in the most efficient manner.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,455
    Hahahah! I knew that would snag you! :P

    I would say that every road leads that direction lately! :sick:
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,689
    Indeed, including when it comes to traffic management and so-called law enforcement.
  • corvettecorvette United StatesPosts: 4,108
    Just sit at an intersection and pull over the first person who fails to signal a turn. There would be a lot less downtime waiting for someone to commit an infraction.
  • 210delray210delray Posts: 4,722
    How long before it the infamous red "read only" tag is applied?
  • gee35coupegee35coupe Posts: 3,475
    As long as the discussion has a minimum amount of constructive material, it should be okay.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,689
    I'm surprised they don't go after non-signallers...the volume would create some terrific fundage.
  • whahappanwhahappan Posts: 69
    Not as easy to sell to the masses as "speed kills." It's sad how many people fail to signal turns and lane changes. MUCH more dangerous than "speeding." But then safety and traffic enforcement have only a tenuous connection, at best :sick:
  • carlisimocarlisimo Posts: 1,280
    We do, because the speed conversations are going to happen somewhere and they were making the Inconsiderate Drivers thread an unfun place to be.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 11,722
    I don't like arbitrary use of red light cameras either. And I don't run red lights. Don't like the thought of the government monitoring my credit report, email, or phone conversations either. Excuuuuse me.

    The use of red light cameras are NOT the same as monitoring your credit report, email, or phone conversations. For one thing red light cameras are enforcing a law, they don't effect you unless you break a law.

    The sign said "No shoes, no shirt, no service", it didn't say anything about no pants.

  • socala4socala4 Posts: 2,427
    For one thing red light cameras are enforcing a law, they don't effect you unless you break a law.

    The battle over red light camera tickets in San Diego was argued based upon evidence that the timing of the lights was manipulated in order to create more violators. (The length of a yellow light will affect how many drivers can be cited for running the red light.)

    Camera enforcement create two basic problems: The results can be manipulated or inaccurate as above, and the accused effectively loses a constitutional right because of the inability to confront his accuser. Unfortunately, governments are eager enough to get the money to play with the former, while the courts will find ways to justify the latter.

    But when the state gets the chance to generate easy money by citing people with cameras, there will be strong incentives to do it. Laws should be about public safety, but if you can attach a camera to enforcing some of them, don't be surprised if there is increasing focus on revenue generation.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,689
    And it's even better in those cases where the camera company gets a cut of the revenues. Nothing wrong there...
  • socala4socala4 Posts: 2,427
    And it's even better in those cases where the camera company gets a cut of the revenues. Nothing wrong there...

    Exactly. It becomes a problem in a democracy when it becomes profitable to turn the common citizen into a criminal. If illegal acts become profitable to the government and to private companies, then the government and those private companies will be motivated to find ways for you to commit more illegal acts so that they can collect the money.

    The first problem arose when the states changed traffic offenses from being misdemeanors to infractions, because infraction law eliminates the defendant's right to a court-appointed attorney and a jury trial. This change in the system has created this very slippery slope that has gotten to the point that you are now effectively guilty unless proven innocent when it comes to traffic tickets.

    Tickets are now an important source of revenue, so large that governments develop their budgets based upon the expectation of collecting these fines. The fines have become a substitute for taxes, and because Americans are resistant to tax increases, the government would rather find back-door ways to collect your money than to just be upfront about getting the cash that they want. This can't be good for the integrity of the system.
  • gee35coupegee35coupe Posts: 3,475
    can be justified as a safety measure. But arbitrarily placing speed cameras for the sole purpose of catching someone driving above the speed limit is rather draconian. As has been debated in the other forum, going 10 or so above the speed limit is the norm in most places. Setting up a randomly placed, camouflaged camera to catch every car going above a prescribed speed will only serve to collect revenue. When the ticket comes 2 or three weeks later, I really don't see where safety is being enhanced.

    I may buy the premise that speed cameras can be justified at certain problem areas where speed may be a hazard such as school zones, but the interstate isn't one of them. Hopefully this technology requires forward facing license, since we don't have those in Ga.
  • corvettecorvette United StatesPosts: 4,108
    Hopefully this technology requires forward facing license, since we don't have those in Ga.

    Be careful what you wish for--the legislature might just decide to add forward facing plates.
  • socala4socala4 Posts: 2,427
    Hopefully this technology requires forward facing license, since we don't have those in Ga.

    In the case of red light cameras, it generally does, in that the cameras photograph both the car and the driver to identify the alleged offender. Photographing from the rear is certainly possible, but it would require additional cameras that could be coordinated to photograph both the driver from the front and the license plate from the rear.

    As has been debated in the other forum, going 10 or so above the speed limit is the norm in most places.

    If a speed limit is being routinely violated, it is probably set too low. Traffic engineers generally advise an 85th percentile standard, which sets the limit based upon prevailing traffic speeds (the limit being set at a speed that 85% of drivers do not exceed), except in rare circumstances when drivers drive too quickly for hazards present in the area, such as blind driveways, school zones, etc.

    Unfortunately, many of our limits are set by legislators who know little or nothing about highway engineering, and set limits based upon political considerations, rather than safety. This is especially true for interstates, which generally have limits set by state representatives, invariably based upon numbers that have nothing to do with what is safe for the flow of traffic.
«13456733
Sign In or Register to comment.