Although not related directly to this thread, planes and speedboats, directly and indirectly, generate both tangible benefits like economic activity, and intangible benefits related to quality of life.
"Is it really being "greedy" when the cities are struggling to meet budget shortfalls because of the economy? "
City, county, state and federal governments are absolutely being greedy, always devising new methods to tax citizens. Their "budget shortfall" should be solved by cutting costs, not trying to find new taxes.
"I thought greed only applied when you "already had enough of something and are still trying to get more of it.""
That pretty much sums up the government and taxation. They have enough of our money, yet want more.
"I'm against slow speed limits. I'm against photo radar. However, if speed limits were raised appropriately, I would no longer be a habitual "speeder." Even if speed limits were raised to 100 MPH (maximum), I'd still be against photo radar as it spits in the face of the Constitution to which I believe in. "
Exactly right. Contrary to made-up percentages posted earlier, my opposition to camera enforcement is based on due process, proving guilt and exposing the revenue motivation of government. Put speeding aside. I am opposed to people running red lights, and think they should be fined. But I'm opposed to camera enforcement of red lights. Just like with speeding, the problem is that there is no officer there to observe what happened and the ticket is mailed to the car's owner, not necessarily the driver at the time.
You have due process. You can defend yourself from a photo radar ticket just like you can a human-issued ticket.
There is ABSOLUTELY no difference in these two scenarios:
1. A human officer stops you and hands you a ticket that is a court summons. 2. A mailman hands you a letter which contains a photo radar ticket that is a court summons.
County Prosecutor Dismisses Criminal Speed Camera Citations
Top prosecutor in Maricopa County, Arizona will dismiss criminal photo radar citations on legal and constitutional grounds.
Motorists will no longer be sent to jail on the mere accusation of a machine in Maricopa County, Arizona. County Attorney Andrew Thomas yesterday announced that he will dismiss all criminal speeding and reckless driving cases brought to him when the only evidence presented is a photo radar ticket. Thomas condemned the process that imposes jail time on those accused of driving 20 MPH over the speed limit without any human witness to the alleged crime.
"The bottom line is, the way the law is written and the way our Constitution is written, to bring criminal prosecutions based on photo radar evidence only is not something our office can do, or frankly should do, given the Constitutional mandates," Thomas said.
In 2008 the legislature specifically eliminated license points from tickets issued under the statewide freeway ticketing program (view law). Lawmakers understood that motorists would be more likely to pay tickets without challenge if the only penalty was a $181 monetary fine that did not boost insurance rates or threaten a license suspension. This revised legislative language prohibits criminal prosecution.
"Notwithstanding any other law, if a person is found responsible for a civil traffic violation or a notice of violation pursuant to a citation issued pursuant to this section, the department of transportation shall not consider the violation for the purpose of determining whether the person's driver license should be suspended or revoked," Arizona Code Section 41-1722 states. "A court shall not transmit abstracts of records of these violations to the department of transportation."
Under state law, criminal speeding is a class three misdemeanor that carries license points and the possibility of license suspension, plus thirty days in jail and a $500 fine. Thomas' decision is a slap in the face to the state Department of Public Safety (DPS) which has used high-profile photo ticket arrests as a public relations tool. In August, for example, a young motorist was led in handcuffs out of the Sky Harbor International Airport with a DPS camera recording the event for distribution to local media. Last week, DPS issued another press release citing similar arrests as a justification for the automated ticketing program.
"Ongoing apprehensions of major violators are further evidence enforcement works," the press release stated. "DPS recently arrested three suspects for reckless driving and criminal speeding. Video and photos of the suspects are available on request."
Thomas says he became personally involved after looking more closely at what the state police was asking him to do.
"DPS keeps pressing us on this," Thomas said. "The cases we are receiving underscore why we have these constitutional rules. Some of the cases that were brought to my attention -- there was one case in which the defendant was male but the driver in the photo appeared to be female. In another one the age didn't match, and a much older woman, someone in her seventies, was the defendant but it appeared that someone else was driving the vehicle."
Thomas said the proper way to prosecute the crime is to have a live police officer witness the offense, identify the individual responsible and testify to these facts in court.
"You have to have a witness," Thomas said. "It isn't something you can just ignore.... The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a broad interpretation of the rights of defendants under the Confrontation Clause... Arizona courts have interpreted this clause as giving defendants the right to question and cross-examine witnesses. There is no opportunity to question or cross-examine a camera."
Thomas did not offer an opinion on the legality of the civil photo radar citations because his office does not handle them. In January, Maricopa County Justice Court Judge John C. Keegan declared the civil speed camera tickets unconstitutional (view decision). The Maricopa County Attorney's Office is one of fourteen in the state, although many of the other jurisdictions look to Maricopa County for guidance.
And until the Supreme Court does, in due course, we have the processes in the lower courts to go by, under applicable EXISTING LAWS. And I have quoted many many other refernces to the same conclusions by several other courts above, not just this one.
Also, the the reason the photo radar offence was converted into a civil offence was to avoid the due process protections because it patently could not meet the standards required.
If I follow your logic correctly, a civil fine for 12 mph over is okay, but the same process for a 22 mph over violation, is not, because the former is a civil violation and the latter is a criminal one? That is not right in my view.
Then there is this line in the same story: "In January, Maricopa County Justice Court Judge John C. Keegan declared the civil speed camera tickets unconstitutional (view decision). "
vcheng says, "If I follow your logic correctly, a civil fine for 12 mph over is okay, but the same process for a 22 mph over violation, is not, because the former is a civil violation and the latter is a criminal one? That is not right in my view."
That's HIS logic and interpretation of the law, not mine.
Exactly. There should be equal protection under the law, thus this issue needs to be clarified by higher courts all the way to the Supreme Court if need be. Until that happens, we cannot be dogmatic in our conclusions, methinks. I, for one, will wait for that to happen.
The due process that you describe is patently illegal and unconstitutional as it presently stands, no doubt in my mind.
I'm sure his road to this ruling was paved with a lot of discussion with his staff, similar to what we do here. Throw out ideas, discuss them, look up court cases, hammer out conclusion points, dismiss other points, etc.
The US Constitution applies equally across all states. It is just that some states have gone through the motions already (as shown above), and others are somewhere along the line to varying degrees, even Arizona as shown above.
The fact that there is injustice being perpetrated upon the citizens of Arizona should spur all concerned citizens to action under due processes defined by the law. The fact that it is occurring does NOT mean it is legal or right.
The only injustice being done is to the AZ people who like to drive the speed limit, being forced to listen to all the speeders whine about getting caught.
larsb: Laws in the United States in 2009 generally reflect the will of society.
So did the Fugitive Slave Act, Prohibition and the 55 mph speed limit when they were enacted. (Given that Prohibition required an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which meant that it had to be ratified by the required number of states, it can be said that Prohibition was more vetted when it passed than speed limits are today.)
The United States was a republic during those times, too.
larsb: Modern society dictates that in order to maintain civilization and not be reduced to a state of chaos, laws must be maintained and obeyed.
Driving 80 mph in the 65 mph zone doesn't cause chaos. If anything, it prevents chaos by making the flow of traffic more uniform.
larsb: A huge section, maybe up to 90% of society, is just fine with current speed limits. I don't see a protest movement marching in the streets to get them faster.
You need to pay attention more when you drive. I've driven in Arizona, and at least 90 percent of the people driving on limited access highways were exceeding the speed limit. They don't have to march on the streets...they are voting with their right foot.
Just as people didn't necessarily march on the streets to protest Prohibition. They instead went to a speakeasy for a beer.
larsb: Regardless of the speed limit, photo radar will exist to ASSIST law enforcement in monitoring the illegal behavior of excessive speeders. Even if the speed limit were 100 MPH.
Not according to Arizona officials. They just tossed out photo radar on limited access highways. Their reasons echoed the ones posted in this forum. Either photo radar opponents are having a widespread impact, or we are better informed of the pros and cons of using it as a traffic enforcement tool.
grbeck says, "Not according to Arizona officials. They just tossed out photo radar on limited access highways. Their reasons echoed the ones posted in this forum. Either photo radar opponents are having a widespread impact, or we are better informed of the pros and cons of using it as a traffic enforcement tool. "
Um, no, they didn't. Not as "a state" we didn't.
It's still used every morning on the "limited access highway" I use to commute to work. It was there this morning in fact, snapping away.
Speed limits are a safety function. No other reason to have them.
The first speed limit was the 10mph (16.1km/h) limit introduced by the Locomotive Act of 1861 (or "Red Flag Act") in the United Kingdom (automobiles were in those days termed “light locomotives”). In 1865, the revised Locomotive Act reduced the speed limit to 4 mph (6 km/h) in the country and 2 mph (3 km/h) in towns. The 1865 Act required a man with a red flag or lantern to walk 60 yards (50 m) ahead of each vehicle, enforce a walking pace, and warn horse riders and horse drawn traffic of the approach of a self-propelled machine. The replacement of the "Red Flag Act" by the Locomotive Act of 1896, and the increase of the speed limit to 14 mph (23 km/h) has been commemorated each year since 1927 by the London to Brighton Veteran Car Run.
For safety. 1901: Connecticut passes the first U.S. state law regulating motor vehicles. It sets a speed limit of 12 mph in cities and a whopping 15 mph outside.
The law was not the first U.S. speed limit, just the first for automobiles. New Amsterdam (which was yet to become New York City) decreed in 1652: [N]o wagons, carts or sleighs shall be run, rode or driven at a gallop [and] that the drivers and conductors of all wagons, carts and sleighs within this city (the Broad Highway alone excepted) shall walk by the wagons, carts or sleighs and so take and lead the horses, on the penalty of two pounds Flemish [about $150 in today's money] for the first time, and for the second time double, and for the third time to be arbitrarily corrected therefor and in addition to be responsible for all damages which may arise therefrom."
Arrests for speeding in motor vehicles also precede the Connecticut law. Cabbie Jacob German was arrested and jailed in New York City May 20, 1899, for driving his electric taxi at the "breakneck speed" of 12 mph.
The very word automobile was a new entry in the English language. When Connecticut passed its speeding-driver law, it was less than two years since the first use of the term in a major U.S. newspaper. Cleveland Plain Dealer reporter Charles Shanks used the French word automobile in a series of articles starting May 22, 1899. The name soon caught on, replacing the backward-looking horseless carriage.
State Rep. Robert Woodruff originally submitted a bill to Connecticut's General Assembly that set a motor-vehicles speed limit of 8 mph within city limits and a full 12 mph on country highways.
As passed, the law upped those limits a few miles per hour, but it specified that a driver must reduce his speed when meeting or passing a horse-drawn vehicle, and come to a complete stop if needed to avoid frightening the horses.
Slowed cars down to avoid frightening the horses and thus potentially causing injury or death the the occupants of the horse-drawn vehicle. FOR SAFETY.
Even the first Autobahn speed limit was for safety reasons:
Germany Gets First Ever Autobahn Speed Limit
Germany is famed for its Autobahn, where people can drive as fast as they like -- in some sections. Bremen officials hope the rule will lead to widespread action to tame speed devils
For the first time in the country's highway history, a German state has set a speed limit on its Autobahn, rekindling a long-running debate on curbing speed to boost road safety and combat pollution.
On Wednesday, April 9, Germany’s smallest state put speed limit signs on the last six of its 60 kilometers (37 miles) of highway, limiting car traffic to 120 km per hour (75 miles per hour).
This smashed car was forced off the road by a speeder who overtook the driver, frightening her off the road in 2003. Speeding can lead to bad accidents
“Our goal is to achieve an overall speed limit in Germany, together with other German states,” said Bremen’s top environment politician, Reinhard Loske. “This is a great day for traffic safety and sends a signal for environmental protection,” he added.
The Green Party politician also said he would start talks with his counterparts in other states about introducing a national highway speed limit.
Activists cite environment, safety
“The danger of serious accidents involving personal injury is reduced wherever there is a speed limit,” Loske said.
In theory but not in practice. Sorry. Revenue generation is a key in speed limit determinations, and enforcement practices.
Another road to hell paved with good intentions, embraced by blindly deferential pseudo-authoritarians. Just stay in the right lane where you belong, and all will be well.
Not false high ground. Uncle both an EMT and Hwy Patrolman. His wife an EMT and paramedic. His son a paramedic. His son injured in a high-speed crash, no seatbelt, permanent minor brain damage. Close friend paramedic. Other good friend an anesthesiologist, sees bad car crash victims a lot. Watched many episodes of "Life in the ER" reality/documentary series -saw and heard cops talking about crashes and high-speed wrecks.
It doesn't take a medical degree to know that high-speed crashes are a lot less damaging on the human body that lower-speed crashes. Duh.
And who gives a darn if some speed limits are revenue-related? I'll take safety to trump revenue issues every time. If slower limits lead to higher revenue and still maintain safe roads, then that's a small price for the speeders to pay.
That's a nice anecdotal story. I can see the moon, so I must be an astronaut.
An accident where someone failed to wear a seatbelt is an irrelevant story to anything regarding speed.
I see LEOs speeding for non-essential business (like meals) pretty much every day. I'd bet my life EMTs etc don't exactly have governors on their cars that cut them off at the random limit, either. Voting with their right foot...
Again, and I will type it slower this time, if it was truly about safety, we'd have limits in the 40s and nothing more.
fin says, "...if it was truly about safety, we'd have limits in the 40s and nothing more. "
That complete asinine because it fails the "reality" test. It's not realistic to think we as a country of mobile people could live with speed limits in the 40s.
It's called "balancing speed and safety."
To make your statement true, you would have to modify it to say this:
"If it were truly ONLY about safety, with ZERO OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, and not about the objective of getting transportation accomplished, then we'd have limits in the 40s and nothing more."
fin says, "That's a nice anecdotal story. I can see the moon, so I must be an astronaut."
No, one anecdotal story would not be impressive.
But an adult lifetime of reading about, hearing about first hand from people who know about it (astronauts in your failed analogy) and have suffered it, and seeing the results of speed damage can educate me.
But your anecdotal story is irrelevant. Had the kid had the brains to buckle up, he'd likely be uninjured. Had nothing to do with speed. Run a modern car into a wall at 40mph, buckled up, you'll probably walk away with nothing more than being shaken up. Do it without wearing a belt, and you might not walk again period.
Running cars into poles is more in the tradition of irrelevant red herrings.
Just as 55 or 60 or whatever the credential-free law-lovers embrace for the highest speed in the land is asinine. Who determines what is an acceptable balance? Some overpaid public sector suit appointed by someone who is appointed by someone else who is appointed by someone else who is elected by braying sheeple. It has little to do with what people will live with, rather what strikes the best balance between keeping traffic somewhat moving, and cash flow concerns.
You law-lovers who don't like to turn on your own brains simply say "leave early" and go slower, you should then be able to leave a little earlier, go 40, and be safe, yes? Just think of all the lives and money saved. Leave earlier.
"Getting transportation accomplished"....do you work for a city or state government?
fin says, "Who determines what is an acceptable balance? "
It can be YOU.
Form a political action group called "People Enraged About Outdated And Unreasonably Modest And Senseless Speeds Limits" (you can call it PEAOAUMASSL) and go to your state legislature and present to them a plan for raising speed limits while maintaining safety.
I'm sure since this has never been done before you can become quite famous and rich and a hero to the Photo Radar Haters League Of Americans (PRHLOA).
I can't see why a public sector that has done virtually nothing properly for generations is seen as the end all be all of logic and sensibility when it comes to speed limits or their enforcement.
It's not what a person knows that lets them excel in that venue. Dumb down blindly followed "laws" for a dumbed down new world order globalized population.
Three or four states and an judge in Arizona agreeing that Photo Radar is unconstitutional. And they say why it is unconstitutional.
Contrary to what was said there is a absolute difference between getting a ticket, summons, from an officer and one in the mail. It is as clear as it can be. If an officer gives it to me I must have been there to get the ticket so I was at the very least in the car. If it comes in the mail I can get a ticket or summons even if I wasn't in the country. Because the ticket is issued to the car not the driver. That is how it works. The one for the officer is confirmed on the spot the one in the mail isn't. With that obvious distinction how can anyone not see the difference? It is for that very reason Iowa and Texas has a camera ban.
Since we seem to be off the main thrust of the forum for a while now, I just wanted to indicate the levels of training required before getting a driver's license in Germany, the land of the autobahn. I would think that it would be prudent to pay attentions to the basics of driver training at a much higher level before one can even argue that higher speed limits would be appropriate in our land with the very easy driver's testing and licencing procedures.
Driving instruction in Germany· By: Deutsche Fahrlehrer-Akademie E.V.
Date: 1995-09-09
Driving instruction in Germany has gone through a process of constant improvement over a period of many decades, as can be seen from a few important milestones:
Compulsory driving licences were introduced throughout the German Reich by the Law on Motor Vehicle Traffic of May 3, 1909 and the Ordinance on Motor Vehicle Traffic of Feb. 3, 1910.
An Ordinance on the Training of Motor Vehicle Drivers passed on Mar. 1, 1921 provided the basis for the creation of the profession of "Driving Instructor", compulsory licensing of instructors and driving schools, and detailed requirements regarding the instruction given to learner drivers.
In 1957, the requirements concerning driving instructors, driving schools and the equipping of driving schools were redefined in an Ordinance on Driving Instructors for Motor Vehicle Traffic of July 23. On Aug. 25, 1969, the Law on driving Instruction for the first time regulated the professional and specialists skills required of the owners of driving schools and driving instructors themselves.
Three more ordinances served to further improve the situation: the Ordinance on the Instruction of Learner Drivers of May 31, 1976 covered theoretical and practical instruction of learner drivers, the Ordinance on the Training of Driving Instructors of May 13, 1977 laid down the nature and contents of driving instructor training, and the Ordinance on the Examination of driving Instructors of July 27, 1979 covered the testing of driving instructors.
Finally, on May 13, 1986, the probationary driving licence was introduced, the retraining of vehicle drivers who have infringed traffic regulations during the probationary period was put in the hands of licensed driving instructors, and driving instruction by lay persons was prohibited.
Basic requirements for instructors
The central figure in professional driving instruction in Germany is, of course, the driving instructor. For this reason, all those wishing to become instructors have to fulfill certain basic requirements: they must be at least 23 years of age, be suited to the profession intellectually, physically and in terms of personality, have undergone basic secondary school education followed by vocational training in a recognized subject, be in possession of a driving licence for all classes of vehicle, and have sufficient experience driving vehicles in the class for which they wish to become instructors.
Training must take place in an officially recognized training establishment for driving instructors. Candidates must demonstrate their subject expertise by taking an examination. Training last between five (minimum) and eight (maximum) months, irrespective of the class of vehicle for which the trainee wishes to become an instructor. The entire training must consists of whole-day uninterrupted courses of instruction.
The content of the training is laid down in the curriculum, which describes the subject areas and number of hours instruction required. A minimum of 700 hours' instruction are required for Class 3 (BE) at least 280 for Class 2 (CE) and at least 140 for Class 1 (A). The following subject areas are covered: principles of pedagogy and psychology; traffic regulations and hazards on the road; legal aspects; motor vehicles technology; environmental protection, energy-saving driving techniques; lesson-planning; teaching practice; safe and skillful driving techniques; legal aspects of the profession.
Testing of instructors
When training has been completed, trainee instructors are tested by state examination boards. The tests are divided into written, oral and practical sections, and a practical test of the trainee's classroom and on-road teaching skills.
The written examination involves the candidates solving problems related to traffic law and motor vehicle technology. The oral examination tests subject knowledge. The practical part tests the candidates' ability to drive a vehicles safely and skillfully in road traffic. The practical teaching test requires candidates to demonstrate their ability to teach in the classroom, and in the on-road test they demonstrate their ability to instruct learner drivers in road traffic.
Candidates who are successful in the examination and meet the other requirements receive licences as driving instructors.
Those wishing to acquire an additional qualification as instructors for probationary drivers referred back for further training have to pass a special training course, be in possession of driving instructor licences for classes 1 (A) and 3 (BE), and have the necessary instructing experience.
Further training plays an important role: it is obligatory for those responsible for retraining probationary drivers and voluntary for normal instructors. Annual participation in further training courses can, however, exempt individual instructors from inspection within the framework of the provisions for inspection of driving schools.
It is planned that in the future the training of driving instructors will be given an even stronger practical slant. At the same time, the pedagogical content will be increased, the examination system simplified and further training will become compulsory for all instructors.
Learner drivers
Learner drivers in Germany receive instruction on the basis of the Ordinance on the Instruction of Learner Drivers of May 31, 1976, which is continually updated.
This starts by describing the objectives, contents, extent and nature of driving instruction, and then lays down basic principles relating to it. Central importance is given to the organization of the theoretical and practical aspects of instruction. The driving instructor is permitted to terminate the process of instruction only when he is certain that the leaner driver involved has actually acquired the necessary knowledge and skills.
The objectives and contents of instruction consists of the learner learning to drive a motor vehicle safely and defensively with due consideration for other road users and displaying an awareness of his responsibility towards his fellow human beings and the environment. The extent and nature of instruction are designed to differentiate between theoretical and practical instruction but to ensure th
The general principles laid down for the process of instruction are that it should move "from the known to the unknown" and "from the straightforward to the difficult." The value of stimulating the direct participation of the learners through questions and discussion is stressed. Driving schools are encouraged to move away from the traditional "chalk and talk" approach towards more modern methods of teaching (e.g. group discussions).
Theoretical instruction
The following areas are covered by the theoretical teaching:
Regulations related to licensing of individuals and vehicles for road traffic.
Regulations relating to behavior in road traffic and the operation of motor vehicles; environmental protection.
In addition to this, the question of hazards on the road is extensively covered. The topic is divided into traffic observation and behavior, considerate behavior, accident risks through incapability to drive (including fatigue, alcohol); driving techniques, brakes and their function, tires. In addition to the above, there are specific contents related to the individual classes of licence.
A program of instruction divided into double teaching periods (90 minutes) must be drawn up as a basis for instruction and this may not exceed two double periods per day.
The filling in of practice multiple-choice tests does not qualify as instruction and may not be counted towards fulfillment of the minimum period of instruction, even though it is by no means "forbidden" and indeed may well be useful with regard to the multiple-choice type test eventually to be taken by learners.
The minimum number of hours instruction for theoretical instruction are laid down-for example 12 double periods for Class 3 (B).
Practical instruction
Practical instruction consists of basic instruction, extended driving sessions, advanced exercises and test preparation. The basic instruction constitutes the largest element in the practical instruction.
The location and timing of this part of the training is largely up to the individual instructor, but it is usually carried out on private or little-frequented roads. Although there are no specific time requirements, the extended driving sessions may only be carried out towards the end of the practical instruction.
These extended driving sessions are an important addition to the initial practical instruction and serve to familiarize the learner with the specific problems of driving outside built-up areas.
Minimum durations are laid down for these, and are specified as follows: at least 225 minutes must be spent driving on trunk roads or country roads with a distance of at least 50 km being travelled in any one session; at least 135 minutes just be spent driving on motorways or dual carriageways with each journey lasting at least 45 minutes; and a minimum of 90 minutes should be reserved for driving in twilight or darkness, half of this on trunk roads or country roads.
Further exercises
These extended driving sessions are followed by the so-called advanced, test-preparation phase, containing further exercises and preparation for the test itself. In all cases, the instructor may only terminate instruction when he is convinced that the learner driver involved has actually acquired the knowledge and skills required to pass the test.
The goal of driving instruction is no longer just to impart knowledge and techniques, but also to put across the social and ethical values, in other words to inculcate behavioral patterns and attitudes which are no less significant in reducing accident risks than the actual driving skills themselves.
During the process of instruction, the learner driver is made aware that he carries a high degree of responsibility towards his fellow human beings and his environment.
The success of driving instruction in Germany can be seen particularly in the declining number of fatal accidents - despite a continued increase in traffic volume. The German driving schools do not claim the sole credit for this positive development, but they have undoubtedly played a significant role in bringing it about.
Nevertheless, the specific accident risk which novice drivers represent cannot be completely eradicated, whatever the quality of the instruction they have received. This has, however, been reduced further since the introduction of the probationary driving licence in 1986.
The driving test
The driving test consists of a theoretical and a practical part. An officially recognized expert or examiner for motor vehicle traffic is responsible for the entire test. If a candidate fails, the test can be repeated. Candidates are only admitted to the practical test when they have passed the theoretical part.
The theoretical test uses multiple-choice questions to establish whether the candidate has the necessary knowledge. A candidate passes the test if he does not exceed the permissible number of errors laid down in the test statutes. The theoretical tests should, in principle, be carried out in German, but the basic material may also be examined in various foreign languages.
The practical test consists of a test drive which includes certain basic driving tasks. The tasks, which are laid down in the test statues for each class of licence, are intended to demonstrate that the candidate is capable of properly operating and controlling the vehicle. The test drive is, above all, intended to demonstrate that even in difficult traffic situations the candidate is capable of safely driving the vehicle and adapting his driving to the situation.
The driving test is also carried out on country roads and motorways. A candidate passes the practical test if the basic driving tasks are accomplished without error and during the test drive he does not commit any grave errors or accumulate an excess of minor errors.
In summary
In 1992 there were some 16,000 driving schools operating in Germany.
Eighteen autonomous Land associations with a total of some 18,000 members (including driving instructors employed) look after the interests of their members in each federal Land. Their umbrella organization is the National Driving School Association Inc. of Germany, which has its official seat in Bonn.
The organs of the National Driving Schools are: the Assembly of Members (delegates); the overall Board, made up of the chairpersons of the Land associations; the Executive Board. The main goal of the National Driving School is to further the cause of traffic safety and protection of the environment by assuring professional initial and further training of vehicle drivers. It also works to support a modern pedagogically conceived profession of driving instructor and to support and preserve private driving schools.
Had it not been for the united efforts of the driving instructors' associations and the man
That's great and all, but STILL - even the Autobahn has crashes and death.
No amount of driver training can avoid every single instance of crash possibility.
Even NASCAR drivers have wrecks in their personal vehicles sometimes: The 45-year-old Waltrip is starting his third season in the dual role of driver and owner of Michael Waltrip Racing, an endeavor he said mentally drained him and affected his on-track performance. He's not won a race since 2003 when he still drove for Dale Earnhardt Inc., and he's had just four top-10 finishes since leaving DEI at the end of the 2005 season to start his own team.
But building from the ground up was an enormous undertaking, and Waltrip had plenty of bumps along the way. He embarrassed himself and new manufacturer Toyota with a cheating scandal during the 2007 Daytona 500, and was later involved in a bizarre incident where he wrecked his personal car and a neighbor saw him climb from the overturned vehicle before walking home through the woods in his socks.
That is why I bolded this section, in addition to others:
Nevertheless, the specific accident risk which novice drivers represent cannot be completely eradicated, whatever the quality of the instruction they have received. This has, however, been reduced further since the introduction of the probationary driving licence in 1986.
larsb wrote: "That's great and all, but STILL - even the Autobahn has crashes and death. "
That is correct. In despite of the huge effort in training, maintenance and enforcement, there are still deaths and injuries on the autobahn. The rate is LESS than on our highways, as I posted earlier, but if we were to make autobahn speeds applicable on our highways, I would be willing to bet that our death rates would be much much higher still, given our present drivers, roads and vehicles.
Thanks. I am aware of that board. It has a very narrow focus, and that is ok. I was thinking of something a little more general. A number of years ago, Edmunds had a board with a topic asking if speed limits were even needed.
Maybe we can suggest a new board to the Moderators along the lines of "Speed Limits: Standards and Enforcement" but I can predict that it would be very difficult to moderate.
Of course those who complain the most on this board can point to their exemplary record of "doing" a number of things to amend, revoke or change unjust laws. Letters to: State Representative, Senators, US Representative, Senator, State DOT, County DOT, City DOT, Township DOT. Letters to newspapers, magazines. Organizer, as in example of Obama "community organizer", to find people sharing similar concern of an issue (unfair law) to marshall forces, get movement, show quantity of people sharing same view and getting effective attention and action of appropriate government officials that resulted in change of law.
Complainers of photo radar might list their efforts beyond just whinning.
If photo radar whinners are poor at organizing skills, no doubt groups like Code Pink might offer tips or seminars on how-to-do. Just think, a photo radar group could appear at hearings in state, city, county legiislatures wearing hats in likeness of stoplights, cameras, ala Packer Cheeseheads. They could sit in the gallery and make a scene once in awhile to get on TV.
Redflex photo enforcement profit up, but less than it should have been, because of legal blunders.
While most companies are struggling to hold losses to a minimum in the current economic environment, the leading Australian provider of red light cameras and speed cameras yesterday reported explosive growth in its US operations. Redflex Traffic Systems collected 49.3 percent more in revenue from American motorists than it had pocketed six months ago. This strong performance, however, was offset by a series of blunders that converted what should have been a 26 percent increase in net profits after tax into a net decrease of 11 percent. A nationwide traffic decline has cut into the number of expected tickets and, the company noted, more of those who receive tickets are simply refusing to pay -- costing the company A$1.1 million in revenue.
"We are starting to see a significant reduction in collection rates on many of our programs where we are remunerated on a per-ticket basis," the Redflex half-yearly report to Australian investors stated. "We believe the economic downturn in the USA is a major contributing factor to this."
Other losses can be attributed to avoidable missteps. Lawsuits filed by Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions (ATS) over its Australian rival's illegal use of uncertified radar equipment cost A$616,000 in legal fees, fines and compliance costs. The company lost another A$1.1 million after it failed to mail a contract renewal application on time to the city of Knoxville, Tennessee and after El Monte, California dumped Redflex cameras because they created a documented increase in collisions.
Redflex spent A$155,000 in an unsuccessful effort to promote itself to larger companies that had expressed interest in buying the photo ticketing operation. Redflex spent another A$365,000 in moving its US offices to a luxurious new complex at the Pinnacle Peak Commerce Center in Phoenix, Arizona.
On the positive side, Redflex cited a number of developments favorable to its bottom line. An 88 percent boost in the number of cities signing up for speed cameras over the past half-year helped revenue growth. Each speed camera ticket paid in US dollars was converted into ten percent more Australian dollars thanks to the strengthening of the US dollar over the past six months.
Redflex also cited promising new technologies that would keep cities interested deploying the company's cameras. For example, new license plate recognition features can now be used in "identifying vehicles of interest" by tracking and identifying every vehicle that passes a Redflex camera, regardless of whether any traffic infraction has been committed or not. Redflex will also offer tickets using black and white photography to save money. It will offer "Remote adjudication processing" to allow idle operators sitting in the fully automated speed camera vans to process citations. The Australian company is also extending its offerings with Noise Ticket Cameras and cameras to automatically ticket any vehicle deemed too heavy.
"We expect to see the growth in the USA market continue," the Redflex report stated. "As the clear leader in that potential multi-billion dollar market which is less than 10 percent penetrated at this stage, the opportunities for growth are enormous, and Redflex is well positioned and equipped to capitalize on the continued expansion of the market."
Overall, the market was not impressed by the Redflex announcement. Shares plunged 25 cents from $3.05 to $2.80 upon its release.
Comments
City, county, state and federal governments are absolutely being greedy, always devising new methods to tax citizens. Their "budget shortfall" should be solved by cutting costs, not trying to find new taxes.
"I thought greed only applied when you "already had enough of something and are still trying to get more of it.""
That pretty much sums up the government and taxation. They have enough of our money, yet want more.
I'm against photo radar.
However, if speed limits were raised appropriately, I would no longer be a habitual "speeder." Even if speed limits were raised to 100 MPH (maximum), I'd still be against photo radar as it spits in the face of the Constitution to which I believe in. "
Exactly right. Contrary to made-up percentages posted earlier, my opposition to camera enforcement is based on due process, proving guilt and exposing the revenue motivation of government. Put speeding aside. I am opposed to people running red lights, and think they should be fined. But I'm opposed to camera enforcement of red lights. Just like with speeding, the problem is that there is no officer there to observe what happened and the ticket is mailed to the car's owner, not necessarily the driver at the time.
There is ABSOLUTELY no difference in these two scenarios:
1. A human officer stops you and hands you a ticket that is a court summons.
2. A mailman hands you a letter which contains a photo radar ticket that is a court summons.
Same result. Defend yourself in the same manner.
from: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2698.asp
County Prosecutor Dismisses Criminal Speed Camera Citations
Top prosecutor in Maricopa County, Arizona will dismiss criminal photo radar citations on legal and constitutional grounds.
Motorists will no longer be sent to jail on the mere accusation of a machine in Maricopa County, Arizona. County Attorney Andrew Thomas yesterday announced that he will dismiss all criminal speeding and reckless driving cases brought to him when the only evidence presented is a photo radar ticket. Thomas condemned the process that imposes jail time on those accused of driving 20 MPH over the speed limit without any human witness to the alleged crime.
"The bottom line is, the way the law is written and the way our Constitution is written, to bring criminal prosecutions based on photo radar evidence only is not something our office can do, or frankly should do, given the Constitutional mandates," Thomas said.
In 2008 the legislature specifically eliminated license points from tickets issued under the statewide freeway ticketing program (view law). Lawmakers understood that motorists would be more likely to pay tickets without challenge if the only penalty was a $181 monetary fine that did not boost insurance rates or threaten a license suspension. This revised legislative language prohibits criminal prosecution.
"Notwithstanding any other law, if a person is found responsible for a civil traffic violation or a notice of violation pursuant to a citation issued pursuant to this section, the department of transportation shall not consider the violation for the purpose of determining whether the person's driver license should be suspended or revoked," Arizona Code Section 41-1722 states. "A court shall not transmit abstracts of records of these violations to the department of transportation."
Under state law, criminal speeding is a class three misdemeanor that carries license points and the possibility of license suspension, plus thirty days in jail and a $500 fine. Thomas' decision is a slap in the face to the state Department of Public Safety (DPS) which has used high-profile photo ticket arrests as a public relations tool. In August, for example, a young motorist was led in handcuffs out of the Sky Harbor International Airport with a DPS camera recording the event for distribution to local media. Last week, DPS issued another press release citing similar arrests as a justification for the automated ticketing program.
"Ongoing apprehensions of major violators are further evidence enforcement works," the press release stated. "DPS recently arrested three suspects for reckless driving and criminal speeding. Video and photos of the suspects are available on request."
Thomas says he became personally involved after looking more closely at what the state police was asking him to do.
"DPS keeps pressing us on this," Thomas said. "The cases we are receiving underscore why we have these constitutional rules. Some of the cases that were brought to my attention -- there was one case in which the defendant was male but the driver in the photo appeared to be female. In another one the age didn't match, and a much older woman, someone in her seventies, was the defendant but it appeared that someone else was driving the vehicle."
Thomas said the proper way to prosecute the crime is to have a live police officer witness the offense, identify the individual responsible and testify to these facts in court.
"You have to have a witness," Thomas said. "It isn't something you can just ignore.... The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a broad interpretation of the rights of defendants under the Confrontation Clause... Arizona courts have interpreted this clause as giving defendants the right to question and cross-examine witnesses. There is no opportunity to question or cross-examine a camera."
Thomas did not offer an opinion on the legality of the civil photo radar citations because his office does not handle them. In January, Maricopa County Justice Court Judge John C. Keegan declared the civil speed camera tickets unconstitutional (view decision). The Maricopa County Attorney's Office is one of fourteen in the state, although many of the other jurisdictions look to Maricopa County for guidance.
The Supreme Court, as we reviewed earlier, has never ruled on this issue as related to photo radar.
Also, the the reason the photo radar offence was converted into a civil offence was to avoid the due process protections because it patently could not meet the standards required.
If I follow your logic correctly, a civil fine for 12 mph over is okay, but the same process for a 22 mph over violation, is not, because the former is a civil violation and the latter is a criminal one? That is not right in my view.
Then there is this line in the same story: "In January, Maricopa County Justice Court Judge John C. Keegan declared the civil speed camera tickets unconstitutional (view decision). "
Please correct me as to what I may be missing.
That's HIS logic and interpretation of the law, not mine.
To me, they should be treated the same:
1. Pay it, or
2. Come to court and fight it.
The due process that you describe is patently illegal and unconstitutional as it presently stands, no doubt in my mind.
That is the best post so far by you if I may say so.
It's not illegal in Arizona. Tickets are issued and paid in the hundreds, maybe thousands, every day.
The fact that there is injustice being perpetrated upon the citizens of Arizona should spur all concerned citizens to action under due processes defined by the law. The fact that it is occurring does NOT mean it is legal or right.
So did the Fugitive Slave Act, Prohibition and the 55 mph speed limit when they were enacted. (Given that Prohibition required an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which meant that it had to be ratified by the required number of states, it can be said that Prohibition was more vetted when it passed than speed limits are today.)
The United States was a republic during those times, too.
larsb: Modern society dictates that in order to maintain civilization and not be reduced to a state of chaos, laws must be maintained and obeyed.
Driving 80 mph in the 65 mph zone doesn't cause chaos. If anything, it prevents chaos by making the flow of traffic more uniform.
larsb: A huge section, maybe up to 90% of society, is just fine with current speed limits. I don't see a protest movement marching in the streets to get them faster.
You need to pay attention more when you drive. I've driven in Arizona, and at least 90 percent of the people driving on limited access highways were exceeding the speed limit. They don't have to march on the streets...they are voting with their right foot.
Just as people didn't necessarily march on the streets to protest Prohibition. They instead went to a speakeasy for a beer.
larsb: Regardless of the speed limit, photo radar will exist to ASSIST law enforcement in monitoring the illegal behavior of excessive speeders. Even if the speed limit were 100 MPH.
Not according to Arizona officials. They just tossed out photo radar on limited access highways. Their reasons echoed the ones posted in this forum. Either photo radar opponents are having a widespread impact, or we are better informed of the pros and cons of using it as a traffic enforcement tool.
No comment.
Um, no, they didn't. Not as "a state" we didn't.
It's still used every morning on the "limited access highway" I use to commute to work. It was there this morning in fact, snapping away.
The first speed limit was the 10mph (16.1km/h) limit introduced by the Locomotive Act of 1861 (or "Red Flag Act") in the United Kingdom (automobiles were in those days termed “light locomotives”). In 1865, the revised Locomotive Act reduced the speed limit to 4 mph (6 km/h) in the country and 2 mph (3 km/h) in towns. The 1865 Act required a man with a red flag or lantern to walk 60 yards (50 m) ahead of each vehicle, enforce a walking pace, and warn horse riders and horse drawn traffic of the approach of a self-propelled machine. The replacement of the "Red Flag Act" by the Locomotive Act of 1896, and the increase of the speed limit to 14 mph (23 km/h) has been commemorated each year since 1927 by the London to Brighton Veteran Car Run.
For safety.
1901: Connecticut passes the first U.S. state law regulating motor vehicles. It sets a speed limit of 12 mph in cities and a whopping 15 mph outside.
The law was not the first U.S. speed limit, just the first for automobiles. New Amsterdam (which was yet to become New York City) decreed in 1652:
[N]o wagons, carts or sleighs shall be run, rode or driven at a gallop [and] that the drivers and conductors of all wagons, carts and sleighs within this city (the Broad Highway alone excepted) shall walk by the wagons, carts or sleighs and so take and lead the horses, on the penalty of two pounds Flemish [about $150 in today's money] for the first time, and for the second time double, and for the third time to be arbitrarily corrected therefor and in addition to be responsible for all damages which may arise therefrom."
Arrests for speeding in motor vehicles also precede the Connecticut law. Cabbie Jacob German was arrested and jailed in New York City May 20, 1899, for driving his electric taxi at the "breakneck speed" of 12 mph.
The very word automobile was a new entry in the English language. When Connecticut passed its speeding-driver law, it was less than two years since the first use of the term in a major U.S. newspaper. Cleveland Plain Dealer reporter Charles Shanks used the French word automobile in a series of articles starting May 22, 1899. The name soon caught on, replacing the backward-looking horseless carriage.
State Rep. Robert Woodruff originally submitted a bill to Connecticut's General Assembly that set a motor-vehicles speed limit of 8 mph within city limits and a full 12 mph on country highways.
As passed, the law upped those limits a few miles per hour, but it specified that a driver must reduce his speed when meeting or passing a horse-drawn vehicle, and come to a complete stop if needed to avoid frightening the horses.
Slowed cars down to avoid frightening the horses and thus potentially causing injury or death the the occupants of the horse-drawn vehicle. FOR SAFETY.
Even the first Autobahn speed limit was for safety reasons:
Germany Gets First Ever Autobahn Speed Limit
Germany is famed for its Autobahn, where people can drive as fast as they like -- in some sections. Bremen officials hope the rule will lead to widespread action to tame speed devils
For the first time in the country's highway history, a German state has set a speed limit on its Autobahn, rekindling a long-running debate on curbing speed to boost road safety and combat pollution.
On Wednesday, April 9, Germany’s smallest state put speed limit signs on the last six of its 60 kilometers (37 miles) of highway, limiting car traffic to 120 km per hour (75 miles per hour).
This smashed car was forced off the road by a speeder who overtook the driver, frightening her off the road in 2003. Speeding can lead to bad accidents
“Our goal is to achieve an overall speed limit in Germany, together with other German states,” said Bremen’s top environment politician, Reinhard Loske. “This is a great day for traffic safety and sends a signal for environmental protection,” he added.
The Green Party politician also said he would start talks with his counterparts in other states about introducing a national highway speed limit.
Activists cite environment, safety
“The danger of serious accidents involving personal injury is reduced wherever there is a speed limit,” Loske said.
Speed limits and safety are inexorably linked.
Just a gentle reminder
If you want higher speed limits, then PLEASE form a consumer alliance and work toward getting the laws passed.
The Photo Radar Forum at Edmunds is not a place where any complaining about speed limits will do you an iota of good. PLEASE.
PLEASE don't complain about ENFORCEMENT tactics when what you really want HIGHER SPEED LIMITS.
Thanks for your attention. Thank you.
Enforcement will always be there, regardless of the speed limits.
Another road to hell paved with good intentions, embraced by blindly deferential pseudo-authoritarians. Just stay in the right lane where you belong, and all will be well.
I would have added a few pleases and thankyous, but the message is correct.
We do need speed limits on our highways. Enforcement by police is absolutely a part of the speed limits requirements.
And like larsb says, that discussion belongs in another forum, thank you very much!
However, we can ALL continue there if that is what it takes to have a good discussion. See you guys there!
Ask an EMT or a Firefighter if speed kills.
Ask a State Trooper how many survivable accidents have been rendered unsurvivable by excessive speed.
The "speed doesn't kill" card is played only by people who like to speed.
It's not anyone's reality.
You haven't been a first responder either, so it would be in your best interests to drop that false high ground.
If it was all about safety, there would be a 45mph limit max, and photo radar every 100 yards with 1mph leeway. Your dream world.
It doesn't take a medical degree to know that high-speed crashes are a lot less damaging on the human body that lower-speed crashes. Duh.
And who gives a darn if some speed limits are revenue-related? I'll take safety to trump revenue issues every time. If slower limits lead to higher revenue and still maintain safe roads, then that's a small price for the speeders to pay.
An accident where someone failed to wear a seatbelt is an irrelevant story to anything regarding speed.
I see LEOs speeding for non-essential business (like meals) pretty much every day. I'd bet my life EMTs etc don't exactly have governors on their cars that cut them off at the random limit, either. Voting with their right foot...
Again, and I will type it slower this time, if it was truly about safety, we'd have limits in the 40s and nothing more.
That complete asinine because it fails the "reality" test. It's not realistic to think we as a country of mobile people could live with speed limits in the 40s.
It's called "balancing speed and safety."
To make your statement true, you would have to modify it to say this:
"If it were truly ONLY about safety, with ZERO OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, and not about the objective of getting transportation accomplished, then we'd have limits in the 40s and nothing more."
In that
This forum is not about speed either, but you sure do seem to want to discuss it a lot.
But to refute your statement: Try these tests:
Run your car 25 mph into a pole, no seatbelt.
Run your car 75 mph into said pole, no seatbelt.
Which one would damage your body the most?
So you see, yes, seatbelts and speed are not irrelevant when it comes to crashes.
No, one anecdotal story would not be impressive.
But an adult lifetime of reading about, hearing about first hand from people who know about it (astronauts in your failed analogy) and have suffered it, and seeing the results of speed damage can educate me.
Running cars into poles is more in the tradition of irrelevant red herrings.
You law-lovers who don't like to turn on your own brains simply say "leave early" and go slower, you should then be able to leave a little earlier, go 40, and be safe, yes? Just think of all the lives and money saved. Leave earlier.
"Getting transportation accomplished"....do you work for a city or state government?
Just keep your slowpoke self in the right lane where you belong.
It can be YOU.
Form a political action group called "People Enraged About Outdated And Unreasonably Modest And Senseless Speeds Limits" (you can call it PEAOAUMASSL) and go to your state legislature and present to them a plan for raising speed limits while maintaining safety.
I'm sure since this has never been done before you can become quite famous and rich and a hero to the Photo Radar Haters League Of Americans (PRHLOA).
It's not what a person knows that lets them excel in that venue. Dumb down blindly followed "laws" for a dumbed down new world order globalized population.
Get yourself a PAC and go tell Congress how outdated their speed limit system is.
Contrary to what was said there is a absolute difference between getting a ticket, summons, from an officer and one in the mail. It is as clear as it can be. If an officer gives it to me I must have been there to get the ticket so I was at the very least in the car. If it comes in the mail I can get a ticket or summons even if I wasn't in the country. Because the ticket is issued to the car not the driver. That is how it works. The one for the officer is confirmed on the spot the one in the mail isn't. With that obvious distinction how can anyone not see the difference? It is for that very reason Iowa and Texas has a camera ban.
If you don't vote, you don't have a say in who runs the joint. Vote, and you do.
from: http://www.drivers.com/article/380/
Driving instruction in Germany· By: Deutsche Fahrlehrer-Akademie E.V.
Date: 1995-09-09
Driving instruction in Germany has gone through a process of constant improvement over a period of many decades, as can be seen from a few important milestones:
Compulsory driving licences were introduced throughout the German Reich by the Law on Motor Vehicle Traffic of May 3, 1909 and the Ordinance on Motor Vehicle Traffic of Feb. 3, 1910.
An Ordinance on the Training of Motor Vehicle Drivers passed on Mar. 1, 1921 provided the basis for the creation of the profession of "Driving Instructor", compulsory licensing of instructors and driving schools, and detailed requirements regarding the instruction given to learner drivers.
In 1957, the requirements concerning driving instructors, driving schools and the equipping of driving schools were redefined in an Ordinance on Driving Instructors for Motor Vehicle Traffic of July 23. On Aug. 25, 1969, the Law on driving Instruction for the first time regulated the professional and specialists skills required of the owners of driving schools and driving instructors themselves.
Three more ordinances served to further improve the situation: the Ordinance on the Instruction of Learner Drivers of May 31, 1976 covered theoretical and practical instruction of learner drivers, the Ordinance on the Training of Driving Instructors of May 13, 1977 laid down the nature and contents of driving instructor training, and the Ordinance on the Examination of driving Instructors of July 27, 1979 covered the testing of driving instructors.
Finally, on May 13, 1986, the probationary driving licence was introduced, the retraining of vehicle drivers who have infringed traffic regulations during the probationary period was put in the hands of licensed driving instructors, and driving instruction by lay persons was prohibited.
Basic requirements for instructors
The central figure in professional driving instruction in Germany is, of course, the driving instructor. For this reason, all those wishing to become instructors have to fulfill certain basic requirements: they must be at least 23 years of age, be suited to the profession intellectually, physically and in terms of personality, have undergone basic secondary school education followed by vocational training in a recognized subject, be in possession of a driving licence for all classes of vehicle, and have sufficient experience driving vehicles in the class for which they wish to become instructors.
Training must take place in an officially recognized training establishment for driving instructors. Candidates must demonstrate their subject expertise by taking an examination. Training last between five (minimum) and eight (maximum) months, irrespective of the class of vehicle for which the trainee wishes to become an instructor. The entire training must consists of whole-day uninterrupted courses of instruction.
The content of the training is laid down in the curriculum, which describes the subject areas and number of hours instruction required. A minimum of 700 hours' instruction are required for Class 3 (BE) at least 280 for Class 2 (CE) and at least 140 for Class 1 (A). The following subject areas are covered: principles of pedagogy and psychology; traffic regulations and hazards on the road; legal aspects; motor vehicles technology; environmental protection, energy-saving driving techniques; lesson-planning; teaching practice; safe and skillful driving techniques; legal aspects of the profession.
Testing of instructors
When training has been completed, trainee instructors are tested by state examination boards. The tests are divided into written, oral and practical sections, and a practical test of the trainee's classroom and on-road teaching skills.
The written examination involves the candidates solving problems related to traffic law and motor vehicle technology. The oral examination tests subject knowledge. The practical part tests the candidates' ability to drive a vehicles safely and skillfully in road traffic. The practical teaching test requires candidates to demonstrate their ability to teach in the classroom, and in the on-road test they demonstrate their ability to instruct learner drivers in road traffic.
Candidates who are successful in the examination and meet the other requirements receive licences as driving instructors.
Those wishing to acquire an additional qualification as instructors for probationary drivers referred back for further training have to pass a special training course, be in possession of driving instructor licences for classes 1 (A) and 3 (BE), and have the necessary instructing experience.
Further training plays an important role: it is obligatory for those responsible for retraining probationary drivers and voluntary for normal instructors. Annual participation in further training courses can, however, exempt individual instructors from inspection within the framework of the provisions for inspection of driving schools.
It is planned that in the future the training of driving instructors will be given an even stronger practical slant. At the same time, the pedagogical content will be increased, the examination system simplified and further training will become compulsory for all instructors.
Learner drivers
Learner drivers in Germany receive instruction on the basis of the Ordinance on the Instruction of Learner Drivers of May 31, 1976, which is continually updated.
This starts by describing the objectives, contents, extent and nature of driving instruction, and then lays down basic principles relating to it. Central importance is given to the organization of the theoretical and practical aspects of instruction. The driving instructor is permitted to terminate the process of instruction only when he is certain that the leaner driver involved has actually acquired the necessary knowledge and skills.
The objectives and contents of instruction consists of the learner learning to drive a motor vehicle safely and defensively with due consideration for other road users and displaying an awareness of his responsibility towards his fellow human beings and the environment. The extent and nature of instruction are designed to differentiate between theoretical and practical instruction but to ensure th
The general principles laid down for the process of instruction are that it should move "from the known to the unknown" and "from the straightforward to the difficult." The value of stimulating the direct participation of the learners through questions and discussion is stressed. Driving schools are encouraged to move away from the traditional "chalk and talk" approach towards more modern methods of teaching (e.g. group discussions).
Theoretical instruction
The following areas are covered by the theoretical teaching:
Regulations related to licensing of individuals and vehicles for road traffic.
Regulations relating to behavior in road traffic and the operation of motor vehicles; environmental protection.
In addition to this, the question of hazards on the road is extensively covered. The topic is divided into traffic observation and behavior, considerate behavior, accident risks through incapability to drive (including fatigue, alcohol); driving techniques, brakes and their function, tires. In addition to the above, there are specific contents related to the individual classes of licence.
A program of instruction divided into double teaching periods (90 minutes) must be drawn up as a basis for instruction and this may not exceed two double periods per day.
The filling in of practice multiple-choice tests does not qualify as instruction and may not be counted towards fulfillment of the minimum period of instruction, even though it is by no means "forbidden" and indeed may well be useful with regard to the multiple-choice type test eventually to be taken by learners.
The minimum number of hours instruction for theoretical instruction are laid down-for example 12 double periods for Class 3 (B).
Practical instruction
Practical instruction consists of basic instruction, extended driving sessions, advanced exercises and test preparation. The basic instruction constitutes the largest element in the practical instruction.
The location and timing of this part of the training is largely up to the individual instructor, but it is usually carried out on private or little-frequented roads. Although there are no specific time requirements, the extended driving sessions may only be carried out towards the end of the practical instruction.
These extended driving sessions are an important addition to the initial practical instruction and serve to familiarize the learner with the specific problems of driving outside built-up areas.
Minimum durations are laid down for these, and are specified as follows: at least 225 minutes must be spent driving on trunk roads or country roads with a distance of at least 50 km being travelled in any one session; at least 135 minutes just be spent driving on motorways or dual carriageways with each journey lasting at least 45 minutes; and a minimum of 90 minutes should be reserved for driving in twilight or darkness, half of this on trunk roads or country roads.
Further exercises
These extended driving sessions are followed by the so-called advanced, test-preparation phase, containing further exercises and preparation for the test itself. In all cases, the instructor may only terminate instruction when he is convinced that the learner driver involved has actually acquired the knowledge and skills required to pass the test.
The goal of driving instruction is no longer just to impart knowledge and techniques, but also to put across the social and ethical values, in other words to inculcate behavioral patterns and attitudes which are no less significant in reducing accident risks than the actual driving skills themselves.
During the process of instruction, the learner driver is made aware that he carries a high degree of responsibility towards his fellow human beings and his environment.
The success of driving instruction in Germany can be seen particularly in the declining number of fatal accidents - despite a continued increase in traffic volume. The German driving schools do not claim the sole credit for this positive development, but they have undoubtedly played a significant role in bringing it about.
Nevertheless, the specific accident risk which novice drivers represent cannot be completely eradicated, whatever the quality of the instruction they have received. This has, however, been reduced further since the introduction of the probationary driving licence in 1986.
The driving test
The driving test consists of a theoretical and a practical part. An officially recognized expert or examiner for motor vehicle traffic is responsible for the entire test. If a candidate fails, the test can be repeated. Candidates are only admitted to the practical test when they have passed the theoretical part.
The theoretical test uses multiple-choice questions to establish whether the candidate has the necessary knowledge. A candidate passes the test if he does not exceed the permissible number of errors laid down in the test statutes. The theoretical tests should, in principle, be carried out in German, but the basic material may also be examined in various foreign languages.
The practical test consists of a test drive which includes certain basic driving tasks. The tasks, which are laid down in the test statues for each class of licence, are intended to demonstrate that the candidate is capable of properly operating and controlling the vehicle. The test drive is, above all, intended to demonstrate that even in difficult traffic situations the candidate is capable of safely driving the vehicle and adapting his driving to the situation.
The driving test is also carried out on country roads and motorways. A candidate passes the practical test if the basic driving tasks are accomplished without error and during the test drive he does not commit any grave errors or accumulate an excess of minor errors.
In summary
In 1992 there were some 16,000 driving schools operating in Germany.
Eighteen autonomous Land associations with a total of some 18,000 members (including driving instructors employed) look after the interests of their members in each federal Land. Their umbrella organization is the National Driving School Association Inc. of Germany, which has its official seat in Bonn.
The organs of the National Driving Schools are: the Assembly of Members (delegates); the overall Board, made up of the chairpersons of the Land associations; the Executive Board. The main goal of the National Driving School is to further the cause of traffic safety and protection of the environment by assuring professional initial and further training of vehicle drivers. It also works to support a modern pedagogically conceived profession of driving instructor and to support and preserve private driving schools.
Had it not been for the united efforts of the driving instructors' associations and the man
No amount of driver training can avoid every single instance of crash possibility.
Even NASCAR drivers have wrecks in their personal vehicles sometimes:
The 45-year-old Waltrip is starting his third season in the dual role of driver and owner of Michael Waltrip Racing, an endeavor he said mentally drained him and affected his on-track performance. He's not won a race since 2003 when he still drove for Dale Earnhardt Inc., and he's had just four top-10 finishes since leaving DEI at the end of the 2005 season to start his own team.
But building from the ground up was an enormous undertaking, and Waltrip had plenty of bumps along the way. He embarrassed himself and new manufacturer Toyota with a cheating scandal during the 2007 Daytona 500, and was later involved in a bizarre incident where he wrecked his personal car and a neighbor saw him climb from the overturned vehicle before walking home through the woods in his socks.
That is why I bolded this section, in addition to others:
Nevertheless, the specific accident risk which novice drivers represent cannot be completely eradicated, whatever the quality of the instruction they have received. This has, however, been reduced further since the introduction of the probationary driving licence in 1986.
larsb wrote: "That's great and all, but STILL - even the Autobahn has crashes and death. "
That is correct. In despite of the huge effort in training, maintenance and enforcement, there are still deaths and injuries on the autobahn. The rate is LESS than on our highways, as I posted earlier, but if we were to make autobahn speeds applicable on our highways, I would be willing to bet that our death rates would be much much higher still, given our present drivers, roads and vehicles.
Complainers of photo radar might list their efforts beyond just whinning.
from: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2697.asp
Redflex Missteps Hit the Bottom Line
Redflex photo enforcement profit up, but less than it should have been, because of legal blunders.
While most companies are struggling to hold losses to a minimum in the current economic environment, the leading Australian provider of red light cameras and speed cameras yesterday reported explosive growth in its US operations. Redflex Traffic Systems collected 49.3 percent more in revenue from American motorists than it had pocketed six months ago. This strong performance, however, was offset by a series of blunders that converted what should have been a 26 percent increase in net profits after tax into a net decrease of 11 percent. A nationwide traffic decline has cut into the number of expected tickets and, the company noted, more of those who receive tickets are simply refusing to pay -- costing the company A$1.1 million in revenue.
"We are starting to see a significant reduction in collection rates on many of our programs where we are remunerated on a per-ticket basis," the Redflex half-yearly report to Australian investors stated. "We believe the economic downturn in the USA is a major contributing factor to this."
Other losses can be attributed to avoidable missteps. Lawsuits filed by Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions (ATS) over its Australian rival's illegal use of uncertified radar equipment cost A$616,000 in legal fees, fines and compliance costs. The company lost another A$1.1 million after it failed to mail a contract renewal application on time to the city of Knoxville, Tennessee and after El Monte, California dumped Redflex cameras because they created a documented increase in collisions.
Redflex spent A$155,000 in an unsuccessful effort to promote itself to larger companies that had expressed interest in buying the photo ticketing operation. Redflex spent another A$365,000 in moving its US offices to a luxurious new complex at the Pinnacle Peak Commerce Center in Phoenix, Arizona.
On the positive side, Redflex cited a number of developments favorable to its bottom line. An 88 percent boost in the number of cities signing up for speed cameras over the past half-year helped revenue growth. Each speed camera ticket paid in US dollars was converted into ten percent more Australian dollars thanks to the strengthening of the US dollar over the past six months.
Redflex also cited promising new technologies that would keep cities interested deploying the company's cameras. For example, new license plate recognition features can now be used in "identifying vehicles of interest" by tracking and identifying every vehicle that passes a Redflex camera, regardless of whether any traffic infraction has been committed or not. Redflex will also offer tickets using black and white photography to save money. It will offer "Remote adjudication processing" to allow idle operators sitting in the fully automated speed camera vans to process citations. The Australian company is also extending its offerings with Noise Ticket Cameras and cameras to automatically ticket any vehicle deemed too heavy.
"We expect to see the growth in the USA market continue," the Redflex report stated. "As the clear leader in that potential multi-billion dollar market which is less than 10 percent penetrated at this stage, the opportunities for growth are enormous, and Redflex is well positioned and equipped to capitalize on the continued expansion of the market."
Overall, the market was not impressed by the Redflex announcement. Shares plunged 25 cents from $3.05 to $2.80 upon its release.