Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
I steal your car tonight and run 100 red light camera's, you will be the one getting the tickets! Don't you love it! Guilty until proven innocent!
I don't believe in riding the tails of people in any lane. I do believe LLC's should be executed for their offenses though. :P Preferably hanged.
More speed in and of itself doesn't mean safer driving, but my theory is that when people drive faster they pay more attention, which is the problem in the first place.
I don't believe in riding the tails of anybody in any lane. I do believe LLC's should be executed for their offenses, however
Faster speeds doesn't mean safer driving in and of itself, but my theory is that if faster driving is permitted it is perfectly safe and as people drive faster they will pay more attention to their driving, and lack of attention is really the problem in the first place when it comes to accidents and safety.
I have no plan to argue with you about some of your points but I was driving in the 70's when Nixon lowered the limits to 55 across the country and accidents/fatalities did indeed go down significantly. That was the reason people were fearful of raising them again.
It is true that in some places, accident rates did not go up when the limits were raised. Of course, people were letting speeds gradually creep up and cars got much safer since the 70's.
That is why one should look at the data presented in NHTSA (2009) and decide for themselves. Not only are the fatalities/accident rates THE LOWEST in their history (since they have been recording them), the data is actually more accurate. In addition, there are more drivers, more trips, more MILEAGE, more cars, etc., and almost literally, ad infinitum. More at issue: this is done/achieved/recorded with HIGHER to THE HIGHEST speed limits and actual real world HIGHER SPEEDS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Indeed if folks want to go sub 55 mph, it is also done with higher speed differentials.
I have linked the sites (in other posts, i.e., msg #16266) if you care to update your POV from the Nixon ERA.
Now if one has decided sub 55 mph (in a 65 mph speed limit area) is right for them, believe it or not, one is STILL free to do so. BUT if it were me and one believes/d slower is even better: use both the far right lane and one's hazard flashers. I have done that (sub 55 mph, actually 40-45 mph) in breaking in Corvette tires in 80-90 mph normal flow areas) and literally been been passed by THOUSANDS. This includes LEO's, too numerous to mention. Thankfully, this was only for app 300 to 500 miles. Literally, it was drama LESS. Now I have a host of other observations at those speeds. However I am sure it is not on topic.
This speed subject IMO brings home the perpetual inability of the public sector, whether in terms of LEOs or legislators, to deal with root causes rather than symptoms. Is speed a problem, or lack of driver training? It's easier to get a license in the US than in any other developed nation - gotta be "business friendly" and get more people driving so they can shop and live in houses built too far from workplace centers. And even so, the American obsession with speed enforcement doesn't result in particularly low casualty rates. Show me the money...
Poor credit ratings will justly increase your premium because when you are careless with your wallet, you are careless with your wheels. An accurate reflection of your degree of personal responsibility is your credit rating.
It is easy to say the system is corrupt when you don't understand how the system of insurance works.
Whoa... let's relax a bit. I think I made it clear that I wasn't going to argue anything else but the point he made about speeds being reduced to 55 (he introduced the 70's, not me.) He stated it didn't make any difference back then but that wasn't the case.
I hated the reduction to 55 and found it very difficult to keep to it, as did many others. Of course, I also hated waiting in long lines at the pump and only being able to buy gas on certain days of the week based on my license plate number.
If it costs more to defend someone because they got a few likely bogus tickets in their past then they need better lawyers. And maybe do more studies that actually show some scientific merit to the assumptions. People have their assumptions all backwards when it comes to driving safety.
However, the person at fault in an accident should pay for that accident whether they or others have insurance or not. Trying to weasel out of paying someone or admitting blame (when clearly your at fault) is just plain wrong just because you or others did or did not have insurance.
Insurance and fault are not related nor correlated in an individual case and accident (yes it seems worldwide, those without insurance do seem to be at fault more often). However, if I don't have insurance, and you rearend me for no reason, you better believe your insurance should pay, or you should pay, regardless of my insurance status. Also, "not having insurance" is a poor excuse to not pay up to somebody you caused damage to.
Well all know the further drill. Guy/gal that has insurance stops (as per another law) the guy/gal without insurance bolts. Now it is totally on the guy who has insurance to catch the guy who bolts and does not have insurance. :mad: Now you can add another realistic scenario, the guy/gal causing the accident, at fault, no insurance is also DUI. Well if you don't catch em DUI goes away. Accident fault he/she said. So now we are talking multiple charges and up to felony evasion and leaving the scene of an accident. Almost total injustice here.
:sick:
Even with that, your in trouble without serious physical evidence (problem if it's just a tap or under 5 MPH collision). You need witnesses as a minimum really, in addition to the plate number because they could deny or "forget" it ever happened. Ideally, a video dash cam would serve even better.
If the police were interested in doing some good for society, and safety in general, they'd spend 100 times more time on hit and runs and 100 times less time on trying to catch so-called "speeders."
The punishment for not having insurance should probably be increased, but I know the fines are HUGE in CA.
Just a few comments
2) There is no certifiable witness to the alleged violation.
So any crime that has no "certifiable witnesses" should not be persecuted?
So my friend whose house was broken into shouldn't expect the police to investigate the crime because there was no witness?
4) The driver of the vehicle is not positively identified.
So there should be no parking tickets issued then?
7) Cameras do not prevent most intersection accidents.
Thats debatable. They installed red light cameras in my town several years ago. The anti redlight camera crowd produced a study showing that accidents increased 50% in the 6 months after the cameras were installed over the 6 months prior. What they failed to mention the increase was from 6 to 9 and the 6 months after were winter months where you would expect more accidents due to snow and ice.
Nothing there addressed constitutional issues.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Now since that was true when speed limits were decreased we can apply the same logic to speeds increasing. If improved safety devices, increased use of seat belts and better designed roads reduce the number of deaths by say 2,000 a year and increased speeds cause and additional 750 deaths a year then the death rate will drop, just not as fast.
In fact, our speed limits today have never been higher (thank god),
I will disagree with that. \I know interstate highways that had 80 MPH limits pre 55 MPH limit that have not been over 65 mph since.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
1.) how is charging the registered owner unconstitutional, the registered owner is responsible for the car regardless of who is driving.
2.) I know people who did get a ticket when someone else was driving. They explained the situation and the city did reissue the ticket to the driver.
3.) If your car is stolen and reported in a timely manner then you are not responsible (that is unless you did something stupid like leave your car running when you went into the store).
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
You don't? See 16217.
Speed limits which are exactly that, LIMITS of safe driving for an upper class vehicle.
Now there's an enforceable speed limit! (not) First, how would such a speed limit be set? What is an "upper class" vehicle? Why should speed limits be set based on a small percentage of vehicles, likely those with the best handling? What about all the other poor schmucks who have no idea their car is no match for that road, at that limit, but a BMW 5 Series will have no problems with it?
There's a four-lane, main road near my home, it's a main drag that cuts across the entire city and is parallel to the only freeway that runs across the city. So it gets a lot of traffic. Many cars go 50+ on that road, and handling-wise it's not an issue. But the speed limit is 35, even though it could support a much higher speed. So I expect you would say that the road should have a limit of, what? 40? 45? 50? But guess what? For most of its length, the road cuts through residential areas. Front lawns open out to the road. Lawns with kids playing on them. There's a narrow sidewalk on the edges, but that's it--no other barrier.
Still think speeds should be set based on what an "upper class vehicle" can do?
People who drive fast had better pay attention to their driving... they have less time to react than at a slower speed, and when they do their vehicle will take longer to stop... or the speed at impact will be greater, take your pick.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
That's one of the major reason gunshot fatalities are going down. It's not like folks are shooting each other less, but they're just surviving their injuries more. Similarly, someone in an auto accident that's now in a coma doesn't count as a "fatal auto accident," which makes it appear there are less accidents.
Maybe someone better at internet searching than me can find a rate of ALL annual highway accidents to see if they've really been going down, or is it just the FATAL accidents.
The only real cure for that perception is to get into those web sites. However if you don't want to, or TMI, or because you feel knowledge both old and new might alter long held opinions, those are other issues.
It is sort of that old adage, you can lead a horse to water.......
Of course it's is hard to determine the "why" part, as it's a combination of many factors (better tires, antilock brakes, traction control, stronger DUI laws, etc.).
The problem with statistics is that they can be used many different ways. You could say that as cell phone usage increased, car accidents went down, but that doesn't mean that cell phone usage decreases accident rates. Sometimes you need to use commons sense and judgement beyond the statistics.
That seems fairly clear cut; not only did fatality rates go down (which would be expected due to safety advances), but crash rates also decreased.
I also wonder how they calculated the total number of miles driven when they show "accidents per 100,000 miles driven." If that number were inflated, then it would artifically reduce the number of accidents per 100,000 miles driven.
Just asking questions
So my friend whose house was broken into shouldn't expect the police to investigate the crime because there was no witness?
That's an easy answer. Short answer is no, you can still prosecute, but you do need a certifiable witness. Your example of having a house broken into and something stolen is perfect; I'll use it. I have had a car stolen from the reserved parking spot in the parking lot of the apartment I used to live at. This personal experience is the same as your example, only it's a car rather than a house. When they pulled over the vehicle 2 weeks later at 2:00 AM, there were 3 passengers in the car, they let everyone go free except the driver who was charged with grand theft auto.
They called me to the stand as a witness. I was asked on the stand: Was the car there when you left for the evening? A: Yes
Q: How did you know the car had been stolen?
A: When I got back home, it wasn't where we had left it.
So there is a witness to the crime, even though I didn't witness the event and actual occurrence of the crime; I knew a crime had been committed because I had before and after experience.
In the case of an alleged traffice violation, since there is no victim (99.99999%) of the time, there is no one to testify to any harm done. There is no one to question, since you can't question a camera. There was no camera operator, there was no witness. An officer's testimony is hearsay and inadmissible and unconstitutional. You cannot confront an accuser in court and therefore the whole system is CLEARLY and without a doubt 100% Unconstitutional. You are also presumed guilty until proven innocent, which is another problem. The way they do it in CA, they also violate the 5th Amendment, because they make you accuse someone if you claim you were not the driver, or they assume you guilty.
So there should be no parking tickets issued then?
Correct, the parking ticket industry is a big scam and due process rights are denied to victims of the tickets. However, parking tickets do serve a purpose, so the system just has to be overhauled, not eliminated. At least with a parking ticket, you know the driver that parked it there is likely and reasonably going to be the one that goes back to the car next to pick up that ticket placed on the windshield. Assuming the registered owner is the driver of the car is not reasonable or necessarily likely most of the time. Certainly doesn't pass the reasonable doubt test.
What they failed to mention the increase was from 6 to 9 and the 6 months after were winter months where you would expect more accidents due to snow and ice.
Show me ONE study from an independent UNBIASED source (I.E. not a scamera company) that shows that red light cameras and/or photo radar do reduce accidents? You can debate the facts, but facts are facts, red light cameras DO NOT reduce accidents, in fact, MANY studies show they increase accidents. It doesn't matter if it's winter or summer, accidents will increase, maybe just less significantly than 50%.
Show me where they went down at a faster rate than due to safety devices, cars, and roadways gettting safer. If hightway deaths and accidents went down simply and ONLY due to the speed limits decreasing, then there should be a BLIP on the graph that's far more significant and steeper than the curve or line you'd have simply measuring the reduction of deaths and accidents. The first year there should be a BIG difference. What was the first year speed limits decreased, and was there a blip? What was the first year speed limits went back to relatively normal, and was there a blip?
If not, go back to your drawing board! What you'll find is that increasing speed limits has no correlation or relationship to increased asccidents or fatalities. In fact, it helps to reduce them.
You are civilly responsible for the car as the registered owner. You are NOT criminally responsible!!! If I steal your car and go rob a bank with it and use it as the getaway car, do you really want to be charged with both bank robbery and accessory to a crime (providing transportation?). The system wrongfully accuses the registered owner with little to no evidence of a crime!
2.) I know people who did get a ticket when someone else was driving. They explained the situation and the city did reissue the ticket to the driver.
Why is it the people's job to do the police, investigation, and detective work for the government and the police force? What about the 5th amendment that says I don't need to testify to incriminate myself? The way it's set up, all kinds of Amendments are thrown out the window! If a bank's robbed in your neighborhood, it's the equivalent of mailing everyone within a 1 mile vicinity of the bank a charge/accusation of bank robbery. Oh yeah, it wasn't me, it was my brother! Give me a break!
3.) If your car is stolen and reported in a timely manner then you are not responsible (that is unless you did something stupid like leave your car running when you went into the store).
What is a timely manner? Can you define that? It could be weeks if you happen to be on vacation. Even within hours someone could commit a dozen crimes before you report it!
I know you were joking, but that is one of the common sense reasons faster is safer.
You spend less time on the road which means less time to potentially wreck or be involved in an accident. The more time the more likely....
Less fatigue due to less time on the road. Less driving while tired due to less time on the road.
There's probably over 100 reasons why faster is safer, at least with our current system of setting arbitrary speed limits way too low for the most part.
In fact, TX is considering putting down 85 zones soon! OH the humanity! Do you think TX is insane for doing so? LOL
The battle is being won, just ever so slowly due to OLD thinking like I find in this forum.
http://blog.motorists.org/texas-85-mph-speed-limit/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rs- s&utm_campaign=texas-85-mph-speed-limit
That was meant in response to clueless, ignorant, unaware, negligent drivers. If you are LLCing or road blocking (driving same speed across lanes with multiples of others side by side), then yes, sometimes those idiots do need a reminder to move the heck outta the way. :P
One such reminder is to get a little close for comfort. Another is flashing lights (doesn't seem to work with driver's that aren't paying attention which is why they are doing what they are doing usually), another is honking, another is to pull out an RPG weapon of some sort.
Still think speeds should be set based on what an "upper class vehicle" can do?
This is how I believe speed limits should be set, scientifically by the agreed upon method worldwide of most all traffic engineers, the 85th percentile method.
http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/speed-limit-fact-sheet.pdf
http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/position
That sums up my position on how speed limits should be set. However, I also like the reasonable and prudent method too. All speed limits should have a reasonable and prudent factor (safer to go fast when visibility is high vs. say white out storm conditions). But as you said, HOW WOULD YOU ENFORCE THAT? Is it important to enforce it? I think not. But it certainly is if you want to generate revenue!!! BINGO!. Revenue is the sole reason you'd want speed limits set to a method that is EASILY and ARBITRARILY set and enforced. Drive 65 in snow, no problem, go 66 when it's sunny out, big problem!
Not to worry... Snake will be back to reply. He can't resist an argument.
A) what kind of tires they have
C) what the wear of those tires are (if they are brand new it probably is safe to drive the speed limit even in the hardest of rain).
So depending on a lot of circumstances, a lot could be factored in. If your driving on tires overdue for replacement with low to no tread depth, you probably shouldn't be approaching anywhere near the speed limit.
That's sort of the problem with R&P speed limits isn't it? The cops can still stop you for dangerous driving even if you are going under a marked speed limit, but do want to have to go to court to dispute every R&P ticket? It might have been clear, dry and sunny out when you got that ticket for going 60 on the four lane, but judge may have just had a bad phone call from her ex-husband. And you may resemble him.
It all comes down to this: show me the money.
Sorry there was no witness to the crime.You saw evidence that a crime was committed but did not see the crime being committed so you were not a "witness" to the crime.
the crime was persecuted by evidence that a crime was committed but not by witnesses of the crime.
There is no one to question, since you can't question a camera. There was no camera operator, there was no witness.
Again many crimes with no witnesses are prosecuted. Plus since the camera is not a witness, it is evidence, you cannot question it directly. But you can bring the evidence into question.
An officer's testimony is hearsay and inadmissible and unconstitutional. You cannot confront an accuser in court and therefore the whole system is CLEARLY and without a doubt 100% Unconstitutional.
The accuser is the state/local government and you do confront that accuser which is represented by that governmental units lawyer. the camera is evidence not a witness or accuser. the camera does not accuse the state does.
The officers testimony is not hearsay as it does not meet the definition of hearsay. Hearsay is a statement made outside of court. The officers statements are in regards to evidence that can be examined in court so it cannot be hearsay. If it was than any evidence collected at a crime sceae is hearsay and inadmissable.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Apparently you didn't read my post as I specifically stated that if your car is stolen then you are not held responsible.
Why is it the people's job to do the police, investigation, and detective work for the government and the police force?
So if a crime is committed in your community and the police come by to ask questions in their investigation you won't answer them?
What about the 5th amendment that says I don't need to testify to incriminate myself?
Since when is letting the police know who was driving your car self incrimonation?
What is a timely manner?
Being difficult just to try to make your point? How do you report a crime before you know its been committed? timely is not waiting excessively long in reporting.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
While you do spend less time on the road any increase in safety by being on the road less is eliminated by the fact that you are more likely to get into an accident and that accident being worse at the higher speed.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Also maybe you Andre do not put much faith into the CHP. Having been
one, most of us bend over backwards NOT to give a citation unless it is a gross violation. Eg: If a driver was reasonablly and prudent going 70 in a 64, I many times did not put my life in jeopardy by stopping that driver when many more dirvers were going 75/85 ect. If the driver was going 10 or 15 over, I zapped them.
I remember in law school one my professors basically said that the term, "reaspnable and prudent" could be interpreted the way the interpreter wanted it to be applied. And most of us CHPs tried to apply it in a reasonable manner. No Cal and So Cal are not much different when it comes to speed violations. In fact there are so many drivers who drive inapproprately and imprudently that I did not have to work very hard or long to zap 5-8 citations for the "real speeders" or lane changers, ect.
I hope I made sense but there is no ONE answer. But then board is so excellent that we all seem to get a way to present our view and let others enjoy reading that view.
Good luck to all and stay safe.
jensad
I think you have that backwards. Oversized tires would rotate at a slower rate and register slower on the speedo.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
As in... tailgating. Which you said you never do. Especially the folks in the right (slow) lane. Right?
Obviously you want speed limits set for the "upper class vehicle" because you have one of those and current speed limits just aren't fast enough for you and the important business that lies at your destination, each and every trip. And don't let ANYONE get in your way... not even the guy who is going the limit in the right lane, which he has every right to do.
And no, it isn't important to enforce speed limits when drivers are not driving at a speed reasonable and prudent for conditions. Like on that road I mentioned. Why should the local police patrol it regularly as they do to try to keep people from going 50+ down that road (with a 35 limit) lined with yards, frequented by kids? They are obviously just doing it for the revenue. Those kids should know better than to run out into the street chasing a ball, or whatever. If they get hit, it's THEIR fault, or their parents' fault, not the fault of the poor driver who was simply going as fast as his upper class vehicle allowed.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D