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
The traffic court judges through ignorance or foul play will try and set your motion hearing for the date of your trial (at your trial time as well). This is setting you up for failure.
NO WAY IN HELL with the officer present will the judge grant you a dismissal. The officer already went throught the trouble of driving down to the courtroom, waiting to be called up, and is there, the judge will simply NOT DO IT! He will just say let's get it over with, he's here now, and ignore all the other injustices.
I think all laws, rights, penal codes should be enforced equally, and bias towards the Basic speed law violation should not take precedence over the right to a speedy trial.
If you are a defendent, YOU MUST INSIST by verbal and written argument (by letter) if you don't succeed at first in person, to have the motion put on the motion calendar prior to trial. That is the only way your motion will be granted, saving the officer from wasting his own time.
The letter I used after getting a bunch of bogus excuses like "we don't have a motion calendar for traffic court" from the judge, in person at arraignment, I had failed to get a motion calendar date set prior to trial date, but then I wrote something like this in a letter:
Please set my motion hearing on the motion calendar prior to trial. If the court should grant my motion on the date of trial, and the officer produce the discovery evidence at trial, I will need time to review the documents prior to trial for my defense, and will not be able to do so at the courtroom in a few minutes. A continuance would be required and that will inconvenience the officer with multiple trips. (I like that line because they don't give a rats behind about you and your time, but they do care about the police officer's time)
Please do not make me choose between my right to a speedy trial, and my right to discovery. I do not waive either.
If you refuse to do either, please sign below.
---- Needless to say, they didn't sign my letter, they rescheduled my motion hearing for BEFORE trial.
Of course, this was for a motion to compel discovery or dismiss in the alternative, but it all works the same for a speedy trial I suppose.
But if you think it saves you time and money and you're willing to pay the price, whether that's just the time/hassle of multiple court appearances or the outcome of same... it's a free country. Maybe when you've lived a little longer, and driven a little longer, you'll realize all that dashing about isn't all it's cracked up to be.
You know, there is another way to approach this rigged, corrupt, revenue-generating system that you're so angry about:
Slow down a bit.
Then this rigged, corrupt, revenue-generating system doesn't get any revenue from YOU. Whether it's rigged or corrupt doesn't matter to you because you won't get messed up in it.
BTW, your musing about judges being assassinated and deserving to have a bounty on their heads was incredibly low. I can't believe any sane person would post something like that on a public forum.
Is there any job out there less accountable yet more overpaid than these judges? They are up there in uselessness with non-performing athletes and bad musicians. And they are untouchable.
On the inconsiderate topic, I swear 30-40% of the drivers in this area have a phone to their ear. Where are these hard working LEOs who preach and lecture about safety and responsibility? Easier to camp out at the bottom of a hill and look for people going 10 over, I guess.
Is there any job out there less accountable yet more overpaid than these judges?
You have GOT to be kidding. Lots of 'em. Tons of 'em just on Wall Street. Judges can be impeached. In my state, many judges are elected. Don't like 'em? Vote 'em out.
I expect it IS a lot easier to nab a speeder going 10 over, with some evidence other than "I saw the phone at their ear", e.g. pacing a car or radar. If courts work the way they do in CA, it would be impossible to convict someone on a cell-phone usage charge. It would be word of the defendant (and his/her passengers maybe) vs. word of the police officer. And we have one expert here who has already explained to us that police officers lie in court. So there ya go. It would have to be cell phone + something else to make it stick I suspect, e.g. use of cell phone causing unsafe driving.
This reminds of one time many years ago driving down one road where the lights were set to the speed limit. I was driving down at the speed limit and someone flys by me 10 or more over and got stopped at the ight. Of course the light changed as I approached the light and I just cruised past this guy who then races past me to be stopped by the next light. This happened about 4 or 5 times.
I ended up being in front of him after the road went down to one lane just past a light.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Slow down a bit.
Good advice, I generally stay within 5 MPH of the limit and these so called "revenue" officers leave me alone. It makes for a more relaxfull drive and maybe gets me to where I am going at worse 5 minutes later.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
So all of my money the LEO community wasted in my area on spots about phone yapping being "illegal" was a waste, just as I thought, thanks.
The speeding ideal is about revenue, and will be impossible to change based on that alone. The public sector guzzles a lot of cash and needs every cent it can get.
That doesn't work. The corrupt cops have over 40,000 other Vehicle Codes to cite you with that don't involve speed!
Then this rigged, corrupt, revenue-generating system doesn't get any revenue from YOU.
They will either invent violations, further distort the truth, or simply make false accusation in order to get you to pay up some citation or other. A majority of my cases were not for speeding until I moved to Southern CA. Northern CA seemed to care less about speeders I suppose. Maybe I just got lucky.
Regarding the musing of why more judges aren't assassinated, I have this to say:
Perhaps it does occur and the media simply doesn't report on it. Perhaps it does occur, and the authorities just never link it to anything, and maybe consider it a "random" crime. That would mean "they" got away with it, and BRAVO to them. More power to them.
I often come up on the defenses side of a case in big time media cases. From the bit I saw of these trials, I"d of said "not guilty" as well:
1) OJ
2) MJ (RIP)
3) The mom that supposedly killed her baby (aren't there a few of these now?)
I applaud when a high priced defense team with skilled lawyers is able to make the law enforcement officials look like the clowns and the jokes that they generally are! I'm usually able to smell out and predict a case that is doomed to fail. They are simply a waste of tax payers money, and I have a feeling the DA's/prosecutors simply persue the case solely in order to make themselves more famous (despite the inevitable losing of the case). Talk about a waste of tax payer money!
My favorite thing about the OJ trial besides Johnny Cochran was that it proved and confirmed somethings I longed believed:
1) Cops will lie under oath and commit perjury.
2) Cops will do just about anything to win a conviction.
3) Cops will commit vast consipiracies to hide the truth about one of their own, commit coverups, and will never rat out one of their own. Even at the expense of if found out, they will LOSE that conviction for the prosecution.
4) Of course I'm talking about that detective that everyone knew was a racist bigot, but yet no one in the entire dept. spoke ill of him.... Hmmmmm. Gotta love modern technology, video, audio recordings this time! It came out later, and somehow the lawyers knew, but no one on the LAPD did! Funny!
How many times have you gotten a ticket for those 40,000+ vehicle codes?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
My experience is that judges give officer testimony more credibility unless they are given a reason to doubt it.
Not necessarily. First, it is illegal. Second, some folks like to stay away from illegal activities, if only to avoid fines etc. You don't know for a fact that spots on phone yapping being illegal were totally ineffective.
It's a good start.
A majority of my cases were not for speeding until I moved to Southern CA...
Ah. The picture is becoming clearer now. A habitual law-breaker who doesn't believe the laws are meant for him. Not just speed limit laws... looks like many others. But it's never his fault... always the fault of the Corrupt System--for making the laws, and trying to enforce the laws.
I shudder to think what our roads would be like if everyone drove like the laws don't apply to them, all the time.
I'm surprised by your stance on this. You post here pretty regularly about the inconsiderate drivers you see using cell phones. So I'm surprised you're against doing PS announcements encouraging people to not use cell phones while driving.
Fact of the matter is, endless money was spent on publicity for the new law, yet nobody follows it and more importantly, it is at best irregularly enforced. My problem isn't the law, but the propaganda around it vs the real world enforcement of it. In the end, the money talks.
I also don't believe as gospel that yapping and driving is making some kind of death epidemic - mobile device proliferation does not correlate with any kind of casualty increase. I do think it is a severe issue for considerate and attentive driving, however, and based on that alone it should be enforced - I see it being more of an issue than someone going 10 over on a mostly empty wide open road, even if it doesn't bring in the same money.
Well, about 15 years ago CA made the red light ticket fine double, so even back in the late 90's or so the red light ticket fine was a massive $300.
Once the fine was doubled, that became the traffic enforcer's favorite go-to revenue generator.
Let's see what I can remember:
I got a ticket for running a red light when in actually in most states it is legal to make a left turn onto a 1 way EVEN when you are on a two way. CA has the law wrong and for some reason a cop in San Luis Obispo saw fit to enforce this inane law at about 2 AM with no one else around but him and me. (I won this; he didn't show in court; I had pics showing the red light was obscured by a tree branch).
I got a ticket for running a red light when in actuality I was making a right turn and there was a police car with lights flashing in the middle of the intersection. I had wanted to go straight, but with the flashing lights and parked police vehicle in the middle of the road, I decided to turn right. I felt the police car's lights OVERRULED the traffic signals, and therefore paid no attention to if the light was red or not, but I did yield to "almost a stop" on the right turn; which again, should be the way the law is written. I think this is the case where I was forced to eventually plead guilty as I went to school in San Luis Obispo at the time and this was in my hometown of Sacramento. Too far to make a court date while in college; except during Christmas break, but when they purposely mail the courtesy notice to the wrong address, it caused an issue. Never got my day in court because of that. I apparently missed a speedy trial date I was never notified about. I know I requested a speedy trial (I think I got the ticket very end of summer - then received notice in the late fall; tried to schedule for Xmas break, but Sacramento at the time pulled a fast one and wouldn't schedule a date while you were still at the court. They tried to blame the officer for the courtesy notice being mailed to the wrong address, and I checked the citation, and in this case, the officer made no errors; it was obvious foul play by the court and the court clerks causing a failure to appear. Oh yeah, I did follow up by phone to try and find out what happened... they don't answer the freaking phone and you hear a machine say things like "call volume is heavy right now; goodbye!" By the time I got through over the phone, it was too late; failure to appear charges had been added. In exchange for the dropping of those charges, I pled guilty even though I was innocent to the red light charges (of course, by the time this happened, it was like almost a year later; so I made them wait for their money).
I got a ticket for tailgating when the ticket SHOULD HAVE been written to the car in front of me for a dangerous lane change that caused me to almost rear-end him unavoidably. I had to slam the brakes 100% and still came within a couple feet of hitting him. He was in the right lane going up the big Cuesta grade at a snail's pace, and I was going up the fast lane at appropriate freeway speeds, when at the worst possible timing, he ventures over to the left and cuts me off the worst I've ever been cut off.
Funny I got a ticket for tailgating 15 seconds after this happened, at that point, I was thinking what will they think of next, and that's probably when I researched the 40,000 + figure.
I shudder to think what our roads would be like if everyone drove like the laws don't apply to them, all the time.
Incorrect assumptions. As I've said, false accusations run rampant with the way traffic enforcement is unfairly and incompetently enforced. A Majority of my citations were false allegations, which does make my 50% win rate in court seems justified in some ways.
Per my earlier post, if the light were green, and the officer's car was in the middle of the intersection with lights flashing, I would not HEED the green and simply pass through at full speed, the emergency vehicle OVERRIDES the traffic signal. The same applies for the red light on a right turn, the light is irrelevant due to the emergency vehicle, and I don't see why I have to come to a complete stop to make a safe right turn. This argument would have worked in court, though I'll never find out as I never got my day in court for this one.
that's the problem right there. Most LEO's make no effort and no attempt to enforce the laws.
All they do is try to generate revenue. They don't give a rat's behind about safety unfortunately.
Sounds like more evidence that our LEO's are overpaid, corrupt, dishonest, lazy, incompetent fools! Why can't things be regularly enforced with consistency?
I kinda got that feeling from the very beginning... I think if he were to just slow down and play by the rules a bit more, even those that he might disagree with, he'd save a ton of time in the long run, and probably a few bucks along the way as well.
I still think I should look into applying for the next CHP boot camp, as if you can't beat them (though I did!), join them!
I'd like to share my letter to the court (this isn't really the whole defense, as I had a few attachments, including photographs. I would put 2 pictures per 8-1/2 x 11" sheet, with a short paragraph below each explaining why each picture demonstrated my innocense). I'll just share the main body of the declaration letter that got me found "NOT GUILTY," here, for your enjoyment:
______________
Attachment #1A
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Pursuant to vehicle code 40902, I wish to exercise my right to trial by declaration with regard to a vehicle code infraction citation. As required, I enclose a check for $148.00 bail. Please refund the same to me in the event the court finds me not guilty.
On January 26, 2006, at approximately 3:50 p.m., I was driving my 2003 Honda Accord LX Coupe, License No. 4ZXM826, south on 805 coming from Highway 56. My vehicle is dark gray in color (graphite). Please review attachment #1B, which contains a series of photographs along with a written description of what each photograph clearly demonstrates.
I have two main points of defense as follows:
1. Cited for vehicle code 21755VC violation, which never occurred according to the vehicle code’s very own definition, as I never “passed on shoulder.”
2. I never drove (and definitely didn’t pass anyone) on a shoulder, because the concrete lane I was in was an actual freeway lane and exit lane or off ramp.
First, the title of VC21755 is “pass on right safely,” or passing on shoulder as the officer wrote on my citation copy as the violation that allegedly occurred. This vehicle code does not apply to my case or to the situation that happened on 1/26/06. I never passed anyone on the right, I never passed anyone driving on the shoulder, and I never passed any vehicles on the freeway, period. I was planning on exiting the freeway at the next off ramp. I was already slowing down, as is the normal process in order to exit the freeway. You cannot pass people on the freeway when you are in the process of exiting the freeway, it just doesn’t make logical sense (you are headed different directions for one). Add to this that I had slowed down considerably, and you can know it is a fact that freeway traffic was moving faster than I was. The only vehicle I passed was the officer’s parked CHP car, and I passed it on the left as I merged carefully back onto the next lane over on the left in order to avoid a collision. I have a second attachment 1C that shows the address I was driving to and from where I came, which was 5951 Village Center Loop Road, right off of highway 56. I took the 805 South and was headed towards 9823 Pacific Heights Blvd., therefore, the map indicated to me that I was to exit the 805 South at Mira Mesa Blvd/Sorrento Valley Road, which is the first thing I told the officer who was blocking the right lane with his vehicle (although he was not inside his vehicle). The fact of the matter is that I never passed anyone on the right, I had slowed down significantly, and I had every intention of exiting the freeway.
Secondly, I, along with every other reasonable driver, both in front and behind of me, felt that the right lane was indeed a lane, and not a shoulder based on the overwhelming visual evidence on the freeway. Any reasonable person would view the asphalt lane as the shoulder, the concrete lane as the far right lane, and that lane eventually becoming the exit only lane. Most drivers probably assumed the solid white line was there to indicate that it is an “exit only” lane, and that you should not re-merge back onto the freeway.
I would like your honor to know that I included every single rearview photograph taken within 5 minutes of receiving my citation. I did not take 40 or 50 photos and edit the best 3 or 4 rearview pictures for my defense. I included each and every single rear-facing picture I took, because I wanted to make it clear that without intending it, every single picture happened to capture another vehicle coming down the exact same lane the officer cited me for driving on, which he claims was a shoulder. There were no lane closure signs; even a semi-truck came down the exact same lane the officer claimed was a shoulder. Also, the lane in question goes straight into and directly onto the right most exit lane. There is no need to turn or change lanes; it simply is the same lane. I find it unreasonable to assume that all of these driver’s could have misinterpreted the freeway lanes. The officer incorrectly assumed it was a shoulder, and double-parked his vehicle alongside the white truck.
Therefore, in conclusion, I should be found not guilty due to the fact that I never placed my vehicle onto a shoulder, and I never passed any vehicles on the freeway, regardless of whether the lane I was in would be considered a shoulder or not. I was on a main traveled portion of the roadway (as indicated by all the traffic using that lane of the roadway in my pictures. Lastly, even if I did pass vehicles to my left (passing on right, which I state I didn’t), I did so in a safe manner and under conditions permitting such movement in safety. I believe I did nothing illegal, as my physical actions were no different than if someone had decided to pull over to change a flat tire, then changed their minds, and safely pulled back onto the freeway so that they could change their flat tire elsewhere.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: April 12, 2006
Here is the declaration from the first case in 2004 regarding this underposted road. I actually lost this trial by mail/declaration, and was found guilty by some unfair judge. I demanded a Trial de NOVO as is my right, and was granted a new trial with everyone present so I could face my accuser. My accuser didn't show, case dismissed, guilty verdict overturned.
________
Attachment #1
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Pursuant to vehicle code 40902, I wish to exercise my right to trial by declaration with regard to a vehicle code infraction citation. As required, I enclose a check in for $181.00 bail. Please refund the same to me in the event the court finds me not guilty.
On September 15, 2004, at approximately 7:10 a.m., I was driving my 2003 Honda Accord LX Coupe, License No. 4ZXM826, south on Lake Murray Blvd. My vehicle is dark gray in color (graphite). Please review attachment #2, which contains a step-by-step account and description of the events taking place, including photographs that are relevant to this case.
I stress that the weather was clear and dry, and there was no traffic in front of me to create any unexpected hazards until I came to a safe stop at the signal light at 5300 Lake Murray Blvd. crossing with Connecticut and Wisconsin Drives.
At the red signal light, after I was already waiting in a stopped position for approximately 10 – 20 seconds, Officer Chambers turned on his motorcycles red lights to pull me over. He informed me that he had determined my speed on his radar unit to be 58 mph, the posted prima facie speed limit being 35 mph. He said he had read my speed at 5300 Lake Murray Blvd., which I have determined is exactly at the intersection where I was stopped by the red light.
I believe there exists a reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of Officer Chambers’ radar reading. As can be calculated, typical radar units with a six-degree beam width or more will completely and indiscriminately read speeds of vehicles across both lanes of traffic at about 150 feet.
The radar unit may therefore have been reading speeds of traffic in my direction (including larger vehicles behind me in both lanes, which are more likely to reflect radar beams than my low-roofed, aerodynamic, and relatively small Honda 2-door coupe). This being so, it is doubtful that the speed he recorded was mine or from any single moving object. Also, the radar reading was so high that it is obviously erroneous. Even aggressive drivers are not as aggressive at 7:10 in the morning, being just a couple blocks from where I live.
Furthermore, even if I were traveling a more reasonable and believable 45 mph, the weather was clear and dry, and there was no traffic in my direction in front of me. Lake Murray Blvd. is at least 2 lanes in each direction (sometimes 3 lanes in each direction), which are divided apart by a wide center median. All of the intersections are controlled by stoplights, and under these conditions, even at 50 to 55 mph would have been a safe speed at which to drive (although I seriously doubt that I was going even that fast). Again, I was able to safely and gradually stop at the red light without any extreme acceleration from the previous intersection where I had performed a U-turn, and with no extreme braking either. If I had slammed my brakes, it would have been audible to everyone around me despite the anti-lock feature (2003 Accords still make skidding noise).
Finally, my research efforts are currently underway at City Hall to find any record of a traffic survey justifying the 35-mph speed limit within the past five years. I truly doubt the 35-mph speed limit is justified by any kind of engineering or traffic record/study.
So you admit you were going 10 over? Pay the man, Shirley.
And the only reason it was dismissed was because the officer didn't show for court. You keep stepping on yourself in here. Maybe we should forward this thread to the presiding judge. It appears you intend to speed frequently.
Stop gaming the system.
Leave sooner? A few minutes.
Drive slower? Free. Maybe even save some gas $$.
Get there at the same time as driving foolishly? Priceless!
Sorry I don't think thats true as if you were on a two way street to make a left turn you would need to cross oncoming traffic which may have a green light even though you have a red light.
I felt the police car's lights OVERRULED the traffic signals
Sorry thats not true, a police officer directing traffic overrules traffic signals not the lights of the police car.
but I did yield to "almost a stop" on the right turn; which again, should be the way the law is written.
First of all how you feel the law should be written is not important, how the law is written is. It does state that you have to come to a complete stop (which BTW is how it should be written as it gives you enough time to properly assess if it is safe to go).
Funny I got a ticket for tailgating 15 seconds after this happened
The question now becomes did you stay to close to him during that 15 seconds? If you did then his actions 15 seconds before have no bearing on if you receive a ticket or not.
It seems that you have been driving a bit reckless, however if one slows down then they will not get a speeding ticket and will rarely get a violation for those other 40K plus vehicle codes. As I have said I drive close to the SL and receive zero tickets, not for speeding and not for the other 40k vehicle codes.
Some good advice was given, slow down. It won't cost you much time, it will save you some money and you might enjoy life a bit more.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
The only study they used was revenue flow.
(a) ...However, the vehicle operators facing a steady circular red signal may, after stopping proceed to make a right turn from a one-way or two-way street into a two-way street or into a one-way street carrying traffic in the direction of the right turn; or a left turn from a one-way or two-way street into a one-way street carrying traffic in the direction of the left turn; unless a sign posted by competent authority prohibits such movement. Vehicle operators planning to make such turns shall remain stopped to allow other vehicles lawfully within or approaching the intersection control area to complete their movements...
At least here in Washington... Alaska, Idaho, Michigan, and Oregon too, as far as I can find...
To you perhaps... I think it's pretty darn important.
I also don't believe as gospel that yapping and driving is making some kind of death epidemic - mobile device proliferation does not correlate with any kind of casualty increase.
I am pretty sure the correlation has been made between texting/phone use while driving and higher casualty rates. See for example http://www.buzzle.com/articles/texting-while-driving-statistics.html . But if you don't think that's the case... why complain about it as much as you do? If it doesn't risk harm to others, what's the big deal? Yapping on a phone while driving is a big deal to you, but people who think nothing of driving 15+ over the limit isn't a big deal to you. Doesn't seem to add up.
Thanks for a great example of what I was talking about: you simply don't think that traffic laws apply to you. And if you do violate one, you work very hard to figure out a way to "beat the system" to get out of a ticket. And you pat yourself on the back and brag to others about it (like us) when you do.
Age brings more life experiences and usually more wisdom. I hope that is true for you.
Casualty rates are not exploding, while the mobile device industry has more or less reached market saturation. That's all I need to know, whether or not "buzzle" claims to have data to the contrary.
Context again. I complained because the overpaid underworked unaccountable public sector has wasted a truckload of cash on unenforced laws and pointless PR campaigns.
I never said anything about harm, I said consideration. I find it more annoying to be around someone weaving in their lane, dawdling at lights, driving with delayed reactions etc because of a phone than I do being around someone going 75 in a 60 on an open road on a clear day. Your mileage may vary.
Learn about context?
Where is the context in how much public sector workers (and fyi, "public sector" is a very broad category, including health care workers) make in a discussion on inconsiderate driving?
Where is the context in how accountable public sector workers are in a discussion on inconsiderate driving?
What is the context of the dollar figure that's been spent on PS announcements re dangers of texting/phone use while driving in a discussion on inconsiderate driving?
How much is a "truckload", anyway?
Have you considered that PS campaigns re laws and consequences of violating them are part of "enforcement"? Also that if more people understand the dangers of driving while texting/calling and also understand that there's a chance they could be ticketed for it, some will choose to stop doing it, or cut down a bit. And then you might have less to be annoyed about. Wouldn't that be great?
Oh, yes... might save a few lives too. But you've made it clear that your degree of annoyance is more important to you than saving lives. It could be really annoying to you though if one of those lane-weavers weaved into your car. Being in a hospital can be very annoying. Being 6 feet under, less so.
Did you mean "No controlling legal authority"?
Guess basic questions in all of these posts are: If someone feels a particular law, motor vehicle or any other, is unjust, what action if any should be taken?
(1) Break the law, get caught by authorities, then go to court to try and prove the law is unjust.
(2) Write letters, emails to authorities who COULD make and change the particular law and make the case for a revision or abolishment. Get more people on your side, possibly the media.
(3) Unless following and adhering to the law causes great inconvenience and some amount of financial loss, simply follow the law. No pain, no stress, no inconvenience to everyday matters of life.
It makes me laugh with sorrow that many speed limits were equal or higher when my grandfather was my age.
Enforcement is putting ads on TV with spurious claims about danger and penalties, neither of which seem to pan out in the real world? That's funny. By what can see on the road, this "enforcement" is ineffective, much like the people who create it.
It has nothing to do with saving lives. If lives were an issue, again, we'd all have 40mph speed governors and actual teeth-bearing punishments for distracted driving. 6 feet under...amusing...drama it down a little, the emotional ploys might work on a soap opera, maybe not elsewhere.
Nanny state-ism. And driver's education is a fraction of what it used to be. The cars can certainly handle it, but the drivers can't.
Deplorable condition of some roads probably plays a part as well.
Except by you.
By what can see on the road, this "enforcement" is ineffective, much like the people who create it.
Do you expect "enforcement" to result in reduction of offenses to zero? It seems that way. You must realize that's unrealistic. At least it's an attempt to reduce offenses... just like police officers' spot enforcement of speed limits. They can't be everywhere always. A PS announcement is more effective than just whining about it.
Also you must realize that it's wholly impractical to reduce all risk and danger from driving. It's inherently a risky proposition. I'll recommend there you take your own advice and "drama it down a little". 40 mph speed governors? Yeah, right. But why not take steps to reduce the risk and danger of driving when it's practical? For example, encouraging people to NOT do texting and use handheld cell phones while driving doesn't have any significant downside but has the potential to reduce traffic accidents, reduce injuries, and save some lives. All good stuff. Worth some bucks for some PS announcements IMO.
I wonder what tickets per driver was 50-60 years ago vs now. That has the potential to explain current laws, too.
I never said I expect zero lawbreakers, but I would expect to see a rash of citations being issued, and some decrease in yapping while driving. I haven't seen either. An attempt isn't worth anything just because it exists - can't give them an A for effort here, and for what they cost, they need to be getting a 4.0. More crap made by people who make far more than the average citizen and do far less work.
I'm not the one crying about death and safety here, so you can put your suggestion somewhere. The speed governor idea is a joke made to appeal to people with your mindset, you love safety, so you have to love the ultimate safety, right? I don't believe real world people are going to stop a common activity just because a TV tells them, while very little opportunity of actual punishment exists. Put that money to use in extra enforcement, or simply spend it on something more productive.
How much is spent on these PS announcements? Do you have a dollar figure? And any idea what a PS announcement costs compared to putting extra LEO on the road to ticket offenders of, say, texting while driving? Or, what "more productive" measure do you recommend to reduce texting/cell phone use while driving?
Keep in mind that some people think differently than you (unbelievable perhaps, but true!) and they do have some concern for being injured or killed while driving, or causing injury or death to others. So the inducement to reduce or quit texting/cell phone use while driving doesn't need to be fear of the law (although some people ARE law-abiding, believe it or not), but fear of injury to self or to others. Maybe a mom or dad or teenager could, for example, be encouraged to stop texting if they were reminded of the stats on accidents caused by texters and what that could mean for kids in the back of the car. Oh and btw it could cost them some bucks in a fine too.