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
Motorcycles and bicycles often aren’t big enough to trigger magnetic sensors that switch traffic lights from red to green, WBBM Newsradio’s Alex Degman reports."
Motorcycles, Bicycles Can Run Red Lights Under New Law (CBS)
In a previous message you said, even with a radar dector alert, you never saw the police car that tagged you. Didn't even knew which side of the road he was sitting. Never saw him until he was coming up on you from the rear with his lights on.
You attention level sure was dialed down on that day.
I've rolled to back and forth across the wiring patch, when I could see it, moved forward when a car did come up behind hoping it would get close an trigger it, sometime just moved into the thru lane and did a Uie down the road. And, yes, with no cross traffic, ran the red.
The first time I drove my Speed Triple to work I had no trouble getting into the secure parking area, as an ID card is required to open the gate. However, when I tried to leave for lunch my bike would not trip the inductive sensor cable. I had to get on the intercom and have Security remotely open the gate. I'm glad I didn't skip lunch and then find out at the end of the day that the gate wouldn't open- after everyone else had gone home...
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
Mr. Speeder Andres just needs to speed attentively. It's not hard to barrel along at a good clip if you watch out for the glorified tax patrols.
On the inconsiderate driver subject, I have seen very few in the past couple days. They seem to come in groups - you get overwhelmed and then they die off for awhile. Most annoying thing I have seen lately was a couple of very slow turners.
Two out of a hundred is not.
And if it was a two-lane road, with only you behind them... then it can be inferred that there was no one else.
Resulting in my post about 'everyone'.
Did you accidently leave out information about all the other drivers waiting patiently behind you and the slow bikers?
Backy did state that they were going at least the speed lmit which means that they weren't going slow.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Red Light Camera Maker Releases Crash Footage Montage (Straightline)
I'd call that more inattentive driving than intentionally running reds, which I think is the purported point of well connected palms-greasing "corporations" like ATS who once again blur the line between public and private sector, and safety vs revenue. You could probably get the same material at any busy intersection. Nice propaganda though.
And I will still say those who shortened yellows to increase said revenue when cameras were installed should be sent to a gallows.
It's all part of the great conspiracy. :P
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Are you saying then it's the fault of the law-abiding bikers that the two drivers passed them illegally, and in a reckless manner? Maybe it was the fault also of the two bikers who were killed that they ran into the front of the pickup that was in their lane.
Did you even read the details of my original post, including:
* Speed limit seemed reasonable for the design of the road, and given the deer in the area (by observation, and by signs posted along the road).
* Few passing zones on the road due to hills and curves.
* Traffic was flowing on the road at no less than the limit, or just a bit over.
* Marginal shoulders, i.e. I would not feel comfortable driving on them for any kind of distance.
Great example of how the "need for speed" of many drivers makes driving less enjoyable, and safe, for everyone.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Kind of hard to argue that, since my place is on a "local road" as defined by the California Roadway Systems map. That is 4 levels beneath "other arterial roadway" which is what Lake Murray Blvd. is. Just the facts please.
That is the conundrum.
If I would have evaded the ticket, I would have not known I had done so. The reason I received the ticket is because I felt I was doing nothing wrong and there was no way he would ticket me for the speed I was going.
The problem I have is I made an incorrect assumption assuming the officer would have logical reason and judgement. He was after revenue, that is the sole reason for the 35 MPH speed limit.
If I would have avoided the ticket, I would have had ZERO knowledge I actually evaded an officer. For all I knew, I could have delayed my voyage a few minutes for no reason.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
He went on to say that with that, the fact that it went through a heavily wooded area with vegitation right at the roads edge, no shoulder and a few blind driveways and side streets that they deemed 40 MHP to be safe. The SL was set to 35 knowing that people would do between 5 and 10 over.
Wow, not that's logical! NOT!!!
What is the definition of limit? Please tell me.
Definition of speed limit? When you set it artificially low, people won't do 5 or 10 over. They will still go 50+ just like before, with maybe a small percentage obeying the new lower speed limit. Sounds like he wants to set speed "guidelines," not limits. Most engineers would disagree with him. I'd argue those same characteristics that make the 85% rule sway from being absolute, also allow the limit to be set at the 95% percentile, not just lower.
On a two and ahalf mile road you have about 16,000 feet. How about lowering the speed limit at those 3 points on the road for 1,000 foot intervals and then making the other 13,000 feet 50 MPH speed limit?
Really, all that is unnecessary, as most competent drivers would slow in areas that required better sight lines (if a legit reason to slow down and true) and not just blindly drive through with cruise control on at 50 MPH +.
Much easier to argue on an arterial highway vs. a local residential road.
Also, you can't use the speed trap defense on a local road, so your subject to radar evidence.
Ah no, evading is using illegal means to not get a ticket. If you would have made a quick right turn and lost the officer you would have evaded the ticket. If you followed the SL you would have avoided the ticket. Avoidment means to legally not get the ticket.
Yesterday I was driving along US 6 through a small N. IL village. SL was 30 MPH and I was doing that or slightly above. I noticed a police officer with a radar gun off to the side. I avoided a ticket by doing the posted SL.
The problem I have is I made an incorrect assumption assuming the officer would have logical reason and judgement.
I think the problem is that you were doing 52 in a 35.
If I would have avoided the ticket
If you would have avoided the ticket the officer would not have gone after you. there is a legal differnce between "avoid" and "evade".
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Please send an email to support and it'll get handled by the right department. Thanks!
Limit: maximum, in this case maximum allowed speed.
When you set it artificially low,
Who said it was set artificially low? It was set at a reasonable and prudent speed defined by the roads structure, conditions and environment.
Most engineers would disagree with him.
I would wager most don't, especially since he wasn't the one who did the study. He just knew about it. He agrees with those who did it.
I'd argue those same characteristics that make the 85% rule sway from being absolute, also allow the limit to be set at the 95% percentile, not just lower.
You could argue that but I think you would be wrong. I am pretty sure the 85% rule is the maxium speed rule that needs to be tempered with real world conditions.
On a two and ahalf mile road you have about 16,000 feet. How about lowering the speed limit at those 3 points on the road for 1,000 foot intervals and then making the other 13,000 feet 50 MPH speed limit?
So you think that over less than 3 miles the speed limit should change 6 times between two speeds? Thats hardly reasonable or prudent. Also please note thatthere were other reasons then those three points. Those being lack of shoulder, vegitation growing right up to the road, blind roads and driveways and wildlife crossing the road.
Really, all that is unnecessary, as most competent drivers would slow in areas that required better sight lines (if a legit reason to slow down and true) and not just blindly drive through with cruise control on at 50 MPH +.
Two issues with that, the very first and obvious is that a roads speed limit should never be set to a speed where it is very dangerous to drive even if it is at one point. The second would be that most drivers are not that competent (hence this forum) an most drivers overestimate their competancy behind the wheel.
Anyway if you believe what you say get on over to Colorado and tell them to take off that 45 MPH speed limit on I-70 just east of Glenwood Springs. Tell them what you told me. OK?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
The same as you will have to pass it too.
Good luck.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
That assumes this officer and the La Mesa PD follow proper calibration procedures, and they never get lazy.
Any recent recalibration would indicate that any reading is very accurate.
No, it would only indicate the radar was recently capable of being accurate. There are numerous and various forms of radar error, including Cosine errors, but I don't want to get into all that. Read the CHP radar manual if you wish, it contains a sampling of several forms of known errors in radar technology. Rustling leaves have been shown to cause spurious readings well over the speed limit.
The third way is to show that there is no record of a calibration of the radar gun in question in the recomended time fram prior to the ticket. To get these records you would have to supeona them.
There are other possibilities to get radar evidence thrown out. Namely, in my case, the speed trap laws making it illegal to use radar on underposted speed limited roads.
Also, it's a good idea if they calibrate the radar and bring proof to court of a calibration AFTER the time of the ticket, because with a recent calibration BEFORE the ticket, there is no evidence the radar didn't hence go haywire prior to the ticket being issued (but after the last calibration).
Supeona's are unnecessary, as you can request all these records through the informal and/or formal discovery process.
That is true. Sooner or later I'll meet a corrupted cop who gets a corrupted judge to make the charges stick. In CA every 18 months I can pay a bit "extra" revenue to the State and local gov't and courts and go to traffic school and essentially get the conviction "erased."
The goal is to not get a ticket more than once every 18 months. The problem with pleading guilty on ANY ticket is you don't know when the next one will come, so it is good advice to FIGHT EVERY ticket to the hilt.
Not really. I'm positive he was hiding on the right side, just not sure if it's the church or the apartment. From past observations, they routinely hide in the church parking lot. It is easy for them to hide.
Please look up the definition of "hidden" in Websters.
They know the good spots where they are "out of the line of sight" of any vehicle coming towards them. They know how to be invisible. That is part of the "game." He wasn't invisible though, my radar detector alerted me to his presence. In fact, I'm pretty confident they don't take the radar reading until you are PAST them.
A normal motorist or pedestrian's sole purpose in life is not to remain in a "hiding" spot.
Please do get the details of the "real life" story before we start arguing about false assumptions.
Passing unsafely on a blind crest on the hill is about as dangerous a procedure as possible. That would be like passing on a blind turn. Very risky.
In CA if you are "blocking" 5 or more vehicles, it doesn't matter what speed you are going, you must get out of the way and yield to faster traffic.
When I got a discovery request on calibration records once long ago, all of the boxes for the start of shift and end of shift calibrations were filled in with X marks by the officer. So it is routine for them to say they did the calibration with the tuning fork. Interesting that the chart showed about 20 different dates logging the calibrations from this officer, and on the date of my ticket it was marked with a CHECK mark rather than an X (or vice versa, don't remember). 19 consistent types of markings, and on my particular day it was marked differently. I brought it up in court, the officer didn't have a good answer, just smugly said he chose to write differently that particular day.
To me, it was obvious the records keeper providing discovery in the CHP office did that officer a FAVOR by filling in the day he forgot to do his calibrations, which happened to correspond with my ticket. Manipulating and altering evidence. CHECK. Shame on the Ventura county CHP!
There is no way in a million years I believe that inconsistency was an "innocent" mistake.
It's all semantics for now. If the ticket does not lead to a conviction, then in essence, the ticket has been "avoided."
Unsubstantiated citations are "unavoidable."
You had said so. You said they set the speed limit at 35 knowing/assuming people would drive 5 to 10 over anyway. So really, the limit should be set at 45, because then people wouldn't routinely drive 5 to 10 over. You defined "artificially low speed limit" That kind of thinking and policy making shouldn't be allowed. The speed limit should be the actual real-world speed limit, not what some dumb idiot thinks will allow people to safely disobey by 10 MPH.
Two issues with that, the very first and obvious is that a roads speed limit should never be set to a speed where it is very dangerous to drive even if it is at one point. The second would be that most drivers are not that competent (hence this forum) an most drivers overestimate their competancy behind the wheel.
They could post yellow speed limits in the zone advising drivers of an oncoming section where the defacto speed limit might be too high for some.
As to incompetent drivers, I believe we get carried away with our count of inconsiderate drivers. It may seem they run rampant, but that is because they stick out like sore thumbs. The truth is MOST drivers are competent or better, otherwise there'd be accidents everywhere everyday. It is in people's OWN interest to not get into accidents or endanger themselves (unless they are suicidal). The accident rates seem to be going down per vehicle mile driven over time, not up!
Yes, in large part to nanny devices like ESP/ETC, but that just goes to show cars are more capable at higher speeds than ever before.
Even better advice to just slow the heck down and quit trying to play the system. Or go to law school. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
That is good advice. Unfortunately it is very expensive and time consuming advice, and not all that easy to get "accepted" from what I've heard.
Another way to "join 'em" would be to go to the next CHP recruitment camp and undergo basic training to become the next batch of CHP officers.
Then I could really go after LLC's until I get fired for not generating the right "type" of revenue.
But I know you like to argue every little point ad infinitum. I can do that too. For example... how do you know you were going 48-50 at most in your famous speeding incident? Were you looking down at the speedometer constantly as you were going up that hill, so you knew your speed at any given instant? If so, isn't that unsafe? Shouldn't your eyes be on the road, with an occasional glance at the speedo?
And if you weren't looking at the speedo constantly as you were going up that hill, how do you know for certain you didn't hit 52 at some point, as the police officer claims?
Anyway... I didn't see 4 vehicles lined up behind me at one time. If there were that many, they would have been so strung out so as to not be in my view. Meaning they were not "lined up", and not blocked.
But this was TX, not CA. I've noticed drivers in TX are pretty good about moving over to let faster traffic pass, when they are going well under the speed limit (e.g. a farm vehicle) and there's a decent shoulder to drive on and it's safe to move over. That was not the case in the two incidents I witnessed the other day. Traffic was at the posted or higher, shoulder was narrow and not something I'd want to drive on at highway speed.
Explanation accepted and noted. However, we still don't know all of the facts of the case, so I will reserve judgment on it, unless you have a video tape of the incident?
As to my famous speed case, you are right, you can't safely monitor your speed 100% of the time. This is why speed generated revenue is so lucrative.
Sheesh. How utterly ridiculous can you get. I haven't noticed your asking fintail and others who post here about various incidents for video evidence.
As for monitoring one's speed... if I were the judge, I'd ask you the same question I did, after you state that you were going 48-50 mph at most and not 52. The judge will likely ask you how you know for a fact you were going no more than 50 mph. If your answer isn't better than the police officer's when the judge asks him how he determined you hit 52 mph... oh oh.
Simple, as I lifted off the throttle after the car upshifted, I glanced down at my speedo briefly and it was between 48 and 50. That was my top speed as the hill immediately slowed me down. The trottle was completed up by the time I looked at the speedo. (the radar going off also made me look at my speed, but need I give every reason for looking at it?) I regularly glance at my speed as matter of habit.
If not, we'll have to accept the police officer's story. Pay the clerk.
Until such time as you're ready to take responsiblity for your own actions instead of blaming the police, traffic engineers, etc., I would hope they wouldn't have you. I certainly wouldn't want that kind of officer in my jurisdiction.
I would presume for legal reasons the officers are well trained in thr procedure. If you think otherwise the burden of proof is up to you.
When was the last time your speedometer was calibrated?
There are other possibilities to get radar evidence thrown out. Namely, in my case, the speed trap laws making it illegal to use radar on underposted speed limited roads.
To be able to do that you would have to prove it was an underposted road.
Also, it's a good idea if they calibrate the radar and bring proof to court of a calibration AFTER the time of the ticket,
If they are calibrating on a timely basis it most likely has been recalibrated since the issuing of your ticket.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
So in other words it's never simply because you are breaking the law.
The goal is to not get a ticket more than once every 18 months.
I would think the goal would be not to get a ticket at all. That could easily be done by not speeding.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
There is no way in a million years that I would believe that if someone was going to falsify records that they wouldn't see how it was checked prior and use the same marks.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D