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
Saw a newer dark blue Scion tC going 30 in a 40 in the dark, no lights on at all. Easiest way to spot it was the lights of other cars going around it. That kind of idiocy should be a nice ticket.
Do those who insist on driving lifted trucks with custom exhausts have to accelerate at full bore from every light? I know those engines don't have to hit 4000rpm to get moving. These things need to have special licensing requirements.
And the finale was a female cyclist who spit on a car stopped in traffic. Either they had a run-in before and she was just catching up, or it was just the random arrogance of so many Seattle area cyclists coming to life. Either way, all I could think was in how many cities would that give you a 50/50 chance of coming down with a severe case of lead poisoning, or being squished by a couple tons of steel...and if it would be much of a shame if either happened. I need to start carrying an on-board camera and putting this stuff on youtube.
Some by lawyers, CPA's and ex-IRS agents.
All will land you in hot water if you try to use a lot of what they suggest.
They are just trying to squeeze nickles out of the gullible.
Yeah yeah yeah, but the tax code is a million times more confusing, convoluted, and insane than the vehicle codes. Laws are pretty straight forward when you get down to it when it comes to traffic laws. Tax laws on the other hand, are designed to be difficult to understand.
Better yet, we need "Yield" signs, as stop signs are overused and abused and 90% of them could probably be changed for the better.
Should the mugger who only gets $5 get a lesser sentence than the mugger who got $100 simply because he got less money?
Yes, in some ways I think those laws should be changed too. Madoff should get a bigger sentence than the guy who sticks up a 7-11 for the cash register money. White collar criminals get off way too easy when they are the absolute worst and most costly kind of criminal.
I simply don't believe that slowing down and making the turn gives you enough time to adequitly assess the situation and determine if it is safe to proceed.
That is absolutely ludicrous. The average driver could tell that there is no intervening traffic around in less than .1 of a second. Yes, less than one tenth of a second. The more traffic there is, the longer it'll take, but sometimes there is NO traffic, how long does it take you to decide to turn right?
I would make the turn at about 5-10 MPH, if my line of sight allowed me to see what I needed to see prior to entering the intersecton.
The DMW handbook is incorrect, and in a driver's test, the answer KEY would be wrong, and the incorrect ansswer could be challenged and overturned to receive your license.
the CA Vehicle code is very clear, and that is what the "law" is.
The handbook is written by a gov't agency (all of which are pretty much incompetent), and the DMW is at the bottom of the barrel right next to the CHP on the usefuless and competence scale.
Simply put, there isn't much IQ or intelligence in those agencies of government.
I am not talking about ppeoples interpretation of the tax code. I am talking about outright lies, disinformation and anti tax propaganda. Stuff like your wages are not taxable income per USSC cases or how to deduct your childrens allowance as a business expense or how the 16th amendment to the constitution was never legally ratified. None of which are in any tax code and have been ruled against dozens if not hundreds of times (argue the "wages are not taxable income" argument in a tax court and you will be fined for it).
But hey its all out there on the internet so it must be true.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Of course you qualify your statement by saying the length of time should be incresed depending on the amount of traffic in the area but by how long and due to how much traffic. Also there is the fact that the law should be uniform regardless of the amount of traffic in the area.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Let's use lane discipline. The basic lane discipline is "KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS", "SLOW TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT", etc. It has been that way for decades if not generations. Indeed there has never been any serious proposal to change it in one state, let alone nationally. It has NEVER been keep right except for the exceptions, i.e. because I am me, I want to, like lane number one, putting on panty hose is better in lane #2, etc., love being a vigilante, etc., etc., etc., blather, blather.
Good point. This discipline and "expected" behavior may have originated with the invention and use of wheels.
Would imagine that someone heading back to their ranch after riding into town for a large amount of supplies probably moved over to the right and let a driver on an empty buckboard pass by. Being most drivers/riders were packing heat back in the 1800's, there may have not been too many inconsiderate LLCs.
Would agree. They are highly inconsiderate. Don't recall ever seeing women driving these. Just guys that have not outgrown 8 year old boy mentality of putting something on their bicycles to hit spokes and make a lot of noise.
Here in Illinois the rules of the road say that under certain conditions that "speeding" may be considered "aggressive driving". So, judge in CA may find violations in both speeding by exceeding the posted limit by quite a bit AND aggressive driving. Fines for these and court costs quite a price to pay.
I would be careful in bringing up far-fetched arguments to the judge lest he/she issues a warning to stop else face contempt.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
Thanks.
Rules of the road? What is that? Something Obama wrote? I prefer LAWS of the road.
Aggressive driving wouldn't even come up in CA unless you were going at least 30 MPH over the speed limit and/or going over 100 MPH. I think at 100 MPH they can write you up for "excessive exhibition of speed" or reckless driving, but only at 100 or above.
I always recommend that safe "speeders" keep it under 99.9 MPH, even on a long stretch of straight empty highway.
A playboy model was recently on Top Gear and admitted going up to 110 MPH accidentally in her Cayman S once on the INterstate 5 (one of those long empty straight highways.) Maybe she should be summoned into court for being dangerous? LOL.
The truth is, her breasts being in that Porsche are more likely to cause an accident on the roadways than her driving 110 MPH. :surprise:
That is not a fact. That is only a concern if your aim to make the maximum amount of revenue enforcement. Most traffic laws should depend on interpretation, conditions, traffic flow, and such.
Where it makes sense to make them absolute, do so, but where it doesn't, trying to do so only generates the contempt for law enforcment and the courts you see so widely displayed in this forum by many.
Let me repeat using your words for the most part, but making it applicable to this thread:
***
None of which is in any vehicle code regarding basic speed law, and has been ruled against dozens if not hundreds of times (a judge finding that you are guilty because you admit to exceeding the posted limit regardless of other circumstances, the judge's ruling will not hold up, and you will have your conviction and sentence overturned.)
CA seems to be a very odd state, traffic-law wise. In any other state, "aggressive driving" would include riding someone's bumper, weaving in and out of traffic in an unsafe manner, failing to yield right of way on turns because you're in too big a hurry to notice there's other cars or peds in/near the intersection that have right of way, etc. Speed has little if anything to do with that kind of aggressive driving.
I've counted the total number of far-fetched arguments I've brought up in the last 5 years, and it is a grand total of zero, zilch, nada, zip, 0.00.
The most far-fetched arguments I've heard here have been the one's defending traffic speed enforcement as it currently exists, red light cameras, or any photo/video enforcement for that matter, and saying LLCing is OK and safe.
Oh, and Pre-2008, the most far-fetched argument on Edmunds is that Chrysler wasn't going to go bankrupt (again for the 2nd time) and that GM would NEVER go bankrupt.
That's true, some people are corrupt, and with no integrity, and will purposefully "misinterpret" laws to fit their agenda (many in law enforcment and the courts have the agenda of maximizing revenues via fines).
I honestly believe that some of the laws I've ran into court were NOT "honestly" considered and judged by some of the judges I've ran into. The vehicles codes I've dealt with are quite clear and well written. I believe they knew that on appeal their decision could and would be overturned, but that since there's less than a 50% chance I would do so, they went ahead and ruled against me anyway (which some on this discussion have confirmed and said they would do solely to waste my time if they were my judge). I think it's a dishonest calculation when they makes some of these decisions, because I believe they know better. It is pre-meditated corruption. Kind of like when I believe one of the Big 3 calculated the value of a human life vs. redesigning gas tanks. They knew it was wrong to view human life as the cost of litigation and being sued for wrongful death, but they did it anyway. Humans have failings when they lack intergrity.
Your last sentence is key. There is aggressive unsafe driving unrelated to speed. I don't think CA has a law for "aggressive driving" per se, but:
1) Riding someone's bumper = Tailgating/Following too closely, there is a VC for this.
2) Weaving in and out of traffic unsafely = Either Unsafe lane change or unsafe turn, their are VC's for this.
3) I believe there are failure to yield right of way VC's, though I've never seen a ticket issued for this behavior to anyone on the roadway.
I bet if there were an accident caused by failure to yield ROW, there would be a ticket issued. That would happen in MN anyway. (I know because my wife got one of those tickets a couple years ago... and deservedly so.)
A ticket should always be issued for major accidents involving 2 vehicles or more.
I believe some officer's get too NICE, because they feel as is they are pouring salt on an open wound at times, when someone is sad about their totalled vehicle. But accidents are BAD, and anything that drives that home to people that cause them is a good thing, IMO.
My wife has been rear-ended hard once, pushed her into another car, which pushed into another car (4 car accident).
The driver ran (hit n' run). I don't believe he was charged for anything, let alone Hit And Run! Of course, the driver that caused it all, stopped, then ran, so everyone had already gotten his appearance and license plate memorized.
My friend got in a wild major accident a long time ago, and was let go "from having to have a ticket" because he ruined his own car.
This link below provides two links that are very informative and show why they seem to be the only police agency around that do understand traffic engineering and safety when it comes to speed.
http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,4643,7-123-1564-87384--,00.html
Particularly, look at the Establishing Realistic Speed Limits Booklet link.
I've reported on this before, but here are additional studies that show driving faster is safer. In particular, look at page 14 or 15 (depending on who's page numbering system you use), which shows the absolute safest speed to drive (with the least chance of getting into an accident) is about +5 MPH over the average speed of other drivers, which tends to correspond with the 85th percentile speed too. The data is irrefutable.
So indeed, the faster drivers are the safest drivers on our roadways. As always, being an outlier, will start to get you in trouble, say, driving more than 15 MPH over the average motorist. However, driving 15 over is much safer than driving 15 under average.
by Stephen Moore
Stephen Moore is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
Added to cato.org on December 7, 2003
This article was published in National Review Online, Dec. 2, 2003.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3333
Again keep in mind there are more cars, more miles, more trips, higher speeds, more drivers, etc., etc.
Also there's been huge improvements in car safety in the past few years. Consider that 10 years ago, few cars had standard ABS... now all new cars do. A few years ago, it was uncommon to have side curtain airbags or even side airbags... now all new cars do (some have 7+ airbags!). It wasn't until 2005 that ONE mid-sized family sedan had standard ESC/traction on all models... now all new cars have those features. Crash protection has improved greatly also in the past few years (not just use of airbags, but use of high-strength steel, better headrests etc.).
I know that in my area (Twin Cities) overall speeds have slowed in the past ten years as traffic has increased. Also, there have been some major road projects to improve safety of some high-traffic roads, and other changes such as more intelligent use of deicing chemicals in the winter.
Additionally, seat belt use in my state is at an all-time high (92%). That helps reduce serious injuries and fatalities from traffic accidents.
So to imply that higher speeds means greater safety is a fallacious argument, IMO.
Your friend's accident--it was multi-car and it was his fault, right? What was the infraction for which he should have been ticketed?
Oh, and do you have video evidence on both accidents?
Oh, everyone did follow-up and a full police report was made (I might add very stubbornly reluctantly by the CHP). They tried to talk everyone out of making a report (laziness).
The CHP was useful in so far as confirming the identity of the driver and securing his insurance information or lack thereof (in CA Insurance companies that wanna get out of a claim say the insurance follows the car and not the driver. So the driver was insured, but claims were denied. He was driving his sister's uninsured (just bought it was the excuse) car. It seems you can get away with anything if you simply drive other people's cars. This is where the CHP's efforts would be better utilized. Too bad they waste all their time trying to catch "speeders."
As far as I know, no tickets or charges were filed against that guy (he said he got nervous and scared). He did have the mitigating circumstance that he didn't run immediately after the accident, which I suppose makes it less of a violation. I'd like to see stricter enforcement of hit & runs, and make it a felony whether someone is injured or not. Now that would be a good use of police resources.
Your friend's accident--it was multi-car and it was his fault, right? What was the infraction for which he should have been ticketed?
Something to the effect of "negligent driving" as his car ended up 180 degrees facing the wrong direction on the freeway.
No, I don't have video :P
But this happened over a decade ago, while your story happened recently.
And I would argue 99% of the 20% is due to speeds too HIGH FOR CONDITIONS. LIke someone trying to take a curve that would be safe in a 911 but their driving a Buick.
LIke someone driving like they have high speed performance tires, but they have less than an H speed rating on their tires.
Like someone driving in the rain on balding tires without regard to their vehicle's condition, or tire's condition.
Like driving too fast at night in low visibility, which during the day would have been perfectly safe.
Maybe only around and about rush hours when traffic is heaviest. Only in areas with rampant LLCing.
I've seen heavy, and I do mean heavy traffic in CA move safely, flow nicely, at speeds of 70-80 MPH. Granted, it's rare, but it does happen.
At close to xxx digit speeds, even a moron knows it is to his benefit to pay attention !! Sadly there are huge percentages of folks that think it perfectly fine to not pay attention when going "SAFE" speeds. For my .02 cents I do not think that is very safe, even as it is declared and thought to be SAFE.
Anyone who's cruising down the highway at 100 MPH and is STILL texting while driving probably has suicidal tendencies.
"...ended up 180 degrees facing the wrong direction on the freeway" isn't nearly enough information to determine if this was a ticketable offense. HOW did he wind up doing the 180? A simple braking on an slippery patch, even at a slow speed, will do that. No, looks like we need the video evidence to know for sure.
You have no idea whatsoever what caused those other 80% of accidents. How do you know that increasing speed in those cases would have reduced the number of accidents? You don't! It could have made the situation worse, e.g. a death instead of an injury.
It could simply be that MOST people tend to travel at legal ("safe") speeds. Hence the majority of accidents occur at those speeds.
Well, some things are knowable. And others are knowable, but not easily.
But if things aren't knowable, probably not a good idea to make assertions based on the unknown. Such as traveling at legal speeds isn't a safe practice--it's safer to go faster.
Or maybe it's just that white, black, and silver are the most popular car colors, so it follows more cars of those colors get into accidents.
It's true that safe speed does not guarantee no accidents. But careful how you try to correlate speed with number of accidents.
Or in other words, in order to remain safe on the road, you have to find a way to make other, less attentive, drivers notice you. For if they know you are on the road, they will try to avoid you.
Just as an example: Here in Maryland, where the #1 car sport of drivers is to speed up so they can come up side-by-side with your car and then camp there, I've found that if you have a car with side-mirror turn signals... and activate it after they've camped, they panic at the thought of you getting in front of them and then gun the engine. Which means that by getting their attention, they then do what is necessary to avoid driving unsafely near you.
And in turn, it leads to the 2nd lane of traffic opening up, letting others pass.
(Of course, you have no intention of getting over, but instead, 'mind-game' them into believing you would, thus forcing them to notice you.)
I don't like driving like a slowpoke, e.g. 55 in a 65 zone. I try to keep near the speed limit when safe to do so however. Sometimes it's just not possible to maintain even the speed limit, due to traffic, weather etc.
:P :P :P