I miss sequenced lights. We only have one run of those here down Cushman street (25 mph limit), and they seem to work well enough if you stick at the limit or within a couple mph of it. Everything else... all the higher speed roads that could use sequenced lights... they don't have them. They are all sensor-driven for the side streets, so they switch whenever there's a sensed need to do so. Sometimes you make a few before a red, sometimes not. They're the Great Equalizer in terms of getting to your destination, regardless of how fast you try to go. :P
We had several runs of sequenced lights through downtown Pendleton, and they worked perfectly. You nearly always hit one early on, but from there to the other end of town it was smooth sailing if you kept it within a few of the limit.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
I sure didn't whine about it or consider the speed limit to be set too low.
Maybe you should have; maybe you made a huge mistake in not checking to see if the traffic and engineering survey's 85th percentile results justified the speed limit.
If like me, you find the survey doesn't support the speed limit set to the 85th percentile, then how can you continue to justify an obviously and objectively underposted speed limit.
If I can show you streets extremely similar in characteristics to the one I got a ticket on with a SL of 35, but in other less corrupt cities the SL is 40 or 45, does that make a difference to you?
Why should the same type of street have 35 MPH speed limits in one city and 40 or 45 in another?
I manned up and dealt with it as EVERYONE should do!
I've suggested that if the government stopped this farce of speeding being a criminal charge (complete with progressive penalties, insurance surcharges, and such), and simply made it a tax/fine payable to the gov't for choosing to drive reasonably (over the speed limit), then that would be OK with me.
But because the DMV keeps records and points and insurance companies itch at the chance to over charge you while donating more radar guns to police agencies, I just can't go along with it all. Too much is at stake besides the fines which are way too high now.
Oh wait, CA will say the fines are low, that it's a bunch of fees that make a $90 dollar ticket cost $360.
The list looks like this:
Mahogany desks Fee $25 Judges Cotton Robes Fee $25 Night Court Fee $25 (regardless if you use it or now) Court Construction Fee $25 Court lighting electrical fee $25 Court Pension Fee $25 Happy Hour Fee $25
Obviously I'm poking fun of all the fees, but the real list is similar and lengthy.
I got a better idea. Rather than raising taxes or raising revenues, why dont' we just FIRE all the traffic court judges, employees, and CHP officer's and use the money saved from that to pay for safer well paved roads, maintained signage, lighting, and such.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
So let's see... how about 30 days in jail for your first speeding offense, 6 months for the 2nd, and life in prison for the 3rd, under the "3 strikes you're out" principle. Would you like that better than fines?
Yes! At least with the higher stakes, I'd have a right to an Attorney to defend me, a jury to decide the case, and other rights denied due process in traffic court. The conviction rate of traffic courts at 99% would drop down to reality as in other criminal cases! That would be a great thing.
Would probably be more effective than fines... just not sure where the money would come from to build and staff all those prisons...
I don't think you'd see more prisons. I think the tougher penalties would make officers with a conscience think twice before issuing a ticket. Perhaps even observing a potential safety hazard, and not just blindly using a radar gun to say you were going too fast according to some aluminum plated sign despite the perfectly safe circumstances around you.
Also, with less cases resulting in successful convictions, more would be thrown out or defeated in court with not guilty verdicts.
Also, if the penalties were more severe, the people would revolt and you'd see speed limit signs removed or upped by 5 to 15 MPH in days, not weeks or months.
Too many people just simply pay the fine because the courts waste too much time. They do that on purpose, to discourage ticket fighting. They don't want justice, they want $$$$.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
In my 20's and early 30's I also used to be a speeder, but then maybe I just matured or something because I just started going the speed limit and not trying to get to my destination a couple of minutes sooner by speeding anymore. I too find it more relaxing to drive this way.
I'm not a fanatic about it, but if the speed limit is 35mph, then I'll go at most 40mph, and just because there's no traffic around me I'm not going to drive 50mph "because I can." What's the point? And once I got into the habit of keeping my speed at 5mph or less above the posted speed limit, I've found that I don't even notice I'm doing it. It's now a habit (and a good one) like working out or eating right. Now I'm not worried about looking around for cops, trying to get around this car or that car. And of course it's safer as I have more time to react to a given situation as compared to going faster. And when the traffic is congested and everyone is going slower, it doesn't bother me driving behind some cars going 5mph under the speed limit on the highway. I'm not going to get all worked up trying to pass them to save 50 seconds on my commute.
Those who speed on a regular basis are just exhibiting a bad habit, just like those who smoke, drink too much, don't exercise or eat right, or have any number of bad habits. When I was up in Canada the speed limit was 100km/hr, or about 60mph on the highways I was on, but I noticed there were hardly any speeders, even though I didn't see any cops on the side of the roads with speed guns. Up there, they have good driving habits and even though the price of gas was higher, driving at 60mph on their highways significantly increased my MPG to the point of negating the higher price of gas.
Anyway, I'll be glad for the day when there will be GPS chips in every car linked to the road's speed limit, and if a person drives 10mph over the speed the owner of the vehicle will get a ticket in the mail automatically (and it will be up to the owner of the vehicle to get the money from who-ever was driving their car!). Then everyone would drive at a more consistent speed and "keeping up with traffic" would mean going about the speed limit, so that could no longer be the excuse. Sure, there would be unusual circumstances for "justifiable" speeding (and I'm sure you guys will post a lot of them!) but if this works for 99.99% of the drivers then it would be worth it to have the other 0.01% of drivers get a speeding ticket that they'd have to appeal to prove it was justified.
If everyone was a very competent driver as most of those reading this forum think they are, then yes, speed limits could go up. But since the speed limits need to be set for the reality of drivers out in the real world, they will have to be set lower than what an "expert" driver could safely drive at. But since there is no way to prove someone is an "expert" driver (and just taking a few extra driving courses won't count!) traffic laws need to be universally applied.
And yes, while other bad driving habits (reckless driving, driving too fast for conditions, etc.) may cause more accidents than simply speeding, until other bad driving habits become as easy to track, monitor and enforce, speeding will always be the one most enforced.
"blindly using a radar gun to say you were going too fast according to some aluminum plated sign despite the perfectly safe circumstances around you. "
The fallacy in this statement is "...perfectly safe circumstances around you."
Someone may think the circumstances are "perfectly safe" and then will speed, only to have something unexpected happen and because of their speeding, an accident occurs that could have been avoided. It's for exactly that reason we have speed limits...to provide enough time/distance to react to the unexpected.
Plus "perfectly safe circumstance around you" is such a subjective assessment that it's useless to determine an objective speed limit. That's basically saying that every individual should drive at whatever speed they feel comfortable with...do you really want that?
I'm in an odd place on this board. On the one hand, I speed. I do it because I don't like going slow (though I do plan ahead in order to not be late), because I have a car that's a blast to drive fast, and because it lose concentration when driving slow and become less of a driver (every single accident I've ever been in, I was going 0 to 10 mph - never faster). On the other hand, I don't have this paranoid hatred of the courts and law enforcement that Andre seems to have. Are there corrupt LEOs or judges? Of course - but the single factor in every one of Andre's admitted tickets is Andre. I know, Andre, you're on the defensive and no longer listening to anything anyone says in here, but I'm going to say it anyway: if you speed, be prepared to pay the price. Don't complain about the limits - pay the fine and lobby whatever legislator or executive is responsible for the signs to change them.
Anyway, I'll be glad for the day when there will be GPS chips in every car linked to the road's speed limit, and if a person drives 10mph over the speed the owner of the vehicle will get a ticket in the mail automatically (and it will be up to the owner of the vehicle to get the money from who-ever was driving their car!). Then everyone would drive at a more consistent speed and "keeping up with traffic" would mean going about the speed limit, so that could no longer be the excuse. Sure, there would be unusual circumstances for "justifiable" speeding (and I'm sure you guys will post a lot of them!) but if this works for 99.99% of the drivers then it would be worth it to have the other 0.01% of drivers get a speeding ticket that they'd have to appeal to prove it was justified.
Wow. Let me hazard a guess; you also think 1984 had a happy ending, correct?
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
lol, still in edit mode so I stuck a disclaimer in there. I've yet to even be pulled over for speeding, much less tried to fight a ticket (I've been stopped 3 or 4 times and gotten two other tickets though).
they can do it right now on toll highways, thru EZ pass. They just won't, simply because if they tried, everyone would immediately stop using them, and it would create a traffic nightmare 9and of course, EZ pass and their political bagmen would lose a lot of money!)
Anyway, I'll be glad for the day when there will be GPS chips in every car linked to the road's speed limit, and if a person drives 10mph over the speed the owner of the vehicle will get a ticket in the mail automatically (and it will be up to the owner of the vehicle to get the money from who-ever was driving their car!).
That's a place that I do NOT want to drive. Not to get all sentimental or political here, and I won't get in to any philosophical discussions with anyone over it, but that sort of mechanism has no place in America.
"Wow. Let me hazard a guess; you also think 1984 had a happy ending, correct? "
Nope, but I don't think our government has the time nor the money to bother keeping track of people for no reason. People have GPS in their phones right now and for rational people, the convenience of having them outweighs the extremely remote possibility of the government tracking their every movement, but I'm sure there are a lot of dinosuars out there afraid of new technology for the “1984” reasons. People worried about the same thing with telephones, that the government would record the calls of every citizen out there. What those people never realized was not whether or not the government could do it, but why the government would want to waste the time and money to do it. By the way, I know of a website where they sell aluminum helmets to keep the governemnt from stealing your thoughts if you're interested :P
And right now there are black boxes to track a car's speed, braking, etc., to be used for accident investigation. I'd rather have technology used for things like tracking driver's speed and let police officers do other things. We're just talking about using technology to automate things that can be automated.
LULZ, lame cop out. For the resources the traffic controllers suck down, and for how we are nagged and encouraged to believe the set speeds are optimal, the traffic controls darn well better be optimized as much as possible for those speeds. When they aren't, it is either laziness, ineptitude, or something worse at work. It shouldn't be a crapshoot. We're paying top end prices for these people and systems, but aren't receiving top end performance. Wastes gas (hitting red after red after red certainly guzzles more than going 10 over), wastes time, creates jams, etc.
110? Red herring much? Seems to be your preferred rebuttal topic. Please. Sentra probably can't get to 110 anyway :shades:
My Sentra is very capable of over 110, based on results published by other owners. But I don't have that kind of money for tickets, nor am I in that much of a hurry.
When they aren't, it is either laziness, ineptitude, or something worse at work. It shouldn't be a crapshoot.
So sure are you! Here's why it's a crap shoot and not due to laziness or ineptitude or something worse, but a simple choice re how traffic signals work on a given road: as another poster just said, a lot of roads have sensors that control the lights. So rather than making drivers at side streets wait a long time, the lights change when a car approaches the intersection. I don't like that approach when I'm on the main road--but I like it just fine when I'm on the side street!
Take all this anger/angst/effort re posting about what you don't like about the System and WORK TO CHANGE IT! No... it's more fun to just complain, isn't it?
I suppose your penalty box is not an SE-R...maybe 115 or so on a downhill stretch with a tailwind, certainly nothing more unless under ideal situations (ie on a dyno). Speeding doesn't automatically get you a ticket, you know. I'd wager the brave souls who did explore the top speed didn't get taxed for it.
You know what they say about fighting city hall? Hell, it took a generation to repeal the idiotic 55mph rule, and that took national outcry...to get tenured city level civil servants to actually employ logic and accountability in their actions here would be like parting the seas. I should be happy things work as well as they do, given those at the wheel.
The over-sensitive sensor ideal shows a lot. Minor side street will have equal weight to a major road, so when a car approaches, 20 others will have to instantly stop to let it proceed, the system not looking for a break in traffic to trip the light. Intelligent! Sounds like ineptitude to me...but maybe in middle America, it's different. Capitalizing "System" says something.
In my 20's and early 30's I also used to be a speeder, but then maybe I just matured or something because I just started going the speed limit and not trying to get to my destination a couple of minutes sooner by speeding anymore
Probably has more to do with the fact that speed limits are set more realistically today than they have ever been in the past. Speed limits are going up thanks to people and grass root efforts despite opposition from politicians and insurance goons. Whereas in your 20's and 30's you encountered 55 MPH speed limits, nowadays you'll find 80 MPH speed limits in some states (Thank you NMA!).
And once I got into the habit of keeping my speed at 5mph or less above the posted speed limit, I've found that I don't even notice I'm doing it.
I'm exactly the same way, except maybe I stay in the 5 over to 10 over range where the speed limit is correctly objectively set to the 85th percentile. I don't pay any attention to the speed limits so if they are incorrectly set, then that might make me drive 15 over through no fault of my own.
And of course it's safer as I have more time to react to a given situation as compared to going faster.
Not always true, because driving slow bores and fatigues the heck out of most drivers, which will make them less alert. Driving spirited is driving safest because you are fully alert and aware. Driving slow bores drivers so much in fact, that they resort to multitasking (eating, talking, drinking, working) while driving.
(and it will be up to the owner of the vehicle to get the money from who-ever was driving their car!).
That is nuts and about as Un-american as possible. First, why is it the owner's job to secure funds for a fine from the correct driver? Isn't that law enforcement and the courts job? Isn't that why they get paid the big bucks. Not to mention you can't forget the 5th Amendment. Anyway, just because you loan a car to someone doesn't mean they were the one driving it. Perhaps they sub-lent it out? Unless you were in the car witnessing the violation, it is hearsay testimony and unverfiable or admittable in court. That's why camera tickets are unconstitutional; no one witnessed the crime nor the camera's correct operation. Police officer's perform an important role for the prosecution, first, they allegedly witness a violation, then they pull over the driver and identify the driver (Driver's license please!). A camera cannot ever do that conclusively or reliably. It is the police officer's job to play detective and investigate crimes, not the car owner's! Where's my paycheck?
would mean going about the speed limit, so that could no longer be the excuse.
That's not currently an excuse (saying I was just going with the flow of traffic is not a defense). It won't work in a courtroom unless you can show that you were somehow "singled out" and picked on out of everyone (good luck with that!). Virtually impossible to prove.
drivers get a speeding ticket that they'd have to appeal to prove it was justified.
So your guilty until proven innocent? Wow, More Un-Americanism! Guess you think our Constitution was written by idiots!
But since the speed limits need to be set for the reality of drivers out in the real world, they will have to be set lower than what an "expert" driver could safely drive at. But since there is no way to prove someone is an "expert" driver (and just taking a few extra driving courses won't count!) traffic laws need to be universally applied.
Why not just set speed limits realistically as an upper limit for a competent driver in a competent car? It is a limit being set, not an "average!" People will then be responsible and choose to drive at an appropriate speed for their abilities and their equipment. Sure, they'll be some idiots, but you'd be suprised that most drivers aren't as bad as you think if they are not multitasking due to boredom. I'll take an average driver at full alertness and attention driving 15 over the speed limit over an expert talking on his cell phone and texting while driving driving at or below the speed limit anyday!
And yes, while other bad driving habits (reckless driving, driving too fast for conditions, etc.) may cause more accidents than simply speeding,
That's the understatement of the year. A recent NHTSA study shows that less than 3% of accidents involve speeding as a causation.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Plus "perfectly safe circumstance around you" is such a subjective assessment that it's useless to determine an objective speed limit. That's basically saying that every individual should drive at whatever speed they feel comfortable with...do you really want that?
Actually, studies show that's exactly what we have today from MOST drivers (at least when a highway patrol car isn't within viewing distance). People do drive at whatever speed they feel comfortable with! That's exactly what I want because that's what occurs now for the most part. The low limits do force people through fear of fines and wasted time to drive slightly slower than they might otherwise, but only slightly so.
And that is why I support objective speed limits set consistently across the board everywhere. Let's side with the engineers and keep it objective, and just set all limits at the 85th percentile. Where speed limits are set lower than the 85th percentile you run into a lot of issues and problems. Personally, I'd like when all these measurments take place, a window of "no enforcement for a month" and no speed limits, so that people can drive comfortably and safely without fear of retribution and retaliation from the PD.
When I was talking to La Mesa's Traffic Engineer over the phone, she made it clear she has to go through a lot more flub and political backlash when she wants to raise a speed limit than when she wants to lower one. I asked if people really still believed the ancient and false notion that changing speed limits will change average speeds actually driven. The best she could counter was that when they raised the speed limit by 5 on Spring St. the 85th percentile went up 2 MPH!. A ratio of more than 2:1 proving my point in her "best" devil's advocate example.
You probably think no speed limits would create chaos. I seriously doubt it would change much. The impact, if any, from no speed limits would be felt most by the courts and the Police Dept's (no revenue) rather than by the public at large. But to keep law and order, I don't mind speed limits, I'd just like there to be none while the 85th percentile is measured.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
And right now there are black boxes to track a car's speed, braking, etc., to be used for accident investigation. I'd rather have technology used for things like tracking driver's speed and let police officers do other things. We're just talking about using technology to automate things that can be automated.
Here's my position on black boxes.
Since it's in the vehicle and I purchased the vehicle, it is my property, and I don't have to share it with anyone I don't want to share it with. If I want to turn it off, I should be able to. Now if the gov't wants to send a rebate to every car customer to pay for and own (and maintain the blackbox) then we can have another argument, but since the people own the car and the blackbox, they own the data, and therefore have the rights to say what to do with it (or not do with it).
Knock on wood (any not at-fault accidents I've been in were clear as night and day as to who was at fault (including a La Mesa PD officer on a motorcycle). Since I don't get into any At-fault accidents, I really see no need for black boxes, just a complete waste of money in my view. It should be optional equipment.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
FWIW, so-called "black boxes" we're never intended to be any form of traffic control or law enforcement aid, but a data recorder to give the manufacturer information on the performance of the vehicle, as well as storing fault data for future analysis by the manufacturer's representatives.
It was never intended as some form of law enforcement mechanism, although, just as data recorders became materials of evidence in airplane accident liability lawsuits, it ended up having that application... For better or worse.
Let's see... I think 110 is a better speed on my local freeways. Yes. I'll try that tomorrow, let you know how it goes.
Since your unwilling to try it, that shows your not really thinking it's a better speed. If there were no speed limits, how fast would you REALLY drive on a straight empty freeway?
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
What if I don't pay attention to the speed limit signs? LOL.. I know many who don't really pay them much attention because they are often archaicly underposted or inaccurately set.
Okay, :P to be serious, but what if you inadvertantly miss a sign and dont' see another sign for a while... what to do then if you don't know the speed limit?
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Well, I missed once once. Got a speeding ticket, although the trooper knocked it down a notch to save me some dollars. I mitigated via mail and saved myself even more. First moving violation in 29 years at the time.
Haven't wasted too much time over the years with spurious arguments with court officials, police, or traffic engineers.
Fun drive home tonight. As soon as I get on the road after work, I see a Camry make an unsignaled panic turn across 3 lanes to get in a right turn lane. Guess who I get behind? Camry,driven by someone who was probably one of isell's test drive horror stories. They have a phone in their hand and aren't paying attention. I hit the horn to wake them up and get them going. About half a mile later I am beside said Camry as it weaves around and makes an unsignaled right turn, and I hit the horn again just to scare the "driver". Then to top it off, I am sitting at a light and an Accord driven by someone I won't describe as not to offend the oversensitive, comes to a stop a couple car lengths behind the car in front of it. The "driver" is furiously texting. Light turns green, Accord gets ahead of me as I have to wait for a typical local mentally defective slow turner. I start moving, and Accord is weaving around just like the Camry, but worse, crossing the line more than the width of a tire, and going slow. Might have been good luck I had to wait for the slowpoke, or I could have been sideswiped by the lesser mortal in the Accord. I just laid on my horn for that one, and got a hilarious delayed reaction from the "driver" when he woke up and veered back.
speeding being easier to enforce is not a good reason to enforce it more than it's due cause. Since only about 3% of accidents involve "speeding" as a cause, I think only 3% of tickets written should be for speeding. 97% of traffic enforcment should be on other more important things, like texting while driving, and LLCing.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I don't think our government has the time nor the money to bother keeping track of people for no reason.
Which is just what you advocated.
People have GPS in their phones right now and for rational people, the convenience of having them outweighs the extremely remote possibility of the government tracking their every movement, but I'm sure there are a lot of dinosuars out there afraid of new technology for the “1984” reasons. People worried about the same thing with telephones, that the government would record the calls of every citizen out there. What those people never realized was not whether or not the government could do it, but why the government would want to waste the time and money to do it.
And that is relevant to your proposal in what way?
By the way, I know of a website where they sell aluminum helmets to keep the governemnt[sic] from stealing your thoughts if you're interested
Yes fearing government abuse of power is merely a crazy, fringe ideology.
And right now there are black boxes to track a car's speed, braking, etc., to be used for accident investigation. I'd rather have technology used for things like tracking driver's speed and let police officers do other things. We're just talking about using technology to automate things that can be automated.
By all means, let's get rid of those pesky technicalities such as the presumption of innocence and the right to confront your accuser- why not abolish due process altogether? You might be happy living in the world you describe, blissfully piloting a transportation appliance pod under the benevolent eyes of government computers, but I doubt that very many people would share your enthusiasm.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
was merging onto a local highway last night, with a fair amount of traffic (it is an access route to the shore). in the right lane, looking for an opening to move left. One of the cars that passes me, at a good clip, was an older S10 PU (looked lowered). next thing I know, he cuts into my lane (no signal) without leaving much room, and slows way down.
I manage to get into the middle lane and pass. And of course, he is trying to test with one hand, drive with the other (well, that is something!) while glancing back and forth, road to phone.
I should be happy things work as well as they do, given those at the wheel.
See, there's a silver lining after all! I am just glad to wake up every morning, and survive another day on the highways and byways with all the crazies out there.
Before I answer this question, tell me: who has to pay for the gas? That is, are we talking rental car or my car?
Also what kind of car do I get to drive?
Frankly it's not the speeds on straight, empty highways that concern me. It's the speeds on roads I drive on every day... none of which is straight for very long, and never totally empty. That's why any talk of abolishing speed limits is ridiculous, IMO.
What I had difficulty understanding was HOW some of these recent arrivals to our country were able to pass their driver's license tests!
If they had in International Driver's License, that meant they didn't know how to drive....SERIOUSLY!
I would not let these people on the freeway and I kept them on a very tight leash. Several times I had to grab the steering wheel and three or four times, I had them pull over and I drove back to the store.
The tests are easy, but I remember taking my test nearly 20 years ago now, and there was stuff these people can't seem to do. Maybe it needs to be more stringent. Scariest part is that the same license that puts one of these people in a Civrolla will also put them in an obese obstructing SUV or a behemoth 40ft motorhome. Makes sense though, just as I can get a motorcycle endorsement on a vespa and then go out and buy a turbo busa the same day, if I want. I am sure being "business friendly" is a big part of it. More drivers = more tax revenues.
IDL is worthless, means you can legally drive in your home country...in many of these second and third world hellholes where our new residents come from, it is often simply a matter of bribing the clerk. I have serious suspicions the same thing happens here, too.
And my hyper-awareness makes me crabby, as I notice errors, and not only of those who cut me off.
I'd probably make a good traffic cop...although I wouldn't waste time with people going 70 in a 60, I'd be chasing down the texters and non-signalers all day :shades:
Yeah, that hyper-awareness of errors of others can be a pain. Over the years I've found it helps my overall disposition and blood pressure to let most errors by others roll off the back... unless they are outright dangerous. If I let myself get upset over every inconsiderate act I see committed on the roads, I'd probably need meds for blood pressure control at the least.
The horn works as a blowoff valve for me, along with imitating a severe tourettes outbreak :shades: When I encounter someone stupid, which is a huge amount of the motoring population in this dumbed down society, I generally just shake my head or give a thumbs down sign (just learned that one). It takes a lot for me to give a finger.
Other than at those who's incompetence becomes dangerous to me or my vehicle, I get most irked at poor road conditions and arbitrary irresponsible traffic controls.
I'd be chasing down the texters and non-signalers all day
Three cheers to that!!! :P
You and I'd make a better traffic police force than any department currently out there in the USA! Non-signalers are a pet peeve of mine, as well as LLC's. I'd go after traffic impeders all day long while letting you nab the texters and non-signalers (for the most part).
I'd also devise a system that punishes frequent accident causers more severely especially if those accidents caused traffic to be impeded in a major thoroughfare during business hours.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Speaking of honking and fingers... my DW was driving home from the mall yesterday on the freeway when she noticed a woman in an SUV holding a phone in one hand up on the wheel, yakking. This idiot starts weaving into my wife's lane right in front of her. So my wife gives her a bleep with the horn to wake her up. And the lady gives my wife the finger!
If you get irked at poor road conditions, never never never move to Minnesnowta or drive there for any length of time--you'll have a coronary. Poor road conditions are the rule, driven by relentless freeze/thaw and limits on repair/construction funds. At least snow removal is an art form here.
Any traffic enforcement type could literally be busy the whole shift day giving tickets for failures to signal and/or to keep right except to pass. There is a part B to the later also.
So for example, on a 4/5 lane freeway, (as the basic speed law is written) the only lane occupiers NOT required to keep right except to pass, mathmatically are the ones ALREADY in the extreme right hand lane. They of course (this has actually happened to me several times) can be forced/required to move to the shoulder or out of the way by LEO's with lights and/or sirens. Now practically speaking, this means that in any lane other than the extreme right lane, an overtaking car in lanes 1.2.3.4. should move out of ITS way.
BOTH issues individually and collectively are safety issues AND almost universally ignored. Of course there is a "chicken & egg" component here. In my humble opinion, consistent and constant enforcement of these two issues would considerably improve traffic flow and procedures and safety. While it might seem weird, until there are significant improvement in these issues: massive increase of and massive revenues.
I am pretty sure we'd be better at actually addressing the problems on the road, too. But we might be reprimanded for not keeping up the revenue flow, which is really what it is all about.
I saw something hilarious on TV last night. Local news show was doing a bit about aggressive driving, and some state patrol types were saying it spikes in late summer. They had a ride-along segment where a patrolman was looking for bad offenders, and they found one - guy in a Corolla going 84 in a 60 where traffic was flowing 65, weaving around using all lanes, bad signal use, etc. He gets pulled over, and get this - gets a ticket for "improper signal use". Nothing for speed and weaving nor tailgating etc. Really makes it easy to take speeding seriously!
Hoo boy, I can see it now... andres is stopped for driving recklessly. "No, I wasn't!" he tells the LEO. In his mind, he was driving safely. Of course, what he considers "safe" is different from what the LEO considers "safe". So of course, andres fights the ticket. The defense: there's no objective measure for "reckless driving". It's all opinion. There was no accident (luckily). It's the opinion of the LEO vs. the opinion of andres. Of course, andres will try to make sure the LEO doesn't show up for the court hearing by having it held far from where the LEO works.
And you think enforcement of speed limits is a messy business? Go ahead and abolish them, and see what mayhem ensues.
Assume a "reasonable" $2.50 a gallon? You mean, assume a price that I nor no one else will be paying now nor likely ever again?
This just proves you are living in some kind of alternate universe from the rest of us. I have suspected it for some time, now I know for sure.
And when I rent a car on business, which I do a lot, no, I don't pay for gas. But I don't get to rent a Porsche. I get to rent the cheapest car on the lot and hope I get a free upgrade to something like a... Sentra.
Comments
I miss sequenced lights. We only have one run of those here down Cushman street (25 mph limit), and they seem to work well enough if you stick at the limit or within a couple mph of it. Everything else... all the higher speed roads that could use sequenced lights... they don't have them. They are all sensor-driven for the side streets, so they switch whenever there's a sensed need to do so. Sometimes you make a few before a red, sometimes not. They're the Great Equalizer in terms of getting to your destination, regardless of how fast you try to go. :P
We had several runs of sequenced lights through downtown Pendleton, and they worked perfectly. You nearly always hit one early on, but from there to the other end of town it was smooth sailing if you kept it within a few of the limit.
Maybe you should have; maybe you made a huge mistake in not checking to see if the traffic and engineering survey's 85th percentile results justified the speed limit.
If like me, you find the survey doesn't support the speed limit set to the 85th percentile, then how can you continue to justify an obviously and objectively underposted speed limit.
If I can show you streets extremely similar in characteristics to the one I got a ticket on with a SL of 35, but in other less corrupt cities the SL is 40 or 45, does that make a difference to you?
Why should the same type of street have 35 MPH speed limits in one city and 40 or 45 in another?
I manned up and dealt with it as EVERYONE should do!
I've suggested that if the government stopped this farce of speeding being a criminal charge (complete with progressive penalties, insurance surcharges, and such), and simply made it a tax/fine payable to the gov't for choosing to drive reasonably (over the speed limit), then that would be OK with me.
But because the DMV keeps records and points and insurance companies itch at the chance to over charge you while donating more radar guns to police agencies, I just can't go along with it all. Too much is at stake besides the fines which are way too high now.
Oh wait, CA will say the fines are low, that it's a bunch of fees that make a $90 dollar ticket cost $360.
The list looks like this:
Mahogany desks Fee $25
Judges Cotton Robes Fee $25
Night Court Fee $25 (regardless if you use it or now)
Court Construction Fee $25
Court lighting electrical fee $25
Court Pension Fee $25
Happy Hour Fee $25
Obviously I'm poking fun of all the fees, but the real list is similar and lengthy.
I got a better idea. Rather than raising taxes or raising revenues, why dont' we just FIRE all the traffic court judges, employees, and CHP officer's and use the money saved from that to pay for safer well paved roads, maintained signage, lighting, and such.
Yes! At least with the higher stakes, I'd have a right to an Attorney to defend me, a jury to decide the case, and other rights denied due process in traffic court. The conviction rate of traffic courts at 99% would drop down to reality as in other criminal cases! That would be a great thing.
Would probably be more effective than fines... just not sure where the money would come from to build and staff all those prisons...
I don't think you'd see more prisons. I think the tougher penalties would make officers with a conscience think twice before issuing a ticket. Perhaps even observing a potential safety hazard, and not just blindly using a radar gun to say you were going too fast according to some aluminum plated sign despite the perfectly safe circumstances around you.
Also, with less cases resulting in successful convictions, more would be thrown out or defeated in court with not guilty verdicts.
Also, if the penalties were more severe, the people would revolt and you'd see speed limit signs removed or upped by 5 to 15 MPH in days, not weeks or months.
Too many people just simply pay the fine because the courts waste too much time. They do that on purpose, to discourage ticket fighting. They don't want justice, they want $$$$.
I'm not a fanatic about it, but if the speed limit is 35mph, then I'll go at most 40mph, and just because there's no traffic around me I'm not going to drive 50mph "because I can." What's the point? And once I got into the habit of keeping my speed at 5mph or less above the posted speed limit, I've found that I don't even notice I'm doing it. It's now a habit (and a good one) like working out or eating right. Now I'm not worried about looking around for cops, trying to get around this car or that car. And of course it's safer as I have more time to react to a given situation as compared to going faster. And when the traffic is congested and everyone is going slower, it doesn't bother me driving behind some cars going 5mph under the speed limit on the highway. I'm not going to get all worked up trying to pass them to save 50 seconds on my commute.
Those who speed on a regular basis are just exhibiting a bad habit, just like those who smoke, drink too much, don't exercise or eat right, or have any number of bad habits. When I was up in Canada the speed limit was 100km/hr, or about 60mph on the highways I was on, but I noticed there were hardly any speeders, even though I didn't see any cops on the side of the roads with speed guns. Up there, they have good driving habits and even though the price of gas was higher, driving at 60mph on their highways significantly increased my MPG to the point of negating the higher price of gas.
Anyway, I'll be glad for the day when there will be GPS chips in every car linked to the road's speed limit, and if a person drives 10mph over the speed the owner of the vehicle will get a ticket in the mail automatically (and it will be up to the owner of the vehicle to get the money from who-ever was driving their car!). Then everyone would drive at a more consistent speed and "keeping up with traffic" would mean going about the speed limit, so that could no longer be the excuse. Sure, there would be unusual circumstances for "justifiable" speeding (and I'm sure you guys will post a lot of them!) but if this works for 99.99% of the drivers then it would be worth it to have the other 0.01% of drivers get a speeding ticket that they'd have to appeal to prove it was justified.
If everyone was a very competent driver as most of those reading this forum think they are, then yes, speed limits could go up. But since the speed limits need to be set for the reality of drivers out in the real world, they will have to be set lower than what an "expert" driver could safely drive at. But since there is no way to prove someone is an "expert" driver (and just taking a few extra driving courses won't count!) traffic laws need to be universally applied.
And yes, while other bad driving habits (reckless driving, driving too fast for conditions, etc.) may cause more accidents than simply speeding, until other bad driving habits become as easy to track, monitor and enforce, speeding will always be the one most enforced.
The fallacy in this statement is "...perfectly safe circumstances around you."
Someone may think the circumstances are "perfectly safe" and then will speed, only to have something unexpected happen and because of their speeding, an accident occurs that could have been avoided. It's for exactly that reason we have speed limits...to provide enough time/distance to react to the unexpected.
Plus "perfectly safe circumstance around you" is such a subjective assessment that it's useless to determine an objective speed limit. That's basically saying that every individual should drive at whatever speed they feel comfortable with...do you really want that?
But no, you are not the only old timer that has never been written up. Trust me no this one.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Wow. Let me hazard a guess; you also think 1984 had a happy ending, correct?
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
That's a place that I do NOT want to drive. Not to get all sentimental or political here, and I won't get in to any philosophical discussions with anyone over it, but that sort of mechanism has no place in America.
Nope, but I don't think our government has the time nor the money to bother keeping track of people for no reason. People have GPS in their phones right now and for rational people, the convenience of having them outweighs the extremely remote possibility of the government tracking their every movement, but I'm sure there are a lot of dinosuars out there afraid of new technology for the “1984” reasons. People worried about the same thing with telephones, that the government would record the calls of every citizen out there. What those people never realized was not whether or not the government could do it, but why the government would want to waste the time and money to do it. By the way, I know of a website where they sell aluminum helmets to keep the governemnt from stealing your thoughts if you're interested :P
And right now there are black boxes to track a car's speed, braking, etc., to be used for accident investigation. I'd rather have technology used for things like tracking driver's speed and let police officers do other things. We're just talking about using technology to automate things that can be automated.
110? Red herring much? Seems to be your preferred rebuttal topic. Please. Sentra probably can't get to 110 anyway :shades:
So what will the new blandbox be?
When they aren't, it is either laziness, ineptitude, or something worse at work. It shouldn't be a crapshoot.
So sure are you! Here's why it's a crap shoot and not due to laziness or ineptitude or something worse, but a simple choice re how traffic signals work on a given road: as another poster just said, a lot of roads have sensors that control the lights. So rather than making drivers at side streets wait a long time, the lights change when a car approaches the intersection. I don't like that approach when I'm on the main road--but I like it just fine when I'm on the side street!
Take all this anger/angst/effort re posting about what you don't like about the System and WORK TO CHANGE IT! No... it's more fun to just complain, isn't it?
You know what they say about fighting city hall? Hell, it took a generation to repeal the idiotic 55mph rule, and that took national outcry...to get tenured city level civil servants to actually employ logic and accountability in their actions here would be like parting the seas. I should be happy things work as well as they do, given those at the wheel.
The over-sensitive sensor ideal shows a lot. Minor side street will have equal weight to a major road, so when a car approaches, 20 others will have to instantly stop to let it proceed, the system not looking for a break in traffic to trip the light. Intelligent! Sounds like ineptitude to me...but maybe in middle America, it's different. Capitalizing "System" says something.
Probably has more to do with the fact that speed limits are set more realistically today than they have ever been in the past. Speed limits are going up thanks to people and grass root efforts despite opposition from politicians and insurance goons. Whereas in your 20's and 30's you encountered 55 MPH speed limits, nowadays you'll find 80 MPH speed limits in some states (Thank you NMA!).
And once I got into the habit of keeping my speed at 5mph or less above the posted speed limit, I've found that I don't even notice I'm doing it.
I'm exactly the same way, except maybe I stay in the 5 over to 10 over range where the speed limit is correctly objectively set to the 85th percentile. I don't pay any attention to the speed limits so if they are incorrectly set, then that might make me drive 15 over through no fault of my own.
And of course it's safer as I have more time to react to a given situation as compared to going faster.
Not always true, because driving slow bores and fatigues the heck out of most drivers, which will make them less alert. Driving spirited is driving safest because you are fully alert and aware. Driving slow bores drivers so much in fact, that they resort to multitasking (eating, talking, drinking, working) while driving.
(and it will be up to the owner of the vehicle to get the money from who-ever was driving their car!).
That is nuts and about as Un-american as possible. First, why is it the owner's job to secure funds for a fine from the correct driver? Isn't that law enforcement and the courts job? Isn't that why they get paid the big bucks. Not to mention you can't forget the 5th Amendment. Anyway, just because you loan a car to someone doesn't mean they were the one driving it. Perhaps they sub-lent it out? Unless you were in the car witnessing the violation, it is hearsay testimony and unverfiable or admittable in court. That's why camera tickets are unconstitutional; no one witnessed the crime nor the camera's correct operation. Police officer's perform an important role for the prosecution, first, they allegedly witness a violation, then they pull over the driver and identify the driver (Driver's license please!). A camera cannot ever do that conclusively or reliably. It is the police officer's job to play detective and investigate crimes, not the car owner's! Where's my paycheck?
would mean going about the speed limit, so that could no longer be the excuse.
That's not currently an excuse (saying I was just going with the flow of traffic is not a defense). It won't work in a courtroom unless you can show that you were somehow "singled out" and picked on out of everyone (good luck with that!). Virtually impossible to prove.
drivers get a speeding ticket that they'd have to appeal to prove it was justified.
So your guilty until proven innocent? Wow, More Un-Americanism! Guess you think our Constitution was written by idiots!
But since the speed limits need to be set for the reality of drivers out in the real world, they will have to be set lower than what an "expert" driver could safely drive at. But since there is no way to prove someone is an "expert" driver (and just taking a few extra driving courses won't count!) traffic laws need to be universally applied.
Why not just set speed limits realistically as an upper limit for a competent driver in a competent car? It is a limit being set, not an "average!" People will then be responsible and choose to drive at an appropriate speed for their abilities and their equipment. Sure, they'll be some idiots, but you'd be suprised that most drivers aren't as bad as you think if they are not multitasking due to boredom. I'll take an average driver at full alertness and attention driving 15 over the speed limit over an expert talking on his cell phone and texting while driving driving at or below the speed limit anyday!
And yes, while other bad driving habits (reckless driving, driving too fast for conditions, etc.) may cause more accidents than simply speeding,
That's the understatement of the year. A recent NHTSA study shows that less than 3% of accidents involve speeding as a causation.
Actually, studies show that's exactly what we have today from MOST drivers (at least when a highway patrol car isn't within viewing distance). People do drive at whatever speed they feel comfortable with! That's exactly what I want because that's what occurs now for the most part. The low limits do force people through fear of fines and wasted time to drive slightly slower than they might otherwise, but only slightly so.
And that is why I support objective speed limits set consistently across the board everywhere. Let's side with the engineers and keep it objective, and just set all limits at the 85th percentile. Where speed limits are set lower than the 85th percentile you run into a lot of issues and problems. Personally, I'd like when all these measurments take place, a window of "no enforcement for a month" and no speed limits, so that people can drive comfortably and safely without fear of retribution and retaliation from the PD.
When I was talking to La Mesa's Traffic Engineer over the phone, she made it clear she has to go through a lot more flub and political backlash when she wants to raise a speed limit than when she wants to lower one. I asked if people really still believed the ancient and false notion that changing speed limits will change average speeds actually driven. The best she could counter was that when they raised the speed limit by 5 on Spring St. the 85th percentile went up 2 MPH!. A ratio of more than 2:1 proving my point in her "best" devil's advocate example.
You probably think no speed limits would create chaos. I seriously doubt it would change much. The impact, if any, from no speed limits would be felt most by the courts and the Police Dept's (no revenue) rather than by the public at large. But to keep law and order, I don't mind speed limits, I'd just like there to be none while the 85th percentile is measured.
Here's my position on black boxes.
Since it's in the vehicle and I purchased the vehicle, it is my property, and I don't have to share it with anyone I don't want to share it with. If I want to turn it off, I should be able to. Now if the gov't wants to send a rebate to every car customer to pay for and own (and maintain the blackbox) then we can have another argument, but since the people own the car and the blackbox, they own the data, and therefore have the rights to say what to do with it (or not do with it).
Knock on wood (any not at-fault accidents I've been in were clear as night and day as to who was at fault (including a La Mesa PD officer on a motorcycle). Since I don't get into any At-fault accidents, I really see no need for black boxes, just a complete waste of money in my view. It should be optional equipment.
It was never intended as some form of law enforcement mechanism, although, just as data recorders became materials of evidence in airplane accident liability lawsuits, it ended up having that application... For better or worse.
Since your unwilling to try it, that shows your not really thinking it's a better speed. If there were no speed limits, how fast would you REALLY drive on a straight empty freeway?
Okay, :P to be serious, but what if you inadvertantly miss a sign and dont' see another sign for a while... what to do then if you don't know the speed limit?
I've said I was done responding to his inane postings and I have REALLY tried not to but still....sometimes...
It's like talking to a four year old.
I only wish every cop in his town could read his postings. Oh, the fun they would have with him!
Haven't wasted too much time over the years with spurious arguments with court officials, police, or traffic engineers.
Your weather moderated a bit over there? I know you guys on the wet side don't handle 90 like we can... :shades:
Some have a need for attention, no matter the means by which they get it. A Munchausen Syndrome expression? A Munchausen expression?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Which is just what you advocated.
People have GPS in their phones right now and for rational people, the convenience of having them outweighs the extremely remote possibility of the government tracking their every movement, but I'm sure there are a lot of dinosuars out there afraid of new technology for the “1984” reasons. People worried about the same thing with telephones, that the government would record the calls of every citizen out there. What those people never realized was not whether or not the government could do it, but why the government would want to waste the time and money to do it.
And that is relevant to your proposal in what way?
By the way, I know of a website where they sell aluminum helmets to keep the governemnt[sic] from stealing your thoughts if you're interested
Yes fearing government abuse of power is merely a crazy, fringe ideology.
And right now there are black boxes to track a car's speed, braking, etc., to be used for accident investigation. I'd rather have technology used for things like tracking driver's speed and let police officers do other things. We're just talking about using technology to automate things that can be automated.
By all means, let's get rid of those pesky technicalities such as the presumption of innocence and the right to confront your accuser- why not abolish due process altogether? You might be happy living in the world you describe, blissfully piloting a transportation appliance pod under the benevolent eyes of government computers, but I doubt that very many people would share your enthusiasm.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
I manage to get into the middle lane and pass. And of course, he is trying to test with one hand, drive with the other (well, that is something!) while glancing back and forth, road to phone.
dope. And never a cop when you need one!
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
See, there's a silver lining after all! I am just glad to wake up every morning, and survive another day on the highways and byways with all the crazies out there.
Also what kind of car do I get to drive?
Frankly it's not the speeds on straight, empty highways that concern me. It's the speeds on roads I drive on every day... none of which is straight for very long, and never totally empty. That's why any talk of abolishing speed limits is ridiculous, IMO.
If they had in International Driver's License, that meant they didn't know how to drive....SERIOUSLY!
I would not let these people on the freeway and I kept them on a very tight leash. Several times I had to grab the steering wheel and three or four times, I had them pull over and I drove back to the store.
IDL is worthless, means you can legally drive in your home country...in many of these second and third world hellholes where our new residents come from, it is often simply a matter of bribing the clerk. I have serious suspicions the same thing happens here, too.
I believe his name was Ryan... And he served prison time...
I'd probably make a good traffic cop...although I wouldn't waste time with people going 70 in a 60, I'd be chasing down the texters and non-signalers all day :shades:
Other than at those who's incompetence becomes dangerous to me or my vehicle, I get most irked at poor road conditions and arbitrary irresponsible traffic controls.
Probably easier to stay under the radar selling normal licenses as a paper pushing DOL clerk stuck in a job anyone would hate.
Three cheers to that!!!
You and I'd make a better traffic police force than any department currently out there in the USA! Non-signalers are a pet peeve of mine, as well as LLC's. I'd go after traffic impeders all day long while letting you nab the texters and non-signalers (for the most part).
I'd also devise a system that punishes frequent accident causers more severely especially if those accidents caused traffic to be impeded in a major thoroughfare during business hours.
If you get irked at poor road conditions, never never never move to Minnesnowta or drive there for any length of time--you'll have a coronary. Poor road conditions are the rule, driven by relentless freeze/thaw and limits on repair/construction funds. At least snow removal is an art form here.
So for example, on a 4/5 lane freeway, (as the basic speed law is written) the only lane occupiers NOT required to keep right except to pass, mathmatically are the ones ALREADY in the extreme right hand lane. They of course (this has actually happened to me several times) can be forced/required to move to the shoulder or out of the way by LEO's with lights and/or sirens. Now practically speaking, this means that in any lane other than the extreme right lane, an overtaking car in lanes 1.2.3.4. should move out of ITS way.
BOTH issues individually and collectively are safety issues AND almost universally ignored. Of course there is a "chicken & egg" component here. In my humble opinion, consistent and constant enforcement of these two issues would considerably improve traffic flow and procedures and safety. While it might seem weird, until there are significant improvement in these issues: massive increase of and massive revenues.
You have to pay for your own gas don't you? You mean if your driving while on the job and reimbursed for mileage?
You pay your own gas, but assume gas was a reasonable $2.50/gallon, then answer the question that way.
As to who owns the car, answer for both, your own, and your rental (wouldn't it depend whether your renting a Prius or Porsche?).
Even with speed limits abolished it's still against the law to drive recklessly (unreasonably and unsafely).
I saw something hilarious on TV last night. Local news show was doing a bit about aggressive driving, and some state patrol types were saying it spikes in late summer. They had a ride-along segment where a patrolman was looking for bad offenders, and they found one - guy in a Corolla going 84 in a 60 where traffic was flowing 65, weaving around using all lanes, bad signal use, etc. He gets pulled over, and get this - gets a ticket for "improper signal use". Nothing for speed and weaving nor tailgating etc. Really makes it easy to take speeding seriously!
And you think enforcement of speed limits is a messy business? Go ahead and abolish them, and see what mayhem ensues.
This just proves you are living in some kind of alternate universe from the rest of us. I have suspected it for some time, now I know for sure.
And when I rent a car on business, which I do a lot, no, I don't pay for gas. But I don't get to rent a Porsche. I get to rent the cheapest car on the lot and hope I get a free upgrade to something like a... Sentra.