Or just skipping posts that offend your delicate sensibilities? You have a lot more luck at attaining that ideal...
Today's dopes: greybeard in a Colorado who pulled out into traffic, took off at a fast clip, then gradually slowed to 5 under (this was when I was behind him). Eventually we hit a light, then he takes off normally, keeps going until he's going about 50 in a 35 - way ahead of me by then, makes an abrupt lane change behind a slow moving minivan, gets in the left lane, and slows back down to the speed limit :confuse:
While on foot, saw a Bentley coupe make an insane left turn out of a parking garage, careens across 3 busy lanes, and gets in a left turn lane. Light isn't sequenced to meet traffic demand, so the "driver" changes their mind, moves right (cutting off a Fedex truck), and takes off. Would love to see wealth-based fines for these people.
I noticed in the Republican platform, they advocate reducing traffic fines for wealthy people, so they'll have more money with which to create jobs and stimulate the economy.
You seem to be equating every "valid" speeding violation to being the cause of an accident. You know that is ridiculous, right? But the fact you don't cause an accident every time you're caught speeding doesn't by itself make the tickets "lie". Just means you were caught speeding but did not cause an accident. As has been mentioned in recent days, the stats tell us that a significant number of accidents do have speeding as a cause. So looks like you've been lucky so far.
As has been mentioned in recent days, the stats tell us that a significant number of accidents do have speeding as a cause.
People with real common sense don't believe that. That real true stats tell us that virtually no accidents have speeding as a cause. Go ask an accident investigator. If speeding is indeed somehow a factor it will virtually always come with some sort of caveat.
I do not equate "driving too fast for conditions" as a speed factor in accidents. I do not equate someone driving too fast because they are drunk to have "speed as a factor" in the accident. For one, the accident wouldn't have happened had they been sober, the fact they were speeding had nothing to do with the creation of the accident, it was just a byproduct of the real cause. You have to dig deeper. Look deeply into the stats you are looking at. Is it coming from a biased corrupted "insurance funded" source; unfortunately the answer is yes!
I really can't think of any real world situation where speed is REALLY the factor in the accident. If your going too fast around a curve and traffic is backed up unexpectedly, then you are going too fast for conditions if you rearend someone (sightlines too short to go that fast, and deficient braking abilities on your car/driver reaction time). The only situation I can think of is where you hit someone at maybe 5 - 10 MPH from behind because you were going 80 MPH and if you had been going 65 perhaps you would have stopped just in time to avoid hitting their bumper. Still, even in those cases you failed to yield to the vehicle in front of you, you were following too closely for your speed, and you didn't leave enough room to stop in time. Speed is not a factor when used appropriately. You can follow someone too closely at 10 MPH, 20 MPH, 40 MPH, or 80 MPH and end up rear-ending them. The "cause" is following too closely at any speed, not speed itself.
Show me any accident "where speed was a factor" and I'll show you that some other "driver error" was the cause; usually a misjudgement of some kind.
It's the lazy way out to say... well the speed limit was 55, they were going 65, the cause must of been speed!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Ha, that link about Seattle drivers is driving me nuts. Reading the column, and the comments; I don't think I could stand living in Seattle.
I'd go postal on those bad drivers and equip my vehicle with a grenade launcher; since the cops can't do their jobs, I'd have to have vigilante justice!
I don't even live in Seattle, and that got my blood boiling a bit. I certainly don't want to move there now!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I do not equate "driving too fast for conditions" as a speed factor in accidents.
You lost me on that one. If you're driving too fast for conditions, it follows that you are speeding.
California state police love to pull people over on the freeways for going 5 under the posted limit when there's a rain that freshens up the oil on the road. Happened twice in a 10 mile stretch to a guy I know; got warned both times.
The reason they do that is pretty obvious too - the road may look fine but will be slippery, especially at the beginning of a rain or during a sprinkle. Slippery conditions cause accidents.
Yes and those specific area's are usually known (by locals) where they do that type of "enforcement". The fact of the matter is that one can be stopped for almost any reason and for almost any speed.
We have a local highway that can easily support 100+ mpg. When certain conditions are present (so called tule fog) you can be praying to GOD you are not going to hit someone in front of you with you going 30 mpg and no fully loaded tractor trailer will be crashing into you.
Even if speeding is only a contributing factor to an accident than that's enough of a reason not to speed. There's never a "single cause" to an accident...only an idiot would think that. Accidents are caused by a combination of unsafe driving habits...speeding, not paying attention, drinking, texting, not using signals when changing lane, not looking in blind spot before passing, etc...), so if any one of those factors can be reduced than the overall number of accidents can be reduced. Therefore, if folks would simply follow the speed limits (or at least within 5mph), than less accidents would occur.
So even though it's true the reducing the other factors will also reduce accidents, there's no denying the fact that reducing speeding will do it as well. Those trying to justify speeding are just as bad as those trying to justify texting while drivng with the excuse that, "I'm a really skilled texter, so it doesn't impact MY driving." Or speeders saying, "I'm a really good driver so speeding doesn't impact MY driving." Carry that logic out and you'll have no traffic rules.
Bottom line is that speeding is just another unsafe driving habit that if reduced, will reduce the overall number of accidents, just like reducing any other bad driving habit. If your mind can't grasp that concept than just continue the ignorant babbling...
The comments are a little off, compared to the reality. The problem here is lack of skill, road network that hasn't paced population growth, terrible traffic controls, far too many newbies who have no prior exposure to motoring, passive-aggressive old timers, and general oblivion. People seldom try to be offensive - it just happens.
I think there's a disconnect between driving too fast and "speeding" in terms of breaking the speed limit. They really aren't the same thing.
"well the speed limit was 55, they were going 65, the cause must of been speed!"
Sadly, a huge amount of "drivers" (quotes used for irony) believe that. The same people who equate going 10 over with texting. Really, maybe they need to think about parking their toasters and taking a bus or a taxi.
Speed doesn't kill, bad driving kills. Going faster than an often arbitrarily-reached limit is not necessarily driving too fast.
I see both sides of this argument. Andres3 is stating that speed was not the decisive factor in the crash just because the person was driving too fast for conditions. Conditions include not only the road surface and weather, but also the condition and abilities of the vehicle as well as the driver. Ultimately, driver competency was the decisive factor, regardless of anything else.
That said, speed is always a factor. Is it a significant factor, as in the decisive (or causative) factor? In my opinion... no, and I say that because speed never causes a crash; it only impacts the severity of the outcome.
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
Agreed in concept, Bob. I think what is debatable is what constitutes "speeding." Speed exists at any rate of movement, so the presence of speed is, by itself, not the same as "speeding." I define speeding as going at a rate of speed that is unsafe for conditions. Others, including you I suspect, would not limit the definition to that but also say that speeds greater than the posted limit (in all circumstances) are also speeding.
The problem with any variation on the definition chosen, however, is that assumptions are always made that will never allow any one speed to be a de facto "safe" speed for a given day, hour, or even second. One day, in one set of conditions (including vehicle and driver), the posted limit might be the limit. The next day, same vehicle/driver, the conditions might have changed such that lower or higher is the limit. Even still, on that first day when that posted limit seemed just right, an unknown factor might be present that makes it far too fast - such as a child running out from behind a stationary object. If the child is hit (or even a near miss), was the driver suddenly "speeding?" Was speed a factor?
Ultimately, the speed chosen must be chosen by the driver taking into consideration perceived risks. The posted limit, if present, is a guide but is not the deciding factor on what constitutes speeding.
It's not black and white, even if the color of the signs would make one think it is.
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
Or maybe I should say Juice better watch out. Lousy drivers in DC. Appropriate that my sister lived there for a while and is still only a couple of hours away.
I've lived in this year's #2 (Boise) and #4 (Madison) and we've looked at Ft. Collins as a retirement location. Maybe we're subconsciously basing attractive places to move to on the drivers.
Our Host already stated my first thought upon reading your post: if you are going too fast for conditions, you are speeding.
That real true stats tell us that virtually no accidents have speeding as a cause.
And what would those "real true stats" be? The ones you agree with?
Then later in your post you easily come up with a real-world situation where speeding was the primary cause of the accident. Guess what? There's many others. Which you'll realize when you wake up and realize that driving too fast for conditions is speeding.
Your litany of posts trying to justify your speeding is familiar. I've seen it before, in other subject areas, e.g.:
"It's perfectly OK for me to not pay my income taxes because..."
"It's OK for me to fudge my expense reports because..."
"It's OK for me to tell lies about my political opponent because..."
"I can drive in the left lane at the speed limit if I want to because..."
As in these examples, you can spin it so you believe that you are not doing anything wrong. You may get others to agree that you aren't doing anything wrong.
if you are going too fast for conditions, you are speeding.
Agreed, backy.
Here's an interesting (to me, anyway) question to ponder, though.... At what point can "too fast for conditions" be determined?
For example, assume your perspective is as a police officer monitoring traffic and you see an outlier as follows. You have no additional knowledge of the driver or vehicle equipment:
Is someone driving 50 in a 55 during a light rainstorm (visibility is still good) driving too fast for conditions if other traffic around them is going 40-45, and all traffic, including this vehicle, is "behaving?"
How about someone driving 40 through a couple inches of snow/slush while other traffic is going 20-25? The vehicle at 40 is tracking true, as are most vehicles, while some at the slower speed are showing instability (sliding, fishtailing, etc).
If you were the officer in these situations, would you pull the outlier over and why? If so, what might prompt you to ticket vs. warn the driver?
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
Similar winners today: First one a woman in a Lexus IS, going too slow - because she had one hand on the wheel and one hand holding a big piece of pizza. Then got behind a Passat driven by a woman who was going too slow - because she had one hand on the wheel and one hand holding her phone. But they weren't going 45 in a 35, so the revenue enforcement officers can ignore them.
Right and wrong are in the minds/eyes of the beholders. Speeding is breaking a law. Some will argue (and have argued ad infinitum here) that the law itself is unjust, thus it's OK to break it.
But I don't know how you can construe adhering to speed limits, which includes the Basic Speed Rule i.e. "No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions", as being "wrong". Not in itself, anyway. If combined with other, improper behavior, e.g. driving in the passing lane at the speed limit when there's no good reason to do so, then it can be wrong.
Who said adhering to limits is wrong? Wasn't me. As long as lane discipline is observed - no problem. I have no real problem with slowpokes, as long as they stay where they belong.
There needs to be some evidence that the speed is too fast for conditions. I am not a judge in traffic court, but if I were I'd tend to employ the "reasonable person" rule, i.e. what would a reasonable person do in the same circumstances?
Is it reasonable for a car to be driving 5-10 mph faster than all other traffic in a light rainstorm? What if that faster car is driving in the left (passing) lane while all the other cars are in the right lane? Good visibility. A light rain, so likely no hydroplaning at that speed to worry about. Car is not posing any danger to the other cars as they are all "behaving" and the faster car is in a different lane. And it's driving slower than the posted speed limit. I think this is reasonable.
The 40 mph in snow/slush is another matter entirely. In my 40 years of driving in the Snow Belt, I have seen many a vehicle (usually these days an AWD SUV) driving much faster than the rest of the traffic in snow/slush, probably thinking "I have AWD, my car is invincible!". Then a little ways up the road they're in the ditch (hopefully just in the ditch and not rammed into another vehicle), the laws of physics having done their handiwork. So in your example, the 40 mph car is tracking true right now. So what? Can they stop in time? What if they hit an icy patch (invisible under the 2 inches of slop)? I would be much more likely to issue at least a warning if not a ticket in this case than in the first one. The ticket would be written if the driver didn't offer without prompting what seemed like a sincere apology for driving in such a stupid manner and promise never to do it again. Any hint of, "C'mon, officer, I wasn't driving very fast!" would bring out the ticket book.
Actions aren't right just because they are within the law. They are just legal.
There's a strong implication here that you don't believe that driving within speeds limits are right, even though they are within the law. That's how I read it, anyway, given the post you replied to. I am glad to know you don't think that adhering to speed limits is wrong.
As for what you think of slowpokes... since you constantly report on other drivers driving below the speed limit, in a forum dedicated to inconsiderate driving, one could get the impression that you have a real problem with them.
Yeah, you read it wrong, maybe I wasn't clear...I hope you aren't again resorting to the strawman/red herring trick which isn't unknown to you . I said nothing about driving at all, only "actions". Could be anything, on the road or not. I don't believe that an 18 year old having a drink is "wrong" either, it is simply illegal. That was my point. Many "laws" in this asinine society have nothing to do with wrong or right. Not all laws, of course (so don't try that game), but many.
I have a problem with slowpokes when they venture into the wrong lane, drive both slowly and poorly (they often go hand in hand) or otherwise obstruct actual motorists (not moving over after a line reaches a certain number, etc). Nobody from an actual developed first world nation has ever come to the US and complained traffic moves too fast.
Nobody? EVER? Talk about assumptions and absolutes!
I am from a developed first world nation and in some cities in the USA, Atlanta as an example, I think traffic moves too fast. I stay out of the way of those crazies doing 30+ over the speed limit (non-rush hour of course, the only time that's possible), but they are moving too fast in my book for urban highways.
I've met many foreign first worlders, never heard a peep about how traffic is too fast here, but more than once have heard how driving here is in "slow motion" compared to places that actually demand competency from drivers.
ATL is fun to drive in, once the morning gridlock subsides. It's like driving in a video game. Limit 55-60, traffic moves at 80, practically no enforcement, smooth highways sparkling with granite. It's more fun than here, and I'd take it over somewhere like MIA area - now that's where you get crazy combined with unskilled.
Fortunately I almost never need to drive in Miami.
As for being like a video game, there's a big difference... in a video game, when another car slams into you, all you see is "Game Over" on the screen. No ambulances, fire trucks, tow trucks, morgues etc.
It's fun to drive in other places, see what the world is like. Driving in FL, LA, New England, Seattle - all different. I am thinking of being fiscally careless and taking a trip to Germany this fall, and having a nice car for most of the time. Just to drive among those who know how.
Although I am sure ATL has plenty of crashes - I didn't see any carnage when I was there, just high speeds and smooth roads, and occasional gridlock. I wouldn't doubt that it is not significantly more carnage than seen on the plodding parade-speed roads in my area. You'd like it here - most people are content to crawl. Idiots will crash and create nightmares no matter the local tolerated speed.
Bottom line is that speeding is just another unsafe driving habit that if reduced, will reduce the overall number of accidents, just like reducing any other bad driving habit. If your mind can't grasp that concept than just continue the ignorant babbling...
Okay, so you should be able to show me a HUGE spike of accidents when speed limits were upped from 55 to 65 and/or 70. If there wasn't a huge spike, and I mean significant, then your babble holds no water.
Afterall, 70 MPH is 27.3% faster than 55 MPH. So they are "speeding" 25%+ faster it follows that accidents should have gone up 25% or more.
For some reason in 2011, NHTSA data show the fatality rate dropped to 1.09 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles. 32,310 people died last year in traffic accidents, the LOWEST number since 1949; a 1.7 % decrease from 2010.
I'm sure that's all due to the effectiveness of "speed enforcement." Hahahha!
That's why the traffic violators schools are over-filled with speeders and the courts clogged with them as well; so effective indeed!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
You lost me on that one. If you're driving too fast for conditions, it follows that you are speeding.
Perhaps, depending on your State's laws.
Here is what I mean. If you are driving too fast for conditions then it is the driver "judgment" error that is at fault for the accident. In some locations and under some conditions, 80 MPH is perfectly slow and safe.
Saying the speed limit is too high under certain conditions means that the speed limit is also too low under certain conditions. You cannot have it one way and then not the other. That is the essence of my court argument. It should go both ways.
Can you honestly say that the speed limit is the upper limit under ideal conditions that you can drive safely at? How come 25 years ago that was 55 and now it's 70? What if the limit wasn't set at the 85th percentile?
Going too fast for conditions is stupidity as follows:
1) You were driving your Audi R8 Monday, and took a sharp curve at 50 MPH perfectly safely on your way to work. Tuesday, your R8 is in the shop getting an oil change, and your driving the Isuzu Trooper on that same curve at the same speed. That is likely going too fast for conditions on Tuesday, but not necessarily "speeding." If you tip over, yes speed was a factor, but wasn't it really driver judgement error that was the cause?
2) Driving on brand new tires in a light rain vs. bald tires in a heavy rain.
3) Driving too fast where obstacles could get in your way without enough time or notice (pedestrians, opening doors from parked cars, bicyclists). I don't run into these things much on freeways and interstates! Hard to worry about parked cars, pedestrians, or bycyclists if there are none within a 1-mile line of sight vicinity! (Good visibility days).
4) Going too fast on snow/ice or where there is any type of diminished traction.
5) Going too fast with poor visibility conditions (fog, huge truck in front of you).
6) Following too closely. In my opinion, all rear-end accidents are from following too closely so that you don't have time and room to come to a stop or take other evasive action should you need to do so. Your speed at the time of impact or at the time you started braking is highly irrelevant.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
There's never a "single cause" to an accident...only an idiot would think that. Accidents are caused by a combination of unsafe driving habits...speeding, not paying attention, drinking, texting, not using signals when changing lane, not looking in blind spot before passing, etc...),
I agree that accidents are often caused by a variety of contributing factors, but speeding is virtually never one of them. I disagree that speeding is a contributing factor.
For example, when I was 16 or 17 I did rear-end someone (but managed to brake down to about 2-4 MPH before hitting them, therefore causing no damage whatsoever).
Here were the contributing factors:
1) Jaywalking really old and slow lady they saw before me and stopped to let her pass across. 2) Non-Functioning Brake lights which didn't warn me they were slowing down. 3) My inattention in not noticing the jaywalking old lady in time. 4) My inattention in not noticing the car in front of me slowing down sharply in time.
The real CAUSE of the accident:
1) My following too closely. I needed about 2 or 3 more feet to come to a complete stop in time. I was following 2 to 3 feet too closely (or a tad bit more if you want a cushion of error).
Speed was irrelevant. If speed was a factor it was because I was following too closely for my given speed; that is a driver error unrelated to speed!
Sure, I was mad as hell at the old lady breaking the law jaywalking dangerously, and I was mad their brake lights weren't working, but in the end, I shouldn't drive in a manner where it's possible in a worst case scenario I won't have enough time to come to a complete stop in time!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
That said, speed is always a factor. Is it a significant factor, as in the decisive (or causative) factor? In my opinion... no, and I say that because speed never causes a crash; it only impacts the severity of the outcome.
Very well said!
Goes back to my point that if I drive parallel to the neverending brick wall I can go any speed I want and never crash into it, but if I turn perpendicularly towards the wall I will inevitably crash into it at any speed (even .01 MPH)!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Sounds like you are trying to parse it too finely to somehow qualify a driver's "speed" judgment error. Seems to me that if you are going too fast for conditions, you are speeding.
If you are following someone so closely that you can't stop when they do without hitting them, you're speeding. :P
25 years ago speed limits were lowered to 55 mph to save gas, not lives.
I think it is obvious you believe it to be going any faster than the 2 numbers posted on an aluminum sign, even if a drunk Cal-Trans worker puts up a "30 MPH" where he was supposed to put a sign that said 50?
No matter the cause of the error for the incorrectly posted/set speed limit, the sign said 30, you were speeding!
I happen to believe the sign should be "correctly" posted to be valid.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Bottom line is that speeding is just another unsafe driving habit that if reduced, will reduce the overall number of accidents, just like reducing any other bad driving habit. If your mind can't grasp that concept than just continue the ignorant babbling...
Ouch! The fact that we don't want to live in a 21st Century version of East Germany really bothers you doesn't it? You just can't understand why we all won't bow down and worship a benevolent authoritarian government that assesses punishment without a presumption of innocence or the right to confront an accuser.
Again, I strongly suggest you move to a country where the government isn't fettered by such pesky technicalities such as the US Constitution; methinks North Korea would be a very good fit...
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
If you are following someone so closely that you can't stop when they do without hitting them, you're speeding.
I think most people would disagree with you on that one. AS would most cops. There is a Tailgating/Following Too Closely VC on the books, afterall.
I know it well because I got it one time on US 101 north of San Luis Obispo going up the big Cuesta grade. Of course, the ticket that should have been written was "Unsafe lane change" from the vehicle in front of me that I was following too closely through no fault of my own when they Cut me off in the worst way I've been cut off that I can ever remember in my whole life of driving. They are lucky I had quick reflexes to avoid rear-ending them. Just another example of incompetent LEO's!
I suppose he could have ticketed me for speeding instead; but as I found out, the fine for the Following too closely violation generated more revenue than a speeding ticket would have! I know why he chose it once I found that out!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
25 years ago speed limits were lowered to 55 mph to save gas, not lives.
Yes, no matter the cause of the low limits, the result should have been a huge reduction in automobile accidents and deaths, because according to some here, speed kills.
The corollary to that is "go slow; stay alive!"
Limits keep going UP UP UP, accidents keep going down down down! No one in their right mind still believes "speed kills."
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
But I don't know how you can construe adhering to speed limits, which includes the Basic Speed Rule i.e. "No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions", as being "wrong".
I have no probem with the basic speed law. It's the 2nd half of my defense in my court case! The first half being the "speed trap" laws.
My problem is the "maximum speed law" which throws out "reasonable and prudent" and puts in its place absolutes.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Speed Traps are only a problem for people who break the law and speed!
Perhaps.... perhaps.... Then again, maybe you have an out-of-towner that comes in for a visit, drivers perfectly reasonably at 50 MPH, and it's too late when they see the "speed trap" sign says 35!
They see the sign one second, and go WTF! Why's it so low??? Next second they have a red light flashing behind them ready to collect $360.00.
I believe the CA legislature put in place those speed trap vehicle codes so that local gov't could not take advantage of people by "setting traps." It sort of goes back to Entrapment.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
About 2years ago, the city of Bluffton, SC decided it needed, for some reason, to get into the speed monitoring "business" on I-95, so they set up speed cameras on the Interstate and began sending out speeding citations.
Now, if you've ever been there, you would immediately see that act for what it was...Revenue enhancement for the locality, and a great way to infuse tourist $$$$ into the local economy.
Evidently, the Statehouse also saw it the same way, and quickly outlawed the cameras as a sole means of speed determination by a wide margin, requiring a "live person" to be involved in speed determination.
Now, are all such instances speed traps? I can only say that, in this case, the answer seems to be a resounding YES!
In CA there are 2 or 3 Vehicle Codes that pretty much amount to this:
1) If LEO's want to use radar, they must set the speed limit to the 85th percentile.
2) If they fail to set the speed limit correctly, then they cannot use radar, the evidence will be inadmissible and the case dismissed. They can however, use a combination of other methods (pacing, clocking). But radar is outlawed in such cases.
3) Using radar where the speed limit is underposted is considered a "speed trap."
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
While I don't share much of your POV on speeding, I'm definitely in your camp on speed traps.
Here's a great analogy to explain why...
Compare a speed trap to bank security.
Before you even enter a bank, you see multiple "warnings" involving security. When you DO enter the bank, security cameras, as well as other security measures are clearly exhibited. One would really have to be dense to not see the "warnings" being sent out, telling potential robbers that theft might not be a very good idea. Banks go to great lengths to make security highly visible. Banks know its much better to avoid an incident than deal with one.
OTOH, speed traps, which "claim" to be in existence to slow traffic and make our roads safer, go to great lengths to disguise their existence from the driving public. Unlike banks, speed traps attempt to conceal their presence until the "crime" has been committed and recorded. In fact, they have no interest in avoiding an incident, but rather they WANT to create an incident.
So, in the end, which is creating more safety for the driving public? Hidden speed traps, or alerting drivers that "intense speed monitoring" is in use?
That's been a documented issue with red light cameras that aren't well posted.
Yes, red light running decreases, at the costs of increased rear-end collisions, due to drivers seeing the cameras too late and standing on the brakes...
Yes, red light running decreases, at the costs of increased rear-end collisions, due to drivers seeing the cameras too late and standing on the brakes...
That's one of my favorite features of Escorts latest radar detectors with GPS. Everytime you get near a red light camera enforced intersection, you get an audible and visible warning of entering the Unconstitutional zone in plenty of time to safely adjust.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Comments
Today's dopes: greybeard in a Colorado who pulled out into traffic, took off at a fast clip, then gradually slowed to 5 under (this was when I was behind him). Eventually we hit a light, then he takes off normally, keeps going until he's going about 50 in a 35 - way ahead of me by then, makes an abrupt lane change behind a slow moving minivan, gets in the left lane, and slows back down to the speed limit :confuse:
While on foot, saw a Bentley coupe make an insane left turn out of a parking garage, careens across 3 busy lanes, and gets in a left turn lane. Light isn't sequenced to meet traffic demand, so the "driver" changes their mind, moves right (cutting off a Fedex truck), and takes off. Would love to see wealth-based fines for these people.
My daily observations here make this not surprising
The brake tappers don't seem to be distracted though...they are usually leaning forward, gripping the wheel tightly, terrified to be hitting 60mph.
I noticed in the Republican platform, they advocate reducing traffic fines for wealthy people, so they'll have more money with which to create jobs and stimulate the economy.
Or maybe I just imagined that...
You seem to be equating every "valid" speeding violation to being the cause of an accident. You know that is ridiculous, right? But the fact you don't cause an accident every time you're caught speeding doesn't by itself make the tickets "lie". Just means you were caught speeding but did not cause an accident. As has been mentioned in recent days, the stats tell us that a significant number of accidents do have speeding as a cause. So looks like you've been lucky so far.
People with real common sense don't believe that. That real true stats tell us that virtually no accidents have speeding as a cause. Go ask an accident investigator. If speeding is indeed somehow a factor it will virtually always come with some sort of caveat.
I do not equate "driving too fast for conditions" as a speed factor in accidents. I do not equate someone driving too fast because they are drunk to have "speed as a factor" in the accident. For one, the accident wouldn't have happened had they been sober, the fact they were speeding had nothing to do with the creation of the accident, it was just a byproduct of the real cause. You have to dig deeper. Look deeply into the stats you are looking at. Is it coming from a biased corrupted "insurance funded" source; unfortunately the answer is yes!
I really can't think of any real world situation where speed is REALLY the factor in the accident. If your going too fast around a curve and traffic is backed up unexpectedly, then you are going too fast for conditions if you rearend someone (sightlines too short to go that fast, and deficient braking abilities on your car/driver reaction time). The only situation I can think of is where you hit someone at maybe 5 - 10 MPH from behind because you were going 80 MPH and if you had been going 65 perhaps you would have stopped just in time to avoid hitting their bumper. Still, even in those cases you failed to yield to the vehicle in front of you, you were following too closely for your speed, and you didn't leave enough room to stop in time. Speed is not a factor when used appropriately. You can follow someone too closely at 10 MPH, 20 MPH, 40 MPH, or 80 MPH and end up rear-ending them. The "cause" is following too closely at any speed, not speed itself.
Show me any accident "where speed was a factor" and I'll show you that some other "driver error" was the cause; usually a misjudgement of some kind.
It's the lazy way out to say... well the speed limit was 55, they were going 65, the cause must of been speed!
I'd go postal on those bad drivers and equip my vehicle with a grenade launcher; since the cops can't do their jobs, I'd have to have vigilante justice!
I don't even live in Seattle, and that got my blood boiling a bit. I certainly don't want to move there now!
You lost me on that one. If you're driving too fast for conditions, it follows that you are speeding.
California state police love to pull people over on the freeways for going 5 under the posted limit when there's a rain that freshens up the oil on the road. Happened twice in a 10 mile stretch to a guy I know; got warned both times.
The reason they do that is pretty obvious too - the road may look fine but will be slippery, especially at the beginning of a rain or during a sprinkle. Slippery conditions cause accidents.
We have a local highway that can easily support 100+ mpg. When certain conditions are present (so called tule fog) you can be praying to GOD you are not going to hit someone in front of you with you going 30 mpg and no fully loaded tractor trailer will be crashing into you.
So even though it's true the reducing the other factors will also reduce accidents, there's no denying the fact that reducing speeding will do it as well. Those trying to justify speeding are just as bad as those trying to justify texting while drivng with the excuse that, "I'm a really skilled texter, so it doesn't impact MY driving." Or speeders saying, "I'm a really good driver so speeding doesn't impact MY driving." Carry that logic out and you'll have no traffic rules.
Bottom line is that speeding is just another unsafe driving habit that if reduced, will reduce the overall number of accidents, just like reducing any other bad driving habit. If your mind can't grasp that concept than just continue the ignorant babbling...
"well the speed limit was 55, they were going 65, the cause must of been speed!"
Sadly, a huge amount of "drivers" (quotes used for irony) believe that. The same people who equate going 10 over with texting. Really, maybe they need to think about parking their toasters and taking a bus or a taxi.
Speed doesn't kill, bad driving kills. Going faster than an often arbitrarily-reached limit is not necessarily driving too fast.
Sadly, you'll find many out there who agree with that fine theory. I suspect it actually works similarly in many areas, too.
Both are unsafe driving habits and both contribute to accidents.
That said, speed is always a factor. Is it a significant factor, as in the decisive (or causative) factor? In my opinion... no, and I say that because speed never causes a crash; it only impacts the severity of the outcome.
The problem with any variation on the definition chosen, however, is that assumptions are always made that will never allow any one speed to be a de facto "safe" speed for a given day, hour, or even second. One day, in one set of conditions (including vehicle and driver), the posted limit might be the limit. The next day, same vehicle/driver, the conditions might have changed such that lower or higher is the limit. Even still, on that first day when that posted limit seemed just right, an unknown factor might be present that makes it far too fast - such as a child running out from behind a stationary object. If the child is hit (or even a near miss), was the driver suddenly "speeding?" Was speed a factor?
Ultimately, the speed chosen must be chosen by the driver taking into consideration perceived risks. The posted limit, if present, is a guide but is not the deciding factor on what constitutes speeding.
It's not black and white, even if the color of the signs would make one think it is.
I've lived in this year's #2 (Boise) and #4 (Madison) and we've looked at Ft. Collins as a retirement location. Maybe we're subconsciously basing attractive places to move to on the drivers.
Best and Worst Drivers Report in U.S. Released (Inside Line)
As you said, few things are simply black and white...
That real true stats tell us that virtually no accidents have speeding as a cause.
And what would those "real true stats" be? The ones you agree with?
Then later in your post you easily come up with a real-world situation where speeding was the primary cause of the accident. Guess what? There's many others. Which you'll realize when you wake up and realize that driving too fast for conditions is speeding.
Your litany of posts trying to justify your speeding is familiar. I've seen it before, in other subject areas, e.g.:
"It's perfectly OK for me to not pay my income taxes because..."
"It's OK for me to fudge my expense reports because..."
"It's OK for me to tell lies about my political opponent because..."
"I can drive in the left lane at the speed limit if I want to because..."
As in these examples, you can spin it so you believe that you are not doing anything wrong. You may get others to agree that you aren't doing anything wrong.
It's still speeding.
On the "not pay ing income taxes" item...
Did any of the reasons work, and if so, what were they?
Just curious...
Agreed, backy.
Here's an interesting (to me, anyway) question to ponder, though.... At what point can "too fast for conditions" be determined?
For example, assume your perspective is as a police officer monitoring traffic and you see an outlier as follows. You have no additional knowledge of the driver or vehicle equipment:
Is someone driving 50 in a 55 during a light rainstorm (visibility is still good) driving too fast for conditions if other traffic around them is going 40-45, and all traffic, including this vehicle, is "behaving?"
How about someone driving 40 through a couple inches of snow/slush while other traffic is going 20-25? The vehicle at 40 is tracking true, as are most vehicles, while some at the slower speed are showing instability (sliding, fishtailing, etc).
If you were the officer in these situations, would you pull the outlier over and why? If so, what might prompt you to ticket vs. warn the driver?
But I don't know how you can construe adhering to speed limits, which includes the Basic Speed Rule i.e. "No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions", as being "wrong". Not in itself, anyway. If combined with other, improper behavior, e.g. driving in the passing lane at the speed limit when there's no good reason to do so, then it can be wrong.
Is it reasonable for a car to be driving 5-10 mph faster than all other traffic in a light rainstorm? What if that faster car is driving in the left (passing) lane while all the other cars are in the right lane? Good visibility. A light rain, so likely no hydroplaning at that speed to worry about. Car is not posing any danger to the other cars as they are all "behaving" and the faster car is in a different lane. And it's driving slower than the posted speed limit. I think this is reasonable.
The 40 mph in snow/slush is another matter entirely. In my 40 years of driving in the Snow Belt, I have seen many a vehicle (usually these days an AWD SUV) driving much faster than the rest of the traffic in snow/slush, probably thinking "I have AWD, my car is invincible!". Then a little ways up the road they're in the ditch (hopefully just in the ditch and not rammed into another vehicle), the laws of physics having done their handiwork. So in your example, the 40 mph car is tracking true right now. So what? Can they stop in time? What if they hit an icy patch (invisible under the 2 inches of slop)? I would be much more likely to issue at least a warning if not a ticket in this case than in the first one. The ticket would be written if the driver didn't offer without prompting what seemed like a sincere apology for driving in such a stupid manner and promise never to do it again. Any hint of, "C'mon, officer, I wasn't driving very fast!" would bring out the ticket book.
Actions aren't right just because they are within the law. They are just legal.
There's a strong implication here that you don't believe that driving within speeds limits are right, even though they are within the law. That's how I read it, anyway, given the post you replied to. I am glad to know you don't think that adhering to speed limits is wrong.
As for what you think of slowpokes... since you constantly report on other drivers driving below the speed limit, in a forum dedicated to inconsiderate driving, one could get the impression that you have a real problem with them.
I have a problem with slowpokes when they venture into the wrong lane, drive both slowly and poorly (they often go hand in hand) or otherwise obstruct actual motorists (not moving over after a line reaches a certain number, etc). Nobody from an actual developed first world nation has ever come to the US and complained traffic moves too fast.
I am from a developed first world nation and in some cities in the USA, Atlanta as an example, I think traffic moves too fast. I stay out of the way of those crazies doing 30+ over the speed limit (non-rush hour of course, the only time that's possible), but they are moving too fast in my book for urban highways.
ATL is fun to drive in, once the morning gridlock subsides. It's like driving in a video game. Limit 55-60, traffic moves at 80, practically no enforcement, smooth highways sparkling with granite. It's more fun than here, and I'd take it over somewhere like MIA area - now that's where you get crazy combined with unskilled.
As for being like a video game, there's a big difference... in a video game, when another car slams into you, all you see is "Game Over" on the screen. No ambulances, fire trucks, tow trucks, morgues etc.
Although I am sure ATL has plenty of crashes - I didn't see any carnage when I was there, just high speeds and smooth roads, and occasional gridlock. I wouldn't doubt that it is not significantly more carnage than seen on the plodding parade-speed roads in my area. You'd like it here - most people are content to crawl. Idiots will crash and create nightmares no matter the local tolerated speed.
upper right "STATES" pull down menu
States even have specific county statistics.
The upshot:
things are not as MONOLITHIC as things MIGHT appear. aka SCARY
FINALLY the 2010 statistics were posted.
Okay, so you should be able to show me a HUGE spike of accidents when speed limits were upped from 55 to 65 and/or 70. If there wasn't a huge spike, and I mean significant, then your babble holds no water.
Afterall, 70 MPH is 27.3% faster than 55 MPH. So they are "speeding" 25%+ faster it follows that accidents should have gone up 25% or more.
For some reason in 2011, NHTSA data show the fatality rate dropped to 1.09 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles. 32,310 people died last year in traffic accidents, the LOWEST number since 1949; a 1.7 % decrease from 2010.
I'm sure that's all due to the effectiveness of "speed enforcement." Hahahha!
That's why the traffic violators schools are over-filled with speeders and the courts clogged with them as well; so effective indeed!
Perhaps, depending on your State's laws.
Here is what I mean. If you are driving too fast for conditions then it is the driver "judgment" error that is at fault for the accident. In some locations and under some conditions, 80 MPH is perfectly slow and safe.
Saying the speed limit is too high under certain conditions means that the speed limit is also too low under certain conditions. You cannot have it one way and then not the other. That is the essence of my court argument. It should go both ways.
Can you honestly say that the speed limit is the upper limit under ideal conditions that you can drive safely at? How come 25 years ago that was 55 and now it's 70? What if the limit wasn't set at the 85th percentile?
Going too fast for conditions is stupidity as follows:
1) You were driving your Audi R8 Monday, and took a sharp curve at 50 MPH perfectly safely on your way to work. Tuesday, your R8 is in the shop getting an oil change, and your driving the Isuzu Trooper on that same curve at the same speed. That is likely going too fast for conditions on Tuesday, but not necessarily "speeding." If you tip over, yes speed was a factor, but wasn't it really driver judgement error that was the cause?
2) Driving on brand new tires in a light rain vs. bald tires in a heavy rain.
3) Driving too fast where obstacles could get in your way without enough time or notice (pedestrians, opening doors from parked cars, bicyclists). I don't run into these things much on freeways and interstates! Hard to worry about parked cars, pedestrians, or bycyclists if there are none within a 1-mile line of sight vicinity! (Good visibility days).
4) Going too fast on snow/ice or where there is any type of diminished traction.
5) Going too fast with poor visibility conditions (fog, huge truck in front of you).
6) Following too closely. In my opinion, all rear-end accidents are from following too closely so that you don't have time and room to come to a stop or take other evasive action should you need to do so. Your speed at the time of impact or at the time you started braking is highly irrelevant.
I agree that accidents are often caused by a variety of contributing factors, but speeding is virtually never one of them. I disagree that speeding is a contributing factor.
For example, when I was 16 or 17 I did rear-end someone (but managed to brake down to about 2-4 MPH before hitting them, therefore causing no damage whatsoever).
Here were the contributing factors:
1) Jaywalking really old and slow lady they saw before me and stopped to let her pass across.
2) Non-Functioning Brake lights which didn't warn me they were slowing down.
3) My inattention in not noticing the jaywalking old lady in time.
4) My inattention in not noticing the car in front of me slowing down sharply in time.
The real CAUSE of the accident:
1) My following too closely. I needed about 2 or 3 more feet to come to a complete stop in time. I was following 2 to 3 feet too closely (or a tad bit more if you want a cushion of error).
Speed was irrelevant. If speed was a factor it was because I was following too closely for my given speed; that is a driver error unrelated to speed!
Sure, I was mad as hell at the old lady breaking the law jaywalking dangerously, and I was mad their brake lights weren't working, but in the end, I shouldn't drive in a manner where it's possible in a worst case scenario I won't have enough time to come to a complete stop in time!
Very well said!
Goes back to my point that if I drive parallel to the neverending brick wall I can go any speed I want and never crash into it, but if I turn perpendicularly towards the wall I will inevitably crash into it at any speed (even .01 MPH)!
If you are following someone so closely that you can't stop when they do without hitting them, you're speeding. :P
25 years ago speed limits were lowered to 55 mph to save gas, not lives.
What is your definition of speeding?
I think it is obvious you believe it to be going any faster than the 2 numbers posted on an aluminum sign, even if a drunk Cal-Trans worker puts up a "30 MPH" where he was supposed to put a sign that said 50?
No matter the cause of the error for the incorrectly posted/set speed limit, the sign said 30, you were speeding!
I happen to believe the sign should be "correctly" posted to be valid.
Ouch! The fact that we don't want to live in a 21st Century version of East Germany really bothers you doesn't it? You just can't understand why we all won't bow down and worship a benevolent authoritarian government that assesses punishment without a presumption of innocence or the right to confront an accuser.
Again, I strongly suggest you move to a country where the government isn't fettered by such pesky technicalities such as the US Constitution; methinks North Korea would be a very good fit...
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
I think most people would disagree with you on that one. AS would most cops. There is a Tailgating/Following Too Closely VC on the books, afterall.
I know it well because I got it one time on US 101 north of San Luis Obispo going up the big Cuesta grade. Of course, the ticket that should have been written was "Unsafe lane change" from the vehicle in front of me that I was following too closely through no fault of my own when they Cut me off in the worst way I've been cut off that I can ever remember in my whole life of driving. They are lucky I had quick reflexes to avoid rear-ending them. Just another example of incompetent LEO's!
I suppose he could have ticketed me for speeding instead; but as I found out, the fine for the Following too closely violation generated more revenue than a speeding ticket would have! I know why he chose it once I found that out!
Yes, no matter the cause of the low limits, the result should have been a huge reduction in automobile accidents and deaths, because according to some here, speed kills.
The corollary to that is "go slow; stay alive!"
Limits keep going UP UP UP, accidents keep going down down down! No one in their right mind still believes "speed kills."
I have no probem with the basic speed law. It's the 2nd half of my defense in my court case! The first half being the "speed trap" laws.
My problem is the "maximum speed law" which throws out "reasonable and prudent" and puts in its place absolutes.
You'll never convince him of that since speed limit signs are a joke to him.
Maybe someday he will grow up and accept personal responsibility for his actions instead of feeling like a victim.
Speed Traps are only a problem for people who break the law and speed!
Perhaps.... perhaps.... Then again, maybe you have an out-of-towner that comes in for a visit, drivers perfectly reasonably at 50 MPH, and it's too late when they see the "speed trap" sign says 35!
They see the sign one second, and go WTF! Why's it so low???
Next second they have a red light flashing behind them ready to collect $360.00.
I believe the CA legislature put in place those speed trap vehicle codes so that local gov't could not take advantage of people by "setting traps." It sort of goes back to Entrapment.
Now, if you've ever been there, you would immediately see that act for what it was...Revenue enhancement for the locality, and a great way to infuse tourist $$$$ into the local economy.
Evidently, the Statehouse also saw it the same way, and quickly outlawed the cameras as a sole means of speed determination by a wide margin, requiring a "live person" to be involved in speed determination.
Now, are all such instances speed traps? I can only say that, in this case, the answer seems to be a resounding YES!
1) If LEO's want to use radar, they must set the speed limit to the 85th percentile.
2) If they fail to set the speed limit correctly, then they cannot use radar, the evidence will be inadmissible and the case dismissed. They can however, use a combination of other methods (pacing, clocking). But radar is outlawed in such cases.
3) Using radar where the speed limit is underposted is considered a "speed trap."
Here's a great analogy to explain why...
Compare a speed trap to bank security.
Before you even enter a bank, you see multiple "warnings" involving security. When you DO enter the bank, security cameras, as well as other security measures are clearly exhibited. One would really have to be dense to not see the "warnings" being sent out, telling potential robbers that theft might not be a very good idea. Banks go to great lengths to make security highly visible. Banks know its much better to avoid an incident than deal with one.
OTOH, speed traps, which "claim" to be in existence to slow traffic and make our roads safer, go to great lengths to disguise their existence from the driving public. Unlike banks, speed traps attempt to conceal their presence until the "crime" has been committed and recorded. In fact, they have no interest in avoiding an incident, but rather they WANT to create an incident.
So, in the end, which is creating more safety for the driving public? Hidden speed traps, or alerting drivers that "intense speed monitoring" is in use?
That's been a documented issue with red light cameras that aren't well posted.
Yes, red light running decreases, at the costs of increased rear-end collisions, due to drivers seeing the cameras too late and standing on the brakes...
That's one of my favorite features of Escorts latest radar detectors with GPS. Everytime you get near a red light camera enforced intersection, you get an audible and visible warning of entering the Unconstitutional zone in plenty of time to safely adjust.