As we have established here, our cities traffic engineers seem to be overpaid and underqualified.
That is your opinion, not fact. You talk about wanting facts... try using some sometimes.
The fact is, you didn't see a sign telling you not to do something, which you then did. And you were caught.
Those are the facts. Some people have trouble facing facts and taking responsibility for their actions. They'd rather blame their mistakes on someone else, such as a municipality that had the gall to post a "no U-turn" sign where you wanted to make a U-turn.
If you don't want to get tickets for breaking the law, you should observe your surroundings better... rather than ranting about overpaid and under-qualified traffic engineers.
Why not make a donation to that municipality for a brand-new, huge "no U-turn" sign for that intersection, including installation costs? I bet the mayor would appreciate it.
Facts regarding well-compensated unfireable public sector traffic infrastructure personnel are usually seen by the asinine way roadways are built, maintained, regulated, and policed. They are far from infallible and even more distant from accountable.
Sometimes, signs are actually hidden. When I was in school, my roomate got a ticket in a trap on a "no through" street, where the sign was obscured by a bush. He came back livid, I went there immediately and took a photo, he contested the ticket with the evidence, and actually won (he also mentioned the data was going to the local media). The u-turn sign in question could have been like this.
Why not ask the municipality to first explain why that stretch of road needs the sign, instead of diving into the expense of sign construction and law enforcement? Get them to put up or shut up for once. You like facts, but would never dare demand any from those who suck down endless piles of gold, as they are appointed "authority", and some parts of society adore that,
No mention of this sign being "hidden". If it were, I'm sure we would have heard about it and there would be court action coming.
Sure, go ahead and ask why the sign is there. It doesn't change the fact it was there and was violated.
I don't agree with every traffic sign I see. There's many I figuratively scratch my head over, especially some of the "no right turn on red" signs. But I obey them. I think that's better than think I am a know-it-all who knows for sure which traffic signs/laws should be ignored and which shouldn't be. Also I don't like paying for tickets and increases in my auto insurance--that's high enough as it is.
And I think there's something to be said for the benefits of imposed order, which traffic laws/signs have the effect of doing. They're not perfect, but I think they beat an "everyone does anything they want" anarchy on the roads.
Not noticing a sign implies less than optimal placement. But I guess when you answer to nobody...
Order is great, when the regulations and enforcement are able to be defended as being efficient in all ways. When not, it only creates decaying conditions and increasing lack of respect and credibility for those authorities who actually do valid work. That seems to be epic fail in so many areas as it is today. But when you answer to nobody...
Nobody obeys every sign. Braying off into anarchy (hot button issue for some segments out there) seems to be kind of another red herring. Asking for laws and enforcement to be proven as ideal is not connected to anarchy. Efficient regulation is a right of every taxpayer, and it is a right the overpaid taxpayer funded set has violated for some time.
Not noticing a sign implies less than optimal placement.
How many times have you posted here about some driver not noticing something they should have noticed? Don't recall your ever giving them a break as in, "Maybe the sign/signal wasn't placed optimally."
Not noticing a sign could mean a lot of things. Of course, if andres3 doesn't see a sign, there's absolutely no way it can be his fault because he doesn't make mistakes. Or at least admit to mistakes.
Order is great, when the regulations and enforcement are able to be defended as being efficient in all ways.
So you are looking for a perfect world, then, in the area of traffic law enforcement efficiency. Good luck with that. Seems like a huge red herring to me, though. As a taxpayer, be prepared to ante up more money for that perfect efficiency you seek.
Although the sign wasn't hidden behind a bush, I provided several "taken from the driver's seat view" pictures to the court that showed the sign was invisible from several angles.
It didn't matter, like I said, with a generic sign violation code, the sign doesn't have to be visible.
I once took a picture of a red light that was obscured by a tree limb, was ready to use that in court and win (since a red light being obstructed from view is a legitimate workable defense), but the cop didn't show.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Not noticing what? Other cars in the road? Pedestrians? Rules and common sense about texting/yapping? Those three topics create most of my whining, and all are much easier to spot than misplaced signs.
I suspect even with andres' flamboyant anti speed limit / revenue enforcer attitude, he is more observant than the average driver. I have to say I have no reason to discount his word over the quality of work usually seen on our roadway infrastructure network,
Who said anything perfect? I simply want evidence. Nothing in the world is perfect, but some spheres seem to be much less perfect than others. And I have said numerous times I would pay the going rate seen in real first world countries for their driving conditions. I'll say it again, those who make and/or enforce the rules need to put up or shut up. Show me the rules and enforcement policies are the ideal use of scarce publicly funded resources.
Pedestrians always easy to spot? C'mon, they're usually moving and it's easy for them to slip behind the A pillar. Very scary when that happens. But no, no breaks there from you. andres3 gets a break however because he says the sign could not be seen from all angles. I imagine one of those angles was 90. But since you have obviously spent a lot of time with him behind the wheel (since you know he's more observant than the average driver), I can see how you would give him a break.
"being efficient in all ways" says "perfect" to me... "all" being the key word. Glad to hear you don't expect enforcement to be perfect because you'll be waiting a loooong time for that.
I'd like to see those who brazenly violate the rules put up or shut up. Put up as in, be prepared to accept the consequences of breaking the rules. And spend more time working for better rules and better enforcement than whining about them.
C'mon yourself. Maybe the tin can has overly wide pillars, or your driving position needs improvement? I've never had a close call with a pedestrian, but I do consider myself to be more attentive than the average so-called driver (not saying much, I know). No excuse for a close call when a crosswalk is present, which is 100% the time I have had issues while on foot. Always a distracted or unskilled driver.
Andres has claimed his propensity to cause accidents is minimal. Very much similar to mine. I have no reason to believe he is not being honest. So yes, I will give him benefit of the doubt and think he is more capable than the average mindless clone who freaks out at the thought of going 63 in a 60 and who keeps an 11-and-1 deathgrip strangle on the wheel.
Of course I don't expect enforcement to be perfect. As a rule, the profession includes many who have a certain mentality, and who we all know do not answer to real world standards of accountability. This breeds imperfection. But it also could breed something better than the asinine arbitrary system we have now. if only the good ones who still refuse to speak out against their bad brothers would also speak out about the bad rules they have to deal with on a daily basis.
The onus to ante up is on the person making the original claim. That would be our beloved revenue enforcement and regulation setting community, who do so much to deserve unquestioning respect, deference, and financial reward both in working years and in long retirement.
Working for better rules. Dumbed down middle America makes that impossible. Look how long it took to repeal 55. Look how the two party system can't be broken. The best defense is a good offense (being aware of speedtraps and other revenue generation schemes ie: if you are going to throw a uey, make sure no taxmen are around).
if you are going to throw a uey, make sure no taxmen are around).
That's one way to deal with it. I will say, out of all the tickets I've received, that one stuck with me the most in that it altered my driving behavior a bit. Now when I want to make a U-turn, I scan in 360 degrees thoroughly for a few seconds trying to find any possible sign that could make it a ticketable offense, and of course, the time I spend wasting on trying to find a sign restriction is either simply a waste of time, gas and pollution (idling), increasing traffic from delay (if only a couple seconds), and at worst, since looking for a sign doesn't make my U-turn any safer, it takes away from my safest driving techniques. Not to worry, that's why I take the extra second or two, to make sure I don't neglect safety in the name of avoiding a ticket.
Goes back to my assertion that average or lesser drivers looking out for LEO's constantly sometimes have to divert too much attention for that sole purpose, and could get into trouble because of that once in a blue moon. Still, I'll take the driver on constant paranoid watchout for LEO's over the one that is clueless about any traffic that might be around or near them.
It's true, going 15+ years of driving without an at-fault accident is never just luck. Something is being done right.
I don't remember the exact statistics, but I remember reading somewhere an explanation for why young people get charged so much for insurance. The odds that a teenager will be in an accident for any given year are very high apparently. Just going a few years without an at-fault accident seems to defy the odds and make you a "better than average observer and driver."
That is statistically factual. Accident records tell the tale of a driver much better than sign adherence.
Also, I am honest!
I also put my money where my mouth is. I carry the highest deductibles most insurance companies will allow ($1,000 dollars) because I know I'll never cause an accident that's my fault, and I'm willing to bet on it, but in order to get comprehensive coverage (in case my car is stolen/vandalized) I need collision coverage. Also, in order to get Un/Underinsurance coverage, you need to have it in order to cover property damage done to your vehicle, which is the most likely use of insurance in CA, since most of the accidents are seemingly caused by bad drivers that don't have insurance.
My favorite feature is adding on uninsurance collision deductible waiver coverage so that if an uninsured or underinsured driver hits me, I can get my car fixed "free of charge without any deductible being applied to the repair bill," and don't even have to deal with the other guy or his insurance company much, if I don't want to.
The one time this coverage failed me was when the City of La Mesa PD officer rear ended my bumper on his Harley. The Police Dept doesn't have an insurance company; the City is "Self-Insured."
I told my insurance company "SCREW IT, let's get my car fixed, you pay for it because they are Uninsured!, and don't require my deductible!" They told me to pound sand, that it was different with the gov't, and it would fall under collision coverage, and therefore I'd be responsible to pay up to $1,000 until I get reimbursed by the City! Thankfully, the claims adjuster from Mercury was nice, and since it was clearly the officer's fault for rear-ending me, and it was the City of La Mesa, they'd feel comfortable covering the repairs while waiting for the check from the city instead of having me wait for it. However, they claimed they didn't have to (and were basically doing me a favor) because it didn't fall within the collision deductible waiver coverage for uninsured coverage. With a lot of CA cities going bankrupt lately, I wonder if they'd be so nice in this modern day and age?
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I'd like to see those who brazenly violate the rules put up or shut up.
I think my post above tells the tale of putting up or shutting up in some ways. Also, this point below:
When my income went down significantly a few years ago, I strongly, and I do mean STRONGLY considered self insuring with a 50K bond in California. I feel insurance is a big waste of money for good drivers that don't cause accidents. I don't need liability coverage because I'll never be liable to damages that occur. I had a good cash position and could have posted the bond in order to save money on auto insurance.
There was only a couple of things that stopped me from doing that:
1) Underinsured and uninsured coverage protection (so you don't have to sue or wait for money).
2) No one sells comprehensive coverage independently for things that might happen while your car is parked (like theft), which you can't control as a driver.
3) Insurance companies claim they can use your liability protection to pay for attornies in your "defense or case" in a court of law. I have little faith in the insurance companies living up to this, and ever spending much money in my best interest, but it sure sounds nice on paper if there ever was an argument in court that required lawyers.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
When I need to make a U, I just look for cops and make sure my car will fit (I know where my car will fit, unlike many other drivers due to the scrapes on bumpers and poles that are everywhere). I seldom need to do it, but I don't see the problem with such turns when not obstructing or endangering other vehicles.
That sign you violated probably exists because in 1974, an 85 year old driving a huge 1955 Cadillac tried it and crashed. Then some "safety" nanny/[non-permissible content removed] threw a fit and won a restrictive sign.
I think the average to below average driver doesn't keep an eagle eye out for LEOs, that's why tickets are such a nice revenue stream. It is the inattentive they seek - and as you know, there are plenty of those, both speeding and going slow. Even good drivers miss one now and then, but I'd wager an awful lot that those people who have a huge list of tickets aren't great drivers and aren't attentive.
I too carry high deductibles, and I keep full insurance even though my car is paid off. Repair costs are too high. Uninsured coverage is also important.
Speaking of funny city insurance stories, I know of a guy who got a $2500 settlement due to a negligently maintained road that damaged his suspension and a wheel.
Working for better rules. Dumbed down middle America makes that impossible. Look how long it took to repeal 55.
It WAS repealed.
Whine, whine, whine. Here's an example of what can happen when we work even a little bit for better rules/signs. There's a RR crossing in a location I frequent. The stop sign there was always confusing to me, because it was right before the RR crossing. But there's a street right before that. No sign posted there. So are we supposed to stop where the sign is, or stop back behind the intersection with the street so we don't block it?
A couple of years ago I found out. I stopped behind the stop sign. I was then pulled over by a police officer from that municipality for failure to stop. I calmly and politely pointed out that the location of the stop sign led me to believe that I should first cross the street, then stop, even though my car would be partially in that intersection when stopped. The officer looked at the sign and thought about it for a bit, and said, "Yeah, you have a good point there." And he let me go.
A few weeks later, the signs changed at that intersection. The stop sign was moved to in front of the intersecting street. And yield sign replaced the stop sign right before the RR crossing. Much more clear and logical.
I don't pretend to think that change is that easy all the time. But it's possible. Some ideas on how to do it:
1) Talk with your local authorities to get their take on the situation--see how it compares to your position. Maybe they share some of the same concerns. Maybe not. But find out before taking the next step.
2) Depending on results of 1), the next step could be to offer to help your local authorities in whatever way you can. They may decline, but you can offer. Also find others in your community who want to help fix this problem and get their commitment to help. Or... if you and the local authorities don't see eye-to-eye, then your next step is to move them closer to your position. For that, there's strength in numbers. Find a few people to help you, then go out and get as many drivers as possible to line up behind you. One good way to do this is a petition drive. Then get that petition and as many of your allies as possible to drive the point home to City Hall--emails, phone calls, getting on the docket at city council meetings, talking with local news about the situation to get more people on your side (and make those in charge look bad if they don't do something), etc.
This could take a lot of work, and time. But it's the only way to fix the problem vs. continuing to suffer with it. You might find some allies who can shoulder much of or most of the work--people who feel as strongly about the problem as you do.
Speaking of funny city insurance stories, I know of a guy who got a $2500 settlement due to a negligently maintained road that damaged his suspension and a wheel.
Got a name of a lawyer that one the case/claim and is he licensed in CA? If he did it on his own, that's impressive.
I have a slight indent/bend in one of my wheels, and I'd like to blame the City of La Mesa and several potholes around town. Fortunately, the wheel is on the front now, and no vibration through wheel. Making a claim on La Mesa for a bent wheel would be great retribution and revenge for their regular underposting of speed limits.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I calmly and politely pointed out that the location of the stop sign led me to believe that I should first cross the street, then stop, even though my car would be partially in that intersection when stopped. The officer looked at the sign and thought about it for a bit, and said, "Yeah, you have a good point there." And he let me go.
Wow, was that officer gay, and found you extremely handsome?
That's fairly amazing that he let you go! It's still an example of an EPIC FAIL by law enforcement. You would think that an officer would observe some things like signage and road conditions before issuing a legal accusation in the form of citations for them! This is a gross example of negligence in the powers of observations used to issue a ticket (or in this case just a traffic stop). At least they looked at the sign in question when you pointed it out, rather than stare into their ticket book writing stuff down and say "tell it to the judge!" Must of been the first time he looked at the sign he was planning on writing a violation for!
Just being pulled over would annoy me. However, I always remain calm and polite.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
It's still an example of an EPIC FAIL by law enforcement. You would think that an officer would observe some things like signage and road conditions before issuing a legal accusation in the form of citations for them!
Maybe you can lower your gay-dar enough to read what I wrote. No citation was issued.
Rather than a failure of law enforcement, I think it was a positive experience. Who knows, maybe the guy was relatively new on the job and was trying to his job as best he could. When given a reasonable explanation, the officer accepted it vs. taking the revenue-generating response. Appears not all police officers are solely focused on revenue generation as some here would like us to believe.
I have a feeling this kind of negative attitude towards law enforcement that you exemplify has a way of showing itself when interacting with same, even if it's unconscious.
And babies born on the day 55 was enacted were able to legally drive when the stupid law still existed. It took a virtual generation for one silly law that few followed to be repealed, and it required massive unified backing to finally tear it down. Do you get it?
From my contacts with local authorities (funny word), they are less than willing to receive suggestions. My last suggestion about lengthening the green segment of a left turn signal via extending the traffic gap used by the sensors received no reply. So now we still have a light that lets 3 vehicles through and then backs them up for 3 blocks. Negligence. If it takes work and thought, some object. Fun suggestions though, do you think I am a trust funder with ample free time or some retired at 50 boomer with a huge pension who has nothing else to do? A little of my time also gets wasted in traffic due to the lowest common denominator reigning supreme, and untouchables making and enforcing the rules.
Whine whine whine? You give me about 5 words for each word in a reply I give to you, and sometimes you get upset about things not even aimed at you. I get under your skin like a particularly determined tick. Who is whining?
I sent an email to Governor Brown about 2 weeks ago in California. I have not even received an automated replay yet!
I'm a registered Democrat too! Guess I'd have to donate at least 5 figures to his campaign fund before having my email read and responded to!
If I donate 6 figures I might have a bill written in my honor.
Somehow I don't think 1,000 letters will make a difference, they will all be ignored if they don't serve the purpose of increasing revenues for the State.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I think he hired a lawyer, I don't know who though. The car was an older Mercedes CL.
I weave around like a drunk avoiding the poorly designed utility hole covers, and patchwork road surfaces. Shared sacrifice so some can retire early with nice incomes, I guess.
If I thought anyone read it for more than 2 seconds, I would have.
To be fair, they have eventually responded when I have contacted them about broken light sensors, or at least fixed it with no reply. I don't need a reply, if something is actually going to be bothered to be fixed.
I am not sure why you bother. Everybody knows (CA anyway) that there has to be a few (spectacular to boot) deaths (due to the defect in question) before it even approaches "getting on the radar."
I've tried that with the local utility group when one of their service grates was rattling on my street and driving me nuts. I called them about 6 times - given the "we'll get to it when we can" runaround, and then said I would use some cones to block the road if they didn't fix their property. Funny thing, later that day it was fixed :shades:
Knowing how this area works, mayor and city council would probably see negligently timed traffic controls as an important "traffic calming" device to keep average speeds slow, as speed kills :shades:
Too funny. The Mayor of San Jose is a registered democrat also. (ah dah) He got a failing to signal ticket on a signal guided turn (right I believe). The SJ LEO that gave him the ticket even after he recognized him as the Mayor was/is a unionist and probable democrat also. Further in serious breach of department policy, a picture of the infraction was posted on the internet.
Now I happen to think people should get tickets for this kind of behavior or lack there of. However it is commonly know that even the majority of cops fail to signal ( citizens and illegal aliens also). By majority it is HUGE something like 75%.
Fun suggestions though, do you think I am a trust funder with ample free time or some retired at 50 boomer with a huge pension who has nothing else to do?
Well, you do seem to have lots of time to post here.
I didn't say it would take no time or be easy, did I? Depends on your priorities and how important this issue is for you. It appears it's not a high priority i.e. very important to you. We make time for the important things in life.
You give me about 5 words for each word in a reply I give to you, and sometimes you get upset about things not even aimed at you.
The part about "You give me about 5 words for each word in a reply I give to you" might lead one to believe you're upset about this.
I am not, however. I'm having a discussion on a public forum. So your Obi-Wan-style mind-reading skills didn't work that time, as they do when you're on the road reading the minds of other drivers.
To be fair, they have eventually responded when I have contacted them about broken light sensors, or at least fixed it with no reply. I don't need a reply, if something is actually going to be bothered to be fixed.
There ya go! Some complaints do get noticed!
For the bigger issues, I think it will take a lot more than one person sending an email, or calling. Or even more than 1,000, as andres3 suggested. Get many thousands (more the better) driver--and voter!--signatures on a petition for action, and the powers-that-be might take notice. Assuming they want to be re-elected someday. Also these kinds of mass actions by the public tend to work their way into the press--directly or indirectly.
The media/press doesn't like to write Anti-LEO stories from what I've heard, because then they might lose getting the "scoop" on exciting breaking news stories from their inside "leo" informers.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Maybe I am a faster typist than you? Spare me the pile of manure about "priorities", again, look at the work and time needed to repeal loudly idiotic laws like 55. Then examine how local "authorities" are usually even more combative to progress than the feds.
I am not the one who gets upset when someone else randomly mentions blood money new resident drivers in supercars, bad steering wheel positioning, scaredy cat slowpokes, etc. Someone has been very upset in the past, offended delicate sensibilities. A "discussion" does not involve airing hurt feelings when someone is unreasonably offended by a random rant.
It will take massive civil disobedience at the very least to get the untouchables to shape up.
If only we could vote for roadway regulations instead of letting them be set by someone who was appointed by someone who was appointed by someone who is the friend of someone who was appointed by someone who is the friend of someone who was elected.
The press usually embraces the "speed kills" idiocy at the behest of LEOs and the insurance industry who collaborates with them.
You are mistaking disagreement with being "upset". Two very different things. You have no idea of my emotional state at any given time, so it's better not to assume something which you know nothing about. Go ahead and assume what other drivers are thinking/feeling if you must, but please don't play those mind games with me.
If only we could vote for roadway regulations instead of letting them be set by someone who was appointed by someone who was appointed by someone who is the friend of someone who was appointed by someone who is the friend of someone who was elected.
The key is, the top of the chain was elected. So...
I'd say some of that whine was being upset. How dare I call out anyone for anything. You're giving me permission? Thanks, oh holy one
I will assume what I please, you know what they say, where there's smoke, there's fire. Like when I see someone with a deathgrip on the wheel going 45 in a 60, I can assume they are unfit for highway driving. When I see an 18 year old who has been in the country for 6 weeks and has no connection to a job, zipping around in a new Ferrari, I can assume the money isn't earned. When I see middle America in an old Sentra, I can assume they don't like people who assume :shades:
Elected only as a matter of course, as the same result seems to take place no matter who "wins" (see the feds for examples).
In other words, where the vote goes is of no matter, when the entire system is broken, and the powers that be are so entrenched, nothing less than a literal revolution will really shape them up.
At least in those cases there was visual observation involved in your assumptions... as half-assed as they were. You've never seen me, thus you have absolutely no idea how upset I am or are not.
And, it's not an old Sentra. It's pretty new. Nice little car, too. Good red herring for you, though--nicely done.
Who is assuming? You know how many words are painted by a picture, right? And at the same time, a picture can be painted by words too.
About 7 model years old now right, and of a generation dating back to 2000? Sorry, that's not new. I have a 10 year old car, and it is a nice old car. Not new, even if it has the same tech as many newer cars. Embrace the old, it can be a good thing
A picture can be painted by words, but is too easily subject to mis-interpretation without visual and/or audio clues. As in this case.
As for the words... I've never said how old my Sentra is here, so you haven't been paying very close attention to the words. Another assumption of yours. And it's incorrect. It's a 2010 Sentra--current generation (at least for a few more weeks). Not that it matters. Why you keep bringing up what I drive is beyond me. Maybe it makes you feel superior because you drive a "nice" old car compared to my newer economy car?
Assumptions on the road might not have 100% accuracy, but from my experience, they do have a high accuracy rating, and they are easy and quick. Makes life easier. So they will continue, no matter how they might offend some delicate sensibilities
Did you used to have a ~06 Sentra? Oh well, so it is a generation that goes back to calendar year 06. Same difference to me. Superior, ah nice red herring distraction again, did high school debate class earn a D+? I just find it amusing that those who drive boring cars like to complain about those who drive faster, and bend over for arbitrary speed regulations. Whatever floats your boat, indeed.
I just find it amusing that those who drive boring cars like to complain about those who drive faster, and bend over for arbitrary speed regulations.
I don't define myself by what I drive. That was true many years ago when I drove a wheezy Vega, still true not long ago when I drove a Bimmer, and still true today with my Sentra. It would even be true if my next car turns out to be a Prius.
You haven't been paying attention to this discussion, based on your last post. I've admitted I am one of those who exceed speed limits. What I take issue with are those who choose to violate traffic laws, then blame everyone but themselves when they're caught doing it.
What I take issue with are those who choose to violate traffic laws, then blame everyone but themselves when they're caught doing it.
Then you should take issue with the La Mesa PD, La Mesa City Council, and La Mesa traffic engineers who purposely set a speed limit under the 85th percentile, willfully used radar to enforce the underposted speed limit, and thereby violated a couple traffic laws against using illegal speed traps to secure speeding tickets.
And the Politicians that make inconsiderate traffic laws, I thought I'd bring this up, which was shared to me by the NMA a couple weeks ago:
The California Legislature just passed Senate Bill 1303, which strips away fundamental rights for motorists accused of red-light camera violations. The measure will now go to Governor Brown’s desk.
Despite the claims of its backers, SB 1303 does nothing substantive to protect motorists from the abuses of photo enforcement. In fact, some of the most recent bill amendments came at the urging of Redflex Traffic Systems, a major photo enforcement vendor.
The true purpose of SB 1303 is to eliminate a major legal hurdle for camera vendors by allowing camera-based photos and video into evidence without testimony as to their validity. With no camera company representative in court to testify, ticket recipients are deprived of the basic right to challenge the evidence against them.
In addition, SB 1303 allows any jurisdiction to justify ticket cameras for “safety reasons” simply by showing that violations are occurring—even when there are virtually no accidents at the intersections in question.
Finally, the bill’s proposed changes to the “notice of non-liability” (otherwise known as a snitch ticket) will only lead to more motorist confusion and perpetuate this abusive and unfair practice. (Learn more about snitch tickets.) --->>> http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/fake-tickets
SB 1303 is a cynical attempt to further erode motorists’ rights in California, and there’s still time to stop it. Contact Governor Brown now and tell him to side with California’s drivers by vetoing SB 1303. Please forward this alert on to others and ask them to respond as well.
John Bowman National Motorists Association
____
Tell Governor Brown 1984 isn't wanted in CA! Do your civic duty and effect real change and hope!
The thing is, if the legislature already approved laws and bills as terrible as SB1303 in CA, I don't see any hope anymore in California. I'm not sure our governor will do anything about it.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Yeah, I could take arms against a sea of troubles, but I have more control over my own actions vs. those of others. Rather than wail about those municipalities that set speed limits lower than I'd like, I just choose to drive close enough to the limits so I don't stand out. Then I don't have to worry about how such limits are enforced using radar, airplanes, whatever. Saves in my wallet, too, in multiple ways.
But good luck to you with your crusade against the demonic La Mesa PD, City Council, and traffic engineers!
The guy that wrote the bill magically added the "Help the automated camera industry with Hearsay" clause at the last minute, in a bill said to "Promote the rights against red light cameras."
I can't believe they'd act like a bill that promotes the camera companies somehow is promoting motorists rights to fight the ticket. They are trying to give an inch, and then take another mile.
Their press releases make it seem like I'd be FOR SB1303, but when you dig into the language of the actual bill, you see that it is entirely the opposite thing of the heading. Shame on CA State Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), SHAME!!!!!
Very sneaky. Very corrupt! I'm sickened! :mad: :sick:
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Comments
That is your opinion, not fact. You talk about wanting facts... try using some sometimes.
The fact is, you didn't see a sign telling you not to do something, which you then did. And you were caught.
Those are the facts. Some people have trouble facing facts and taking responsibility for their actions. They'd rather blame their mistakes on someone else, such as a municipality that had the gall to post a "no U-turn" sign where you wanted to make a U-turn.
If you don't want to get tickets for breaking the law, you should observe your surroundings better... rather than ranting about overpaid and under-qualified traffic engineers.
Why not make a donation to that municipality for a brand-new, huge "no U-turn" sign for that intersection, including installation costs? I bet the mayor would appreciate it.
Sometimes, signs are actually hidden. When I was in school, my roomate got a ticket in a trap on a "no through" street, where the sign was obscured by a bush. He came back livid, I went there immediately and took a photo, he contested the ticket with the evidence, and actually won (he also mentioned the data was going to the local media). The u-turn sign in question could have been like this.
Why not ask the municipality to first explain why that stretch of road needs the sign, instead of diving into the expense of sign construction and law enforcement? Get them to put up or shut up for once. You like facts, but would never dare demand any from those who suck down endless piles of gold, as they are appointed "authority", and some parts of society adore that,
Sure, go ahead and ask why the sign is there. It doesn't change the fact it was there and was violated.
I don't agree with every traffic sign I see. There's many I figuratively scratch my head over, especially some of the "no right turn on red" signs. But I obey them. I think that's better than think I am a know-it-all who knows for sure which traffic signs/laws should be ignored and which shouldn't be. Also I don't like paying for tickets and increases in my auto insurance--that's high enough as it is.
And I think there's something to be said for the benefits of imposed order, which traffic laws/signs have the effect of doing. They're not perfect, but I think they beat an "everyone does anything they want" anarchy on the roads.
Order is great, when the regulations and enforcement are able to be defended as being efficient in all ways. When not, it only creates decaying conditions and increasing lack of respect and credibility for those authorities who actually do valid work. That seems to be epic fail in so many areas as it is today. But when you answer to nobody...
Nobody obeys every sign. Braying off into anarchy (hot button issue for some segments out there) seems to be kind of another red herring. Asking for laws and enforcement to be proven as ideal is not connected to anarchy. Efficient regulation is a right of every taxpayer, and it is a right the overpaid taxpayer funded set has violated for some time.
How many times have you posted here about some driver not noticing something they should have noticed? Don't recall your ever giving them a break as in, "Maybe the sign/signal wasn't placed optimally."
Not noticing a sign could mean a lot of things. Of course, if andres3 doesn't see a sign, there's absolutely no way it can be his fault because he doesn't make mistakes. Or at least admit to mistakes.
Order is great, when the regulations and enforcement are able to be defended as being efficient in all ways.
So you are looking for a perfect world, then, in the area of traffic law enforcement efficiency. Good luck with that. Seems like a huge red herring to me, though. As a taxpayer, be prepared to ante up more money for that perfect efficiency you seek.
It didn't matter, like I said, with a generic sign violation code, the sign doesn't have to be visible.
I once took a picture of a red light that was obscured by a tree limb, was ready to use that in court and win (since a red light being obstructed from view is a legitimate workable defense), but the cop didn't show.
Found another one just today.
Closest call yet though with an inconsiderate deer. Braked and swerved while the deer fortunately reversed direction at the shoulder.
I suspect even with andres' flamboyant anti speed limit / revenue enforcer attitude, he is more observant than the average driver. I have to say I have no reason to discount his word over the quality of work usually seen on our roadway infrastructure network,
Who said anything perfect? I simply want evidence. Nothing in the world is perfect, but some spheres seem to be much less perfect than others. And I have said numerous times I would pay the going rate seen in real first world countries for their driving conditions. I'll say it again, those who make and/or enforce the rules need to put up or shut up. Show me the rules and enforcement policies are the ideal use of scarce publicly funded resources.
"being efficient in all ways" says "perfect" to me... "all" being the key word. Glad to hear you don't expect enforcement to be perfect because you'll be waiting a loooong time for that.
I'd like to see those who brazenly violate the rules put up or shut up. Put up as in, be prepared to accept the consequences of breaking the rules. And spend more time working for better rules and better enforcement than whining about them.
Andres has claimed his propensity to cause accidents is minimal. Very much similar to mine. I have no reason to believe he is not being honest. So yes, I will give him benefit of the doubt and think he is more capable than the average mindless clone who freaks out at the thought of going 63 in a 60 and who keeps an 11-and-1 deathgrip strangle on the wheel.
Of course I don't expect enforcement to be perfect. As a rule, the profession includes many who have a certain mentality, and who we all know do not answer to real world standards of accountability. This breeds imperfection. But it also could breed something better than the asinine arbitrary system we have now. if only the good ones who still refuse to speak out against their bad brothers would also speak out about the bad rules they have to deal with on a daily basis.
The onus to ante up is on the person making the original claim. That would be our beloved revenue enforcement and regulation setting community, who do so much to deserve unquestioning respect, deference, and financial reward both in working years and in long retirement.
Working for better rules. Dumbed down middle America makes that impossible. Look how long it took to repeal 55. Look how the two party system can't be broken. The best defense is a good offense (being aware of speedtraps and other revenue generation schemes ie: if you are going to throw a uey, make sure no taxmen are around).
That's one way to deal with it. I will say, out of all the tickets I've received, that one stuck with me the most in that it altered my driving behavior a bit. Now when I want to make a U-turn, I scan in 360 degrees thoroughly for a few seconds trying to find any possible sign that could make it a ticketable offense, and of course, the time I spend wasting on trying to find a sign restriction is either simply a waste of time, gas and pollution (idling), increasing traffic from delay (if only a couple seconds), and at worst, since looking for a sign doesn't make my U-turn any safer, it takes away from my safest driving techniques. Not to worry, that's why I take the extra second or two, to make sure I don't neglect safety in the name of avoiding a ticket.
Goes back to my assertion that average or lesser drivers looking out for LEO's constantly sometimes have to divert too much attention for that sole purpose, and could get into trouble because of that once in a blue moon. Still, I'll take the driver on constant paranoid watchout for LEO's over the one that is clueless about any traffic that might be around or near them.
It's true, going 15+ years of driving without an at-fault accident is never just luck. Something is being done right.
I don't remember the exact statistics, but I remember reading somewhere an explanation for why young people get charged so much for insurance. The odds that a teenager will be in an accident for any given year are very high apparently. Just going a few years without an at-fault accident seems to defy the odds and make you a "better than average observer and driver."
That is statistically factual. Accident records tell the tale of a driver much better than sign adherence.
Also, I am honest!
I also put my money where my mouth is. I carry the highest deductibles most insurance companies will allow ($1,000 dollars) because I know I'll never cause an accident that's my fault, and I'm willing to bet on it, but in order to get comprehensive coverage (in case my car is stolen/vandalized) I need collision coverage. Also, in order to get Un/Underinsurance coverage, you need to have it in order to cover property damage done to your vehicle, which is the most likely use of insurance in CA, since most of the accidents are seemingly caused by bad drivers that don't have insurance.
My favorite feature is adding on uninsurance collision deductible waiver coverage so that if an uninsured or underinsured driver hits me, I can get my car fixed "free of charge without any deductible being applied to the repair bill," and don't even have to deal with the other guy or his insurance company much, if I don't want to.
The one time this coverage failed me was when the City of La Mesa PD officer rear ended my bumper on his Harley. The Police Dept doesn't have an insurance company; the City is "Self-Insured."
I told my insurance company "SCREW IT, let's get my car fixed, you pay for it because they are Uninsured!, and don't require my deductible!" They told me to pound sand, that it was different with the gov't, and it would fall under collision coverage, and therefore I'd be responsible to pay up to $1,000 until I get reimbursed by the City! Thankfully, the claims adjuster from Mercury was nice, and since it was clearly the officer's fault for rear-ending me, and it was the City of La Mesa, they'd feel comfortable covering the repairs while waiting for the check from the city instead of having me wait for it. However, they claimed they didn't have to (and were basically doing me a favor) because it didn't fall within the collision deductible waiver coverage for uninsured coverage. With a lot of CA cities going bankrupt lately, I wonder if they'd be so nice in this modern day and age?
I think my post above tells the tale of putting up or shutting up in some ways. Also, this point below:
When my income went down significantly a few years ago, I strongly, and I do mean STRONGLY considered self insuring with a 50K bond in California. I feel insurance is a big waste of money for good drivers that don't cause accidents. I don't need liability coverage because I'll never be liable to damages that occur. I had a good cash position and could have posted the bond in order to save money on auto insurance.
There was only a couple of things that stopped me from doing that:
1) Underinsured and uninsured coverage protection (so you don't have to sue or wait for money).
2) No one sells comprehensive coverage independently for things that might happen while your car is parked (like theft), which you can't control as a driver.
3) Insurance companies claim they can use your liability protection to pay for attornies in your "defense or case" in a court of law. I have little faith in the insurance companies living up to this, and ever spending much money in my best interest, but it sure sounds nice on paper if there ever was an argument in court that required lawyers.
That sign you violated probably exists because in 1974, an 85 year old driving a huge 1955 Cadillac tried it and crashed. Then some "safety" nanny/[non-permissible content removed] threw a fit and won a restrictive sign.
I think the average to below average driver doesn't keep an eagle eye out for LEOs, that's why tickets are such a nice revenue stream. It is the inattentive they seek - and as you know, there are plenty of those, both speeding and going slow. Even good drivers miss one now and then, but I'd wager an awful lot that those people who have a huge list of tickets aren't great drivers and aren't attentive.
I too carry high deductibles, and I keep full insurance even though my car is paid off. Repair costs are too high. Uninsured coverage is also important.
Speaking of funny city insurance stories, I know of a guy who got a $2500 settlement due to a negligently maintained road that damaged his suspension and a wheel.
It WAS repealed.
Whine, whine, whine. Here's an example of what can happen when we work even a little bit for better rules/signs. There's a RR crossing in a location I frequent. The stop sign there was always confusing to me, because it was right before the RR crossing. But there's a street right before that. No sign posted there. So are we supposed to stop where the sign is, or stop back behind the intersection with the street so we don't block it?
A couple of years ago I found out. I stopped behind the stop sign. I was then pulled over by a police officer from that municipality for failure to stop. I calmly and politely pointed out that the location of the stop sign led me to believe that I should first cross the street, then stop, even though my car would be partially in that intersection when stopped. The officer looked at the sign and thought about it for a bit, and said, "Yeah, you have a good point there." And he let me go.
A few weeks later, the signs changed at that intersection. The stop sign was moved to in front of the intersecting street. And yield sign replaced the stop sign right before the RR crossing. Much more clear and logical.
I don't pretend to think that change is that easy all the time. But it's possible. Some ideas on how to do it:
1) Talk with your local authorities to get their take on the situation--see how it compares to your position. Maybe they share some of the same concerns. Maybe not. But find out before taking the next step.
2) Depending on results of 1), the next step could be to offer to help your local authorities in whatever way you can. They may decline, but you can offer. Also find others in your community who want to help fix this problem and get their commitment to help. Or... if you and the local authorities don't see eye-to-eye, then your next step is to move them closer to your position. For that, there's strength in numbers. Find a few people to help you, then go out and get as many drivers as possible to line up behind you. One good way to do this is a petition drive. Then get that petition and as many of your allies as possible to drive the point home to City Hall--emails, phone calls, getting on the docket at city council meetings, talking with local news about the situation to get more people on your side (and make those in charge look bad if they don't do something), etc.
This could take a lot of work, and time. But it's the only way to fix the problem vs. continuing to suffer with it. You might find some allies who can shoulder much of or most of the work--people who feel as strongly about the problem as you do.
Got a name of a lawyer that one the case/claim and is he licensed in CA?
I have a slight indent/bend in one of my wheels, and I'd like to blame the City of La Mesa and several potholes around town. Fortunately, the wheel is on the front now, and no vibration through wheel. Making a claim on La Mesa for a bent wheel would be great retribution and revenge for their regular underposting of speed limits.
Wow, was that officer gay, and found you extremely handsome?
That's fairly amazing that he let you go! It's still an example of an EPIC FAIL by law enforcement. You would think that an officer would observe some things like signage and road conditions before issuing a legal accusation in the form of citations for them! This is a gross example of negligence in the powers of observations used to issue a ticket (or in this case just a traffic stop). At least they looked at the sign in question when you pointed it out, rather than stare into their ticket book writing stuff down and say "tell it to the judge!" Must of been the first time he looked at the sign he was planning on writing a violation for!
Just being pulled over would annoy me. However, I always remain calm and polite.
Maybe you can lower your gay-dar enough to read what I wrote. No citation was issued.
Rather than a failure of law enforcement, I think it was a positive experience. Who knows, maybe the guy was relatively new on the job and was trying to his job as best he could. When given a reasonable explanation, the officer accepted it vs. taking the revenue-generating response. Appears not all police officers are solely focused on revenue generation as some here would like us to believe.
I have a feeling this kind of negative attitude towards law enforcement that you exemplify has a way of showing itself when interacting with same, even if it's unconscious.
From my contacts with local authorities (funny word), they are less than willing to receive suggestions. My last suggestion about lengthening the green segment of a left turn signal via extending the traffic gap used by the sensors received no reply. So now we still have a light that lets 3 vehicles through and then backs them up for 3 blocks. Negligence. If it takes work and thought, some object. Fun suggestions though, do you think I am a trust funder with ample free time or some retired at 50 boomer with a huge pension who has nothing else to do? A little of my time also gets wasted in traffic due to the lowest common denominator reigning supreme, and untouchables making and enforcing the rules.
Whine whine whine? You give me about 5 words for each word in a reply I give to you, and sometimes you get upset about things not even aimed at you. I get under your skin like a particularly determined tick. Who is whining?
Especially when you cc the mayor's office. :-)
I'm a registered Democrat too! Guess I'd have to donate at least 5 figures to his campaign fund before having my email read and responded to!
If I donate 6 figures I might have a bill written in my honor.
Somehow I don't think 1,000 letters will make a difference, they will all be ignored if they don't serve the purpose of increasing revenues for the State.
Nice day - cars didn't leave the garage once and the drivers out there gave us a wide berth on our bike ride a little while ago.
I weave around like a drunk avoiding the poorly designed utility hole covers, and patchwork road surfaces. Shared sacrifice so some can retire early with nice incomes, I guess.
To be fair, they have eventually responded when I have contacted them about broken light sensors, or at least fixed it with no reply. I don't need a reply, if something is actually going to be bothered to be fixed.
Keep on 'em. Get friends to complain as well. At some point they may get so tired of hearing about it they might do something.
And yeah, copies to the mayor and city council can't hurt. :shades:
Knowing how this area works, mayor and city council would probably see negligently timed traffic controls as an important "traffic calming" device to keep average speeds slow, as speed kills :shades:
Now I happen to think people should get tickets for this kind of behavior or lack there of. However it is commonly know that even the majority of cops fail to signal ( citizens and illegal aliens also). By majority it is HUGE something like 75%.
Well, you do seem to have lots of time to post here.
I didn't say it would take no time or be easy, did I? Depends on your priorities and how important this issue is for you. It appears it's not a high priority i.e. very important to you. We make time for the important things in life.
You give me about 5 words for each word in a reply I give to you, and sometimes you get upset about things not even aimed at you.
The part about "You give me about 5 words for each word in a reply I give to you" might lead one to believe you're upset about this.
I am not, however. I'm having a discussion on a public forum. So your Obi-Wan-style mind-reading skills didn't work that time, as they do when you're on the road reading the minds of other drivers.
There ya go! Some complaints do get noticed!
For the bigger issues, I think it will take a lot more than one person sending an email, or calling. Or even more than 1,000, as andres3 suggested. Get many thousands (more the better) driver--and voter!--signatures on a petition for action, and the powers-that-be might take notice. Assuming they want to be re-elected someday. Also these kinds of mass actions by the public tend to work their way into the press--directly or indirectly.
I am not the one who gets upset when someone else randomly mentions blood money new resident drivers in supercars, bad steering wheel positioning, scaredy cat slowpokes, etc. Someone has been very upset in the past, offended delicate sensibilities. A "discussion" does not involve airing hurt feelings when someone is unreasonably offended by a random rant.
If only we could vote for roadway regulations instead of letting them be set by someone who was appointed by someone who was appointed by someone who is the friend of someone who was appointed by someone who is the friend of someone who was elected.
The press usually embraces the "speed kills" idiocy at the behest of LEOs and the insurance industry who collaborates with them.
You are mistaking disagreement with being "upset". Two very different things. You have no idea of my emotional state at any given time, so it's better not to assume something which you know nothing about. Go ahead and assume what other drivers are thinking/feeling if you must, but please don't play those mind games with me.
p.s. I am not "upset" now, either.
The key is, the top of the chain was elected. So...
I will assume what I please, you know what they say, where there's smoke, there's fire. Like when I see someone with a deathgrip on the wheel going 45 in a 60, I can assume they are unfit for highway driving. When I see an 18 year old who has been in the country for 6 weeks and has no connection to a job, zipping around in a new Ferrari, I can assume the money isn't earned. When I see middle America in an old Sentra, I can assume they don't like people who assume :shades:
I would also overhaul licensing regulations, for both new and existing drivers. Lowest common denominator is not what we need.
In other words, where the vote goes is of no matter, when the entire system is broken, and the powers that be are so entrenched, nothing less than a literal revolution will really shape them up.
Like when I see... When I see...
At least in those cases there was visual observation involved in your assumptions... as half-assed as they were. You've never seen me, thus you have absolutely no idea how upset I am or are not.
And, it's not an old Sentra. It's pretty new. Nice little car, too. Good red herring for you, though--nicely done.
Who is assuming? You know how many words are painted by a picture, right? And at the same time, a picture can be painted by words too.
About 7 model years old now right, and of a generation dating back to 2000? Sorry, that's not new. I have a 10 year old car, and it is a nice old car. Not new, even if it has the same tech as many newer cars. Embrace the old, it can be a good thing
As for the words... I've never said how old my Sentra is here, so you haven't been paying very close attention to the words. Another assumption of yours. And it's incorrect. It's a 2010 Sentra--current generation (at least for a few more weeks). Not that it matters. Why you keep bringing up what I drive is beyond me. Maybe it makes you feel superior because you drive a "nice" old car compared to my newer economy car?
Whatever floats your boat.
Did you used to have a ~06 Sentra? Oh well, so it is a generation that goes back to calendar year 06. Same difference to me. Superior, ah nice red herring distraction again, did high school debate class earn a D+? I just find it amusing that those who drive boring cars like to complain about those who drive faster, and bend over for arbitrary speed regulations. Whatever floats your boat, indeed.
Well, dang.... that sounds like a great source of revenue, there! :P
I don't define myself by what I drive. That was true many years ago when I drove a wheezy Vega, still true not long ago when I drove a Bimmer, and still true today with my Sentra. It would even be true if my next car turns out to be a Prius.
You haven't been paying attention to this discussion, based on your last post. I've admitted I am one of those who exceed speed limits. What I take issue with are those who choose to violate traffic laws, then blame everyone but themselves when they're caught doing it.
Then you should take issue with the La Mesa PD, La Mesa City Council, and La Mesa traffic engineers who purposely set a speed limit under the 85th percentile, willfully used radar to enforce the underposted speed limit, and thereby violated a couple traffic laws against using illegal speed traps to secure speeding tickets.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d17/vc40802.htm
The California Legislature just passed Senate Bill 1303, which strips away fundamental rights for motorists accused of red-light camera violations. The measure will now go to Governor Brown’s desk.
Despite the claims of its backers, SB 1303 does nothing substantive to protect motorists from the abuses of photo enforcement. In fact, some of the most recent bill amendments came at the urging of Redflex Traffic Systems, a major photo enforcement vendor.
The true purpose of SB 1303 is to eliminate a major legal hurdle for camera vendors by allowing camera-based photos and video into evidence without testimony as to their validity. With no camera company representative in court to testify, ticket recipients are deprived of the basic right to challenge the evidence against them.
In addition, SB 1303 allows any jurisdiction to justify ticket cameras for “safety reasons” simply by showing that violations are occurring—even when there are virtually no accidents at the intersections in question.
Finally, the bill’s proposed changes to the “notice of non-liability” (otherwise known as a snitch ticket) will only lead to more motorist confusion and perpetuate this abusive and unfair practice. (Learn more about snitch tickets.) --->>> http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/fake-tickets
SB 1303 is a cynical attempt to further erode motorists’ rights in California, and there’s still time to stop it. Contact Governor Brown now and tell him to side with California’s drivers by vetoing SB 1303. Please forward this alert on to others and ask them to respond as well.
John Bowman
National Motorists Association
____
Tell Governor Brown 1984 isn't wanted in CA! Do your civic duty and effect real change and hope!
The thing is, if the legislature already approved laws and bills as terrible as SB1303 in CA, I don't see any hope anymore in California. I'm not sure our governor will do anything about it.
But good luck to you with your crusade against the demonic La Mesa PD, City Council, and traffic engineers!
So pretty clear what you and others can do if you don't like this bill.
The guy that wrote the bill magically added the "Help the automated camera industry with Hearsay" clause at the last minute, in a bill said to "Promote the rights against red light cameras."
I can't believe they'd act like a bill that promotes the camera companies somehow is promoting motorists rights to fight the ticket. They are trying to give an inch, and then take another mile.
Their press releases make it seem like I'd be FOR SB1303, but when you dig into the language of the actual bill, you see that it is entirely the opposite thing of the heading. Shame on CA State Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), SHAME!!!!!
Very sneaky. Very corrupt! I'm sickened! :mad: :sick: