Except in these no fault type states like MA, MI, IA, etc. where both parties insurance would likely have to pay for a portion. Another dumb political idea - lawyers trying to be business people and this is what you tend to get!
The feds are dumping on the states who turn around and dump on the municipalities - everyone needs CA$H! Our town has been busy lowering speed limits. Now there has been no issue with traffic accidents around here, but revenue is needed.
and an undisclosed way to manually override a car’s controls.
So MUCH liability in that. I can see it now, I'm suing Canada because I just got rear-ended/T-Boned and the accident was entirely avoidable if i could of just sped up 5 MPH, but your device made the accident happen, and failed to mitigate disaster. Pay up! $$$$$ BIG DOLLARS.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I'm happy to report after a roadtrip to burlington, VT, that evidently traffic enforcement policies haven't changed from 30 years ago except for there being unmarked vehicles now: the real/true/actual/enforced speed limit on rural I-89 remains 80++, just like it was back during the double-nickel speed limit. a driver at that speed won't be detained or signalled to slow down, unless they are driving aggressively/idiotically/racing. Thank You Troopers!
Red-Light Cameras are probably one of the single dumbest ideas the human race has ever come up with.
I can't believe so many local governments got caught up in the Scamera business. The people lose their tax dollars, the camera companies get rich. The only possible explanation for such stupid, wrongful, and downright damaging behaviour from public officials is complete and utter greed! (and maybe low IQ's).
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
By measuring the amount of red-light runners at an intersection for a period of time, and then remeasuring that same intersection for the same period of time after lengthening the yellow light by 1 second?
Another way to do it would be to measure the length of time the light is red for your typical violater. I believe around 95-99% of red light violations occurred within 1 second of the light going to red from yellow. Therefore you reduce the violaters from "guilty" to innocent by lengthing the yellow light by 1 second.
Further studies have shown that people do NOT adjust or "learn" to adapt to the longer yellow thereby changing their driving habits to change these percentages.
People should also remember that the dangerous red light runners are not the one's that miss a yellow light by a split second, but the one's who blatantly go through a red in the middle of its period. That is when nasty injuries and/or fatalities from T-Bone/side impact collisions can occur.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
It's all about kickbacks. Shady corporations (some will lie and call them "capitalists" or "entrepreneurs") teaming up with public sector "authorities" for mutual profits. Leaders from both groups should be sent to a gallows for their actions.
Yes, I especially like the kickbacks which will let someone go from a public sector employee into a cushy COO/CEO type position at the company they made money for as a politician, then after their term or soon thereafter, they have that job waiting for them. A few years later they can quit/resign/be fired, but they'll get a golden parachute as severance.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
What kind of tickets are being received to make a $250 legal fee appear better? When I got "warned" in an "emphasis patrol" on a sparsely traveled wide open road a couple months ago, I was told 10 over (going downhill no less) would have been like a $125 (?) ticket. I thought of asking the revenue enforcement officer how even this is justifiable, but as he wasn't the typical jerky mustached stereotype, I didn't. Maybe it helps pay the OT for these guys, which can make a nice six figure salary without a huge amount of effort...keeps the generous above real world retirement plans funded too.
Maybe the lawyer gives the judge part of his proceeds. Wouldn't surprise me, especially in some counties around here.
What kind of tickets are being received to make a $250 legal fee appear better?
It's not the ticket itself that makes the legal fee appear better; it's the insurance surcharges! Here in NC, just one ticket can cost a driver well over $1000 in higher premiums over 3 years.
Exactly! The unfounded insurance surcharges based on invalid traffic enforcement gets my blood to boil. It can costs thousands over 3 years. Some companies will ask you to remember to tell them about tickets as much as 5 years old, but I happen to have selective memory for stuff 3 or more years old :P
I've heard of a lawyer in CA who does a "BAZOOKA" defense for speeding tickets, but they charge $1,500.00. I'd pay $250.00 as fast as they could take the money from me!
I'd rather a lawyer get rich than the corrupt gov't officials lining their pockets with traffic fine revenues.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I was obviously joking about 1,000,000 fines as no one has been fined that much for a traffic violation. I was just covering all existing fine amounts.
There are tons of studies and links, the following link provides a link to many of the most relevant studies (all kinds, all sorts):
That only works if you aren't falsely charged and convicted. I've been given speeding tickets for both when I was truly speeding and for when I truly was not.
Court doesn't always get it right, you win some, you lose some.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
It's just a tax, they will get you one way or another. It's not about safety, 95% of the time it is just money. It would be nice to see LEOs and overpaid underworked public sector "engineers" dragged in front of a public tribunal and be forced to defend their policies with their jobs and perks being on the line if they fail.
You mean similarly traveled roads in the west that include mountains and the like at 75mph, while states like Ohio and Illinois have flat ones limited to 65 mph for safety. I'm afraid a lot of these states east of the Mississippi couldn't seriously cut costs if their life depended on it - all they know is "taxes" andd that's another reason they are dying.
It's not a lot different west of the Mississippi, especially when it comes to seemingly arbitrary speed limits, or speed limit changes, and enforcement. I am in a fairly densely populated area, SL is 30 on city streets and many do that in more. Last weekend I was in a small town, light traffic, wide open streets, same speed limit. Now and then there will be a "trap" day, but not often.
Luckily, false tickets are a tiny portion of overall speeders. Far more people get away with it than the number who get accused of it when they are not.
I have deserved every speeding ticket I have ever received.
I once got three in the same week and two of those were on the same DAY by the same motorcycle cop. I had NINE in one year.
Somehow...I kept my license although it was on probation for a year and to my amazement, my insurance company never found out.
Now, that was a long time ago on the streets of So. Calif. I was young, stupid and I had a fast car. By the grace of God, I haver had any kind of an accident.
Now, I don't speed at least on purpose and I no longer worry about getting pulled over.
Wouldn't it be amazing if we could rewrite the speeding laws so that the vast majority of the driving public wasn't in violation each and every day?
Agreed. Use the 85th percentile rule .. set the speed limits to the speed that 85% of the public won't exceed.
Here in my town there is a 4 lane divided road that is 4-5 miles long and is mainly rural - no stoplights, minimal intersections. Initially, it was maintained by the town and the speed limit was set to 45. Lots of people were ticketed for speeding and the town made lots of money. A couple of years ago, the state took over the maintenance of the road and the speed limit was increased to 50.
Since February, this stretch of road has gone through a complete overhaul .. the existing road base was stripped and new concrete has been poured. Curbs and shoulders have been added.
Here's hoping the speed limit will increase to 55 once the work is complete in the next month or two.
Agreed. Use the 85th percentile rule .. set the speed limits to the speed that 85% of the public won't exceed.
A very simple rule that all logical engineers share value in. It is most efficient for the purposes of maximum traffic flow and safety to set speed limits to the 85th percentile.
States like CA already have rules and laws that tell govermental bodies to obey this convention of setting speed limits to the 85th percentile. Now all we do is have to get the rest of the court employees, local goverment employees, politicians, and law enforcement to obey and enforce the rules and laws we already have. It would help perhaps if legislators clarified and corrected any confusion in the "right" way. The logical way.
Those guys are basically burning our flag and constitution in their own backyards every night before and during their slumber. All so they can make a buck off of illegitimate fines.
ISELLHONDAS - it doesn't surprise me that you received numerous speeding tickets but never had an accident. It wasn't a miracle or divine intervention from God either.
The reason is simple - speeding does not cause accidents. Period, end of story.
Going too fast for conditions on the other hand, COULD POSSIBLY be a causal factor in an accident, but speeding in and of itself is never going to get anyone in trouble the way our speed limits are currently set.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Going too fast for conditions is far different than speeding.
The conditions could be that you've placed 15 - 100 lb. bags of concrete in your cargo area, have underinflated tires, drive a wallowy soft suspended car, have low rolling resistance tires, and the pavement happens to be wet around a bend in the road. You might not make that turn at 10 over the speed limit in those conditions.
Or you could have a 3,000 lb. car with only the driver in it, with properly inflated HIGH performance tires, a sporty suspension, and the pavement is dry, and you can make that same turn at 40 over the speed limit; let alone 10 over.
Both are speeders, but only one is unsafe.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I agree, because the evidence and studies all lead to the same conclusion.
Not only does speeding not lead to accidents, but the numbers show that speeding (moderately) actually will REDUCE your chances of being in an accident.
My theories as to why this is so are as follows:
1) avoid getting rear-ended by driving slow, slower, and slowest. 2) you naturally pay more attention when driving faster than you do when driving slower (weaving in and out of traffic requires more concentration and effort than mindlessly following a LLC). Also, slow driving might cause you to get bored, tired, fatigued, and distract yourself with something else in order to take you brain out of boredom. 3) You stay around bad slow drivers for less time, so your exposure to being in the vicinity of bad drivers is reduced. 4) You reduce your time on the road, thereby reducing exposure to potential accidents even moreso.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I think left lane bandits and othe pokers probably cause more accidents than speeders. However law enforcement likes to make like all speeders are reckless drivers (no way are the two necessarily the same) because unfortunately state and local financial shortfalls have forced the police to become primarily revenuers and tools like laser guns are hard to fight in court. I'm sure more than a few police offciers wonder why they went through college to basically write speeding tickets all day.
Out of all that list of things, the most important is LUCK. You can have all the attentiveness of GOD and Medusa's Eyes and reflexes like Ali in his Prime, and someone else can still hit you.
That's why they are called "accidents" - they HAPPEN with or without the involved party's permission.... :shades:
Please list your background, education, and experiences that qualify you to make such claims.
If you have none, please sign here. This is not an admission of guilt, but only a promise to appear. You have 15 days in which to either pay the fine, request a mitigation hearing or set a court date. If you refuse to sign, it will be noted on the citation and result in a mandatory court appearance.
But at the same time, if it is all about avoiding idiots, we should be going no more than 30 or so no matte the circumstances. Absolute safety. Speed wouldn't have cause that crash, the idiot would have - and as punishment he should have received revocation of license and massive fines.
There is ZERO question in my mind that had I been going 35 instead of 25 I would have hit him. As it was, it was VERY close.
My theories make perfect sense, and I'll show you why your the one that is dead wrong.
In your scenario, yes, if you had been going faster you may have hit that guy (assuming you still decided to brake rather than speed up to avoid the accident), but you would not have been the cause of the accident. Speed/speeding would not have been the cause of the accident. Failure to yield the right of way would have been the cause, probably due to inattention/distraction of the other driver. You wouldn't have been at-fault. I'm not advocating to get ONLY into not at fault accidents, it is best to avoid ALL accidents where possible.
However, get this... the 10 MPH differential you use in your example gets you 1/6 of a mile further down the road EVERY MINUTE. Since your vehicle isn't 1/6th of a mile long, it only takes a second or two of driving 35 MPH down that road to have avoided that knucklehead all together. Therefore, if you had been driving 35 instead of going 25 for even a split minute, you'd of been close to 1/6th of a mile away and in front of the accident he caused with the "other" guy going 25 MPH and not paying attention with fast reflexes like you were. Again, if someone's firing missiles broadside, by going faster you are in the area of influence for a shorter period of time.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
a typical car these days can brake from 60-0 MPH in about 130 feet. Not even a supercar can go 0-60 MPH in 130 feet during acceleration.
Therefore, by going faster, you have more options to avoid accidents as you can speed up, or slow down with greater variablity by starting at a higher speed. You can always slow down quickly, but you can't just always JUMP out of the way unless you drive something very quick!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Comments
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
The other would be charge with failing to obey a traffic sign.
So MUCH liability in that. I can see it now, I'm suing Canada because I just got rear-ended/T-Boned and the accident was entirely avoidable if i could of just sped up 5 MPH, but your device made the accident happen, and failed to mitigate disaster. Pay up! $$$$$ BIG DOLLARS.
the real/true/actual/enforced speed limit on rural I-89 remains 80++, just like it was back during the double-nickel speed limit. a driver at that speed won't be detained or signalled to slow down, unless they are driving aggressively/idiotically/racing.
I can't believe so many local governments got caught up in the Scamera business. The people lose their tax dollars, the camera companies get rich. The only possible explanation for such stupid, wrongful, and downright damaging behaviour from public officials is complete and utter greed! (and maybe low IQ's).
Studies have shown lengthening a yellow light by 1 second will be far more effective than even a $1,000,000 fine from a Camera.
Really? How would you study that? :surprise:
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Another way to do it would be to measure the length of time the light is red for your typical violater. I believe around 95-99% of red light violations occurred within 1 second of the light going to red from yellow. Therefore you reduce the violaters from "guilty" to innocent by lengthing the yellow light by 1 second.
Further studies have shown that people do NOT adjust or "learn" to adapt to the longer yellow thereby changing their driving habits to change these percentages.
People should also remember that the dangerous red light runners are not the one's that miss a yellow light by a split second, but the one's who blatantly go through a red in the middle of its period. That is when nasty injuries and/or fatalities from T-Bone/side impact collisions can occur.
Our son has used the same guy so many times that he gives him a discount! He pays this guy 250.00 and the lawyer go's to court on our son't behalf.
He does not guarantee results and even admits that there have been times his clients were found guilty but this sure doesn't happen often!
I just wonder what they say in court?
How do you study that? Million dollar fines?
In other words, let's see a link to that study... :surprise:
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Maybe the lawyer gives the judge part of his proceeds. Wouldn't surprise me, especially in some counties around here.
It's not the ticket itself that makes the legal fee appear better; it's the insurance surcharges! Here in NC, just one ticket can cost a driver well over $1000 in higher premiums over 3 years.
I've heard of a lawyer in CA who does a "BAZOOKA" defense for speeding tickets, but they charge $1,500.00. I'd pay $250.00 as fast as they could take the money from me!
I'd rather a lawyer get rich than the corrupt gov't officials lining their pockets with traffic fine revenues.
I stopped speeding after my last ticket 11 years ago cost me $125 even as I took the Defensive Driving class to keep it off my record.
It's not that important to speed. I'd rather keep my hard earned money in my own pockets..... :shades:
There are tons of studies and links, the following link provides a link to many of the most relevant studies (all kinds, all sorts):
http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/yellow-lights
One of the best links is:
http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/identifying-treating
and
http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/fairfax
and
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3055.asp
Court doesn't always get it right, you win some, you lose some.
I once got three in the same week and two of those were on the same DAY by the same motorcycle cop. I had NINE in one year.
Somehow...I kept my license although it was on probation for a year and to my amazement, my insurance company never found out.
Now, that was a long time ago on the streets of So. Calif. I was young, stupid and I had a fast car. By the grace of God, I haver had any kind of an accident.
Now, I don't speed at least on purpose and I no longer worry about getting pulled over.
Welcome to the real world we live in!
Agreed. Use the 85th percentile rule .. set the speed limits to the speed that 85% of the public won't exceed.
Here in my town there is a 4 lane divided road that is 4-5 miles long and is mainly rural - no stoplights, minimal intersections. Initially, it was maintained by the town and the speed limit was set to 45. Lots of people were ticketed for speeding and the town made lots of money. A couple of years ago, the state took over the maintenance of the road and the speed limit was increased to 50.
Since February, this stretch of road has gone through a complete overhaul .. the existing road base was stripped and new concrete has been poured. Curbs and shoulders have been added.
Here's hoping the speed limit will increase to 55 once the work is complete in the next month or two.
A very simple rule that all logical engineers share value in. It is most efficient for the purposes of maximum traffic flow and safety to set speed limits to the 85th percentile.
States like CA already have rules and laws that tell govermental bodies to obey this convention of setting speed limits to the 85th percentile. Now all we do is have to get the rest of the court employees, local goverment employees, politicians, and law enforcement to obey and enforce the rules and laws we already have. It would help perhaps if legislators clarified and corrected any confusion in the "right" way. The logical way.
Those guys are basically burning our flag and constitution in their own backyards every night before and during their slumber. All so they can make a buck off of illegitimate fines.
ISELLHONDAS - it doesn't surprise me that you received numerous speeding tickets but never had an accident. It wasn't a miracle or divine intervention from God either.
The reason is simple - speeding does not cause accidents. Period, end of story.
Going too fast for conditions on the other hand, COULD POSSIBLY be a causal factor in an accident, but speeding in and of itself is never going to get anyone in trouble the way our speed limits are currently set.
" COULD POSSIBLY"...Gee, do ya THINK?
No further response from me.
The conditions could be that you've placed 15 - 100 lb. bags of concrete in your cargo area, have underinflated tires, drive a wallowy soft suspended car, have low rolling resistance tires, and the pavement happens to be wet around a bend in the road. You might not make that turn at 10 over the speed limit in those conditions.
Or you could have a 3,000 lb. car with only the driver in it, with properly inflated HIGH performance tires, a sporty suspension, and the pavement is dry, and you can make that same turn at 40 over the speed limit; let alone 10 over.
Both are speeders, but only one is unsafe.
Not only does speeding not lead to accidents, but the numbers show that speeding (moderately) actually will REDUCE your chances of being in an accident.
My theories as to why this is so are as follows:
1) avoid getting rear-ended by driving slow, slower, and slowest.
2) you naturally pay more attention when driving faster than you do when driving slower (weaving in and out of traffic requires more concentration and effort than mindlessly following a LLC). Also, slow driving might cause you to get bored, tired, fatigued, and distract yourself with something else in order to take you brain out of boredom.
3) You stay around bad slow drivers for less time, so your exposure to being in the vicinity of bad drivers is reduced.
4) You reduce your time on the road, thereby reducing exposure to potential accidents even moreso.
Slower traffic move right is the law.
This morning I had a great example of why you are so dead wrong.
I was driving through town in moderate traffic in a 25 MPH zone.
Without warning an idiot suddenly pulled out from the curb without looking forcing me to react instantly and slam on my brakes.
There is ZERO question in my mind that had I been going 35 instead of 25 I would have hit him. As it was, it was VERY close.
I've never had an accident for a number of reasons.
1. I'm attentive. No cellphone usage, no drinking coffee.
2. I've always had quick reflexes and for some reason, I still do.
3. I don't drive if I'm tired or fatigued.
4. I never tailgate and I watch the cars around me.
5. I HAVE BEEN EXTREMLY LUCKY!!
That's why they are called "accidents" - they HAPPEN with or without the involved party's permission.... :shades:
I'm overdue and I am well aware of that!
If you have none, please sign here. This is not an admission of guilt, but only a promise to appear. You have 15 days in which to either pay the fine, request a mitigation hearing or set a court date. If you refuse to sign, it will be noted on the citation and result in a mandatory court appearance.
Drive safely. Have a better day.
:P
My theories make perfect sense, and I'll show you why your the one that is dead wrong.
In your scenario, yes, if you had been going faster you may have hit that guy (assuming you still decided to brake rather than speed up to avoid the accident), but you would not have been the cause of the accident. Speed/speeding would not have been the cause of the accident. Failure to yield the right of way would have been the cause, probably due to inattention/distraction of the other driver. You wouldn't have been at-fault. I'm not advocating to get ONLY into not at fault accidents, it is best to avoid ALL accidents where possible.
However, get this... the 10 MPH differential you use in your example gets you 1/6 of a mile further down the road EVERY MINUTE. Since your vehicle isn't 1/6th of a mile long, it only takes a second or two of driving 35 MPH down that road to have avoided that knucklehead all together. Therefore, if you had been driving 35 instead of going 25 for even a split minute, you'd of been close to 1/6th of a mile away and in front of the accident he caused with the "other" guy going 25 MPH and not paying attention with fast reflexes like you were. Again, if someone's firing missiles broadside, by going faster you are in the area of influence for a shorter period of time.
Therefore, by going faster, you have more options to avoid accidents as you can speed up, or slow down with greater variablity by starting at a higher speed. You can always slow down quickly, but you can't just always JUMP out of the way unless you drive something very quick!