Hearsay? You mean the electronically documented speed gun readout? Go ahead and try that "hearsay" argument in court, and I'll guarantee that the DA will decide NOT to allow you to talk down to a lesser charge, and will throw the book at you.
God! As bad as CA is, with corruption in the traffic courts, it sounds like NY is worse.
You do realize that electornically documented speed gun readout can be locked from 1 day, 1 week, 1 year, or 10 years ago? That speed reading could be from a 1994 BMW M3 when it was Brand new with 1,000 miles on the odometer, and a judge would accept that as good evidence in NY?
Who took the radar reading? Where is he? Let me face my accuser! I want to cross examine his radar taking skills! I have a right to do that. Without a witness to testify that the radar reading was in fact taken from and for my vehicle at the time of the alleged violation, it is simply 2 numbers on a digital screen and could have been taken from any vehicle. Hearsay otherwise without a direct witness.
The more the DA wants to escalate it the better I would think; then you might end up in a real courtroom with a real judge rather than a "traffic referee."
I'd point out to the DA, would they like it if I brought my passenger along to testify that his uncle's brother tested the top speed of my vehicle on a closed course, and it was less than the speed limit of that roadway?
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I can only speak for myself, but I enjoy hearing stories about traffic, cop and court experiences. Sadly, I do think it has become more of a revenue generator process than one about safety.
Saw 2 speedtraps today, which I am sure were all about safety and not anything to do with the end of the month drawing near, with quotas to be met and budgets to be funded. Nah
When you're done holding grudges and bad-mouthing law-enforcement for doing their job and making you take an extra 30 seconds to get from A to B, then let me know. Otherwise, I'm done.
When you get pulled over in CA, it is not 30 seconds of wasted time. It is more like 15 to 25 minutes of wasted time. I believe the cops in CA deliberately like to waste your time and stall, delay, and take their first pound of flesh right then and there. I wish if they have decided to give you a ticket they'd just go ahead and do so and let you be on your way in 30 seconds. It shouldn't take that long to run a couple of numbers.
When you go to court the wasted time on purpose is hilarious as well. Court begins at 1, only the peons in the courtroom (clerk, bailiff, recorder) come in at about 1:05 p.m., then the judge (in a typical scenario) will decide to show up at 1:20 to begin at about 1:25 p.m. calling the first case if your lucky. People that pay for representation get to go first as they don't want to maximize a fellow lawyers wasted time.
One of the strongest arguments you can make in pretrial motions is pointing out that they will be wasting one of "their" people's time (such as the officer's) if they, for example, try to coerce you into having your motion heard at your trial date and time. Such a tactic is soley for the purpose to shoot your motion down no matter what, and not give you any time to recover. For to grant your motion, they would have to continue your trial and make the officer come back again; not a likely scenario. However, if you point out to the court with a letter that their setting of the pretrial motion on the actual court date will cause the officer to have to appear twice should your motion be granted, well then you have a good argument (and makes the rigging obvious). At the end you can state that the court is allowing you no time to prepare your defense, as you must prepare for the motion hearing, and cannot know the outcome in advance, of which it will certainly affect your trial and defense dependant on the ruling.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
When you get pulled over in CA, it is not 30 seconds of wasted time. It is more like 15 to 25 minutes of wasted time.
...Which proves my point even further, incidentally.
My "30 seconds" comment is comparing driving from A-B when going the speed limit (or 5-10 over, depending on conditions) or speeding like an a-hole (15+ over) just to get to point B 30 seconds, or even a couple minutes, faster. That time savings is wasted if you do get pulled over, adding 15-25 minutes to your trip.
Adding the trip(s) to court, the lost time from your job/family/social life just to sit in a courtroom, cost of gas, lawyers fees (if applicable), time wasted "preparing your defense", etc...
Seems like you'd end up saving more time, $$$$, and sanity just not pressing so hard on the accelerator. Interesting concept...
>>you take an extra 30 seconds to get from A to B, then let me know.
>When you get pulled over in CA, it is not 30 seconds of wasted time. It is more like 15 to 25 minutes of wasted time.
MZ6 is done, but I have to point out this is a twisting of the statement "extra 30 seconds." That referred to the additional time that driving the speed limit would have taken for the trip. It has nothing to do with the time spent on the roadside.
Innocent people get pulled over routinely. Cops are human. Surely you can accept that they make mistakes as all humans do.
I do not believe their training is extensive enough to make them the so-called experts the court believes them to be (and grants them so easily and accepts them without question).
I have found their powers of observation to often be faulty, and weak. I have found their judgement to be lacking, and often with short tempers.
You can get pulled over mistakenly or by false accusation whether you were speeding or not.
Once you get the ticket, you might as well fight it, as the insurance $$$ saved over 3 years makes it worthwhile.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Adding the trip(s) to court, the lost time from your job/family/social life just to sit in a courtroom, cost of gas, lawyers fees (if applicable), time wasted "preparing your defense", etc...
Back in 1996, I got a parking ticket when I delivered pizzas, for leaving my car out at the curb for too long. The court date was pretty far off. I threw the ticket in the back seat of my '68 Dart, and totally forgot about it. Well, months later, I found it, wedged down beside the back seat cushion. The court date had passed, unfortunately, but I called up and was able to get a re-trial.
Well, as luck would have it by the time the trial came around, the cop who wrote the ticket had retired, so that saved me $200. FWIW, the charge was "parking in a fire zone", although there were no hydrants around, the curb was not painted, and my car was specifically between the signs that designated a pickup/delivery zone, which was put there to make it more convenient for us delivery drivers.
MOST, or I should say a majority of my citations weren't even for speeding. They often pull violations out of a hat (to put it nicely).
To be honest, the one's for speeding are probably (out of all of them) the most legit when you dig into the letter of the law. However, one of the most egregiously false tickets I got was for 58 in a 35 which should be posted at 45 or 50, but I certainly was not going 58!!! I was probably doing 48 AT MOST! I think I really was going like 40-45. It was an obviously errant radar reading; insane!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Umm, no they don't. In fact, can't remember the last time I WAS pulled over. No small feat considering the amount of driving I do.
Cops are human. Surely you can accept that they make mistakes as all humans do.
Oh, I'm sure they make mistakes, but I'm also sure they can judge whether a person is "speeding" and may end up being a danger to themselves and other drivers.
I do not believe their training is extensive enough to make them the so-called experts the court believes them to be (and grants them so easily and accepts them without question).
And what makes you a "so-called expert" on this? Have you actually been to ANY of their training? The initial schooling? The refresher courses/seminars they're required to attend? The annual testing they need to keep their job?
Didn't think so.
I have found their powers of observation to often be faulty, and weak. I have found their judgement to be lacking, and often with short tempers.
And I'm sure they've also found the same thing with people they pull over for speeding, let alone repeat offenders.
You can get pulled over mistakenly or by false accusation whether you were speeding or not.
Nope. Can't say I have been, in the 20+ years I've been driving. I have been pulled over (and even ticketed), but it's because I WAS speeding, I'll admit to that.
Once you get the ticket, you might as well fight it, as the insurance $$$ saved over 3 years makes it worthwhile.
Then I suggest you find a new insurance provider. I've been ticketed and had points on my license, but my insurance rates haven't risen simply because of it. I also don't make it a habit of getting pulled over frequently either.
To be honest, the one's for speeding are probably (out of all of them) the most legit when you dig into the letter of the law. However, one of the most egregiously false tickets I got was for 58 in a 35 which should be posted at 45 or 50, but I certainly was not going 58!!! I was probably doing 48 AT MOST! I think I really was going like 40-45.
Gee, 48 in a 35, still speeding to me (and just about every other individual).
And I absolutely LOVE how everyone else is a better judge of what a speed limit "should" be, compared to the traffic engineers that design the highway, monitor traffic patterns, keep accident reports, etc. Being an Engineer myself, this just makes me laugh my tail off!
This particular 35 posted speed limit is on a 4 lane roadway that has 2 lanes in each direction (wide lanes) divided by a center median, complete with a patch of grass and concrete curbs. 35 is absurd for a divided road like this with 2 lanes in each direction.
The traffic engineering survey, over 5 years old and 85th percentile showed closer to 40 than 35. Here's my problem with the survey, besides being outdated.
I know they must have rigged it and measured it with the cars going uphill only. La Mesa is a blue hair district, lots of old people driving too slow in weak Buicks. Although I routinely see people driving 35 to 40 on the uphill side, I also routinely see people driving 45-50 on the downhill side (the side they like to enforce for some reason :P ). No way is the traffic engineering survey legit! There's a reason the La Mesa PD loves to enforce this hill side. The road is straight for the most part, just has an incline that slows weak vehicles with inattentive drivers down naturally.
Out of all the speed limits within a 30 mile radius of my home (and it happens to be within 1 mile of it) it is the most underposted speed limit I can think of. There are only a few sections of road in a few spots in San Diego County where I take particular offense to the underposted speed limit. Of course, I have a problem with 65 MPH maximum speed limits on the freeways, but that is another issue.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
The other recent memory speeding ticket I got was for 70 in a 55 (another 2 lanes in each direction divided roadway). Traffic Engineeering survey showed that the speed limit should have been set at 60, and was 4 years old.
You mentioned the monitoring of traffic patterns and the keeping of accident reports and records. I'm glad you did.
I think you should inform your fellow crooked law enforcement officials like the Santee Sheriffs to study those same records and reports.
This roadway, which is known (shame on me) to be heavily enforced, I'd say on the order of 6 to 60 times the normal amount of other roadways. I routinely saw the Santee Sheriffs hiding in the parking lot entrance of the motor home community at the bottom of the hill coming into Santee there is a long downhill straight stretch of road. It was a known "trap" spot. I saw them all the time on my way to work, which around 7:00 a.m. is what I was doing the morning of the ticket. That's why I wasn't going very fast, 70 AT MOST, ( I think I was really doing about 65).
Either way, the traffic engineering report showed another interesting tidbit about this roadway. It had exactly 1/6th as many accidents on it as the "average" road in the area. This road being 6 times safer than a typical normal road in San Diego or Santee, now why would it have so much enforcement resources and time dedicated to it?
Hmmmm.... is it safety related? I mean, surely we can enforce laws on more dangerous roads than ones that are on extremely safe stretches. Surely they haven't hired so many sheriff's in town that they have nothing better to do.
So do tell me, if this road is not twice, but SIX times safer based on the number of accidents compared to the median road, why is the citation writing so high on it?
For the record, neither the La Mesa PD cop writing the false speeding ticket in the 35 zone, nor the Santee Sheriff had the guts to show up in court to face these allegations and turn the tables on them in court. Both cases dismissed!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
There are other factors that play into this as well.
How steep is the incline? Is there pedestrian traffic, and if so, how busy can it get? How many driveways/cross roads are there? Any signalized intersections? Is it within a residential, commercial, or industrial area? How good is the condition of the pavement? The list goes on...
If you believe that the traffic study is outdated or flawed, then take that "courtroom" time to promote getting a new study done. Figure out who you need to speak to. Do some of your own research on similar roadways and conditions, and offer it up as proof that the speed limit SHOULD be raised, or at least a new study should be done to look into it.
It's worked before. A local 4-lane road that was cursed with a 35-MPH speed limit was recently raised to 45 MPH, simply because a new traffic study was done, and it indicated that commercial/industrial traffic was actually LOWER than it was when the last study was done a decade before.
And what makes you a "so-called expert" on this? Have you actually been to ANY of their training? The initial schooling? The refresher courses/seminars they're required to attend? The annual testing they need to keep their job?
Have you? Let's concentrate on their radar use training. How many hours do you think they spend on it?
How many hours each year as refresher training on radar do you think they require?
Is the training done by an independent expert, or by the radar manufacturer's rep, who obviously, could never admit their product has limitations and god forbid, erroneous readings! :P
To be honest I've never really done much research on different departments training methods, but these concerns have been brought up by numerous sources (like getting trained by the wolf on sheep defense).
I haven't really hit this hard in any cross examination either, but I will the next time I get a chance. Sometimes the judges take on the role of prosecutor (since there's no DA in CA traffic court), and may object to questions in cross examination you pose the officer about their training and background. It wouldn't surprise me if they said something like "this officer has been on the force 10 years, and therefore the court accepts him as an expert witness on radar and it's usage in this case, so no further questions on his training."
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I haven't personally, but I have a good idea of just how much training (and re-training) it takes to not only become a law-enforcement officer, but to stay one as well. My neighbor (a State Trooper) is constantly attending seminars and refresher courses, and has to take an annual exam, just to keep his badge. My Uncle (a Sheriff) does the same thing.
I also know that for radar use, they are tested EVERY DAY before a shift, and are immediately taken off-duty if there's an issue. As for operation, it's part of their annual training/exam.
I'll grant that a mistake can be made, and errors can happen, but they're nowhere near as rampant and epidemic-like as you wish to believe they are.
How steep is the incline? Is there pedestrian traffic, and if so, how busy can it get? How many driveways/cross roads are there? Any signalized intersections? Is it within a residential, commercial, or industrial area? How good is the condition of the pavement? The list goes on...
All excellent points. And thankfully, the Basic Speed Law for which I was cited allows me to bring up the issue of my speed being reasonable and prudent for conditions, and therefore not a safey hazard. By bringing all these variables into the courtroom, I could justify any speed up to 65 MPH as being safe, prudent, and reasonable, regardless of whether the speed limit says 25, 35, 45, or 55. It is a speed "guideline," not a MAXIMUM speed limit. The maximum limit is ALWAYS 65 in my view in CA; conditions permitting.
The incline is significant, hard to say really without measurements, but I'd guess close to 6%. Pedestrian traffic is and was minimal or non-existant (There are sidewalks, I'd classify it as Residential/commercial but with minimal access points. In this particular stretch, there are no cross streets, and the only side-drive ways for a gas station/dentist office on one side, and a Subway/taco shop/church on the other is at the very bottom of the hill by the light signal intersection. Where there is a left turn made possible, there is a temporary 3rd lane allocated to it, and even a 4th lane on the right turn lane at the very end of the road at the signal light intersection. Traffic was light to medium when he cited me. Weather and visibility were good. The pavement is in very good condition.
Pretty much everything was in my favor to justify 45 MPH, or even the falsely alleged 58 MPH.
My defense would have pointed out that I never went 58 MPH, but even if I had it was a safe and prudent speed given the conditions present that morning.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Umm, no they don't. In fact, can't remember the last time I WAS pulled over. No small feat considering the amount of driving I do.
Sometimes, though, I'm convinced the cops are just out to harrass you. Not all of them, not even most of them, but like any group, there are bad apples in every bunch. Plus, it's going to vary by jurisdiction.
For instance, a good friend of mine has been pulled over twice by cops in North Carolina. First time, because he pulled out of a gravel parking lot at a podunk convenience store, and his wheel caught some loose gravel and spun. Cop happens to see it, and pulls him over for "spinning his wheels", "show of speed", or something like that. He didn't get a ticket, just a warning, but seriously, I'm sure that cop had better things to do.
In a similar vein, a couple months ago, a cop turned around in my driveway, and when he took off, he spun out on the gravel. Maybe I should've gone after him and made a citizen's arrest for spinning HIS wheels! :P Actually, had the gravel he kicked up come in contact with a car in my driveway, or anything else that could have potentially done damage, you can rest assured that I WOULD have gone after him, gotten his tag and car #, and called the police on him!
More recently, my friend was pulled over again in North Carolina, for actually DOING the speed limit! He'd come to a school zone, and slow down to the posted speed. Cop pulls him over because he's "varying his speed". I swear, sometimes they just make this crap up on the fly. Or, if they don't, whoever writes the rulebooks just, on a whim, decides on some new way to harrass the public.
Oh, I'll also add that where I live, here in MD, the most aggressive, rude, dangerous drivers are almost always vehicles with tags associated with the FOP or other cop organizations, the Fire Dept, or that have those black and blue stickers on the back of their vehicles.
Seriously, in this area at least, the police really need to work on their public image. Again, most of them probably ARE decent people, but sadly, they're not the ones that stick out. It's the ones driving reckless, taking that holier than thou attitude, making the news when they get busted for doing something bad, etc. Heck, just google "pg county police corruption" and see what all comes up.
In CA their are over 40,000 ridiculous whimsical reasons given to law enforcement via the Vehicle Code to "legally" pull you over and harass you while performing what really amounts to Unconstitutional search and seizure in the name of "safety."
Does a State really need over 40,000 vehicle codes? I mean come on!
They should make a new one stating that the State can only have as many vehicle codes as the typical officer can memorize!
The only benefit to so many VC's is that you can sometimes turn around and use some of them against the prosecution, such as the speed trap laws in CA, and the right to ask for the county seat as your venue for trial.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
You won't get an argument from me that there are a few "bad apples" carrying a badge. Luckily, just about all the law-enforcement people I know are on the up-and-up, but they know of, or at least heard some stories about, one or two that abuse their privileges.
I guess it also varies by areas as well. Here in NY, I don't think there's much of an issue, but every time I see horror stories about cops, I've seen a lot of them from North Carolina, of all places.
In fact, my brother-in-law was pulled over not once, but TWICE, in North Carolina. He rented a car for a trip with my sister (his wife), and drove to SC and back. He's American Indian, so his skin tone is dark, at least compared to my sister, who's as pale as snow. He swears that they pulled him over just to be sure my sister wasn't a kidnapping victim, since he wasn't speeding or driving dangerously, but it was a rental he was driving, and, well, his skin color in a "Confederate" state.
It pisses off the good law-enforcement officers as much as it does civilians, though. My uncle has to fire a deputy a while back for a ton of civilian complaints and other "activities" he was doing. He purposely made a spectacle of it in the local media as well, trying to show that they aren't all "good ol' boys" anymore.
It's pretty hard to get a "traffic engineer" (I'd love to see the credentials and course of study required for that well paid low accountability public sector job) to actually defend the limits they select. Around here you contact them asking for information, no reply. Contact the city asking why lights are sequenced as they are and what can be done to improve them, no reply better than a form letter. You don't have to ante up when you hold all the cards and nobody can fire you. Money reigns supreme.
I think at one time safety engineers and traffic cops were very relevant to our roads. Unfortunately, as cities and states are arbitrarily doing things llike artificially low speed limits to enhance government coffers people start to distrust the motives and decisions of traffic engineers and police patrolmen. Camera programs only reinfoce the public loss in confidence toward the government and its employees. All I can say these days is Ka-Ching!
Then I suggest you find a new insurance provider. I've been ticketed and had points on my license, but my insurance rates haven't risen simply because of it. I also don't make it a habit of getting pulled over frequently either.
From what I've gathered from my extensive research of the automotive insurance industry, is that it's a complete scam and sham.
That being said, if you've been with an insurance company a long time, and haven't had any accidents, they are unlikely to pay the record keepers the fee to check your driving record every 6 months, or year, or even every few years. If they don't check your record, they won't see the violation and you won't get upcharged, but it's a risk if they do check!
I don't make a habit of getting pulled over frequently. I have seemed to have developed a habit of getting picked on and falsely accused though.
The court system has generally been half way decent for me to correct those mistakes by the traffic enforcement maids.
I have made a habit of never causing any at-fault accidents though. I'm all for a law that says if you go 10 straight years without an at-fault accident you are IMMUNE to tickets. You should be ABOVE the law on the road with 10 straight years of safe driving! Of course, with the catch you actually drive 10,000 or more miles a year. It wouldn't be unique, police officers, fire fighters, and others routinely get the same "above the law" status with "professional courtesy" when pulled over and only given a warning thanks to the "badge." I just can't see any rookie cop writing the chief's brother up for "speeding."
Part of the reason to fight every ticket issued is to fight back and protest the system. If everyone that was written a ticket fought in court with as much effort as I do, then the whole system would crash and courts would be forced to dismiss 90% of the violations out there due to lack of a speedy trial.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
No one's been able to give me a reasonable answer as to why a roadway that is 6 times safer than the average road in the area, with 1/6 as many accidents on it as those other roads, would have AT LEAST 6 times the enforcement of other roads in the Santee area?
Are the Sheriff's really doing their job? Are they earning their pay?
Why all the ticket writing on such a safe stretch of roadway? The traffic engineering survey is quite clear! Surely the police officer's knew that the heavy patrolling was saving lives! :P
Only they could save at least 6 times as many lives patrolling other roads! :P
My my my, I'm sure it didn't have anything to do with the underposted speed limit and revenue generation.
Can you say CAUGHT red-handed Santee Sheriffs?
I was ready to be found in contempt of court that day; good thing he didn't dare show up as I had a ream of material to blow him away in court if he had.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I like that 10 years without an accident idea. Hold cops and others accountable to it as well. Every time a patrol car is destroyed, a third party should determine how it happened, and be open to public scrutiny.
That road you describe is likely downhill, wide, not densely traveled, and smooth - perfect for exceeding arbitrary limits and the revenue scam that comes with.
It's pretty hard to get a "traffic engineer" (I'd love to see the credentials and course of study required for that well paid low accountability public sector job) to actually defend the limits they select.
They are typically civil engineers who specialize in the design and maintenance of highways and roadways.
0My friend's daughter has degrees in Civil Engineering and Traffic Engineering. She is at NC State, doing grad work on movement of traffic thru rotaries and roundabouts. There's a lot to it because it combines fluid dynamics with behaviorial psychology.
Sad part is that she'll study all that, but then economics will force her to make the traffic circle too tight and it will be all screwed up. Most every new one I see has been compromised this way.
They need to either learn how to optimize traffic controls or do away with them in many locations before jumping on the roundabout bandwagon (I like them, but most dumbed down drivers on this side of the pond can't figure them out).
I honestly believe many signals are intentionally messed up to lower mileage - aka more gas tax proceeds, and to make people slow down in commercial areas where they might shop.
...Not to mention the insanely-fast 2-3 second yellow lights that do nothing but generate $$$$ to pay for the red-light cameras. If they're so concerned about people running red lights and causing accidents, how about a 4-5 second yellow, then a 1-second ALL red?
Being a Civil Engineer, I'll agree that some traffic signals are a waste. I'm also part of a committee looking into making most low-traffic signal intersections into just a flashing-yellow, flashing-red movement from, say, 10 PM to 6 AM. I've gotten tired of waiting at red lights at 11:30 PM for traffic that isn't there...
As for roundabouts, they are HUGELY more efficient than 4-way stops, both with traffic movement and fuel economy, but again, it's training the "slower" learning drivers how to drive them correctly.
That road you describe is likely downhill, wide, not densely traveled, and smooth - perfect for exceeding arbitrary limits and the revenue scam that comes with.
Exactly! Precisely!
Wide lanes, smooth pavement, light traffic, no cross traffic until about 1/2 mile past the bottom of the hillside.
It is a long stretch of downhill, so depending on your gearing, driving a "legal" 55 at the top of the crest will get you to 75 MPH near the bottom with little to NO throttle input.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
> I'm also part of a committee looking into making most low-traffic signal intersections into just a flashing-yellow, flashing-red movement from,
Our small city went to that years ago. Many high traffic intersections during the day become lightly traveled at night on the side street. This lets the traffic on the main road flow right on through.
Our city does not use traffic or speed cameras. Stopping someone with an officer is much more effective at finding drunk, drugged, no license, etc., drivers.
The City of Dayton has pretended for years their red light cameras were about safety and not income. Now they've added speed cameras on some streets where they can catch out-of-towners who don't know the cameras are there.
My solution is that since they actually care about the safety, the income from the cameras should be given to charities: 1/3 to the metro county including the City of Dayton, and 2/3 to the surrounding 5 counties from whom most of the victims of the cameras will come. Sounds fair to me--the money goes to charities to help people except the part that goes to the Australian company running the cameras.
Our small city went to that years ago. Many high traffic intersections during the day become lightly traveled at night on the side street. This lets the traffic on the main road flow right on through.
Dayton, right? Would you say that the amount of accidents at these intersections increased or decreased?
That's one the the biggest arguments we've heard against changing the lights to a 4-way flash at night. I'll have to do some more research on that...
I like your charity idea with the red-light cameras. I've heard that some municipalities were losing $$$$ on red-light cameras, so they intentionally shortened the yellow-light times, in order to gain more revenue from tickets. Of course these municipalities would NEVER admit to it, but it's happened.
Roundabouts are great but it's hard to retrofit one into an existing intersection without spending a lot of money on right of way.
Very true. Unless you have an open area that's all considered right-of-way, spacing can be tough. Not as tough as trying to convince a stubborn homeowner to grant you an easement... :sick:
I do not live in Dayton. I am in the general Dayton area.
In our small town, there are fewer accidents. However, a few people run the blinking lights for some reason. Our local police occasionally stop someone for running the flashing red, as per the police reports. But traffic on the main streets moves so much nicer after 10 pm instead of sitting at red lights wasting gas; they just cruise on the through the flashing yellows.
There are two round-a-bouts in my town that I know of and frequent more than I would like. Actually one isn't bad and is on a lightly used road so it is infrequently occupied by more than one or two vehicles at a time. It's "mis-use" isn't noticed as much as the other one which sees heavier use.
Drivers there treat it more as a 4-way stop and rather than slowing and entering zipper style at about 15 MPH, they completely stop and wait for traffic to clear. Unfortunately traffic never really clears and so they sit and wait... and wait... and wait... until someone toots their horn behind them and they frantically jerk out into traffic. It's frustrating as the round-a-about was designed to keep traffic moving and when used properly there should be no need to actually stop. However with the ill training these drivers have, it's often a worse mess than if it had bee left an actual 4-way stop. But if the drivers in this town can't even zipper merge properly when a lane is ending, how can they be expected to use a round-a-about properly? It's an every-man-for-himself and "me first" attitude.
Drivers here aren't trained for those in drivers ed, and adults don't like to learn anything new. It will take training from day one for drivers to handle those....too progressive for most in this lovely place.
I've driven many hundreds of miles in GA so far, such lax speed enforcement compared to where I live, and few use signals - but, they move faster. You can also yap and drive legally here, which means everyone does it.
Here in New England, round-a-bouts or rotaries as well call them are quiet common. I deal with a couple everyday. Simple rules - yield to anyone in the rotary and don't stop once in it. Works great.
Unless you're in MA, then just barrel on in and don't make eye contact - it's a sign of weakness.
I read all the info and it was helpful, and your right cops do make mistakes its human error. I had a cop write the wrong offense that i never ever had a driver lic and when i tried to mail a copy of my lic it got denied. I didn't even know it until a warrant was issued so now I'm gonna fight this crazy ticket i got. with all this info i read it will help get it dismissed. I love cops i respect the law, but I also have to defend my rights as well. i dont think people bad mouth all cops, just the bad ones. i know there's alot of great cops, but the burn outs not so much...
It is the power hungry power-mongering HUGE EGO bigger than their nightstick type that bothers me.
Did you hear of the cop that got ticketed for reckless driving on their way to a 2nd job in their POLICE ISSUED car? He apparently thought he could get away with driving 120 MPH since he's normaly "above the law." He acted as if the lady pulling him over was nuts.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Most photo radar systems can't keep track of more than one car at a time. But the descriptively-named "Cordon multi-target Photo Radar System" can. If these bad boys get deployed across America, people who pride themselves on their speeding skills better cool their jets.
The device is able to generate both a wide-angle image and a close-up of the car's license plate, keeping track of up to 32 cars across four lanes of traffic. The camera tracks each car's license plate and shows how fast they're going, showing green for below the speed limit, yellow for within appropriate speed ranges, and red for speed racers.
It's about as big as a large video projector and can be mounted in a variety of locations, like a tripod or a road-sign, which makes them harder for motorists to spot.
The device's video and website didn't clarify how the license plates would be correlated to individual drivers, as their faces were not discernible in the video. In some municipalities you can't give a ticket to a car, you have to give it to the driver. Without additional verification it would be hard for these tickets to stand up in court as they would have to prove you were the driver of the car at the time the image was taken.
You have a little bit of time to train yourself to be a slower driver - minding the speed limit and leaving yourself enough travel time so that speeding isn't necessary - as the distributor won't start selling them in the US until the beginning of 2012.
I'm always trying to cut speeders off, and block them in traffic. If I can arrange my schedule to leave and arrive on time, SO CAN YOU. Speeding is a waste of gas, a thumb in the eye of authority, increases likelihood you or someone else will get injured in a crash, and can be very costly if you are ticketed. Just don't do it....
I'm always trying to cut speeders off, and block them in traffic
Cutting people off and blocking traffic is many times more DANGEROUS than going a few miles over an arbitrary limit. This shows us you have no clue about safe driving and ought to be banned from the highways.
Yes, well the way I do it is not AT ALL dangerous. Just annoying to the speeders. Which is my goal.
Oh, this should be good!
Explain to me how blocking traffic is safe, for I really would LOVE to hear this explanation... (Sarcasm intended).
Do you purposely cut into another lane just to slow the "speeders" from passing you in the passing lane? If you do, not only are you in the wrong for failing to keep right, but if a collision occurs, you're to blame for an "unsafe lane change", among other violations.
I bet you're one of the drivers that, when reaching a lane restriction at a construction site, and there's 2 MILES before the lane ends, you hang your car in the middle of the road to not allow anyone to pass you and merge ahead. That's also illegal, and some states have signs mounted to "Utilize BOTH lane before merging".
If you want to report speeders, call the authorities. Don't take the law into your own hands, for it'll only cause more accidents, and YOU'LL be the one getting the ticket/fine.
If I catch you blocking me on the highway, you'll find out what being annoyed really means. You can explain to the officer that you were just doing his job.
The list of valid reasons for speeding is a short one....and most of these are STILL ILLEGAL in most states.
1. Health emergency (woman having baby in car, delivering someone injured to the hospital, etc.) 2. Chasing someone whom you have just witnessed commit a capital crime 3. On your way to a medical emergency involving a close family member - murder, car crash, etc. 4. Um, thinking, um.....
Yeah, I think that's about it.
Completely invalid reasons for speeding:
1. I'm late (or in a hurry). 2. I need to pee. 3. I don't care about getting a ticket. 4. I hate cops. 5. Speed limits are for losers. 6. No one can tell ME how fast or slow to drive. 7. I can afford the ticket so who cares? 8. Everyone else is doing it.
Speeding is mostly just a waste of time. Studies have shown that in a normal commute involving other traffic, traffic lights, or stop signs, that people who drive at or under the speed limit can get from PointA to PointB almost as fast and sometimes as fast as those who choose to speed.
Too complex to get into it on a forum like this, but trust me - it's not unsafe for anyone, and is not illegal, and causes the speeder at least a LITTLE delay. They usually find a way around me fairly quickly.
Comments
God! As bad as CA is, with corruption in the traffic courts, it sounds like NY is worse.
You do realize that electornically documented speed gun readout can be locked from 1 day, 1 week, 1 year, or 10 years ago? That speed reading could be from a 1994 BMW M3 when it was Brand new with 1,000 miles on the odometer, and a judge would accept that as good evidence in NY?
Who took the radar reading? Where is he? Let me face my accuser! I want to cross examine his radar taking skills! I have a right to do that. Without a witness to testify that the radar reading was in fact taken from and for my vehicle at the time of the alleged violation, it is simply 2 numbers on a digital screen and could have been taken from any vehicle. Hearsay otherwise without a direct witness.
The more the DA wants to escalate it the better I would think; then you might end up in a real courtroom with a real judge rather than a "traffic referee."
I'd point out to the DA, would they like it if I brought my passenger along to testify that his uncle's brother tested the top speed of my vehicle on a closed course, and it was less than the speed limit of that roadway?
When you get pulled over in CA, it is not 30 seconds of wasted time. It is more like 15 to 25 minutes of wasted time. I believe the cops in CA deliberately like to waste your time and stall, delay, and take their first pound of flesh right then and there. I wish if they have decided to give you a ticket they'd just go ahead and do so and let you be on your way in 30 seconds. It shouldn't take that long to run a couple of numbers.
When you go to court the wasted time on purpose is hilarious as well. Court begins at 1, only the peons in the courtroom (clerk, bailiff, recorder) come in at about 1:05 p.m., then the judge (in a typical scenario) will decide to show up at 1:20 to begin at about 1:25 p.m. calling the first case if your lucky. People that pay for representation get to go first as they don't want to maximize a fellow lawyers wasted time.
One of the strongest arguments you can make in pretrial motions is pointing out that they will be wasting one of "their" people's time (such as the officer's) if they, for example, try to coerce you into having your motion heard at your trial date and time. Such a tactic is soley for the purpose to shoot your motion down no matter what, and not give you any time to recover. For to grant your motion, they would have to continue your trial and make the officer come back again; not a likely scenario. However, if you point out to the court with a letter that their setting of the pretrial motion on the actual court date will cause the officer to have to appear twice should your motion be granted, well then you have a good argument (and makes the rigging obvious). At the end you can state that the court is allowing you no time to prepare your defense, as you must prepare for the motion hearing, and cannot know the outcome in advance, of which it will certainly affect your trial and defense dependant on the ruling.
...Which proves my point even further, incidentally.
My "30 seconds" comment is comparing driving from A-B when going the speed limit (or 5-10 over, depending on conditions) or speeding like an a-hole (15+ over) just to get to point B 30 seconds, or even a couple minutes, faster. That time savings is wasted if you do get pulled over, adding 15-25 minutes to your trip.
Adding the trip(s) to court, the lost time from your job/family/social life just to sit in a courtroom, cost of gas, lawyers fees (if applicable), time wasted "preparing your defense", etc...
Seems like you'd end up saving more time, $$$$, and sanity just not pressing so hard on the accelerator. Interesting concept...
>When you get pulled over in CA, it is not 30 seconds of wasted time. It is more like 15 to 25 minutes of wasted time.
MZ6 is done, but I have to point out this is a twisting of the statement "extra 30 seconds." That referred to the additional time that driving the speed limit would have taken for the trip. It has nothing to do with the time spent on the roadside.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Innocent people get pulled over routinely. Cops are human. Surely you can accept that they make mistakes as all humans do.
I do not believe their training is extensive enough to make them the so-called experts the court believes them to be (and grants them so easily and accepts them without question).
I have found their powers of observation to often be faulty, and weak. I have found their judgement to be lacking, and often with short tempers.
You can get pulled over mistakenly or by false accusation whether you were speeding or not.
Once you get the ticket, you might as well fight it, as the insurance $$$ saved over 3 years makes it worthwhile.
Back in 1996, I got a parking ticket when I delivered pizzas, for leaving my car out at the curb for too long. The court date was pretty far off. I threw the ticket in the back seat of my '68 Dart, and totally forgot about it. Well, months later, I found it, wedged down beside the back seat cushion. The court date had passed, unfortunately, but I called up and was able to get a re-trial.
Well, as luck would have it by the time the trial came around, the cop who wrote the ticket had retired, so that saved me $200. FWIW, the charge was "parking in a fire zone", although there were no hydrants around, the curb was not painted, and my car was specifically between the signs that designated a pickup/delivery zone, which was put there to make it more convenient for us delivery drivers.
To be honest, the one's for speeding are probably (out of all of them) the most legit when you dig into the letter of the law. However, one of the most egregiously false tickets I got was for 58 in a 35 which should be posted at 45 or 50, but I certainly was not going 58!!! I was probably doing 48 AT MOST! I think I really was going like 40-45. It was an obviously errant radar reading; insane!
Umm, no they don't. In fact, can't remember the last time I WAS pulled over. No small feat considering the amount of driving I do.
Cops are human. Surely you can accept that they make mistakes as all humans do.
Oh, I'm sure they make mistakes, but I'm also sure they can judge whether a person is "speeding" and may end up being a danger to themselves and other drivers.
I do not believe their training is extensive enough to make them the so-called experts the court believes them to be (and grants them so easily and accepts them without question).
And what makes you a "so-called expert" on this? Have you actually been to ANY of their training? The initial schooling? The refresher courses/seminars they're required to attend? The annual testing they need to keep their job?
Didn't think so.
I have found their powers of observation to often be faulty, and weak. I have found their judgement to be lacking, and often with short tempers.
And I'm sure they've also found the same thing with people they pull over for speeding, let alone repeat offenders.
You can get pulled over mistakenly or by false accusation whether you were speeding or not.
Nope. Can't say I have been, in the 20+ years I've been driving. I have been pulled over (and even ticketed), but it's because I WAS speeding, I'll admit to that.
Once you get the ticket, you might as well fight it, as the insurance $$$ saved over 3 years makes it worthwhile.
Then I suggest you find a new insurance provider. I've been ticketed and had points on my license, but my insurance rates haven't risen simply because of it. I also don't make it a habit of getting pulled over frequently either.
Gee, 48 in a 35, still speeding to me (and just about every other individual).
And I absolutely LOVE how everyone else is a better judge of what a speed limit "should" be, compared to the traffic engineers that design the highway, monitor traffic patterns, keep accident reports, etc. Being an Engineer myself, this just makes me laugh my tail off!
This particular 35 posted speed limit is on a 4 lane roadway that has 2 lanes in each direction (wide lanes) divided by a center median, complete with a patch of grass and concrete curbs. 35 is absurd for a divided road like this with 2 lanes in each direction.
The traffic engineering survey, over 5 years old and 85th percentile showed closer to 40 than 35. Here's my problem with the survey, besides being outdated.
I know they must have rigged it and measured it with the cars going uphill only. La Mesa is a blue hair district, lots of old people driving too slow in weak Buicks. Although I routinely see people driving 35 to 40 on the uphill side, I also routinely see people driving 45-50 on the downhill side (the side they like to enforce for some reason :P ). No way is the traffic engineering survey legit! There's a reason the La Mesa PD loves to enforce this hill side. The road is straight for the most part, just has an incline that slows weak vehicles with inattentive drivers down naturally.
Out of all the speed limits within a 30 mile radius of my home (and it happens to be within 1 mile of it) it is the most underposted speed limit I can think of. There are only a few sections of road in a few spots in San Diego County where I take particular offense to the underposted speed limit. Of course, I have a problem with 65 MPH maximum speed limits on the freeways, but that is another issue.
You mentioned the monitoring of traffic patterns and the keeping of accident reports and records. I'm glad you did.
I think you should inform your fellow crooked law enforcement officials like the Santee Sheriffs to study those same records and reports.
This roadway, which is known (shame on me) to be heavily enforced, I'd say on the order of 6 to 60 times the normal amount of other roadways. I routinely saw the Santee Sheriffs hiding in the parking lot entrance of the motor home community at the bottom of the hill coming into Santee there is a long downhill straight stretch of road. It was a known "trap" spot. I saw them all the time on my way to work, which around 7:00 a.m. is what I was doing the morning of the ticket. That's why I wasn't going very fast, 70 AT MOST, ( I think I was really doing about 65).
Either way, the traffic engineering report showed another interesting tidbit about this roadway. It had exactly 1/6th as many accidents on it as the "average" road in the area. This road being 6 times safer than a typical normal road in San Diego or Santee, now why would it have so much enforcement resources and time dedicated to it?
Hmmmm.... is it safety related? I mean, surely we can enforce laws on more dangerous roads than ones that are on extremely safe stretches. Surely they haven't hired so many sheriff's in town that they have nothing better to do.
So do tell me, if this road is not twice, but SIX times safer based on the number of accidents compared to the median road, why is the citation writing so high on it?
For the record, neither the La Mesa PD cop writing the false speeding ticket in the 35 zone, nor the Santee Sheriff had the guts to show up in court to face these allegations and turn the tables on them in court. Both cases dismissed!
How steep is the incline? Is there pedestrian traffic, and if so, how busy can it get? How many driveways/cross roads are there? Any signalized intersections? Is it within a residential, commercial, or industrial area? How good is the condition of the pavement? The list goes on...
If you believe that the traffic study is outdated or flawed, then take that "courtroom" time to promote getting a new study done. Figure out who you need to speak to. Do some of your own research on similar roadways and conditions, and offer it up as proof that the speed limit SHOULD be raised, or at least a new study should be done to look into it.
It's worked before. A local 4-lane road that was cursed with a 35-MPH speed limit was recently raised to 45 MPH, simply because a new traffic study was done, and it indicated that commercial/industrial traffic was actually LOWER than it was when the last study was done a decade before.
Have you? Let's concentrate on their radar use training. How many hours do you think they spend on it?
How many hours each year as refresher training on radar do you think they require?
Is the training done by an independent expert, or by the radar manufacturer's rep, who obviously, could never admit their product has limitations and god forbid, erroneous readings! :P
To be honest I've never really done much research on different departments training methods, but these concerns have been brought up by numerous sources (like getting trained by the wolf on sheep defense).
I haven't really hit this hard in any cross examination either, but I will the next time I get a chance. Sometimes the judges take on the role of prosecutor (since there's no DA in CA traffic court), and may object to questions in cross examination you pose the officer about their training and background. It wouldn't surprise me if they said something like "this officer has been on the force 10 years, and therefore the court accepts him as an expert witness on radar and it's usage in this case, so no further questions on his training."
I also know that for radar use, they are tested EVERY DAY before a shift, and are immediately taken off-duty if there's an issue. As for operation, it's part of their annual training/exam.
I'll grant that a mistake can be made, and errors can happen, but they're nowhere near as rampant and epidemic-like as you wish to believe they are.
All excellent points. And thankfully, the Basic Speed Law for which I was cited allows me to bring up the issue of my speed being reasonable and prudent for conditions, and therefore not a safey hazard. By bringing all these variables into the courtroom, I could justify any speed up to 65 MPH as being safe, prudent, and reasonable, regardless of whether the speed limit says 25, 35, 45, or 55. It is a speed "guideline," not a MAXIMUM speed limit. The maximum limit is ALWAYS 65 in my view in CA; conditions permitting.
The incline is significant, hard to say really without measurements, but I'd guess close to 6%. Pedestrian traffic is and was minimal or non-existant (There are sidewalks, I'd classify it as Residential/commercial but with minimal access points. In this particular stretch, there are no cross streets, and the only side-drive ways for a gas station/dentist office on one side, and a Subway/taco shop/church on the other is at the very bottom of the hill by the light signal intersection.
Where there is a left turn made possible, there is a temporary 3rd lane allocated to it, and even a 4th lane on the right turn lane at the very end of the road at the signal light intersection. Traffic was light to medium when he cited me. Weather and visibility were good. The pavement is in very good condition.
Pretty much everything was in my favor to justify 45 MPH, or even the falsely alleged 58 MPH.
My defense would have pointed out that I never went 58 MPH, but even if I had it was a safe and prudent speed given the conditions present that morning.
Sometimes, though, I'm convinced the cops are just out to harrass you. Not all of them, not even most of them, but like any group, there are bad apples in every bunch. Plus, it's going to vary by jurisdiction.
For instance, a good friend of mine has been pulled over twice by cops in North Carolina. First time, because he pulled out of a gravel parking lot at a podunk convenience store, and his wheel caught some loose gravel and spun. Cop happens to see it, and pulls him over for "spinning his wheels", "show of speed", or something like that. He didn't get a ticket, just a warning, but seriously, I'm sure that cop had better things to do.
In a similar vein, a couple months ago, a cop turned around in my driveway, and when he took off, he spun out on the gravel. Maybe I should've gone after him and made a citizen's arrest for spinning HIS wheels! :P Actually, had the gravel he kicked up come in contact with a car in my driveway, or anything else that could have potentially done damage, you can rest assured that I WOULD have gone after him, gotten his tag and car #, and called the police on him!
More recently, my friend was pulled over again in North Carolina, for actually DOING the speed limit! He'd come to a school zone, and slow down to the posted speed. Cop pulls him over because he's "varying his speed". I swear, sometimes they just make this crap up on the fly. Or, if they don't, whoever writes the rulebooks just, on a whim, decides on some new way to harrass the public.
Oh, I'll also add that where I live, here in MD, the most aggressive, rude, dangerous drivers are almost always vehicles with tags associated with the FOP or other cop organizations, the Fire Dept, or that have those black and blue stickers on the back of their vehicles.
Seriously, in this area at least, the police really need to work on their public image. Again, most of them probably ARE decent people, but sadly, they're not the ones that stick out. It's the ones driving reckless, taking that holier than thou attitude, making the news when they get busted for doing something bad, etc. Heck, just google "pg county police corruption" and see what all comes up.
Does a State really need over 40,000 vehicle codes? I mean come on!
They should make a new one stating that the State can only have as many vehicle codes as the typical officer can memorize!
The only benefit to so many VC's is that you can sometimes turn around and use some of them against the prosecution, such as the speed trap laws in CA, and the right to ask for the county seat as your venue for trial.
I guess it also varies by areas as well. Here in NY, I don't think there's much of an issue, but every time I see horror stories about cops, I've seen a lot of them from North Carolina, of all places.
In fact, my brother-in-law was pulled over not once, but TWICE, in North Carolina. He rented a car for a trip with my sister (his wife), and drove to SC and back. He's American Indian, so his skin tone is dark, at least compared to my sister, who's as pale as snow. He swears that they pulled him over just to be sure my sister wasn't a kidnapping victim, since he wasn't speeding or driving dangerously, but it was a rental he was driving, and, well, his skin color in a "Confederate" state.
It pisses off the good law-enforcement officers as much as it does civilians, though. My uncle has to fire a deputy a while back for a ton of civilian complaints and other "activities" he was doing. He purposely made a spectacle of it in the local media as well, trying to show that they aren't all "good ol' boys" anymore.
From what I've gathered from my extensive research of the automotive insurance industry, is that it's a complete scam and sham.
That being said, if you've been with an insurance company a long time, and haven't had any accidents, they are unlikely to pay the record keepers the fee to check your driving record every 6 months, or year, or even every few years. If they don't check your record, they won't see the violation and you won't get upcharged, but it's a risk if they do check!
I don't make a habit of getting pulled over frequently. I have seemed to have developed a habit of getting picked on and falsely accused though.
The court system has generally been half way decent for me to correct those mistakes by the traffic enforcement maids.
I have made a habit of never causing any at-fault accidents though. I'm all for a law that says if you go 10 straight years without an at-fault accident you are IMMUNE to tickets. You should be ABOVE the law on the road with 10 straight years of safe driving! Of course, with the catch you actually drive 10,000 or more miles a year. It wouldn't be unique, police officers, fire fighters, and others routinely get the same "above the law" status with "professional courtesy" when pulled over and only given a warning thanks to the "badge." I just can't see any rookie cop writing the chief's brother up for "speeding."
Part of the reason to fight every ticket issued is to fight back and protest the system. If everyone that was written a ticket fought in court with as much effort as I do, then the whole system would crash and courts would be forced to dismiss 90% of the violations out there due to lack of a speedy trial.
Are the Sheriff's really doing their job? Are they earning their pay?
Why all the ticket writing on such a safe stretch of roadway? The traffic engineering survey is quite clear! Surely the police officer's knew that the heavy patrolling was saving lives! :P
Only they could save at least 6 times as many lives patrolling other roads! :P
My my my, I'm sure it didn't have anything to do with the underposted speed limit and revenue generation.
Can you say CAUGHT red-handed Santee Sheriffs?
I was ready to be found in contempt of court that day; good thing he didn't dare show up as I had a ream of material to blow him away in court if he had.
That road you describe is likely downhill, wide, not densely traveled, and smooth - perfect for exceeding arbitrary limits and the revenue scam that comes with.
Traffic courts deserve nothing but contempt.
They are typically civil engineers who specialize in the design and maintenance of highways and roadways.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
I honestly believe many signals are intentionally messed up to lower mileage - aka more gas tax proceeds, and to make people slow down in commercial areas where they might shop.
Being a Civil Engineer, I'll agree that some traffic signals are a waste. I'm also part of a committee looking into making most low-traffic signal intersections into just a flashing-yellow, flashing-red movement from, say, 10 PM to 6 AM. I've gotten tired of waiting at red lights at 11:30 PM for traffic that isn't there...
As for roundabouts, they are HUGELY more efficient than 4-way stops, both with traffic movement and fuel economy, but again, it's training the "slower" learning drivers how to drive them correctly.
I think about 75% of the STOP signs I see would be better served with a "Yield" sign.
Exactly! Precisely!
Wide lanes, smooth pavement, light traffic, no cross traffic until about 1/2 mile past the bottom of the hillside.
It is a long stretch of downhill, so depending on your gearing, driving a "legal" 55 at the top of the crest will get you to 75 MPH near the bottom with little to NO throttle input.
Our small city went to that years ago. Many high traffic intersections during the day become lightly traveled at night on the side street. This lets the traffic on the main road flow right on through.
Our city does not use traffic or speed cameras. Stopping someone with an officer is much more effective at finding drunk, drugged, no license, etc., drivers.
The City of Dayton has pretended for years their red light cameras were about safety and not income. Now they've added speed cameras on some streets where they can catch out-of-towners who don't know the cameras are there.
My solution is that since they actually care about the safety, the income from the cameras should be given to charities: 1/3 to the metro county including the City of Dayton, and 2/3 to the surrounding 5 counties from whom most of the victims of the cameras will come. Sounds fair to me--the money goes to charities to help people except the part that goes to the Australian company running the cameras.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
They are also 100% Unconstitutional.
With proper length of yellow lights, they don't make money either.
If you ever hear of someone using a sniper's rifle to take out enforcement camera's, pretend you never read my posts :P
Roundabouts are great but it's hard to retrofit one into an existing intersection without spending a lot of money on right of way.
Dayton, right? Would you say that the amount of accidents at these intersections increased or decreased?
That's one the the biggest arguments we've heard against changing the lights to a 4-way flash at night. I'll have to do some more research on that...
I like your charity idea with the red-light cameras. I've heard that some municipalities were losing $$$$ on red-light cameras, so they intentionally shortened the yellow-light times, in order to gain more revenue from tickets. Of course these municipalities would NEVER admit to it, but it's happened.
Very true. Unless you have an open area that's all considered right-of-way, spacing can be tough. Not as tough as trying to convince a stubborn homeowner to grant you an easement... :sick:
I do not live in Dayton. I am in the general Dayton area.
In our small town, there are fewer accidents. However, a few people run the blinking lights for some reason. Our local police occasionally stop someone for running the flashing red, as per the police reports. But traffic on the main streets moves so much nicer after 10 pm instead of sitting at red lights wasting gas; they just cruise on the through the flashing yellows.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Drivers there treat it more as a 4-way stop and rather than slowing and entering zipper style at about 15 MPH, they completely stop and wait for traffic to clear. Unfortunately traffic never really clears and so they sit and wait... and wait... and wait... until someone toots their horn behind them and they frantically jerk out into traffic. It's frustrating as the round-a-about was designed to keep traffic moving and when used properly there should be no need to actually stop. However with the ill training these drivers have, it's often a worse mess than if it had bee left an actual 4-way stop. But if the drivers in this town can't even zipper merge properly when a lane is ending, how can they be expected to use a round-a-about properly? It's an every-man-for-himself and "me first" attitude.
I've driven many hundreds of miles in GA so far, such lax speed enforcement compared to where I live, and few use signals - but, they move faster. You can also yap and drive legally here, which means everyone does it.
Unless you're in MA, then just barrel on in and don't make eye contact - it's a sign of weakness.
It is the power hungry power-mongering HUGE EGO bigger than their nightstick type that bothers me.
Did you hear of the cop that got ticketed for reckless driving on their way to a 2nd job in their POLICE ISSUED car? He apparently thought he could get away with driving 120 MPH since he's normaly "above the law." He acted as if the lady pulling him over was nuts.
http://consumerist.com/2011/11/no-car-will-escape-this-future-now-speed-cam.html-
Most photo radar systems can't keep track of more than one car at a time. But the descriptively-named "Cordon multi-target Photo Radar System" can. If these bad boys get deployed across America, people who pride themselves on their speeding skills better cool their jets.
The device is able to generate both a wide-angle image and a close-up of the car's license plate, keeping track of up to 32 cars across four lanes of traffic. The camera tracks each car's license plate and shows how fast they're going, showing green for below the speed limit, yellow for within appropriate speed ranges, and red for speed racers.
It's about as big as a large video projector and can be mounted in a variety of locations, like a tripod or a road-sign, which makes them harder for motorists to spot.
The device's video and website didn't clarify how the license plates would be correlated to individual drivers, as their faces were not discernible in the video. In some municipalities you can't give a ticket to a car, you have to give it to the driver. Without additional verification it would be hard for these tickets to stand up in court as they would have to prove you were the driver of the car at the time the image was taken.
You have a little bit of time to train yourself to be a slower driver - minding the speed limit and leaving yourself enough travel time so that speeding isn't necessary - as the distributor won't start selling them in the US until the beginning of 2012.
I'm always trying to cut speeders off, and block them in traffic. If I can arrange my schedule to leave and arrive on time, SO CAN YOU. Speeding is a waste of gas, a thumb in the eye of authority, increases likelihood you or someone else will get injured in a crash, and can be very costly if you are ticketed. Just don't do it....
I'm always trying to cut speeders off, and block them in traffic
Cutting people off and blocking traffic is many times more DANGEROUS than going a few miles over an arbitrary limit. This shows us you have no clue about safe driving and ought to be banned from the highways.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Oh, this should be good!
Explain to me how blocking traffic is safe, for I really would LOVE to hear this explanation... (Sarcasm intended).
Do you purposely cut into another lane just to slow the "speeders" from passing you in the passing lane? If you do, not only are you in the wrong for failing to keep right, but if a collision occurs, you're to blame for an "unsafe lane change", among other violations.
I bet you're one of the drivers that, when reaching a lane restriction at a construction site, and there's 2 MILES before the lane ends, you hang your car in the middle of the road to not allow anyone to pass you and merge ahead. That's also illegal, and some states have signs mounted to "Utilize BOTH lane before merging".
If you want to report speeders, call the authorities. Don't take the law into your own hands, for it'll only cause more accidents, and YOU'LL be the one getting the ticket/fine.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
The list of valid reasons for speeding is a short one....and most of these are STILL ILLEGAL in most states.
1. Health emergency (woman having baby in car, delivering someone injured to the hospital, etc.)
2. Chasing someone whom you have just witnessed commit a capital crime
3. On your way to a medical emergency involving a close family member - murder, car crash, etc.
4. Um, thinking, um.....
Yeah, I think that's about it.
Completely invalid reasons for speeding:
1. I'm late (or in a hurry).
2. I need to pee.
3. I don't care about getting a ticket.
4. I hate cops.
5. Speed limits are for losers.
6. No one can tell ME how fast or slow to drive.
7. I can afford the ticket so who cares?
8. Everyone else is doing it.
Speeding is mostly just a waste of time. Studies have shown that in a normal commute involving other traffic, traffic lights, or stop signs, that people who drive at or under the speed limit can get from PointA to PointB almost as fast and sometimes as fast as those who choose to speed.