Insurance companies are known to subsidize police purchases of radar guns and lobby for low speed limits. A higher violation rate will help them keep rates higher on more drivers.
True, but additionally, lower speeds and careful driving result in less claims for them to pay out. So they win both ways.
Insurance companies are known to subsidize police purchases of radar guns and lobby for low speed limits. A higher violation rate will help them keep rates higher on more drivers.
I would like to see some supporting documentation on this.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
And don't forget the insurance industry's support for better crash protection in cars. No doubt a plot to make sure more drivers survive crashes, so the insurers can raise premiums on them if they were at fault in the accident. If the drivers in crashes were to die, no premium increase!
And more drivers surviving, more premiums collected. Makes sense indeed :P
But seriously, when speed enforcement can't be linked to safety, when LEOs aren't even pretending it is about safety, and insurance companies give LEOs gifts, one has to admit it doesn't look entirely kosher.
Looks to me like the LLC got what they deserved. I would never cut it as close as the BMW did, but if anything, I would have sideswiped the LLC rather than hit the one in the middle.
Guaranteed, the BMW will receive 100% of the blame for this.
Today's winner, in a parking lot. Typical small man syndrome sufferer in a huge Dodge diesel pickup taking up 3 spots right in front of the store. No handicap issue or anything (other than mental). I wanted to key it.
Second place goes to a middle aged [non-permissible content removed] in a Saturn Sky with a dopey spoiler who was policing the left lane and pacing the car beside him...sometimes I wish I lived in LA or Miami so these types would be dealt with as they probably deserve.
Speed enforcement can't be linked to safety? Really? So you think when someone is pulled over for doing 50 in a 30 zone on a residential street, there's no safety aspect to that? :surprise:
Did I say anything in absolute terms? What are you going to bring up next, a school zone? Who said anything about 50 in a 30? Does speed enforcement exist to catch people going 50 in a legitimate safe 30 zone, or to pick off low hanging fruit in wide open areas where the limit is lower than the common flow of traffic? Heck, I got caught at 40 in a 30, a hilariously underposted 30 in a light traffic area with virtually no pedestrian presence. When the LEO says it is an "emphasis patrol" and doesn't utter a word about safety, that says something.
When I see grossly underposted roads, speed traps at the bottom of hills with no development in the area, random speed changes, etc, it sure doesn't look like safety to me. Cash grab cash grab, it's a cash grab. The overpaid underworked irresponsible traffic engineers and LEOs have the same employer, too.
Guaranteed, the BMW will receive 100% of the blame for this.
Not knowing how long it had been since the apparent LLC passed his last car, I'd say there's plenty of blame to go around.
Chalk it up to dueling [non-permissible content removed]... Gotta feel for the innocent bystander in the center lane that got wrecked in this road rage battle.
You said you were an out-of-towner. How do you know what goes on in that area on a daily basis? Just because you thought it was safe to ignore the speed limit by 33% doesn't mean that there's no safety consideration for that speed limit... which a patrol could be sent out to emphasize. The fact that you got off without a ticket after checking your SAFE driving record tells me this stop was more about safety than revenue.
No, you are wrong. Any more tangential exceptions to bring up? I'm an out of towner in a very out of towner car, but it is an area where I spent a bit of my youth and I know it like the back of my hand. Only issue I have ever seen there is logging truck drivers hot-dogging it around corners. If it was about safety, the LEO would have said something to that effect. I almost detected something funny in his voice when he said "emphasis patrol", kind of an "only following orders" attitude. I am pretty sure had I actually been dangerous or reckless, he would have been jerky. Just because some heavily sheltered untouchable "traffic engineers" set a limit doesn't mean it is optimal or defendable.
One thing to consider is that someone who drives gets used to the speed they are going and after a short time the speeds that they normally drive don't appear as fast to them. Because of this I truly believe that most people don't realize just how fast they truly are going. Yes they will know MPH's but thats just a number and not a true sensation of speed.
After two months in Boot Camp where I was walking everywhere and was never in a car I went home. The next day I got in my car to go somewhere and got on the interstate, I got up to what i thought was a fast speed but everyone was flying past me. I looked at my speedometer and I was only doing 50 MPH. That pretty much stuck with me as we really don't recognize the speeds we are truly going.
In short I think that most peoples assumptions of "safe speeds" are exaggerated. So when someone states that they were speeding but driving a safe speed odds are that they really weren't.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
and a left turn on a red light onto a one way (which is legal in most states, but not in CA unless you are on a one way yourself; learned that too late).
I have issues with a lot in your post but arguing them would do no good, but I will address this one. In what state is making a left turn on red from a two way street legal? In those cases you have to make that turn across oncoming traffic.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
As someone who has spent several 6+ hour days on the Autobahn, I can agree that one can quickly become numb to the sensation of speed. On highways in my area, 80mph would make you look like a maniac and it would be quite exciting simply to do it. There, you quickly get to a point where 120mph is unremarkable. The type of car has a lot to do with it too.
But at the same time, who defines what is the optimum amount of safety? If safety was the true name of the game, no limits would be above 40 or so - where most modern cars can crash and the odds of serious injury aren't huge, if the driver is evolved enough to buckle up anyway. Speeding violations would also be more serious, rather than numbers that are easy to pay and walk away from (hence creating greater cash flow). Like in my recent example, I am not going to slow down, I am just going to be more alert. I'm embarrassed that I somehow didn't notice a hidden CV, not that I was going 10 over on an empty wide downhill road.
The other thing is you can get a ticket for going UNDER the speed limit. The kicker for example in CA, the general rule for LEO's is they be accurate +/- 3 mph. That is really the reason for the so called "10 mph grace". But again in truth, LEO's have WIDE powers of (enforcement) discretion, so you can actually get a ticket for going 63 mph in a 65 mph speed zone limit. Some might say CS, but 66 mph IS above the limit.
No offense, but I want to see evidence of these studies and how limits are truly optimized. We through enough money into this cause, it is time for those who rabidly defend it to ante up. Not going to happen though, as it is a cash grab.
Indeed, a tradeoff between safety and time. But what is the optimum, who determines it, and what should happen to them when they play an unethical game in the name of dollars? A huge amount of speed limits were higher when my grandfather was about my age than now, in his big oversprung poorly braked zero safety equipment car. Why was that road I was on posted at 30, which is the same for the congested streets in the boomburb where I live, with 50x the vehicle and 100x the pedestrian traffic, not to mention markedly lower lines of sight. Arbitrary, just like local traffic light sequencing.
I've never been "caught" before, heading for 20 years of driving, there's a good chance it will be as long until it happens again. I do know better, or I should say, I know what is better, and I will complain as I please - you have no recourse :P
Yep, it is theoretically possible to get a too slow ticket, don't know how much it is ever happened though. I think most minimum interstate speeds are something like 40-50. 66 in a 65 is speeding, but is it truly unsafe?
Yes it is possible to get a too slow ticket. However, the very simple, easy way around that; use flashers. Since you have been on the autobahn, you already know that buses can not go more than what 55/65 mph. Indeed they are recorded, hence have a written record. Again as you would probably agree, they coexist just fine with that Porsche going by @ 155 mph+. Unsafe for any to all of the three? YES, but practically.... NO !!
The underlying assumption: if anything ABOVE ZERO (accidents injuries and fatalites) is not acceptable, the authorities can simply ban all motorized travel.
The authorities, as they exist now as nobody seems to want to remove them just yet, would never do so - they need the money desperately. The invention of the car and development of roadways was a godsend for public coffers.
Like you say, speed differentials are scary but they aren't a huge risk in that region anyway, as the driver in the slow vehicle has been taught to use his brain and not camp out in the left lane, and the driver of the fast vehicle has been taught to be alert.
I have actually gone 40-45 mph(breaking in new tires) when the normal speed is 80-95 mph. (didn't use flashers) LEO's have passed me going the normal flow of traffic and they didn't even so much as look over. Of course, it is weird being passed by fully loaded dump trucks. But hey, you get over it.
Here in IL I don't think you can get a ticket for doing under the SL. You can get one for doing less than the minimum speed if one is posted unless there is a reason for it (weather, accident or road construction). Now that doesn't mean they cannot ticket you for obstructing traffic.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
If it was about safety, the LEO would have said something to that effect. I almost detected something funny in his voice when he said "emphasis patrol", kind of an "only following orders" attitude. I am pretty sure had I actually been dangerous or reckless, he would have been jerky.
Ah, Fintail the Mindreader at it again. Not only can you tell what people are thinking, but you know what they SHOULD have said instead of what they did say. And if they don't think what you think they should be thinking or say what you think they should have said, it doesn't matter... just means they are wrong. Or as in this case, you didn't actually detect any hint in the officer's voice wrt "emphasis patrol"... but you ALMOST did (as in, you really wish you had). That slams the door shut on the case right there, doesn't it... almost detecting something in someone's voice to back your feeling about what they were thinking, or should have said.
And of course, the fact you grew up in an area (how many years ago?) means the area could not have changed any in that time. We all know population density, traffic patterns, etc. haven't changed at all in the USA for, what, 40, maybe 50 years?
Why should a police officer be jerky towards a speeder? There's no cause for that... unless the speeder is "jerky" towards the officer.
And were those proceeds used to keep municipalities alive as exists in so many places today? Was his ticket issued at a speed trap for no justifiable reason, like so many are today?
Apparently some people can't grasp the idea of a figure of speech. No matter, the LEO didn't utter a word about safety or anything related. That speaks for itself.
Not all of us are oldsters. I lived in this place a mere 15 years ago, and it certainly hasn't grown since. It was a wide open road then and it is now.
You can't tell me that the law enforcement community, for many reasons both understandable and not, can sometimes come off arrogant and abusive to the people they "protect". You know as well as I do that this is a common occurrence. Had I actually been a danger, it wouldn't have been unreasonable for the officer to be stern and give a little lecture. But he didn't - as there was no safety issue at play.
End of story. Just keep the Sonata in the right lane and let the world go by :P
Washington State. Left turn from two way to a 1-way is legal. RCW 46.61.055 (3)(a):
(a) Vehicle operators facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection control area and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown. However, the vehicle operators facing a steady circular red signal may, after stopping proceed to make a right turn from a one-way or two-way street into a two-way street or into a one-way street carrying traffic in the direction of the right turn; or a left turn from a one-way or two-way street into a one-way street carrying traffic in the direction of the left turn; unless a sign posted by competent authority prohibits such movement. Vehicle operators planning to make such turns shall remain stopped to allow other vehicles lawfully within or approaching the intersection control area to complete their movements. Vehicle operators planning to make such turns shall also remain stopped for pedestrians who are lawfully within the intersection control area as required by RCW 46.61.235(1).
Let's call it what it was: you were lucky this time. Maybe many other times also... assuming this wasn't the first time you've ignored speed limits by a large margin, and weren't ticketed. I hope for your sake your luck holds, if your attitude continues to be, "I can go as fast as I want, if I know or once knew the area and in my opinion there is no potential or actual safety issue."
I expect there are cases where a LEO comes off arrogant and abusive. I haven't had personal experience with any LEO acting in that fashion. But I have had personal experience with DRIVERS acting in that fashion.
Speaking of the world going by... just today I made a 200 mile trip in my Sentra (Sonata is my wife's car, I don't drive it that much). Kept the cruise to the right side of the mark on the speedometer denoting the speed limit (70). Many cars passed me. I passed quite a few vehicles also. But there was a big traffic jam, about 5 miles long, later in my trip, and the signs said "use both lanes and merge at the end". So I did, and decided to use the left lane, since both were crawling along. But the left lane crawled along a little faster than the right lane, so I passed many of the cars that had whizzed by me earlier. At the merge point, I was impressed how it was done almost without exception in a courteous manner, despite folks being tied up for nearly an hour in very hot weather.
There were also a few drivers who passed me that I passed later, because their cars were on the shoulder... in front of a DPS cruiser. :shades:
Yep, I was lucky, and if history is any indicator, I will continue to be so. I am a fairly alert and careful driver, and I have the driving record to prove it. Don't concern yourself with my sake. The highly paid traffic engineer sector and their minions have yet to put up or shut up about the relevancy of the speed limits they support.
Do you live in an area where people actually know how to zipper? They sure don't here. Second worst thing to merging in the PNW is driving where a lane ends.
I am sure those you saw pulled over were nabbed for safety issues and not for revenue generation.
While I have driven in IL, I will take your word for it, as you have to "walk the walk". I do think however that using flashers are probably in your vehicle code.
Now the other interesting thing about going 40-45 in a 80-95 flow of traffic with 65 mph speed limits: there are literally THOUSANDS of cars pass you. So I guess how one feels about that is pretty individual. For me, it was a strange feeling of gee, I wish I had a TV, sound system, internet, cell phone AND microwaving my lunch: ALL going on at the same time and another strange feeling of being in a cocoon.
But at the same time, who defines what is the optimum amount of safety? If safety was the true name of the game, no limits would be above 40 or so
There are a number of variables involved. Driver's age and experience come to mind. Also, types of vehicles. Speed limits have to cover a broad range of vehicles on the road. Anything from a Porsche 911 to Impala sedans, big suvs such as Suburbans, pickups, etc.
A 30-year old who has autocross experience, a clean driving record and drives a recent BMW 3 Series no doubt is more alert, capable and has more vehicle capabilies then another person aged 70 driving a 10 year old Suburban. So, how do you set speed limits to safely accomodate such great variabilities? Unfortunately, it is the lowest common denominator.
Can't have speeds in US as on Autobahn. Speed differentials would be a huge problem on interstates. LeMans race France, which has varying classes of race cars with great differentials in max speeds, sometimes has huge crashes because of that. Happened last June.
Driver training in this dumbed down land needs to be greatly overhauled - but that wouldn't be "business friendly", and we will send ourselves to hell in order to be that.
We have huge crashes anyway, no matter the speed differentials. Autobahns are still less murderous than our decaying roads, but the drivers on them are better too.
The general rule of thumb is one can proceed through the intersection if it is not necessary to cross a lane of traffic. In this regard, when at an intersection with multiple right turn lanes, making a right turn on red from any lane other than the right-most lane is not permitted.
Conversely, when at a T intersection, traffic in the right most lane crossing the "top of the T" can proceed through after stopping on red the same as if it were a right turn.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
It is an odd feeling, ruking! I have made several trips up the Parks Highway here in Alaska (65 mph limit most of the way) while driving between 35 and 50 mph, and the amount of traffic on that road just blew me away. When one is driving near the speed limit, many times it feels as though you are one of only a few cars on the whole highway. At 50% speed, it is a real eye-opener just how many vehicles travel that road.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
Drove up from the south end last night, OMG it was like zombie fest on the roads. Half the cars must have been going 10 under at about 2100 on a clear evening. At the newly revised and widened 405/167 merge, I got behind a new resident type in the typical base model Accord who was going about 38mph. As I got onto 405 and shot past, he had no problem trying to keep up and getting up to about 70, then dropped way back as I was out of sight. At the dreadful 405/90 merge, I got in the westbound exit, a young woman in a Spectra was in front of me going about 48 in a 60, signaled and started to get into the eastbound lane. As she moved over I regained speed, then she started coming back into the lane I was in Luckily I have a good horn and had a nice wide shoulder/gore point to save me. That plus the insane slowness - I don't think I got passed more than once and other than racing with the Accord never went more than about 5 over, was just nuts. LLCs galore earlier in the day too, winner was a Shuttle Express van LLCing instead of being in the carpool lane, then made an abrupt 3-lane cutting exit without a signal.
Then this morning in town, had 2 people take free turns and pull out directly in front of me as I was going ~35. Pissed off some idiot woman in a Focus wagon who didn't like me coming up so fast as she went 30 in a 35 after pulling in front of me, and she actually waved her hands and honked. Really, this should be grounds to send someone to a public whipping.
This really is a lowest common denominator society, based on oblivious action and no thought. I really need a nice German driving vacation.
renewal priced according to the driving record of all drivers in the household. It is logical that a Black record will cost a lot more in premium than a clean record and that is good
that is laughable, but with the way law enforcement runs traffic enforcement, it is certainly more collusion and less communication. I challenge the notion that a black record will cost the insurance company more than a clean record. I think that is ILLOGICAL. I would like some data that supports your logic, and the insurance industries.
Law enforcement employees enjoy lower insurance rates, but is that because they get in less accidents, or because they get less tickets? It is the latter, thanks to "professsional courtesy" when a fireman/probation/police officer is pulled over, they get off with warnings.
Therefore, I submit that citations have little if anything to do with "driver" record. They have more to do with "bad" luck, and being "picked on."
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
But otherwise, I know how it works, insurance isn't a charity, it's as dirty a business as any other.
Dirtier! Insurance is the dirtiest of them all. I have more respect for low lifes, thieves, criminals, drug dealers and the like then I do for "law abiding" insurance companies.
Many point to the banks as the symbol of greed that caused the current recession/depression. I would like to point out that pretty much every bank out there is in the "insurance" business in one way or another.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
If the drivers in crashes were to die, no premium increase!
the motivation of the insurance companies wasn't to keep people alive so that they could continue to pay premiums, the motivation was to keep people alive so they wouldn't have to pay out death liability claims!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
The fact that you got off without a ticket after checking your SAFE driving record tells me this stop was more about safety than revenue.
The fact that if he had looked up my record he'd of wrote the ticket despite my near pristine driving record tells me it was about revenue, because he'd of found something like this (depending how far it goes back):
1999 - case dismissed 2002 - case dismissed 2005 - found NOT guilty 2008 - found not guilty count 2, guilty count 1 2011 - traffic school (supposedly not on record)
I think he'd of wrote me the ticket simply for having "fought" so many tickets in court! :P :sick:
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Just because some heavily sheltered untouchable "traffic engineers" set a limit doesn't mean it is optimal or defendable.
Most engineers/scientists have some code of ethics and morals. Unlike our politicians who don't.
Most undefendable speed limits set too low are set that way by government councils and politicians, not by traffic engineers or studies! In fact, there are reports of governmental bodies looking to get the authority to disobey "traffic engineering reports" and set speed limits EVEN Lower in special cases (they say for safeties sake, but I believe it to be special cases of generating extra revenue only).
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
In short I think that most peoples assumptions of "safe speeds" are exaggerated. So when someone states that they were speeding but driving a safe speed odds are that they really weren't.
there's all kinds of problems with your logic, where to start? First, if someone is USED to a certain speed then that means they have been driving it regularly, comfortably, for an extended period of time without incident. Seems like a pretty good definition of a SAFE speed to me!
Why would that speed suddenly be unsafe just because they spend 2 weeks or 2 months walking around at 3 to 5 MPH?
If I drive everywhere on the freeway for 2 months at 100MPH, and get away with it, will 100 MPH suddenly seem slow to me? If your argument holds true in the reverse, then this must be true. Shoot, after 2 months of that, I should be able to drive comfortably at 120 MPH then! I'll have to go 130 to seem fast!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I believe Oregon and Washington are two States where you are allowed to turn Left from a 2-way onto a 1-way on a red. They got it right.
think about it, it makes perfect safety sense!
Oncoming traffic is the traffic you state that you have to worry about or yield to. But wait a minute, if the light is red, you don't have to worry about oncoming traffic at all (other than a red light runner)! The only traffic you have to worry about and yield to is the traffic coming from the right onto the same one way street you are turning into with your left turn.
This is why the CA law is flawed, you should be allowed to make a left onto a one-way street regardless of whether the street you are on is one way or two-way.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
So, how do you set speed limits to safely accomodate such great variabilities? Unfortunately, it is the lowest common denominator
That's nonsense! Speed limits should be exactly that, the LIMIT (upper limit) of safe speeds, the HIGHEST common denominator. The 70 year old in the Suburban should be smart enough to know that the limit is too high for his 10 year old SUV with bald tires in the rain.
Speed differentials are not a problem if drivers exhibit driving knowledge and lane courtesy fundamentals.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
There is nothing wrong with his logic. The sensation of speed is absolutely a matter of conditioning. However, the time it takes to stop the car is a function of speed, so while one may feel comfortable driving a given speed, that doesn't mean the car will stop or maneuver as needed in the event of an emergency.
will 100 MPH suddenly seem slow to me?....Shoot, after 2 months of that, I should be able to drive comfortably at 120 MPH then! I'll have to go 130 to seem fast!
I doubt 100 will seem "slow," but it will not give the sensation of speed that it did during the first few forays into the triple digits. Indeed, you might need to drive 130 to "seem fast," but you'll need the same distance to stop as you did the very first time you drove the car that speed.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
That violates basic laws of physics. The faster one goes the more force one exerts by the square of the increase. In other words a car traveling at 80 MPH exerts 4 times as much energy as if it were going at 40 MPH. So yes faster speeds would result in more damage and therefor bigger claims.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Comments
True, but additionally, lower speeds and careful driving result in less claims for them to pay out. So they win both ways.
I would like to see some supporting documentation on this.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Insurance companies give gifts to police agencies, yes?
Police agencies go on ticket writing crusades which even they don't pretend are related to safety, yes?
Drivers with tickets pay higher rates, even if those tickets are not linked to legitimately unsafe driving, yes?
Done
The insurance cabal must have been beside itself in the 55mph days, bonuses everywhere I am sure.
Ah, those shady insurance companies!!
:P
But seriously, when speed enforcement can't be linked to safety, when LEOs aren't even pretending it is about safety, and insurance companies give LEOs gifts, one has to admit it doesn't look entirely kosher.
Guaranteed, the BMW will receive 100% of the blame for this.
Second place goes to a middle aged [non-permissible content removed] in a Saturn Sky with a dopey spoiler who was policing the left lane and pacing the car beside him...sometimes I wish I lived in LA or Miami so these types would be dealt with as they probably deserve.
When I see grossly underposted roads, speed traps at the bottom of hills with no development in the area, random speed changes, etc, it sure doesn't look like safety to me. Cash grab cash grab, it's a cash grab. The overpaid underworked irresponsible traffic engineers and LEOs have the same employer, too.
Not knowing how long it had been since the apparent LLC passed his last car, I'd say there's plenty of blame to go around.
Chalk it up to dueling [non-permissible content removed]... Gotta feel for the innocent bystander in the center lane that got wrecked in this road rage battle.
You said you were an out-of-towner. How do you know what goes on in that area on a daily basis? Just because you thought it was safe to ignore the speed limit by 33% doesn't mean that there's no safety consideration for that speed limit... which a patrol could be sent out to emphasize. The fact that you got off without a ticket after checking your SAFE driving record tells me this stop was more about safety than revenue.
After two months in Boot Camp where I was walking everywhere and was never in a car I went home. The next day I got in my car to go somewhere and got on the interstate, I got up to what i thought was a fast speed but everyone was flying past me. I looked at my speedometer and I was only doing 50 MPH. That pretty much stuck with me as we really don't recognize the speeds we are truly going.
In short I think that most peoples assumptions of "safe speeds" are exaggerated. So when someone states that they were speeding but driving a safe speed odds are that they really weren't.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I have issues with a lot in your post but arguing them would do no good, but I will address this one. In what state is making a left turn on red from a two way street legal? In those cases you have to make that turn across oncoming traffic.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
But at the same time, who defines what is the optimum amount of safety? If safety was the true name of the game, no limits would be above 40 or so - where most modern cars can crash and the odds of serious injury aren't huge, if the driver is evolved enough to buckle up anyway. Speeding violations would also be more serious, rather than numbers that are easy to pay and walk away from (hence creating greater cash flow). Like in my recent example, I am not going to slow down, I am just going to be more alert. I'm embarrassed that I somehow didn't notice a hidden CV, not that I was going 10 over on an empty wide downhill road.
No offense but I will take those who have done some serious studies in this area and not someone on the internet claiming that those others are wrong.
If safety was the true name of the game, no limits would be above 40 or so
There is a tradeoff between safety and time considerations. But you also have to take into account the road you are on too.
Like in my recent example, I am not going to slow down, I am just going to be more alert.
Then when you are caught take you medicen and don't complain about it and claim you know better.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Indeed, a tradeoff between safety and time. But what is the optimum, who determines it, and what should happen to them when they play an unethical game in the name of dollars? A huge amount of speed limits were higher when my grandfather was about my age than now, in his big oversprung poorly braked zero safety equipment car. Why was that road I was on posted at 30, which is the same for the congested streets in the boomburb where I live, with 50x the vehicle and 100x the pedestrian traffic, not to mention markedly lower lines of sight. Arbitrary, just like local traffic light sequencing.
I've never been "caught" before, heading for 20 years of driving, there's a good chance it will be as long until it happens again. I do know better, or I should say, I know what is better, and I will complain as I please - you have no recourse :P
The underlying assumption: if anything ABOVE ZERO (accidents injuries and fatalites) is not acceptable, the authorities can simply ban all motorized travel.
Like you say, speed differentials are scary but they aren't a huge risk in that region anyway, as the driver in the slow vehicle has been taught to use his brain and not camp out in the left lane, and the driver of the fast vehicle has been taught to be alert.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Are you aware that prior to cars people got ticketed for riding horses to fast?
When he was President General Grant was given a $20 ticket for riding a horse to fast through Washington.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Ah, Fintail the Mindreader at it again. Not only can you tell what people are thinking, but you know what they SHOULD have said instead of what they did say. And if they don't think what you think they should be thinking or say what you think they should have said, it doesn't matter... just means they are wrong. Or as in this case, you didn't actually detect any hint in the officer's voice wrt "emphasis patrol"... but you ALMOST did (as in, you really wish you had). That slams the door shut on the case right there, doesn't it... almost detecting something in someone's voice to back your feeling about what they were thinking, or should have said.
And of course, the fact you grew up in an area (how many years ago?) means the area could not have changed any in that time. We all know population density, traffic patterns, etc. haven't changed at all in the USA for, what, 40, maybe 50 years?
Why should a police officer be jerky towards a speeder? There's no cause for that... unless the speeder is "jerky" towards the officer.
Not all of us are oldsters. I lived in this place a mere 15 years ago, and it certainly hasn't grown since. It was a wide open road then and it is now.
You can't tell me that the law enforcement community, for many reasons both understandable and not, can sometimes come off arrogant and abusive to the people they "protect". You know as well as I do that this is a common occurrence. Had I actually been a danger, it wouldn't have been unreasonable for the officer to be stern and give a little lecture. But he didn't - as there was no safety issue at play.
End of story. Just keep the Sonata in the right lane and let the world go by :P
RCW 46.61.055 (3)(a):
(a) Vehicle operators facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection control area and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown. However, the vehicle operators facing a steady circular red signal may, after stopping proceed to make a right turn from a one-way or two-way street into a two-way street or into a one-way street carrying traffic in the direction of the right turn; or a left turn from a one-way or two-way street into a one-way street carrying traffic in the direction of the left turn; unless a sign posted by competent authority prohibits such movement. Vehicle operators planning to make such turns shall remain stopped to allow other vehicles lawfully within or approaching the intersection control area to complete their movements. Vehicle operators planning to make such turns shall also remain stopped for pedestrians who are lawfully within the intersection control area as required by RCW 46.61.235(1).
I expect there are cases where a LEO comes off arrogant and abusive. I haven't had personal experience with any LEO acting in that fashion. But I have had personal experience with DRIVERS acting in that fashion.
Speaking of the world going by... just today I made a 200 mile trip in my Sentra (Sonata is my wife's car, I don't drive it that much). Kept the cruise to the right side of the mark on the speedometer denoting the speed limit (70). Many cars passed me. I passed quite a few vehicles also. But there was a big traffic jam, about 5 miles long, later in my trip, and the signs said "use both lanes and merge at the end". So I did, and decided to use the left lane, since both were crawling along. But the left lane crawled along a little faster than the right lane, so I passed many of the cars that had whizzed by me earlier. At the merge point, I was impressed how it was done almost without exception in a courteous manner, despite folks being tied up for nearly an hour in very hot weather.
There were also a few drivers who passed me that I passed later, because their cars were on the shoulder... in front of a DPS cruiser. :shades:
Do you live in an area where people actually know how to zipper? They sure don't here. Second worst thing to merging in the PNW is driving where a lane ends.
I am sure those you saw pulled over were nabbed for safety issues and not for revenue generation.
Now the other interesting thing about going 40-45 in a 80-95 flow of traffic with 65 mph speed limits: there are literally THOUSANDS of cars pass you. So I guess how one feels about that is pretty individual. For me, it was a strange feeling of gee, I wish I had a TV, sound system, internet, cell phone AND microwaving my lunch: ALL going on at the same time and another strange feeling of being in a cocoon.
There are a number of variables involved. Driver's age and experience come to mind. Also, types of vehicles. Speed limits have to cover a broad range of vehicles on the road. Anything from a Porsche 911 to Impala sedans, big suvs such as Suburbans, pickups, etc.
A 30-year old who has autocross experience, a clean driving record and drives a recent BMW 3 Series no doubt is more alert, capable and has more vehicle capabilies then another person aged 70 driving a 10 year old Suburban. So, how do you set speed limits to safely accomodate such great variabilities? Unfortunately, it is the lowest common denominator.
Can't have speeds in US as on Autobahn. Speed differentials would be a huge problem on interstates. LeMans race France, which has varying classes of race cars with great differentials in max speeds, sometimes has huge crashes because of that. Happened last June.
We have huge crashes anyway, no matter the speed differentials. Autobahns are still less murderous than our decaying roads, but the drivers on them are better too.
The general rule of thumb is one can proceed through the intersection if it is not necessary to cross a lane of traffic. In this regard, when at an intersection with multiple right turn lanes, making a right turn on red from any lane other than the right-most lane is not permitted.
Conversely, when at a T intersection, traffic in the right most lane crossing the "top of the T" can proceed through after stopping on red the same as if it were a right turn.
Then this morning in town, had 2 people take free turns and pull out directly in front of me as I was going ~35. Pissed off some idiot woman in a Focus wagon who didn't like me coming up so fast as she went 30 in a 35 after pulling in front of me, and she actually waved her hands and honked. Really, this should be grounds to send someone to a public whipping.
This really is a lowest common denominator society, based on oblivious action and no thought. I really need a nice German driving vacation.
that is laughable, but with the way law enforcement runs traffic enforcement, it is certainly more collusion and less communication. I challenge the notion that a black record will cost the insurance company more than a clean record. I think that is ILLOGICAL. I would like some data that supports your logic, and the insurance industries.
Law enforcement employees enjoy lower insurance rates, but is that because they get in less accidents, or because they get less tickets? It is the latter, thanks to "professsional courtesy" when a fireman/probation/police officer is pulled over, they get off with warnings.
Therefore, I submit that citations have little if anything to do with "driver" record. They have more to do with "bad" luck, and being "picked on."
Dirtier! Insurance is the dirtiest of them all. I have more respect for low lifes, thieves, criminals, drug dealers and the like then I do for "law abiding" insurance companies.
Many point to the banks as the symbol of greed that caused the current recession/depression. I would like to point out that pretty much every bank out there is in the "insurance" business in one way or another.
A blatantly false statement.
1) Lower speeds have nothing to do with careful drivng, they are unrelated and irrelevant.
2) Lower speeds do not reduce claims/accidents.
3) The only way the insurance company wins is by raising rates, which false tickets allow them to do.
the motivation of the insurance companies wasn't to keep people alive so that they could continue to pay premiums, the motivation was to keep people alive so they wouldn't have to pay out death liability claims!
The fact that if he had looked up my record he'd of wrote the ticket despite my near pristine driving record tells me it was about revenue, because he'd of found something like this (depending how far it goes back):
1999 - case dismissed
2002 - case dismissed
2005 - found NOT guilty
2008 - found not guilty count 2, guilty count 1
2011 - traffic school (supposedly not on record)
I think he'd of wrote me the ticket simply for having "fought" so many tickets in court! :P :sick:
Most engineers/scientists have some code of ethics and morals. Unlike our politicians who don't.
Most undefendable speed limits set too low are set that way by government councils and politicians, not by traffic engineers or studies! In fact, there are reports of governmental bodies looking to get the authority to disobey "traffic engineering reports" and set speed limits EVEN Lower in special cases (they say for safeties sake, but I believe it to be special cases of generating extra revenue only).
there's all kinds of problems with your logic, where to start? First, if someone is USED to a certain speed then that means they have been driving it regularly, comfortably, for an extended period of time without incident. Seems like a pretty good definition of a SAFE speed to me!
Why would that speed suddenly be unsafe just because they spend 2 weeks or 2 months walking around at 3 to 5 MPH?
If I drive everywhere on the freeway for 2 months at 100MPH, and get away with it, will 100 MPH suddenly seem slow to me? If your argument holds true in the reverse, then this must be true. Shoot, after 2 months of that, I should be able to drive comfortably at 120 MPH then! I'll have to go 130 to seem fast!
think about it, it makes perfect safety sense!
Oncoming traffic is the traffic you state that you have to worry about or yield to. But wait a minute, if the light is red, you don't have to worry about oncoming traffic at all (other than a red light runner)! The only traffic you have to worry about and yield to is the traffic coming from the right onto the same one way street you are turning into with your left turn.
This is why the CA law is flawed, you should be allowed to make a left onto a one-way street regardless of whether the street you are on is one way or two-way.
That's nonsense! Speed limits should be exactly that, the LIMIT (upper limit) of safe speeds, the HIGHEST common denominator. The 70 year old in the Suburban should be smart enough to know that the limit is too high for his 10 year old SUV with bald tires in the rain.
Speed differentials are not a problem if drivers exhibit driving knowledge and lane courtesy fundamentals.
will 100 MPH suddenly seem slow to me?....Shoot, after 2 months of that, I should be able to drive comfortably at 120 MPH then! I'll have to go 130 to seem fast!
I doubt 100 will seem "slow," but it will not give the sensation of speed that it did during the first few forays into the triple digits. Indeed, you might need to drive 130 to "seem fast," but you'll need the same distance to stop as you did the very first time you drove the car that speed.
That violates basic laws of physics. The faster one goes the more force one exerts by the square of the increase. In other words a car traveling at 80 MPH exerts 4 times as much energy as if it were going at 40 MPH. So yes faster speeds would result in more damage and therefor bigger claims.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D