Nope, no dollar figure, but even a penny is too much. Even one extra LEO could make more of a difference, and actually be useful to help people in other ways too.
More productive measure? Enforce the laws rather than just put it on TV and then do little about it from that point. Seems to be plenty of local LEOs who can speed trap, but I understand that simply sitting there and cherry picking is easier and more profitable.
If someone was so concerned, they would have the mental ability to see that the phone is a distraction to begin with, just like their cig or bowl of ice cream or pet running around in the car. Lots of things "could" happen, even if they are insanely unlikely.
If someone was so concerned, they would have the mental ability to see that the phone is a distraction to begin with, just like their cig or bowl of ice cream or pet running around in the car.
Yes... if only everyone had the mental ability, and common sense and common decency, to realize the impact their actions while driving have on others. If only...
But then, there would be no fodder for this discussion!
Turns out that driver's ed could be useful in other countries too.
"An outing of luxury sportscar enthusiasts in Japan ended in an expensive freeway pileup — smashing a stunning eight Ferraris, a Lamborghini and two Mercedes likely worth more than $1 million together.
Police say they believe the accident Sunday was touched off when the driver of one of the Ferraris tried to change lanes and hit the median barrier. He spun across the freeway, and the other cars collided while trying to avoid hitting his car."
The driver was probably busy uploading a video of the group to YouTube, failed to signal his lane change, wiped out, and the wreck was made worse because all the other drivers were on their smartphones while following too close. And every last one of them was speeding. :P
Yeah, they never have pile-ups on the autobahn do they?
When are the Germans going to come to their senses and put on a 65 MPH limit (kilometer equivalent) on all of the Autobahn, maybe lower in some select segments.
They tried that in '73 and it lasted 4 months. :-)
Get into a wreck going 81 and you'll be presumed to be responsible for damages, whether there's a limit posted or not. The neat thing is that a bunch of miles have dynamic speed limits that can be raised or lowered depending on conditions. (2010 link)
Every couple years there is a movement to end the unlimited sections, and it is always soundly shouted down. I don't see the ideal ever going away. Also pretty hard for anyone to determine how fast one was going in a wreck, sound like a story with no meat.
The variable limit sections are in urban and construction areas, much like Seattle has similar variable signs. Much of the autobahn is dreary 100-120kmh boredom, but get out of the densely populated areas, and it is still an adventure, in large part because of the demanding drivers training that Germans had the foresight to enact. Lane discipline is a way of life. If only we weren't so dumbed down.
If you haven't driven in Germany, you shouldn't question the sensibility.
Wonder what the speed limits are on French type interstates. Have seen the French Tour de France on tv and their speed limits (kilometers) seem reasonable on the secondary back roads mostly used on the Tour.
Whenever speed limits change in my area, not all that much, they come down. People need to plan their lives better, leave earlier, don't rush, then won't be need/justification to speed.
France has motorway limits of 130 (80mph) and 110 (68mph) in the rain. They also live in a lane discipline culture, something too many Americans can't grasp.
I bet you just loved the days of 55...thank god that mentality was sent to the incinerator. Some people don't have nowhere to go and all day to get there, others simply don't see the need to bend over for arbitrary and undefendable revenue-connected policy.
... and I don't see why I have to come to a complete stop to make a safe right turn.
I think most traffic engineers would agree with me that right turns on red should be changed to read more like a YIELD sign rather than a STOP sign.
Right turns on red do not cause accidents as long as one yields to traffic, and it is a supreme waste of manpower time and wasted gas and pollution to have everyone brake to a complete stop at a right turn when no one is around.
This is one law that does need to be changed and rewritten.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Sorry I don't think thats true as if you were on a two way street to make a left turn you would need to cross oncoming traffic which may have a green light even though you have a red light.
As others have posted, it's legal in many states, usually because the other light is red. Whether the other oncoming light is red or not doesn't make any difference to me, as I'd yield to other oncoming traffic anyway. Since there wasn't any oncoming traffic in my case at all, it's basically a mute point whether the oncoming opposite lane matters or not, and whether their light was red or not.
Sorry thats not true, a police officer directing traffic overrules traffic signals not the lights of the police car.
Where do you get that from? How is an officer directing traffic any different than the officer parking his vehicle in a manner that redirects traffic with lights flashing in the middle of the intersection?
The question now becomes did you stay to close to him during that 15 seconds? If you did then his actions 15 seconds before have no bearing on if you receive a ticket or not.
The only one who was reckless was the car in front of me. This was a classic case of lazy officer picking on the wrong driver.
I drive like I drive, and I have zero at-fault accidents, which is better in my view (and a much superior record) than zero tickets. Furthermore, what is key is that I have no tickets from CA on my searchable record. Tickets that result in conviction erase 3 years later anyway.
I think I only have one ticket on my "record" from an overzealous Nevada Highway Patrolman. Can't remember if it's 2.5 or 3.5 years old....
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
(3) Unless following and adhering to the law causes great inconvenience and some amount of financial loss, simply follow the law. No pain, no stress, no inconvenience to everyday matters of life.
Since some laws are subject to interpretation, such as the basic speed law, I feel I follow that advice. When officers misinterpret the law, a court case ensues. I don't know why they insist on mininterpreting the law!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
And driver's education is a fraction of what it used to be.
I'll agree that education can be improved. While I know I'm perfectly safe going 52 in my 2006 A3 up a hill with 2 wide lanes and divided from the opposite side's 2 lanes with a center median, complete with grass and trees, I'd probably think twice if not thrice at breaking the 85th percentile barrier in a huge pickup truck or SUV with almost double the weight and 1/10 the handling ability.
If speed limits were raised to 100 MPH tomorrow, there are some vehicles where I'd participate, and some where I would not. Maybe all drivers don't understand braking distance, manueverablity, and other factors.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
More productive measure? Enforce the laws rather than just put it on TV and then do little about it from that point. Seems to be plenty of local LEOs who can speed trap, but I understand that simply sitting there and cherry picking is easier and more profitable.
I'd actually like to see LEO's do something productive and useful, which I've shown time and time again certainly is not their traffic enforcement activities. They should spend their time catching HIT & RUNNERS (which seems far too rampant), people who steal cars (which seems far too common), and actually do some real police work.
What about preventing murders? Rapes? What happened to the war on drugs? Traffic enforcment really seems like a negligent waste of taxpayer resources.
If they must do enforcement on the roads, how about some LLC citations!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
52 vehicles crashed and only 3 deaths! That's pretty good odds considering the Autobanhn is the devil's child and speed kills mentality perpetuated by some here.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
When are the Germans going to come to their senses and put on a 65 MPH limit (kilometer equivalent) on all of the Autobahn, maybe lower in some select segments.
That accident had nothing to do with speed and everything to do with going too fast for conditions (which was fog) and probably some idiot that decided to drive 35 MPH in the fast lane because fog scares them.
When are the American's going to come to their senses and put an unresticted speed limit on all of the Interstates.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Whenever speed limits change in my area, not all that much, they come down. People need to plan their lives better, leave earlier, don't rush, then won't be need/justification to speed.
That doesn't surprise me in the least bit. Since our speed limits are set by corrupted revenue generating officials, it only makes sense that sensible speed limits are later reduced to increase revenues.
I haven't seen speed limits go up anywhere in an awful long time! Perhaps if I was seeing limits go up once in a while, I wouldn't feel like trying to get a speed limit increased would be a completely futile exercise in uselessness and a complete waste of my time.
Spending time trying to get speed limits increased seems like about as likely to be a successful use of my time as trying to get Ron Paul elected President in 2012.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I think most traffic engineers would agree with me that right turns on red should be changed to read more like a YIELD sign rather than a STOP sign.
Let us know when you have the results of that survey, OK?
The fact is, today's laws say that a red light means STOP. And right-turn-on-red-light laws say, "right turn on red permitted after stop." Not after a "I'll slow down a little bit and hope I see cars and pedestrians before I turn." Also not "required", but "permitted" (for those folks who get all in a tizzy when a car in front of them does NOT turn on red). I know this is an inconvenience for folks like you who believe that current traffic laws don't apply to them, but they are the laws. Maybe you could apply all the time and energy you spend today on fighting traffic tickets towards getting the laws changed? If it's as you say and most traffic engineers agree that the right-turn law should be changed, you should have lots of expert opinion to back up your efforts.
Traffic enforcment really seems like a negligent waste of taxpayer resources.
Consider that we wouldn't need to "waste" all those taxpayer resources on traffic enforcement if folks would follow the traffic laws on their own. Maybe you could take a leadership role in that area and be an example to all of following traffic laws?
I bet you just loved the days of 55...thank god that mentality was sent to the incinerator.
Most of the roads I use regularly (except interstates) in rural areas are 55 mph and that is fast enough. Sometimes too fast when you encounter deer at sunset or goofballs riding bicycles in double-yellow and other areas with hills, dips, crests, curves. Sometimes horseback riders just over a crest.
The "mentality" in question should be drivers that think they know better, think that they have "superior" driving skills and travel well beyond the "gimme" intervals that police will usually give a pass for going over the limit.
I do not think anyone really meant to say there are NOT roads (aka rural per your example) that 55 mph makes all the sense in the world. I am sure every state and county has had their "blood alley" examples. Drift over to oncoming traffic and chances are it is game over, meet your maker early, etc.
So for example, CA highway 152, a major regional feed to interstate 5 (S/B to Los Angeles, NB to Portland, OR and beyond) is a bottle neck tragedy, not destined to be fixed any time soon. They would rather build a bullet train for 56 BILLION + to NO WHERE from no where to no where (no disrespect to the real towns but there are NO customers here), than put a needed 5 lane each way bypass.
Good, please stay on those rural roads with similar attitudes. The rest of the world has moved forward. Can you imagine driving 55 on an interstate across Oklahoma or Montana or in much of the nation? I am thankful my driving days came around as that idiocy was finally repealed.
The idea of knowing better is knowing better than who? Our beloved and hard working public sector have proven themselves incapable of doing much of anything efficiently or sustainably, why should they be given a free pass in traffic controls? Just because one has been granted authority status doesn't mean they deserve it. Blind deference is un-American.
I'd be happy to see them crack down on crosswalk violators and turn signal non-users. If I ever get hit while on foot in a crosswalk, I am probably going to sue the city for negligence in their complete lack of enforcement of these rules. I won't even touch on the LLCers and other issues.
FWIW, war on drugs is even a greater waste of money than the speedtrapping culture. Which is why mountains of cash have been pissed away there, too.
Can you imagine driving 55 on an interstate across Oklahoma or Montana or in much of the nation?
Never said that 55 was appropriate for interstates.
Our beloved and hard working public sector have proven themselves incapable of doing much of anything efficiently or sustainably, why should they be given a free pass in traffic controls?
OK. So cite your "professional" credentials, education and work experience in traffic management and road/highway engineering.
But you did advocate a 65mph limit for open roads, which also is too low.
I don't see much in the way of real credentials being had by those who are given the power to set these rules. Traffic management? Are you kidding? These bastards can't even optimize lights. Highway engineering? With our zero investment lowest bidder second world standards? What a shallow red herring.
I will then ask you the same, tell me your credentials that let you know that the current regulations are optimal. Ridiculous.
But you did advocate a 65mph limit for open roads, which also is too low.
Generally, 65 ok for most interstates. Some could go higher to 70.
Have to realize that limits cover lowest denominator type drivers and their vehicles. Such as a 80 year old guy driving in an old pickup. Or, a 16 year old with little driving experience.
If everyone, everyone had the reflexes and capabilities to drive like a top rated World Rally Driver, or a Tony Stewart, or a Dario Franchitti, or a Sebastian Vettel than interstate limits could probably be set at 80 or 90 IF there were no big truck traffic.
I guess we can just disagree. I can see 60 on interstates in densely populated areas, but leave the city and the speed can hit at least 70 if not 80. I've driven long stretches in several states averaging 80 or so, no harm done. 80 doesn't require F1 champion reflexes, Autobahn driving doesn't require F1 champion reflexes, just attention and situational awareness - and it even allows trucks.
A Model A can cruise along at 50 and my nearly 50 year old car can cruise at 75+ all day without breathing hard, maybe some minimum speeds (say 50) should also be enforced on interstates. The newbies, antiques, or fraidy cats can just keep right or stick to secondary roads.
Have to realize that limits cover lowest denominator type drivers and their vehicles. Such as a 80 year old guy driving in an old pickup. Or, a 16 year old with little driving experience.
That's the problem right there. You have that incorrect gov't mentality that somehow speed limits should be set to the lowest common denominator with the lowest speed capability conceivable in a worst case scenario.
You need to look up Webster's dictionary definition of speed limits. Particularly limits. Since speed limits are to indicate the highest speed, (it isn't a slow limit), it should be for the HIGHEST common denonminator.
After all, the law says in no event shall you drive without regard for safety, conditions, you should have regard and prudent speed for conditions which include your own vehicle and traffic around you, as well as your own driving abilities. Why is that so hard to understand?
Setting for the lowest common denominator is the dumbing down of our system for the worst and dumbest. It is ruining this country. Those who drive in slow handling cars should know better than to drive the speed limit. The speed limit is exactly that, the limit for any type of vehicle. Because in practice speed limits are set incorrectly and ultra low for most people and most vehicles, people pay no attention to them, including those that should probably heed the limits as their own limits.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
In these parts, 80 mph and I am fighting road hypnosis. If one does not tail gate, one can literally do a Chevy Chase. Per msg #17820, the highway patrol was SO close to my 6 (@80 mph), that I was thinking he'd better introduce himself. Again, I had to pull into the emergency lane because I was going SO slow.
The more I read of your posts, Andres, the more I think you're breaking an awful lot of laws and only getting caught a few times. See, I speed. I'm almost never at the speed limit (excepting school zones, known speed traps, and when conditions demand more caution) - yet I haven't had a ticket in about 10 years (knock on wood). You're doing something wrong to get those tickets. Somebody said mindless deference was un-American - I say that desperately trying to avoid responsibility for your own actions is un-American.
You have that incorrect gov't mentality that somehow speed limits should be set to the lowest common denominator with the lowest speed capability conceivable in a worst case scenario.
I don't see how you can make that assertion. A "worst case scenario" would include bad weather, heavy traffic etc. and in that case the speed limit would be very low... it might be only 25 mph on a freeway for example. Even less than that if it's really bad weather (of the kind that can happen where I live, in winter).
The speed limit is exactly that, the limit for any type of vehicle.
You can't be serious. There's many vehicles that can exceed 140 mph. Heck, even something as mundane as a Sonata can do that. Some cars available to the public can approach or even exceed 200 mph. So you really believe that speed limits should be the limit for any type of vehicle? Incredible. But consistent.
I am exactly the same way. Speeding requires attention. Look out for speed traps. I usually only go about 10 over (which is fast in my area)...and even then, I am ever-vigilant for revenue collection holes.
Yes, over all (non specifically) I would agree. Tickets, if one will are the LEO's reminder that for whatever reasons, one did not see the leo in wait and if one did, didn't care. t would guess sight patterns while driving need to be changed, altered, improved. Fintail (WA state) despite the fact that he did not mention this, seems to be dealing with non standard, different colored and unmarked and MARKED Highway Patrol cars. He, of course can correct me if I am wrong.
A very small example, while I was driving in WA state, was able to see multiple color and unmarked highway patrol cars. Most of these had concealed light clusters, aka no light bars. (no radar/laser guns if interested) Upshot, no tickets in freeway traffic. This might be one of the reasons why traffic seems to move at military formation style and in slo mo. I think this is the states' highway speed policy (defacto). In fact, I once went for easily 20 miles with an unmarked different colored highway patrol car to my left . Flow was like being in a military parade formation, albeit @ 60/65 mph.
I say this in the context of the principle that: one ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, even as I wish him well in the cure.
Almost seems as if he doing the bad deeds, then using his own twisted interpretation of the law to excuse his behavior. My teenagers do the same thing.
If you really want to be a change agent, do it within the system. In the meantime, play by the rules & drive better
Speeding requires attention. Look out for speed traps.
What a waste. Just what is the pre-occupation with wanting to go over the limit to extent of HAVING to look out for traps? Going limit, or within the margin that most cops give is less stressful.
What is it about the MINDSET, "I know better. DOT people are incompetent, don't know how to set limits. I will go faster than limit, by whatever margin I feel is correct, when I believe they are wrong"?
Well, I think one can look at it any number of ways. I think most folks GET the Chevy Chase philosophy of driving DWA (driving while asleep). I would argue one that is looking for speed traps, etc., can actually driver SAFER.
Afraid my mindset is a bit different, xrunner. For me, speeding (within the limits of my vehicle, the road conditions, and my own skills) is enjoyable. It helps me concentrate (I get more distracted at slow speeds - speeding helps keep my mind from wandering). I have a vehicle capable of very high speeds, and I use very little of that capability. Simply put, it's fun going fast. But if I happen to get caught, then I'm not going to whine about the speed limits or how those darn corrupt cops/courts/gubmint are out to get me. The occasional ticket is the financial price I pay for the fun I'm having. Do I wish speed limits - esp. on interstates - were higher? Of course I do. But that's a matter for the state legislature to take up then pass along to the state DOT.
The first part is how I feel. Looking out and paying attention is actually enjoyable in a way. Driving is serious business and should be treated as such. Loafing along in a comatose state at an underposted limit created by an irresponsible revenue hungry bureaucrat and enforced by untouchable overgrown children with mustaches isn't enjoyable.
What is stress for you isn't stress for others. Keep right.
What is it about people who freak out about the "mindset" of others? IMHO...if you were so confident about your own mindset, you wouldn't be calling out the speeders as if they are true criminals. I have no problem with those who go slow, so long as they have lane discipline. MYOB, again.
I have no problem with those who go slow, so long as they have lane discipline.
And, this seems to be such a problem during the winter months!
We had some rain this weekend, which was a bit of a system shock since we generally won't get precip in the form of anything other than snow until May, and it caused the roads to get nice and slick. We'll probably be dealing with it for another week or two until the ice is finally worn (mostly) off the roadways - at least on the well-traveled ones.
When that happens, speed differentials become marked. Much of the traffic might travel at 30 mph on the highway, which is fine if that is where they comfortably drive. However, there's nothing more annoying than being held up behind that one driver who feels the need to drive 31 in the left lane, thereby holding up the traffic that is going faster. :sick:
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
What is it about the MINDSET, "I know better. DOT people are incompetent, don't know how to set limits. I will go faster than limit, by whatever margin I feel is correct, when I believe they are wrong"?
That's the same mindset you're taking in arguing your point. That you know better then your opposition. So, what gives?
You're doing something wrong to get those tickets.
Given my driving record, I think it is far more likely that you've been extremely lucky and perhaps the police have targeted my vehicle for vengeance and retributions because their incompetence is exposed in the courtroom by me.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
You can't be serious. There's many vehicles that can exceed 140 mph. Heck, even something as mundane as a Sonata can do that. Some cars available to the public can approach or even exceed 200 mph. So you really believe that speed limits should be the limit for any type of vehicle? Incredible. But consistent.
You minterpreted my comments. I mean that the speed limit should be the upper limit. Too often, the public finds the posted speed limits to be written at the LOWER limit of REQUIRED speed, someone mentioned permissable actions, well, I think a permissible action is to go up to 15 over the speed limit, and it is REQUIRED to at least drive the speed limit as a minimum on most freeways in CA (traffic allowing). You'll get rearended if you go any slower than the speed limit.
Often, I see 95% of traffic zooming along at speeds over the limits.
What gives.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Comments
More productive measure? Enforce the laws rather than just put it on TV and then do little about it from that point. Seems to be plenty of local LEOs who can speed trap, but I understand that simply sitting there and cherry picking is easier and more profitable.
If someone was so concerned, they would have the mental ability to see that the phone is a distraction to begin with, just like their cig or bowl of ice cream or pet running around in the car. Lots of things "could" happen, even if they are insanely unlikely.
Yes... if only everyone had the mental ability, and common sense and common decency, to realize the impact their actions while driving have on others. If only...
But then, there would be no fodder for this discussion!
"An outing of luxury sportscar enthusiasts in Japan ended in an expensive freeway pileup — smashing a stunning eight Ferraris, a Lamborghini and two Mercedes likely worth more than $1 million together.
Police say they believe the accident Sunday was touched off when the driver of one of the Ferraris tried to change lanes and hit the median barrier. He spun across the freeway, and the other cars collided while trying to avoid hitting his car."
Fleet of Ferraris ruined in Japan sportscar pileup (Yahoo)
The driver was probably busy uploading a video of the group to YouTube, failed to signal his lane change, wiped out, and the wreck was made worse because all the other drivers were on their smartphones while following too close. And every last one of them was speeding. :P
This one last month only involved 52 vehicles and three deaths. :sick:
Ferrari drivers in Deutschland never wreck either.
Plenty of pileups on this side of the pond in the winter too, even with our underposted limits and usually active speedtrapping culture.
When are the Germans going to come to their senses and put on a 65 MPH limit (kilometer equivalent) on all of the Autobahn, maybe lower in some select segments.
Get into a wreck going 81 and you'll be presumed to be responsible for damages, whether there's a limit posted or not. The neat thing is that a bunch of miles have dynamic speed limits that can be raised or lowered depending on conditions. (2010 link)
The variable limit sections are in urban and construction areas, much like Seattle has similar variable signs. Much of the autobahn is dreary 100-120kmh boredom, but get out of the densely populated areas, and it is still an adventure, in large part because of the demanding drivers training that Germans had the foresight to enact. Lane discipline is a way of life. If only we weren't so dumbed down.
If you haven't driven in Germany, you shouldn't question the sensibility.
Wonder what the speed limits are on French type interstates. Have seen the French Tour de France on tv and their speed limits (kilometers) seem reasonable on the secondary back roads mostly used on the Tour.
Whenever speed limits change in my area, not all that much, they come down. People need to plan their lives better, leave earlier, don't rush, then won't be need/justification to speed.
I bet you just loved the days of 55...thank god that mentality was sent to the incinerator. Some people don't have nowhere to go and all day to get there, others simply don't see the need to bend over for arbitrary and undefendable revenue-connected policy.
I think most traffic engineers would agree with me that right turns on red should be changed to read more like a YIELD sign rather than a STOP sign.
Right turns on red do not cause accidents as long as one yields to traffic, and it is a supreme waste of manpower time and wasted gas and pollution to have everyone brake to a complete stop at a right turn when no one is around.
This is one law that does need to be changed and rewritten.
As others have posted, it's legal in many states, usually because the other light is red. Whether the other oncoming light is red or not doesn't make any difference to me, as I'd yield to other oncoming traffic anyway. Since there wasn't any oncoming traffic in my case at all, it's basically a mute point whether the oncoming opposite lane matters or not, and whether their light was red or not.
Sorry thats not true, a police officer directing traffic overrules traffic signals not the lights of the police car.
Where do you get that from? How is an officer directing traffic any different than the officer parking his vehicle in a manner that redirects traffic with lights flashing in the middle of the intersection?
The question now becomes did you stay to close to him during that 15 seconds? If you did then his actions 15 seconds before have no bearing on if you receive a ticket or not.
The only one who was reckless was the car in front of me. This was a classic case of lazy officer picking on the wrong driver.
I drive like I drive, and I have zero at-fault accidents, which is better in my view (and a much superior record) than zero tickets. Furthermore, what is key is that I have no tickets from CA on my searchable record. Tickets that result in conviction erase 3 years later anyway.
I think I only have one ticket on my "record" from an overzealous Nevada Highway Patrolman. Can't remember if it's 2.5 or 3.5 years old....
Since some laws are subject to interpretation, such as the basic speed law, I feel I follow that advice. When officers misinterpret the law, a court case ensues. I don't know why they insist on mininterpreting the law!
I'll agree that education can be improved. While I know I'm perfectly safe going 52 in my 2006 A3 up a hill with 2 wide lanes and divided from the opposite side's 2 lanes with a center median, complete with grass and trees, I'd probably think twice if not thrice at breaking the 85th percentile barrier in a huge pickup truck or SUV with almost double the weight and 1/10 the handling ability.
If speed limits were raised to 100 MPH tomorrow, there are some vehicles where I'd participate, and some where I would not. Maybe all drivers don't understand braking distance, manueverablity, and other factors.
I'd actually like to see LEO's do something productive and useful, which I've shown time and time again certainly is not their traffic enforcement activities. They should spend their time catching HIT & RUNNERS (which seems far too rampant), people who steal cars (which seems far too common), and actually do some real police work.
What about preventing murders? Rapes? What happened to the war on drugs? Traffic enforcment really seems like a negligent waste of taxpayer resources.
If they must do enforcement on the roads, how about some LLC citations!
That accident had nothing to do with speed and everything to do with going too fast for conditions (which was fog) and probably some idiot that decided to drive 35 MPH in the fast lane because fog scares them.
When are the American's going to come to their senses and put an unresticted speed limit on all of the Interstates.
That doesn't surprise me in the least bit. Since our speed limits are set by corrupted revenue generating officials, it only makes sense that sensible speed limits are later reduced to increase revenues.
I haven't seen speed limits go up anywhere in an awful long time! Perhaps if I was seeing limits go up once in a while, I wouldn't feel like trying to get a speed limit increased would be a completely futile exercise in uselessness and a complete waste of my time.
Spending time trying to get speed limits increased seems like about as likely to be a successful use of my time as trying to get Ron Paul elected President in 2012.
The record is 259 vehicles and no deaths (unless some of the critically injured died after this story was written).
Per the link, it was "caused by a combination of bad weather and excess speed."
I vote Autobahn is safer than CA roads.
Let us know when you have the results of that survey, OK?
The fact is, today's laws say that a red light means STOP. And right-turn-on-red-light laws say, "right turn on red permitted after stop." Not after a "I'll slow down a little bit and hope I see cars and pedestrians before I turn." Also not "required", but "permitted" (for those folks who get all in a tizzy when a car in front of them does NOT turn on red). I know this is an inconvenience for folks like you who believe that current traffic laws don't apply to them, but they are the laws. Maybe you could apply all the time and energy you spend today on fighting traffic tickets towards getting the laws changed? If it's as you say and most traffic engineers agree that the right-turn law should be changed, you should have lots of expert opinion to back up your efforts.
Traffic enforcment really seems like a negligent waste of taxpayer resources.
Consider that we wouldn't need to "waste" all those taxpayer resources on traffic enforcement if folks would follow the traffic laws on their own. Maybe you could take a leadership role in that area and be an example to all of following traffic laws?
Most of the roads I use regularly (except interstates) in rural areas are 55 mph and that is fast enough. Sometimes too fast when you encounter deer at sunset or goofballs riding bicycles in double-yellow and other areas with hills, dips, crests, curves. Sometimes horseback riders just over a crest.
The "mentality" in question should be drivers that think they know better, think that they have "superior" driving skills and travel well beyond the "gimme" intervals that police will usually give a pass for going over the limit.
So for example, CA highway 152, a major regional feed to interstate 5 (S/B to Los Angeles, NB to Portland, OR and beyond) is a bottle neck tragedy, not destined to be fixed any time soon. They would rather build a bullet train for 56 BILLION + to NO WHERE from no where to no where (no disrespect to the real towns but there are NO customers here), than put a needed 5 lane each way bypass.
The idea of knowing better is knowing better than who? Our beloved and hard working public sector have proven themselves incapable of doing much of anything efficiently or sustainably, why should they be given a free pass in traffic controls? Just because one has been granted authority status doesn't mean they deserve it. Blind deference is un-American.
FWIW, war on drugs is even a greater waste of money than the speedtrapping culture. Which is why mountains of cash have been pissed away there, too.
Never said that 55 was appropriate for interstates.
Our beloved and hard working public sector have proven themselves incapable of doing much of anything efficiently or sustainably, why should they be given a free pass in traffic controls?
OK. So cite your "professional" credentials, education and work experience in traffic management and road/highway engineering.
I don't see much in the way of real credentials being had by those who are given the power to set these rules. Traffic management? Are you kidding? These bastards can't even optimize lights. Highway engineering? With our zero investment lowest bidder second world standards? What a shallow red herring.
I will then ask you the same, tell me your credentials that let you know that the current regulations are optimal. Ridiculous.
Just keep right and MYOB.
Generally, 65 ok for most interstates. Some could go higher to 70.
Have to realize that limits cover lowest denominator type drivers and their vehicles. Such as a 80 year old guy driving in an old pickup. Or, a 16 year old with little driving experience.
If everyone, everyone had the reflexes and capabilities to drive like a top rated World Rally Driver, or a Tony Stewart, or a Dario Franchitti, or a Sebastian Vettel than interstate limits could probably be set at 80 or 90 IF there were no big truck traffic.
A Model A can cruise along at 50 and my nearly 50 year old car can cruise at 75+ all day without breathing hard, maybe some minimum speeds (say 50) should also be enforced on interstates. The newbies, antiques, or fraidy cats can just keep right or stick to secondary roads.
That's the problem right there. You have that incorrect gov't mentality that somehow speed limits should be set to the lowest common denominator with the lowest speed capability conceivable in a worst case scenario.
You need to look up Webster's dictionary definition of speed limits. Particularly limits. Since speed limits are to indicate the highest speed, (it isn't a slow limit), it should be for the HIGHEST common denonminator.
After all, the law says in no event shall you drive without regard for safety, conditions, you should have regard and prudent speed for conditions which include your own vehicle and traffic around you, as well as your own driving abilities. Why is that so hard to understand?
Setting for the lowest common denominator is the dumbing down of our system for the worst and dumbest. It is ruining this country. Those who drive in slow handling cars should know better than to drive the speed limit. The speed limit is exactly that, the limit for any type of vehicle. Because in practice speed limits are set incorrectly and ultra low for most people and most vehicles, people pay no attention to them, including those that should probably heed the limits as their own limits.
I don't see how you can make that assertion. A "worst case scenario" would include bad weather, heavy traffic etc. and in that case the speed limit would be very low... it might be only 25 mph on a freeway for example. Even less than that if it's really bad weather (of the kind that can happen where I live, in winter).
The speed limit is exactly that, the limit for any type of vehicle.
You can't be serious. There's many vehicles that can exceed 140 mph. Heck, even something as mundane as a Sonata can do that. Some cars available to the public can approach or even exceed 200 mph. So you really believe that speed limits should be the limit for any type of vehicle? Incredible. But consistent.
A very small example, while I was driving in WA state, was able to see multiple color and unmarked highway patrol cars. Most of these had concealed light clusters, aka no light bars. (no radar/laser guns if interested) Upshot, no tickets in freeway traffic. This might be one of the reasons why traffic seems to move at military formation style and in slo mo. I think this is the states' highway speed policy (defacto). In fact, I once went for easily 20 miles with an unmarked different colored highway patrol car to my left . Flow was like being in a military parade formation, albeit @ 60/65 mph.
I say this in the context of the principle that: one ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, even as I wish him well in the cure.
If you really want to be a change agent, do it within the system. In the meantime, play by the rules & drive better
What a waste. Just what is the pre-occupation with wanting to go over the limit to extent of HAVING to look out for traps? Going limit, or within the margin that most cops give is less stressful.
What is it about the MINDSET, "I know better. DOT people are incompetent, don't know how to set limits. I will go faster than limit, by whatever margin I feel is correct, when I believe they are wrong"?
What is it about people who freak out about the "mindset" of others? IMHO...if you were so confident about your own mindset, you wouldn't be calling out the speeders as if they are true criminals. I have no problem with those who go slow, so long as they have lane discipline. MYOB, again.
And, this seems to be such a problem during the winter months!
We had some rain this weekend, which was a bit of a system shock since we generally won't get precip in the form of anything other than snow until May, and it caused the roads to get nice and slick. We'll probably be dealing with it for another week or two until the ice is finally worn (mostly) off the roadways - at least on the well-traveled ones.
When that happens, speed differentials become marked. Much of the traffic might travel at 30 mph on the highway, which is fine if that is where they comfortably drive. However, there's nothing more annoying than being held up behind that one driver who feels the need to drive 31 in the left lane, thereby holding up the traffic that is going faster. :sick:
That's the same mindset you're taking in arguing your point. That you know better then your opposition. So, what gives?
Funny.... I don't recall him saying anything about camping.
Given my driving record, I think it is far more likely that you've been extremely lucky and perhaps the police have targeted my vehicle for vengeance and retributions because their incompetence is exposed in the courtroom by me.
OK, ruking. Explain. How is one safer looking for speed traps while going maybe over the "gimme" that most cops allow.
You minterpreted my comments. I mean that the speed limit should be the upper limit. Too often, the public finds the posted speed limits to be written at the LOWER limit of REQUIRED speed, someone mentioned permissable actions, well, I think a permissible action is to go up to 15 over the speed limit, and it is REQUIRED to at least drive the speed limit as a minimum on most freeways in CA (traffic allowing). You'll get rearended if you go any slower than the speed limit.
Often, I see 95% of traffic zooming along at speeds over the limits.
What gives.