F451

In my own personal experience, and in many, many accounts that I have heard, speeding tickets are arbitrarily handed out, and often while much more dangerous driving is ignored. Blatantly ignored.

And there are MANY well known speed traps in the US. So many in fact that they are documented on web sites, enthusiast forums, etc.

If writing speeding tickets was truly done in an effort to enhance public safety, I don't think you'd read and hear so many people bitching about it.

Here's an all to typical personal experience:

A few mile long string of brain dead dolts clogging up the left and middle lanes of a three lane each way interstate. No one is in the far right lane for a mile or more. The zombies in the left and center lanes are tail gating, dangerously lane changing, and generally all trying to get ahead of each other at once. It was bad enought that it made me nervouse to be mixed up with them.

I move over to the right lane, its refreshingly clear and safe. Its a down hill, I'm not even thinking about it, but I exceed the speed limit. I get pulled over for speeding at the bottom of the hill. Sheriff is there pulling over car after car.

The left and middle lane danger parade is cruising right by him, slamming on their brakes when they finally spot the sheriff.

Yep, that's a real enhancement to public safety right there.

F451

I don't think anyone of any intelligence of any kind would argue with that.

Now, my local police force, yep, no problem on that one.

Like the kid, er, I mean cop, who looked like he was fresh from band practice in my town, that followed me on my motorcycle into my cul de sac, and into my driveway. I wasn't driving particularly fast, just cruising home through my nieghborhood.

Apperently I had exceeded the speed limit on one of the feeder roads into our nieghborhood. He followed me home and worked up quite the temper by the time he came skidding into my driveway.

I thought there must be something going on in my house and I actually got worried for a fraction of a second until junior came running up to me and got his extremely red face into mine and proceeded to read me the riot act about speeding and how if he had his radar on I would be getting a ticket RIGHT NOW!

What a dick.

I let him blow off his steam while I gave him my best "what an *** you are and when the hell are you going to finish and go away so I can resume my life" look.

He finally hopped into his cruiser and proceeded to chirp his tires while he gunned it in reverse out of my driveway. Then he threw it into drive and chirped the tires again as he left my cul de sac - at a very high rate of speed.

What a f*cking asshat!

Yep, enhancing public safety right there.

heinrich

I agree ONE HUNDRED percent with Ed. In my 25mph neighbourhood there are two types of speeders .. NOT the man with the several 180mph Porsches, no ..... 1) the honda kiddies (this happens once a blue moon and pisses me off) ... and 2) the cops that fly by here at LITERALLY three times the limit, NO LIGHTS, no sirens EVERY WEEK.

928SS

CALTRANS did a study that reported if the CHP wrote tickets on the ramps only, and not on the freeway, and worked to clear dead cars on the freeway better, we'd have safer freeways and less congestion by like 20%... I thought that about summed up what most of us see every day in SOCAL at least.

as far as beating tickets, they'll never take me alive... hahahha

Shark Attack

Ya know I am glad you said it first. it really amuses me how people feel they have to beat "the man". If i was speeding and Im caught, Im going to pay the ticket. Now if i wasnt speeding and got a ticket im going to contest it.....

BC

Of course it is your perogative to do so. Its a mistake, and it simply invites the government to levee more unfair and unjust taxes onto the people for whatever special interests... Nevermind. You wanna pay, thats fine. But understand that no matter what speed you go, its not speeding unless its unsafe for conditions, because the posted sign is arbitrary - therefore what constitutes speeding is also arbitrary.

928SS

maybe if nobody pulled over, they'd just give up....

Charley B

I tried that as a youngster. It didn't work out too well.

6mil928

Ron I totally understand where your coming from I felt the same rage when I lived in California. It was a life saver to get out of the chaos that is Ca. You constantly feel that the state is trying to pry from you that last nickle of spare change you have. The next year they have their sights on $.07.

Stan.Shaw@Excell.Net

Interesting topic...

I think some who post here are uncomfortable accepting that a law should not be obeyed. I don't think any discussion on whether the law is reasonable or just will change their minds.

A comment on the premise that police will improve their preparation because someone was found not responsible for a particular ticket seems to expect tremendous competence from so many people in law enforcement that would greatly exceed the average competence of people in general. Since most police officers did not likely enter law enforcement to become experts at giving speeding tickets, I think the expectation that they will all become more competent is a bit naive. They will accept that 1 out of 100 is found not responsible (perhaps less).

The concept that there would be no deal offered if it were a revenue generating system does not consider the cost and impact to the court systems in processing additional trials for speeding tickets. As courts are already jammed for other issues, there is motivation to keep these cases from proceeding past the hearing (at least that is the process in MA, hearing with a magistrate followed by a court "trial" if needed).

Driving at a specific speed, as designated by a sign, regardless of time of day, congestion, weather conditions, etc. is just plain silly. There are highways in this area where it would be safe to run a 100+ at some times and not even 10+ at others.

I don't agree with the rules they made. If they can't abide by their own rules, then what good are those rules anyways?

Charley B

As a society we have devised many rules to control traffic , and many rules to ensure the traffic controllers (police) act legally and responsibly.

When we appear in court for having run afoul of one of our traffic rules, it makes sense to inquire if the traffic controller has followed all of his rules.

If we are able to point out to the arbiter (judge or JP) that the controller has also run afoul of the rules, it's determined a draw and we are all sent home with a clean start.

To admit we broke a rule, and accept punishment, without checking to see if the other side followed the rules; seems a little lazy.

I am too often a little lazy.

Andre Hedrick

WHOOT Beat LIDAR today in the 928 + V1 !!!!

No lights to target and a german front plate reflecting down allowed me to hammer the brakes and he could not get a lock until 3-4 seconds passed!

Ron_H

I know this is a bit boring, but for all who wish to see where the rules are made and how to express satisfaction / dissatisfaction with those proposed changes to the rules:

http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi...ction=retrieve

This is the summary of proposed changes to the MUTCD in the Federal Register and offers the opportunity for comments in YOUR government jounal.

Now don't all line up at once and clog the web with your comments. I barely made it one third of the way through the list, but it is later at night. Maybe more tomorrow. If you really want to know something scary, be advised that some of the proposed changes to the MUTCD will weaken the requirement for engineering studies to be performed when setting speed limits on many of the nation's roadways. That means in plain language that arbitrary setting of limits will increase and it will no longer be against the law.

This change is NOT LAW yet. We all have telephones, and email and federal representatives and voices. If just a few of us made our indignation known to those representatives, the revenooers would run away and hide and stop this madness. Just a thought. (don't mind me. I often have wild ideas about changing the way things are run. Always have, and have scars to prove it.)

Ron_H

Just Google "The Montana Study", or do a rennlist search under my name and read my post including all of that study. Then research the safety record of the speed limitless autobahns in Germany, where according to our friend Nicole, if you pass on the right you lose your license on the spot and your car is towed, and if you block the left lane some goons come and beat the **** out of you. (well, OK, not totally true about the last part. You just get cited.) Our speed limit freeways are NO SAFER. Check it out.

Ron_H

I promised Steve an answer and I want to answer because his point was stated well and seems valid.

I have been accused (in a friendly way)by someone on this board of being a Libertarian, but I am certainly not an anarchist. If someone is threatening other drivers and their safety, I support removing them. I would be the first to pull the trigger. The question is how to define the terms "threatening" and "safety" and "aggressive driver" properly and accurately. Having experienced Italian drivers, I would say there is considerable disagreement in the world about the definition of those terms. But sometimes I would feel more comfortable with Italian drivers than American because of our over-regulated system. Relying on regulations and conformance to them to insure safety is absurd in my opinion, but you knew that. As proof of this, I offer two examples: 1) watch a video of unsigalized intersections in urban areas in other countries, where drivers have to rely on their senses and judgement to survive the intersection; it is a beautifil sight. Everyone gets through and no one guides them or holds their hands. Adult animals alert, functioning and cooperating as they should. 2) left lane hogs at or below the speed limit on our freeways thinking they are safe and not creating a hazard presumably because they are at the limit and "within the law". Nothing could be farther from the truth. They are a devastatingly threatening hazard. They clog traffic. They are not paying attention to their immediate surroundings. Ad nauseum. They are a nuisance and pervasive and unable to adapt to or react to a fart from a fly. Another one are the truckers in California who are prohibited from traveling any faster than 55 mph on any road despite the allowance for autos or others to travel at 65 or 70. They are acting according to a highly regulated system and creating accidents and deaths at a rate that could be reduced by allowing them to at least move according to conditions. This is particularly aggravated by a situation such as a two lane freeway where autos come upon them at 5 or 10 mph faster and suddenly change lanes.

The other concern I have with reliance on regulations to insure our safety has to do with prohibiting certain behaviour altogether, or demanding regulations that seek to insure zero defects. An example of such thinking is not only the absurd maximum speed limits, but can also be illustrated by the idiocy displayed by the following example from an NRA bulletin recently:
This week's Outrage comes from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which filed a friend of the court brief in the District of Columbia v. Heller case in support of keeping Washington, D.C.'s draconian gun ban on the books. According to a recent ADL release (http://www.adl.org/PresRele/SupremeCourt_33/5207_33.htm), "The League urged the Court to ensure that states retain the ability to keep guns out of the hands of 'violent bigots.'"

This group is asking for a ban on all guns as a means of assuring an occasional madman will not have access to guns. ABSURD. If someone wants a gun, he/she can get one in a few minutes illegally. I can buy a gun in Oakland, CA within fifteen minutes on the street. Don't ask me how I know this. If someone wants to drive in a manner that is threatening to other drivers or pedestrians or at a rate that is dangerously unsuited to conditions or in a reckless manner, he / she will do it despite all the regulations in the world. A criminal doesn't care about "laws". Banning this behaviour will not stop it if someone is determined to engage in it. Prohibition benefits the prohibitors. It keeps them in business. And when they realize it is good for their business, they begin banning what is commonplace and expected and penalizing people for it. The poor sheeple that "obey" the prohibitions and assume they are thus safe because they are complying, never develop a way to deal with anything more stressful than frustration at being prevented from dealing with life. They become automatons and mindless jellyfish unable to function in any other role than that of a robot. And they get in our freaking way.

I don't run red lights intentionally. I abhor those that do. I want to ram something up their...........well, I don't like them. I have almost been killed by such drivers. But relying on signals and rules and the threat of punishment will not insure my safety, nor will it stop those who don't observe the rules from threatening my safety ot that of others. In fact, I maintain that the opposite is true. For those who remember Pogo, he was right when he said that we have met the enemy and he is us. We rely on law and rules and conformance to arbitrarily set standards of performance levels and then atrophy to those lowest standards and expect others to do so also. We become angered and jealous if someone seems able to exceed them and want to stomp him out.

Now Steve's point however, contrary to and offsetting what I've said, is that he has a reasonable expectation to anticipate rational behaviour from other drivers on the road. He is correct. And we have given discretion to police officers to define that standard of rationality. We have also given that same or greater power to define it to trusted public employees such as traffic engineers. The problem is that some of those persons abuse such powers, just as they always have throughout history and some are not capable of defining objectively and unemoyionally how to comb their hair. At that point I become concerned and say we have the right to intervene as citizens. We make the laws and we can influence them. And we should be monitoring their effectiveness. When they are not being implenented in a rational and scientifically sound or legal manner, we should step in and demand accountability. And some woud urge civil disobedience of such laws and regulations as a means of instituting change in the face of an unresponsive government. That is a cherished tradition since the American Revolution. Presently, the manner in which the speed laws are being used against us is unjustified and dangerous and the real and constant threat to our safety might just be the authority we have granted to overzealous adminsitrators of those laws which are unfounded in reason. Therefore, the expectation Steve is due is not being realized by the current regulatory system. This assertion may be proven factually every day in this country as the regulations and regulators are being used against us. There are better systems out there. Hypocritically parroting "officially" condoned attitudes and philosophical beliefs in the presence of authority or unfamiliar peers, while stomping on the loud pedal the moment Mr. Smokey Bear is out of sight, will not bring us those better systems anytime soon.

Please pardon my verbosity. To more succintly answer Steve's question, I say unmanned aircraft and traffic cameras as well as better trained police officers and even judges are certainly of use in removing dangerous drivers. They all tried to remove the town drunk that almost killed me once and failed. She was cited several times and released to destroy more people's lives. Then there was the Superior Court judge who, in a drunken stupor, totalled my new 911 at an intersection. Who was going to remove him? Zero defects is unreasonable. All the regulations in the world couldn't prevent either of these rogues from trying to kill me. Pay attention to what is happening around you, regardless of the law. Smokey is having lunch and can't be everywhere. That is just life.