hosed by the CT pigs
03-15-2006, 03:24 PM
#41
Way Fast Whitey
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Age: 47
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The sheep reference reffers to not having an independent mind. People whom are referred to as sheep tend to do as there told without asking why.
As for the situation above. I do think you are correct in saying he should take responsibility for his actions. Whenever I get a ticket I remind myself of all the times I diserved a ticket and didn't get one.
The bigger complaint I think us habitual speeders have is the drive for revenue backing ticket writing as opposed to safety concerns.
As for the situation above. I do think you are correct in saying he should take responsibility for his actions. Whenever I get a ticket I remind myself of all the times I diserved a ticket and didn't get one.
The bigger complaint I think us habitual speeders have is the drive for revenue backing ticket writing as opposed to safety concerns.
03-15-2006, 04:42 PM
#42
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Longwood, Fl
Age: 62
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bigger complaint I think us habitual speeders have is the drive for revenue backing ticket writing as opposed to safety concerns.
03-15-2006, 04:44 PM
#43
05WDP Midlife crisis
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: CT
Posts: 653
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah! so now we get down to the real issue. An admitted habitual speeder. Why not have Texas reduce it's taxes for all the people on the backs of law breakers? Makes sense to me.
I thought the sheep reference was a Brokeback Texas thing. " I can't quit ewe!"
Sorry couldn't help myself.
I thought the sheep reference was a Brokeback Texas thing. " I can't quit ewe!"
Sorry couldn't help myself.
03-15-2006, 09:23 PM
#44
AcurAdmirer
Originally Posted by shockwave
Well, yes and no. If the speed limit posted is reasonable, and he was just screwing around, then he should expect exactly what he got. That being said, there are many valid arguments against the way speed limits are set and/or enforced in this country. Disagreement with the status quo is not automatically "whining". I could just as easily write off any of your complaints about his messages as whining.
Connecticut in particular is notorious not only for rigid enforcement of speed limits, but for setting them inappropriatly low. Connecticut was one of the last states to raise speed limits after the 55 MPH federal law was lifted, even though there were many areas that could clearly support higher speeds. Take this 45 MPH zone. I lived most of my life in Connecticut, and probably have driven about 60K miles on rte 84 alone. There is no spot on 84 where a 45 MPH speed limit is appropriate, unless the construction zone in question had dropped traffic flow down to a single lane. The surest way to judge what an appropriate speed is for a given section of road is to see what the bulk of drivers are travelling at. Most people are not out there recklessly screaming down the road. They are trying to get somewhere quickly and safely. As a group, they do a very good job of selecting an appropriate speed. If there were still multiple lanes of traffic open through this construction zone, I would be willing to bet that very few people were actually travelling at the posted limit.
45 MPH is generally an appropriate speed limit for a two lane rural route that might have some moderatly short radius curves, along with side streets and some residential driveways. It is not an appropriate speed on a limited access, divided highway with banked curves, unless there is a *serious* flow restriction.
What motivates a state to set unreasonably low speed limits? I can't say for sure, but here are some probable guesses:
1) Legal liability. The state is responsible for maintaining the roads in adequate contdition for their intended traffic. Setting the limit low reduces their exposure on this front.
2) Cash generation. Every government denies they enforce speeding for this reason, but there is clearly an apparant conflict of interest here when they line their coffers by finding you guilty of speeding. The ethical thing for the state to do, would be to donate all of the proceeds from speeding tickets to a worthy cause like the American Cancer Society. Doing this would completely remove any conflict of interest, and we would soon see how truely concerned they were about enforcing speed limits for our safety. Instead of this, we see them raising fines. We also see estimates of future proceeds from traffic fines being included into budgetary forecasts. Hmmm.
3) Insurance fees. Connecticut is the insurance capital of the nation. More tickets mean higher insurance rates. Who knows how powerful the insurance lobby is within Connecticut, or even other states?
4) Most insidiously, setting speed limits artificialy low allows police to neatly sidestep our constitutionally granted right against illegal search and seizure. When 99% of the vehicles on the road are "speeding", the cops can pull over anyone they like without any other form of "just cause".
In any event, I'm suspicious enough to not be convinced that our various state bureacracies are setting and enforcing speed limits solely out of concern for our safety.
Just my
Connecticut in particular is notorious not only for rigid enforcement of speed limits, but for setting them inappropriatly low. Connecticut was one of the last states to raise speed limits after the 55 MPH federal law was lifted, even though there were many areas that could clearly support higher speeds. Take this 45 MPH zone. I lived most of my life in Connecticut, and probably have driven about 60K miles on rte 84 alone. There is no spot on 84 where a 45 MPH speed limit is appropriate, unless the construction zone in question had dropped traffic flow down to a single lane. The surest way to judge what an appropriate speed is for a given section of road is to see what the bulk of drivers are travelling at. Most people are not out there recklessly screaming down the road. They are trying to get somewhere quickly and safely. As a group, they do a very good job of selecting an appropriate speed. If there were still multiple lanes of traffic open through this construction zone, I would be willing to bet that very few people were actually travelling at the posted limit.
45 MPH is generally an appropriate speed limit for a two lane rural route that might have some moderatly short radius curves, along with side streets and some residential driveways. It is not an appropriate speed on a limited access, divided highway with banked curves, unless there is a *serious* flow restriction.
What motivates a state to set unreasonably low speed limits? I can't say for sure, but here are some probable guesses:
1) Legal liability. The state is responsible for maintaining the roads in adequate contdition for their intended traffic. Setting the limit low reduces their exposure on this front.
2) Cash generation. Every government denies they enforce speeding for this reason, but there is clearly an apparant conflict of interest here when they line their coffers by finding you guilty of speeding. The ethical thing for the state to do, would be to donate all of the proceeds from speeding tickets to a worthy cause like the American Cancer Society. Doing this would completely remove any conflict of interest, and we would soon see how truely concerned they were about enforcing speed limits for our safety. Instead of this, we see them raising fines. We also see estimates of future proceeds from traffic fines being included into budgetary forecasts. Hmmm.
3) Insurance fees. Connecticut is the insurance capital of the nation. More tickets mean higher insurance rates. Who knows how powerful the insurance lobby is within Connecticut, or even other states?
4) Most insidiously, setting speed limits artificialy low allows police to neatly sidestep our constitutionally granted right against illegal search and seizure. When 99% of the vehicles on the road are "speeding", the cops can pull over anyone they like without any other form of "just cause".
In any event, I'm suspicious enough to not be convinced that our various state bureacracies are setting and enforcing speed limits solely out of concern for our safety.
Just my
Just found this thread, and I have to say this is the most lucid, thoughful - and accurate - post in here.
Okay, all you "Drive 55 and stay alive" types just move on, 'cause you ain't gonna like my post, either. The plain truth is that our speed limits are dinosaurs from the 1950's and completely ignore the advancements in automobile safety technolgy and roadway improvement. To put it simply, traffic fines are BIG BUSINESS, and they bring in billions of dollars annually across the U.S.
Do they save lives? Depends on whose statistics you care to believe, but many researchers think they make little difference in the big picture. And as stated above, traffic flow - kinda like water - seeks its own level, as the vast majority of people tend to settle in to a speed where they feel comfortable and in control of their vehicles. NOT some wild, out-of-control speed where they are right on the edge of losing it. Look at any big-city freeway at peak periods and you'll see the vast majority of traffic going well over the posted limit ... and only a tiny percentage are ever involved in a serious accident.
Did you know that there is actually a federal law that requires states and municipalities to increase speed limits to the level that 85% of the traffic flow travels? It's called the 85th Percentile Rule. Did you also know that very few states and municipalities are obeying this law? Hell, they're making too much money at the artificially low limits currently in force!
Now, I'm not saying the original poster is 100% right for speeding in this case, but to say that "Speeding is wrong" is just ... well, wrong. There is nothing sacred about speed limits. They aren't mentioned in the Bible. And the fact you can find identical roads with identical conditions posted at way different speed limts, even in the same state, is proof there is no science to speed limits. So I say it isn't "wrong" to speed if the limit is too low ... it's just illegal. And there's a difference.
Last but least, speed does not kill. If it did, there would be no living jet pilots or bullet train passengers or race car drivers. It's reckless and irresponsible driving that kills. If I were President, the first thing I'd do is raise ALL speed limits by Presidential Order to facilitate the flow of our growing traffic load. If we don't do that before too long, we're going to grind to a halt in hopeless gridlock.
[/rant]
03-15-2006, 10:01 PM
#45
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Longwood, Fl
Age: 62
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What your failing to understand, is, you will NEVER get pulled over for driving with the flow of traffic. It makes no difference if it is moving at 35 or 95. Raising the speed limits will just make the oil companies even richer and kill more people. Between those dumbass kids with fast cars and no experience and the old people driving the speed limit or less in the fast lane, rasing the limits only makes them more dangerous. How fast do you have to go?????Traffic in the fast lane of most freeways runs at least 80. As I stated before, if you need to drive faster go to a racetrack.
03-15-2006, 10:45 PM
#46
'06 750Li Sapphire/Creme
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC
Age: 61
Posts: 2,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So your saying that your a crook?
Originally Posted by TL Boris
Got a speeding ticket for 73 in a 45mph in I-84 up near New Britain, CT. They set up fake constructions zones to snag you in 65mpg speed zones by reflaggin them at 45mph (which is illegal but.... who is going to fight that one). Sure, you can go 45, but you'll get rear-ended probably. Radar went off (gotta get a better one) and with 3 cars abreast he clipped me.
NOW GET THIS
The tickets is $373. I plead not guilty and go to court. I offer to pay the fine if it's a charitable donation / ticket tossed (which I'd done once in a different court) - this is to save me from the insurance going up (which will cost more than $373 over the life of the ticket). He refuses but offers to lower the charge - I say I can give you the full fee if you toss the ticket - he says no, the ticket stands, but I'll let you pay $100 instead - I try one more time and offer the pay the full fee if he can eliminate the ticket - but no go, so I pay the $100 since I don't want to go waste another day on this.
Now - who can explain to me WHY they don't ultimately just want the money - what's in it for them to take LESS money but have the ticket stand?! The only winner in that case are..... the insurance companies.
NOW GET THIS
The tickets is $373. I plead not guilty and go to court. I offer to pay the fine if it's a charitable donation / ticket tossed (which I'd done once in a different court) - this is to save me from the insurance going up (which will cost more than $373 over the life of the ticket). He refuses but offers to lower the charge - I say I can give you the full fee if you toss the ticket - he says no, the ticket stands, but I'll let you pay $100 instead - I try one more time and offer the pay the full fee if he can eliminate the ticket - but no go, so I pay the $100 since I don't want to go waste another day on this.
Now - who can explain to me WHY they don't ultimately just want the money - what's in it for them to take LESS money but have the ticket stand?! The only winner in that case are..... the insurance companies.
03-16-2006, 06:12 AM
#47
05WDP Midlife crisis
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: CT
Posts: 653
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No not a bribe.
What sometimes happens is the court officer will say, instead of clogging up the courts with minor infractions, you will be allowed to contribute to an agreed upon amount of money to a charity, usually the United Way, and then your case is settled.
The charity is physically in the same building.
You make your agreed upon donation, that same moment, bring the receipt back to the court officer, usually a prosecutor, and they deal with the infraction right then and there. Usually a good and fair system that will usually work in your your way. Just don't expect that to happen every time. It's not the rule, it's a judgment call. If your speeding through a construction site, risking other state employees health, that prosecutor will obviously frown upon it.
What sometimes happens is the court officer will say, instead of clogging up the courts with minor infractions, you will be allowed to contribute to an agreed upon amount of money to a charity, usually the United Way, and then your case is settled.
The charity is physically in the same building.
You make your agreed upon donation, that same moment, bring the receipt back to the court officer, usually a prosecutor, and they deal with the infraction right then and there. Usually a good and fair system that will usually work in your your way. Just don't expect that to happen every time. It's not the rule, it's a judgment call. If your speeding through a construction site, risking other state employees health, that prosecutor will obviously frown upon it.
03-16-2006, 07:38 AM
#48
Way Fast Whitey
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Age: 47
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mike_TX
Just found this thread, and I have to say this is the most lucid, thoughful - and accurate - post in here.
Okay, all you "Drive 55 and stay alive" types just move on, 'cause you ain't gonna like my post, either. The plain truth is that our speed limits are dinosaurs from the 1950's and completely ignore the advancements in automobile safety technolgy and roadway improvement. To put it simply, traffic fines are BIG BUSINESS, and they bring in billions of dollars annually across the U.S.
Do they save lives? Depends on whose statistics you care to believe, but many researchers think they make little difference in the big picture. And as stated above, traffic flow - kinda like water - seeks its own level, as the vast majority of people tend to settle in to a speed where they feel comfortable and in control of their vehicles. NOT some wild, out-of-control speed where they are right on the edge of losing it. Look at any big-city freeway at peak periods and you'll see the vast majority of traffic going well over the posted limit ... and only a tiny percentage are ever involved in a serious accident.
Did you know that there is actually a federal law that requires states and municipalities to increase speed limits to the level that 85% of the traffic flow travels? It's called the 85th Percentile Rule. Did you also know that very few states and municipalities are obeying this law? Hell, they're making too much money at the artificially low limits currently in force!
Now, I'm not saying the original poster is 100% right for speeding in this case, but to say that "Speeding is wrong" is just ... well, wrong. There is nothing sacred about speed limits. They aren't mentioned in the Bible. And the fact you can find identical roads with identical conditions posted at way different speed limts, even in the same state, is proof there is no science to speed limits. So I say it isn't "wrong" to speed if the limit is too low ... it's just illegal. And there's a difference.
Last but least, speed does not kill. If it did, there would be no living jet pilots or bullet train passengers or race car drivers. It's reckless and irresponsible driving that kills. If I were President, the first thing I'd do is raise ALL speed limits by Presidential Order to facilitate the flow of our growing traffic load. If we don't do that before too long, we're going to grind to a halt in hopeless gridlock.
[/rant]
Okay, all you "Drive 55 and stay alive" types just move on, 'cause you ain't gonna like my post, either. The plain truth is that our speed limits are dinosaurs from the 1950's and completely ignore the advancements in automobile safety technolgy and roadway improvement. To put it simply, traffic fines are BIG BUSINESS, and they bring in billions of dollars annually across the U.S.
Do they save lives? Depends on whose statistics you care to believe, but many researchers think they make little difference in the big picture. And as stated above, traffic flow - kinda like water - seeks its own level, as the vast majority of people tend to settle in to a speed where they feel comfortable and in control of their vehicles. NOT some wild, out-of-control speed where they are right on the edge of losing it. Look at any big-city freeway at peak periods and you'll see the vast majority of traffic going well over the posted limit ... and only a tiny percentage are ever involved in a serious accident.
Did you know that there is actually a federal law that requires states and municipalities to increase speed limits to the level that 85% of the traffic flow travels? It's called the 85th Percentile Rule. Did you also know that very few states and municipalities are obeying this law? Hell, they're making too much money at the artificially low limits currently in force!
Now, I'm not saying the original poster is 100% right for speeding in this case, but to say that "Speeding is wrong" is just ... well, wrong. There is nothing sacred about speed limits. They aren't mentioned in the Bible. And the fact you can find identical roads with identical conditions posted at way different speed limts, even in the same state, is proof there is no science to speed limits. So I say it isn't "wrong" to speed if the limit is too low ... it's just illegal. And there's a difference.
Last but least, speed does not kill. If it did, there would be no living jet pilots or bullet train passengers or race car drivers. It's reckless and irresponsible driving that kills. If I were President, the first thing I'd do is raise ALL speed limits by Presidential Order to facilitate the flow of our growing traffic load. If we don't do that before too long, we're going to grind to a halt in hopeless gridlock.
[/rant]
When our current Mayor of Houston took office the budget was in trouble, however crime was on the decline. I bet you can guess what he did next. He increased the number of traffic cops in our city. Before you could get pulled over and there was about a 50% chance you would get a warning. Now if you get pulled over you will be getting the ticket. Again, there may be places where lifes are being considering, but it is not in TX or LA. Down here it is all about the money.
03-16-2006, 07:41 AM
#49
Way Fast Whitey
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Age: 47
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chfields
This has to be the dumbest statement in history. Because, if they were more interested in revenue than safety, the prices for speeding would be in the thousands, not hundreds. I bet you would slow down if you knew that ticket would cost you $1000. If you are going to be a habitual speeder, you have to be willing to pay the price, whether it be money or an accident or whatever. There is a big difference when a person has been driving for 25-30 years or more is speeding and when some kid who has been driving for 1-3 years is speeding. The latter doesn't have the benefit of the experience that comes from many years of driving. They are the ones who are the most dangerous and encouraging them here is plain stupid! Speeding is wrong regardless of age or experience, if you can't pay, you shouldn't play.
03-16-2006, 08:30 AM
#50
Instructor
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Houston TX
Age: 63
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mike_TX
Just found this thread, and I have to say this is the most lucid, thoughful - and accurate - post in here.
Okay, all you "Drive 55 and stay alive" types just move on, 'cause you ain't gonna like my post, either. The plain truth is that our speed limits are dinosaurs from the 1950's and completely ignore the advancements in automobile safety technolgy and roadway improvement. To put it simply, traffic fines are BIG BUSINESS, and they bring in billions of dollars annually across the U.S.
Do they save lives? Depends on whose statistics you care to believe, but many researchers think they make little difference in the big picture. And as stated above, traffic flow - kinda like water - seeks its own level, as the vast majority of people tend to settle in to a speed where they feel comfortable and in control of their vehicles. NOT some wild, out-of-control speed where they are right on the edge of losing it. Look at any big-city freeway at peak periods and you'll see the vast majority of traffic going well over the posted limit ... and only a tiny percentage are ever involved in a serious accident.
Did you know that there is actually a federal law that requires states and municipalities to increase speed limits to the level that 85% of the traffic flow travels? It's called the 85th Percentile Rule. Did you also know that very few states and municipalities are obeying this law? Hell, they're making too much money at the artificially low limits currently in force!
Now, I'm not saying the original poster is 100% right for speeding in this case, but to say that "Speeding is wrong" is just ... well, wrong. There is nothing sacred about speed limits. They aren't mentioned in the Bible. And the fact you can find identical roads with identical conditions posted at way different speed limts, even in the same state, is proof there is no science to speed limits. So I say it isn't "wrong" to speed if the limit is too low ... it's just illegal. And there's a difference.
Last but least, speed does not kill. If it did, there would be no living jet pilots or bullet train passengers or race car drivers. It's reckless and irresponsible driving that kills. If I were President, the first thing I'd do is raise ALL speed limits by Presidential Order to facilitate the flow of our growing traffic load. If we don't do that before too long, we're going to grind to a halt in hopeless gridlock.
[/rant]
Okay, all you "Drive 55 and stay alive" types just move on, 'cause you ain't gonna like my post, either. The plain truth is that our speed limits are dinosaurs from the 1950's and completely ignore the advancements in automobile safety technolgy and roadway improvement. To put it simply, traffic fines are BIG BUSINESS, and they bring in billions of dollars annually across the U.S.
Do they save lives? Depends on whose statistics you care to believe, but many researchers think they make little difference in the big picture. And as stated above, traffic flow - kinda like water - seeks its own level, as the vast majority of people tend to settle in to a speed where they feel comfortable and in control of their vehicles. NOT some wild, out-of-control speed where they are right on the edge of losing it. Look at any big-city freeway at peak periods and you'll see the vast majority of traffic going well over the posted limit ... and only a tiny percentage are ever involved in a serious accident.
Did you know that there is actually a federal law that requires states and municipalities to increase speed limits to the level that 85% of the traffic flow travels? It's called the 85th Percentile Rule. Did you also know that very few states and municipalities are obeying this law? Hell, they're making too much money at the artificially low limits currently in force!
Now, I'm not saying the original poster is 100% right for speeding in this case, but to say that "Speeding is wrong" is just ... well, wrong. There is nothing sacred about speed limits. They aren't mentioned in the Bible. And the fact you can find identical roads with identical conditions posted at way different speed limts, even in the same state, is proof there is no science to speed limits. So I say it isn't "wrong" to speed if the limit is too low ... it's just illegal. And there's a difference.
Last but least, speed does not kill. If it did, there would be no living jet pilots or bullet train passengers or race car drivers. It's reckless and irresponsible driving that kills. If I were President, the first thing I'd do is raise ALL speed limits by Presidential Order to facilitate the flow of our growing traffic load. If we don't do that before too long, we're going to grind to a halt in hopeless gridlock.
[/rant]
I agree with the "laws for the sake of laws" being wrong. But... Accidents happen because people are imperfect in church of newtonian physics.
We try to make driving safer by applying multple safety elements. Example : ABS brakes, airbags, seat belts, better designed roads... and speed limits. Physics is your enemy here, not politicians... well not all the time. The drivers' reaction times are hideously slow in comparison to the distance travelled at 80, 90 100 mph. When was the last time that people kept the proper seperation between vehicles on 84 or for that matter on Beltway 8 here in Houston? 2 3 car lengths just doesn't cut it with a reaction time of 1/2 sec+/-. Now just for fun lets throw in a temporary work zone created for cleaning or patching the roads, and add to that cell phones, makeup and some idiot eating a big mac. Can you miss the ass end of that car lifting on you in an emergency stop in front of you while doing 80? I don't care if you have the reaction time of 18 year old or that of someone 60+... you're screwed , give mister airbag a kiss.
And one last thing I remember from 10 yrs of commuting in CT, go with the flow, trying to go faster means that I will be 30 seconds behind you after a 30 mi. commute. Is it worth it?
03-16-2006, 08:56 AM
#51
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: MD
Age: 46
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is that here in America you can start driving at 16 and its a given. It costs about $20-$30 for a card with a picture on it. Take some easy tests and y our done. In Europe there is an autobahn where some sections you are able to drive without limits some with limits. They have an autobahn becasue you have to take a long series of classroom and on-road driving instruction, and pay about
$3000-4000 in class and license fees. The final tests include driving in clear and rainy weather in city and freeway traffic. Too bad the US doesn't place such emphasis on driving skill, it would help clear the road of the idiots. There it is a privledge to drive and people respect it becasue of the time and money they put into it. Your also not allowed to eat or drink while driving over there. When you speed your paying attention to the road.
You need to get the people who pick up there phone while driving and immediatly slow down by 20mph and not paying attention to the road or the people eating lunch while driving.
$3000-4000 in class and license fees. The final tests include driving in clear and rainy weather in city and freeway traffic. Too bad the US doesn't place such emphasis on driving skill, it would help clear the road of the idiots. There it is a privledge to drive and people respect it becasue of the time and money they put into it. Your also not allowed to eat or drink while driving over there. When you speed your paying attention to the road.
You need to get the people who pick up there phone while driving and immediatly slow down by 20mph and not paying attention to the road or the people eating lunch while driving.
03-16-2006, 03:54 PM
#52
Doctor Sarcasm
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Central Florida
Age: 44
Posts: 1,107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tfe691
The problem is that here in America you can start driving at 16 and its a given. It costs about $20-$30 for a card with a picture on it. Take some easy tests and y our done. In Europe there is an autobahn where some sections you are able to drive without limits some with limits. They have an autobahn becasue you have to take a long series of classroom and on-road driving instruction, and pay about
$3000-4000 in class and license fees. The final tests include driving in clear and rainy weather in city and freeway traffic. Too bad the US doesn't place such emphasis on driving skill, it would help clear the road of the idiots. There it is a privledge to drive and people respect it becasue of the time and money they put into it. Your also not allowed to eat or drink while driving over there. When you speed your paying attention to the road.
You need to get the people who pick up there phone while driving and immediatly slow down by 20mph and not paying attention to the road or the people eating lunch while driving.
$3000-4000 in class and license fees. The final tests include driving in clear and rainy weather in city and freeway traffic. Too bad the US doesn't place such emphasis on driving skill, it would help clear the road of the idiots. There it is a privledge to drive and people respect it becasue of the time and money they put into it. Your also not allowed to eat or drink while driving over there. When you speed your paying attention to the road.
You need to get the people who pick up there phone while driving and immediatly slow down by 20mph and not paying attention to the road or the people eating lunch while driving.
03-16-2006, 04:38 PM
#53
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Longwood, Fl
Age: 62
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CBR1100XX
Maybe you should have bought a TSX since you have all that unused HP.
03-16-2006, 05:25 PM
#54
AcurAdmirer
Originally Posted by NoRespect
I agree with the "laws for the sake of laws" being wrong. But... Accidents happen because people are imperfect in church of newtonian physics.
We try to make driving safer by applying multple safety elements. Example : ABS brakes, airbags, seat belts, better designed roads... and speed limits. Physics is your enemy here, not politicians... well not all the time. The drivers' reaction times are hideously slow in comparison to the distance travelled at 80, 90 100 mph. When was the last time that people kept the proper seperation between vehicles on 84 or for that matter on Beltway 8 here in Houston? 2 3 car lengths just doesn't cut it with a reaction time of 1/2 sec+/-. Now just for fun lets throw in a temporary work zone created for cleaning or patching the roads, and add to that cell phones, makeup and some idiot eating a big mac. Can you miss the ass end of that car lifting on you in an emergency stop in front of you while doing 80? I don't care if you have the reaction time of 18 year old or that of someone 60+... you're screwed , give mister airbag a kiss.
And one last thing I remember from 10 yrs of commuting in CT, go with the flow, trying to go faster means that I will be 30 seconds behind you after a 30 mi. commute. Is it worth it?
We try to make driving safer by applying multple safety elements. Example : ABS brakes, airbags, seat belts, better designed roads... and speed limits. Physics is your enemy here, not politicians... well not all the time. The drivers' reaction times are hideously slow in comparison to the distance travelled at 80, 90 100 mph. When was the last time that people kept the proper seperation between vehicles on 84 or for that matter on Beltway 8 here in Houston? 2 3 car lengths just doesn't cut it with a reaction time of 1/2 sec+/-. Now just for fun lets throw in a temporary work zone created for cleaning or patching the roads, and add to that cell phones, makeup and some idiot eating a big mac. Can you miss the ass end of that car lifting on you in an emergency stop in front of you while doing 80? I don't care if you have the reaction time of 18 year old or that of someone 60+... you're screwed , give mister airbag a kiss.
And one last thing I remember from 10 yrs of commuting in CT, go with the flow, trying to go faster means that I will be 30 seconds behind you after a 30 mi. commute. Is it worth it?
We will NEVER, ever be able to take the risk out of driving, and no one is suggesting we can. Nor am I disputing Mr. Newton and his Laws of Physics.
But let's face it - the posted speed limits on our freeways and highways are absolutely, positively asinine. When the traffic flow on a major freeway or highway moves at 80mph, and does so safely and consistently for hour after hour each day, where is the logic in sticking up signs that say "60 MPH", and picking off a few drivers each day to fill the city's or state's coffers?
There is no evidence that actually holding that traffic flow to 60 (if you somehow could) would result in fewer traffic accidents. After all, there are more accidents per car-hour on "surface streets" with speed limts in the 30-45mph range than there are on high-speed thoroughfares. So speed isn't the issue.
The fact is that we could easily increase speed limits by up to 20mph (to the speeds people are actually travelling day in and day out), without changing anything else ... but then the states and municipalities wouldn't have that cash cow of speeding fines. Of course, they also wouldn't need those extra officers, and police cars, and radar guns, and ticket clerks, would they? That means they wouldn't need the money the fines generate, either. Everyone wins.
As for your last statement - your figures are off a bit. If I spend an average of 2 hours a day behind the wheel (which I do), and I can average even 10mph faster speed, I've travelled 20 miles farther that day in the same amount of time. So if I average 45mph during that 2 hours behind the wheel (or 90 miles), I could reduce my travel time by 22%, or cut my travel time by over 20 minutes.
Take that 20 minutes times 365 days a year, and I've just recovered over 121 hours (or 5+ days) of my life that I'd otherwise spend in traffic. I'd say that's worth it ... wouldn't you?
03-16-2006, 07:54 PM
#55
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: MD
Age: 46
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by xtin
I think more people die on the Autobahn than any other road in Europe......
03-16-2006, 08:19 PM
#56
Instructor
Join Date: May 2005
Location: nyc
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ticket
[ (if they or the cops were concerned about safety on the roads they'd have a clear #1 place to start: DRIVER EDUCATION).[/QUOTE]
Police officers(and not pigs as you refer to us by at start of your statement) enforce the laws, and not make them up.
The law states that you are to obey all posted limits and directions, unless directly, directed by an officer to do different.
Nontheless, you were speeding and seem like a menace to society by your attitude, if for nothing else. You were speeding even if there was no construction reduced speeds posted, and I can count on you getting a lot more tickets in your life, till you either lose your license, or cannot afford the insurance.
You talk about driver education. Its you who need an education.Thats what the ticket is for. I have seen too many honest working men, hit by guys like your speeding by, while they are working. I wish you could have seen some like I have, and deliver their last dying wishes to their wifes and mothers as I have. You might think different. All you see is your petty side. If you dont like the laws, vote and change them. I bet you never even vote.
Stay safe, flatfoot
Police officers(and not pigs as you refer to us by at start of your statement) enforce the laws, and not make them up.
The law states that you are to obey all posted limits and directions, unless directly, directed by an officer to do different.
Nontheless, you were speeding and seem like a menace to society by your attitude, if for nothing else. You were speeding even if there was no construction reduced speeds posted, and I can count on you getting a lot more tickets in your life, till you either lose your license, or cannot afford the insurance.
You talk about driver education. Its you who need an education.Thats what the ticket is for. I have seen too many honest working men, hit by guys like your speeding by, while they are working. I wish you could have seen some like I have, and deliver their last dying wishes to their wifes and mothers as I have. You might think different. All you see is your petty side. If you dont like the laws, vote and change them. I bet you never even vote.
Stay safe, flatfoot
03-16-2006, 08:38 PM
#57
Pro
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: CT
Age: 52
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I drive through that part of I-84 every now and then. Which exit(s) is this fake construction zone near, and in which direction? I'll see if I can put my two cents towards confirming or debunking the "is it a fake construction zone" question.
03-16-2006, 08:40 PM
#58
AcurAdmirer
Here we go again. The pot calling the kettle black.
Mr. flatfoot, you have as bad an attitude as he does, as we've seen before on this forum. I hope if I eve get stopped by a police officer, it's one with his head screwed on straight, since I've seen more than one like you with nothing but bitterness and a superior attitude.
BTW, remember what you just said ... you don't make the laws. And you're also not God.
Mr. flatfoot, you have as bad an attitude as he does, as we've seen before on this forum. I hope if I eve get stopped by a police officer, it's one with his head screwed on straight, since I've seen more than one like you with nothing but bitterness and a superior attitude.
BTW, remember what you just said ... you don't make the laws. And you're also not God.
03-17-2006, 08:18 AM
#59
Instructor
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Houston TX
Age: 63
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mike_TX
As for your last statement - your figures are off a bit. If I spend an average of 2 hours a day behind the wheel (which I do), and I can average even 10mph faster speed, I've travelled 20 miles farther that day in the same amount of time. So if I average 45mph during that 2 hours behind the wheel (or 90 miles), I could reduce my travel time by 22%, or cut my travel time by over 20 minutes.
Take that 20 minutes times 365 days a year, and I've just recovered over 121 hours (or 5+ days) of my life that I'd otherwise spend in traffic. I'd say that's worth it ... wouldn't you?
Increasing the speed limit would not cause everyone to go faster, some would, some would not. Now you have a greater variation in the speeds, even more problems.
We have nice cars with great audio systems... Are we in that much of hurry to get out of them to go to work? I like driving this car and just being in it.
Chill... listen to the tunes, and you'll get there before you know it.
BTW: I got my first ticket in 20 years for 80 in a 60 last year. So I ain't perfect
03-17-2006, 10:01 AM
#60
AcurAdmirer
Originally Posted by NoRespect
Can you average 10mph faster on any highway for 30mi in CT or even Texas during rush hour? To do so would require a s-load of lane changes and unsafe driving practices, even if the people around you would let you. You become the traffic hazard.
Increasing the speed limit would not cause everyone to go faster, some would, some would not. Now you have a greater variation in the speeds, even more problems.
We have nice cars with great audio systems... Are we in that much of hurry to get out of them to go to work?
BTW: I got my first ticket in 20 years for 80 in a 60 last year. So I ain't perfect
03-17-2006, 10:44 AM
#61
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Longwood, Fl
Age: 62
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You missed my point entirely. I'm not suggesting that people drive faster ... just that we make the speed limits realistic, so they reflect actual traffic flow instead of a candy store for traffic cops.
03-17-2006, 11:30 AM
#62
Instructor
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Houston TX
Age: 63
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mike_TX
I see you're in Houston, one of the gridlock capitals of the world. If you come up to Dallas, you'll see that - with the exception of those times when everything really balls up - people routinely drive at 20mph over the speed limit from one side of the county to the other. Try LBJ Fwy (635), or I-35, or even better - I-20 on the south side of Dallas. Or even 360 through Arlington. If you don't go well over the limit, you'll be blown off the road.
My driving skills have probably peaked here in my early 40s I still have good, not great, reaction time, I make decisions quickly and I have experience. I'm not a newbie, I understand my limitations and my car's as well. The point is that you have to make allowances for all types of drivers, and conditions. The speed limit is what it is because of those things.
I really would like to know definitively, not anecdotally what the total revenue is from tickets and what percentage of that goes to the police/hw patrol and general fund. I can't imagine that tickets would account for more than a day or two of sales tax income.
03-17-2006, 01:07 PM
#63
AcurAdmirer
Originally Posted by chfields
As stated before, you will not get pulled over if you are driving with the flow of traffic. You will get pulled over for weaving in and out, riding someone's bumper or going faster than the "flow" of traffic.
What's realistic 40MPH in a residential zone?? 60 on city streets?? 100MPH on the freeway?? Whos idea of realistic? Some 19yo kid? 60yo lady? 30yo man?
The laws are what they are and until changed we have to live with them.
If you choose to break them don't whine that the goverment is just trying to make money or the cops are picking on you, you broke the law, you got caught, now pay the penalty and act like the adult your supposed to be!!
What troubles me more is self-righteous sheep like you who have been brainwashed and have adopted that superior attitude that "if it's the law, it MUST be right". Wake up, fields ... don't confuse laws made by imperfect people with morality and righteousness. This country wasn't founded by people who rolled over and played dead when some authority told them to toe the line.
03-17-2006, 01:49 PM
#64
AcurAdmirer
Originally Posted by NoRespect
The law is there to protect the people who are "getting blown off the road". Is it irritating at times: yup, won't disagree with you.
My driving skills have probably peaked here in my early 40s I still have good, not great, reaction time, I make decisions quickly and I have experience. I'm not a newbie, I understand my limitations and my car's as well. The point is that you have to make allowances for all types of drivers, and conditions. The speed limit is what it is because of those things.
I really would like to know definitively, not anecdotally what the total revenue is from tickets and what percentage of that goes to the police/hw patrol and general fund. I can't imagine that tickets would account for more than a day or two of sales tax income.
My driving skills have probably peaked here in my early 40s I still have good, not great, reaction time, I make decisions quickly and I have experience. I'm not a newbie, I understand my limitations and my car's as well. The point is that you have to make allowances for all types of drivers, and conditions. The speed limit is what it is because of those things.
I really would like to know definitively, not anecdotally what the total revenue is from tickets and what percentage of that goes to the police/hw patrol and general fund. I can't imagine that tickets would account for more than a day or two of sales tax income.
As for the amount of fines paid annually for traffic offenses, good luck trying to find the statistics. They are closely guarded by the states and even public interest organizations and researchers have been unable to obtain them. But you can bet your boots it's more a day or two of sales tax revenues. The increase in fines Gov. Perry is pushing for Texas will generate over a BILLION DOLLARS extra a year ... and that's just the increase in the fines for repeat offenders! If that's a 10% "increase", then fines must account for about $10 billion annually in Texas.
Some researchers estimate that traffic fines nationwide could account for as much as $350 Billion (with a "B") annually. That's more than the gross national product of many entire countries! And if they'd just make speed limts more sensible, some of those billions could go back into the general economy, instead of being used to buy more patrol cars and radar guns ... to write more tickets ...
03-17-2006, 02:35 PM
#66
Advanced
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose, CA
Age: 61
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mike_TX
Yeah, sadly, our traffic laws seem to be written for the lowest common denominator of drivers, penalizing the majority who are skilled enough to do better.
1) It teaches average drivers that speed limits are usually too low, and gets them in the habit of ignoring them. If I knew that the speed limits were set at reasonable values, I would be much more likely to obey them precisely, and to use them as helpful information. Instead, most people now see a sign that says 55 MPH, and think, ok, that means 70 is pretty safe.
2) It encourages idiots to squat in the fast lane because, what the hell, they are travelling at the maximum speed allowed by law, right? Most of the problems with congestion and road rage are probably caused by a lack of lane discipline. If slow traffic kept right, and the left lane was only used for passing or by cars travelling noticeably faster than the average speed, we would not see the bunching that we now see on the highway.
Here's an interesting idea to ponder: A driver travelling 10 MPH below the group average is much more disruptive to traffic than one travelling 10 MPH above. The fast driver will decellerate to match the speed of cars in front of him, and then have to make lane changes to pick his way through the pack. The slower driver makes everyone else behind him decellerate and then perform lane changes to get around him.
What's even worse, is that when traffic density is above a certain threshold, the cars decellerating behind the slow driver will cause a compression wave to start moving backward through traffic. This is how traffic jams get started on the highway.
Of course most of this would be moot if people drove in the appropriate lane for their speed.
03-17-2006, 04:39 PM
#67
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Longwood, Fl
Age: 62
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What troubles me more is self-righteous sheep like you who have been brainwashed and have adopted that superior attitude that "if it's the law, it MUST be right". Wake up, fields ... don't confuse laws made by imperfect people with morality and righteousness. This country wasn't founded by people who rolled over and played dead when some authority told them to toe the line.
03-20-2006, 01:58 PM
#68
Way Fast Whitey
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Age: 47
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chfields
Obviously you haven't been reading my posts as I have already stated that I speed constantly. However, I don't weave in and out of traffic or drive like a maniac, hence I haven't had a ticket in 20+ years. I use the combo of HP and torque to deal with numerous idiots trying to change lanes into me or pulling out in front of me or whatever. Just because you have the HP doesn't mean you need to drive like a maniac. However, that is something you learn as you get older.
BTW CHfields,
I do agree with you on the weeving and radical speeding issues. I very seldom get above 80 on the freeway anymore. Old age is starting to set in I guess. LOL next it will be depends and viagra.
03-20-2006, 04:19 PM
#69
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Longwood, Fl
Age: 62
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CBR1100XX
BTW CHfields,
I do agree with you on the weeving and radical speeding issues. I very seldom get above 80 on the freeway anymore. Old age is starting to set in I guess. LOL next it will be depends and viagra.
I do agree with you on the weeving and radical speeding issues. I very seldom get above 80 on the freeway anymore. Old age is starting to set in I guess. LOL next it will be depends and viagra.
BTW nice bike!!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
detailersdomain
Wash & Wax
3
10-09-2015 10:13 PM