By George on Dec 12, 2007

I’d say fight all speeding tickets. Speeding tickets are all about revenue generation. Logjam the courts.

This article just sickens me.
http://www.southtownstar.com/news/692198,121207355speeders.article
You pay to use the tollway, and then you pay again for violating a ridiculously underposted speedlimit.
55mph on a three lane divided highway, what is that, the 50th percentile?

By James Young on Dec 12, 2007

“Logjam the courts.”

Yes, make the process of obtaining motorists’ cash less rewarding and the “safety” issue will disappear. Remember, the ticket to fight is your first one, not your last. Rent the NMA “Legal Defense Kit,” well worth the pittance that it costs, learn how to fight, spend some time in traffic court well before your “trial” and have your eyes opened. Come on folks, let’s fight this monster.

By Darren on Jan 4, 2008

Since when is speeding a legal right? Personally, I wish there were more cops on the road taking you folks down. Speeding is dangerous. I can’t count the number of times A-holes jump into the right lane (where I always drive because I cruise control at 60) because 70 or 75 is not fast enough. When are these folks going to realize they’re not the only ones on the road and that life is more precious than saving a few minutes (or seconds in even shorter drives)?
Do I have to mention the savings in gas and money by driving a sane speed?
Get over your self-righteousness, folks.

By James Young on Jan 4, 2008

Darren writes:

{Since when is speeding a legal right?}

Wrong question. The question should be: Since when should “speeding” be a crime? Speed limits are not now and never have been part of the universal rule of right of way (URROW) that determines who goes here and when. URROW was a legal solution to an organizational problem but speed limits were not part of that. In fact, speed limits’ original intent was to drive the newly invented horseless carriage out of existence, an obviously failed Luddite approach to new technology. Yet, they carry over into modern law, justified or excused by any number of things, none of which yield any benefit to any motorist.

{Personally, I wish there were more cops on the road taking you folks down. Speeding is dangerous.}

No, it isn’t. “Speeding” is merely exceeding an arbitrary number and bears no correlation to crashes or crash rates. Speeding is merely a vestige of a rule that was obsolete 100 years ago. It survived initially through political inertia and now through the direct intervention of those who benefit from speed limits, either fiscally or politically.

{I can’t count the number of times A-holes jump into the right lane (where I always drive because I cruise control at 60) because 70 or 75 is not fast enough. When are these folks going to realize they’re not the only ones on the road and that life is more precious than saving a few minutes (or seconds in even shorter drives)?}

You conflate speeding with aggressive or even dangerous driving. That’s dishonest. You also ignore *why* those folks are changing lanes, usually because somebody is impeding faster traffic in the left lanes and arrogantly refuses to move over under the excuse that “I’m already driving the limit, why should I move over?” That IS dangerous.

If you stay in the right lane, speeders will not affect you. You will not have to change course or alter your speed to accommodate them. OTOH, those impeders DO affect other traffic.

Finally, do not discount the savings of faster speeds. The NMSL cost this nation about a trillion (yes, with a “T”) dollars in lost productivity during its lifetime.

By ryan on Jan 5, 2008

Don’t be ridiculous James Young.

You are the reason why there are traffic accidents on the freeways all the time. You zip in and out of lanes to get around all the “arrogant” people who are maintaining the legal speed limit and end up losing control of your PT cruiser and making a big-rig jack-knife. I can’t believe that you take yourself seriously when you say that there is no danger to speeding, obviously you haven’t driven a car otherwise you would feel for yourself the great loss of control over your vehicle, and the exponential stopping distance the faster you go. Talk about a conspiracy theorist taking it to the extreme. “THEY want me to stop driving 110 in the slow-lane so they can take my money, rape my wife, and steal my livelihood.” Please.

By James Young on Jan 5, 2008

ryan writes:

“. . .”

Aside from all the silly assertions and unwarranted assumptions. . . lmao

If I’m so wrong, then prove to us that “speeding” is the cause of most or even a significant proportion of crashes. HINT: learn to distinguish between “speeding” and “speed too fast for conditions.”

By Darren on Jan 5, 2008

James asks us to ‘prove to us that “speeding” is the cause of most or even a significant proportion of crashes’, when we all know that there are almost always a number of factors that lead to accidents. James has, in fact, asked for the impossible. James, can you provide evidence that speed is not a factor in most accidents?

High speed increases the likelihood of a fatality occurring. Here are some findings from a study by the National Center for Statistics and Analysis:

Estimated Odds of Driver Fatal Crash by
Key Driver and Crash Characteristics
Factor Odds
Posted speed 40-50 mph/ Less than 40 mph 2.83
Posted 55 mph/ Less than 40 mph 7.17
Posted above 55 mph/ Less than 40 mph 8.91

Source: Compiled by LAD from National Center for
Statistics and Analysis records.

What this says is that when there is an accident on a road with a posted speed limit of 55, the odds of a fatality happening are more than 8 to 1. On roads between 40 and 50, the odds are little less than 3 to 1. Speed kills.

The problem with speeding is that YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY PERSON ON THE ROAD! If the road were yours, James, you can speed all you want. But because there other people on the road, everyone must do the responsible thing and watch their own speed. If you cause an accident (by whatever factor you wish to choose), can you choose that you will be the only one to die?

Stat source:
http://leg.mt.gov/content/audit/download/98l-11.pdf

By James Young on Jan 5, 2008

Ryan wrote: “I can’t believe that you take yourself seriously when you say that there is no danger to speeding. . .” This is fairly typical of the anti-destination cabal, unsupported and unproved allegations that speeding produces more crashes and fatalities. It was the basis of the National Safety Council “Speed Kills!” campaign in the mid-195s.

Darren then writes: “James asks us to ‘prove to us that “speeding” is the cause of most or even a significant proportion of crashes’, when we all know that there are almost always a number of factors that lead to accidents. James has, in fact, asked for the impossible. James, can you provide evidence that speed is not a factor in most accidents?”

Can you prove that you did not kick a dog last night? The burden of proof is always on the asserter not the audience of the assertion. Further, there is a substantive difference between causation and mere association. Of course “speed” is a factor in crashes; the question is does speeding cause crashes or, more fairly, does speed too fast for conditions cause crashes? How much does speed relate to crash incidence or fatality incidence? Other factors in crashes are too numerous to mention but the singular most blamed factor is speed, whether defined as speeding or too fast for conditions. This has certainly been the case with NSC, NHTSA, law enforcement agencies, insurance companies and anybody else with a stake in keeping speed limits low.

“What this says is that when there is an accident on a road with a posted speed limit of 55, the odds of a fatality happening are more than 8 to 1. On roads between 40 and 50, the odds are little less than 3 to 1. Speed kills.”

That’s a pretty big stretch. All that tells you is that higher speed crashes are more dangerous than slower speed crashes. However, that was not the argument asserted by NSC in their “Speed Kills!” campaign or in the latter-day incarnations of that argument. Also, did you note that most fatal crashes do not occur on Interstates, the fastest highways and the ones carrying a disproportionate amount of the VMT.

“The problem with speeding is that YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY PERSON ON THE ROAD!”

Speeders do not affect other drivers. If I’m running 80 mph in a 75 mph zone and I pass you it does not affect you in any way even though I am speeding. You need not change your direction or your speed. In fact, you need do nothing. I make a concerted effort to not affect other drivers and I expect the same consideration.

Keep in mind that speeding is arbitrary. We could so define the limit as to make any motion at all “speeding” or so define it so that no motion could be called “speeding.”

{Stat source:
http://leg.mt.gov/content/audit/download/98l-11.pdf }

Interesting source but did you actually read it, especially the parts where it noted that average and 85th percentile speeds are up but fatality and crash rates are down?

Further criticisms:

The report says: “The likelihood of an accident occurring is significantly greater for motorists traveling at speeds both slower and faster than the mean speed of traffic.” This is just flat wrong and is directly contradicted by ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) data. It should say “. . .faster than the 85th percentile** speed of traffic” because that is where the crash incidence curve minimizes. Drivers below that speed are significantly more likely to crash and drivers above that speed are slightly more likely to crash.

The “design speed” definitions are also wrong. Design speed specification for US Interstate highways during their introduction in the early 1950s was 100 mph. Those listed on the site don’t even make sense. According to those tables, the legal limit exceeds the engineering (absolute) limit.

By Captain Kirk on Jan 6, 2008

I think everyone here is missing the obvious solution to all our traffic problems - transporter beams.

By vvbvb on Jan 6, 2008

i dont zip around. i use blinkers ALWAYS. i never cut people off, and i go slow until the road opens. However when a road is vacant I will drive however I feel. Slow people who don’t know how to get on a highway, or go the speed limit cause wrecks.

By vvbvb on Jan 6, 2008

i’ve never been in a wreck and drive 80mph on all roads atleast 55

By vvbvb on Jan 6, 2008

the autobahn is safer than our highways, because people are held responsible for how they drive. you go to slow or fast and kill someone. you get charged with manslaughter equivalent. dont exceed yours or your cars limitations. a ferrari at 100mph stops faster than your SUV at 55mph. should we ban SUV. Should we require $15000 carbon ceramic brakes for every car.

By igoreseven on Jan 7, 2008

My car has been stolen by the Dept. of Trans.
and sold,under protest.2 days before I was allowed a hearing in which I could provide evidence to support my protest of the alleged
“impound”.
I’ve been lied to and there have been gross violations to my Rights of privacy, Equal protection of the Law, Property as well as the Right to Travel freely.They attempted to extort monies and continue to do so.Can we allow this to continue? What are our fellow country men and women fighting for in the Mid.Est? Our Rights.
What is the reason for the loss of life? I thought it was to ensure freedom would not become a victim to tyranny.
Is there any body out there? Somebody has got to feel this.

By PAT on Jan 7, 2008

This is the best information ever. We need this information out there. We get fined more for speeding than if we committed a serious crime. I know people who come out better and cheaper in court for drugs, theft, and robbery even murder in some cases. I was in the car with my daughter on Thanksgiving on a clear road , clear conditions she wasn’t being reckless or anything . We were just talking on our way to an aunt’s house not watching the speed but not intentionally speeding. Well, my daughter got stopped and was charged $440.00 plus 4 points, not to mention a days pay for taking off to go to court at 10am in the morning. Something needs to be done about this kind of thing. This happened in South Carolina.
Thanks for all the great information.

By Bob Dobbs on Jan 8, 2008

Speed limits can be ridiculous in some areas. They do not account for the varying conditions of driving. If you’re driving too fast to see the road ahead of you before you could stop it’s probably too fast, but other than that, driving is a personal responsibility, and posted warnings about road conditions would help more than fixed speed limits. Driving too quickly is about safety. Prove that.

By Bob Dobbs on Jan 8, 2008

When in court, it is up to the state to prove that you were driving unsafely, not for you to prove that you were driving safely.

The posted speed limits do not reflect safety. They are a guideline for safety, which is a potentially useful measuring ruler for drivers and police officers. If, beyond this, the state can prove that you were driving unsafely, then issue the ticket or other penalty.

By Jack on Jan 8, 2008

I freely admit to being one of the aholes alluded to by a sanctimonius hypocite in a previous post. If you’re going 60 on a highway in the state of Florida you’re going about ten under the speed limit and frankly I don’t want to be the guy sandwiched between you and the guy who wants to go 90. I’ll let him by because it’s not my job nor is it worth my life to try to play cop and enforce the speed limit.70 can very well be a “safe and reasonable speed” If you’re not in the right lane or weaving from lane to lane or climbing up somebody’s butt, frankly those folks are just about as dangerous as you are with your “I’ll enforce the speed limit attitude” It’s all matter of time before you’re run off the road or possibly shot by someone with road rage and frankly I wouldn’t miss you a bit.

By LynnB on Jan 9, 2008

Denver has said it will enforce the 55 mph limit on I-70 East of I-25 where the traffic usually moves at 65-70. At the same time the State Patrol has said it will give out tickets for impeding traffic.

It’s a NO WIN situation because if you go with the flow at 70, Denver cops will get you. If you obey the speed limit at 55, the State Patrol will get you for impeding traffic.

By Toronto Traffic Tickets on Jan 9, 2008

Another great tactic! if only more people would fight there traffic tickets with a great defence instead of useless excuses we see daily…

By BenB. on Jan 13, 2008

Anyone know why police, after pulling you over because of a misdemeanor traffic infraction, ask if you have ever been arrested? Is being arrested now a form of guilt over being convicted? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

By bw on Jan 15, 2008

I did not want to get into these discussions about speed but after reading some of these I had to say something.

First of all in most states you do not have a right to drive, it is a privilege. In other words you are required to follow the rules. Please dont tell me about the right to travel, I’ve heard it too many times. You can walk or catch a ride with somebody else if you cannot follow simple rules.

I have investigated approximately 3000 automoble crash’s. Speeding, too fast for conditions or exceeded the limit, was the primary factor in most. Yes there are usually other factors but the main thing is, if they were driving the way they were required to, most of the crash’s wouldn’t have happened.

Speeding does affect other drivers and leads to other violations. Following too close and passing when prohibited or unsafe are just two that come to mind.

Yes travelling under the speed limit can also cause problems or crash’s.

The State Patrol in Colorado will not get you for impeding traffic if you are travelling at the speed limit. They will get you for driving in the left lane when you do not need to be there. In 65 or 75 mph zones, on multi lane highways, you are required to move to the right. They will get you for speeding in the left lane. Just because you are required to move to the right, does not mean it is ok to speed. They can also get you for not moving out of the way on a two lane highway, if you want to travel under the posted speed limit (impeding traffic).

By angelo on Jan 15, 2008

Speeding only accounts for a small fraction of road deaths. The government numbers are mostly cases where alcohol was involved. They further bolster the numbers by including incidents including motorcycles, teenagers who go 80 in a residential and suicides. The actual cases where speed alone, or alcohol alone led to a death are negligible, and do not warrant such draconian penalties.

Fight every ticket. Traffic cops are the scum of the earth, and they could give a shit about your safety. On Hollywood Boulevard, there is a cop who stands there with his little radar every Tuesday. When people see him, they slam on their brakes and, inevitably cause a 3 car pile up. Still, the cop comes right back to the same place. It is a point in the road where you finally get a chance to speed up a little after a few miles of gridlock.

By lynnB on Jan 15, 2008

BW’s comments about “obey the rules” sounds like something out of Hitler’s Germany. Many of the “rules” are preposterous and only designed to raise money, and are not at all about safety.

A few years back the tiny town of Soldier Summit, Utah, situated on a major US Highway had a speed limit drop from 65 to 20 as you entered the town. And of course they always had their ONE cop with his radar set up to nail just about everyone that passed thru.

Whatever authorities got enough complaints that they dis-incorporated the town and turned the police duties over to the county sheriff and put the speed limit to 55 thru the 1/2 mile llong town.

Now..DRIVING TOO FAST FOR CONDITIONS. Yes, that is a biggie, and is the ultimate contributor to crashes. And those get tallied as “speeding”, so everyone ASSumes that mean driving over the speed limit. Not always so…if the speed limit is 65 and snowing like crazy and someone looses control at 40, then that is DRIVING TOO FAST FOR CONDITIONS.

Back when the national speed limit was 55 it was absolutely preposterous driving I-80 thru Nebraska and Wyoming going 55.

But I suppose BW just poked along at 55 as he OBEYED THE RULES.

By lynn on Jan 15, 2008

Recently in Los Angeles we received a ticket NOT for SPEEDING but for being in a no-parking zone during a no-parking period. No parking from 4-6 p.m. We parked at about 3:55 p.m. and returned to the car at 4:15 p.m. We figured at 4:00 p.m. they hooked up they started the hook up. They towed the car..we were 8 minutes behind the car to the lot. They had the car a whole 8 minutes. We had to pay a fee to get the car out plus a municipal administrative fee and some other little fee. Added up to about $160.00 then when we walked up to the car in the lot and there was a TICKET!!! The ticket is about $120.00 (I think). SO to a visitor in Los Angeles watch where you park!!! The traffic peeps are just there waiting for you. We never could figure out why there is no parking there from 4-6 p.m. and the traffic cop would not answer our questions….real friendly sort…but considering that is his lot in life just to harrass people and tow cars so the city and tow company can make money…well there you go…Have a GREAT DAY!

By bw on Jan 15, 2008

Good examples of why I don’t usually get involved in these discussions.

In response to Angelo. Yes speeding does only account for some deaths, but it also accounts for injuries and property damage. Alcohol only accounted for 1300+ out of the 40000+ deaths in 2006. Last I checked motorcyles drive on the roads and can speed. Also teenagers doing 80 in a residential is still speeding. Drivers under the influence also speed. I also believe I stated that there is usually other factors involved. You gave a good example yourself mentioning the cop on Hollywood Blvd.

Fighting tickets is your right. Calling traffic cops the scum of the earth sound like you dont have much time on your hands. I can think of much worse people that really effect our lives. Most of the ones I’ve known are doing the job they were hired to do and most of the people I know appreciate them. Especially the ones who were in a crash or almost crashed due to a driver that wanted to get there just a little bit faster. I definately gave more time than is necessary to a person that has to resort to insults rather than having something worthwhile to say, so I’ll move along.

lynnB, comparing traffic laws in the United States with the rules imposed in Hitler’s Germany is what I find preposterous. I will agree with you that there are “rules” which are to raise money and not for safety. Most, NOT ALL, moving violations are for safety. Keep in mind that most of the traffic laws are the easiest laws to comply with and do not violate anybodys rights. They really take very little effort to comply with.

I will also agree that that towns that set up speed zones, as in your example of the town in Utah, should not be tolerated.

Also I mentioned too fast for conditions, I also mentioned just speed. No speeding is not always the ONLY factor, but it is certainly a major factor in crash’s. Where I live too fast for conditions and speeding are tallied seperately. There are also instances where drivers were speeding, lost control and went off the road and those crash’s were tallied as failed to drive in designated lane or something similar. We all know that numbers can be used anyway a person wants to use them and does not give the whole story.

I did think, and still do, the 55 speed limit was to slow on some roads. I did poke along at 55, and still got where I was going. It was alot easier than getting stopped and fined for speeding and it didn’t really cost me much time.

Once again, driving is a privilege, not a right.

By James Young on Jan 15, 2008

bw writes:

{First of all in most states you do not have a right to drive, it is a privilege. In other words you are required to follow the rules.}

That’s just not true. Driving or holding a driver’s license is an entitlement as denominated by the US Supreme Court. Individual states do not have the authority to degrade a driver’s license to “privilege,” meaning that it can be revoked at the whim of a bureaucrat. Revocation of an already-granted license requires due process.

{I have investigated approximately 3000 automoble crash’s. Speeding, too fast for conditions or exceeded the limit, was the primary factor in most.}

BS. Your own numbers do not support that assertion. According to NHTSA, one of the most biased organizations in the government and which gets its data in large part from police reports (an already biased source), assigns only “speed-related” to crashes, carefully avoiding the causation issue. NHTSA also lumps too fast for conditions, exceeding the posted limit, too slow for conditions and unsafe lane changes into the “speed-related” category. Therefore, it is meaningless. Even given all that, “speed-related” still associates with a small segment of all crashes.

{Yes there are usually other factors but the main thing is, if they were driving the way they were required to, most of the crash’s wouldn’t have happened.}

“Driving the way they were supposed to” is a tautology, always true by definition. However, it applies equally to the person driving 50 mph on an 85 mph highway as well as the guy who has a .24 BAC and bent on suicide.

{Speeding does affect other drivers and leads to other violations. Following too close and passing when prohibited or unsafe are just two that come to mind.}

Please explain how “speeding” affects other drivers. If I am running 80 mph on a 75 mph limit, I’m speeding. If I then pass some guy running 50 mph, he need do nothing, no change of course or speed. He continues on if I’m there or not. Further, conflating “following too close,” which requires two drivers, one of them going too slow, with speeding is disingenuous.

{The State Patrol in Colorado will not get you for impeding traffic if you are travelling at the speed limit.}

Yet, that was the intent of the law, to get drivers to move over to allow the smoother and faster flow of traffic around them. CSP should cite drivers for failing to move right for faster traffic without regard to the posted limit. If I’m running 85 mph and some guy wants to run 95, it is up to me to move over, without regard to the posted limit.

By bw on Jan 16, 2008

I knew better but I’ll give one last response and then I have had enough.

James Young, we can play with words all day long. You can call it an entitlement if it makes you feel better. The fact remains, there is no right to drive. Priviledge or entitlement, a driver can lose that by not following simple rules / laws. It is the same for any license that is issued be it for practicing medicine, law or to be a contractor. If a person does not follow the rules when that license is issued, they can lose it. Yes it requires due procsess but lose it you can.
My numbers are BS? Which ones. That I have investigatiod approximately 3000 crashs? I happen to be a technical accident reconstructionist and have been for 15 years. 3000 crashs is not a large number, I know people that have done alot more than that. I have also assisted on several hundred others. As I said before, speed has been a FACTOR in most of them, I did not say it was the only cause. Most of the crash’s I investigated were on dry roads with no weather to factor in. I also mentioned that the numbers can show whatever you want them to. How about the driver that hit an animal crossing the road while travelling at 80 mph in a 65 zone. The animal and the driver did not stand a chance. Chances are at 65 that driver would not have even been there, and if he was, he had a better chance of avoiding it at 65. A crash like that is coded as animal caused. All crashs involving alcohol over the legal limit are coded as alcohol caued regardless of what actually caused the crash. We can bounce these numbers around all day and get nowhere.
I only stated what I have seen.
Driving the way they were supposed to. In other words, obeying the laws or rules. Any person that can pass the rquirements and be issued a license should know what the laws are. And yes they apply equally to everyone including the drunk or the person bent on suicide,(By the way suicides are not recorded as accidents although Im sure some of them have been)although some people feel they are special and dont have to. Are there crash’s that could not have been avoided with the exception of not going any where. Yes, but that is a small number.

Speeding can effect other drivers. I’ll use a similar example to the one you gave but without the extremes in speed differences. I’m thinking about the driver doing 75 in a posted 75 and you feel the need to go faster As you are passing the other driver something goes wrong, a mechanical failure or something causes you to take evasive manuevers and you either collide with or force the other driver to take evasive manuevers. That is effecting the other driver. No speed itself was not the cause, but if you were not speeding you would not be in that situation. If the other driver is doing 50, yes you would have been passing him anyway, but at that speed you would have been by him and if something happened he probably could have avoided it. I am talking about the drivers that are obeying the speed limit and another driver wants to speed by them. On a multi lane roads it is not as much of an issue. Unfortunately people that speed on interstates also speed on two lane roads. It most definately can be an issue there. I could give alot of examples of what could happen and what I have seen happen. Following to close, yes if a driver is going to slow that can happen. What about the driver doing the speed limit. Yes that requires two drivers but one is driving within the law the other is not. The other driver is under no obligation to get out of your way because you want to speed. If the other driver is travelling UNDER the speed limit he is required to get out of your way if you cannot safely pass in a reasonable amout of time. There are some people that are exceptional drivers and are safe at almost any speed. Unfortunately most drivers are not exceptional. There are some people that probably speed only when there is no other traffic and can handle the car they are driving exceptionally well. There is no way that I know of that you can look at a person and be able to reconize this. So there are traffic laws. Face it most people feel they are exceptional drivers and take immediate offense if you suggest otherwise.
About the CSP and ticketing drivers for impeding and not moving out of the way, I think you need to read what I said. I agree with you, they should move out of the left lane as rquired by law, but the speeding driver should also be cited for speeding.
I’ll throw in some other information. In the state I live in fatal crash’s have declined. That was do to a policy of strict enforcement by the police(thank you). We will never stop fatal crash’s but it’s a start. Also fatal crash’s make up a very small amount of crash’s that occur in this country every day. We could throw in the injury and property damage crash’s that definately effect most people. But why bother, until it happens to you personally your probably going to continue to drive anyway you want to, regardless of what I or anybody else says.
Thank you for your time. I do have other things to do so goodbye and good luck.

By Deckape on Jan 16, 2008

The best way to beat a ticket is to drive 5 mph under the posted speed limit, why well where are you going that can’t wait 5-15 minutes more. In a hurry to get to work in a hurry to get home, why just because your speedometer read 160 MPH does mean you have to drive that fast.
Think gas is high, tickets are high and remember to stop at all yellow lights so the camera does not give you a ticket and alway call a cab or someone to pick you up from the bar after your finish drinking, hey speeder & drunk, I know!!!!!!!

By James Young on Jan 17, 2008

bw writes:

{James Young, we can play with words all day long. You can call it an entitlement if it makes you feel better. The fact remains, there is no right to drive.}

Nobody asserted that it was a right. You said it was a privilege and that is wrong.

Words are important and must be used with care. Words can soothe a sick child or instigate racial hatred. Words can reveal truth or create monstrous lies.

{My numbers are BS? Which ones. }

The ones where you said, “Speeding, too fast for conditions or exceeded the limit, was the primary factor in most.” NHTSA, the largest collection of crash statistics anywhere in the world no longer uses “factor,” and assigns no causation to crashes. They hide behind “xxxxx-involved,” with the deliberate implication that “xxxx-“ caused the crash, usually “speed” or “alcohol.” Even NHTSA, as biased as it is, only assigns about 4% of crashes as “too fast for conditions,” a distinction of significance from “speed-related,” which includes too fast for conditions, too slow for conditions, any speed above the posted limit and unsafe lane changes (their words).

{How about the driver that hit an animal crossing the road while travelling at 80 mph in a 65 zone. . . .Chances are at 65 that driver would not have even been there, and if he was, he had a better chance of avoiding it at 65. A crash like that is coded as animal caused. All crashs involving alcohol over the legal limit are coded as alcohol caued regardless of what actually caused the crash.}

Two different issues here. First, it is pure speculation that no crash would have occurred because the driver wasn’t there because he was driving a different speed. That sounds like a question for Nietzsche or Spinoza rather than a motorists’ blog.

Second, what state classifies that as “animal caused”? NHTSA has no such classification nor any state with which I’m familiar. NHTSA classifies every crash where ONE vehicle was over the limit as “speed-related.” If a speeding driver is T-boned by a guy under the limit but who blew a stoplight, the cause is ROW violation but it still gets recorded as “speed-related.” Similarly, the same driver hits a pedestrian with BAC of 0.25 who jumps in front of the car, gets recorded as “alcohol-related,” which, of course, is readily morphed into “drunk driving” but a gullible public.

{ (By the way suicides are not recorded as accidents although Im sure some of them have been)although some people feel they are special and dont have to.}

NHTSA does not recognize suicides at all, although independent studies reveal that anywhere from 4% to 16% of fatal crashes are suicides, disguised as crashes to save the insurance money for the family. Typical scenario: guy center-punches a bridge pier at 100+ mph and, yep, it gets recorded as “speed-related,” although speed was merely the mechanism, not the cause.

{Speeding can effect other drivers. . . . As you are passing the other driver something goes wrong, a mechanical failure or something causes you . . .}

That isn’t speed affecting other drivers; it is mechanical failure, something that could occur at 7.5 mph as at 75 mph. Just for the record, mechanical failures, usually tires, used to be a major factor in crashes but have been virtually eliminated, a major reason why the fatality rate has fallen to its lowest point in history.

{ The other driver is under no obligation to get out of your way because you want to speed.}

That depends on the state law. In California, they are under that very obligation to pull into a cut-out to allow faster traffic to pass.

{About the CSP and ticketing drivers for impeding and not moving out of the way, I think you need to read what I said. I agree with you, they should move out of the left lane as rquired by law, but the speeding driver should also be cited for speeding.}

I strongly disagree. Speeding cites serve no conceivable public benefit. Remove the limits on Interstate highways, enforce the no impeding laws without regard to the absolute speed of any vehicle but only the relative speed of at least two vehicles, and the problem will disappear.

{I’ll throw in some other information. In the state I live in fatal crash’s have declined. That was do to a policy of strict enforcement by the police(thank you).}

What state is that? I’m not surprised that fatal crashes have declined because that is a nationwide phenomenon. However, I would need to see some very convincing data to prove to me that it was due to police activity because that has never been the case in the history of automobiles.

{ We will never stop fatal crash’s but it’s a start. Also fatal crash’s make up a very small amount of crash’s that occur in this country every day. We could throw in the injury and property damage crash’s that definately effect most people. But why bother, until it happens to you personally your probably going to continue to drive anyway you want to, regardless of what I or anybody else says.}

I’ve been working for about 50 years to reduce crashes and fatalities. Crashes affect people in multiple ways but we cannot afford to assign blame where none is due because it leads to poor policy, wasted resources and a loss of government credibility.

The “way I drive” has been very successful. I’m at about 2 million miles, zero at-fault crashes, only a dozen or so cites. Others should emulate that success.

By cindy on Jan 17, 2008

I heard about this site that had some idiot truck driver toting a thesarus. Boy were they correct! James Young, back away from the thesarus and get a life ( and collect your facts before you start running your mouth!) They say ignorance is bliss, well it must be in your case because you sound like a total moron! A dozen or so sitations and you call that success?????????? YOu hsould not be behind the wheel of what must surely be a weapon in your particular case! Let the rest of us know where you travel so we can be SURE and stay out of that particular state. With an attitude like yours, you should probably be put in for retesting and I would bet you wouldn’t keep that license that is, yes a privelage, not a right in some states.

By James Young on Jan 17, 2008

Cindy:

You should have kept quiet and let everybody just think you were a moron rather than speak up and remove all doubt.

I do not drive a truck. I do have a very busy life but have devoted about 50 years of it to improving traffic safety and legal reform. Perhaps you missed the part where I have traveled about 2 million miles because a dozen citations is only one every 167,000 miles. I have also been driving since I was 12, legally since I was 14, so that’s 1 cite in a little over every 4 years. BTW, none of those was ever for any truly dangerous activity.

I have also gone to a lot of trouble to assure that my driving interferes with others as little as possible, spending my own time and money on advanced driving classes. I have never had an at-fault crash.
If my attitude – that traffic law needs dramatic change because it is being driven by greed and political power rather than motorists’ interests – troubles you, then too bad.

Remember that when you can drive 80 mph legally through west Texas, you can thanks the likes of me and my group.

As to the holding of license being a privilege, perhaps you should make a journey to D.C. because those justices on the Supreme Court obviously don’t know as much as you. States do not have the authority to opt out of a court decision.

By cindy on Jan 17, 2008

OOOHHHH! Snappy comeback, quite sure I will be traumatized for LIFE! I do retract the moron statement, since OBVIOUSLY you are a rocket scientist.
Ok, Einstein, let’s say, as you did in one of your earlier posts that the Feds DID remove ALL speed limits on the interstate system do you really believe that speed as a causual factor(terminology still in usage by the way)in traffic incidents would not raise to the nth degree?
So, by your example, if you are doing 90 mph on the interstate, and someone passes you at 100mph, you should get a ticket for impeding traffic, correct? Where do the lines get drawn in your way of thinking? Thus, the necessity for posted speed limits.

By James Young on Jan 17, 2008

{Snappy comeback, quite sure I will be traumatized for LIFE!}

Nah, you’ll get over it.

{Ok, Einstein, let’s say, as you did in one of your earlier posts that the Feds DID remove ALL speed limits on the interstate system do you really believe that speed as a causual factor (terminology still in usage by the way) in traffic incidents would not raise to the nth degree?}

Speed is not denominated as a “causal factor” in traffic crashes. NHTSA classifies crashes as “speed-related,” but as I’ve indicated in prior posts, that includes a multitude of actions that do not affect crashes. We were told that if the NMSL (“55”) were removed, the result would be a “bloodbath” [Joan Claybrook and Clarence Ditlow]. It didn’t happen; in fact, key safety measurements just kept improving. Then, when total revocation (from 65 mph) was proposed, we were told again that a “bloodbath” would ensue [Joan Claybrook]. Again, the rates just kept improving.

We had a situation in Montana that was essentially unlimited except to “R&P,” reasonable and prudent. Montana courts decided that 100+ was R&P. The experience in Montana was that there was no statistically significant difference between Montana and other states. However, when they imposed a numerical limit, the rates increased.

We have still another experience on the autobahnen. There, unlimited sections of roadway have a fatality rate just slightly less than American Interstates.

So, to answer your question, I do believe that speed as a causal factor (or even an associated factor) would not rise to the nth degree.

{So, by your example, if you are doing 90 mph on the interstate, and someone passes you at 100mph, you should get a ticket for impeding traffic, correct?}

No, because I was in the right lane when I was passed. BTW, this happens frequently. I am rarely the fastest car on the road; I get passed frequently. I never impede and I expect others to perform as well.

{Where do the lines get drawn in your way of thinking? Thus, the necessity for posted speed limits.}

Drivers draw their own lines, based on their capacities and those of their car. This is, of course, the basis for calculating speed limits but then the calculated limits are overridden by politics and greed. Speed limits are not now and never have been a critical element of the organizing function of traffic laws. Even were they to disappear overnight, no dramatic changes would occur, just as 20 years of empirical data tell us.

PS. I make no claim to rocket science. I claim only to be educated, thoughtful, intellectually curious and very skeptical, especially of those who have a vested interest in maintaining a flawed system.

By cindy on Jan 17, 2008

Oh my GOD! You keep talking in circles,
TOTALLY ignoring even YOUR own words, let alone what anyone else has to say. Anyone under the sun can find stats to support anything they want to support at the time. You could turn around and use these stats to a disadvantage should you choose to do so. Yes I know about Montana, didn’t last long.
Speed certainly does affect many things. The faster you go, the less reactionary time you have. THAT is the simple law of physics. AND on top of that, the faster the speeds the worse the wrecks, again, simple physics involved here. ( and for the record, I travel the posted speed limits, not below)
Since you just don’t seem to get it, and you continue to talk in circles, guess I will never have the privelage, er, excuse me, (your terminology) the entitlement of driving 80 mph through west Texas any time in the future.
Well, I have a life I have to get to, hopefully we NEVER meet on any roadway, and I am also quite sure you will post a response to get in the last word. People who can not listen in debates tend to feel the need to dazzle with BS and get in the last word. Knock yourself out and good luck.
Bye Bye Now

By James Young on Jan 17, 2008

{Since you just don’t seem to get it, and you continue to talk in circles. . .}

Yet, you cannot offer contradictory evidence.

{hopefully we NEVER meet. . .}

I agree.

{ People who can not listen in debates tend to feel the need to dazzle with BS and get in the last word.}

I can only lead readers to the facts; I cannot think for them. If you believe what I have posted is BS, then it should be simple to refute it. So far, all you have done is offer baseless criticism. If you have evidence to support your assertions, now is the time to present them.

This is an Internet forum and anybody can post at any time. The “last word” is meaningless. Besides, I don’t need the last word, only the correct one.

By cindy on Jan 17, 2008

Sorry James, I forgot to mention for the record of this website. The only thing you would be able to legally drive at age 14 in ANY state is an implement of husbandry, ie grandpas John Deere, Dads grain truck, Uncle Bob’s Chevy in the pasture…Farm machinery.
This does not make you one of the highways better drivers. Unfortunately, living in a rural area I see some of these grown up products of driving at 14…not the best drivers around, too many years of poor driving habits.
See Ya

By James Young on Jan 17, 2008

You also forget that the requirements were different in 1959.

By Ryu on Jan 18, 2008

I’m sorry, but I really like James Young’s style and agree with most everything he posts.

I think some people just don’t know how to debate and discuss properly–not to mention knowing when they are trumped by a superior argument.

On a side note, the usage of {crash’s} really just annoys me to no end; so, bw, learn how to use punctuation.

Now, to finally contribute to the discussion, I think that the system is extremely flawed, the speed limits are not necessary as a tool of enforcement, but should merely be a guide, or a reminder, if you will, of the speed suggested for those who do not know what speed to drive. Those who drive faster, fine; those who drive slower, fine–just use judgement for conditions. I really don’t know why this is o hard for so many–in fact, I think it should be much more difficult to get a DL–perhaps an IQ test… (or to be a cop, not a mindless drone…)

Now, to respond to the original article. This method of math is flawed because it does not factor in the derivative (mathematically speaking) of speed (or technically velocity): acceleration. If you are slowing down over the period of 5 seconds, the cop may be able to see you for that full amount of time–and the traffic light may have seen you at a maximum speed, but while you were decelerating saw you for a longer period of time.

I also question the definition of “reckless driving” as a direct relation to acceleration. I fear that one day there may be an acceleration limit on different roads governing how fast one may accelerate, change lanes or even stop. Or even, perhaps, on the manufacturing side limiting a car’s performance potential, or even the driver’s ability to input certain driving maneuvers into the car…

By LynnB on Jan 18, 2008

Well this discussion has turned into a catfight an nitpicking over terminology and words.

A few FACTS…In SOME places where motorists refust to OBEY the speed limit and regularly go, say, 10 mph over, SOME places will raise that speed limit. I’m going to ASSume that those “speeding” motorists have caused no significent “blip” in the accident rate in that area vs. other areas.

In many OTHER places the speed limit is artificially low so as to raise revenue for the town, county, etc.

The town of Morrison, CO is just one such place and is as infamous for being a speed trap as it is for the beautiful and wonderful Red Rocks Ampitheater.

One of the reasons many don’t fight radar tickets is because the greater the angle off the target vehicle and the beam of the radar, the lower the speed readout, so folk traveling 75 might be clocked at 70 and they feel like they got away with something. At 90 degrees off, the target speed will be zero from a non-moving radar as there is no closure rate.

HOWEVER…cops can and do misuse their radar as they don’t understand it…if a cop moves his radar to target a vehicle, that can result in a PAN or PANNING error. Stop signs and houses have been clocked going 70 mph by doing this.

The other error, and I’m sure this happens more often than one would think is a COSINE error, and that results from radar in a moving car being at an angle offset from the actual direction of the venicle. This tracks the cop car traveling at a lower speed than it actually is and give the target readout as a speed FASTER than they are actually traveling, as doppler can only track closure rate, and then the computer calculates the difference between the cop car speed and the target speed, giving the actual readout.

When you see the current hoax traveling around the ‘net about the Marine F-18 pilot able to stop the automatic firing of an anti-radar missile at a CHP radar on I-15 near MCAS Miramar…it’s a big HOAX for many reasons.

ME…I’ve clipped along, not on the road…at Mach 2.1, landed in a jet on a boat going from 150 to 0 in two seconds, and also launched from a boat going 0 to 160 or so in two seconds.

Anything else y’all want to know, just speak up.

LB…former Navy Radar Intercept Officer, expert training in pulse and doppler radars.

BTW, none of the gimmics to defeat radar will work. An electronic jammer MIGHT work, but it also might give a high reading and get you a really big fine, not to mention that you are operating a “radio transmitter” without a license..and that’s radar, jammers, etc. are….radio transmitters.

By Steve1776 on Jan 20, 2008

James Young: “Driving or holding a driver’s license is an entitlement as denominated by the US Supreme Court. Individual states do not have the authority to degrade a driver’s license to “privilege,” meaning that it can be revoked at the whim of a bureaucrat. Revocation of an already-granted license requires due process.”

Could you please give me the court cite. I would appreciate it.

cindy:I drive a truck and I have a few facts for you. In truck-car accidents 75% of the time the car is totally at fault according to the AAA (not known for their love of trucks) who was surprised and dismayed when their research turned up that fact. I drive about 150,000 miles a year. How many years does it take you to get that many miles. I’m held to a higher standard than you are and the fines are higher.

By Steve1776 on Jan 20, 2008

LynnB: I’ve seen a radar detector on the dash of a Texas Highway Patrol car. Guess he was looking for people with jammers. Speeding tickets are a lot cheaper than if you get caught with a jammer.

By chris on Jan 20, 2008

lived in Europe for years and learned driving there. i wish one day i could fight my tickets here by going to a driving school to prove how i can handle my car in different situations better than at least half of the population on the road.

This is one of the easiest countries to get driver’s license and that is the ultimate problem. people has no idea what they getting into.

Driving in this country is the grown up way of driving bumper cars. its like a amusement park to see what people do in their car in rush hour and how they drive everyday.

speeding dont keep people, people kill people. lets fix the people first. dont get this backwards!

By LynnB on Jan 21, 2008

Chris, you are absolutely CORRECT. It is the people and the ease of which to get a license; Or as I tell folks who want to see my DL for ID, “I don’t drive, I just steer like everyone else”.

The training in Europe is why folks can clip along at 120 or whaever they want (at certain times in certain places) on the Autobahn and there are very few “speeding” accidents. Oh, and when there is a crash, the perp must pay for damages to the highway…guard rails, etc.

I heard on the news that it costs the equiv. of $1200 to get a license in Japan. Drivers have to take a driving course, evasive maneuvers, and even know how to change a tire. That was some 20 YEARS ago, so the cost of a license if probably much higher now.

In Europe the DUI laws are extremely strict and finally in the US we are starting to impose heftier penalties…fines and jail time. FINALLY. You’ll see very few folks drink and drive in Europe..at least W. Europe where I’ve traveled.

By James Young on Jan 21, 2008

Steve 1776: BELL V. BURSON, 402 U. S. 535 (1971)

By Jim on Feb 3, 2008

This was a sad exchange to read. If you could do one thing personally to prevent the death of one person in the arena of driving, wouldn’t you do it? We really are talking about lives and property, and the mandate of government to make laws to apply to the least common denominator. I have no doubt that most of you are above average in your skills as a driver. If so, shouldn’t the responsibility rest upon you to set the better example? If you consistently speed with your kids in the car, then wonder, when they are sixteen, why they wrapped their car around a pole and are laying in a casket, please don’t blame the police for bad speed laws. In fact, the law is not made by the police, so if you have issue, and you truly believe you are right, then approach your unit of government about it. I have seen laws, moving traffic laws, changed by citizens who care enough to invest their time and effort into changing them. But safety should always be a concern. I agree that over-enforcement for the sake of revenue generation is for those departments who do not have enough to do. I never had that luxury, running call to call most of the time. But I have spoken to enough broken-hearted parents to know that speed coupled with just about any other factor, kills. Again, not for you who are the elite of drivers, but for the least common denominators, like your kids, or your aging parents, or any host of others. If you think they shouldn’t be on the roadways, then beg your legislators for reform in licensing. The comment on big trucks not being a causation problem was right on - the number of crashes that they cause has gone way down since the FMCSR went into effect, greatly increasing the standards to which those drivers are held. Most truck enforcement, at least in my state, has come to regulatory issues. One is hard-pressed to find a big truck committing any moving violation, and the rates of crashes involving them, and especially caused by them, has gone way down. Except for a few idiots (yes, they exist everywhere) who just enjoy placing financial burden on others, the Troopers I’ve had the privilege of working with over the last several years are folks who became Troopers to protect life and protect property. We have bosses that we don’t control, you all control them through your government units. If you truly don’t like the job you are calling us to do, then don’t complain to us, complain, as I believe Mr. Young does, to those entities who employ us. If I lose a ticket, I don’t take it personally, because I know I did what you are asking me to do, and the judge found in your favor. If I win a ticket, don’t take it personally, I was only doing what you are asking me to do, and the judge found in favor of the state. ALWAYS remember that these discussions are easy, and the rules of debate can even be debated, all the while, people’s lives are at stake, and some are being killed through going too fast. If speed is a factor, then it was always too fast for some condition!

You can kick this around as you will, no big deal to me, I won’t respond (I’m trained that way :)), just know that I hope each and every one of you live to see another day of debating!!!

Be safe and buckle up!!!

By Jim on Feb 3, 2008

I would only add that I think the example of good driving should start with us police officers, so I abhor the habits of some of my colleagues that run counter to this philosophy of best example - we should obey the traffic laws, all the time, unless we are, as authorized by statute, directly engaged in specific enforcement activity!!!

By valster on Feb 3, 2008

Speed does NOT kill, it is the sudden lack of it that does.

By Chris on Feb 21, 2008

James-
I used to be a terrible speeder, I used to average 20 over the speed limit.

I want to cover two issues.

Speeding should be legal.
You obviously believe this, and believe in this because you have spent a lot of time on the discussion here.

Instead of spending your time on here trying to persuade these many people that will never agree with you… why don’t you take your arguments to your local politicians, or county or state or national. You as any American have the write to propose ideas for legislation to your government.

But until you change the laws, you are required to OBEY the laws. Just because you don’t like them doesn’t mean that they don’t apply to you. Laws are written for the many and not the few. Obviously by the amount of people that disagree with you, you are the few.

Speeding is not dangerous.
I used to be in your camp. I had a sports car and I have a excellent reaction time. Then I changed my tune. I did this because I learned how to correctly ride a motorcycle. And what speed and safely driving means. Take a motorcycle safety course… you will never understand the idea of how dangerous speeding is until you ride a motorcycle after taking a safety course.

Ask yourself this, as your are driving. If I was on a bike would I drive like this knowing that any bad action by myself or others might kill me. Defensive driving is hard when speeding.

By James Young on Feb 21, 2008

Chris writes:

{Speeding should be legal.
You obviously believe this, and believe in this because you have spent a lot of time on the discussion here.}

Actually, I spend a lot of time on here because I believe in this, not vice versa. Speeding should be meaningless because the laws are designed and written rationally, not politically.

{Instead of spending your time on here trying to persuade these many people that will never agree with you… why don’t you take your arguments to your local politicians, or county or state or national. You as any American have the [right] to propose ideas for legislation to your government. }

I have provided a bill to a state rep and a state senator in Oklahoma (Ron Peters and James Williamson) that would divert all traffic fines to a public corporation at the state level that is used to fund scholarships to state colleges. Take the money out of enforcement and all those CS little burgs will stop it. Since I’m not in Oklahoma right now, I’ll have to rely on email and phone contact to drive their acceptance of it. I have lobbied state legislators in Texas (where I vote), Oklahoma (where I grew up and have family), Utah and Colorado (where I lived) and in California (where I am now).

During NMSL, I lobbied US representatives and senators because it was a federal mandate (presidential order). Now, they hold no sway over states with respect to traffic laws except through MUTCD. Occasionally municipal or county entities get involved in setting limits but even those are driven by state guidelines.

{But until you change the laws, you are required to OBEY the laws. Just because you don’t like them doesn’t mean that they don’t apply to you. Laws are written for the many and not the few. Obviously by the amount of people that disagree with you, you are the few.}

First things first. I am joined in my disregard of posted limits by virtually the entire population of drivers. While they may not speak out enough, they simply ignore the law and do what they feel they must.
Next, using your philosophy, we would still be a colony of the British Crown, black folks would be property, and women would not participate in public life. Laws are written for multiple reasons, often by special interests. Speed limit laws are written with the political safety of the legislators in mind. Engineers determine the optimal speed and submit it to the legislature. Legislators are afraid that if they go with this much higher limit and something happens that they will be blamed and will not be reelected. So they keep the limits much too low. Another likely factor is that the insurance industry, the enforcement institution, and all the other quimbies of the anti-destination league provide tens of millions in campaign funds. We all know that money talks and BS walks.

{Speeding is not dangerous.
Take a motorcycle safety course… you will never understand the idea of how dangerous speeding is until you ride a motorcycle after taking a safety course.}

Been there, done that. I had a Honda that I could park right next to the building on campus. A car required very remote parking and a shuttle bus ride. It only solidified my beliefs.

Sidebar: We must be very careful to distinguish between “speeding” and “speed too fast for conditions.” In a 70 mph zone, 70.1 is speeding but certainly is no more dangerous than 69.999. Likewise, 92 mph in a 70 zone is illegal but not necessarily dangerous. I-15 for 60 miles north of San Diego runs routinely in the 90s; in that zone, the danger is running 70 in the #2 lane (not to mention rude and stupid).

Under normal conditions, where does “speeding” end and “too fast for conditions” begin? We cannot say with digital precision because it varies with the calculus of the car, the driver, the road, the weather, etc. However, we would get near universal acceptance of 20 mph over the posted limit as “speeding” but not “too fast for conditions.” The issue is that enforcement focuses on 5 to 10 mph over the limit, which is clearly “speeding” and clearly not “too fast for conditions.”

By Eric on Feb 26, 2008

For the liberal James Young:
The failure of people to obey a law intended for all people is a prime example of the break down in our society. The same arrogant people who speed believe that they are above the law. That do not possess the moral values and principles of law abiding citizens and are more apt to break more than just motor vehicle laws such as speeding.

By James Young on Feb 26, 2008

Eric writes:

{For the liberal James Young:
The failure of people to obey a law intended for all people is a prime example of the break down in our society. The same arrogant people who speed believe that they are above the law. That do not possess the moral values and principles of law abiding citizens and are more apt to break more than just motor vehicle laws such as speeding.}

First, I thank you for the label. I haven’t been called a liberal in a while and it’s rather like I am home again. Greater men than I have already addressed a contemptuous law:

“An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so.”
Mohandas Gandhi

“If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.”
Henry David Thoreau

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”
Thomas Jefferson

“Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced.”
Albert Einstein

“There is a higher law than the law of government. That’s the law of conscience.”
Stokely Carmichael

“The good of the people is the greatest law.”
Marcus Tullius Cicero

{The same arrogant people . . .} narrows it down to about 150,000,000 people since virtually the entire population of drivers ignore the law because the law is stupid on its face, dangerous in its structure and random in its application, in short, violating every philosophical principle of law known to civilization.

By Joe on Feb 27, 2008

Darren writes:

Since when is speeding a legal right? Personally, I wish there were more cops on the road taking you folks down. Speeding is dangerous. I can’t count the number of times A-holes jump into the right lane (where I always drive because I cruise control at 60) because 70 or 75 is not fast enough. When are these folks going to realize they’re not the only ones on the road and that life is more precious than saving a few minutes (or seconds in even shorter drives)?
Do I have to mention the savings in gas and money by driving a sane speed?
Get over your self-righteousness, folks.”

Yeah, your the kind of guy I go out of my way to avoid because your an accident waiting to happen. Your the kind of guy I see driving down the road going 10-15 mph under the speed limit with both hands on the wheel at 10 and 2 with a death grip with your seat all pushed up within inches of the steering wheel, your head and eyes locked on the road like you think its going to disappear at any second.

You my friend are scared to death of driving and will most likely kill someone at the slightest unusual occurance that takes place in front of you because you will freak out and flip your vehicle out of panic. What you need is a better understanding of how to operate a motor vehicle.

We need to make it harder for people to get a drivers license and require them to go through a driving course of some type at their expense in order to drive on American roads, and then we need to abolish speed limits on the Interstate all together, and take a serious look at highway speed limits.

All the time and effort states spend on tracking down speeders could be much better spent cruising neighborhood streets. I would much rather see a cop occasionaly passing through my neighborhood making himself visible than to have to find them all pulling over speeders. A very low percentage of accidents are caused by speed alone.

By Texas Cop on Feb 27, 2008

Thanks for the case citation Mr. Young (BELL V. BURSON, 402 U. S. 535 (1971)). I looked it up and was a very interesting read. As I was only 7 at the time I didn’t actually remember the ruling back then. However, since it has been determined in this court case that for the suspension of a driver’s license requires due process under the 14th Amendment, I really don’t think there are a lot of violations by the States on this issue. And if a State can still suspend a license, after following due process of course, then it really isn’t much of a constitutional right which most people equate with “rights” as we know it. (Plus there is nothing written in the Constitution, unless it si an individual State Constitution, giving anyone the right to drive a car). A right is somehting that cannot be taken away (free speech, press, religion), however, even some rights do have limitations. I mean, we don’t want to have a religion that canabalizes little children or lets someone scream “FIRE” in a crowded theatre. The courts have set some limitation on “rights” and have also stated that he rights of one person does not supercede the rights of another person, but then again, due process will have to figure out a mess like that as well.

I am also not as learned as you are or some others on this site, however, I do think I am smart enough to know that I do not want a 16, 17 or sometimes even 55 year old person driving any way they want based on what they deem their own abilities to be. (Usually people overrate thier own abilities drastically.) Unfotunately, that would also mean that I know a lot of police officers that should have some major restrictions placed on their driving, and even in some cases the ability to carry a gun. We just don’t afford the normal, everyday driver the level of training that you have gone thorugh or someone over in Europe, and then again, personal abilities will be limiting on an individual basis (and let’s not even get into the limitations of ones own mental faculties as well). Basically from what I have seen from most people on these sites is that they have had a bad experience in their driving by having run in’s with the police and don’t want to accept responsibility for breaking the traffic laws that are established at the present time. Saying all cops are crooked, anyone who disagrees with you is a moron gets nothing done. If anyone wants something done, do things the right way, contact your local and State Representatives. If the research is as you and other state that it is, then changes will be made. But I can guarantee you that others will have the same amount of research as you do that states the opposite of what you or anyone will say in favor of doing away with traffic laws and such. Me? I don’t care. I don’t write tickets. But I investigate crimes and it is never the suspects fault, it’s societies fault that he stole from someone else, murdered someones father, robbed the bank or committed a fraud against an elderly individual depleted their life savings. It’s my fault he is in jail somply becasue I investigated his crime. It’s always the same whether it’s a traffic offense or a criminal offense. At least I won’t care until someone who thinks that they are above the legal requirements that are set now that they may violate and that well meaning individual that overestimated his own abilities to control a 3500 pound rolling metal missile hits my wife, again, and claims they had the “right” to run the red light because she got to the intersection first before my wife did. Only problem was that my wife had the green light and she is the one that got sent to the hospital in an ambulance while 2 of my three children had to ride in the back seat of a police car as they were crying for their mother. Yeah, traffic laws make no difference in society.

By James Young on Feb 28, 2008

Texas Cop writes:

{ However, since it has been determined in this court case that for the suspension of a driver’s license requires due process under the 14th Amendment, I really don’t think there are a lot of violations by the States on this issue. And if a State can still suspend a license, after following due process of course, then it really isn’t much of a constitutional right which most people equate with “rights” as we know it.}

Actually, there are many violations of this court ruling, certainly in spirit if not in letter. How many drivers have obtained their license, thus entitling them to pilot vehicles on public roadways, but then had that license revoked because of some specious reasoning? We now revoke licenses for many things completely unrelated to the ability for which the license was issued.

We revoke licenses for debts, child support, drug convictions, failure to properly trim trees, unpaid library fines, or not shoveling snow promptly enough.

I did not, with the original issuance of my licenses (OK & TX), explicitly allow the DMV to rescind my license just because they don’t like my unshoveled driveway. I did not then and have not ever implied that they could assign such permission to revoke my license. Yet, they now say that we have all implicitly signed over that authority to them and that that implicit permission constitutes “due process.” Is there any wonder why people resent and distrust government so much?

{Plus there is nothing written in the Constitution, unless it si an individual State Constitution, giving anyone the right to drive a car}

The Constitution did not foresee the invention of the automobile but the right to travel is well established in common law and court precedent. It is also a fundamental human right that does not need enumeration by the Constitution to be valid. That we need to travel by automobile for the execution of our everyday lives, our commerce and our liberty is hardly arguable. To me, the only factor that should lead to a revocation of a license is when the holder is no longer capable of piloting a car. Of course, the states see this restriction on them as a threat so they treat licenses as de facto if not de jure privileges.

{I am also not as learned as you are or some others on this site, however, I do think I am smart enough to know that I do not want a 16, 17 or sometimes even 55 year old person driving any way they want based on what they deem their own abilities to be.}

I used to think the same thing many years ago but the proof that we do handle our cars very well is in your statistics: the lowest fatality and injury rates in our history. Somehow, all those drivers make all those judgments pretty well.

By Texas Cop on Feb 29, 2008

Never seen a license suspended for something that didn’t happen in a car. I guess it’s possible thought, jsut never seen one. But I have made an arrest ona warrant for a library fine violation once. Unfortunately we don’t know what the arrest warrants are for until they are confirmed then we really don’t have much choice if the warrant was issued by a judge. Would like to see that paperwork. If that is the case, then something is wrong where that happened. I never said our system is perfect, but it is the one we have, for now.

Low fatality and injury rates can also be attributed to the better manufacturing of cars, not neccessarlily the better driving skills of individuals. Statistics can be skewed in any number of ways. I’ve seen it done in city governemnt for many years to accomplish a wanted desire by certain individuals on both sides of an issue. I don’t necessarily rely on stats very much. I tend to go off my own observations in what I see. Maybe I just live in an area where certain groups of individuals can’t drive.

Also, the granting of Due Process does not equate to a constitutional right. It affords certain procedures afforded to a person befor certain actions can be taken. Due process is involved in everything from driver’s licenses to human resources and insurance payment problems.

We can go back and forth all day long and it won’t accomplish anything. I imagine all States have laws in the Transportations Codes dealing with the issuance and revocation of licenses and describe the Due Process required. Talking on these forums is pointless and I have really discovered a complete waste of time, unless you ahve an axe to grind. If you really want to make a difference and have the support of yoru statistics, research and whatever else you want ot pull out of your hat, take it to the people that set the rules of the game and do something constructive in your lives and try to get the rules changed. Crying about it on the internet does nothing but to feed and fuel others who have personal grievances because they can’t seem to play by the rules that are in place now. (Waahh, I’ll just take my ball and go home!)

Good luck in your fight for whatever cause you take up. I’m going back to life and my family. It’s been real, but not real fun.

By James Young on Feb 29, 2008

{I never said our system is perfect, but it is the one we have, for now.}

Our system for designing and implementing laws is far from perfect and is getting worse every day because it has been subjugated by special interests who use their wealth and influence to direct legislation that helps them but often with the price being paid by many others. Cash has replaced the ballot box as the currency of modern democracy and until that is removed, the situation will continue to deteriorate.

{Low fatality and injury rates can also be attributed to the better manufacturing of cars, not neccessarlily the better driving skills of individuals. Statistics can be skewed in any number of ways. I’ve seen it done in city governemnt for many years to accomplish a wanted desire by certain individuals on both sides of an issue. I don’t necessarily rely on stats very much. I tend to go off my own observations in what I see. Maybe I just live in an area where certain groups of individuals can’t drive.}

Statistics are a tool and must be used with care. However, to refuse to use a tool because you don’t like the results that it yields is reprehensible, especially for a public agency that must use scientifically defensible methodology. One insight that they can offer is that since crash, injury and fatality rates keep falling, we can afford to increase our productivity by increasing our speeds. Speed limits are not benign creatures without costs or consequences; when we set limits too low, the price that we the driving public and you the enforcers pay is huge.

{If you really want to make a difference and have the support of [your] statistics, research and whatever else you want ot pull out of your hat, take it to the people that set the rules of the game and do something constructive in your lives and try to get the rules changed.}

See above. The people that set the rules are the ones accepting all that cash from all those special interests. It is amazing how votes in committees and chambers correlate so directly with special interest contributions and how the needs of the public are virtually ignored. I have been denied access to state legislators in OK and CA because I did not contribute to their particular reelection campaigns. They are not interested in changing the rules or in making life better for the public, but rather only in perpetuating their careers.

{Crying about it on the internet does nothing but to feed and fuel others who have personal grievances because they can’t seem to play by the rules that are in place now.{

No, it’s because the rules are manipulated so that they can’t play by them.

I have juxtaposed your own words so that they now make more sense:

{Good luck in your fight for whatever cause you take up. I’m going back to life and my family. It’s been real, but not real fun. (Waahh, I’ll just take my ball and go home!)}

By Heather on Mar 4, 2008

In response to Darren’s comment January 4, 2008 about speeding. If you look back in 1974 the speed limit doesn’t have anything to do with ‘ saving lives ‘. The national maximum speed limit law was passed in 1974 by the Nixion administration and it’s sole purpose was to conserve fuel. It is a fact that driving “55″ saves fuel. If you remember back that far, we were in a midst of an alleged fuel shortage. But, gues what folks? Crisis is over! Many years later we still have the 55 m.p.h. speed limit. The government wants you to belive that “55 saves lives.” The real reason, sadly is that it provides the government (and insurance companies) with HUGE revenue: speeding tickets. A Federal Highway Administration study by transportation engineers Samuel C Tignor and Davey Warren concluded of all drivers studied, the SLOWEST 5% had the highest accident rate. Does that surprise you? Guess what else they found. Those drivers whose speeds were 10-15 m.p.h. ABOVE the speed limit had the lowest accident rate. That means (if you think about it for a minute) you are safer exceeding our current speed limit that obeying it. If you do not believe it, you are the unfortunate victim of brainwashing. Facts show that HALF of all accidents are due to slow drivers. 70% of all motorists exceed the speed limit and that most speed limits are set 10 m.p.h. below the average speed of traffic. Author: Alex Carroll “Beat the Cop”

By Joe on Mar 5, 2008

Thats a good point to remember. The 55 MPH thing was nothing more than a way to conserve gas. It wasn’t until later that they decided the money was just too good to give up so they adopted that 55 stay alive crap. Then after enough public uproar they started bumping it up to 65 and even 70 in some states, and here we are, STILL ALIVE.

It’s no surprise that motorists that consistently drive under the speed limits are the ones causing all the accidents. I’ve said it before, those that have those kinds of driving habits are just masking their insecurities behind the wheel with the illusion of being the safer driver. In reality they just aren’t comfortable behind the wheel for whatever reason and eventually cause an accident when they over react to something simple that others would just steer clear of or calmly break away from. Same situation, one driver reacts and forgets about it within a few seconds, the other driver runs his vehicle off the road or into the other lane causing havoc.

Of course there are those exceptions where you have drivers who are just careless and like to bob and weave out of traffic running others off the road trying to make a light or something. They are the ones who ruin it for others and end up being the poster children for the state and an excuse to rape us all for dollars. Ive had one accident in my entire life and that was when I was 17 years old and and older man crossed into my lane in front of me and I couldn’t stop in time. I’ve been driving for 21 years and although I haven’t had a ticket until recently in about 12 years, I probably have accumulated several dozen tickets over the years and contributed thousands of dollars to the state and insurance companies. I feel very comfortable driving fast and I consider myself to be an extremely alert driver because of it. I use all my mirrors and am always watching for that other driver who may not be paying attention. Meaning that I’m not reckless even though I do drive fast. All of this doesn’t mean I am immune to an accident, but forcing me to drive at an insanely slow speed isn’t going to make me any safer. If anything it will make me get into an accident quicker simply because of my own stress level.

By Why on Mar 5, 2008

Wondering why I have seen and trailed a few cops in more than 1 state that think it’s okay for them to speed, but no one else. I understand there are a few situations that they need the lights and sirens off, ie when they are close to a crime in progress that will get someone hurt, but for them to go 10 to 20 plus mph over on the highway with no lights on is wrong. I have been driving for over 17 years and have seen this several times. When there lights are off they should obey the posted speed as we have to ???
Bye the way from what I have heard it is easier for someone to get out of a D.U.I. than a speeding ticket. What is up with that?

By Joe on Mar 6, 2008

The simple answer is because they can. Which is a big reason why a lot of cops will let other cops off with a warning when they pull them over in their civilian vehicles, because they know how hard of a habit it is to break. The state would tell you that its a part of their job and when they are speeding they are safer than the average joe public because they are trained for high speed driving. Which again goes back to my original thought of making it mandatory for new drivers to get that kind of training until you finally have converted the majority of America over thus eliminating any real need for speed limits in most areas like Interstates. That will never happen though, because its not about being safer, its about the money. As for me, I would be willing to have my taxes raised a bit to pay for the things they say they need rather than have to deal with their speed traps and a constant feeling of having to look over my shoulder and down at my speedometer to make sure I’m not breaking some law by accident.

By pot will make you kill your mother on Mar 9, 2008

james young wrote,
Is there any wonder why people resent and distrust government so much?
I think Mr. young understands that this goes deeper than any traffic offences.
speaking for myself, the reason for my SLIGHT mistrust of the government is that, i just cant prove that its ever officially, spoken the truth , certainly not to me.
and to officer Tex, I hear you and as the Bible states that laws and rules must be followed, even if you know, or believe the law to be wrong, or unjust, and thats what i do, but what happens when they outlaw driving around in your cruiser while wearing pink panties???
then what cha gonna do?
maybe consider that my mother is still alive, marijuana didnt make me kill her, like uncle sam said years back. another thing i know, is that the bill of rights states that no one be put in jepordy of life or limb twice over the same offence, but before my failure to maintain insurance no longer haunts me, ill pay,
1) the ticket(less than $200.00 i think)
2) $260.00to the state this year
3) $260.00to the state next year
4) $260.00to the state for a third year
the latter three are being called a surchrge on the drivers license. Id say thats alot of extra work that someone had to do over my ticket ; $780.00 worth of overtime!! OK i know its not for overtime for someone to process my ticket, so surely $780.00 per/ each no insurance, weather an accident occoured or not, and $780.00 for each accident with one of the parties lacking insurance. I would think this just about affords the huge yearly loss by people struck by uninsured motorists, you know , the same way that the only leagle gambling, sponsored by the state(texas lotto) or (the idiot tax), was supposed to fix everything wrong with the public school system. well i can assure any of you that the money will not be used to help fix your car, but aparently used to pay for continuing to protect and defend the constitutional rights of every Americam citizen. well minus that one part i just mentioned.
ill finish up with the brutal honesty thats my moral weapon of choice. Im in the construction industry and while ive spoken untruths in the past, ive never been required to lie or use dishonesty every day just to complete the duties of my work.law enforcement cant say that nor can most if not all policy makers. I love this country, i love God, and I love my fellow man. This government scares the hell out of me. the last i checked about a year ago 1 out of every 134 American citizens are in prison long term many im sure for chosing to smoke pot instead of becoming a number in a class action law suit when the new man-made drug starts to kill folks tring to improve thier health. DONT DO DRUGS ,SMOKE POT INSTEAD.
It doesnt impair your ability to drive.

By Drive on Mar 9, 2008

pot will make you kill your mother wrote,

“DONT DO DRUGS ,SMOKE POT INSTEAD.
It doesnt impair your ability to drive.”

Don’t know about you, Mate, but I consider that last statement to be complete rubbish. I’ve smoked a LOT of pot over the past 30 years and very early on came to the conclusion that IT DOES IMPAIR YOUR ABILITY TO DRIVE.

Personal case in point: Years ago I was living in Florida. A friend and I were driving to a state park that I had been to several times, so I knew the route very well. We were smoking pot on the way and got very f’d up. Eventually we came upon a draw bridge and I had to pull over to check a map as I didn’t recall ever crossing that bridge on the way to this state park. Upon checking said map I found we had PASSED the clearly marked entrance to the state park and driven about 15 more miles further. I honestly could not recall the previous 15-20 minutes of the trip, let alone passing the state park entrance! That bloody well scared the hell out of me as I like to be in complete control whenever I’m driving and I realized that, because of the pot, I was not. From that day on I have never driven after smoking pot because of how it impaired my ability to drive.

The moral is, in my opinion, if you’re going to smoke pot either stay home or have a designated driver.

By pot will make you kill your mother on Mar 9, 2008

drive wrote, that he/she believes that pot does impair your ability to drive, but as far as i know its very rare to be charged only with driving while under the influance of pot. but ,i supose that being in a strange hood 15 or so miles past where your going, in the direction your traveling, could arouse the suspicions of local police officers, but as long as you can refrain from staring in disbelief at the bridge and simply move on, youd most likely be alright.(;-v).

By pot will make you kill your mother on Mar 9, 2008

in keeping with the basic page topic, you should be aware, in the intrest of personal enlightenment, that you were going 15 mph or slower. i wonder if you had a couple of drinks before the trip? case smokin’ and drinkin together is like peeing into a stiff wind, somethings liable to blow opposite of the way you want it to blow.

By 80/70 on Mar 10, 2008

I love James Young’s Attitude. I love driving fast safely and even sometimes unsafely. Just got my first ticket in 10 years doing 80 in a 70. Where I live the speed limits change so abrubtly, it drives me crazy, 45 miles an hour is stupid through some tiny insignifacant blip for a town with no people on the HIGHWAY. Except for the occasional drunk Indian teenager.

Just had to vent my rediculous ticket.

P.S. Should have hit the brakes when I saw the hwy-pig.

By Rich on Mar 13, 2008

Know the difference between a drunk driver and a stoner driver ?

Drunk driver will run a red light, stoner will sit through 10 green lights.

By Big J on Mar 14, 2008

Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics, even if you win you are still RETARDED!!!

By I love to speed on Mar 21, 2008

I love the arguments given by JY. Basically speeding tickets is a way to make money for the government when they have practical means to limit the speed. I would say why doesn’t the government ask the manufacturers to stop making cars which go over 80 or 100 mph better they install speed governors. We have emission standards, why don’t we have speed standards so that manufacturers dont make cars which can go above 80 mph as I don’t know of any highway which allows for a speed more than this.

No Ferrari’s should be imported into US of A as legally you cannot enjoy the pleasure of driving it at 100 mph ;-)

By Joe on Mar 22, 2008

I would like to see roads rated with a useablity factor. Various factors such as speed limits, enforcement and congestion would be factored in. The lower the factor the less user friendly the highway would be considered starting with a comparison with Germany’s autobahn at a 100%.
A useablity factor would give a visitor or traveler a instant easy to understand way of determining the best route to take. This factor could be integrated into GPS maps. It might also give a municipally an incentive to increase it’s rating to encourage more tourism and business activity. A low rating would not look good.

By Joe on Mar 24, 2008

James Young wrote “Remember that when you can drive 80 mph legally through west Texas, you can thanks the likes of me and my group.”

I do thank you. I must say when I was stationed in Texas a few years ago, it was by far the most pleasant driving experience I have had in any state. It felt weird driving down a two lane road with the speed limit was 70mph. I couldn’t believe they were actually that relaxed about the speed because most states see two lane roads, regardless of how remote or desolate/isolated from the public they are, as money pits to exploit. Texas seems a little more relaxed in that regard, and their roads are much better maintained that most states I have had the privilege of driving in.

Again thanks for all you do. You do seem very well educated you I like the way your present your case on here backed up with facts, while others just seem to dance around your words feverishly trying to label you a nut case with a need to kill people while speeding. Even that CO police officer ended up sounding like he had nothing to offer but the idea that 55 saves lives. Thanks again, and I would love to help out the cause in any way I can.

I would also like to add my own numbers, Ive been driving for 20 years, have probably 2 dozen tickets over those years, 1 accident which wasn’t my fault. I encourage everyone here to drive safely and within your own limits for the conditions, use all your mirrors and remain alert to what other drivers may be getting ready to do. Those things will save you quicker and more often than any posted speed limit will, or any fine by a traffic cop.

By JOE on Mar 24, 2008

Hmmmm, 2 Joes’s. OK I’ll be JOE (caps)

By Lisa on Mar 24, 2008

To James Young;

Looks like you are a real patriot, learned & self-informing. Excellent to know that others are out there taking another angle fighting the power elite who use well meaning but ill-informed beat cops to write extortionate citations which serve the purpose only to economically injur the working class, while generating unneeded funds for corrupt politicians to line their pockets.

I have recently received what I call an extortion ticket from an officer accusing me of traveling 10 mph above the posted “limit” during which the conditions for driving were sunny, excellent visibility & dry road. The posted was 60, the citation states I was doing 70 or thereabouts. Do you (anyone is welcome to advise) have any advice for my upcoming trial as I am proceeding with a trial and refusing to admit guilt or plead no contest. Do you advise a jury trial or a trial by judge? I know the game is rigged but what would be the wisest choice? I live in Texas.

By JOE on Mar 25, 2008

James is the Lou Dobbs of traffic control. James Young for president!

By James Young on Mar 25, 2008

I thank everybody for the kind words.

Lisa: when you go the NMA website (www.motorists.org), instead of clicking on the BLOG link, click on the “Fight Your Ticket” icon in the left side. Follow their advice. I urge you to join NMA, rent the “Legal Defense Kit” and use it religiously. Logistically, the more you can delay the trial, the better your chances are of winning. In any case, if a jury trial is available, I would use that. Go to the courtroom where the trial will take place and observe several trials in which you have no vested interest, i.e., just a third party observer. You will learn their procedure and how the prosecutor approaches his/her case.

Define your argument clearly and write it down. Outline your cross examination questions and expected responses – this is stuff that is in the Legal Defense Kit – and proper follow up questions.

Know the exact law that you have been accused of violating. Just Google “Texas Transportation Code Title 7 Section 545 Speed Limit” Print it out. It should be listed right on the face of the ticket.

If you have an attorney friend, ask their advice.

What county are you in? Travis County (Austin) is home for me although I’m in California right now working at a couple of hugely fun jobs.

Keep us informed.

By Lisa on Mar 25, 2008

To James Young;

My citation was received in Harris County, but I live in Montgomery. I am originally from California.

What do you think about common law default strategies for fighting tickets?

By James Young on Mar 25, 2008

I have never heard of such a defense before. Traffic law is statutory rather than common so I’m guessing that a common law defense would be met with skepticism.

First things first. Call, write or personally visit the court clerk to get a continuance in order to give you time to build your defense. The longer you can delay it the better off you are. I was once cited near Fremont, CA, delayed it for about 3 months and when I was about to ask for another continuance, the DA told me it had been dropped. I learned later from a wannabe Chippie that the original Chippie was on forced administrative leave because she was in a mental hospital.

By LynnB on Mar 25, 2008

One other key to your defense is to request a copy of the COPS ticket and the notes he has made. You will then see the evidence the cop has against you and you can plan to counter that, or even defeat it if it is wrong.

My wife got a ticket in that shit-dump Morrison, 47 in a 30. She swears up and down she wasn’t speeding, and was angry at the cop…..She questioned, not very nicely, how he could clock her when both were coming around a sharp bend in the road, and she coming up a hill and he down.

He said “I have movable radar…I can move the gun like this”…and he panned his hand sideways.

Well, right there can result in a panning error, but we got the copy of the ticket and he noted that he first locked on at 20′, then observed her speed decrease from 47 to 54 to 43.

Now, using that MATH…. of 1.47 FPS per mph, she was past him in 1/2 a second, so it was impossible for his gun to give second and third reading. He was also at such an angle off he had a serious cosine error.

But alas…in all the years I waited to fight a non-deserved radar ticket, this was it…and my wife wouldn’t go to court as the city attorney plea bargained it down from 4 points to 2, but the fine remained $73…and he threatened in his plea that going to court COULD result in a fine of up to $200.

I felt we surely could have one as i have more knowledge about radar in my little finger than any podunk small town cop would ever know.

By MIke E. on Apr 3, 2008

I just thought I would thank the author of this site I just got busted on base for supposedly doing 32 in a 25, I was watching my speed when this happened I was at 23, On base a ticket does not cost money nor does it go on your record, but it goes up the chain of command. I was ticketed by the same officer twice in 5 days, once for 31 and now for 32. I really feel that this individual is new and inexpierienced. I have been a firefighter for 12 years and have always treated fellow public servents with respect but this guy is headhunting me for some reason. The base is only 1 1/2 sq. miles so I cannot avoid him any ideas.

By Derek on Apr 5, 2008

Wow,
Lively thread, with valid points from “both” sides of this issue.

If you are cited for a ticket (in the US), pay careful attention to the *COLOR* of the “speed limit” sign. That’s right, the color!

Here is why: Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations specifies Traffic Sign Colors and Class. Here is a breakdown:
Red sign with White Letters: Compulsory;
White Sign with Black Letters: Compulsory;
Yellow Sign with Black Letters: Advisory;
Orange Sign with Black Letters: Construction..may be Advisory or Compulsory depending on context;
Blue Sign with White Letters: Information on Services;
Green Sign with White Letters: Information on Travel Directions;
Illuminated Signs (signs that turned on or programmed at certain times or for certain conditions): Advisory or Compulsory, depending on context;

So, why do we care? Because if you are ticketed for “exceeding the posted limit”, and the sign is Advisory, the ticket is invalid. The correct citation, in this case, would be “excessive speed for conditions”, which is harder to prove.

Many Police Operatives do not know this, and often issue “sloppy” tickets, or, they *DO* know this and are betting that *YOU* don’t, so pay attention, and take pictures (after he or she leaves).

Also, watch out for sly officials that will write the higher citation, even if it is obscure.

Here is an example:

In Alaska (your state probably varies, but the concept applies):
1) Traveling 65mph in a 60mph zone is a 2 point offense, with punitive fine applied in concordance with a published schedule.
2) Traveling 70mph in a 60mph zone is a 4 point offense, with a higher punitive fine applied in concordance with the same schedule.

So, here is the kicker: In case 1) above, if the Officer wants a higher Revenue Extraction (from you), he can cite you for “Failure to Obey a Traffic Control Device”, which is the same as running a red-light (and your insurance company is likely to interpret the same)…that’s 4 points, and a higher punitive fine that either 1) or 2), above, due to its implied “Safety Violation” exacerbation.

So, watch out for this. An intelligent Judge or Magistrate will see right through what the Officer did and dismiss or reduce the ticket.

For those that care, I advocate safe driving…not just me being safe for me, but me being safe for those driving near me.

However, I don’t support the Collection of Revenue hiding behind a Veil of “Safety” that can be applied arbitrarily.

By Lisa on Apr 7, 2008

So, I requested by mail a trial by jury, & the trial date is set for September 15th, 2008. Why was it set for so long into the future, & when that date nears, will I still be able to get a continuance if I do not have all the materials ready that I will need for my case?

By Beat A Speeding Ticket on Apr 10, 2008

Lisa,
The reason that your trial date is set so far in advance is because this is how backlogged the traffic courts are right now. When the date nears you should be able to get at least one more continuance if you can provide some type of reason to the court clerk, however with the case this far away you should be pretty well off and they may not grant you a continuance on that fact alone.

By Steve on Apr 11, 2008

Lisa,
You might want to check into the time limit for the trial. They only have a certain amount of time to take you to court.

If every one went to court they would have to throw out 90% of the tickets. The Dallas news paper did an article on speeding tickets. They said that if a lawyer that handles speeding tickets demanded a jury trial for all of his clients it totally screw up the court system. Just one lawyer is all it would take.

By Sarah on Apr 16, 2008

My husband got a speeding ticket for going “84 in a 70 zone” yesterday. He was driving a government vehicle that has an 80mph governor on it, in the middle lane while cars passed him on the right. PS he was also towing a boat and a 1,000 water aid. How ’bout that math?

By LynnB on Apr 16, 2008

Sarah, read my post on 25 Mar as well as those earlier if this was a RADAR ticket. If so, the cop most likely clocked one of the cars passing him. Our doppler radar in the F-4 was programmed to pick up the fastest target when multiple targets are in the area. I’d bet police doppler does the same…and probably the same for lasar.

By Lisa on Apr 16, 2008

To “Beat a Speeding Ticket” & “Steve”

Thanks so much, very useful info. I love to hear that courts are backlogged! It gives me a sweet, sweet pleasure deep down inside!

By JJ on Apr 30, 2008

Have court in 3 hours for speeding 150mph in a 45 zone…

Interesting debate. Thanks for t