The Traveling Public Can Go Elsewhere

By James Baxter, NMA President

According to public opinion, there are 57,000 speed traps in the United States. That’s how many speed traps have been listed by individuals on SpeedTrap.org, a website sponsored by the NMA. That averages out to 1140 speed traps per state.

Of course some states lead the charge, like California with 5399 speed traps. On the other end of the spectrum is Alaska with “only” 51 speed traps. These are not numbers you’re likely to find published in state tourism brochures. However, they are numbers you might want to consider when planning your next vacation.

Speed traps are an economic phenomenon; they are a source of revenue for state and local governments, local court systems and police departments. Adding extra juice to the financial pie are federal funds targeted on speed enforcement. This is a double dipping extravaganza where police departments not only bag the fines but also get federal funds for manpower, equipment, and related expenses.

We the people get to pay for this on both ends, through our taxes and then the ticket fines and insurance surcharges.

The chart at the bottom of this post lists the number of speed traps in each state. You might want to write a letter to the governor and/or tourism agency in one or more of these states, perhaps a state you were planning on visiting, and let them know that while you’re happy to spend money on goods and services you are not keen on being milked by the state patrol or a small town ticket mill. Consequently, you are reconsidering your travel plans.

Read the rest of this entry »

What To Do After A Car Accident

By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist

If you get into an accident — especially a relatively minor, “fender bender” type of accident where there are no major injuries involved, just some bent metal — how do you proceed?

The following checklist might be helpful:

1) Make absolutely sure no one is seriously hurt.
Anything more than minor scrapes and bumps means call 911 first. Request that EMS and police (in that order) be dispatched to the scene; make it clear to the operator that there are people who need medical attention.

2) Wait for the police to arrive.
Some recommend moving the vehicles off to the shoulder — for reasons of courtesy and safety. However, moving the vehicles may also make it less clear who is at fault — and who gets a ticket, as well as the blame when it comes time to settle the bill with the insurance company.

Best advice: Turn off the engine, turn on the hazard lights, remove the keys — and wait for the law to arrive. In states that have “no fault” laws, obviously, this is less of an issue. In that case, and assuming the vehicles are operable and it’s safe to do so, go ahead and move them out of the way.

If possible, you can direct traffic around the accident scene. If the conditions are dangerous — lots of cars, heavy traffic — it is smart to get away from the cars and just wait for the cops to show.

Other drivers may be annoyed by the inconvenience, but given that even a minor accident can involve thousands of dollars in damage — and given that if you are found to be at fault, your insurance premiums may go up for several years to come — creating a temporary and probably minor obstruction to the flow of traffic seems more than justified, especially if you are certain the accident is the other driver’s fault.

3) Keep your conversation with the other driver pleasant, but minimal.
You are required by law to provide your driver’s license and insurance information to the other driver; but you are not required to discuss who is at fault or anything else about what happened. You want to avoid making any statement that could be used against you in court — or possibly in a lawsuit.  For example, don’t talk about your state of mind, that you were “in a hurry,” or “didn’t see” the other car.

Express no opinion, one way or the other. Leave that to the police — and your insurance company — to sort out.

Read the rest of this entry »

A Blueprint For Reasonable Drunk Driving Laws

As a followup to last week’s post on the possibility of mandatory breathalyzers in every vehicle, we thought it would be worth going over the organization’s stance on DUI/DWI laws:

The NMA supports drinking and driving regulations based on reasonable standards that differentiate between responsible, reasonable behavior and reckless, dangerous behavior.

The NMA does not support “zero tolerance” concepts, nor does it endorse unconstitutional enforcement and judicial procedures that violate motorists’ rights.

Basic Tenets

1. We believe that penalties for DUI/DWI should be related to the degree of risk involved, and that these penalties be equated with penalties for equal-risk violations of other traffic safety laws.
2. We support those legislative and enforcement initiatives that are effective in achieving stated goals of deterrence and removal of impaired drivers. We do not support initiatives based on revenge, political expedience, or emotional hyperbole.
3. We believe that all Americans should enjoy the same Constitutional rights and privileges. Legislative or enforcement initiatives denying these rights and privileges to motorists violate this uniform application of Constitutional standards.
4. We believe in basing laws and penalties on actual evidence of impairment whenever possible. Blood alcohol content should only be used as prima facie evidence of impairment, and there should be flexibility in laws that base penalties on blood alcohol content.

Read the rest of this entry »

Mandatory In-Car Breathalyzers Coming?

By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist

If you’re not a convicted drunk driver, should you still be required to have an in-car breathalyzer fitted (at your expense, ‘natch) to your next new vehicle?

Apparently, some automakers — including GM and Toyota — think so. They and a few others are working together under the auspices of something called the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, which is a $10 million federal “research program” that is trying to develop just such technology for mass introduction a few years from now.

At the moment, the only people who have to deal with (and pay for) in-car Breathalyzers are convicted drunks; the devices are basically ignition locks that prevent the vehicle’s engine from being started until the would-be driver blows into the tube and the system determines he’s not liquored up.

But by 2012 or so, in-car breath sniffers could be standard equipment in every new vehicle sold, force-fed to you by the tag team of Washington, Detroit and, of course, the ever-busy Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).

No conviction necessary.

Advocates say the technology under development would be “less intrusive.” Instead of making the driver blow into a little tube like they make you do at those roadside “sobriety checkpoints,” a system of passive alcohol sensors would be fitted to the car that could take a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) reading via a person’s skin — as when your hand touches the shifter or steering wheel. This “quiet” approach is supposed to make us feel better about being pre-convicted and treated like known and duly processed irresponsible drunks every single time we get behind the wheel of a car.

It doesn’t work for me.

Read the rest of this entry »