[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Need Help Bad speeding ticket



In article <randy-0111950114400001@philly36.voicenet.com>,
Randy <randy@omni.voicenet.com> wrote:
>In article <475gvu$dvu@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
>adr5@aloha.cc.columbia.edu (Alex D Rodriguez) wrote:
>
>> In article <randy-3010950256550001@philly57.voicenet.com>,
>> Randy <randy@omni.voicenet.com> wrote:
>> >In article <46lf6q$meo@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
>> >adr5@aloha.cc.columbia.edu (Alex D Rodriguez) wrote:
>> >

>Not everyone has a radar detector. In fact. the majority of the people I
>stop, do not have one. 

The reason being that if they had a radar detector, they probably wouldn't
have been stopped.

>> >100 MPH is not safe. 
>> Under some conditions 100 MPH is safe.
>Such as?

Any Interstates straight section of road when the weather is good and the
traffic is light.  

>
>> >Most people will never break the 100 MPH mark. I am
>> >referring to the 55 and 65 MPH speed limits that most people drive 10
>> >over. As far as driving in inclement weather, most drivers slow down for
>> >conditions. That is plain common sense. 
>> 
>> You seem to be saying that drivers have common sense and can recognize
>> when it is smart to slow down 
>
>Most.
>

We agree then.  Since most are smart we should make laws that apply to most.
The current NMSL does not apply to most, or even close to being most.  The
number of people who regularly ignore the law is well over 3/4 of the people
on the road.


>I am not pushing 55 MPH speed limits. That is too slow. But I do believe
>there should be speed limits to keep the faster traffic from going too
>fast. Not everyone can or wants to drive 85 MPH.

So what SL do you propose and why?  Most people will not drive faster than 
they feel comfortable at, so why impose artificial limits?  If there is
someone who is obviously driving above the limits of their driving skills
of their car they can easily be pulled over for driving in an unsafe manner.
If safety is the main concern, and it obviously isn't because of the way 
the systme currently works, then upping the limits substantially should not
be of any real concern.

>
>> These same drivers who have enough common
>> sense to slow down when the weather warrants it can also slow down when 
>> other conditions require it too.  They don't suddenly acqure and loose 
>> common sense with the weather.
>
>Take the weather factor out. If you have people that feel comfortable
>driving at 65 MPH, and you have people who feel comfortable driving at 100
>MPH, what should the speed limit be? That is a 35 MPH hour difference. 

How many people are going 100 and how many are going 65?  That information
is necessary before making any kind of suggestion.  It is possible to have
a 35mph difference safely as long as people are paying attention.  I wouldn't
want there being such a large speed difference initially.  After people have
gotten use to the higher speeds then the speed limits could be raised.  If
there is no lane discipline, and the necessary enforcement that goes with it
then you cannot safely have such large speed differentials.  I don't think 
that 100mph would be a good starting point, but 85mph sounds reasonable
considering the actual speed I have observed on the road. 

>
>> >But we are not talking about
>> >inclement weather, so why did you even bring this up? 
>> 
>> We are discussing whether drivers know when they need to slow down.  
>
>Most drivers do.
>

If you agree that most drivers do then why do you think drivers will always
go SL + 10 .  There is a point at which the SL will actually be the limit
for most drivers if it is set properly.

>> Because
>> the current artificially low speed limits do not allow a realistic chance 
>> at letting a driver use his judgment to adjust his speed as conditions 
>> change we need to use circumstances that do allow the average driver to
>> demonstrate their prudent judgement.  Inclement weather provides those 
>> conditions.  That is why I brought it up.
>
>But we are talking about speed limits that were not set for bad weather.

It doesn't matter like I said people don't suddenly lose their good 
judgement as soon as the weather gets better.  It's not a matter of bad
weather limits but wether people can demonstrate good judgement.  Poor
weather conditions are the only time this can be demonstrated under the
current laws.

>> Very simple.  The highway system was designed back way back when in ancient
>> times, before 1970.  Back then the roads were posted at 75mph and this 
>> was based on the design of the road and the cars in use then.  
>
>I must research this, but it still does not change the fact that the
>faster you, the more dangerous it is.

Really is that a fact.  Where did you get this from.  All of a sudden when I
exceed a certain speed I will automatically blow up and die???


>> You don't have to go to every department to ask them.  Roads have to be
>> built to certain standards.  Assuming the roads meets those minimum 
>> standards then you can make an accurate generalization.
>
>Not all roads are built to those standards. And even if they are, they are
>not all kept to those standards. Pennsylvania has the worst roads in the
>country.

No, not all roads, but most are.  Also any road that requires any kind of
federal govenrment funding, which is almost everysingle project, must meet
those minimum standards.  I live in NYC, and I've been in Penn too, so I
have to disagree that Penn has the worst roads.  I think NYC would be at 
least one notch lower than Penn.


>> It is flawed because you are saying that people will always travel the 
>> speed limit plus 10mph. 
>
>This is based on what people tell me, and what I have observed. Not
>everyone will do > 10 MPH over the speed limit.

Objection.  Hearsay! :)  Right now the majority of people will do over
10+ on interstates posted at 55.  Drive around in a civilian type car and
see what most people drive at.

>> Unless you vary the speed limit enough to check 
>> the extremes, or close to the extremes, your study is flawed.  
>
>I have performed my study in 35, 45, and 55 MPH zones. I did not perform
>any in a school zone.

What about higher speeds?  Those are the ones we are interested in.  I happen
to think that most roads posted at less than 55 are usually fairly posted
because the conditions warrant it.  That is why for the lower speeds your
observations may be right, but for the roads posted 55 and higher your 
observations do not apply.  Until you do test at higher speeds then your
observations do not apply to those higher speeds.  

>
>> In order to
>> prove your point you should have data that supports your hypothesis.  You 
>> only have data that is centered around 55mph. 
>
>Read above.

Read my above reply.  You still haven't got any data to prove that your 
hypothesis applies to speeds above 55, that is what we are discussing here.


>I have no second thoughts as I do not write speeding violations. Unless
>they are travelling way over the speed limit. I never take a radar set
>out.  If I am driving and observe someone too fast, I clock him with my
>vehicle. Most times they are just given a warning. Then I tell them that,
>all that time they saved by speeding, was just lost when I stopped them.
>Then I tell them they got off easy by not getting cited. This usually
>slows them down. Because now they know how easy it would be for them to
>get caught. The next Trooper might not let them go with a warning.

This is exactly what is wrong with the law.  The speed limit is so low that
the trooper can pretty much stop anybody on the road and at their 
discretion decide to let them go or not.  As everyone knows from what we
have seen on TV and read in the papers not all policeman are unbiased when
using this discretion.  There should be a reasonable limit and then it 
should be uniformly enforced.  


>So regardless of which course I was taught, you automatically know whether
>it is right or wrong? How do you know what is right and wrong?

No, I won't know that, but I can get an idea if it was biased or not.

>> Accidents are not illusions, but manipulating statistics to prove your point
>> is an act of illusion.  
>
>I have no reason to manipulate anything. I benefit nothing from it.

I think you do benefit.  Since the limit is so low and uniformly ignored
this allows you to pretty much write tickets whenever you feel the need to
write more tickets.  I'm sure that there is a point that if you don't write
enough tickets someone whill start to wonder what is wrong.  Conversely if
you write alot of tickets one of the revenue guys will come around praising
you very highly.  If your department raises a substantial amount of money
at some point someone in your department will get the bright idea to ask 
that their budget be raised so that they can improve "safety" on the road
which in turn usually translates to more revenue generating equpment, read
radar equipment.  That is how you benefit.


>> >75 MPH as a minimum starting point? Why not just go all out and make it
>> >125 MPH? 
>> 
>> I have no problem with a 125MPH limit, as long as the rules of the road are
>> followed.  
>
>The rules of the road are not followed now.

Which ones are you refering to?  All the non-speed related laws are not 
followed as closely as they should because they are not being enforced as
well as they should be.  More effort is put on speed enforcement than on 
other more safety related offenses like passing on the right, not signaling
lane changes and using the left lane as a lane of travel as opposed to a
passing lane which is what it was designed for.

>
>> It is a limit, not a recommended speed.  
>
>Far too high of a limit.

How did you come to this conclusion.  Its an upper LIMIT, not a recommendation.
As a limit is is a speed which under SOME conditions SOME people can safely
travel at.

>
>> Some drivers and their
>> cars can handle that speed, others can't.  
>
>I agree.

If you agree then why not use that as a limit?


>
>> I personally would not feel 
>> comfortable travelling at 125MPH in my Omni, but I might in the Alfa.
>
>But imagine if you are in your Omni putting along when someone in an Alfa
>is doing 125 MPH. Not everyone has an Alfa. Not all Alfa's are in prime
>condition.

I don't cruise in the left lane, so if an Alfa, or any other car for that 
matter, wants to cruise by they can safely do so.  I pay attention to what
is happening on the road at all times regardless of the car I am driving.
There are quite a few cars on the road nowadays that will safely cruise at
those really high speeds.

>I don't recommend penalizing anyone that does not deserve it. A happy
>medium should be met for ALL drivers. The drivers that are slow, and the
>drivers that are fast. The good drivers, the bad drivers. As I said
>before, 55 MPH is a bit slow, but 100 MPH is too fast.

I agree there should be a happy medium, but you haven't recommended one yet.
Use sound engineering principles to reach this medium and you will make 
most people happy.  I think 100mph, initially, would be high too, but 85mph
would be about right.


>> If your car crashes after hitting a pothole then there is a serious problem
>> with your car or your definition of a pot hole.  
>
>It happens. If your front tire hits a pot hole at a higher speed, the car
>tends to rotate and the tires lose traction. I can show you accident

Like I said you have some serious suspension problems.  The suspension on
my Omni is pretty primitive and my car just makes a loud thunk, which can be
heard and felt, but it keeps going where I point it.  My car does not rotate
or deviate much from where it was going before the pothole encounter.   

>reports with statements from the drivers stating same. I can show you

I doubt you can trust the statement of a driver who just had an accident
because they hit a pothole.  They obviously were not paying attention and
were startled by the noise and panicked.

>pictures of the skid marks from point of impact (pothole). Not to mention,
>that blow outs are more common after hitting a pot hole at a higher speed.

Once again if your tire blows because of a pothole there was a problem with
your tires or it was something much bigger than a pothole.

>
>So what about other vehicles?
>

My car is pretty much bottom of the line suspension wise so I don't think 
there are cars much worse, unless they have been neglected and thats a
different unrelated matter.

>> If a deer jumps out in front of you there is not much you can do. 
>
>Even less you can do at higher speeds.

Doing nothing at 55 and doing nothing at 85 is still doing nothing.

>
>> Every decent driver knows to drive carefully enough to allow a certain
>> cushion for the unknown on public roads.  
>
>But you can't know the condition of the all the roads all the time. The
>road you drove on yesterday, may have changed since then.

No you can't know the condition of all roads, but you make certain 
assumptions.  Sink holes big enough to swallow a truck happen, but you don't
drive around expecting them.  Trucks flip, swerve, and jackknife enough 
that you should keep a watchful eye on trucks.  I personally try never to 
avoid being near trucks on the road.  I like to keep them well behind me 
so that if something does happen it will all be behind me.

>
>Now what if they truck is driving 55 MPH and jack knifes in front of you
>as you are travelling 100 MPH? Think you can stop in time? You are going
>45 MPH faster than the truck.

I don't drive 100mph behind trucks.  I approach with caution and then try 
to pass them as quickly as I can.  If I were traveling at that speed then 
I wouldn't be in the same lane and I would keep an eye out for a shoulder 
or other lane to avoid the truck.  A 45 mph speed differential is quite
high and I almost never encounter it.  Also depending on the incident, 
stopping may not be the best thing to do.  Speeding up to get around the
truck might be the safer option.  If the incident occurs when I am really 
close to the truck and he doesn't hit me right at the point of jacknifin then
speeding up is probably the better option.  Truck don't jacknife for no
reason.  Usually something, that can be spotted in advance, happens and 
then they jacknife.  It is not a spontaneous thing that just happens out 
of the blue to trucks.


>> I look far down the road, a truck on its side is hard to miss.  All the 
>> things you mention are easily avoided.
>
>You may be able to avoid it, but what about the car behind you that is
>going too fast when you apply your brakes?

The car behind me is not really not one I can control.  I try to force a
safe driving distance between us by speeding up, assuming he does not want
to pass because if he did then I would not be in front of him.  It's nice
having a car that can accelerate at highway speeds. :)

>I should have stated that in a straight line, all roads could handle that
>great a speed. Unless the road is made of dirt.

Agreed.  The more you write the more it seems we agree on more things.



-----------------                                                             
Alex     __O    '86 Dodge Omni GLH Turbo                                    
       _-\<,_   '87 Alfa Romeo Milano                                       
      (_)/ (_)  '88 Vitus/Dura-Ace                                          


Follow-Ups: