PDA

View Full Version : OT: Radar Detectors.....Do they work?



cuemaker
01-04-2011, 07:41 PM
I now do a considerable amount of driving, most of it is 2 lane country type stuff.....and the speed limits are quite restrictive...

I recently got a ticket doing 42 in a 35mph and its going to cost me $110

So.. do radar detectors work?

cucvzuz
01-04-2011, 07:44 PM
Vanentine 1 V1's are the best money can buy, mine will pickup a cop a few miles away on a straight road. worth the money, try ebay

sasquatch
01-04-2011, 07:51 PM
I believe they do work, that,s why the cops don,t want you to have one,, at least up here they are illegal.
I,m pretty sure that if cops pull you over, and you have one on your,e dash say, they will charge you, and i think they have the right,??(Yeah,,,) to seize it.
At least that,s the story i got from a guy here a couple of years ago.

(It,s always good to carry a full box of fresh doughnuts with you if you get pulled over, it can reduce or eliminate a fine Quickly.):p

terry_g
01-04-2011, 08:15 PM
I used to Have a Cobra Radar Detector on my motorcycle. It worked great.
Every time it went off I knew I was about to get a ticket.

Terry

lakeside53
01-04-2011, 08:34 PM
Around here it's all laser. When your detector goes off, they have you....

RB211
01-04-2011, 08:40 PM
They have saved me many tickets. However they are a tool and you must exercise strategy when using them. On the highway, never be the lead car in the passing lane, simply because the laser will zap you and you have a ticket. Laser detection works great if you utilize a lead car and keep 2 to 300 yards behind him. You will detect the laser back scatter hitting him, giving you time to slow down.
Be careful of corners and overpasses. You should always slow down to a safe speed when approaching.
On the highway, slow down near cities and towns. Especially where there are Police Barracks.
Also, always look in your rear view mirror.

Radar detectors work best in small towns where the police use the constant on radar. You pick them up with plenty of time to slow down.

Also take note, some highways now use radar to monitor traffic. Some detectors have the ability to turn off X band for that reason. I've seen some use K band radar which turns your radar detector into an annoyance.

For the past couple of years I have not had a detector in my car, have not received a ticket either.
Remember, they are just a tool, if you use it like a fool, might as well not get one.

Evan
01-04-2011, 09:26 PM
I haven't had a speeding ticket or any other sort in 30 years. I don't use a radar detector. I used to drive up to 4000 miles per month, no tickets. The company didn't pay me to speed since that would be illegal. They would sometimes ask me why my travel time would be longer than other guys reported on the same route. I told them that I drive the speed limit. End of conversation.

tdmidget
01-04-2011, 09:33 PM
Passport 9500ii. picks up all radars and laser, tells you of upcoming cameras..
Read the instructions. Very limited on pop up radar and laser but as good as it gets

lazlo
01-04-2011, 09:43 PM
So.. do radar detectors work?

Not anymore, since most highway patrol use laser detectors, which have a spot the size of a pencil. The laser detectors are basically a flashing LED telling you that you just got a ticket.

gary350
01-04-2011, 09:47 PM
They do work but there are some tricks you need to know.

If a cop is out to give tickets he will drive or hide with his radar off. Very often cops have an eye open for the speeders so they leave the radar off until they see a car that is going faster than others or changing from lane to lane. So if your the guy going to fast and he sees you and turns on the radar to get your real speed your detector will go CRAZY but its too late he has got you already.

Sometimes a cop will drive along with his radar on all the time he knows everyone within 2 miles knows he is there some place so everyone within 2 miles slows down and drives the speed limit.

I have a very old radar detector I use to use it all the time but now it collects dust. I drive with my cruise control on all the time even in town where the speed limit is 30, 40, 45, 50, mph. I don't brake the speed limit anymore. I try to drive the speed limit all the time. I scream and yell and get mad as hell at those idiots that drive 23 mph in a 40 mph speed zone. I yell and get mad at the jerks that pull out in front of me and make me slam on the brakes to keep from nailing their ass. I have a some diesel locomotive air horns and an air tank I plan to put on my SUV just as soon as I get time, I plans to blast the hell out of all those jerks on the road.

http://i.ebayimg.com/02/!CBjB59w!Wk~$(KGrHqZ,!hgE0f0lifVHBNIMBTC17Q~~_3.JP G

AiR_GuNNeR
01-04-2011, 10:24 PM
Valentine 1 is a great detector. What I like best about it is it has multiple sensors and four arrows. The arrows will tell you which direction the radar is coming from. It got stolen out of my car a couple of years back and I bought a different one that was supposed to be just as good. I sure miss the arrows through.

rdfeil
01-04-2011, 11:04 PM
As for the OP question, Yes the detectors do work. Now for the down side. I install, calibrate and repair police radar units in my shop. The biggest thing that will get you is the way the officer uses the tools of his trade. Around here the regular patrol officers are a mixed bag, some leave the radar unit on (active) all the time, others leave the unit in standby until they see a car they want to check speed on. Then they activate the radar. In the first case your detector has a good chance of detecting the radar before it has a lock on you. In the second you don't stand a chance. The laser units are even better at avoiding detectors. All of the detectors work by sensing the radio / laser emissions from the unit. Regular radar will scatter energy far beyond and wider than it can lock onto a car with. The laser units have a much smaller target area and laser light will not bend around a corner so it is much less detectable when you are out of range. So, the bottom line is, if you roll the dice be willing to loose the bet.

Gently
01-05-2011, 12:57 AM
Yes detectors work, No they dont detect laser untill it is too late.
BUT here is the good news :D :

NEVER just pay the fine, take it to court...unless you are going over by 25mph or more. Officers usually set at 10 over, you can argue up to 15 after that it gets harder, but not impossible.

when you take it to court, make sure the radar dector has all the right paperwork and certifications, Exspecially hand helds.

All radar and laser units must be calibrated and certified in a one year period, The officer must be certified every year on the use and operation of the type unit he uses.

when you go to court be polite to the judge and court Officers (including the Officer) and ask a lot of questions, Take pictures with you, if a large vehicle was near, a vehicle that was close to the same color on a busy road, hills valleys and terrain. Also get the exact location you were spotted by the radar unit, and the location of the Officer....NOT WHERE HE STOPPED YOU AT! Laser is less prone to weather, but X band and Vascar a prone to false readings in foggy or wet weather.

Also dont be fooled by the "if the Officer does a no show" rule, His ticket can be used as an affidavit and the court will use that unless the judge over rules it. Do not refuse to sign the ticket, the ticket is not an admission of guilt, as a matter of fact some jurisdictions do not requir the ticket to be signed by you, just the Officer. If you refuse to sign that is an arrestable offense (most states). :eek:

AND ABOVE ALL NEVER EVER GIVE CONSENT TO HAVE YOUR VEHICLE SEARCHED!
If the Officer want to search, he must have probable cause or a reasonable suspision, (note if you get out of the vehicle he can do a "safety pat down" but he cannot search your Vehicle (supreme court Case, Ailes v state of Florida 1996) unless you give consent, implied consent (a shoulder shrug or other indication or non responsive acts) P.C. or R.S..

I have lost a quite a few cases due to the Defendant being prepared! :(

Paul Alciatore
01-05-2011, 02:42 AM
.....NEVER just pay the fine, take it to court.....(

Do take it to court. Not just for the poster's reasons, but consider this. Last time I took a traffic citation to court, I rehearsed my defense extenstively. The officer did not show up. Case dismissed. Short and sweet. And it wouldn't have cost me a dime more if I had lost.

Evan
01-05-2011, 04:35 AM
This all leaves me wondering what parts of the motor vehicle act are ok to consider "optional"? Speeding is a what is called a "strict liability" or "absolute offence". It is a reverse onus offence since the only defence is to prove you were not speeding.

So, which laws are ok to break and which ones are not, and why? Does the amount by which you violate the law make it ok or not ok? How fast is not ok? Why? How much over the limit is ok? What does the word "limit" mean?

mike os
01-05-2011, 05:18 AM
This all leaves me wondering what parts of the motor vehicle act are ok to consider "optional"? Speeding is a what is called a "strict liability" or "absolute offence". It is a reverse onus offence since the only defence is to prove you were not speeding.

So, which laws are ok to break and which ones are not, and why? Does the amount by which you violate the law make it ok or not ok? How fast is not ok? Why? How much over the limit is ok? What does the word "limit" mean?

pretty much my thoughts....cant see why this thread is still here, let alone running, after all it is discussing means of circumventing the law.

aboard_epsilon
01-05-2011, 06:40 AM
Yes detectors work, No they dont detect laser untill it is too late.
BUT here is the good news :D :

NEVER just pay the fine, take it to court...unless you are going over by 25mph or more. Officers usually set at 10 over, you can argue up to 15 after that it gets harder, but not impossible.

when you take it to court, make sure the radar dector has all the right paperwork and certifications, Exspecially hand helds.

All radar and laser units must be calibrated and certified in a one year period, The officer must be certified every year on the use and operation of the type unit he uses.

when you go to court be polite to the judge and court Officers (including the Officer) and ask a lot of questions, Take pictures with you, if a large vehicle was near, a vehicle that was close to the same color on a busy road, hills valleys and terrain. Also get the exact location you were spotted by the radar unit, and the location of the Officer....NOT WHERE HE STOPPED YOU AT! Laser is less prone to weather, but X band and Vascar a prone to false readings in foggy or wet weather.

Also dont be fooled by the "if the Officer does a no show" rule, His ticket can be used as an affidavit and the court will use that unless the judge over rules it. Do not refuse to sign the ticket, the ticket is not an admission of guilt, as a matter of fact some jurisdictions do not requir the ticket to be signed by you, just the Officer. If you refuse to sign that is an arrestable offense (most states). :eek:

AND ABOVE ALL NEVER EVER GIVE CONSENT TO HAVE YOUR VEHICLE SEARCHED!
If the Officer want to search, he must have probable cause or a reasonable suspision, (note if you get out of the vehicle he can do a "safety pat down" but he cannot search your Vehicle (supreme court Case, Ailes v state of Florida 1996) unless you give consent, implied consent (a shoulder shrug or other indication or non responsive acts) P.C. or R.S..

I have lost a quite a few cases due to the Defendant being prepared! :(

In the uk...last Christmas they brought in a new law....for all motoring offences

that law says even if you prove yourself Innocent in court..you have to pay all court costs including costs to defend yourself .

so in other words ...if you are Innocent and know it ..and have proof ..to prove that, it's going to cost you more than simply paying the fine.

this law was implemented in December 2009

all the best.markj

Mcgyver
01-05-2011, 07:24 AM
pretty much my thoughts....cant see why this thread is still here, let alone running, after all it is discussing means of circumventing the law.

hehe, I thought this would go in this direction more quickly,....this is a peeve of mine....

- its a law that has basically evolved into taxation; its a diversion of police resources from catching bad guys to generating revenue.
- There is no reasonableness in its enforcement - its not done where speeding represents the greatest hazard (say residential streets with kids walking to school in the rain or snow say) its done on warm nice days on open highways and main thoroughfares when traffic is light.
- Speed doesn't cause accidents, going too fast for road conditions, following to closely, unsafe lane changes going through red lights cause accidents;
- Speed is ALWAYS a factor in accident, unless your car was parked in the driveway (so ridiculous when they report "speed was a factor", duh)....what matters is was the speed excessive for the traffic, road, conditions and was there another more important infringement; drinking, tailgating, unsafe lane change etc.
- Current speed limits are a legacy from when cars weighed twice as much, handled like crap, nobody had seat belts and they took twice as long to stop.
- If anyone really believes speed is the main problem for traffic and highway safety (vs tailgating, too fast for road/traffic, unsafe land change) they should be advocating a 10 mph limit, think of the lives it will save! Facetious of course, point be attention should be redirected from ridiculous speed limits on highways and arterials to the behaviour that actually causes accidents

Bottom line is what is a safe speed is has little to do with the speed limit and enforcement has very little to do with targeting when speeding is a hazard or targeting the behaviour that really causes accidents. Enforcement is about catching the highest volume. Doing 60 mph on a clean dry highway in light traffic in a good modern car is a joke and that law deserves circumvention or circum-something.

Evan
01-05-2011, 08:26 AM
You sure have a lot of rationalizing going on there Mcgyver. Most of those excuses are bunk. At least around here the RCMP enforce the the motor vehicle act reasonably. Radar is used in school zones and at high accident rate intersections. There isn't nearly enough enforcement as far as I am concerned. Try driving the speed limit some day. You almost instantly end up with someone following too close, trying to pass when unsafe to do so, crossing over a double line and then when they do pass on a blind curve they give you the finger. No matter how improved vehicles are there hasn't been any change in people's reaction times or driving judgement.

Occasionally when that would happen to me I would lay private charges against the owner of the vehicle. Few people are aware that can be done. The owner is liable regardless of who is driving. It's called "vicarious liability". That really gets their attention. Not once did I have to show up in court either.

Alistair Hosie
01-05-2011, 08:28 AM
Surely the answer is to stick to the speed limit . I have seen two people killed on the road by speeding cars one old boy was on a pedestrian crossing and a young girl and the driver didn't stop.Not funny in my book speeding.I am not saying I am mr perfect but deliberately trying to get away with it is not cool Lives get lost. Alistair

DougC_582
01-05-2011, 08:38 AM
Vanentine 1 V1's are the best money can buy, mine will pickup a cop a few miles away on a straight road. worth the money, try ebay
Dunno about lately, but for several years after they came out, Valentines were the best.


Back story, if you did not know:
Previously, Cincinnati Microwaves used to usually win all the tests, and Mike Valentine designed them. Mike Valentine used to be the head designer at Cincinnati Microwave for many years, but he had a falling out with management. At one point they wanted all their new detectors to be cordless (battery powered) but he insisted that a cordless detector wouldn't have enough power to work well.

Push came to shove and he left and started his own company.... and then the ones he made were more expensive, but scored even better than the ones that Cincinnati Microwave had been making.

------

Another thing to consider: as of a few years ago, Cincinnati Microwave and Valentine both had a theft return policy. If you had originally bought the detector from them directly and it was ever returned to the company for repairs but the owner was not the one they had on file, they would contact you to ask if it was stolen. If you could show that it was, they would charge the other guy to fix it, but mail it back to you. :D

------

Even funnier was that some tests showed that many of the cheapest radar detectors--the $100 Cobras and so on--were so poorly designed and set up, that they didn't work at all. They would just go off randomly at all kinds of RF interference.
~

MotorradMike
01-05-2011, 08:59 AM
Detectors vs the law has been a game from the get-go. The cops presently have the upper hand with the Laser detectors. They work so well I often see a group of Hi-viz dressed cops in plain sight on the median with a bunch of cruisers and perps parked along the shoulder.

I almost always speed on the highway. Whenever the posted limit is less than 80KPH, I figure they must have a reason and I respect it, even if it's posted at 10.

On the highway, speed smart and you won't be a target.

If you insist on being self-righteous and going 99 in a 100 then you're likely obsessing so much about your squeaky clean law abiding stance that you become a hazard.

mike os
01-05-2011, 09:05 AM
so none of you will mind if I come over there & rob you? after all its only a stupid ownership law thing.....;)

Agree with it or not, its there. (this is from someone who has been stopped doing 124 in a 60) Personally i hate the damn things out of town, but if or when I get stopped I wont complain about it either, tho generally I am fairly close to the limit I am still often over it:eek:

HOwever I will neither encourage people to follow my bad example, or advise on how they may circumvent the system

Evan
01-05-2011, 09:06 AM
If you insist on being self-righteous and going 99 in a 100 then you're likely obsessing so much about your squeaky clean law abiding stance that you become a hazard.


I don't think so. I drive the speed limit. Over a million klicks, no accidents, no tickets. If somebody acts like a dumbass because they want to speed and I am in their way that IS NOT MY FAULT. THEY are the hazard.

Mcgyver
01-05-2011, 09:09 AM
Evan if you read what was there instead of refreshing your prejudices you possibly conclude they are bunk. Approach things logically. If the vehicle is moving, speed is a factor. However we have things to do so we must drive. Now what causes accidents are following too closely, too fast for traffic/road conditions, running reds, unsafe lane conditions, too fast in residential areas....that speed is factor is a given as in each case the vehicle is moving. Someone passing on a hill or blind curve, well idiocy is the factor not speed. I can't believe you'd offer speed as the problem in that instance rather than just unsafe bad driving; thats just dangerous regardless of speed

However whether the speed should be considered excessive speed is simply a function of the above list, following to close, etc, not a posted limit. Often weather and traffic mean a safe speed is less than the posted limit..... most often the posted limit is irrelevant to what is a safe speed. In a residential neighbourhood street with lots of kids and driveways I'm usually well under 40km/h limit, on an wide open limited access highway, no precipitation and light traffic, 100 is just stupidly slow, with ice 1/2 that is stupidly fast. Thinking safety has much to do with the posted limit, that below your safe and above is unsafe, is illogical sheeple thinking.

I get that we need a limit, imo its far to slow on highways, but the point is enforcing a speed limit makes no sense if the speed limit is largely irrelevant to what is safe....other than it drives revenue. If authorities wanted roads safer rather than the revenue the emphasis would be on (possibly assisted with new technology) nailing those tailgating, making unsafe lane changes, going through reds, going too fast in residential ares, going too fast in bad conditions etc. That is the behaviour that causes accidents and that is the behaviour you need to sanction if your want great safety on the streets for vehicles and pedestrians.

if you're going so slow for conditions that people are giving you the finger we're not going to get on the same page .....and you're not known for changing your mind upon enligtenment so i'll drop it.....next time I'll wave instead :D

(j/j, i don't get so upset driving that i give the finger)

A.K. Boomer
01-05-2011, 09:17 AM
pretty much my thoughts....cant see why this thread is still here, let alone running, after all it is discussing means of circumventing the law.



What? Circumventing the law is what the OP is all about, the law is not always upheld nor correct therefor it is up to the individual to exercise good judgment and manipulate it, (some cases this means going much slower than the posted limit - even though you don't have too) even the typical P. officer allows for such manipulation of the so called speed limit, generally there's no problem going about 10 over on major highways where I live even if your a lone duck that can be had easily --- And with I-25 from colo. springs to Denver 15 over is more the norm... so much so that if you drive the "speed limit" you are an absolute hazard, Yes that's right - breaking the law in the name of safety,,, Just be sure to shut it down some when going past castle rock, Its really not so much about safety as it is about being an income generator - and C.R. is a huge one.

There's also safety in numbers, if everyone is doing 15mph over and there's literally hundreds of you all at the same time there's really nothing they can do to you even if they wanted too - so much so that the "law" becomes "negotiable",,,

As far as radar detectors go - its been years since iv owned one so im not up to date with what kind of detectors are being used and how there using them - I do know that they were legal where i live but common sense tells me cops don't like to see them so when I had a close call and was wondering if the cop was going to turn around and pursue mine would already be stuffed under the seat of my hopped up CRX,
Someone mentioned to keep a "duck" ahead of you and this is wise advise as even with the lazer radar I believe a good detector can pick up scatter signals off the lead car and potentially warn you ahead of time ---- Back in the day this was an option that I rarely was able to take advantage of due to me basically not just being the lead duck but the lead/lone duck due to looking at the speed limit and timezing it by 2:p Times have changed as the penalties are extreme even if it was just you out on a lone stretch of highway they will throw your butt in jail...

Evan
01-05-2011, 09:18 AM
Approach things logically. If the vehicle is moving, speed is a factor.

You know perfectly well that when it is reported that "speed is a factor" they mean excessive speed was a factor.


I can't believe you'd offer speed as the problem in that instance rather than just unsafe bad driving;..

I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth.


but the point is enforcing a speed limit makes no sense if the speed limit is largely irrelevant to what is safe.

There isn't a better option. The limit must be set at a value that takes into account ALL the drivers on the road.


if you're going so slow for conditions that people are giving you the finger we're not going to get on the same page ..

The speed limit is what I drive, always. Anybody else that goes faster is breaking the law. You don't like the law? Get it changed.

There are two sides to the argument, the legal one and the illegal one. It is extremely easy to be on the right side and impossible to justify being on the wrong side.

Mcgyver
01-05-2011, 09:21 AM
so none of you will mind if I come over there & rob you? after all its only a stupid ownership law thing.....;)



first off, I'm talking highway traffic act not the criminal code or ten commandments....and I'm not talking the autobahn or racing....I'm saying the speed limit hasn't much to do with anything insofar as road safety goes...depending, a safe speed can easily be above or below the limit so enforcement of the limit isn't really enforcing safety, just driving revenue.

we all break laws, ever done a rolling a stop at two dirt cross roads at two in the morning with nothing but crickets for a mile around? I bet there are countless laws (bylaws are also laws) you break all the time and don't even realize it...and as we all know, ignorance of the law is no excuse

Because its the law is never a good enough reason ....because nobody obeys laws because its the law. They sometimes self righteously say they do, but it s BS. They chose which to obey and which not to. People obey laws because it ether is aligned with their moral/ethical position or they find the sanction/probability of being caught a sufficient deterrent. The proof of that is I've never met anyone who wouldn't break some minor law when they don't find doing so unethical and there's no chance of being caught.

Evan
01-05-2011, 09:33 AM
You exhibit a big city mentality Mcgyver. People here don't think like that. I know a lot of people that will stop at a stop sign and signal the turn even though there isn't another vehicle in sight.

Driving safely is about developing good driving habits. The key word is HABITS. You become an automatic good driver when proper driving is a habit and when you don't have to think about what law you can get away with breaking while you drive.

Mcgyver
01-05-2011, 09:36 AM
You know perfectly well that when it is reported that "speed is a factor" they mean excessive speed was a factor.
.

This is the crux of it, excessive to what? What matters in determining what is excessive is was there tailgating, bad road conditions, bad lane change, heavy traffic, area with lots of driveways and kids.......that's the stuff that makes the word 'excessive' mean anything. Excessive to the posted limit is meaningless, irrelevant.....as is its current method of enforcement as a means to improve safety.

To repeat, I get we need a limit, although its far too slow on highways..... but if you want your police enforcing things that will affect road safety, get them off radar on sunny days on highways and focus on the behaviour that actually causes accidents....or recognize speed enforcement for what it is; take their guns away and make them like meter maids generating municipal revenue. Enforcement of accident causing behaviour may be difficult to do without some new technology.... probably little impetus to develop because authorities want to collect revenue rather than improve road safety and a sheeple public erroneously believes speed limit enforcement improves road safety

Evan
01-05-2011, 09:41 AM
This is the crux of it,....

No it isn't. Staying within the law is the crux of it. That is how you make a free and open democracy work.

Mcgyver
01-05-2011, 09:43 AM
You exhibit a big city mentality Mcgyver. People here don't think like that. I know a lot of people that will stop at a stop sign and signal the turn even though there isn't another vehicle in sight.
.

That's just silly, that you proffer to know how people thinks here or there or that there is some huge difference. I grew up on a farm and have lived a rural life and an urban one and still drive both all the time. Driving's driving. See how many cars go down the concession road at the posted 80k/h limit. whatever, I thought we were trying to bring logic to road safety, how speed relates to that and how what enforcement does or does not do to improve on it. over and out.

lazlo
01-05-2011, 09:45 AM
This all leaves me wondering what parts of the motor vehicle act are ok to consider "optional"? Speeding is a what is called a "strict liability" or "absolute offence". It is a reverse onus offence since the only defence is to prove you were not speeding.

I agree Evan. There are many web pages and even forums dedicated to "beating the ticket."

Like every other adult, I speed on occasion. I've broken the law. If I'm caught, I show up in court, politely plead my case, and pay the fine, if necessary.

I've watched young kids try the Perry Mason routine posted on every car enthusiast site: "when was your laser gun calibrated." The LEO isn't amused, the Judge isn't amused, and they get the maximum fine.

goose
01-05-2011, 09:55 AM
I agree Evan. There are many web pages and even forums dedicated to "beating the ticket."

Like every other adult, I speed on occasion. I've broken the law. If I'm caught, I show up in court, politely plead my case, and pay the fine, if necessary.

I've watched young kids try the Perry Mason routine posted on every car enthusiast site: "when was your laser gun calibrated." The LEO isn't amused, the Judge isn't amused, and they get the maximum fine.

Why shouldn't people have the right to defend themselves in court, regardless. Most traffic enforcement is based on hard-azz interpretation of the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law. If you can get off using the same tactics, why is that wrong?



No it isn't. Staying within the law is the crux of it. That is how you make a free and open democracy work.


Tell that to Dred Scot.:D


Gary

Cobbler
01-05-2011, 10:11 AM
If those who wrote the law and those who ratified the law are sanctioned to do so, then that law is a just law. If you participated in sanctioning those law makers and they are not abiding by your wishes regarding representing you, then take it up with the law makers. In the mean time, the law is the law. You have a social contract with your fellow citizens to follow this and every law which was enacted in a just manner. As a member of society and under the social contract which we are all obligated to, nobody has any sort of moral right to pick and choose which part of this contract and which just laws to abide by.

Not abiding by the social contract is anarchy. It can be argued that speeding is not the level of offense that looting and rioting in the streets would be but it does not change the definition and applying a scale to such a definition is a vain attempt to dillute the meaning of the word. For an average citizen to take it upon himself to shoot a rapist in the back of the head is legally and moraly equivilant to that same person shooting a child in the back of the head.

I cannot give respect to people who knowingly and willingly make the choice to not abide by just laws. If someone is willing to fail in their social contract on a minor thing like failing to signal a turn on a deserted country road, on what other levels are they willing to fail in their social contract?

If you did not participate in sactioning the law makers (voting in free elections), then you have no horse in this race.

JCHannum
01-05-2011, 10:11 AM
I have to agree with Mike. The "enforcement" of speed limits by radar is nothing more or less than a revenue generator as are the redlight cameras that seem to be proliferating in our urban areas. The points he makes about the enforcement being greater on clear days, in periods of light traffic, and, I will, add daytime only serve to validate his arguement.

I drove most of the length of the Ohio Turnpike last week both ways on our annual Christmas trip east. The posted linit is 65 MPH. I ran with the cruise control set at 70-75 for the most part and was running with traffic. The biggest hazard was drivers doing 60-65 in the far left lane.

February first the Ohio turnpike posted limit will be raised to 70MPH. Suddenly it will become safe to drive at that speed?

A.K. Boomer
01-05-2011, 10:11 AM
No it isn't. Staying within the law is the crux of it. That is how you make a free and open democracy work.



Boring:p




"If you're honest, you sooner or later have to confront your values. Then you're forced to separate what is right from what is merely legal."

(Tom Robbins --- Still life with wood pecker)

A.K. Boomer
01-05-2011, 10:18 AM
"Some" of you guys will get a kick out of this --- again, Tom Robbins "still life with woodpecker" and his explanation of the difference between a criminal and an outlaw...




"The difference between a criminal and an outlaw is that while criminals frequently are victims, outlaws never are. Indeed, the first step toward becoming a true outlaw is the refusal to be victimized. All people who live subject to other people's laws are victims. People who break laws out of greed, frustration, or vengeance are victims. People who overturn laws in order to replace them with their own laws are victims. ( I am speaking here of revolutionaries.) We outlaws, however, live beyond the law. We don't merely live beyond the letter of the law-many businessmen, most politicians, and all cops do that-we live beyond the spirit of the law. In a sense, then, we live beyond society. Have we a common goal, that goal is to turn the tables on the 'nature' of society. When we succeed, we raise the exhilaration content of the universe. We even raise it a little bit when we fail.

When war turns whole populations into sleepwalkers, outlaws don't join forces with alarm clocks. Outlaws, like poets, rearrange the nightmare.

The trite mythos of the outlaw; the self-conscious romanticism of the outlaw; the black wardrobe of the outlaw; the fey smile of the outlaw; the tequila of the outlaw and the beans of the outlaw; respectable men sneer and say 'outlaw'; young women palpitate and say 'outlaw'. The outlaw boat sails against the flow; outlaws toilet where badgers toilet. All outlaws are photogenic. 'When freedom is outlawed, only outlaws will be free.' There are outlaw maps that lead to outlaw treasures. Unwilling to wait for mankind to improve, the outlaw lives as if that day were here. Outlaws are can openers in the supermarket of life."

Carld
01-05-2011, 10:29 AM
First, the USA is a Republic, not a Democracy. I don't know what Canada is.

Second, I speed, 5 to 10 over most the time on the highway. In towns I stick to the speed limit or slower.

Third, I use a Radar detector on the road and it does work if your aware and know how to use it.

Fourth, there is nothing more dangerous than driving in a cluster of vehicles going the same speed. I avoid that all the time. I get around them or back off to a reasonable distance to avoid the coming accident when a dumb driver does something dumb.

Fifth, reckless driving causes accidents more than speeding and the two should not be confused. You can speed without being reckless but your dangerous driving reckless whether your speeding or not.

Mcgyver
01-05-2011, 11:09 AM
I cannot give respect to people who knowingly and willingly make the choice to not abide by just laws. If someone is willing to fail in their social contract on a minor thing like failing to signal a turn on a deserted country road, on what other levels are they willing to fail in their social contract?
.


So you are saying you NEVER have broken any law? Else you couldn't have any self respect. How many millions of laws are you subject to - and you believe each is just and must be followed because its the law and you voted?!?! Wow. Or do you only obey the laws made by your guy when he wins the election lol

OR....you did put the qualifier 'just' in there....does that mean you are the arbitrator of what's just hence which you will follow, sans self righteousness?

If you lose respect for someone not using a turn signal on a deserted country road, there couldn't be anyone left who you respect. I think you really don't believe that. People gain and lose respect for people based on what we think their values are and there accomplishments. Sort of do they adhere to our view of right and wrong?....and right and wrong is very different from the law. The law is created to maintain the status quo.

Never jaywalked, never illegally parked, never did a rolling stop, never spit on he sidewalk, never dropped a match (littering) never cut across a neighbours lawn (trespassing) never never never....its unbelievable, you may be the one and only

Let me ask a question. You are in a very large public park, 1000's of acres, a public place. There is an ancient bylaw against publicly relieving yourself. You're hiking for hours in the bush, not seen another soul and you really really have to go. For you its a choice? Burst bladder or dooming yourself to zero self respect? After all, you said you have no respect for the person who willingly breaks a law. The truth, people adhere to the law because its aligned with their values OR they fear the sanction, not because its the law, its delusional to proclaim otherwise. These no moral ethical inequality in that; the law is made by politicians and lawyers and is not about defining right and wrong.

Your Old Dog
01-05-2011, 11:12 AM
I drove a F350 ford diesel. Just bought a new Cadillac Platinum and when I had 900 miles on it I got bagged for 19 over in a 55mph zone. I had no clue I was going that fast. It was on a 4 lane state route with rolling hills. Only a fool would knowingly speed on it as the cops just cruise down the moogles and flip the light on when they encounter you on a hill.

I got home, googled radar detector forums and found one that had a unit that updates on your computer. As you use it, you mark false reading and you mark popular radar traps. When you upload your findings to the web it downloads other peoples information for you. If I remember right it was about $500 and about 1/2 of what my 19 over in a 50 is going to cost me. I will one day own one.

Mcgyver
01-05-2011, 11:22 AM
February first the Ohio turnpike posted limit will be raised to 70MPH. Suddenly it will become safe to drive at that speed?

maybe not, but at least ya got a shot at Cobblers respect...I'm doomed :D

Carld
01-05-2011, 11:28 AM
It is NOT LEGAL to drive in the left lane on the interstates at the speed limit UNLESS your passing another vehicle. Read the signs on the road side if you don't believe me. Ohio used to enforce this with venom and other states did as well. They need to enforce it more often.

There is nothing more aggravating and dangerous than a concerned citizen driving in the left lane beside someone going the speed limit to stop others from speeding. It is not their job to control traffic, they are putting themselves in a dangerous position, and if they are beside a tractor trailer I hope a tire blows beside them someday.

RB211
01-05-2011, 11:36 AM
It is NOT LEGAL to drive in the left lane on the interstates at the speed limit UNLESS your passing another vehicle. Read the signs on the road side if you don't believe me. Ohio used to enforce this with venom and other states did as well. They need to enforce it more often.

There is nothing more aggravating and dangerous than a concerned citizen driving in the left lane beside someone going the speed limit to stop others from speeding. It is not their job to control traffic, they are putting themselves in a dangerous position, and if they are beside a tractor trailer I hope a tire blows beside them someday.

My European flight students would flip out on me when I would pass some one on the right side on a 2 lane road. In Denmark you lose your license for that.

As for trucks, I was on a 4 lane highway and a dump truck was on the far right lane while I was on the far left. For what ever reason, his center hub cap on his front drivers side wheel shot off like a shotgun, across all the lanes, right past my front, and made a loud CLANG sound against the concrete barrier! I would love to know the forces involved for that one to happen!

garagemark
01-05-2011, 11:37 AM
In a perfect world, Evan and one or two others are absolutely correct. Law breaking is breaking the law and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. And, in a perfect world, breaking the law would be an exception, not a rule.

However, we don't live in a perfect world. Abiding by the absolute letter of the law IS an exception. In the example we are discussing here, the vast majority of folks do partake in excessive speed to some degree. Therefore, abiding by the law actually becomes more dangerous than staying with traffic flow. Like it or not.

The argument that "I was doing right, and he was doing wrong" may be true, but it won't hurt any less, or you you won't be any less dead if the casual speeder gets wrapped up with you.

I drive over 2500 miles a month to and from work. The traffic flow is usually 10-15 MPH over the posted speed limit. So I get right in there with them and move on. The only time we hit a "glitch" is when someone is driving the posted speed limit. I have seen some close calls because of this, and while that driver may not be the cause of an accident, but he/she is an effect.

In other words, I go with the flow in a given situation... and sometimes I am WAY over the posted speed limit. I just do as the proverbial Romans do.

Carld
01-05-2011, 11:48 AM
I visited my sister in Texas and was driving a little over the speed limit on a two lane highway with a wide shoulder. Well, I saw a driver coming up fast behind me with traffic in the opposite lane and he passed me on the right on the shoulder going at least 15 mph faster than I was. I soon had the same experience several times.

I soon got the impression they are in a hurry in Texas and I was in the way so I speed up.

When my uncle was teaching me to drive in the late 1950's he said when you pass someone pass them fast as is reasonable. If you linger beside them you may cause or be involved in an accident. I have never forgotten his words and he was an exceptionally good driver. In the past few years I have become friends with a NASCAR driver and he says many of the same things my uncle taught me.

JCHannum
01-05-2011, 12:10 PM
People driving in the left hand lane at or under the posted limit are a pet peeve of mine. It seems to be the lane of choice and I have seen that people are instructed to use it over the right hand lane.

It is legal to pass on the right, conditions permitting in Ohio, and there are occasionally signs posted keep right, pass left, but no real enforcement.

Just out of curiosity, how many here have been or know of anyone who has been pulled over by a cop for a moving violation other than speeding. Citations are issued if involved in an accident, but I suspect they are few and far between at any other time. If the purpose of traffic fines were indeed the safety of the public would not tickets be issued for other moving violations with some regularity rather than after the fact?

Evan
01-05-2011, 12:19 PM
That's just silly, that you proffer to know how people thinks here or there or that there is some huge difference...

Excuse me, but you are the one professing to know how people think.


Because its the law is never a good enough reason ....because nobody obeys laws because its the law. They sometimes self righteously say they do, but it s BS. They chose which to obey and which not to. People obey laws because it ether is aligned with their moral/ethical position or they find the sanction/probability of being caught a sufficient deterrent. The proof of that is I've never met anyone who wouldn't break some minor law when they don't find doing so unethical and there's no chance of being caught.

How can you possibly know that to be true?



First, the USA is a Republic, not a Democracy.

A republic is a form of democracy in the general sense. A democracy is not necessarily a republic. Neither a monarchy or a dictatorship are representative of the population, democracies are. A democracy functions by the rule of law, monarchies and dictorships function by fiat.

Evan
01-05-2011, 12:20 PM
Just out of curiosity, how many here have been or know of anyone who has been pulled over by a cop for a moving violation other than speeding.

You mean like blowing through a stop sign?

kc5ezc
01-05-2011, 12:23 PM
Adhere slavishly to the speed limit? How? Have you calibrated your speedometer? + or - how much. Maybe use your GPS to get a handle on your speedos calibration curve. Most of GPSs only display by tenths of a mph. Nothing(or more annoying) worse than getting behind someone doing less than the speed limit when they think they are really going the limit.
My rules: In small towns do your best to adhere to the posted limits. On two lane county roads (max limit on county roads here is 45 mph) not more than 7 over. On freeways go with the flow.
So for it has worked for me. Your results may vary. It has worked for me for 60 years in various states. So far only one speeding ticket (well deserved). Maybe more tomorrow if I am feeling my oats.

lazlo
01-05-2011, 12:24 PM
Why shouldn't people have the right to defend themselves in court, regardless.

I'm not saying you shouldn't. I'm saying that you/I/we are making a conscious decision to break the law when we speed, or run through a yellow light, or... so don't get bent out of shape if you get caught.

But like I said, on the rare occasion that I do get caught (I don't use a radar detector because Texas Highway Patrol and almost all of Austin PD and uses Laser), I show up in court, plead my case, and take my medicine.


Most traffic enforcement is based on hard-azz interpretation of the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law.

Some traffic enforcement definitely is. Everyone knows that LEO is out in force at the end of each financial quarter to make their ticket quotas. But they also ticket guys weaving in and out of traffic at 80 MPH, or speeding through residential neighborhoods.


If you can get off using the same tactics, why is that wrong

It's your legal right to do everything in your power to avoid the ticket. But you've consciously broken the law, so suck it up if it doesn't work :)
My point was that the county and city courts didn't just fall off the turnip truck -- they roll their eyes if you ask for the laser/radar inspection reports.

mike os
01-05-2011, 12:32 PM
so if its ok to deliberately break laws you disagree with (irregardless of the spirit or intent) why not just go for anarchy... thats what you are proposing.

I am sure most criminals would feel the law they broke was Ok cos they were doing it...& better stop chasing those responsible for 9/11 etc because as far as they were concerned your laws mean nothing to them & they were obeying their own religeous laws, and just as you dont feel the law regarding speeding does not apply to you, I can guarentee that the laws on murder & terrorism mean nothing to them. (yes this is going to extremes, but ....)

Mcgyver
01-05-2011, 01:29 PM
so if its ok to deliberately break laws you disagree with (irregardless of the spirit or intent) why not just go for anarchy... thats what you are proposing.


not at all, I obey most laws because they align with my view of whats right, morally, ethically, health wise, fair to my fellow man, safety, whatever. There are other laws I don't think are 'right' that I obey because the sanction /chance of being caught are a sufficient deterrents. Then there are other laws that i could care less about and freely, willingly break, jay walking when i deem it safe is an example or removing mattress tags (joke)

I'm sure there are laws you break - we are subject to millions of them. Just because you or I decide to break some minor bylaw does not make us anarchists; our behaviour is still governed by our morals and ethics and dettered by legal sanctions in other instances.

Is it the law that stops you from looting, murdering and and smashing store windows or your beliefs and values about whats right and wrong?

I doubt we behave very differently day to day but I think its at best misguided thinking and at worst self righteous BS when someone says they obey all laws because they're laws. Why? because its not hard to create a scenario where they will chose to break a law, proving each person chooses which laws to obey or not based on something other than 'its the law'. By your definition that means they're going for anarchy which i don't think is fair or accurate. Did you consider the park scenario i gave earlier? what would you do...deliberately break a law you disagree with or burst your bladder to avoid anarchy?



I am sure most criminals would feel the law they broke was Ok cos they were doing it...& better stop chasing those responsible for 9/11 etc because as far as they were concerned your laws mean nothing to them & they were obeying their own religeous laws, and just as you dont feel the law regarding speeding does not apply to you, I can guarentee that the laws on murder & terrorism mean nothing to them.

I've not proffered disagreeing with a law means it doesn't apply or shouldn't be a law. What I've said is why people adhere to the law is because it aligns with their values AND/OR they fear the sanctions, not because its a law. The terrorists hadn't the morals to deter them not did they fear the sanction. Did the fact that it was against the law stop the terrorists? Hardly, it's values and sanctions that keep people to the law, else they break them. i didn't say a law is not applicable to me because i don't like it, I'm presenting my view on the behavioral psychology of why people adhere to the law or not

RPM
01-05-2011, 01:59 PM
I love how some invoke 'the Law' as if it was somehow carved in granite by the Almighty.

In California, only a few years ago, the normal speed on freeways with a 65 limit would be around 73-75 mph, as most drivers were aware that the CHP would only bother to ticket if you were doing 80. In some areas, like San Diego, the normal freeway speed was around 80mph.

There was a sudden crisis when the Feds held back billions of highway funds to California because of our higher freeway speeds, apparently other States were all driving like Evan.

So the solution for this was for the State of California to issue an official statement that the average speed on the freeways was 62.3 mph, or something like that, and of course California got the billions in highway funds. Despite this, everyone continued at 75 mph.

I expect that the other States also cooked the books a little, California was just a little behind on the learning curve there.

Myself, I stick to ten over the limit and concentrate on staying alive rather than the speed dial - especially from those who delight in causing accidents by driving the exact limit or less in the left lane. This causes more people to change lanes unsafely than any other reason except an actual accident.

Richard in Los Angeles

Carld
01-05-2011, 02:37 PM
A Republic is a representative form of government in which the people vote a representative to do their voting of laws. A Democratic form of government is one in which everyone has to vote a law up or down.

There is nothing Democratic about the USA government except the Democratic party, in name only, and the representatives, in name only, pretending to vote for us while they vote as they see fit and for who ever gives them the most money.

flathead4
01-05-2011, 02:41 PM
causing accidents by driving the exact limit or less in the left lane

But wait! Why are one or two slow drivers in the left lane a problem? Shouldn't you only be using the left lane to pass? That's the argument all the 10-15+ MPH over crowd always use. If you were following you own rule you would simply travel past on the right with the faster moving traffic.

Tom

Carld
01-05-2011, 02:49 PM
I do that when there is no one in the right lane but most left lane drivers like to drive at the same speed as someone in the right lane at the speed limit. I have drove for miles behind someone in the left lane while he/she cruised along at the speed limit or less beside someone else in the right lane.

You can guess how I got around them and I don't like to do it that way.

There is such a thing as courtesy on the road and driving for miles in the left lane blocking traffic is not being courteous. In my book it's being arrogant and stupid.

pgmrdan
01-05-2011, 02:53 PM
http://i.ebayimg.com/02/!CBjB59w!Wk~$(KGrHqZ,!hgE0f0lifVHBNIMBTC17Q~~_3.JP G

Now THAT'S a piece of SAFETY EQUIPMENT!!! I'd like to put something like that in my '72 VW Super Beetle.

I love cruise control. I set it at the speed limit and forget about it.

Been driving over 40 years. Got a speeding ticket when I was 18 and a warning when I was in my early 20's. I haven't been pulled over since I was young and stupid.

I don't need a radar detector because I have no need to speed. Just allow plenty of time to get where I'm going and don't worry about it.

Radar detectors are for kids who want to play dangerous games.

Carld
01-05-2011, 02:57 PM
Using Radar detectors is not a dangerous game. How is it dangerous?

I like those horns too but do you realize how loud they are? They would hurt the ears of anyone in the car they are on not to mention anyone near by. I blew a set in side a large shop one time and my ears rang for an hour and I had tissue paper in my ears.

lazlo
01-05-2011, 02:58 PM
Using Radar detectors is not a dangerous game. How is it dangerous?

I think he means that if you spend money on an expensive radar detector, it implies that you're planning on doing a lot of speeding.

pgmrdan
01-05-2011, 03:00 PM
Radar detectors are for those who want to get away with speeding. Speeding is a dangerous 'game'.

Evan
01-05-2011, 03:02 PM
There is nothing Democratic about the USA government except the Democratic party, in name only, and the representatives, in name only, pretending to vote for us while they vote as they see fit and for who ever gives them the most money.


The general case of a democracy is when everyone has a vote, the vote offers more than one choice and the candidates are drawn from the population by voters. Fine distinctions in the exact process don't change that. Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy but it is still a democratic system of government for the reasons stated above. It is a monarchy in name only, a democracy in reality.

Carld
01-05-2011, 03:04 PM
Maybe but does anyone know that a Radar detector picks up railroad crossing, Ambulances, fire engines, and some traffic signals that are nice to know about. They also pick up automatic door openers in shopping centers, road side warning signs and other road hazard warnings.

When I hear it beep I watch for anything, signs, cops and emergency vehicles and it usually gives me a heads up. Using it to find cops is just one thing it is good for.

Carld
01-05-2011, 03:05 PM
Ok, I'll call us a Republic and you can call us a Democracy and leave it at that.

Evan
01-05-2011, 03:05 PM
I love how some invoke 'the Law' as if it was somehow carved in granite by the Almighty.


It isn't, it is "carved" by your elected representatives. If you don't like it the answer is to vote differently, not to disobey the law.

flathead4
01-05-2011, 03:06 PM
I rarely see a driver doing the speed limit or less in the left lane around here. Mostly, I see groups of cars zip by nuts-to-butts and when the lead car doesn't go fast enough for someone, he'll whip out, pass on the right, and end up back in the left lane. There are those drivers that if the speed limit was set to 100 (or 200), they would do 20 MPH over.

Tom

pgmrdan
01-05-2011, 03:06 PM
Using it to find cops is just one thing it is good for.

But I think you'll have to admit that finding cops when speeding is the main thing the great majority of people use them for.

Carld
01-05-2011, 03:14 PM
Most people drive in the left lane because it is smoother. The right lane is bumpy because of the truck traffic.

People that tail gate don't bother me to much. If I have to stop fast I will apply the brakes quick without lockup and release knowing they may hit me and lock up the wheels and that gives me time to do a controlled stop. I have yet to have someone hit me but it does work and they have no complaint about giving them a brake job if it was a situation I needed to stop quick.

If you tail gate you can expect to get a brake job at some time. Also, if you tail gate you better have damn fast reaction time and stay awake.

goose
01-05-2011, 03:21 PM
It's your legal right to do everything in your power to avoid the ticket. But you've consciously broken the law, so suck it up if it doesn't work :)
My point was that the county and city courts didn't just fall off the turnip truck -- they roll their eyes if you ask for the laser/radar inspection reports.
Why should they roll their eyes? If indeed that is the case. Should they not treat each piece of evidence with the same seriousness regardless of which side presents?

If your statement is true, it leads one to believe that the courts are complicit and traffic laws are nothing more than a money making scam.


Do they ever roll their eyes when the state presents it's evidence? Do they favor one side over the other? Should they?

Traffic infractions are not necessarily so cut and dry an issue, there are often mitigating circumstances to take into account. A radar gun reading is only part of the picture. What's worse, going 15 mph over the limit on a sunny day, or going exactly at the speed limit at night with rain and ground fog?

Gary

pgmrdan
01-05-2011, 03:24 PM
I'm reading this stuff and must say that some of you guys and your 'logic' (???) scare me but you also entertain me.

I will avoid this thread.

Mcgyver
01-05-2011, 03:52 PM
I'm reading this stuff and must say that some of you guys and your 'logic' (???) scare me but you also entertain me.

I will avoid this thread.

and that accomplished? what scares you? Speak up, its just a discussion

RB211
01-05-2011, 04:48 PM
The pigs (government) will not get more of my hard earned money. I can't wait til the day they start to mail speeding tickets in the mail with the radar they have mounted all over the place to monitor traffic. Oops, that is right, the liberal pigs in New Jersey send you speeding tickets in the mail if your average time between the toll booths equals a speed above the speed limit(thanks to their speed pass transponders)
With stop light camera's and radar's all over the place, the technology is already in place to mail out speeding tickets. Only thing stopping them is flipping a switch. They are waiting for the sheople to become more complacent.
Bahhhh Bahhh, I follow the law and bend over for the government no matter how draconian they become, and how much they ignore the constitution because I lost my sense of freedom... Bahhh Bahhh Bahhhh

The Fixer
01-05-2011, 05:09 PM
The large 6X12 ft sign on the side of the Highway just as you come into Quesnel BC that says

ALL THOSE OPPOSED TO SPEEDING TICKETS PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT FOOT.

Kinda hard to fault the logic in that!

mike os
01-05-2011, 05:37 PM
you lost your freedom the day they ratified the constitution.

you want rapists locked up because they break the law, but they don't see it that way.. not a rule they feel is right
you want murderers locked up because they break the law, but they don't see it that way, not a rule they think is right
ditto lots of "criminals".... how is speeding because you disagree with the law any different?

John Stevenson
01-05-2011, 05:51 PM
I don't think so. I drive the speed limit. Over a million klicks, no accidents, no tickets.

The numbers interest me.
One million miles = 1,000,000 miles
Assume an average speed of 45 mph given built up areas and interstates
1,000,000 / 45 = 22,222 hours.

Divide by 11 hours to give a decent working day and that's 2,020 days

Now divide by 246 which is a year less holidays and weekends [ rougly ] and we get 8.21 [ approx ] YEARS

So for eight plus years Evan has done nothing but drive.

I think you need to include that on your CV ' cause you missed it off. :D

vpt
01-05-2011, 06:12 PM
My buddy and I went on a trip about 6 years ago in his talon to pick up something from SC. Before we left he bought a K40 radar jammer. hehe

The entire trip (1200ish miles one way I believe) we never dropped below 90mph. We went by many many cops either coming at us or even sitting taking radar in the median. The K40 would beep letting us know we are being targeted but not one cop turned around or came after us. He kept the K40 for a few years and while speeding to the point that it is guarantied you will get pulled over he never once got pulled over. The K40 broke somehow.


But don't be speeding and stuff, its dangerous!

vpt
01-05-2011, 06:15 PM
The numbers interest me.
One million miles = 1,000,000 miles
Assume an average speed of 45 mph given built up areas and interstates
1,000,000 / 45 = 22,222 hours.

Divide by 11 hours to give a decent working day and that's 2,020 days

Now divide by 246 which is a year less holidays and weekends [ rougly ] and we get 8.21 [ approx ] YEARS

So for eight plus years Evan has done nothing but drive.

I think you need to include that on your CV ' cause you missed it off. :D


Thats not far fetched. I bet I am close to a million miles under my belt already and I am only 32 years old.

Reason I can claim this is because of the mileage on our work trucks which only my dad or I drive. Just our trucks right now on the road added up have over a million miles. Not counting retired trucks or personal vehicles.

Evan
01-05-2011, 06:25 PM
The numbers interest me.
One million miles = 1,000,000 miles
Assume an average speed of 45 mph given built up areas and interstates
1,000,000 / 45 = 22,222 hours.


Kilometres John, not miles. Average speed of 45? Built up areas?

Ha ha ha ha ha.......

Speed limit was 90, is now 100. The only built up areas around here that resemble any sort of city are the anthills on the back hill side of my property.

Still, I did do a heck of a lot of driving. It wasn't all wasted time since the company supplied us with radiophones in the early days and cell phones later. The radiophones had good coverage unlike the cell phones but they were only simplex. Simplex radio is fine to talk and drive because it doesn't distract you like duplex does. I never found cell phones distracting since on the hiway the only chore was to keep the rubber between the lines. It wasn't uncommon to go for 10 to 15 minutes before seeing another vehicle in the winter. And no, I still didn't speed. Guys that drove over the speed limit doing service calls were cutting their own throats. Their efficiency then depended on speeding to get the job done and they just ended up with even more overload. By the time I quit I was doing 1.5 workloads and they had just informed me that it was going up to 2. I informed them it was going down to zero.

Carld
01-05-2011, 06:32 PM
It's not hard to drive a million miles or more in a life time or less in the Hew Hess of Hay or Cananada. these are LARGE countries. 2707 miles New York to La according to the Atlas and I have traveled it a few times. Then there is North to South.

Rustybolt
01-05-2011, 06:36 PM
for years Montana had noposted speed limit except in towns. The autobahn has noposted speed limits except in towns. Both places rely on drivers to use their best judgement when driving.
From this I have to conclude that most speed laws are there to raise revenue.

Gently
01-05-2011, 06:37 PM
WOW :eek: i just went through all the post for a simple question....Amazing how folks think.

I spent the last 20 years as an Officer of the law in one form or another, but I have to say the best time I had was in the STEP units (Sheriff Traffic Enforcement Program) I love the reasoning folks have for minor (traffic)infractions.

Personally I never wrote a citation for over 15, UNLESS THE DRIVER WAS AN AZZ, then all I would say is "press hard there are 5 copys" I loved the "dont you know who I am" and yes I actually wrote other LEO's tickets! :D

everyone does realize that citations do not go to the Agency issuing the ticket, right? It goes in to the general fund of the city state or municapalities. I, in my whole career never had a "quota" I had to meet! If I did I would just have to sit in the swale of the road for an hour or two and fill any "quota" set!

anyhoo, back to the point.....yes detectors work, do they work all the time? NO.

Evan
01-05-2011, 06:41 PM
Traffic infractions are not necessarily so cut and dry an issue, there are often mitigating circumstances to take into account.

Sure it's cut and dried. That is why you are required to prove you are innocent. There are some turnpikes in the US that time stamp your pass when you drive on and when you drive off they check the time. If you get there too soon you get a speeding ticket. You can pay it on the spot. No point in going to court. The clocks are radio synchronized to the NIST standard. Even though no person witnessed you speed the laws of time, speed and distance did.

Around here radar speed measuring devices aren't used as evidence to convict so you cannot fight a ticket on that basis. The cop uses the radar or the laser to alert him to what vehicle may be speeding and he testifies that according to his trained and informed judgement you were speeding.

Many speed cameras only use radar to trigger the camera. The camera then takes two pictures that are a measured time apart. The distance that the vehicle travels provides the evidence of speeding. They also use very simple photocell traps in some areas. They work just like the time traps on the drag strip except they measure your velocity over a distance of about a car length. There is nothing to see and nothing to detect.

vpt
01-05-2011, 06:59 PM
WOW :eek: i just went through all the post for a simple question....Amazing how folks think.

I spent the last 20 years as an Officer of the law in one form or another, but I have to say the best time I had was in the STEP units (Sheriff Traffic Enforcement Program) I love the reasoning folks have for minor (traffic)infractions.

Personally I never wrote a citation for over 15, UNLESS THE DRIVER WAS AN AZZ, then all I would say is "press hard there are 5 copys" I loved the "dont you know who I am" and yes I actually wrote other LEO's tickets! :D

everyone does realize that citations do not go to the Agency issuing the ticket, right? It goes in to the general fund of the city state or municapalities. I, in my whole career never had a "quota" I had to meet! If I did I would just have to sit in the swale of the road for an hour or two and fill any "quota" set!

anyhoo, back to the point.....yes detectors work, do they work all the time? NO.


"press hard there are 5 copies" LOL


Where you ever told to give out more tickets ever? Not a quota but more of just a chief telling the whole room full of police to step it up or the like.

Seems the cops around here go on sprees every now and then. For a while you won't see anyone getting pulled over then all of a sudden for at least a week strait you will see just about every cop in town have someone pulled over all day and night long.

Doc Nickel
01-05-2011, 07:08 PM
I've driven the AlCan- the Alaska-Canada Highway- roughly a dozen times. Once I did it in an L-82 Corvette, and another time in a bright yellow '69 Dodge Charger.

The only time I've even been pulled over- even on the US legs of the trips- was once somewhere in Canada, in the Charger, doing about 150Kp/h, at about 2 am on a totally black, moonless night, and miles away from any city light pollution.

If you've ever tried the old arcade game "Night Driver", that's pretty much what it was like- couldn't see anything but the lines on the road. Stupid and dangerous, yes, but hey, that was back when I was indestructible. :D

I played the "dumb American" bit, pointing out my '60's era car didn't have a metric range on the speedo- I knew full well the proper conversion- and they let me go.

It's also worth noting that when I took the Corvette through Montana, it was when there were no defined speed limits. I have a photo somewhere of the billboard sign that said something like "whatever is safe and proper".

And interestingly enough, everyone was driving the same 65 to 70 they drove everywhere else.

Doc.

vpt
01-05-2011, 07:10 PM
And interestingly enough, everyone was driving the same 65 to 70 they drove everywhere else.

Doc.


Except you right? :D

rohart
01-05-2011, 07:10 PM
The main downside to driving quickly is that it brings you up behind the next crawling moron who doesn't trust his driving even at the speed limit.

I find that there are many occasions when if I keep to the speed limit it's mind blowingly boring, just as there are many dangerous stretches of road where a lower speed limit would be sensible.

I often find myself slowing for a dangerous situation I have anticipated well before others on the road have noticed it, so I'm doing 10 mph as I watch two idiots screech to a halt. So who's the danger on the road ? Me, or the road blind ?

And talking of blind, I find many more drivers now drive with lights on in quite acceptable light conditions. To me, this reflects their inability to see properly. They should be stopped and have their eyesight tested. It's probably the Scandinavian habit that started it. Very dangerous.

People will start driving to lights, instead of watching the road and pedestians, both of which I understand are sometimes devoid of lighting.

Evan
01-05-2011, 07:16 PM
And talking of blind, I find many more drivers now drive with lights on in quite acceptable light conditions. To me, this reflects their inability to see properly. They should be stopped and have their eyesight tested. It's probably the Scandinavian habit that started it. Very dangerous.


It's the law here since 20 years ago that all vehicles sold must be equipped with daytime running lights. It was tested on various sections of road for several years before it was enacted. They simply posted signs that instructed you to turn on your headlights. The accident rates on those roads dropped by something like 20%. It isn't dangerous, it saves lives.

aboard_epsilon
01-05-2011, 07:30 PM
Lights

I liked night driving once ..

That was when everyone had the old tungsten bulbs ..nice yellow glows coming towards you most of the time ..

Now everyone has halogens as standard and other modern crap ..I hate night driving ..do everything to avoid it, they are tooo eye piercing bright and make it painful to drive..and anoy the hell out of me .

Better lights make people drive faster ..

I remember with poor lights, I used to drive slower .

so there is something to be learned in that .

is that I'm safer because i don't drive at night now ..

but long for the old lights .

all the best.markj

JCHannum
01-05-2011, 08:01 PM
Sure it's cut and dried. That is why you are required to prove you are innocent. There are some turnpikes in the US that time stamp your pass when you drive on and when you drive off they check the time. If you get there too soon you get a speeding ticket. You can pay it on the spot. No point in going to court. The clocks are radio synchronized to the NIST standard. Even though no person witnessed you speed the laws of time, speed and distance did.

Please furnish some documentation to back that statement up. That and the statement about the NJTP issuing speeding tickets through EZPass are urban myths.

Doc Nickel
01-05-2011, 08:28 PM
It's the law here since 20 years ago that all vehicles sold must be equipped with daytime running lights. It was tested on various sections of road for several years before it was enacted. They simply posted signs that instructed you to turn on your headlights. The accident rates on those roads dropped by something like 20%. It isn't dangerous, it saves lives.

-While all that is true, the statistics don't take into account acclimitatization, for want of a better term.

The testing was done when few people drove with headlights on during the day, so those that did, drew attention to themselves, reducing the liklihood of being hit. (I fail to see how having one's own lights on during the day makes one a better driver, so we can probably discount that as part of the safety improvement.)

But now that everyone has their headlights on, we're back to the status quo- you don't notice the other cars unless they have badly-aimed headlights or they have their high beams on.

They did the same thing with motorcycles- first mandating that they have "always on" headlights, and more recently, allowing flickering or oscillating headlights. People get used to them, start ignoring them again.

Years ago they added strobes to the school busses- supposedly in an effort to make them "more visible", despite the fact that most of the accidents involving busses occured when they were stopped... with the existing red lights already flashing.

The "third" brake light that became mandatory- if the guy who rear-ended you was already ignoring both your regular taillights, a third is supposed to be better?

I'm not saying that any of those are bad things, or that some or all of them didn't have some measurable benefit, it's just that I feel like one of these days we'll all end up driving cars that have more blinking lights and flashing arrows than an old moviehouse marquee. :D

Doc.

Evan
01-05-2011, 08:42 PM
Please furnish some documentation to back that statement up. That and the statement about the NJTP issuing speeding tickets through EZPass are urban myths.

The test were done over 20 years ago. One of the test sections was near here. I have no idea where that information can be found now. As for easy pass, what makes you think I was talking about that? I wasn't.

Evan
01-05-2011, 08:50 PM
While all that is true, the statistics don't take into account acclimitatization, for want of a better term.

The testing was done when few people drove with headlights on during the day, so those that did, drew attention to themselves, reducing the liklihood of being hit. (I fail to see how having one's own lights on during the day makes one a better driver, so we can probably discount that as part of the safety improvement.)

But now that everyone has their headlights on, we're back to the status quo- you don't notice the other cars unless they have badly-aimed headlights or they have their high beams on.

They did the same thing with motorcycles- first mandating that they have "always on" headlights, and more recently, allowing flickering or oscillating headlights. People get used to them, start ignoring them again.

Years ago they added strobes to the school busses- supposedly in an effort to make them "more visible", despite the fact that most of the accidents involving busses occured when they were stopped... with the existing red lights already flashing.

The "third" brake light that became mandatory- if the guy who rear-ended you was already ignoring both your regular taillights, a third is supposed to be better?


Daytime running lights make a very big difference to visibility in low contast lighting conditions that are still light enough that people don't normally turn on their lights. Dawn and dusk are the big times when it really makes a big difference. I don't understand why there would be any objection to it since it doesn't have a downside. It costs almost nothing to implement.

The third brake light is much easier to see when the regular ones might be blocked by a vehicle in front of you. You are supposed to be paying attention the vehicles well ahead of you, not just the one in directly ahead of you. The third brake light is for YOU to observe.

The extra lighting on school buses also reminds children what to do at the bus stops. It isn't just for the other drivers.

JCHannum
01-05-2011, 08:50 PM
Since you are unable to verify your statement, it can be discounted as false.

EZPass was mentioned in another post. It will issue a speeding ticket if you go through the EZPass lane too fast, but not a general speeding ticket for highway speeds.

RB211
01-05-2011, 09:02 PM
Please furnish some documentation to back that statement up. That and the statement about the NJTP issuing speeding tickets through EZPass are urban myths.

You can talk to my friend if you want, he received a speeding ticket in the mail while on the garden state parkway using his ez-pass

MaxxLagg
01-05-2011, 09:12 PM
Daytime running lights make a very big difference to visibility in low contast lighting conditions that are still light enough that people don't normally turn on their lights. Dawn and dusk are the big times when it really makes a big difference. I don't understand why there would be any objection to it since it doesn't have a downside. It costs almost nothing to implement.

The third brake light is much easier to see when the regular ones might be blocked by a vehicle in front of you. You are supposed to be paying attention the vehicles well ahead of you, not just the one in directly ahead of you. The third brake light is for YOU to observe.

The extra lighting on school buses also reminds children what to do at the bus stops. It isn't just for the other drivers.


Just curious Evan, do you ever disagree or rebel against anything or anyone other than us? :D J/K

I drive 34 miles, one way, every day to work. When going to work I drive the speed limit, even slightly below. It is anywhere from 2-5 am, depending when I'm going in that day. There is almost NO traffic. I pretty much have the road to myself the whole way.........except for the damn deer. That's why I drive very conservatively. They follow no traffic laws at all. I quit riding motorcycles to work just because of them. Just too dangerous.

Going home, I'm tired and the difference in time getting home going the speed limit or going the average of 10 MPH over that most of the traffic is going is insignificant. I just keep it in the right lane and tool along and let everybody rush towards their deaths. :p

Evan
01-05-2011, 09:18 PM
Just curious Evan, do you ever disagree or rebel against anything or anyone other than us?

Sure, especially anybody that advocates breaking the law. Or when the post office lies to me about my mail or when the medical system screws up my blood tests.

I am an independent conservative politically. This discussion is a no brainer. When the law is on your side and against the other side it is really hard to lose the argument. It's a default win. Don't like the law? Do what I do and change the system.

Evan
01-05-2011, 09:22 PM
Since you are unable to verify your statement, it can be discounted as false.


It works the other way. You are required to falsify it just as with any theory.

Doc Nickel
01-05-2011, 09:29 PM
I pretty much have the road to myself the whole way.........except for the damn deer. That's why I drive very conservatively. They follow no traffic laws at all.

-Up here it's moose. They tend to outweigh deer by about an order of magnitude, and similarly tend to ignore typical highway safety protocol. :D

And as bad as a $100 speeding ticket is, even minor collisions with one of them can do thousands in damage.

The "ricers" and "tuners" up here, such as they are, couldn't care less for the cops. But they do respect the moose. :D

Doc.

lazlo
01-05-2011, 09:30 PM
You can talk to my friend if you want, he received a speeding ticket in the mail while on the garden state parkway using his ez-pass

http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/ezpass.asp

E-Z Path Speeding Tickets

Claim: New York will be embedding strips in vehicle registration stickers in order to catch speeders.

Status: False.

Example: New York State started a pilot program upstate north of Albany on the Northway to catch speeders using the Easy Pass system. Recording devices were installed at intervals along the highway. Once an Easy Pass equipped vehicle passes, the device registers the account number and the time. Same is again registered at the next "check-point". Based upon the distance between the register points and the posted speed limit, the state is sending speeding tickets in the mail to the guilty persons.

Variations: A New England variant of this rumor which claimed that ticket-issuing cameras were being installed along I-84 in Connecticut began circulating in Janaury 2010.

Ever since the introduction of the E-ZPass electronic toll collection system (which automatically reads RFID transponders in tags carried within automobiles as those vehicles pass through toll lanes, thereby allowing motorists to avoid having to stop and pay at numerous individual toll booths), pessimists have been predicting that it's only a matter of time until municipal governments start using the passes as a means of catching speeders.

JCHannum
01-05-2011, 09:36 PM
It works the other way. You are required to falsify it just as with any theory.

It is not a theory, it is a statement you made as fact. I asked for verification. Name the states that issue such tickets.

As far as the EZPass ticket on the GS parkway, unless proof is provided to the contrary, I will stick with the explanation that it is for speeding in the EZPass lane. These are common in most states using EZPass and other systems. Highway speeding tickets are not.

I see Robert has posted a link and Snopes article debunking the EZPass tickets.

MaxxLagg
01-05-2011, 09:44 PM
-Up here it's moose. They tend to outweigh deer by about an order of magnitude, and similarly tend to ignore typical highway safety protocol. :D

And as bad as a $100 speeding ticket is, even minor collisions with one of them can do thousands in damage.

The "ricers" and "tuners" up here, such as they are, couldn't care less for the cops. But they do respect the moose. :D

Doc.

Funny story. When I was a teenager the family went to Yellow Stone Park. One day there we were watching this big bull moose standing next to the road munching away on something. Along comes this motorhome, one of the old Winnebagos. Those thing really weren't all that solidly built. Really just thin tin and a framework. The Winnebago was probably going about 30-35 MPH and just as it was passing the moose, the moose decides he sees something on the other side of the road that looks interesting and crosses. Evidently the guy in the Winnebago must have not even noticed the moose in spite of all the gawkers. The Winnebago t-bones this bull moose and knocks the poor thing off the road and into the ditch. The impact just DESTROYS the Winnebago. I mean it just explodes the whole front end of the thing, tin and crap everywhere. The moose gets up, shakes itself off, gives an indignant snort and ambles off into the woods none the worse for wear. As bad as I've seen car/deer collisions, I can't imagine how much it would suck to hit one of those damn things.

Evan
01-05-2011, 09:52 PM
It is not a theory, it is a statement you made as fact. I asked for verification. Name the states that issue such tickets.


I thought you were referring to daytime running lights. You wrote:


Please furnish some documentation to back that statement up

There are numerous studies online that document the benefits of daytime running lights. It makes no sense to oppose it since there aren't any reasons to oppose it.

As for toll road tickets Texas ran trials of such a system back in the early 90s. My sister lives there and told me about it at the time. I would think that it would be entirely foolproof so I can't see why it wouldn't be used. If it isn't currently in practice you can bet it will be soon.

ageingrodder
01-05-2011, 09:54 PM
Speaking as a Law Enforcement Officer of about 14 years, I can think of a lot of things I would like to say and a lot of comments I would like to make. Instead I just have to shake my head in disgust at the attitudes and opinions of some of the members. :(

You would think the officer on the street is a messenger of the devil. We are loved when we are there to help and protect you or enforce the laws you believe in. But when that same law inconveniences you personally in any way we are despised. A lot of people seem to forget we are hired to enforce the laws the people you elected have created. Police don't make laws, they enforce laws. Do I disagree with some of those laws and the fines, you bet, but we are all still expected to obey the laws or pay the fine.

Back to the main subject, in most circumstances, if you are speeding and your radar detector goes off, it's generally too late to do anything except pull over.

That being said, you drive safely out there and get back to machining.

JCHannum
01-05-2011, 10:04 PM
I thought you were referring to daytime running lights

I included a quote of your original incorrect statement to preclude any errors.

The time stamped toll ticket has been in use at least since the 50's to my knowledge, that is how long I have been traveling turnpikes, and has not been used for speed enforcement yet.

PeteF
01-05-2011, 10:20 PM
Speaking as a Law Enforcement Officer of about 14 years, I can think of a lot of things I would like to say and a lot of comments I would like to make. Instead I just have to shake my head in disgust at the attitudes and opinions of some of the members. :(

You would think the officer on the street is a messenger of the devil. We are loved when we are there to help and protect you or enforce the laws you believe in. But when that same law inconveniences you personally in any way we are despised. A lot of people seem to forget we are hired to enforce the laws the people you elected have created. Police don't make laws, they enforce laws. Do I disagree with some of those laws and the fines, you bet, but we are all still expected to obey the laws or pay the fine.

Back to the main subject, in most circumstances, if you are speeding and your radar detector goes off, it's generally too late to do anything except pull over.

That being said, you drive safely out there and get back to machining.

I wasn't going to get involved in this thread, but since you posted this I will say that I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments. I too am absolutely disgusted at some of the comments that have been posted here and those who made them should feel ashamed. I really hope George closes this thread before some here embarrass themselves further. A few familiar names I personally would have expected more from, but while those responsible have a good hard look at themselves, I'll personally take my hat off to the guys/girls out there who's absolutely thankless job it is to enforce the law. I tip my hat and say at least ONE person here very much appreciates the effort. Thank you!

lakeside53
01-05-2011, 10:48 PM
+2..............

goose
01-05-2011, 10:51 PM
I wasn't going to get involved in this thread, but since you posted this I will say that I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments. I too am absolutely disgusted at some of the comments that have been posted here and those who made them should feel ashamed. I really hope George closes this thread before some here embarrass themselves further. A few familiar names I personally would have expected more from, but while those responsible have a good hard look at themselves, I'll personally take my hat off to the guys/girls out there who's absolutely thankless job it is to enforce the law. I tip my hat and say at least ONE person here very much appreciates the effort. Thank you!

The hardcore law and order mentality can't deal with it when the natives get restless. ;)


Gary

Mcgyver
01-05-2011, 10:55 PM
You would think the officer on the street is a messenger of the devil..

where did you get that take away? I don't remember anything directed toward the individuals in law enforcement that they're a force of evil. :confused: I wish you guys being critical of content herein thread would offer more specifics so the rest of us knew what you were talking about and perhaps might learn something from hearing your views on the specific items that you disagree with....this " I shake my head at this thread" stuff is useless

Bill736
01-05-2011, 11:15 PM
I'm one of those irritating people who drive within the speed limit, come to complete stops at stop signs, and don't even honk my horn at other drivers doing stupid things, unless honking would change a dangerous situation into a safer one. I make every effort to drive in a conservative manner. I do these things because I don't want to get tickets , and I do believe it's a safer way to drive. I've never owned a radar detector. However, the issue of feeling an obligation to obey the law out of respect is an entirely different matter. Our state laws are made by our state politicians , a band of morons if ever there was one. Very little of what they do deserves respect, and no, I did not vote for a single incumbent. We must not forget that this nation was founded by men who broke the prevailing laws, many established by the British. Our founders were bold men who were leaders, and not merely sheep.

Cobbler
01-06-2011, 12:42 AM
I snapped this photo a couple years ago right in front of my house. The local PD had parked their automatic speed check device across the street for the folks on their way out of town to check how fast they are really going without going through the major inconvenience of looking at their own speedometer.

http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x308/kennyrolling/speeder.jpg

This dingdong showed nothing but disrespect to me and my family by behaving in this manner in front of my own house. It does not matter where this dingdong is doing this. He is not respecting the laws, he does not deserve my respect.

Again, as I said before, "knowingly and willfully" breaking a law is where the law breaker's lack of respect for society denies him the respect from those who do respect just laws.

Rustybolt
01-06-2011, 06:59 AM
agingrodder

I don't envy you your job at all.

Your Old Dog
01-06-2011, 07:46 AM
For the OP, try this one. http://www.consumersearch.com/radar-detectors/escort-passport-9500ix
..................................

February first the Ohio turnpike posted limit will be raised to 70MPH. Suddenly it will become safe to drive at that speed?

That's what frost me. For those who don't see the light it means for years, all those folks who were caught speeding were caught doing something that is alright in February ?


In New York they recently passed the highway worker safety law. Speeding in a construction zone is a double fine. Up until they passed the law, I have never seen a Trooper working a construction zone. Now that the law is out and potential for revenue is greater, you a hard pressed to find a construction zone with out a radar trap setup.

One last thing, trying being a State Trooper and not turning in any speed violations for the month. You will have a short career.

Actually that wasn't the last :D I'm a bit embarrassed to tell of the time I was just smoking up the high speed lane coming up behind an old lady. She was behind a semi truck. Just as I came up on her I moved over to the right lane to pass when I saw one of New York's Finest parked behind a culvert with a gun outside the widow. His radar saw me but he didn't. He saw the lady as I hid on the side of the semi. As the confusion cleared I saw his lights and I knew she would get a ticket. I know most of you would have got off, back on and told him of his error :D I felt like a heal but I know this must happen over and over as they read their magazines and news papers while on duty.

Mcgyver, I agree whole heartedly with everything you've said and you express it very well being realistic and taking into play human nature.

Evan
01-06-2011, 08:06 AM
That's what frost me. For those who don't see the light it means for years, all those folks who were caught speeding were caught doing something that is alright in February ?

Not overnight but there have been a long list of improvements to the major hiways that make higher speed limits justified.

Countermeasure Points Date
1 Divided Highways 67 mid 1960's
2 Intersection Channelization (left-and right-turn lanes) 58 late 1960's
3 Clear Zone Widening 55 mid 1970's
4 Breakaway Devices (for luminairs, sign bases) 53 late 1970's
5 Energy-Absorbing Barrier End Treatments 53 early 1980's
6 Protected Left-turn Phases 51 late 1970's
7 Rail Crossing Warning Devices (gates, signals) 51 late 1960's
8 Access Management 50 late 1970's
9 Rigid Barriers (median and roadside) 50 mid 1970's
10 Intersection Angle Limits (to 70 or better) 48 mid 1960's
11 Horizontal Curve Flattening 43 mid 1970's
12 Passing Lanes (along two-lane highways) 42 mid 1970's
13 Positive Guidance 42 mid 1980's
14 Street Lighting 41 mid 1970's
15 Decision Sight Distance 40 mid 1970's
16 Roundabouts 40 late 1990's
17 Two-way Left-turn Lanes 40 mid 1970's
18 Climbing Lanes (along mountainous highways) 39 mid 1970's
19 Rumble strips (edge-line or centre-line) 39 mid 1990's
20 Signal Display Conspicuity 36 mid 1980's
21 Vulnerable Road User Accommodation (s/walks, etc.) 35 late 1980's
22 All-Red Signal Phases 35 mid 1970's
23 Highly-Reflecting Pavement Markings 34 mid 1980's
24 Highly-Reflective Signs 34 mid 1980's
25 Super-elevation Improvements 34 early 1970's
26 High Friction / Open Textured Pavement 33 mid 1980's
27 Travel Lanes Widening 33 early 1970's
28 Shoulders Widening 32 mid 1970's
29 Prohibiting Parking Along Arterials 31 mid 1960's
30 Longer Taper Lengths 29 late 1970's
31 Advance Warning Flashers 27 mid 1980's
32 Signal Progression along Corridors 27 late 1960's
33 Truck Escape Roads or Ramps 27 late 1970's
34 Pavement Turn-Guidance Markings 24 late 1970's
35 Overhead Flashing Beacons 22 mid 1970's
36 Traffic Calming 22 late 1980's
37 Larger Traffic Signs 20 early 1990's
38 Rest Areas 20 mid 1970's
39 Travel Demand Management 20 mid 1980's
40 Intelligent Transportation Systems 19 late 1990's
41 Larger Street Name Signs 17 late 1980's

mike os
01-06-2011, 08:30 AM
That's what frost me. For those who don't see the light it means for years, all those folks who were caught speeding were caught doing something that is alright in February ?





Yup... but the reason it is alright in feb. is because the law has now changed..... for whatever reason. Thats how it works in a democracy

gwilson
01-06-2011, 08:45 AM
Evan,how long did it take you to come up with that comprehensive list?? And,you didn't even mention improvements to vehicles. :)

Mcgyver
01-06-2011, 08:47 AM
Again, as I said before, "knowingly and willfully" breaking a law is where the law breaker's lack of respect for society denies him the respect from those who do respect just laws.

Cobbler, you're right that guy shouldn't be doing that and you're right to be miffed about it. I have not even remotely suggested the law doesn't apply universally or if you don't like it a law it shouldn't apply to you... so i don't understand how an example of someone doing something wrong factors into a discussion of why someone obeys a law or not.

Have you ever broken a law, any law, down to the most insignificant of bylaws? Spitting or a dog without a license or a parking ticket? If so you have no logical choice but to agree with me people don't decide to obey the law simply because it's the law (else you, who claims disrespect for anyone who breaks a law would disrespect yourself). My view is they do so because the law aligns with their values or they fear the sanction - whats your view and where do you see a flaw in that logic?

JCHannum
01-06-2011, 09:01 AM
Not overnight but there have been a long list of improvements to the major hiways that make higher speed limits justified.

That entire list you Googled up is dated in the 60's, 70's & 80's. It takes twenty to thirty years to overcome the inertia and raise limits to a reasonable number?

Nixon lowered the speed limit to 55 to save gas. It didn't work, but it was not until the 80's and even later in some states before it was returned to the 60-65 MPH level. The limit on Michigan interstates is 70, they are generally poorer than the OHTP.

The point of most of those opposed to some speed limits is the capriciousness of the way they are imposed and that the enforcement of them is primarily for purposes of revenue generation, not safety.

It is not at all difficult to find articles such as this to prove that traffic fines are a source of income;

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/06/opinion/la-ed-fines6-2010feb06

vpt
01-06-2011, 09:23 AM
Where does all of IL. tollway money go? It sure isn't back into the roads thats for sure. I really hate having to pay money to use crap.

Evan
01-06-2011, 09:37 AM
That entire list you Googled up is dated in the 60's, 70's & 80's. It takes twenty to thirty years to overcome the inertia and raise limits to a reasonable number?


Not all of the list. Rumble strips is a major contributor to high speed hiway safety and they are dated mid 90s. Superelevation is another major improvement but it is very expensive to implement and may take decades to improve on existing highways. The same applies to many of the safety improvements. Those dates are when the improvements were first introduced, not when they were actually implemented. I am sure you can figure that out.


That entire list you Googled up is dated in the 60's, 70's & 80's.

I didn't Google it. Unlike many people I keep a list of reliable resources that are available on line. That list is from the Dept of Transportation of Canada. The list is not from the past. It is current and the scores indicate the value of each type of improvement. In Canada those improvements are calculated to have saved 11,000 lives over the years. Multiply times ten for the US assuming similar improvements have been made.


The point of most of those opposed to some speed limits is the capriciousness of the way they are imposed and that the enforcement of them is primarily for purposes of revenue generation, not safety.


Make it an election issue and vote accordingly. That is your right.

A.K. Boomer
01-06-2011, 09:49 AM
Like I stated earlier T.R. said it very well,,,

"If you're honest, you sooner or later have to confront your values. Then you're forced to separate what is right from what is merely legal."





That statement works both ways - and personally I believe that sheople who follow the law to the letter and never waiver without even thinking about it are very very dangerous in many many ways,
Maybe it should be against the law to be stupid and not think for yourself -- now that would be a good one, maybe not one we all could live with but what the hell, since were discriminating lets cut the crap and nip this thing in the bud,

I used to own a car that had super gummy hides and weighed 1,900 pounds --- I could throw it around and stop it on a dime, my reaction times were stellar to say the least so what I could safely "get away with" was a much higher threshold of speed than the average boat anchor with the average sloth behind the wheel --- I recalibrated and created my own laws - people don't like that - people can go fuqe themselves...

Far too many times Iv watched "law abiding citizens" driving the speed limit in the rain with crystalized hard rubber tires and a tread depth that was "legal" but unacceptable for the conditions --- yet we breed this type of non-thinking idiot behind a 3,500 lb projectile due to the only concern being if their "legal" or not,
It is in the very consideration of multiple factors and variables that the manipulation of the speed limit can be beneficial both in getting you safely to your destination faster or if the conditions warrant perhaps a little slower than someone who is being "legal" on occasion - but safer than them,
Yes --- Iv been passed by "law abiding citizens" that don't know their ass from their elbows about how to be safe,,, yet they are supposed to be "right" because they are obeying the law --- Bull$hitt.
Iv seen them go around me and hydroplane off the road right in front of me,

So before all you goody two shoes try to tell me what to do you really better have your act together,
And if your comfortable having people tell you everything you can and cant do and maybe even what you and your wife can do behind closed doors then Goody for you, Im not, and I never will be - I will continue to think for myself thank you very much, I will continue to separate what is right from what is merely legal...
Just my humble two cents:D

Evan
01-06-2011, 09:54 AM
Like I stated earlier T.R. said it very well,,,

"If you're honest, you sooner or later have to confront your values. Then you're forced to separate what is right from what is merely legal."

--------------------

I will continue to think for myself thank you very much, I will continue to separate what is right from what is merely legal...


You do not have that right of action. If you decide to do so anyway then you must be prepared to face the consequences. What is missing from TR's statement is what to do when your values conflict with the values of society at large, especially when your values lead you to breaking the law.

Carld
01-06-2011, 10:12 AM
The USA is a Republic, the people vote a representative to do their work. The only Democratic part of our government is the representatives vote could be considered a Democracy because each of them vote on the issues.

In a Republic the people elect representatives to enact laws and do the work of governing.

In a Democracy each citizen votes on all the proposed laws and acts of governing themselves. In the USA Federal government we don't do that.

As to the use of Radar detectors and speeding I don't see what the problem is. If you elect to use a detector or not and speed you take the risk and if you get a ticket you pay it. Consider it a cost of driving. All the talk of why to do it or not, is not relative to the issue. The issue is it's a violation of law.

Those that take it on themselves to block traffic are also in violation of the law by impeding traffic and being a public nuisance and should be ticketed as well as the speeders.

As to the police, they are doing a job so be courteous and let them. If they stopped you they are just doing their job.

I call myself an aggressive defensive driver. In that I do drive a little faster than others but I do all I can to avoid others dumb moves. You have to be very alert when driving because most the other drivers aren't. Most drivers are in a state of semi hypnosis due to the dullness of interstate driving. On interstates in and around town people are a little more alert.

A.K. Boomer
01-06-2011, 10:16 AM
Evan, The most dangerous thinking is not thinking at all --- that's really the point im trying to make - im not as radical as I sound, all im saying is there's a flip side to the "legal coin",
and on that other side of the "extreme" there are people who are just as much if not more dangerous to society - Why? because laws do not cover but a small percentage of what it takes to be safe --- and in the topic of motorized vehicles the factors and variables are way beyond the "law".

Example; Just because it may still be legal in certain states to talk on your "celly" while driving in no way shape or form makes it "right", yet its legal so your Ok with that right? WRONG... It's just as bad as in the states where it's illegal --- and it has nothing to do with the law.


Carld I could not agree more with your statement about law enforcement --- police officers are just doing their job - anybody who bashes on them better hope they never need them when the going gets tough...

mike os
01-06-2011, 10:17 AM
quite evan... problem is what happens when everyone behaves this way?... anarchy.

I certainly never, ever follow the law just because it is the law, but some are based on common sense, some are based on the concerns of the society in which I live.

I am sure I am regularly on the wrong side of some law or other... as we have many going back to before your country was even "discovered" that are technically still law as they have not been repealed, but I rarely make a conscious effort to flaunt the law, especially over something as petty as speed.

This is a case of as there is no moral issue to defend, the law is the right, follow it or you are in the wrong, no other position is possible or arguable, the law is a reflection on what society has decided is right.

lazlo
01-06-2011, 10:29 AM
personally I believe that sheople who follow the law to the letter and never waiver without even thinking about it are very very dangerous in many many ways,

So if you don't speed, you're sheep? :p

vpt
01-06-2011, 10:35 AM
Just took one of my kids to school. Cop at the intersection marked 15mph when children are pressent. There is a plastic sign put up in the middle of the road in the morning and evening when kids are going to or coming from school. I am sitting at the stop sign and a guy goes flying past me and the sign at what looked to me the normal 30mph. I looked over at the cop and see he is holding up the radar gun on the guy. After a couple seconds the cop looks at the radar gun and then looks at me, I give him the 'wtf' hand gesture and he just looks away. The one place a cop should do his job and nothing.

JCHannum
01-06-2011, 10:49 AM
Are any of you law abiding citizens in Pennsylvania not guilty of this law, which has apparently been rescinded recently? care to bet that it or similar is not in force in any other locality.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40921110/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

cuemaker
01-06-2011, 11:51 AM
I see that I started quite a thread...

As for my total lack of respect for the law and my poor citizenship due to me speeding or wanting to circumvent the law...grow up.

I am sure plenty of you high minded souls buy off the internet and don't pay your govt the sales tax that your supposed report on your tax returns....

I get very leery of the preachers of the high road as they are typically the ones breaking the more serious rules/law on the back side.

I drive the speed I am comfortable with driving except when in town.

Yesterday on my way home I followed a Highway Patrol car for most of the way and he went along with the flow of traffic, including 2 semi's in front of him. We did 10 above the posted for 45mins.

Still debating I want a detector..I do very little freeway driving.. its all country road

Rustybolt
01-06-2011, 12:07 PM
I think some of the dissagreement here is urban versus rural and surface transportation versus interstate.

I live in an urban area and once I'm on the expressway I had better keep up with traffic or I'll cause an accident. There is also such a thing as going too slow. Once off the expressway it makes more sense to go the limit.


How many of you have been in the middle lane on the exway and looked over into the passing lane and haver seen another driver reading a book, newspaper, or doing the books. Yeah. 70 miles an hour and reading a book.
When I worked in the city I saw it every day.

JCHannum
01-06-2011, 12:10 PM
My favorite was a guy doing a crossword on the Pa Turnpike. Of course, there is no law against that.

tdmidget
01-06-2011, 12:33 PM
ALL transportation is surface transportation with exception of aircraft star wars teleportation.

flathead4
01-06-2011, 12:37 PM
So you got a tricked-out car with racing tires, you're young and have super human reflexes and the roads are good. Why shouldn't you be able to drive as fast as you want? The only problem with that logic, is that you can only control what YOU can do and not what that old man in a Continental or a family in a minivan or maybe another hotdog just like you could do. And you guys that complain about those other drivers who are not up to your level of self-delcared skill and who dare to poke along at the speed limit - how selfish and self-centered. Not everyone in the world is a fantastic driver like you think you are, but we're not getting off the road so you will just have to deal with it.

Tom

Carld
01-06-2011, 12:50 PM
We do deal with it, every day in one way or another. The only thing we ask is to stay out of the way and in the right lane and don't imped the traffic flow.

While you may have no where to go and all day to get there others don't.

lazlo
01-06-2011, 01:03 PM
So you got a tricked-out car with racing tires, you're young and have super human reflexes and the roads are good. Why shouldn't you be able to drive as fast as you want? The only problem with that logic, is that you can only control what YOU can do

The other problem with that logic is that, just as everyone thinks they're above average IQ, everyone thinks they're a better driver than everyone else on the road.
The young kids with tricked-out cars with superhuman reflexes constitute a disproportionate percentage of road fatalities.

But none of this matters, IMHO -- you may not like the speed limit, but it's the law. Taxes suck, but they're the law too.

Speed if you choose, but don't whine if you get caught. Cheat on your taxes if you choose -- if you get caught, you can hang out with Wesley Snipes :)

Carld
01-06-2011, 01:13 PM
Exactly my feelings. If you speed pay the fine and go on and don't whine about it.

Cuemaker, buy a Cobra detector at Wally World for about $100 and try it out. You may like it.

cuemaker
01-06-2011, 01:15 PM
Speed if you choose, but don't whine if you get caught. Cheat on your taxes if you choose -- if you get caught, you can hang out with Wesley Snipes :)


I really dont think that anyone on this side of the issue is disagreeing with that... its seems to be more of a debate about if you willing to speed, then what other laws/rules are you breaking that bring into question your own personal morality....

A.K. Boomer
01-06-2011, 01:27 PM
So if you don't speed, you're sheep? :p


That's not what Im saying at all --- don't use the speed limit and what's legal as your almighty judgment call as to whats safe and whats not - that's dangerous thinking , or more what I would call non-thinking...

Just because you don't speed does not mean your not going way too fast for the circumstances, if you use the speed limit as your only guide you definitely are a sheeple...

lazlo
01-06-2011, 01:54 PM
That's not what Im saying at all --- don't use the speed limit and what's legal as your almighty judgment call as to whats safe and whats not - that's dangerous thinking , or more what I would call non-thinking..

I don't think I'm qualified to question the speed limit -- that's something that a bunch of civil engineers and statistical analysts have determined as resulting in an acceptable number of fatalities per capita. I don't think "The Pigs" (LOL!) set the speed limits to piss me off :)

I don't think anyone here disagrees that 35 MPH in a residential neighborhood is appropriate. I think you're arguing that the highway speed limits are not fair or reasonable?

Every industrialized nation has speed limits. Even the Autobahn has speed limits. In fact, I had the unique experience of getting speeding ticket as I was racing back to the Frankfurt airport with a car full of ARL engineers trying to make a flight back to the 'States. :D

I was curious about Jim's question of speed limits that were 70 back in the 70's, dropped to 55 MPH for 20 years, and then slowly increased back to 70 mph in many states. A casual search returned the follow chart from 'Tiffpedia. Not surprisingly, the data is very complex. One Federal study suggests that the regional traffic has a comfort zone of sorts. When the speed limit was 55, the average traffic velocity was 5 MPH over the speed limit. When the speed limits were raised to 70, the average traffic velocity was 5 MPH below the speed limit.

So does that say that the speed limit should be 60 - 65 MPH, since that's the speed that traffic is "comfortable" with? Or should our state Department of Transportation officials look at actuary statistics for highway fatalities?

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u15/rtgeorge_album/speedlimits.png

Evan
01-06-2011, 01:54 PM
I get very leery of the preachers of the high road as they are typically the ones breaking the more serious rules/law on the back side.


That is a load of BS. You have zero justification for making that statement.

I am totally amazed at how many people are try to defend a position that is utterly indefensible in our society. If this is the prevailing attitude then it goes a long way toward explaining why there is so much corruption at higher levels.

A.K. Boomer
01-06-2011, 02:10 PM
And you guys that complain about those other drivers who are not up to your level of self-delcared skill and who dare to poke along at the speed limit - how selfish and self-centered. Not everyone in the world is a fantastic driver like you think you are, but we're not getting off the road so you will just have to deal with it.

Tom


Nobody's telling you to get off the road --- Just try to keep things in perspective,
maybe ask a question to your moral compass once in awhile and stop thinking that the law is designed to and will protect you from everything, fact is is most laws create problems of their own.

It's also selfish and self centered to commute in a vehicle 3 to 4 times the G.V. weight of your typical compact commuter ---- forget the fact that they maybe help start more oil wars and send our brave young people across the globe to be killed so that you can get your status fix, think about what happens when you can't stop your greased pig and collide with a little 2,000 pound commuter --- yet its totally legal to commute in a land barge and do the speed limit everyone else is doing even though you not only have less control but do an incredible amount of damage when the control is lost... Not to mention help kill off the planet at a faster rate even if you never do have an accident...

Perspective that's all --- Im hearing an incredible amount of concern about "laws" but really nothing much about what is right and what is wrong.

cuemaker
01-06-2011, 02:22 PM
That is a load of BS. You have zero justification for making that statement.

I am totally amazed at how many people are try to defend a position that is utterly indefensible in our society. If this is the prevailing attitude then it goes a long way toward explaining why there is so much corruption at higher levels.


Its not BS... Not one bit.. I can be leery about what ever the hell I want and come up with any justification I want or use any anecdotal evidence I feel necessary.

There are defined laws and penalties and I accept them.....I take offense at your and others moral self righteousness...

Otherwise Even, your one hell of a smart guy, good machinist and I hope to have your skill and sense of invention someday.

A.K. Boomer
01-06-2011, 02:29 PM
I don't think anyone here disagrees that 35 MPH in a residential neighborhood is appropriate. I think you're arguing that the highway speed limits are not fair or reasonable?

[/IMG]


I actually do disagree with that --- 35mph tells me that if im in a hurry I can most likely get away with 40mph if the road is wide open and the conditions are great,,,
But more importantly ---
In accepting and using this judgment I automatically accept the fact that im very uncomfortable going the speed limit (even though its legal) if there's a series of parked cars on the side of the road due to a potential kid jumping out from the middle of two,
the trouble with the mindset of never going over removes the individual judgment element and in doing so breeds complacency in the form of adhering to the "law" so strictly that you won't question if your going too fast even if your under the limit,,,
Speed limits are just a rough draft --- and right and wrong are sometimes way above the limit or way below.

mike os
01-06-2011, 02:33 PM
easy answer...right; you obey the laws as far as you are able, wrong; you deliberately flout the laws because you think you are exempt.

Perspective on this issue:- you drive at or below the legal limit you're a law abiding citizen, you choose to break the law you are a criminal, like it or not.

there are no moral issues here, only ego's. some of which, from the comments here, think the world needs to be arranged for their personal convenience.


Please remember that I am one of those that regularly travels over the limit, but there is no way I am ever going to try & justify it unless its a medical emergency.

JCHannum
01-06-2011, 02:39 PM
Speed if you choose, but don't whine if you get caught. Cheat on your taxes if you choose -- if you get caught, you can hang out with Wesley Snipes :)

Or Tim Geithner.

Mcgyver
01-06-2011, 02:51 PM
I certainly never, ever follow the law just because it is the law, but some are based on common sense, some are based on the concerns of the society in which I live.

I am sure I am regularly on the wrong side of some law or other....

So you admit then that you make choices about what laws you're willing break....obviously doesn't mean that you're an axe murder or that they're big laws...but...you're saying you don't follow the law just because its the law. That's what I said. That everybody behaves the same in adhering to a law based on their values or the deterrent power of the sanction...but when i said it you say I'm advocating anarchy? There are only two possibilities, you obey every law because its the law (ie have never sworn) or make decisions on what ones you're going to obey or not.


This is a case of as there is no moral issue to defend, the law is the right, follow it or you are in the wrong, no other position is possible or arguable, the law is a reflection on what society has decided is right.

Can you see the confict between that statement and your admission early that you chose which laws to follow or not?

So the pork barrel tax give aways to their buddies politicians vote for are 'right' because they're made law? Come on, the law does not define right and wrong, that's a grade 3 fairy tale. There is a massive amount of slippage between what the people want (and massive conflict among them), their view of right and wrong and what the laws are.

"The law is a construct designed to maintain the status quo; to allow things to mostly smoothly function as they are. Its not the definition of right and wrong". That is not an arbitrary opinion of mine, it was the introductory message of a well respected international law prof teaching a graduate level course, an American I might add so there's no jurisdictional issues to blame. The thought leaders in law don't even try puff it up to be so high and mighty as to define right and wrong.

Right and wrong are to complex to be to codified as law; that is the purview of philosophy and other areas of study dealing with ethics and morals. You could be a very bad person and stay within the law and likewise there have been lots of bad laws. There are lots of bad laws now that future enlightenment will reveal....unless you think we're living in the first place and time that actually managed to get it perfect.

I agree though that our societies are pretty good, maybe the best ever, and popular views of right and wrong are largely aligned with the law. Also, there are mechanism (although fraught with conflict) by which it can evolve as society wants it to, but you can't seriously hold the law up as the defining source of right and wrong in society

Mcgyver
01-06-2011, 03:11 PM
That is a load of BS. You have zero justification for making that statement.

I am totally amazed at how many people are try to defend a position that is utterly indefensible in our society. If this is the prevailing attitude then it goes a long way toward explaining why there is so much corruption at higher levels.

well theres the pot calling the kettle black....

How come he's full of it when he makes a generalization statement about the supposed behaviour of a group he can't possibly prove or know for sure, yet in the same post you do the exact same thing?

how do you know how much corruption there is as high levels? Like him, you only have anecdotes and prejudices....you have media anecdotes that may or may not have got it right; you have no idea what percentage within a range .00000001% to 99.9999999% of people at high levels are corrupt. So what percentage is it that makes it this "so much" you speak of and how do you know it?

Rif
01-06-2011, 03:40 PM
I think it all comes down to the question of who is the victim?

If I break into somebody´s house and steal his Monarch 10ee there is a clear victim. (This is a machining forum. :D ) The person that I stole from.

However, if on a nice spring day I am driving the only car on the road (that I can see anyhow) and I am going 100mph in a 65mph zone who is the victim? Did I harm anybody? Why is this a crime?

In my opinion, this is the problem. There should be no crime until somebody´s person or property is taken or damaged. I think this is the biggest problem with many laws.

To respond to another part of this discussion. I will finally be convinced that The United States of America is democracy when somebody can point out to me where it is written in the US Constitution. Please site section, paragraph, and sentence.

Regards,

Brian

Carld
01-06-2011, 03:41 PM
mike os, I don't think anyone speeds because they think they are exempt of the law, they do it because they want to move faster than other traffic. Most the interstate travelers I have seen do from 70 to 80 mph with a very few over 80 mph. Many times I catch myself in a cluster of drivers at 75 mph, my favorite speed and I will speed up to get around them to stay out of a cluster of vehicles and slow back down. Or I may slow down, I do not like to drive in a herd, it is dangerous and mind dumbing. If I find most are driving faster than my comfort speed that is great.

There is no ego trip in how I drive, just my safety. It is NOT SAFE to drive in a herd of cars driving to close to each other and it's natural for them to close up when they run in a herd. I like to be the lone car ahead or behind the herd and have room to avoid trouble.

Quote mike os, "Please remember that I am one of those that regularly travels over the limit, but there is no way I am ever going to try & justify it unless its a medical emergency."

I too drive over the limit most the time and just pay the fine if caught. It's hard to justify speeding even in an emergency, they will still give you a ticket in most cases. If your speeding in an emergency and don't stop and explain yourself you will probably be arrested and ticketed and your vehicle impounded.

I don't think most that speed think they have the right to speed, they just do it because they want to for their own reason. I don't think anyone is stupid enough to think they have the right to speed.

I have always been told when you dance you have to pay the piper or fiddler as the expression goes. So if you speed you pay one way or another, PERIOD.

Carld
01-06-2011, 03:48 PM
Right on RIF, there are many statements of Republic but none I know of that we are a Democracy. In spite of that many like to think we are a Democratic country but they are mistaken or misinformed.

garagemark
01-06-2011, 03:53 PM
I doubt that there is one person on this board, let alone most of the world, who has not broken the letter of the law at one time or another. Look up all the dumb laws that have been passed. Google dumb laws. We have probably all broken the LETTER of the law. That doesn't make us all bad people or criminals.

Anyone ever tossed a little bit of spent solvent or antifreeze on the driveway to kill a few weeds? Busted. Ever throw away a small can of solvent based paint that wasn't quite empty or dry? Busted. Ever pee in your back yard? Busted (in many places). The list goes on.

I'm going with most everyone tweaking a law at some time to suit their circumstance. Some laws are just plain bad too. They have nothing to do with right or wrong. Look at prohibition. Talk about a dumb law. It was created by (lobbied by) a set of narrow minded women who just wanted their husbands to quit drinking. That worked out didn't it?

Evan
01-06-2011, 04:39 PM
well theres the pot calling the kettle black....

How come he's full of it when he makes a generalization statement about the supposed behaviour of a group he can't possibly prove or know for sure, yet in the same post you do the exact same thing?


I qualified my statement and to make sure it was noticed I put it in italics.

He made no qualifications at all.

Evan
01-06-2011, 04:52 PM
I think it all comes down to the question of who is the victim?
snip

However, if on a nice spring day I am driving the only car on the road (that I can see anyhow) and I am going 100mph in a 65mph zone who is the victim? Did I harm anybody? Why is this a crime?


That rationalization only works until it doesn't. Speeding is NOT a victimless crime. There are many dead people to prove that.


Right on RIF, there are many statements of Republic but none I know of that we are a Democracy. In spite of that many like to think we are a Democratic country but they are mistaken or misinformed.

Tell me how the US system of government differs form these definitions at Princeton University.


Definitions of democracy

The political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives

A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them

Majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group (Senate, House)

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


A government by the people, for the people and of the people.


Over time, however, this speech with its ending - government of the People, by the People, for the People - has come to symbolize the definition of democracy itself.
http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/gettysburg.htm

vpt
01-06-2011, 06:26 PM
Speed doesn't kill everyone on the road. People die every day at 25mph.


What good can come from this argument of speeders and law biding citizens?

The speeders will still speed and the other guys will do their thing.

I see no reason why this thread should stay open.

MaxxLagg
01-06-2011, 07:21 PM
AT THE CLOSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the Constitution was bringing into existence. Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

I'll take Ben's word here........

Carld
01-06-2011, 07:47 PM
Evan, in a Democracy everyone votes for the laws and they don't have a representative to do their voting.

The USA is a Republic and that was the way it was set up. As a representative form of government.

There are a few cities in the Northeast US that use a Democratic form in which the citizens gather and vote on the city laws and issues but everywhere else we practice representative form of government. We can go and watch them but we can't vote, they vote for us.

Carld
01-06-2011, 08:06 PM
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Carld
01-06-2011, 08:21 PM
Article IV of the Constitution of the United States guarantees to every state in this union a Republican form of government.

James Madison compared the Republic to Democracy and found Democracy wanting, due to the nature of Democracies.

Evan
01-06-2011, 08:30 PM
Evan, in a Democracy everyone votes for the laws and they don't have a representative to do their voting.

The USA is a Republic and that was the way it was set up. As a representative form of government.



That is just one form of a democracy. A republic is a democracy but not all democracies are republics. The term democracy is not so narrowly defined as you believe. There are many examples of democracies with only limited participation by the public. In fact, the very first known form of democracy as instituted by the ancient Greeks was very limited as to who may participate. Yet, it was still a participatory democracy.

There seems to be some sort of hidden agenda that has as it's visible aspect the denial that a republic is a democracy and it is directly related to the definition of the US form of government as a republic instead of a democracy. That claim is simply ignoring the definition of democracy in an attempt to redefine the US system of government for reasons unknown to me.

Abraham Lincoln knew what a democracy is and was and spoke accordingly. I will take his word for it.

Carld
01-06-2011, 08:45 PM
Evan, the fact is the fathers of the Constitution of the USA formed a Republic, not a Democracy. They were fearful of a Democracy.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Does that say anything about pledging to Democracy, No.

The only Democratic part of our government is when the representatives vote but the form of government is Republic. I many peoples mind it is hard to separate the two but separate they are. We are the government and appoint a representative to do our voting. Then the representatives act in a democratic form of voting for us but the basic form of the government is a Republic.

Our founding fathers did not nor did they intend to form a Democratic form of government.

Rif
01-06-2011, 08:50 PM
That rationalization only works until it doesn't. Speeding is NOT a victimless crime. There are many dead people to prove that.


Ok. Please tell me who I would victimize if I were to drive 100mph in a 65mph zone and I am driving the only car within site. Also, how does my driving 100mph, on a public highway in a 65mph zone where I am driving the only car around, differ from me driving 100mph on a race track? Both are perfectly safe given the right vehicle and conditions. Nobody is hurt. Who is the victim? The only difference I can see is that some high-paid lawyers (representatives???) say I can't do the former.



Tell me how the US system of government differs form these definitions at Princeton University.


So, are you telling me that we are both right that the US is both a Republic and a Democracy? This countries founders were against a democracy because they knew that when people could vote for the government to give them money the government would soon fall. They were also against democracy because they knew that 51% of the population voting to enslave 49% was not a good situation either and would lead to chaos. Therefore, they created a Constitutional Republic.

Regards,

Brian

Rif
01-06-2011, 08:53 PM
snip

Abraham Lincoln knew what a democracy is and was and spoke accordingly. I will take his word for it.


Abraham Lincoln also suspended habeas Corpus, attacked members of the press that did not agree with him, and violated the 10th amendment to the Constitution. He is not the "saint" that people make him out to be.

Regards,

Brian

Carld
01-06-2011, 08:59 PM
If a person drives at 100 mph and no one but the driver is around for miles tell me who does it hurt.

My friend and I were on Highway 51, The Extraterrestrial Highway, all by ourselves in his truck pulling a trailer. We drove at 100 mph for many miles and all we saw were cows, horses, country side and sky. What did we hurt, nothing, but we sure got the hell through there fast. We did have to stop once for cows and horses in the road.

We did the same on "The Loneliest Highway in the World" on another run but Hwy 51 was pretty lonely too.

EDIT: Extraterrestial Hwy is 375 not 51 and Loneliest Road is hwy 50. Both are very interesting to travel on.

Rif
01-06-2011, 08:59 PM
Tell me how the US system of government differs form these definitions at Princeton University.



Ok, I didn't answer your question. I think the correct answer is to look up the definitions of "Democracy" and "Republic" as they were in 1776.

Unfortunately, definitions do change over time and the news media constantly referring to this country as a "Democracy" greatly contributes to the confusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

After skimming through both of the above articles, it is clear that the terms are now blurred. But, what is not blurred is that the US Constitution clearly bestows a Republican Form of Government. That is a Republic. Not a Democracy. (The Republican Party was not even formed yet, so they are not referring to it.)

Regards,

Brian

Mcgyver
01-06-2011, 09:00 PM
I qualified my statement and to make sure it was noticed I put it in italics. .


That is a load of BS. You have zero justification for making that statement.

I am totally amazed at how many people are try to defend a position that is utterly indefensible in our society. If this is the prevailing attitude then it goes a long way toward explaining why there is so much corruption at higher levels.

That is complete over the top garbage with the needle in the red. You qualified whether you'd identified the the reason/explanation "there was so much corruption at higher levels" but your statement makes the unqualified assertion that there is "so much corruption at high levels". There NOTHING in your original statement allowing any wiggle room other than you asserted there is "so much" corruption at higher levels.

You have no idea how much corruption there is any more than the poster you were critical of knows how the self righteous really behave. Both are opinions based on anecdotes and prejudices, you chastised him for doing it and then did the same a few lines later, kind of funny actually.

That you did otherwise is utterly indefensible.

Evan
01-06-2011, 09:07 PM
You don't like being caught out. Too bad.


You have no idea how much corruption there is any more than the poster

That is true. All I can say for sure is that there is more than what we hear about which is far too much already.

Rif
01-06-2011, 09:07 PM
Evan,

You still haven't responded directly to my original statement about where in the Constitution it states that we have a Democracy? Please read the document and get back to us on this.

Regards,

Brian

Evan
01-06-2011, 09:14 PM
You still haven't responded directly to my original statement about where in the Constitution it states that we have a Democracy? Please read the document and get back to us on this.


I didn't see your question and it isn't relevant anyway. The constitution doesn't define the meaning of the word democracy.

Mcgyver
01-06-2011, 09:14 PM
You don't like being caught out. Too bad.

.

what pray tell was I caught out at? I presume the remark is directed at my as i'm quoted in the post

Glad you admitted your error though

Evan
01-06-2011, 09:16 PM
I admitted no error. I only admit that I don't know how much more corruption there is that what we are told about.

Caught out doing what you are accusing me of doing. Read back a bit.

Evan
01-06-2011, 09:23 PM
This is all a red herring anyway. It has no bearing on the question at hand. Republic or democratic republic doesn't change a thing.

The question is what should you do when faced with a law you don't like. This is a case where there really are only two options. Break the law or don't break the law. Law breaking is very antisocial, selfish and in this particular case dangerous to others. That last makes it more than antisocial and the law recognizes that by making some speeding offences a criminal offence.

Rif
01-06-2011, 09:30 PM
I didn't see your question and it isn't relevant anyway. The constitution doesn't define the meaning of the word democracy.

Nor does it define the meaning of the word "Republic".

Mcgyver
01-06-2011, 09:32 PM
I admitted no error. .

of course, my bad, that would never happen

A.K. Boomer
01-06-2011, 10:05 PM
Law breaking is very antisocial,
not if you smoke dope with a bunch of friends:D




selfish and in this particular case dangerous to others.

Evan, your thinking is extremely shallow --- In some cases Lawbreaking can be the most unselfish act that you can possibly do --- stop trying to stereotype speeding into one ball of gooyee wax.


driving a vehicle that weighs 4 times the amount of another vehicle to achieve the same results (solo commute) is selfish in many many ways including the safety of others who are trying to do the right thing, I don't give a rats flying ass if its not against the law - its morally incorrect and it gets people killed - period...

even though a smaller vehicle is traveling 5mph faster its far more nimble and can out-stop the other vehicle by an incredible percentage margin therefor less likely to get into an accident in the first place ------- yet somehow you try to make that guy the bad guy, even though he's the one who has the balls to SACRIFICE life and limb by driving a vehicle that is voted most likely to lose in a kinetic energy battle (when some slob loses control of his land barge)

Again - perspective.

It is both insight and logic that wins an argument, two ingredients you don't always find in laws...

PeteF
01-06-2011, 10:08 PM
Ok. Please tell me who I would victimize if I were to drive 100mph in a 65mph zone and I am driving the only car within site [sic]. Also, how does my driving 100mph, on a public highway in a 65mph zone where I am driving the only car around, differ from me driving 100mph on a race track? Both are perfectly safe given the right vehicle and conditions. Nobody is hurt. Who is the victim? The only difference I can see is that some high-paid lawyers (representatives???) say I can't do the former.

Try telling that to the growing list of surgeons who have been piecing me back together for the past 9 months after a woman who THOUGHT she was "the only car around" ran me down as I was minding my own business while cycling! :mad:

Carld
01-06-2011, 11:26 PM
Pete, was it in the city or open country?

Was she driving over the limit?

Was it flat land or hills and curves?

Was it day or night?

PeteF
01-06-2011, 11:55 PM
Pete, was it in the city or open country?

Was she driving over the limit?

Was it flat land or hills and curves?

Was it day or night?

It was the middle of a clear day in the countryside, but who cares! That's semantics. I can absolutely guarantee that until the moment of impact she was convinced she was the only person around. She was mistaken, though only out by 1, as there was just ONE person around; ME! End result BOTH her and my live's have been changed permanently, as is my immediate family's. I have a metal plate in my shoulder and still have pain, but my situation is understandable. What some may not appreciate is that the driver was charged and was deeply emotionally impacted by the event. I still consider myself fortunate however, I only finished up with 5 broken bones, had I not reacted the way I did I feel there's a good chance I would be dead. How would you feel about explaining that to my wife and daughter if you were the driver on a road where you were "the only car around"?

If some people here get behind the wheel yet can't differentiate between the closed and controlled environment of a race car on a race track and the variables of a public road, God help us is all I can say! :mad:

RB211
01-06-2011, 11:59 PM
It was the middle of a clear day in the countryside, but who cares! That's semantics. I can absolutely guarantee that until the moment of impact she was convinced she was the only person around. She was mistaken, though only out by 1, as there was just ONE person around; ME! End result BOTH her and my live's have been changed permanently, as is my immediate family's. I have a metal plate in my shoulder and still have pain, but my situation is understandable. What some may not appreciate is that the driver was charged and was deeply emotionally impacted by the event. Had I not reacted the way I did I feel there's a good chance I would be dead. How would you feel about explaining that to my wife and daughter if you were the driver on a road where you were "the only car around"?

If some people here get behind the wheel yet can't differentiate between the closed and controlled environment of a race car on a race track and the variables of a public road, God help us is all I can say! :mad:
Sorry to hear of your misfortune Pete, however, speeding or not, sometimes a car driver will look straight at you, and still not see you. The eyes and brain are looking for cars, not cyclists and pedestrians. Hard to say if she was going slower, if she still would of seen you.

PeteF
01-07-2011, 12:09 AM
I think you're missing the point. Speed was not a factor in this instance. The point is you may THINK you're by yourself. You may THINK nobody else is around. You may THINK there isn't a car within 100 km of you. But you are on a PUBLIC road and as such you may be mistaken, just like the woman who caused my accident was mistaken.

On that note I see nothing to be gained from posting further, nor for that matter on this thread in general.

RB211
01-07-2011, 12:14 AM
I think you're missing the point. Speed was not a factor in this instance. The point is you may THINK you're by yourself. You may THINK nobody else is around. You may THINK there isn't a car within 100 km of you. But you are on a PUBLIC road and as such you may be mistaken, just like the woman who caused my accident was mistaken.

On that note I see nothing to be gained from posting further, nor for that matter on this thread in general.

Very good point. I've had plenty of close calls in the air as a flight instructor, even if it is a big sky, you'd be surprised! Had a friend from flight school die in a mid air collision with another training aircraft, 4 people died.

I never take chances anymore in cars. I may go 15mph over the speed limit at times but my 4 cyl toyota tacoma does not reward my lead foot.

Evan
01-07-2011, 05:41 AM
of course, my bad, that would never happen


When I am wrong I say so as I did a day or two ago. Go check the thread on plastic by Weirdscience.

tdmidget
01-07-2011, 06:51 AM
What happened to Pete as he said is not a matter of speed. It's driver inattention. Cell phones, eating, fatigue, etc. It is a much bigger problem than speeding but get's very little attention. The enforcement , money, and public scrutiny are misplaced by the "speed kills" BS campaigns.
Example: A kid in my neighbor hood, 15 year old boy. He is a Mormon and the Mormon kids in high school here leave at their lunch period and go accross the street for some bible something or other. On his way back, while in a marked crosswalk, with signs warning of a crosswalk and school ahead, some ditz woman, ( i can't use the right word here due the forum Nanny), runs him clean over. The kid is near death, numerous broken bones, internal injuries. He is treated at University Hospital and has some specialized therapy that has to be done in Phoenix for months. When last seen by me he had recovered to the point that he was able to bus tables in a local restaurant, still dragging one leg and obvious difficulties in movements and in pain. Did anyone question why a woman in her fifties would run over a kid in such a well marked crosswalk? NO!
But they all jumped on the speed bandwagon, brainwashed as they are, to have the speed limit lowered. That will not make Mrs. Unconscious watch where she is going. If you don't see a kid in a marked crosswalk you won't see the speed limit sign anyway. And there's not a whole lot of difference in being run over at 45 and being run over at 25. And while I'm on this rant, our financial reponsibility laws are pathetic. You are only required to have what is know as 5-10-25. That's $5000 property damage, $10000 bodily injury, and $25000 total liability. You can be sure that the first two hours were more that with virtually the entire resources of this hospital devoted to saving his life. She was fined for failure to yield right of way and may be out there driving and yammering into a cell phone at this minute, but don't worry ,that ol' speed limit got lowered.
Meanwhile a young life is ruined and Mrs. Alzheimer is still on the road. Probably with 5-10-25. Hell you can't even buy a car for that much less compensate for a ruined life.

garagemark
01-07-2011, 07:02 AM
Obviously this thread should go in the same category with politics and religion. No one has been, nor will be swayed.

It does make for some interesting reading though.

Your Old Dog
01-07-2011, 07:39 AM
.............................................
People that tail gate don't bother me to much. If I have to stop fast I will apply the brakes quick without lockup and release knowing they may hit me and lock up the wheels and that gives me time to do a controlled stop. I have yet to have someone hit me but it does work and they have no complaint about giving them a brake job if it was a situation I needed to stop quick............................................. ....



Carl that's a dangerous practice for you, not the guy behind you. When you slam on the brakes the front of your car does a nose dive and the back end of the car gets lighter. The guy behind you will likely spike his brake (and put more weight on his front end) and then swerve to one side or the other. If he just kisses one side or the other of your bumper then you are going to go for a violent ride. He will be fine. This is pretty much the tactic used by cops to pull over runaways and the cars frequently roll over.

I don't let anyone tailgate me for that reason.

Your Old Dog
01-07-2011, 07:52 AM
-While all that is true, the statistics don't take into account acclimitatization, for want of a better term.

The testing was done when few people drove with headlights on during the day, so those that did, drew attention to themselves, reducing the liklihood of being hit. (I fail to see how having one's own lights on during the day makes one a better driver, so we can probably discount that as part of the safety improvement.)

But now that everyone has their headlights on, we're back to the status quo- you don't notice the other cars unless they have badly-aimed headlights or they have their high beams on.

They did the same thing with motorcycles- first mandating that they have "always on" headlights, and more recently, allowing flickering or oscillating headlights. People get used to them, start ignoring them again.

Years ago they added strobes to the school busses- supposedly in an effort to make them "more visible", despite the fact that most of the accidents involving busses occured when they were stopped... with the existing red lights already flashing.

The "third" brake light that became mandatory- if the guy who rear-ended you was already ignoring both your regular taillights, a third is supposed to be better?

I'm not saying that any of those are bad things, or that some or all of them didn't have some measurable benefit, it's just that I feel like one of these days we'll all end up driving cars that have more blinking lights and flashing arrows than an old moviehouse marquee. :D

Doc.

You're right Doc, these laws are feel good band-aides for occasional problems. This quest for a perfect and deathless planet is causing the rest of us living souls a lot of freedom.





..............................................
Going home, I'm tired and the difference in time getting home going the speed limit or going the average of 10 MPH over that most of the traffic is going is insignificant. ..........................................

That's the most sensible statement I've read here regarding speeding. 40 years ago I was interested to see how much of a difference it made to my trips. Carried a calculator with me and found that while the arrival times were a bit shorter, they were not short enough to counter the fatigue and difficulty in controlling the car at race speeds. Shaving 15 minutes off of a 35 mile drive just ain't worth the aggravation.




.................................................. ......... The Winnebago t-bones this bull moose and knocks the poor thing off the road and into the ditch. The impact just DESTROYS the Winnebago. I mean it just explodes the whole front end of the thing, tin and crap everywhere. The moose gets up, shakes itself off, gives an indignant snort and ambles off into the woods none the worse for wear.............................................. .

I did the same thing but it was a cow and I was on a motorcycle. It shoved cow crap up under my seat. I had no serious injurys but the world was awful quiet for several hours. I suppose that was a state of light shock?

Your Old Dog
01-07-2011, 08:21 AM
Evan,how long did it take you to come up with that comprehensive list?? And,you didn't even mention improvements to vehicles. :)

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/tp-tp14328-menu-176.htm

tdmidget
01-07-2011, 08:32 AM
-While all that is true, the statistics don't take into account acclimitatization, for want of a better term.

The testing was done when few people drove with headlights on during the day, so those that did, drew attention to themselves, reducing the liklihood of being hit. (I fail to see how having one's own lights on during the day makes one a better driver, so we can probably discount that as part of the safety improvement.)

But now that everyone has their headlights on, we're back to the status quo- you don't notice the other cars unless they have badly-aimed headlights or they have their high beams on.

They did the same thing with motorcycles- first mandating that they have "always on" headlights, and more recently, allowing flickering or oscillating headlights. People get used to them, start ignoring them again.

Years ago they added strobes to the school busses- supposedly in an effort to make them "more visible", despite the fact that most of the accidents involving busses occured when they were stopped... with the existing red lights already flashing.

The "third" brake light that became mandatory- if the guy who rear-ended you was already ignoring both your regular taillights, a third is supposed to be better?

I'm not saying that any of those are bad things, or that some or all of them didn't have some measurable benefit, it's just that I feel like one of these days we'll all end up driving cars that have more blinking lights and flashing arrows than an old moviehouse marquee. :D

Doc.

I'm sure I can't be the only one old enough to remember Indiana requiring a "running light" in the fifties and sixties. You could an indiana car because the would put a little dinky light in the grill.

lazlo
01-07-2011, 08:37 AM
What happened to Pete as he said is not a matter of speed. It's driver inattention. Cell phones, eating, fatigue, etc.

Example: A kid in my neighbor hood, 15 year old boy. He is a Mormon and the Mormon kids in high school here leave at their lunch period and go accross the street for some bible something or other. On his way back, while in a marked crosswalk, with signs warning of a crosswalk and school ahead, some ditz woman, ( i can't use the right word here due the forum Nanny), runs him clean over. The kid is near death, numerous broken bones, internal injuries.

I'd be willing to bet the driver was talking or texting on a cellphone when that happened. You don't run over a child in a cross walk without being distracted in some way.

And that brings us to another unpopular law that we desperately need, for our own good -- ban talking/texting while driving. We had several similar tragic deaths last year in Texas: children walking to school hit by drivers on cellphones. Since it's a highly controversial topic, they banned cellphones for drivers in school zones. :mad:

So apparently it's illegal to not pay attention to your vehicle in a school zone, but it's OK not to pay attention to your vehicle at 70 MPH on the highways. Which is why you see people drifting across lanes, speeding up and slowing down, driving 10 miles below the speed limit, randomly stopping (I guess, when the cell phone falls in their lap)...

I do a lot of business/work in the car, and it's a simple, inexpensive fix: buy a $10 headset. From various lunch conversations, the vast majority of people agree with a cellphone ban while driving, but there's always one person in the group who is completely, utterly incensed by the idea: it's their right to talk on the cellphone while driving. And they have racing tires and superhuman reflexes, so they don't swerve all over the road or run over children when they're talking on the cellphone. :rolleyes:

Mcgyver
01-07-2011, 09:05 AM
When I am wrong I say so as I did a day or two ago. Go check the thread on plastic by Weirdscience.

well then that little series of you criticizing another for unfounded remarks, making one yourself lines later, then squirming saying you qualified it when clearly hadn't only to try a deflect that you'd caught me out is nothing short of stunning.

You have no idea corruption levels of highly placed people. You even admit that, yet you say it wasn't a mistake to assign an extremely negative attribute to a group's behaviour you really know nothing about.

So first off you're wrong to do exactly what you criticized others for, secondly you are just plain wrong in your assertion of there being so much corruption, I've seen it twice in 25 years of dealing with the wealthy and powerful (once a (very) foreign company pres wanted bag of cash, and once a small Toronto company was paying of a mid-low level manager at an American firm for info, not exactly highly place people) and lastly your wrong for trying squirm out of it.

to recount, to someone's assertion that the self righteous have a dark side of unsavory behaviour you say.....


That is a load of BS. You have zero justification for making that statement.

then lines later you assert...


...there is so much corruption at higher levels.

which is of course "a load of BS and you have zero justification for making that statement". For all you know corruptions is .00000001% of the people and you statement is simply driven by media exception reporting and your own prejudices as you later clearly admitted you have no idea of corruption levels

its black and white, utterly indefensible

J Tiers
01-07-2011, 09:07 AM
Speeding is unlike almost ALL other crimes, in that it truly has a "degree" of badness.....

If a person drives 30.002 mph in a 30 zone, (as if that could be detected) that person is technically a lawbreaker, liable to the full punishment possible for the offense committed.

Most people (although perhaps not some who post here) would probably consider that a rather different offense from driving at 100 mph in a 30 zone.

I am a consistent, habitual offender... I often drive over the speed limit.

What do you think of that? What an evil old bastard I am. In our zero-tolerance, maximum penalty society, I should have my license pulled and be liable for jail and heavy fines. There oughtta be a law........

Now, when I mention that I tend to drive at no more than 5 mph over, that doesn't change the fact of speeding. it does drastically affect my chances of ever being ticketed. And it (hopefully) does not put me in the same category with the drunks screaming down the road at 40 to 50 mph over the limit, weaving in and out of traffic.

That is the effect of McGyver's self-enforcement of laws......

Laws of the usual decent societal sort are really not meant to limit the activity of regular "law abiding" folks..... Those folks wouldn't break the law if it wasn't even there.... The law exists to give a legal means for disposing of those who refuse to feel limited in any way by societal norms and "pro-social" behavior..... Gives the rest of us a way to deal with them without vigilante justice.

I got news for you. Even for EVAN..... You do the same things I do, you break the speed laws too. Evan does the same thing..I don't ever have to ride with you , or with him. If you drive, you have been a "speeder", you have driven over the limit. You really cannot avoid it, and if you say you never have, you are a LIAR.

"all have sinned and gone past the limit of speed"......

The cops know that.

The folks who make the laws know that.

Most folks have driven a few miles over, and nobody except small towns * are too concerned about that.

Now, if you are an IDIOT and drive 100 mph because "nobody else is around", you deserve what you are going to get. The other people who suffer as a result of what you get......... well, they don't deserve it, at least not for that reason.

The laws, as mentioned, are meant to give a way to stop you and punish you for your idiocy and reckless endangerment of other generally law abiding folks. I don't want you around, we'll fine you and jail you until you either behave or go elsewhere.

Laws have usually got exceptions....... speeding laws are no different

There is a highway between Louisville and Bardstown Ky. I drove that road years ago, and found that the standard speed was 80 mph, although the speed limit was lower, much lower. Traffic was going 80, there was a good deal of it, and if I had insisted on going the speed limit and no more, I could have, and SHOULD have been given a ticket.

Ticket a person for OBEYING the law? What a scandal!

But it is more dangerous to obstruct the road that way than to go with the flow, and in many/most places in the US you'd be ticketed for it.

* There are small towns who have over half their revenue, sometimes as much as 80%, come from traffic tickets.... this is documented and proven, look it up.

Carld
01-07-2011, 09:16 AM
Inattention is the cause of more accidents than speeding but it's easier to prove speed than inattention. It's a fact that pedestrians, bicycles, motorcycles and animals seldom attract the attention of someone with their mind on anything but driving. It's so easy to let your mind wander when driving and all of us have fallen into that trap. Driving on a long straight road will put you in a trance and your mind will not respond to anything but the center line if even that.

Old Dog, I don't slam my brakes to alert a tailgater, I apply enough to light the brake lights and slow some. If they don't slow up I would use another method to stop them and me if needed.

Yes, clipping the corner of a vehicle is one way to move them out of your way and there are others as well. It depends on where you want to put them. The one thing you don't want to do in an accident is lock up your brakes. Your throttle and steering wheel are your best friends then.

Evan
01-07-2011, 10:01 AM
You have no idea corruption levels of highly placed people.

You must not pay much attention to the news.


So first off you're wrong to do exactly what you criticized others for, secondly you are just plain wrong in your assertion of there being so much corruption, I've seen it twice in 25 years of dealing with the wealthy and powerful (once a (very) foreign company pres wanted bag of cash, and once a small Toronto company was paying of a mid-low level manager at an American firm for info, not exactly highly place people) and lastly your wrong for trying squirm out of it.


Short memory?

FEDERAL
Shawinigate
Airbus
The APEC Inquiry
employment program grants
Tunagate
Shoe Store Project
Sponsorship scandal
In and Out scandal
Julie Couillard

BRITISH COLUMBIA (you can look up your own province. CBC has a good list.

BC Legislature Raids ("Railgate") (BC Liberal Party)
Gordon Wilson-Judy Tyabji Affair
Casinogate - New Democratic Party: Breach of trust
Doman Scandal - (Social Credit Party) - insider trading;
Bingogate - New Democratic Party of British Columbia - skimming of charity funds
Phil Gaglardi (Social Credit Party) - improper use of expenses
Driver's Licensing Scandal - widespread bribery of license examiners
Sommers Affair - influence peddling
Fantasy Gardens (Social Credit Party) - improper sale of property and influence-peddling
Coquihalla Highway - (Social Credit Party) - cost overruns and graft



There is much, much more. You must lead a sheltered life.

Evan
01-07-2011, 10:06 AM
Laws have usually got exceptions....... speeding laws are no different


They are very different. Speeding is a "strict liability" offence. No matter why you were speeding you are automatically guilty. In a few states you can plead necessity but only in very rare circumstances. Most states simply don't allow any plea that tries to justify speeding. Your only chance is to prove that you were not speeding.

Evan
01-07-2011, 10:09 AM
But it is more dangerous to obstruct the road that way than to go with the flow, and in many/most places in the US you'd be ticketed for it.


They might try but it would fail in court and the officer would get a dressing down by the judge.

Mcgyver
01-07-2011, 10:38 AM
dup, delete

vpt
01-07-2011, 10:42 AM
Since this thread is shot have a look at this.

http://i48.tinypic.com/2m7vjx5.jpg

Mcgyver
01-07-2011, 10:43 AM
You must not pay much attention to the news.

.


that there is corruption hardly indicates its quantity or significance anymore than a self righteous evangelist with unsavory behaviour justifies the other posters claim that you chastised. It was never a question it existed.

as I said you haven't a clue as to the percentage of corruption and are making statements on prejudice fueled by media exception reporting. when there have been studies done on corruption, our business people and government workers exhibit one of the lowest rates of corruption in the world, you claim there's 'so much' but you haven't a clue how much there is. For you all you know it might no even register as a percentage. Don't forget the media is in the business of attracting attention and selling ad space. btw, what the actual corruption rate is irrelevant to the point that you ascribed that behaviour to a group when you admittedly had no clue as to what the corruption level is.

i'm done with this as it's pointless when regardless of what's presented or the facts you will endlessly argue you're right as hundreds of pages here give testimony to.

lazlo
01-07-2011, 10:52 AM
Since this thread is shot have a look at this.

Wow, that's amazing! That looks like a casting?

cuemaker
01-07-2011, 10:57 AM
i'm done with this as it's pointless when regardless of what's presented or the facts you will endlessly argue you're right as hundreds of pages here give testimony to.


Mcgyver, your right to give up..either he see's your point and wont admit to it or he really doesnt see the point..and he is smart enough to see the point.

With all his proof and justification of the corruption to make his case, he further proves my statement that he called BS on

Mcgyver
01-07-2011, 11:16 AM
With all his proof and justification of the corruption to make his case, he further proves my statement that he called BS on

lol, that's a twist i hadn't thought of.....I regret getting drawn into these discussions, they can be entertainingly engaging, but ultimately are a colossal waste of time.... ivory tower bs where at the end of the day, nothing is changed. Time to do something real world, get out'a Dodge with my kid for a hockey tournament and frustratingly watch my speed across the 401 :D

vpt
01-07-2011, 11:23 AM
Wow, that's amazing! That looks like a casting?


Yes it does. I just came across the pic when searching for something.

JCHannum
01-07-2011, 11:43 AM
Wow, that's amazing! That looks like a casting?
The engine is well detailed here;

http://www.moyermade.com/chevyV8.html

It is a beautiful job.

Arcane
01-07-2011, 12:38 PM
Since this thread is shot have a look at this.

http://i48.tinypic.com/2m7vjx5.jpg

Jeeze! That's a BIG battery! :D:D:D

RPM
01-07-2011, 01:13 PM
How dare you derail an off-topic thread that's going nowhere fast, and bring up MACHINING???!!!

On the subject of laws etc , I though you might appreciate this quote from T.E. Lawrence, 'Lawrence of Arabia' :

"Rules are for the obedience of fools, and the guidance of wise men"

Now back to machining...
Richard in Los Angeles

Cobbler
01-07-2011, 01:45 PM
As a dictatorial anti-speeder, I demand the Federal government pass a law limiting motor vehicle engine displacement to the one pictured above!!!:mad: :mad: :mad:

Carld
01-07-2011, 01:54 PM
J Tiers, I think your referring to I-65 between Louisville and Elizabethtown not Bardstown. The speed limit is 70 now and people do regularly drive at about 80 mph on I-65. The road between Lou. and Bardstown is a two lane winding hilly road and would be very hard to do 80 except is short straights.

That is one fine model engine and I have to admire his dedication to detail.

Cheeseking
01-07-2011, 02:08 PM
This whole thing must be George Bush's fault.

mike os
01-07-2011, 02:20 PM
nah its an al quaida plot to destroy our will to live

Evan
01-07-2011, 03:32 PM
what the actual corruption rate is irrelevant to the point that you ascribed that behaviour to a group when you admittedly had no clue as to what the corruption level is.



I said I didn't know how bad it is other than already being bad enough.

Regardless it doesn't have anything to do with making a case. That case is already made. It is illegal to exceed the speed limit. Further, conspiring to break the law is a felony even if the law broken is not.

I could be that those giving advice on a radar detector that will enable someone to speed and evade detection by the police are conspiring to break the law. This thread may then contain felonious speech.

aboard_epsilon
01-07-2011, 04:29 PM
I said I didn't know how bad it is other than already being bad enough.

Regardless it doesn't have anything to do with making a case. That case is already made. It is illegal to exceed the speed limit. Further, conspiring to break the law is a felony even if the law broken is not.

I could be that those giving advice on a radar detector that will enable someone to speed and evade detection by the police are conspiring to break the law. This thread may then contain felonious speech.

Perhaps if you didn't follow the laws so stringently ..and think out of the box a bit more..then we would have a genius on the board that comes up with a real free energy device (even if it means "stealing" the energy from the atmosphere).or something that would better the world...your skills are wasted thinking so conventionally .

all the best.markj

RB211
01-07-2011, 04:32 PM
Felonious speech? Free Speech. That pesky bill of rights gets in the way of so many wanna-be dictators.

goose
01-07-2011, 04:41 PM
This thread may then contain felonious speech.


I think in novel 1984 it was called crime speech.

Gary

danlb
01-07-2011, 04:49 PM
I recently got a ticket doing 42 in a 35mph and its going to cost me $110

So.. do radar detectors work?

Not what you asked, but may help somewhat.

My GPS ( a Garmin Nuvi 770) displays the current speed limit. It helps keep me aware of whether or not I am speeding. Combine that with cruise control and you have the tools to prevent the ticket.

Since I started trying (real hard) to obey the speed limits I went from a ticket or two a year to none in decades. An unexpected side benefit; I find it much easier to enjoy the drive without having to constantly examine the profiles of cars in the rear-view for telltale signs of the law. I drive 20K miles or more per year.

As others said, if you must speed, never be the leader, never be the fastest car in sight, don't weave and you have a much better chance of getting away with it.

Dan

danlb
01-07-2011, 05:03 PM
Bottom line is what is a safe speed is has little to do with the speed limit and enforcement has very little to do with targeting when speeding is a hazard or targeting the behaviour that really causes accidents. Enforcement is about catching the highest volume. Doing 60 mph on a clean dry highway in light traffic in a good modern car is a joke and that law deserves circumvention or circum-something.


The value to speed limits is that it sets a standard that can be used when you have to drive around other cars.

As an example; when I have to pull onto a major street near my house, it's good to know that the approaching cross traffic is doing around 35 MPH. The cars are not in sight long enough to accurately judge their speed. If some idiot is doing 45 or 50, then by the time I realize that they are on my bumper.

The only way to safely have as many cars on the road as we have is for all of us to drive predictably.

Dan

Evan
01-07-2011, 07:12 PM
Felonious speech? Free Speech. That pesky bill of rights gets in the way of so many wanna-be dictators.


That pesky bill of rights does not give you the right to say or publish anything you want. Many forms of speech are limited including counseling to commit a crime.


See UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Gary BARNETT, Defendant-Appellee.

http://openjurist.org/667/f2d/835/united-states-v-barnett

danlb
01-07-2011, 11:44 PM
If a person drives at 100 mph and no one but the driver is around for miles tell me who does it hurt.




In my younger years I was busted for 55 in a 35 at 4:30 am.

I was bitter and angry about the ticket. I explained to the cop that I was being extremely cautious and there were no other cars around so there was no danger.

He said "I'm around" as he continued writing the ticket.

He was right. Unless you are on a closed course, you never know if someone else is around.

Dan

J Tiers
01-08-2011, 10:46 AM
That's a nice little engine block.... Steel or CI?

Don't leave us hanging... start a new thread and show us more.


J Tiers, I think your referring to I-65 between Louisville and Elizabethtown not Bardstown.

Could be, we were going to and from Bardstown, and it was a 4 lane highway. And it was some time ago. Speed limit was 55 or 60 at the time.


They might try but it would fail in court and the officer would get a dressing down by the judge.

Ignorance is wonderful. Allows anyone to be an expert by use of confident, positive statements... as in the above quote.

What you have said is not true.... even some driver's license handbooks have covered it.

One may be, and folks have been, ticketed for that sort of "obstruction of traffic".

I've probably seen you in traffic..... or your twin brother-in-thought, as it was in the USA. You were the guy in the left-most lane, tooling along at 55 in a 65 zone, "because you have a perfect right to." I've been stuck behind people like you in traffic, too, "exercising their rights" at lower speeds as well More recently, some states have passed laws to control your bad behavior.... in Illinois, for instance, it is illegal to drive in the left lane.... it is for passing.


They are very different. Speeding is a "strict liability" offence. No matter why you were speeding you are automatically guilty. In a few states you can plead necessity but only in very rare circumstances. Most states simply don't allow any plea that tries to justify speeding. Your only chance is to prove that you were not speeding.

hang it up..... if every car on the road is going 15 over, it ain't gonna happen. I KNOW people who have escaped a ticket for that very reason.... IN TRAFFIC COURT.

Don't assume that what is true in the boonies of BC is true everywhere else.


BTW, since you have become tiresome on the subject of corruption....... let those who are without sin cast the first stone.....

YOU are corrupt also. I don't have to know anything about you other than the fact you are (presumably) a human being.....

That in itself PROVES you are corrupt, that you do the very same things as those you would call "corrupt". The difference is the number of "work-units" (AKA money units) that are involved in your level of corruption. But, since "the thought is equal to the deed", you are at least as guilty as anyone else.


Bye-bye, I'm done with this thread. More nonsense.

lazlo
01-08-2011, 11:03 AM
YOU are corrupt also. I don't have to know anything about you other than the fact you are (presumably) a human being...

Very true. This thread reminds me of the the Ayn Rand Rational Selfishness ("Enlightened Self Interest") discussion. I posted a very appropos quote from Nucky Thompson (Steve Buscemi), the corrupt Atlantic City Treasurer from Boardwalk Empire:


"We all have to decide how much sin we can live with…"

David Powell
01-08-2011, 11:09 AM
I do not need a radar detector. I am simply too cheap to knowingly speed. Sure I occasionally end up travelling a couple over downhill and once in a while I might miss noticing a sign and be over the limit for a short distance until I spot the next sign. However, I have found that by travelling at or just under the posted limit, whatever that may be,I am actually running at the most economical speed for the road I am on. I seem to get a long way for every dollar I spend on gas, brakes seldom need relining( I deliberately do one hard stop on every trip to keep the calipers free having had problems caused by not using them enough!!) and tyres seem to roll on forever. I guess I fit in the class called " Minimal Motorist" ie I want to comfortably go places at a minimal cost. I do not drive an econobox, that I owe money on, I drive a 16 yr old 4 by 4 and keep it up so that it looks and drives like new. I expect it to outlast my wish to drive. Regards David Powell.

vpt
01-08-2011, 11:21 AM
Anyone watch gold rush last night? What a waste of diesel those guys are. Drinking water out of a creek that they don't know where it comes from. This is the best show ever! Seriously, I can't wait to see what they do next.

lazlo
01-08-2011, 11:49 AM
Anyone watch gold rush last night? What a waste of diesel those guys are.

Ugh, I watched it last night after the comments posted here --what a bunch of morons! The show is highly scripted, as usual, and they spent more time overplaying the drama of the bears than anything related to mining.

A little baby black bear wanders into the camp the first night, and the Realtor is running around screaming about a 500lb bear :rolleyes:

Then you have grandpa driving an excavator, crashing into cars, and randomly digging holes.

I really wanted to see the "hunter" shoot that .338 Remington Ultra Mag (Poor Man's Lapua) from a free-standing position. They cut away that scene :)

I want my hour back!

vpt
01-08-2011, 12:27 PM
Yeah I was upset about them shooting the black bear. Grizzly bear if it is coming at you sure but a black bear? I got the feeling they just wanted to shoot something with thier new guns.

In the first episode it was said that they are running 7 generators. lol

It is a bunch of good time boys spending money like water and have no idea what they are doing with anything. I think that is why I find it interesting, you never know what idiotic thing they will do next! I just hope they don't keep shooting every living thing that "threatens" them.

Evan
01-08-2011, 02:12 PM
That in itself PROVES you are corrupt, that you do the very same things as those you would call "corrupt". The difference is the number of "work-units" (AKA money units) that are involved in your level of corruption. But, since "the thought is equal to the deed", you are at least as guilty as anyone else.



Since you wish to introduce the concept of tallying corruption on a ledger then I may use it also. Corruption then becomes a measure of how much you take compared to how much you give. On that score I feel very comfortable as I enjoy giving to the community and individuals in it. By your accounting then I am not at all corrupt nor do I feel like it. I won't bore you with all the details but ever since we have been married my wife and I have volunteered our time and money to help young people get started on the right road. From foster parenting to helping with community organizations directly and with funding we are very well on the positive side of your ledger. However, we don't keep such a ledger. We count our profit in smiles and good times and especially seeing the children we have helped become successful and law abiding members of the community.

Evan
01-08-2011, 02:17 PM
I've probably seen you in traffic..... or your twin brother-in-thought, as it was in the USA. You were the guy in the left-most lane, tooling along at 55 in a 65 zone, "because you have a perfect right to." I've been stuck behind people like you in traffic, too, "exercising their rights" at lower speeds as well More recently, some states have passed laws to control your bad behavior.... in Illinois, for instance, it is illegal to drive in the left lane.... it is for passing.


I drive at the limit when it is safe to do so. Since we don't have 4 lane hiways around here (except for very short pieces for passing) I am in the only lane on cruise control doing the limit. You are making the usual mistake of assuming that you have any idea what I do. Instead you make a fool of yourself.

This is what the traffic is usually like on the few 4 lane sections. This section is south of the usual area that I used to service and we had none like this back when I drove everyday.
http://ixian.ca/pics8/road1.jpg

It does become busier in the middle of summer but not a lot busier. This is how the usual roads look like right now and for about 3 to 4 months of the year including today.

http://ixian.ca/pics8/road2.jpg

I drive using a very simple safety technique. It has the official name of "space cushion driving". When at all possible leave a large distance between other traffic and yourself. In particular never drive beside somebody and of course never tailgate.

krutch
01-08-2011, 04:36 PM
Some of the ones my friend had would often go off when they'd pass a store with auto doors. Made me think I'd not waste the money. I know that cops do the 'flash' thing so one can't get an early warning, so the RD may not keep ya from paying the "graft". I think it is more about the revenue nowdays than peoples' safety. Those that go excesively fast are still going to speed anyway. A ticket does little to stop them, just those of us who might not be paying enough attention to the speed.

tdmidget
01-08-2011, 05:36 PM
Krutch, I recently had an accident. Late at night, after almost 18 hrs traveling, dozed off and hit a vehicle ahead of me at 70 mph. I wish I had had a false alarm to keep me awake. They are not ALL bad. 'Course where I was it took a half hour to get a deputy there so it probably wouldn't have helped.

lynnl
01-08-2011, 07:21 PM
Let's see a show of hands from everyone whose driving philosophy/attitude/habits have been changed by this discussion. :)

Remember that song by (???? - I've forgotten) "I can't drive 55!" Now there's a man after my own heart.

Sometime within the last year or so I saw a documentary film about some traffic tests conducted in a few towns in Belgium or Holland, or maybe both.
They simply eliminated all stop signs, speed limits, and other such "rules of the road", and left it to the people to "police" themselves. Lo and behold, traffic accidents decreased (substantially), and a better world was enjoyed by all.

In the final analysis, the only thing that matters is good judgement and a responsible attitude when behind the wheel. And since those things can't be detected to merit a traffic ticket, our great leaders, in their infinite wisdom, identify those actions that can be objectively measured and observed.

vpt
01-08-2011, 07:31 PM
I feel like driving faster after reading this thead.

lazlo
01-08-2011, 07:39 PM
Remember that song by (???? - I've forgotten) "I can't drive 55!" Now there's a man after my own heart.

Sammy Hagar :)


"One foot on the brake and one on the gas, hey!
Well, there's too much traffic, I can't pass, no!
So I tried my best illegal move
A big black and white come and crushed my groove again!"


Sometime within the last year or so I saw a documentary film about some traffic tests conducted in a few towns in Belgium or Holland, or maybe both.
They simply eliminated all stop signs, speed limits, and other such "rules of the road", and left it to the people to "police" themselves. Lo and behold, traffic accidents decreased (substantially), and a better world was enjoyed by all.

I find that very hard to believe. JC posted this mesmerizing video of San Francisco in 1906, before stop lights, speed limits, and traffic rules. It's total chaos.

http://www.youtube.com/v/NINOxRxze9k

Funny thing about Libertarianism. Sounds great in theory, but everyone wants enough laws to protect them from their neighbors :) If you take the union of all the laws the majority of citizens think they need, suddenly you have a government -- uh oh! :D

So some here think we don't need speed limits or stop lights, and others think speeders are killing people, including themselves. So our elected officials make laws that are a happy medium, and you end up with grumpy speeders, and a lot less road fatalities. Works for me.

Evan
01-08-2011, 08:15 PM
I find that very hard to believe

I find it impossible to believe. It could only work where there is practically no traffic. Paris has traffic laws and traffic cops but nobody gives a s**t and they ignore the rules.

This is the common result.

http://ixian.ca/pics8/trafficparis.jpg

RB211
01-08-2011, 08:43 PM
Sammy Hagar :)


"One foot on the brake and one on the gas, hey!
Well, there's too much traffic, I can't pass, no!
So I tried my best illegal move
A big black and white come and crushed my groove again!"



I find that very hard to believe. JC posted this mesmerizing video of San Francisco in 1906, before stop lights, speed limits, and traffic rules. It's total chaos.

http://www.youtube.com/v/NINOxRxze9k



That is actually a famous video of Market Street showing all the cable cars that once were on Market. Since I live in San Francisco, I couldn't help but go to the cable car museum where they play this video constantly. 1906, San Francisco had fewer than 120 registered cars. If you take notice, it is the same car that keeps looping into the video.
Today, the only thing that is recognizable in the video is the Terminal building at the very end and a couple of larger buildings which were banks at the time.

It is actually quite less chaotic than it seems. On the old cobblestone roads, the cable car tracks were the only way to get a smooth ride. Also, people were purposely going in front of that street car to get on the camera which was obviously mounted to the front. The large cable cars could hold over 100+ people. In the video, the cable cars were obsolete but people at the time didn't want overhead wires for the new electric street cars, so they kept the cable cars until the Earthquake that took place shortly after the video was taken.

aboard_epsilon
01-09-2011, 06:42 AM
is that video in slow motion..

bet cars were called horseless carriages in those days.

all the best.markj

A.K. Boomer
01-09-2011, 10:00 AM
The value to speed limits is that it sets a standard that can be used when you have to drive around other cars.





Yes but that same standard is a double edge sword - My entire point to all this is when people "adopt" this "standard" as the holy grail then they develop the mindset that its really the only concern - These are the inevitable results from putting so much emphasis on just the "speed limit"

Like many here have stated; "just set the cruise and don't worry about it" Wrong.


In reality speed limits have little to do with driving safely,

There are narrow road sections through my little town where im faced with oncoming traffic - no big deal except the fact that sometimes these area's have parked cars along the side of the road - Due to being closer to these parked cars and due to not having anywhere to turn to the left (oncoming traffic) I would not even consider doing HALF the speed limit through these area's even though its LEGAL to drive the posted amount, I was going to state I don't know how some people do it (drive right through at the "speed limit") when there could be a child between the cars ready to leap out into traffic, but I do know how people do it - they do it because they "think" its OK too, they do it because there's a sign that not only says its OK but the law will protect them in case something happens, hey, the "experts" posted a sign and said its ok right?
They already did the thinking for me right? Baahhhh Baaaahhh

So don't worry -- even if you crush a kid the laws on your side and it's not about driving and being safe - its about whether or not you will go to jail right? Wrong


Once again;

"If you're honest, you sooner or later have to confront your values. Then you're forced to separate what is right from what is merely legal."



Like I stated before - every set of laws comes with its own problems, in this case you want to try and protect people with a law that creates complacency in situations where there are far too many variables to consider,
In this case the very law designed to protect can and does maim or kill...


this is what happens when you remove the decision making process about whats the proper speed for driving safe, it works both ways.
Your more and more apt to end up with an individual who knows less and less about themselves and their automobile and just plows ahead at the legal limit till something bad happens...

On the flip side, The day before yesterday I drove on the highway in an area where Iv "opened it up" before many times - I wanted to really look and see what some of you were talking about when you say "you never know if your really alone"

I can tell you beyond any shadow of any doubt that I was alone, front, back and off to the sides - It's total prairie and I even picked out the only deviation way way off into the distance just to see how far away it was and what it was going to be when I got there, I hit the tripometer and zeroed it, at 9/10ths of a mile later I had it in clear view, what was it? a little 4" by 18" mile marker post,,,:rolleyes:
How many times could I have shut my car down from the triple digits in this amount of time ---- dozens...
That's not a car - that's not a cyclist, that's a freakin mile marker post and I might add on that blended in to its surroundings...

I came to the conclusion that the only way for someone to pull one over on me would be to jack hammer a section of the highway out - crawl inside and then cover themselves with a charcoal gray piece of cardboard, good luck catching that one even at the proper "speed limit"

When I say there's nobody around what I mean is there's nobody around, period (cept maybe a plane checking my speed) --- you want to compare that to the people doing the "speed limit" past parked cars? Lets talk safety...

Evan
01-09-2011, 11:07 AM
In reality speed limits have little to do with driving safely,


Total BS. There may be issues with enforcement but speed limits are the easiest way to provide a predictable driving environment on the sorts of roads in the US Interstate system. Other countries, notably Germany, have different rules and roads that provide safety at much higher speeds. The Autobahn has no hard speed limit on about 50% of the system. On the no limit portions the roadway is designed specifically for high speed including superelevated curves, grooved pavement to prevent hydroplaning and very large radius curves.

The other thing that makes it work is an absolute restriction on passing on the right. That is a chargable offence. The reason is that if you are in the leftmost lane and you see flashing headlights behind you you can switch to the lane to your right with having to worry about being overtaken by somebody driving 100 mph faster than you. If it weren't for that single rule the Autobahn would not work. The rules of the road are all about safety. Ignore them at your own risk. Unfortunately, when you ignore them you also put other people at risk.

lazlo
01-09-2011, 11:20 AM
is that video in slow motion..

Yes. It's one of the first Edison Kinetoscope films, and was recorded at 16 frames/second, but it's being played back at 24 frames/second, so the video is running at 2/3rds speed.
You can see that, especially with the gentleman in the beginning, walking across the street car tracks.

So imagine all that chaos at 1/3 faster pace :)

Evan
01-09-2011, 11:50 AM
To elaborate, if they just played it back at 24 fps it would have that speeded up appearance you often see on old films. Instead, they display every frame twice which gives 32 fps and play it back at 24 fps which is why it appears slowed down.

A.K. Boomer
01-09-2011, 12:00 PM
speed limits are the easiest way to provide a predictable driving environment on the sorts of roads in the US Interstate system. .



Driving safely is the easiest way to provide a predictable driving environment, and that can easily range anywhere from a mere fraction of the given speed limit to way beyond, It also includes too many details about the condition of the driver, the vehicle, and the environment conditions and in fact is the very reason "speed limits" for any given area are a joke --- therefore the statement holds - "speed limits have little to do with safety" but driving safely does.

David Powell
01-09-2011, 12:09 PM
not because i reckon the speed limits are sensible or reasonable, but because I reckon the best way to deal with a law is to obey it, or get it changed, not break it. It does seem eerily co incidental that speed limits generally indicate an economical smooth travelling speed on most( non highway roads). Obviously if the road is filled with parked cars, children, Christmas shoppers uncle Tom Cobleigh and all then speed should suit the perceived problems. You wouldnt rev up a HSS end mill and apply it to 314 at 500 fpm would you? No you would look in Machinerys Handbook, figure out the theoretical maximum, make allowances for your machine, workholding etc give it a try and then if all looked good then increase speed incrementally to the first sign of problems then back off a bit.I look at driving in the same kind of way. Regards David Powell.

sansbury
01-09-2011, 01:58 PM
Try driving in Massachusetts sometime. Particularly around Boston the laws are enforced very lightly and highway speeds in the left lane are often in the 90s. In the city proper, traffic lights are ignored with equal vigor by pedestrians and motorists alike. Nationwide we are famed for our roadway manners--or lack thereof. Bordering states have signs up warning people that turn signals are mandatory and handheld cell phones are banned, because they're still legal here, or were until a couple months ago.

Despite all this, our traffic fatalities per mile are easily among the lowest, if not the lowest in the nation, even compared to states like NY and NJ with similar dense urban areas. Go figure.

A.K. Boomer
01-09-2011, 02:20 PM
"I obey the law"


Im more concerned with what is right and what is wrong in the name of safety than i am with any given "speed limit" be it law or not, secondary is my concern of "what happens if im caught" firstly is my concern of could I hurt anybody,

I believe many people have the above assbackwards.

Many of you have stated that "you don't speed" yet you will continue to drive the speed limit at nighttime, its a known FACT that night driving is up to 4 times more dangerous than day yet it's still the same old sign giving the same old speed limit before you,
Many of you will travel roads with a light drizzle of first rains at the speed limit yet this is the most dangerous time as its when all the oil lost from vehicles forms a slick with the slight water creating a stopping distance that can be well over double - yet its perfectly legal.

So for all of you that have driven the speed limit at night I say to you that your being dishonest not only with yourself but with others as well, this is what happens when you clutch a law too tightly - you get trapped,

Your admission is one of two things - that your the exact hypocritical equivalent of a "speeder"
Or that it's OK to travel beyond the Limit in the daytime, there's really no other defense, its simple pure basic logic...

Evan
01-09-2011, 02:55 PM
Despite all this, our traffic fatalities per mile are easily among the lowest, if not the lowest in the nation, even compared to states like NY and NJ with similar dense urban areas. Go figure.


However, Massachusetts is number 7 in the nation for drunk driving fatalities as a percentage of total fatalities. Seems like you have some hardcore drunk drivers.

RB211
01-09-2011, 02:58 PM
However, Massachusetts is number 7 in the nation for drunk driving fatalities as a percentage of total fatalities. Seems like you have some hardcore drunk drivers.
That's because of the Kennedy's.

Carld
01-09-2011, 03:24 PM
Yea, they can't control their drinking, keep their pants on or keep their cars out of water ways. :D

sansbury
01-09-2011, 09:13 PM
However, Massachusetts is number 7 in the nation for drunk driving fatalities as a percentage of total fatalities. Seems like you have some hardcore drunk drivers.

Or we have about the same rate of DUIs as everyone else, but fewer fatal accidents with sober drivers. Here's a few numbers from 2008:

1. Total fatalities
2. Alcohol-impaired fatalities (driver w/ .08+ BAC)
3. % of fatalities with alcohol-impaired driver(s)
4. Fatalities / million miles driven
5. State population (2010 census)



1 2 3 4 5
===============================================
NJ 590 154 26% .80 8.8m
NY 1231 348 28% .92 19.3m
CT 264 104 40% .95 3.6m
MA 363 151 42% .67 6.6m


NY and NJ have fewer alcohol-impaired fatalities, but more non-alcohol related ones. CT is particularly surprising as it is right between NY and MA, demographically almost identical to Mass., and has a very similar mix of roadways.

edit: bleh, can't get the table nicely formatted....

PixMan
01-09-2011, 09:22 PM
Need I remind you guys that dead Kennedys don't drive drunk?

lazlo
01-09-2011, 09:28 PM
Number of Deaths Due to Motor Vehicle Accidents per 100,000 Population. From Kaiser Permanente:

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u15/rtgeorge_album/vehiclefatalities.png

RB211
01-09-2011, 11:16 PM
Need I remind you guys that dead Kennedys don't drive drunk?
I didn't want to get banned a 2nd time.