Commuting- Do police set up speed traps during rush hour in your town ?
|
Commuting- Do police set up speed traps during rush hour in your town ?
|
08-29-2013, 05:57 PM
Black wrote: sorry, a bit confusing. the ticket itself.
“Art is how we decorate space.
Music is how we decorate time.” Jean-Michel Basquiat 
08-29-2013, 08:07 PM
mattkime wrote: Robert M wrote: It's still an issue. Even if you're doing all that Robert says, it doesn't mean the person behind you is doing the same and not going to rear-end you. Slowdowns like that cause crashes even for people who are following all of the rules. So many times I've been behind a car doing the speed limit (eg 60), and when they see a cop the slow down to 40. That is most certainly an issue. That said, I wish there was more enforcement at peak times. I want them to crack down on things like: - Keeping right except to pass - Talking on a phone, eating... or any other form of inattentive driving - Not keeping a steady speed - so when they see someone slam on their brakes, pull them over. - Not traveling with the flow of traffic I think our state budget woes would be fixed if they just enforced the traffic laws as they are.
08-29-2013, 08:32 PM
M A V I C wrote: - Talking on a phone, eating... or any other form of inattentive driving No kidding. After I posted, I ran some errands and was just about to walk past the parking garage entrance at Whole Foods when a woman turned into it really fast to be sure she didn't have to wait one second as I walked by it (I'm a pedestrian and clearly I don't matter, I get almost run over on a daily basis I swear). I could quite clearly see her lunch in its round foil container, propped on her steering wheel, with fork in hand and a big mouth full of food being chewed.
08-29-2013, 08:38 PM
$tevie wrote: what?!?! No cell phone, loose dog on her lap and can of beer?
“Art is how we decorate space.
Music is how we decorate time.” Jean-Michel Basquiat
08-29-2013, 09:09 PM
DP wrote: That stretch KILLS me. Seems they are every 50 ft!!! So happy when I stay at one of the hotels off 6 Mile or 7 Mile and don't have to go too far. If I'm staying in Novi or W. Bloomfield, the torture continues. This comes at the end of my drive from Chicago and all I want to do is get out of the car.  DM
08-29-2013, 11:05 PM
Mavic,
"it doesn't mean the person behind you is doing the same and not going to rear-end you." The other person is violating the law and also be liable in the event of a collision. "So many times I've been behind a car doing the speed limit (eg 60), and when they see a cop the slow down to 40." While that is an issue, it would still be your responsibility to be paying enough attention to leave or allow ample distance between you and the other car. Or, if that's not feasible, find another way to prevent the collision. The only exception to that I can think of is if the driver in front of you slams on his/her brakes to the point that the three second or more rule (of distance between you and the other car) or even taking it to a more extreme five, ten or fifteen second or more rule wouldn't allow enough time and distance to keep you from rear ending him/her. Robert
08-29-2013, 11:42 PM
Robert M wrote: You said Matt "nailed it." He said "not a problem if you follow the law." If the other person is liable, how does that suddenly make getting rear ended not a problem? You've at least got to deal with getting the car repaired, if not shopping for a new car, or dealing with injuries, hospitals, insurance companies, deaths... "So many times I've been behind a car doing the speed limit (eg 60), and when they see a cop the slow down to 40." I wasn't saying a collision would occur. (But a ten or fifteen second rule around is hysterical considering a three second rule isn't really even an option.) If the car in front slows down and I have to slow down because of it, it causes my brakes to wear, I have to use more gas to accelerate up to speed and it takes time out of my life. Those are all certainly problems someone can experience even if they're following the law.
08-30-2013, 12:06 AM
Mavic,
Seriously. You're playing semantics. People follow the law. The likelihood of a collision is reduced to a vastly lower level. That was the intention of my support for what Matt said. If I wasn't clear, then I apologize. Bear in mind, if you're driving slowly, the person behind will in turn be forced to slow down. If he/she is following the law, paying attention, etc, then it will be a non-issue. Maybe an inconvenience to those who break the law but that's their problem. My jaw dropped when you said this: "If the car in front slows down and I have to slow down because of it, it causes my brakes to wear, I have to use more gas to accelerate up to speed and it takes time out of my life. Those are all certainly problems someone can experience even if they're following the law." With all due respect, the above statement is ridiculous. Robert
08-30-2013, 01:22 AM
yeah, the threat was destine to go in this direction.
08-30-2013, 02:10 AM
The common practice for setting speed limits if that of the 85th percentile. Use of the 85th percentile speed concept is based on the theory that:
The large majority of drivers: - are reasonable and prudent - do not want to have a crash - desire to reach their destination in the shortest possible time - a speed at or below which 85 percent of people drive at any given location under good weather and visibility conditions may be considered as the maximum safe speed for that location. In places where a vast majority of traffic exceeds the posted limit, those limits should be reconsidered. The 55 MPH speed limit has created a nation of scofflaws. When I lived in Los Angeles, the speed limit on Franklin Ave. was increased from 30 to 35 MPH. There was public outcry about the lack of concern for safety. The traffic department and sheriff talked about the 85th percentile rule in explaining the increase. Guess what? Accidents went down the following year. The Interstate system was designed for 85 MPH speeds, by the way. In my opinion, speed limits should be reasonable, not arbitrary. Following arbitrary rules just because they are rules is ridiculous, in my opinion. New Jersey just made a big deal of raising the fines for driving too slowly, supposedly reducing the possibility of road rage. Thing is, they already had the law on the books. It was never enforced. Did raising the fines do anything except possibly raise revenues? Having said that, the intention of the NJ law is good. If someone wants to drive at 50-55 MPH, they should stay to the right. Issues arise when a slow moving vehicle (and yes, 55 is often considered slow) sits in the left lane, forcing cars to pass on the right. That, and the relative difference in speeds of vehicles, lead to accidents. Lastly, traffic enforcement is (again, in my opinion) about revenue generation, not about safety enhancement. Red light cameras, for instance, have to produce a minimum revenue per camera according to the agreements between municipalities and the camera system companies. Famously, Lockheed Martin demanded that certain underproducing cameras in San Diego (IIRC) have their yellow light duration reduced. The result? More tickets, along with more rear end collisions. /rant off |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
