Slashdot Mirror

What do you propose? That the cops start sending tickets to random people in the same town, instead of the owner of the car? The owner is the only piece of information they have, until and unless the owner tells them who was actually driving.

I propose trashing the cameras and adding 1.5 seconds to the yellow light time, which is proven to reduce red light violations by 90%. Its much, much cheaper, and doesn't violate our civil rights. RLC actually INCREASE the number of accidents at an intersection.

For more info: http://www.motorists.org/search/search.php?zoom_qu ery=yellow+light

The rest of your post is pure drivil filled with poor logic.

http://www.motorists.org/issues/speed/index.html

These people seem to have compiled and summarized a whole bunch of research about what speed limits should be set to and what actually causes accidents.

In my experience (and no I've never been charged with a crime or had any reason to be so) treating police with respect gets you one thing: an officer who feels empowered to fuck with you as much as he wants. It takes a certain personality type to want to be a police officer. As far as speed limit activism goes everyone should join the NMA http://www.motorists.org/ Their website sucks, but they are actively working to get rid of the things we think "someone should do something about."

This is why more people need to be National Motorist Association members. It is the very fact that these traffic laws exist in their current form that is the problem. The court/tax/insurance loop is a side-effect. http://www.motorists.org/ will explain in more detail. Fighting these tickets in court will cost the system more than it makes off of the ticket wheter you win or lose. If enough people are willing to fight the law will have to chage. Unfortunately people are sheep and typically assume they can't make a difference. So here's a tangiable difference: If you make a decent case you won't have to pay your fine. NMA will pay it if you lose, and if you win its even better.

I would rather send a person to jail than have someone who was drunk, get off on a technicality then kill your sister/mother/father/brother/best friend 2 weeks later because they are drunk.

You'd rather send an innocent person to jail then risk letting someone drive drunk? That's a bit of a slippery slope there. We have burdens of proof and innocent until proven guilty for a reason.

Besides which, the whole issue of DWIs is another issue (like terrorism or the war on drugs) that is being used to take away our rights. The minute I start a car in most states I give up my right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure (implied consent laws). And as horrible as drunk driving can be perhaps you ought to take a look at the NMA DWI page and learn some of the myths and facts about DWIs and the 0.08 laws in particular.

And before some AC goes pointing out how I'd feel differently if I lost a loved one to a drunk driver let me say that my sister was run over on the sidewalk by a drunk driver. She spent three months in the hospital and it took a year before she could walk again. He had a BAC of 0.18. The cops didn't catch him because they were too busy sitting outside of the local bar waiting for some poor bastard who was a hair over 0.08 instead of patrolling around looking for people who were actually driving badly, such as this fool who was on his way to the convenience store to buy another 12 pack.

Apparently Lockheed Martin puts clauses in their contracts that prevent city engineers from changing yellow light times, because Lockheed gets a cut of the ticket revenue. I'm pretty sure this has been brought up in congress before too. Law enforcement has always been a money making venture, so that shouldn't be a big surprise. Most early law enforcement was more about collecting taxes than it ever was about protecting the public. This is just an extension of that.

This article quotes Erick Skrum of the National Motorists Association. It's a great political organization that fights multiple battles of interest to motorists, including black boxes.

Consider joining the NMA: http://www.motorists.org/

I'll leave DUI laws alone for the most part, due to the extreme and immediate potential for harm that driving while intoxicated causes

Well...because this is such a sensitive, PC issue -- I'll sound off. Our DUI/DWI laws are just plain stupid. They're based on emotion and revenge, not logic and/or a "greater good". The following is a position paper that I am (for the most part) in agreement with. OK...now that that's out of the way.

The driver gets in trouble for the level of the damage, not the reasons he or she caused the damage. That's the driver's responsibility to handle on his or her own, and the driver made a bad decision that contributed to the accident that's called being stupid. I'd argue that specifically legislating things to be illegal will leave legal "that's allowed!" holes that can be used to counter in court.

Ultimately, the issue here is that Americans tend to avoid taking any responsibilty for their actions. We've developed a culture of no-fault and entitlement. So if I slip and fall on your property...or spill hot coffee from your shop on my lap -- the blame for these things somehow shifts from me to you. In most cases, the money will be followed -- your insurance company, your business, etc.

We have to have dumb laws like this on the books mostly to protect us from ourselves. We're all ready to blame someone else for these problems, but not willing to accept any responsibility. It's incredibly lame -- especially because most states have a driving-while-distracted law already on the books (which is why the no-cell-phone laws are extraneous as well).

Here's the thing. If I am talking on the phone/watching a DVD/picking my butt/changing the radio station/talking to a passenger/rubbernecking/having sex/turning up the AC/whatever while I'm driving and my lack of attention causes an accident, I'm responsible. It doesn't matter what I'm doing...I'm responsible. Do we really need more laws to strictly define what distraction is? What's negligent is negligent.

What needs to be done to help other Americans take responsibility for their actions? What do we do to stop feeling like we deserve money from everyone who has more than us?

Did I say I drove on this occasion? No I didn't say that. In fact I had planned ahead so I wouldn't have to drive. My point was that it isn't the restaurants fault if you don't know when to stop drinking -- for whatever reason -- be it money (you can't afford it), you need to drive, you need to work the next day and can't afford to be hungover, etc etc. It's your own damn fault if you don't know when to stop. Likewise if you decide that you want to get "shitfaced" and you have that luxury (which means: A) You can afford it, B) You don't have to drive or can leave your car, C) You are willing to pay for it the next day) then I don't think the establishment is under any special obligation to stop you.

What you think is "enough" means jackshit to me. If you seriously do not think "just a few drinks" won't affect you, then why the hell are you drinking in the first place? Think about that one for a minute, preferably when you're sober.

Where did I say "A few drinks won't affect you"? The only thing remotely like that I said was "I also have the self-control to limit myself to one or two drinks if I know that I have to drive to get home." Do you have a problem with that statement? Two drinks consumed instantly with my body weight puts me at approx 0.03% BAC. Assuming I spend a lousy hour (i.e: I don't do two shots and instantly leave) it's more like 0.01% or less when I actually leave.

I would make the point that if the cops were busy looking for drink drivers who are visibly impaired (I see them all the time -- swerving all over the highway -- yet the cops are never there) instead of sitting outside of every bar in town waiting to nail some poor bastard who is 0.001% on the wrong side of 0.08% (an arbitrary number if ever there was one) maybe we'd have fewer alcohol related fatalities. The overwhelming majority of DWI related accidents occur with drivers who have a BAC of 0.15% or higher. This document makes for some very interesting reading.

Now before you jump all over me I'm not arguing that people with >0.08% are fully capable of driving. They probably have no business behind the wheel of a car. My personal cut off for driving is two drinks -- three if I'm going to be there for a couple of hours. Anymore then that and I'll walk home, call a cab, or take a ride with a friend. According to the handy BAC calculator (which is probably overstated anyway seeing as how it comes from MADD -- hardly a neutral organization) that puts me at about 0.02% when I leave -- or 0.048% assuming I have all three drinks within an hour.

My whole point all along is that there is something wrong with DWI enforcement when I get pulled over three times (only one of which had I actually been drinking -- and that time I a blew a lousy stinking 0.018% -- give me a break) for DWI enforcement. Meanwhile there are people out there cruising around with >0.15% BACs swerving all over every lane of the highway and running people off the road. The drunk driver that nearly killed my sister had a 0.25% BAC. He hadn't been drinking at a bar period -- he had been drinking at home and was on his way to the connivance store to buy more booze. According to the testimony at his trial he had to consume more then 16 drinks in a two hour period to reach that BAC. This hardly compares to the social drinker that has two drinks and gets pulled over and harassed for it the minute he leaves the bar as part of some random stop.

Perhaps if the cops had been busy patrolling the streets looking for people like him instead of sitting outside of every bar in town, harassing people who are "loitering" (the responsible ones who are waiting for cabs) and pulling people over who have designated drivers he wouldn't have gotten nearly as far as he did

My sister was nearly run over while walking home by some drunk ass who plowed into a tree outside of my parents house at 50mph (in a 25mph residential zone). Said individual (who wouldn't be alive today if it hadn't been for the efforts of my Mother -- who is an RN) had a BAC of 0.21%. Several different people had noticed him swerving all over the road and reported it to the cops over a 45 minute period -- who did nothing because they didn't actually "witness it". If my sister was a little less alert or this asshole had been 12 inches to the left of where he was she's probably dead or crippled today. Thankfully she was just shaken up.

My point is the cops should be busy patrolling the highways and looking for people like this -- not busy sitting outside of bars and waiting to nab people who are 0.001% on the wrong side of 0.08% and who haven't demonstrated any bad driving abilities to begin with.

0.08% is an made-up number to begin with. Take a look at this document which I found yesterday after somebody in this discussion pointed me to that website. It makes for very interesting reading.

Worse then 0.08% is the 0.05% limit in my state where they can write you for "driving under the influence" (different then "driving while intoxicated"). 0.05%? Give me a break. Some people can hit that with two drinks -- that doesn't make them drunk.

I recall one trip down to Newark several years ago I was making. Halfway there in the middle of PA at 2am I tried to pass this guy on the highway -- he promptly swerved into my lane and nearly killed me. I followed him for ten miles and observed him vary in speed from 45mph to 90mph -- all the while swerving all over this three lane highway -- which was thankfully empty due to the traffic. I called 911 on my cell and was connected to the PA state police. I reported what I had seen and the mile marker I was at -- they refused to do anything unless they witnessed it. I told them "Well send someone out here he's still doing it." -- they said "Yeah yeah we'll dispatch someone sir." 30 miles later the guy was still in front of me and no cops had showed up -- he finally ditched the highway and got off on an exit somewhere. I was tempted to follow him but what point would it have served?

My whole problem here is that stuff like that happens (or my sister nearly being killed) while at the same time I get pulled over and treated like a common criminal for having two drinks with some friends hours before the stop.

We have misplaced priorities here people.

Become a member of National Motorist Association.

BTW, unlike MADD or a rambling lunatic, I'm going to back up every claim with a link.

MADD (and NHTSA) grossly overexaggerate their claims of "drunk driving accidents," which are really alcohol-related accidents (a misleading statistic used by NHTSA). Did you know that if you, while 100% sober, hit a drunk pedestrian, it counts as an alcohol-related accident? Or did you know that if you get in an accident and EVERYONE is sober (driver, pedestrian, passengers), you can still be counted as alcohol-related due to the statistical correction that NHTSA uses, since only 63% of drivers are tested for their BAC level!

MADD claims that 0.08 BAC reduction saves lives, yet a study by NHTSA found no proof of such reduction after North Carolina enacted the lower BAC limit: "There appears to have been little clear effect of the lower BAC limit in North Carolina. Survey data indicate that the general public believes the new law was well-publicized. Although awareness of the new lower limit was not particularly high nearly 18 months after the law took effect, frequent drinkers did evidence a substantial degree of awareness that the law had changed and about what the new BAC limit was. As is typical in North Carolina, enforcement of the lower limit was vigorous and strict."

MADD wants to lower the BAC limit lower and lower, to 0.05. It claims victory over the 0.08 law over the previous 0.10 standard. However, it has been found that "the relative risk [of being in a traffic accident while using a cell-phone] is similar to the hazard associated with driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit." The legal limit in that paper was 0.10 BAC. Another interesting note is that "These data also call into question driving regulations that prohibit handheld cell-phones and permit hands-free cell-phones, because no significant differences in the impairments caused by these two cellular devices were found.", but that's another topic of conversation.

Point is, why do they want to keep lowering the BAC when it has been shown that the vast majority of drunk driving accidents occurs with drivers with over 0.10 BAC, and that below that, it's as risky as using a cell phone? Why is MADD targeting low-BAC-level drivers, such as 0.08 (and as they hope 0.05), with huge fines, property confiscation, loss of driver license, and obscene insurance surcharges? MADD wants to bully states into the 0.08 BAC law by passing legislation that threatens their funding.

Furthermore, when NHTSA's accident data was loaded in a database and independent statistics were ran on it, the massive exaggerations were exposed. Quote from the previous link: "Through the use of this tool we were able to discover that across the entire country NHTSA nearly doubles the number of instances of drunk drivers. And this is prior to them implementing their "Multiple Imputation" methodology w

Agree on 1) and 3);
2) requires reworking alongside the German laws.

This is what nationally syndicated columnist Eric Peters thinks: Link

This is what I think: Link

Trying to live up to your username?

As far as speeding laws, way to strawman the argument. But if you must know, yes speeding laws are absurd.

I bought plenty of CDs at Half.com EVEN when I had the mp3s, why? Because having the official CD was worth the $7-12 to me. I even bought new CDs for $20ish when I had mp3s of it, but I did so feeling ripped off.

There is NO reason that CDs couldn't sell for $5. If they did I swear I'd buy one a day.

Nobody said anything "has to be free". You're just strawmaning and screaming unemployment and whatever other BS you can come up with.

I dare say that if CDs were $5 that the industry would grow and would create jobs. Don't try to tell me that RIAA is doing sales analysis and that $18 is the best cost/demand ratio. If they did such great market research then people wouldn't be trying to boycott them.

I ought to REALLY preview my posts...
What I meant is :

Well it just so happens that speeding laws are unjust

As far as the assults, the percentage is tiny and NOBODY is out trying to lobby for a change in that area.

Well it just so happens that

As far as the assults, the percentage is tiny and NOBODY is out trying to lobby for a change in that area.

but I'm not crying unfair law when I get pulled over.

You should be. Traffic engineers will tell you that the speed at or below which 85 percent of the public is travelling is actually the safest for a given road. Politicians and crooked police departments will tell you something very different, though, because while "majority rules" may be the safest way to set speed limits, it certainly isn't the most profitable.

Apart from that off-topic rant, the original poster does have a very good point: when the laws do not reflect the values of the populace, respect for the law in general is endangered. The DMCA is teaching today's kids the same lesson that the old Federally-mandated 55 MPH national speed limit taught me when I was a teenager: that lawmakers in this country have their heads up their asses.

It's not safe to go through a red light. However it's also not safe to shorten the duration of the yellow so much that you can't avoid going through the red light (and getting a ticket from the automated camera), which is what some places are doing to get more revenue from the cameras.

See this for an example.

As for speed, I don't think anyone has argued what you mention. However I do know that some towns (including the one I live next to) set their 'in town' speed limit about a half mile outside of town half-way down a big hill. In fact they moved the lower speed limit farther out of town despite the fact that there has been no new development along that stretch of road, and now sit quite often halfway down the hill picking people off. This is *not* a safety measure.

It can when the yellow length is deliberately shortened to induce violations. The real solution is to increase the yellow length, assuming the goal is to prevent accidents and not generate revenue.

How long was the problem fixed for? My guess would be "only as long as it took people to get used to the longer yellow".

This is a really good question, and one not answered by the source report.

The lights go to yellow not just between green and red, but also between red and green. The only reason that it's safe for this to happen is that people stop for yellows.

But it's not legal to enter the intersection on Red/Yellow going to green, is it? This is common in Europe, but I thought it had to do with preparing people to go (so you don't have to wait as long for the guy in front of you to wake up). Any Europeans care to comment here?

(Obviously there needs to be a minimum duration. Something along the lines of: ceiling(SpeedLimitInMPH/10)*seconds. A 35 MPH road has a 4 sec yellow, while a 45 MPH road has a 5 sec.)

I think that's the real problem. Here's the NMA's recommendation, which is very close to yours:

The minimum yellow light interval shall be 4 seconds for intersection signals on streets with actual 85th percentile approach speeds of 30 mph, or less.
The yellow light interval shall be increased ½ second for each 5-mph increase in 85th percentile approach speeds above 30 mph.

How long was the problem fixed for? My guess would be "only as long as it took people to get used to the longer yellow".

This is a really good question, and one not answered by the source report.

The lights go to yellow not just between green and red, but also between red and green. The only reason that it's safe for this to happen is that people stop for yellows.

But it's not legal to enter the intersection on Red/Yellow going to green, is it? This is common in Europe, but I thought it had to do with preparing people to go (so you don't have to wait as long for the guy in front of you to wake up). Any Europeans care to comment here?

(Obviously there needs to be a minimum duration. Something along the lines of: ceiling(SpeedLimitInMPH/10)*seconds. A 35 MPH road has a 4 sec yellow, while a 45 MPH road has a 5 sec.)

I think that's the real problem. Here's the NMA's recommendation, which is very close to yours:

The minimum yellow light interval shall be 4 seconds for intersection signals on streets with actual 85th percentile approach speeds of 30 mph, or less.
The yellow light interval shall be increased ½ second for each 5-mph increase in 85th percentile approach speeds above 30 mph.

The minimum yellow light interval shall be 4 seconds for intersection signals on streets with actual 85th percentile approach speeds of 30 mph, or less.
The yellow light interval shall be increased ½ second for each 5-mph increase in 85th percentile approach speeds above 30 mph.

The minimum yellow light interval shall be 4 seconds for intersection signals on streets with actual 85th percentile approach speeds of 30 mph, or less.
The yellow light interval shall be increased ½ second for each 5-mph increase in 85th percentile approach speeds above 30 mph.

You can throw all of the NHTSA and IIHS stastics at me that you want. However, these are not and never will be impartial statistics.

These are the people who have been cramming the "speed kills" crap down our throats for years. I'll direct you to the Cato Institute for more accurate statistics. Specifically, NHTSA has not lived up to its airbag promises. See here too. Also, while I don't have any links, and am no longer a member, I'm sure that the National Motorists Association has information contrary to the NHTSA and IIHS data.

NHTSA is a Federal Government orginization and will never be impartial. Their entire existence depends on their never backing down on their ideals -- even if they're proven wrong. If they turn around and say that they over-regulated and its costing the American consumer more than its saving them -- the orginization goes away and everyone there loses their job. Sure -- when NHTSA started out, they may have had good intentions. But it got out of control -- and when most of their reports were discredited, they didn't not rebut the negative feedback...they responded with more data -- this time the data was statistically insigificant or misleading. Take the national 55 MPH speed lmit. NHTSA (and IIHS) predicted anarchy on the road then the nationial 55 MPH speed limit was repealed in 1996. When they were wrong, their 1998 report to congress did not reflect that. Instead of showing the decreased deaths per million miles travelled, they showed a trend of increasing percentage of fatalities on interstate highways (1% of highway fatalities) vs a decrease in non-interstate (99% of fatalities). In any case, it is very similiar to the DEA and ONDCP. Do you remember how Barry McCaffrey (former drug Czar under Clinton) responded when asked if it would help our country to switch to a drug policy closer to the Netherlands'? He lied! He said that soft and hard drug abuse was higher than the US per capita across the board...in kids and adults. This is the exact opposite of thr truth. Government orginizations can/have/will skew facts and obscure data just to stay alive. NHTSA is a prefect example of this type of big-government thinking.

Outside of this argument -- do you actually believe that I am not mentally capable of deciding weather or not I should have an airbag in my car? What about seatbelts? Motorcycle helmets? Pot? Alcohol? Cigrettes? Prescription drugs? Pornography? Now tell me, where does it stop???


-Turkey

Not surprisingly, no city has yet taken them up on the offer. You decide why.

I make no distinction between photo red light and murder. It KILLS people, but that's ok, because the major needs a new lemo.

Do you realize how inaccurate radar guns are? How is the cop on the side of the road supposed to know that you in your subcompact 4 lanes over was the one doing 11mph over the speed limit and not that 18 wheeler going the other way? If speed kills, why are accident and death rates still dropping after the repeal of the 55mph national speed limit? (When the NHTSA estimated that it would cause 10s of thousands of more deaths) Speed tickets are simply about revenue enhancement - unfortunately, it's not the $75 speeding ticket that nails you, it's the $1000 in insurance premiums you'll pay as you work off your "violation." Frequently the only viewpoint on speeding ever covered by the media is the government line provided by the NHTSA. For the other side of things take a look at the NMA.

If you feel that way, then please join the National Motorists Association . I finally did when I got a $520 speeding ticket last month.

Go to the NMA's site and learn how to stick it to the man!