Interesting proposal: no traffic stops for most minor infractions

[Loren Pechtel]

Traffic cameras are another matter.

The normal situation is that traffic cameras don't produce enough legitimate tickets to pay for themselves. Thus they are basically always configured in an abusive way that racks up the tickets without producing any safety benefit.

How do you configure it in an abusive way?

Unless you think its abusive to get fines for speeding...

You find a spot where the speed limit is too low for the situation.

~45 miles from here there used to be a big speed trap where the interstate went through a little bit of Indian land. I routinely saw an airplane and more cop cars than I would have thought would have served the whole area.

One day they raised the speed limit on the road to reality--and the speed trap vanished. I have never seen either a cop or an airplane in the area since.


Or the half-mile street that's the access to our house. When we moved in there was a bit of a constriction at one point, the speed limit was 25 mph. There routinely was a cop hiding at the intersection of the two half-mile streets. In time the constriction was fixed and the limit was raised to 35 mph. I haven't seen a cop since. Note that the constriction was not in the area of the intersection where the cop racked up a score, it's just the whole street got the speed limit appropriate for one small spot on it.


Or another one that's been there for at least the 25 years we have lived in this city: Northbound there is one house on the street, in that part of the street the road is split with something like 3' of height difference between the northbound and southbound traffic lanes. Because there is a house on the street it's 35 mph rather than the 45 mph that you would expect. (The next mile north has many houses and obviously is 35, the next mile south has no houses and is 45. The mile in question looks like the 45 section, not the 35 section.) Because of the division in the road there's no way a kid from the house (not that I think there have been kids there in all the time we have been here) could get into the southbound lanes. There's absolutely no reason for the southbound traffic to be 35 rather than 45. There's often a cop there racking up a score.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I always liked that one, the thing about accidents being caused by someone who expected the person in front of them to run the light.

Objections to traffic enforcement cameras always come down to the same strange toddler logic. People know that it's possible to run a red light and not cause an accident. It happens all the time. It is a dangerous thing to do, but no harm, no foul, most of the time. Police resources are finite, so the chances of getting caught while endangering the public are fairly small. Some people don't like the idea of raising odds of getting caught. It offends some strange sense of fairness they picked up somewhere. Probably from a baseball coach who taught that a spitball was okay, just so long as the umpire doesn't check the ball.

For myself, I like the idea of inhibiting people who think the millisecond they trim off their commute is worth the risk of death of injury.

The fines collected by enforcement cameras are irrelevant to the discussion. There is no reason for them to be profitable. The more effective a camera system is, the less money it makes. Anyone expecting to get rich by planting cameras and reaping tickets is an idiot. I wouldn't want to drive in a city where cameras could pay their own way. It would be like if the demolition derby and the bumpercars had a baby.

You have far too much faith in the traffic enforcement.

The problem is the cameras are placed where the yellows are too short. While we don't have cameras locally I have been nailed by a cop on a red light due to a too-short yellow. I knew the green was old so I held my speed as long as I could approaching the intersection--I was coming in fast but legal. I was already braking when the light went yellow. At the spot I was when the light went yellow I had plenty of time to go through the intersection--but no way to do so. I had to brake to turn--and that caused the light to go red an instant before I entered the intersection. In other words there was no course of action that didn't lead to committing some traffic offense. Is it any wonder the cop was staking it out?

- - - Updated - - -

Tell that to the companies that run them and the cities who collect them.

In our city the cameras were not put in place for the people who run them intentionally as they picked the lights that were most likely to be run by drivers not seeing that there was a light (disoriented drivers). Like I said, branches obscured the lights, along with neon and flashy light backgrounds (after cars made a sharp right hand turn from near darkness). No attempt was made to make these intersections safer. The trees went untrimmed and signages and overhead or lane lights were not discussed. They were installed as revenue generators and in poor neighborhoods less likely to challenge the tickets and rack up additional fees for the city and the company running the cameras.

What can I say? Your city is being managed by a crew if idiot pirates.

Idiots? No--they know what makes the money. Pirates, yes--as is every city that puts in cameras.

 

[bilby]

How do you configure it in an abusive way?

Unless you think its abusive to get fines for speeding...

You find a spot where the speed limit is too low for the situation.

~45 miles from here there used to be a big speed trap where the interstate went through a little bit of Indian land. I routinely saw an airplane and more cop cars than I would have thought would have served the whole area.

One day they raised the speed limit on the road to reality--and the speed trap vanished. I have never seen either a cop or an airplane in the area since.


Or the half-mile street that's the access to our house. When we moved in there was a bit of a constriction at one point, the speed limit was 25 mph. There routinely was a cop hiding at the intersection of the two half-mile streets. In time the constriction was fixed and the limit was raised to 35 mph. I haven't seen a cop since. Note that the constriction was not in the area of the intersection where the cop racked up a score, it's just the whole street got the speed limit appropriate for one small spot on it.


Or another one that's been there for at least the 25 years we have lived in this city: Northbound there is one house on the street, in that part of the street the road is split with something like 3' of height difference between the northbound and southbound traffic lanes. Because there is a house on the street it's 35 mph rather than the 45 mph that you would expect. (The next mile north has many houses and obviously is 35, the next mile south has no houses and is 45. The mile in question looks like the 45 section, not the 35 section.) Because of the division in the road there's no way a kid from the house (not that I think there have been kids there in all the time we have been here) could get into the southbound lanes. There's absolutely no reason for the southbound traffic to be 35 rather than 45. There's often a cop there racking up a score.

If there is a sign indicating the speed limit, then who cares what the road layout is? You should drive at the speed limit, or at a safe speed - whichever is the lower. If the speed limit is not appropriate (in your opinion), then apply to city hall (or the state, or whoever sets the limits) and ask them to review it. But until it is changed, your duty is to drive to the posted limit. If you choose to drive faster, you choose to get fined. If you don't get fined, despite exceeding the posted limit, then that's your good luck - but it is NOT permission to break the law in future, nor does it give you the right to get all butthurt about getting fined after breaking the law with impunity on numerous previous occasions.

You are not allowed to determine unilaterally what the speed limit ought to be. That is the job of the person who sets the limits for the road in question; and if you think they got it wrong (in either direction), your recourse is to tell them so and ask them to change it.

If you think your opinion overrules the opinion of the person who sets the limits posted on the signs, then you are not going to have a good time.

 

[Bronzeage]

You have far too much faith in the traffic enforcement.

The problem is the cameras are placed where the yellows are too short. While we don't have cameras locally I have been nailed by a cop on a red light due to a too-short yellow. I knew the green was old so I held my speed as long as I could approaching the intersection--I was coming in fast but legal. I was already braking when the light went yellow. At the spot I was when the light went yellow I had plenty of time to go through the intersection--but no way to do so. I had to brake to turn--and that caused the light to go red an instant before I entered the intersection. In other words there was no course of action that didn't lead to committing some traffic offense. Is it any wonder the cop was staking it out?

- - - Updated - - -

Tell that to the companies that run them and the cities who collect them.

In our city the cameras were not put in place for the people who run them intentionally as they picked the lights that were most likely to be run by drivers not seeing that there was a light (disoriented drivers). Like I said, branches obscured the lights, along with neon and flashy light backgrounds (after cars made a sharp right hand turn from near darkness). No attempt was made to make these intersections safer. The trees went untrimmed and signages and overhead or lane lights were not discussed. They were installed as revenue generators and in poor neighborhoods less likely to challenge the tickets and rack up additional fees for the city and the company running the cameras.

What can I say? Your city is being managed by a crew if idiot pirates.

Idiots? No--they know what makes the money. Pirates, yes--as is every city that puts in cameras.

It's not often that someone makes me feel like I live in an enlightened Renaissance city, but you managed it this time.

A "short yellow" is the adult equivalent of "the teacher hates me."

 

[Achwienichtig]

A "short yellow" is the adult equivalent of "the teacher hates me."

In general, I agree. But there are some genuinely miscalibrated lights out there. I watched a documentary about train accidents once. There was this one railroad crossing (I forget exactly where) that was well known for an unusually high number of train-car collisions. Turns out, there wasn't enough time delay. The light didn't turn red until the train was almost at the crossing. Not a good setup. Sure, we can say the driver is still to blame for going through a red light, period. But if safety is the goal, then there has to be allowances in the setup to avoid accidents even when the rules are broken. That is why most lights have a delay where all lights are red for a second or two (though I have lived in places where that is not the case).

That being said, Loren's example is an example of bad driving. There's no reason you couldn't just come to a stop, especially if you have to turn. To begin with, you should be slowing down well before the turn. If your goal is to gun it to the intersection and then break just enough to make the turn, you're doing it wrong. ETA: (I'm not saying I haven't done this myself. I have. We all try to cut corners when we're in a hurry. But that's not an excuse.)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As far as short yellows go, I never go through a yellow unless I know the yellow and its duration. The duration of a yellow can vary for a couple seconds to several seconds. Going through a blind yellow is stupid.

If there is a sign indicating the speed limit, then who cares what the road layout is? You should drive at the speed limit, or at a safe speed - whichever is the lower. If the speed limit is not appropriate (in your opinion), then apply to city hall (or the state, or whoever sets the limits) and ask them to review it.

Reminds me of the absurd speed trap that existed in Boston Heights. SR8 was divided highway, but there were lights, so the speed limit was 50 mph. The roadway then develops into a limited access, expands to 3 lanes. But the speed limit doesn't increase for about quarter mile. And right about where that increase was, a cop was many times gunning people going 65 mph on a 65 mph stretch of roadway that was about to become legally 65 mph in a quarter mile, but for reasons of revenue, was remaining 50 mph. There was absolutely no reason for the delayed speed increase other than revenue.

Luckily, SR 8 is now limited access through this area now, and the speed trap is gone.

There are limited locations of revenue traps. It is a real thing. You can try to change them, but City Hall won't give a lump.

You are not allowed to determine unilaterally what the speed limit ought to be. That is the job of the person who sets the limits for the road in question; and if you think they got it wrong (in either direction), your recourse is to tell them so and ask them to change it.

In general, there are standards for speed limits. Sometimes these standards are not followed, and in these cases it can be obvious. That doesn't give you a right to break the speed limit, but that doesn't mean the speed trap isn't a revenue trap.

 

[ronburgundy]

You find a spot where the speed limit is too low for the situation.

~45 miles from here there used to be a big speed trap where the interstate went through a little bit of Indian land. I routinely saw an airplane and more cop cars than I would have thought would have served the whole area.

One day they raised the speed limit on the road to reality--and the speed trap vanished. I have never seen either a cop or an airplane in the area since.


Or the half-mile street that's the access to our house. When we moved in there was a bit of a constriction at one point, the speed limit was 25 mph. There routinely was a cop hiding at the intersection of the two half-mile streets. In time the constriction was fixed and the limit was raised to 35 mph. I haven't seen a cop since. Note that the constriction was not in the area of the intersection where the cop racked up a score, it's just the whole street got the speed limit appropriate for one small spot on it.


Or another one that's been there for at least the 25 years we have lived in this city: Northbound there is one house on the street, in that part of the street the road is split with something like 3' of height difference between the northbound and southbound traffic lanes. Because there is a house on the street it's 35 mph rather than the 45 mph that you would expect. (The next mile north has many houses and obviously is 35, the next mile south has no houses and is 45. The mile in question looks like the 45 section, not the 35 section.) Because of the division in the road there's no way a kid from the house (not that I think there have been kids there in all the time we have been here) could get into the southbound lanes. There's absolutely no reason for the southbound traffic to be 35 rather than 45. There's often a cop there racking up a score.

If there is a sign indicating the speed limit, then who cares what the road layout is? You should drive at the speed limit, or at a safe speed - whichever is the lower. If the speed limit is not appropriate (in your opinion), then apply to city hall (or the state, or whoever sets the limits) and ask them to review it. But until it is changed, your duty is to drive to the posted limit. If you choose to drive faster, you choose to get fined. If you don't get fined, despite exceeding the posted limit, then that's your good luck - but it is NOT permission to break the law in future, nor does it give you the right to get all butthurt about getting fined after breaking the law with impunity on numerous previous occasions.

You are not allowed to determine unilaterally what the speed limit ought to be. That is the job of the person who sets the limits for the road in question; and if you think they got it wrong (in either direction), your recourse is to tell them so and ask them to change it.

If you think your opinion overrules the opinion of the person who sets the limits posted on the signs, then you are not going to have a good time.

That is all well and good, but a problem that speed cameras can bring is they prompt government revenue raisers to ignore safety and create unexpectedly low or unreasonably variable limits, expressly to create "traps" that will produce more tickets. I mentioned in an earlier post that I am seeing this in my city, where they simultaneously install a camera and arbitrarily reduce the limit for the 1 block the camera is placed. It is a major cross town street with a 35 mph along its whole stretch, except that 1 block which goes down to 20, then back up to 35. There is absolutely nothing on that block that would warrant it. People that don't drive that stretch regularly cannot reasonably be expected to be aware of the sudden change and before they notice it they are caught, or worse they suddenly realize it and hit their brakes.

If tech is going to be used to start ticketing every driver with any degree of violation, then that creates massive incentive for corrupt abuse of arbitrary, unreasonable, and unpredictable regulations designed to create as many "violators" as possible, independent of actual safety and sometime in contradiction to it. Regulations that contradict intuition, expectations, and common sense lead to accidents, but also create more violators and revenue, thus there is sometimes a conflict between the goal of raising revenue and the goal of public safety. Revenue raising is profit motive, and it operates to corrupt other goals in the public interest just as much when it motivates public institutions as private corporations.
At minimum, we need some level of motorist-advocacy oversight of such regulatory changes combined with civil traffic engineer input by people with protected positions that are not appointed by any elected (i.e., money grubbing) officials.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If there is a sign indicating the speed limit, then who cares what the road layout is? You should drive at the speed limit, or at a safe speed - whichever is the lower. If the speed limit is not appropriate (in your opinion), then apply to city hall (or the state, or whoever sets the limits) and ask them to review it. But until it is changed, your duty is to drive to the posted limit. If you choose to drive faster, you choose to get fined. If you don't get fined, despite exceeding the posted limit, then that's your good luck - but it is NOT permission to break the law in future, nor does it give you the right to get all butthurt about getting fined after breaking the law with impunity on numerous previous occasions.

You are not allowed to determine unilaterally what the speed limit ought to be. That is the job of the person who sets the limits for the road in question; and if you think they got it wrong (in either direction), your recourse is to tell them so and ask them to change it.

If you think your opinion overrules the opinion of the person who sets the limits posted on the signs, then you are not going to have a good time.

Reality to Bilby: Drivers normally drive at a speed appropriate for the road as they see it rather than the often-unrealistic speed limits. Speed limit signs are only honored to the extent of drivers seeking to avoid tickets. This is well accepted in traffic engineering and one of the standards is that the limit should not be set lower than the 85% of actual traffic. That doesn't mean that standard is followed.


Or take another stupidity in state law: Turning on red is not permitted if there are multiple turn lanes. The presence of multiple turn lanes does nothing to make turning from the outer lane unsafe, the law should limit turns on red to the outside lane. An intersection that I used to go through frequently had this issue--4 incoming lanes, two left turn lanes, two right turn lanes, a building ahead. Drivers in the outer right turn lane would turn on red if it was safe, the cops would hide behind a bush and rack up a score.


Anyplace the cops sit and rack up a score means there's something wrong with the road or the law. I have never seen a cop fishing for ordinary traffic offenses in any location without problems. (DUI is another matter, cops will fish on roads between drinking areas and residential areas.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's not often that someone makes me feel like I live in an enlightened Renaissance city, but you managed it this time.

A "short yellow" is the adult equivalent of "the teacher hates me."

You really are out of touch with the reality of traffic enforcement, or else your police are paragons of virtue.

They've even been caught shortening the yellow light when the cameras go in. After being slapped on the wrist for that they simply look for lights that are timed too short.

If you actually want to improve safety you set the yellow timing appropriately and the dangerous intersection ceases to be dangerous.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That being said, Loren's example is an example of bad driving. There's no reason you couldn't just come to a stop, especially if you have to turn. To begin with, you should be slowing down well before the turn. If your goal is to gun it to the intersection and then break just enough to make the turn, you're doing it wrong. ETA: (I'm not saying I haven't done this myself. I have. We all try to cut corners when we're in a hurry. But that's not an excuse.)

Slowing so as to enter the intersection at turning speed is safe and legal. I had a green arrow, there was no chance of conflicting traffic. As for stopping--not possible. I was already past the minimum stopping distance when the light went yellow. It's just the yellow timing was based on turning speed rather than the road speed.

 

[Bronzeage]

It's not often that someone makes me feel like I live in an enlightened Renaissance city, but you managed it this time.

A "short yellow" is the adult equivalent of "the teacher hates me."

You really are out of touch with the reality of traffic enforcement, or else your police are paragons of virtue.

They've even been caught shortening the yellow light when the cameras go in. After being slapped on the wrist for that they simply look for lights that are timed too short.

If you actually want to improve safety you set the yellow timing appropriately and the dangerous intersection ceases to be dangerous.

Yeah, the BRPD are a bunch of saints in blue.

I don't know about your city, but in my neighborhood, the traffic lights and their timing is controlled by the Department of Public Works and their engineers. The DPW does not benefit from traffic fines, so there's no incentive to create traffic hazards for profit.

Maybe the teacher does hate you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As far as short yellows go, I never go through a yellow unless I know the yellow and its duration. The duration of a yellow can vary for a couple seconds to several seconds. Going through a blind yellow is stupid.

Everybody goes through yellows. You have no choice, sometimes it turns yellow while you're too close to stop.

Reminds me of the absurd speed trap that existed in Boston Heights. SR8 was divided highway, but there were lights, so the speed limit was 50 mph. The roadway then develops into a limited access, expands to 3 lanes. But the speed limit doesn't increase for about quarter mile. And right about where that increase was, a cop was many times gunning people going 65 mph on a 65 mph stretch of roadway that was about to become legally 65 mph in a quarter mile, but for reasons of revenue, was remaining 50 mph. There was absolutely no reason for the delayed speed increase other than revenue.

Yeah, that's the sort of thing I'm talking about.

There are limited locations of revenue traps. It is a real thing. You can try to change them, but City Hall won't give a lump.

Agreed. They want the revenue. We need to remove the notion of fines as punishment to remove the conflict of interest. A few hours picking up trash would be fairer and it wouldn't be a moneymaker for government and thus a matter of abuse.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't find the least bit of hypocrisy, complaining about getting a ticket while driving and how the government is out to get you for revenue... while at the same time suggesting a crutch could be a substantial weapon and several officers taking down a one-legged man is completely without any suspect of being police abuse.

 

[bilby]

If there is a sign indicating the speed limit, then who cares what the road layout is? You should drive at the speed limit, or at a safe speed - whichever is the lower. If the speed limit is not appropriate (in your opinion), then apply to city hall (or the state, or whoever sets the limits) and ask them to review it. But until it is changed, your duty is to drive to the posted limit. If you choose to drive faster, you choose to get fined. If you don't get fined, despite exceeding the posted limit, then that's your good luck - but it is NOT permission to break the law in future, nor does it give you the right to get all butthurt about getting fined after breaking the law with impunity on numerous previous occasions.

You are not allowed to determine unilaterally what the speed limit ought to be. That is the job of the person who sets the limits for the road in question; and if you think they got it wrong (in either direction), your recourse is to tell them so and ask them to change it.

If you think your opinion overrules the opinion of the person who sets the limits posted on the signs, then you are not going to have a good time.

That is all well and good, but a problem that speed cameras can bring is they prompt government revenue raisers to ignore safety and create unexpectedly low or unreasonably variable limits, expressly to create "traps" that will produce more tickets. I mentioned in an earlier post that I am seeing this in my city, where they simultaneously install a camera and arbitrarily reduce the limit for the 1 block the camera is placed. It is a major cross town street with a 35 mph along its whole stretch, except that 1 block which goes down to 20, then back up to 35. There is absolutely nothing on that block that would warrant it. People that don't drive that stretch regularly cannot reasonably be expected to be aware of the sudden change and before they notice it they are caught, or worse they suddenly realize it and hit their brakes.

If tech is going to be used to start ticketing every driver with any degree of violation, then that creates massive incentive for corrupt abuse of arbitrary, unreasonable, and unpredictable regulations designed to create as many "violators" as possible, independent of actual safety and sometime in contradiction to it. Regulations that contradict intuition, expectations, and common sense lead to accidents, but also create more violators and revenue, thus there is sometimes a conflict between the goal of raising revenue and the goal of public safety. Revenue raising is profit motive, and it operates to corrupt other goals in the public interest just as much when it motivates public institutions as private corporations.
At minimum, we need some level of motorist-advocacy oversight of such regulatory changes combined with civil traffic engineer input by people with protected positions that are not appointed by any elected (i.e., money grubbing) officials.

Yes, that's all very sad. But it is not a problem, because each individual motorist has the ability to completely and comprehensively defeat this nefarious money-grabbing scheme by simply obeying the law.

But beware; you will only avoid a ticket by this means if you actually do obey the law.

If you feel entitled to drive your car in any way you like, then you are volunteering to pay money to the authorities. All cars are equipped with a speedometer and a brake pedal; a skilled driver can use these devices to completely avoid any and all speeding tickets, regardless of the inhuman machinations of the evil government.

If you don't like the law, and/or you feel that it is being exploited to raise revenue, then vote for someone who will change it. If there is no such candidate, run for office yourself on that platform. If your fellow citizens agree that this issue is of import, they will elect you if you pledge to establish a review board for speed limits, or pass a law preventing limits from being set 'unreasonably' low.

 

[bilby]

If there is a sign indicating the speed limit, then who cares what the road layout is? You should drive at the speed limit, or at a safe speed - whichever is the lower. If the speed limit is not appropriate (in your opinion), then apply to city hall (or the state, or whoever sets the limits) and ask them to review it. But until it is changed, your duty is to drive to the posted limit. If you choose to drive faster, you choose to get fined. If you don't get fined, despite exceeding the posted limit, then that's your good luck - but it is NOT permission to break the law in future, nor does it give you the right to get all butthurt about getting fined after breaking the law with impunity on numerous previous occasions.

You are not allowed to determine unilaterally what the speed limit ought to be. That is the job of the person who sets the limits for the road in question; and if you think they got it wrong (in either direction), your recourse is to tell them so and ask them to change it.

If you think your opinion overrules the opinion of the person who sets the limits posted on the signs, then you are not going to have a good time.

Reality to Bilby: Drivers normally drive at a speed appropriate for the road as they see it rather than the often-unrealistic speed limits. Speed limit signs are only honored to the extent of drivers seeking to avoid tickets. This is well accepted in traffic engineering and one of the standards is that the limit should not be set lower than the 85% of actual traffic. That doesn't mean that standard is followed.


Or take another stupidity in state law: Turning on red is not permitted if there are multiple turn lanes. The presence of multiple turn lanes does nothing to make turning from the outer lane unsafe, the law should limit turns on red to the outside lane. An intersection that I used to go through frequently had this issue--4 incoming lanes, two left turn lanes, two right turn lanes, a building ahead. Drivers in the outer right turn lane would turn on red if it was safe, the cops would hide behind a bush and rack up a score.


Anyplace the cops sit and rack up a score means there's something wrong with the road or the law. I have never seen a cop fishing for ordinary traffic offenses in any location without problems. (DUI is another matter, cops will fish on roads between drinking areas and residential areas.)

Reality to Loren Pectel: if you break the law, and get caught, it's your own fault. No court in history has accepted the 'all the other boys do it too' defence. Widespread flouting of speeding law is a consequence of insufficient enforcement, not an argument against any enforcement at all.

Obey the rules, and avoid a fine. If you can't obey, you shouldn't drive at all; if you merely won't obey, you are volunteering to give away some of your money. It's not rocket science.

 

[ronburgundy]

That is all well and good, but a problem that speed cameras can bring is they prompt government revenue raisers to ignore safety and create unexpectedly low or unreasonably variable limits, expressly to create "traps" that will produce more tickets. I mentioned in an earlier post that I am seeing this in my city, where they simultaneously install a camera and arbitrarily reduce the limit for the 1 block the camera is placed. It is a major cross town street with a 35 mph along its whole stretch, except that 1 block which goes down to 20, then back up to 35. There is absolutely nothing on that block that would warrant it. People that don't drive that stretch regularly cannot reasonably be expected to be aware of the sudden change and before they notice it they are caught, or worse they suddenly realize it and hit their brakes.

If tech is going to be used to start ticketing every driver with any degree of violation, then that creates massive incentive for corrupt abuse of arbitrary, unreasonable, and unpredictable regulations designed to create as many "violators" as possible, independent of actual safety and sometime in contradiction to it. Regulations that contradict intuition, expectations, and common sense lead to accidents, but also create more violators and revenue, thus there is sometimes a conflict between the goal of raising revenue and the goal of public safety. Revenue raising is profit motive, and it operates to corrupt other goals in the public interest just as much when it motivates public institutions as private corporations.
At minimum, we need some level of motorist-advocacy oversight of such regulatory changes combined with civil traffic engineer input by people with protected positions that are not appointed by any elected (i.e., money grubbing) officials.

Yes, that's all very sad. But it is not a problem, because each individual motorist has the ability to completely and comprehensively defeat this nefarious money-grabbing scheme by simply obeying the law.

But beware; you will only avoid a ticket by this means if you actually do obey the law.

These laws I am referring to reduce safety. That is a problem. Also, except among cowardly authoritarians, corrupt laws made against the public welfare for selfish interests are also a problem to be fought against.

These laws are crafted to make it difficult for reasonable people trying to obey the law to actually do so. Every bit of attention drivers must pay to reacting to variable and irrationally unpredictable rules is attention they are not paying to the things that actually impact safety, such as other cars, pedestrians and the immediate road conditions at the time. `

If you feel entitled to drive your car in any way you like, then you are volunteering to pay money to the authorities. All cars are equipped with a speedometer and a brake pedal; a skilled driver can use these devices to completely avoid any and all speeding tickets,

Drivers should be using these devices to drive safely and avoid accidents, not to avoid tickets, which in the case of the laws I am referring to are unrelated and sometimes opposing goals. IF the laws are not solely designed to improve safety, than efforts to avoid violating those laws inherently decrease safety. Your argument only makes sense in an Orwellian world in which the only reason to have laws is to punish people who don't follow them, and the only reaIson to follow them is avoid being punished.

regardless of the inhuman machinations of the evil government.

I don't share your childish view of government or corporations as "good" or "evil". As a rational grown-up, I recognize that both institutions are merely collections of humans capable of helping and harming others, and that selfish interests including profit motive are the major source of actions that harm others and the general public. That is why, on the whole, I view a representative secular government as more trustworthy than most corporations with little incentive to consider anything but profit. For this same reason, I recognize that government is near its least trustworthy and most likely to act against the public interest when manufacturing ways to increase revenues, expecially in a context where the most honest and legit method (increased income taxes) are politically dangerous for their own self interest in getting re-elected.

If you don't like the law, and/or you feel that it is being exploited to raise revenue, then vote for someone who will change it.

I am, just not via your pathetically futile approach of trying to find and address every individual bad regulation on every block of every road. I am voting for prevention of such corruption of traffic regulations by voting against implementation of the inherently corrupting revenue generating approaches that don't give clear explicit consideration to these abuses and grant oversight power to experts and motorist representatives that have no direct interest in the revenues raised by those approaches.

 

[bilby]

Yes, that's all very sad. But it is not a problem, because each individual motorist has the ability to completely and comprehensively defeat this nefarious money-grabbing scheme by simply obeying the law.

But beware; you will only avoid a ticket by this means if you actually do obey the law.

These laws I am referring to reduce safety.

[citation needed]

That is a problem. Also, except among cowardly authoritarians, corrupt laws made against the public welfare for selfish interests are also a problem to be fought against.

And you really think that this applies to speed limits that are lower than you would like them to be? Either you need to move to a country that is less corrupt, or you need to grow up.

These laws are crafted to make it difficult for reasonable people trying to obey the law to actually do so.

[citation needed]

Every bit of attention drivers must pay to reacting to variable and irrationally unpredictable rules is attention they are not paying to the things that actually impact safety, such as other cars, pedestrians and the immediate road conditions at the time.

If you find it more difficult to drive at 35mph than at 65mph, then you really should not drive at all.

If you feel entitled to drive your car in any way you like, then you are volunteering to pay money to the authorities. All cars are equipped with a speedometer and a brake pedal; a skilled driver can use these devices to completely avoid any and all speeding tickets,

Drivers should be using these devices to drive safely and avoid accidents, not to avoid tickets, which in the case of the laws I am referring to are unrelated and sometimes opposing goals. IF the laws are not solely designed to improve safety, than efforts to avoid violating those laws inherently decrease safety.

But as the only evidence for your 'if' is the unsupported opinions of people who seem to be incapable of obeying the law, and disinclined to do anything about getting the law changed, I have no reason to accept that your conditional applies in the real world.

Your argument only makes sense in an Orwellian world in which the only reason to have laws is to punish people who don't follow them, and the only reaIson to follow them is avoid being punished.

regardless of the inhuman machinations of the evil government.

I don't share your childish view of government or corporations as "good" or "evil".

You need to learn about rhetoric. Not every word someone says should be taken literally; If you really think I view government or corporations in that way, then you haven't been paying attention - or you are too dim to be worth my time.

As a rational grown-up

[citation needed]

, I recognize that both institutions are merely collections of humans capable of helping and harming others, and that selfish interests including profit motive are the major source of actions that harm others and the general public. That is why, on the whole, I view a representative secular government as more trustworthy than most corporations with little incentive to consider anything but profit.

That would be the representative secular government that establishes speed limits, and to whom you can appeal if you think they made an error? That government? Yes, they are basically trustworthy, because they are ultimately accountable. If you think the speed limits are wrong, you can change them via the mechanism of representative democracy - and until you do, you should obey them or accept that you will get fined for not doing so.

For this same reason, I recognize that government is near its least trustworthy and most likely to act against the public interest when manufacturing ways to increase revenues, expecially in a context where the most honest and legit method (increased income taxes) are politically dangerous for their own self interest in getting re-elected.

If you don't like the law, and/or you feel that it is being exploited to raise revenue, then vote for someone who will change it.

I am, just not via your pathetically futile approach of trying to find and address every individual bad regulation on every block of every road. I am voting for prevention of such corruption of traffic regulations by voting against implementation of the inherently corrupting revenue generating approaches that don't give clear explicit consideration to these abuses and grant oversight power to experts and motorist representatives that have no direct interest in the revenues raised by those approaches.

Good.

Until you succeed, I recommend that you either obey the law, or ensure a steady income stream to pay your fines with.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Reality to Bilby: Drivers normally drive at a speed appropriate for the road as they see it rather than the often-unrealistic speed limits. Speed limit signs are only honored to the extent of drivers seeking to avoid tickets. This is well accepted in traffic engineering and one of the standards is that the limit should not be set lower than the 85% of actual traffic. That doesn't mean that standard is followed.


Or take another stupidity in state law: Turning on red is not permitted if there are multiple turn lanes. The presence of multiple turn lanes does nothing to make turning from the outer lane unsafe, the law should limit turns on red to the outside lane. An intersection that I used to go through frequently had this issue--4 incoming lanes, two left turn lanes, two right turn lanes, a building ahead. Drivers in the outer right turn lane would turn on red if it was safe, the cops would hide behind a bush and rack up a score.


Anyplace the cops sit and rack up a score means there's something wrong with the road or the law. I have never seen a cop fishing for ordinary traffic offenses in any location without problems. (DUI is another matter, cops will fish on roads between drinking areas and residential areas.)

Reality to Loren Pectel: if you break the law, and get caught, it's your own fault. No court in history has accepted the 'all the other boys do it too' defence. Widespread flouting of speeding law is a consequence of insufficient enforcement, not an argument against any enforcement at all.

Obey the rules, and avoid a fine. If you can't obey, you shouldn't drive at all; if you merely won't obey, you are volunteering to give away some of your money. It's not rocket science.

Which is all good and fine, but there are ways to engineer traffic so it is more likely that you will break the law. A 25 mph speed limit sign behind a fir tree bracketed by two 45mph signs is one example, a 40 mph limit on a wide road going across a large flat plain is another. Shortened yellow lights, stop stripes set back from the intersection these are all common ways traffic design contributes to revenue generation.

 

[bilby]

Reality to Loren Pectel: if you break the law, and get caught, it's your own fault. No court in history has accepted the 'all the other boys do it too' defence. Widespread flouting of speeding law is a consequence of insufficient enforcement, not an argument against any enforcement at all.

Obey the rules, and avoid a fine. If you can't obey, you shouldn't drive at all; if you merely won't obey, you are volunteering to give away some of your money. It's not rocket science.

Which is all good and fine, but there are ways to engineer traffic so it is more likely that you will break the law. A 25 mph speed limit sign behind a fir tree bracketed by two 45mph signs is one example, a 40 mph limit on a wide road going across a large flat plain is another. Shortened yellow lights, stop stripes set back from the intersection these are all common ways traffic design contributes to revenue generation.

If the speed limit signs are not visible, then you have a point.

If you can't drive across a large, flat plain on a wide road without exceeding 40mph, then you are not competent to drive a car at all. I agree that such a situation would justify a review of the limit; but that the limit chosen is sub-optimal for the conditions is not an excuse to disobey it, prior to such a review being completed and the limit changed.

 

[Bronzeage]

Reality to Loren Pectel: if you break the law, and get caught, it's your own fault. No court in history has accepted the 'all the other boys do it too' defence. Widespread flouting of speeding law is a consequence of insufficient enforcement, not an argument against any enforcement at all.

Obey the rules, and avoid a fine. If you can't obey, you shouldn't drive at all; if you merely won't obey, you are volunteering to give away some of your money. It's not rocket science.

Which is all good and fine, but there are ways to engineer traffic so it is more likely that you will break the law. A 25 mph speed limit sign behind a fir tree bracketed by two 45mph signs is one example, a 40 mph limit on a wide road going across a large flat plain is another. Shortened yellow lights, stop stripes set back from the intersection these are all common ways traffic design contributes to revenue generation.

I have been driving on public roads in Louisiana, since I was 16, so that will be 43 years, this October. I have never actually seen the situation you describe. I hear about it all the time, but the times when I was issued a speeding ticket, the speed limit signs were well posted and visible. If a policeman stations himself where people are likely to drive above the posted speed limit, what the hell else do we pay him to do?