So what, exactly, are you advocating here? If an officer observes someone going 30 in a 25, should he ignore it because there’s probably something worse going on in Albuquerque? Should he radio the precinct and ask if he’s needed anywhere else before he engages the driver?
There is one place near me where its the bottom of a steep hill and the cops like to hide their and get people speeding.
Thing is to NOT speed one would have to be riding their brakes.
…Or you could downshift manually.
Houston had red light cameras for a while, then somebody sued them and got them turned off.
I loved them. I live near the intersection of Westheimer and Beltway 8, which was notorious for people running red lights. I’ve lost count of the times I’ve nearly been hit. When the cameras were operating, the number of collisions at that intersection (and others) went down significantly. Now that the cameras are off, collisions are back up.
Or the flesh and blood cop could just write you a ticket, since apparently they are after easy, low-hanging fruit.
How do people know about the “general rule”? Is it written somewhere?
I drive for a living, and I do about 750 miles a week. I don’t get tickets, because I don’t speed and I don’t run red lights.
Are you being deliberately obtuse here for a reason? :rolleyes:
I’m just asking how this “there’s more important stuff happening somewhere else so the cops should ignore my lawbreaking” thing is supposed to work in practice.
When there are degrees of “sin” involved, a conflict of interest between revenue collecting and safety, the impossibility of lighting up everybody who is technically breaking the law, so a discerning officer will get only the most reckless offenders, with the most open and shut cases?
And that how roads and modern vehicles can probably handle higher speeds than what is in fact posted? And that municipalities have been known to lower speed limits for the sole reason of increasing the revenue flow?
If the de facto speed limit is higher than the de jure one, I am going to be going at the higher one if for no other reason than because it is yes safer, sorry Inspector.
You know, like how real life, in all of its abhorrent sloppiness, actually operates? Things everyone else in this thread have pointed out to you repeatedly, in vain, while you blithely ignore what they’ve said while focusing solely on the strict letter of the law? :smack:
It ain’t all black and white, IOW.
Studies have shown that Red Light cameras increase accidents.
A tactic which wouldn’t work if, you know, people obeyed the speed limit.
Yes, I’m sure the old “I know better than the city and the experts what the safe speed for this stretch of road is” argument will go over great with the judge.
Sure it is. If you don’t speed, you won’t get ticketed for speeding.
You know what else increases accidents? Running red lights.
I pay their damn salaries, that’s how it works. I guarantee you a majority of the population would rather cops focus on real crime, versus people doing 10 mph over the limit in good conditions.
And so do I.
Then a majority of the population should vote to repeal the speed limit and see how it works when everyone just drives the way they “know” is safest.
Actually, that’s already been done in the Netherlands, with excellent results. Turns out, people drive a LOT more carefully without speed limits, stop signs, etc… I know that probably disturbs you. Would you like a link?
I would.
I think you’re talking about the Living Street, or Woonerf, system, where residential roads are built without curbs and there’s no definition between where cars and where people can go. There is very much a speed limit in these, in the Netherlands it’s 15km/h, and they will very much ticket you for 100euro if you break it.
There are actually towns in Germany, Drachten, and one in the UK that also are experimenting with this. I’m not sure if speed limits are active in those towns. Whether or not they are, the concept deserves research.
Actually, it does, at least in CA. Each highway section is designed and rated for a certain safe speed. But some municipalities reduce the posted speed limit well belwo that, creating a “speed trap”. Not only can you get out of a ticket by showing that, but Nolo suggests doing so, and it worked for me.
In fact, my trial for the speeding ticked consisted of this:
Me: Present, your Honor
PO: Present your Honor
Judge: What is that stretch of Pacific coast Highway rated for, officer?
PO: 50 MPH, your honor.
Judge: and what is your cities posted limit there?
PO: 35 MPH.
Judge: And how fast was the defendant going?
PO: I clocked him at 47MPH your honor.
Judge: On a Sunday nite at 3AM, right?
PO: Yes.
Judge: Case dismissed. (bangs gavel)
My only testimony was “Present, your honor”.
But you see:
- Most tickets for “running a red light” are just for a rolling stop on a right turn.
and
- Altho running red lights cause accidents, red light cameras *increase accidents. *
Montana’s roads were safest without speed limits.
Also, there’s the Autobahn.
Smapti, it looks like you’re getting your ass handed to you today, friend.
In other words, most tickets for running a red light are for running a red light.
Why do you believe you’re special and the law doesn’t apply to you?
If you can’t stop for a red light safely, then you should not be driving.