These are absurd.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Wow.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Wow.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I would like to hear Dagonee talk about this.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Talk about conflicted interests.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wow. That's beyond ridiculous.
A good friend of mine at work got a DUI I think a couple years ago, and it's come close to ruining his life at times. Often times he can't get to work because he can't drive and there's no bus route that would get him there, and if he wants his license back, he has to pay thousands of dollars in fees.
At what point is something like this far more destructive than it is helpfup? I'm not sure where the line is, but I think this law crosses it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: A good friend of mine at work got a DUI I think a couple years ago, and it's come close to ruining his life at times. Often times he can't get to work because he can't drive and there's no bus route that would get him there, and if he wants his license back, he has to pay thousands of dollars in fees.
That I have no sympathy for.
But some of the new Virginian laws seem OTT.
Posted by DSH (Member # 741) on :
Frankly, DUI punishments aren't tough enough. Lyrhawn, I'm glad your friends life has come close to being ruined. Maybe next time he'll think twice before drinking and driving.
Please don't misunderstand, I don't wish a ruined life on ANYONE. That, however, includes the innocent victims of the thousands of drunk drivers who maim and kill on a frighteningly regular basis.
Everyone in this country knows what happens when you drink and drive. Choosing to get behind the wheel after drinking is a choice to live with the consequences that follow.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
I agree with the DUI thing. There is NO excuse for that. However several thousand dollars for a speeding ticket does seem way overboard, espescially given the way radar guns can be wrong, and how the strictness of laws can change from one town to another.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I would like to hear Dagonee talk about this.
About what aspect of it, particularly?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Your thoughts in general. The constitutionality of it (is it "cruel and unusual"?), the likelihood that someone will sue over this and get the law changed, other states where this or similar things have happened...you know, whatever comes to mind. Is it crazy of me to hope that you might actually have something substantive to say? You've never shied away from other topics related to laws, etc. Indeed, your answers in this subject area are nearly always highly substantive....
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The constitutionality of it (is it "cruel and unusual"?)
Definitely not cruel and unusual. Possible equal protection challenge (irrational distinction based on citizenship of the state) but unlikely to succeed. If the fees are found to be so egregious as to be punitive, then I think an equal protection challenge would have a greater chance of success. Overall, a 10 in 10 chance someone challenges the constitutionality, 1 in 10 chance this is unconstitutional under the federal constitution.
As for policy analysis, I think it's stupid not to charge out of state drivers, too. If the worry is that judges are setting fines too low on these charges (which is a valid concern based on what I've seen) then they should institute mandatory minimum fines on these offenses.
I'm generally against mandatory minimum punishments, even fines, and they tend to have much higher impact on the poor than the non-poor. Some countries, I think Finland is one, charge fines as a percentage of income.
I think there's some justification for these laws - it's rational to think that reckless drivers cost the state more and to reflect that cost in the fees - but I don't think that's what they were actually doing. I'm not sure why they didn't go the mandatory minimum fine route here, though.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
By the way, the linked article is a little misleading:
quote:Convictions subject to fees:
· Driving on a suspended or revoked license, $250 each year for three years.
· Reckless or aggressive driving, $350 each year for three years.
· Driving while intoxicated, $750 each year for three years.
· Other misdemeanor convictions for driving and/or motor vehicle-related offense, $300 a year for three years.
Demerit-point fees:
· A driver who has accumulated eight demerit points, $100.
· Each demerit point above eight, $75 a point. The maximum is $700 for 16 or more points.
· The motorist can offset demerit points by completing a driver-improvement class or driving a year without a conviction or suspension.
The first article's reference to driving 15 over refers to driving 80 on a 65 MPH road. 80 is always considered reckless, so 15 over will be reckless on such roads. However, the charge is not speeding, but rather reckless driving. The deal to make on such tickets will be speeding rather than reckless, which is quite common for people with good records.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
So, basically, I need a degree in Mathematics to figure out how much a ticket will be worth.
"Sir, before I tell you how much the fine's going to be, I need to calculate the volume of the air inside your car..."
If I lived there, I'd be bankrupt by now.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I wonder if this means now they can lower my taxes some....
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
To all that are happy about the ruination about my friend's life:
I'm perfectly okay with there being strict punishments for something as serious as drunk driving. Regardless of whether or not someone was injured in the process, I think there should be both elements of deterrence and punishment.
But ruin their lives? He's a good guy, and he made a stupid mistake, one that I don't absolve him of guilt for, but I disagree with you guys about what looks like glee at the ruination of a good person's life for a mistake. I've been in a car that was hit by a drunk driver, and a good friend of mine was nearly killed by a drunk driver. I know what the consequences are that come from that sort of behavior. And actually that reminds me, the same guy I'm talking about, my friend, was in a car that was T-Boned a couple weeks ago, he nearly died himself, are you glad about that too? Reciprocity and all that?
Frankly, for these people, those talked about in the VA speeding tax, driving 15mph over the speed limit, I think that is just as wreckless as drunk driving. Drunk or not, you hit someone going that fast, there's going to be lives ruined, you don't have to be drunk to kill someone with a car. I think there's a double standard at work here.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
As a Virginia resident, I can definitely say I've seen more people getting pulled over the past few days, and I'm noticing that the average cruising speed (usually 7-10 over) is now dropped to less than 5 over in almost every speed range.
Then again, I don't think driving 15 over the speed limit is reckless if you know what you're doing. The most dangerous drivers are overly nervous, too cautious, and afraid.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Lyr, no one has expressed "glee." I am also astounded that you seem to think having difficulty with transportation = having one's life ruined.
As for the relative recklessness of DUI v. 15 miles over the limit, DUI is always reckless. How reckless 15 miles over is depends on the relative speeds, the road and traffic conditions, and other factors. Nonetheless, I don't disagree that 15 miles over is usually reckless.
I bet Bob can produce some relevant stats on likelihood of fatal crashes, though.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
VA Beach -needs- tougher driving laws, at least.
The "illegal left turners" are insanely bad this summer.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: As a Virginia resident, I can definitely say I've seen more people getting pulled over the past few days, and I'm noticing that the average cruising speed (usually 7-10 over) is now dropped to less than 5 over in almost every speed range.
Then again, I don't think driving 15 over the speed limit is reckless if you know what you're doing. The most dangerous drivers are overly nervous, too cautious, and afraid.
Please, who gets to decide if you know what you're doing? You? 80 or more is reckless on most roads.
Amazing too that the way overly cocksure are also the most dangerous too isn't it?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
what about areas of this country where the speed limit is very high, sometimes around 80mph? obviously those states feel it's safe for drivers to drive that fast. The only reason that 80 would be more dangerous than 65 is because if everyone is driving 65 it's reckless to be the lone individual driving that much faster than them. There's nothing inherently dangerous about 80, and nothing inherently safe about 65.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Lyr, no one has expressed "glee." I am also astounded that you seem to think having difficulty with transportation = having one's life ruined.
As for the relative recklessness of DUI v. 15 miles over the limit, DUI is always reckless. How reckless 15 miles over is depends on the relative speeds, the road and traffic conditions, and other factors. Nonetheless, I don't disagree that 15 miles over is usually reckless.
I bet Bob can produce some relevant stats on likelihood of fatal crashes, though.
Perhaps you can explain to me the finer points of difference between DSH's "I'm glad your friend's life was almost ruined" and a lack of expression of glee.
But that's not my point. It's not just a matter of "difficulty with transportation." It costs thousands of dollars, it takes up a lot of time, and if you can't get to work anymore on a regular basis, that can be life ruining, at least in the short term. Again, I'm not saying there shouldn't be punishments, but it's a de facto prison sentence for some people. Maybe they SHOULD go to prison, I haven't really formed an opinion on the matter, but if they shouldn't, they why create an alternative that's pretty much the same thing?
I would argue that excessive speeding is also ALWAYS reckless, just that the probability of damage is less.
Strider -
I disagree. It takes longer to stop your car going 80mph than 65, and when you hit, you're going to cause a hell of a lot more damage at 80 than 65. Besides, we aren't just talking about freeways, what about someone traveling 30mph down a sidestreet instead of 15? Some little kid's ball rolls into the street and you have half the time to stop that you'd have if you were going the speed limit. What if you're in a regular city street going 45 instead of 30 and you accidentally run a stop sign or something, instead of stopping just in time, you'll plow into an intersection.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'd love to hear what you think should be done about DUIs instead of taking away their licenses and fines. Jail time? Give them a warning and tell them not to do it again?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The only reason that 80 would be more dangerous than 65 is because if everyone is driving 65
This is not true. Everybody driving at 80 would be much more dangerous than everybody driving at 65.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Give them a warning and tell them not to do it again?
What, you don't think that'd work?
For a first time offender? Smaller fines, revoking their license for everything except work, and if they are caught using their car for anything other than work, then they face stiffer, harsher fines. If someone makes less than $15K a year, and you fine then $5K or more, as was the case with my friend, and then you take away his ability to get to work reliably, you not only kill a third of his yearly salary, but you also kill his ability to earn the money that would pay off the fines he's being given. I don't have a problem with fines and license restrictions, I just don't think they should break someone, especially if they were to have a family that depended on them. Maybe a very short jail term to scare them straight. But I think the focus of a first time offender's punishment should be on making sure they don't do it again, and I'm not convinced that that level of disruption to their lives does that. I think more of the focus should be on probation, on keeping an eye on them, making them check in with probationary officers and the like, and then if they break the rule AGAIN after a first time offense, bring down the wrath of God on them.
Perhaps I should have specified before that my complaint is for first time offenders. If someone does it AGAIN, especially after facing the punishments that come with the first time, I think they deserve whatever tough restrictions and punishments we place on them.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
So, anyone want to make a bet regarding whether the state legislature made themselves exempt from this law?
I notice all the fines are UP TO a certain amount. I think Dragonee pointed out a more reasonable but still in my eyes excessive application of the range of fines.
It seems that this has nothing to do with enforcing the law or public safety, and everything to do with making money. I have to wonder if there is some outside contractor involved the way their usually is with various photo-ticketing offenses?
The problem with the 'money making' aspect is that it is likely to greatly annoy the voters, and many of the legislator may not be back in office next election.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote: For a first time offender? Smaller fines, revoking their license for everything except work, and if they are caught using their car for anything other than work, then they face stiffer, harsher fines [/QB]
Perhaps, a good punishment would be to make the license valid only during certain times of day. This would be a heck of a lot easier to catch violators with, and would probably serve the intended purpose. I don't have any data to back this up, but I would imagine that statistically the times that people drink and drive would tend to be much later at night than when people need the car for work.
Something along the lines of a license valid from 6am to 7pm would likely be sufficient. This still might cause conflicts with people working, especially people whose jobs require them to work at night. However, there is a huge difference between having to find a job with these time constraints vs having to find a job with a transportation restraint.
The state would probably have to issue a new license card that had the restrictions clearly marked for law enforcement to see. Then anyone caught violating it would be subject to very stiff penalties. Still not a perfect solution, but it seems to me that it would be a great compromise for first time offenders.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think they'd need to issue a new license. Whenever you get pulled over they run your license anyway, and it would pop up on your record.
So long as there were exceptions for people who don't have traditional 9-5 jobs I'd have no problem with using times as a the determining factor.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
Hi, I saw a great add on the TV about speeding - the salient point was the following:
quote:* Hit by a car at 30 mph, 2 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed 80% will survive
* Hit by a car at 40 mph, 9 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed 10% will survive
Even a small amount above the limit makes a big difference.
As for drunk driving. I am pretty draconian these days, if I drink, I don't drive. Simple.
Proportional fining is a great idea. In Finland a couple of years back a Nokia exec was fined $103600 for speeding...
quote:So, anyone want to make a bet regarding whether the state legislature made themselves exempt from this law?
I bet they didn't.
Posted by Desu (Member # 5941) on :
All I can say is i'm happy not to be living in VA.
A friend of mine does though and I know he regularly drives without his license to get to work, simply because of issues getting it switched from WA to a VA liscence or something.
In any case were I a VA voter i'd be outraged. I mean it is really hard to get around there without a car, and although it is one of the richer states not many people can afford fines like that. This law has a lot of tragedy creating potential in my eyes.
With regards to the 9-5 permits, that really sounds like a great idea; however I can't really see it being implemented simply because of the 'zero-tolerance' policy towards drunk driving. I mean you just know some boozos are gonna be saying, "ok well I can drive drunk during the day because worst case scenario I get pulled over and I still get to keep my lisence." People have just got to learn that driving drunk is way to dangerous to be tolerated.
Ticketing wise Sweden is by far the most rational country. They issue proportional speeding tickets with regards to annual income. So if you make 200k a year you end up giving up 5% of that for speeding. In a funny turn of events they caught a millionair speeding and got in the guiness book of recrods after issuing a 100k ticket (not sure on amount). This policy has the added value of assuring that no matter what a persons income, the ticket is just as penalizing. Also it assures people with smaller incomes aren't swamped by bills they can't afford unless they keep speeding and getting caught.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Personally, I'm a fan of the breathalizer starter on the car. If we know someone's judgement isn't great, just make them blow in the straw and see if they're drunk or not. It's not invasive, and the car just won't start if you're screwing up again.
As for the fines, I'd like to know what the limits are like in Virginia versus what people drive. We've got a lot of roads zoned for thirty that are major highways around Tally. We'd have riots in the streets. Well, we wouldn't have a law like that since our legislators live here, too, but you get my point.
Posted by Desu (Member # 5941) on :
Couldn't you just get your non drunk buddy to blow in it? Or start the car, leave it on, get drunk and then drive? Or just get a humidifier and hook it up? Sounds dodgy and expensive.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Yeah, but if the state takes away your license, can't you just drive anyway?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
lyrhawn, I have two friends who have been charged with DUI. One friend had the charge reduced to reckless driving (there's a whole bunch of reasons why). However, this friend quit drinking and joined AA after this conviction and has been sober for over a year. So that one traffic stop worked. Another friend (not a close friend though) momentarily passed out at the wheel and hit another vehicle. No one was hurt except him. He was arrested and charge with DUI. He's had the same troubles as your friend in getting his license back. So he drives without a valid license. Also, he still drinks. The current laws work for some and don't for others. While I agree that drunk driving is a horrible, awful thing to do (insert stronger words there), when people get mired in the process of getting their license back, a process that can take years in order to become productive members of society, sometimes you wonder if there's a better method of punishment.
I wonder if a prison sentence would be both a better deterrent and at the same time, a way of one being able to return to their life after having paid their dues for their stupid mistake.
*shrug* I don't know. I DO think it was strange that bail for a DUI charge was only twenty dollars. o_O
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
Tougher driving laws do not necessarily mean that people will drive more safely.
>Everyone in this country knows what happens when you drink and drive.
That is precisely why making the punishment astronomical does not help. People who do it already know it's dangerous, and if they are caught they already get a lot of difficulty. If they were rational agents, they already wouldn't be doing it.
Those that can be awakened to its danger are awakened by a suspended license. Those that can't will not be awakened by thousands of dollars in fines.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
I live in VA, so it might be reasonable for me to write to my state legislator. I am not sure what the point would be. She sent around a questionnaire so we could tell her what our burning concerns were. There were boxes to check. A rough paraphrase would be
Do you think the top priority of the General Assembly right now should be
__ taking away your freedom in this way __ taking away your freedom in some other way __ spending more on this invasion of your life or freedom __ spending more on that invasion __ other
I am not optimistic.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That is precisely why making the punishment astronomical does not help. People who do it already know it's dangerous, and if they are caught they already get a lot of difficulty. If they were rational agents, they already wouldn't be doing it.
This isn't true - making even a single drunk driving arrest very, very unpleasant is definitely a deterrent to those who think that .08 is too low ("I'm fine at .08") but that don't want the hassle. These are the "social" drunk drivers who will alter their actions to avoid a hassle, but only if the hassle is big enough.
quote:Those that can't will not be awakened by thousands of dollars in fines.
And those people should go to jail.
I helped get bail revoked on a woman who was arrested after passing out in her car one week after being released on bail for a previous drunk driving arrest.
During both those incidents her license had already been revoked for prior drunk driving convictions (note the "s"). Such a person needs to be forcibly kept from driving again and deserves prison time.
quote:I DO think it was strange that bail for a DUI charge was only twenty dollars.
Bail is generally set so as to guarantee appearance. This is based on likelihood of punishment (strength of evidence and likely sentence), ties to the community, history with the justice system, etc. $20 is unusual in that I would expect it to just be personal recognizance if the dollars were that low, but PR on drunk driving seems perfectly reasonable to me in many cases.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:Bail is generally set so as to guarantee appearance. This is based on likelihood of punishment (strength of evidence and likely sentence), ties to the community, history with the justice system, etc. $20 is unusual in that I would expect it to just be personal recognizance if the dollars were that low, but PR on drunk driving seems perfectly reasonable to me in many cases.
Okay, that makes sense now. He was cooperative with the police the entire time and gave them no trouble whatsoever. He was also already quite angry with himself for doing such an idiotic thing the whole time as well. He was being picked up by myself (and his wife), and paid the bail himself (which surprised the both of us picking him up!) so I assume that would be PR?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:He was being picked up by myself (and his wife), and paid the bail himself (which surprised the both of us picking him up!) so I assume that would be PR?
Likely. The $20 may not have been bail but some other fee - both police and defendants are likely to lump all such fees under "bail." It's also possible he had $200 bail and paid a bondsman the $20, but I think you would have noticed that.
If he got it back when he showed up for all his court dates, it was bail. Otherwise, it was a fee either to the state or to a bondsman.
Posted by Leroy (Member # 9533) on :
As far as the difference between 80 and 65, a major factor is the roads. States that have higher speed limits don't just changes the signs and call it a day. They have to determine whether the roads curve enough to make going faster a roll-over problem, and they especially have to ensure that there is enough room on ramps for traffic to merge onto and off of the roads safely.
As a resident of Virginia, I can say that most of our on-ramps and off-ramps are really short, and I can't tell you how many times I've been forced to merge onto the interstate going 40 or 45, just hoping to catch up. If this was a 40 mph difference, then that would be very dangerous (it's not exactly safe as it is).
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
VA's not the only one adopting these laws. Count New Jersey, New York, Michigan and Texas in there too. link
And Texas has the harshest penalties for DUI, go figure.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by anti_maven: Hi, I saw a great add on the TV about speeding - the salient point was the following:
quote:* Hit by a car at 30 mph, 2 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed 80% will survive
* Hit by a car at 40 mph, 9 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed 10% will survive
Even a small amount above the limit makes a big difference.
I'd like to see the source for those numbers. I was reading an article about traffic cameras the other day that refuted these numbers, but unfortunately they didn't provide a source for their numbers, either.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
It should be noted, at least, that previous penalties for reckless driving haven't seem to have been working too well in Virginia, or at least in Northern Virginia. People drive pretty recklessly here a lot of the time....
That's not to say much stiffer fines will be any more effective.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
To me, the weird part about all this is having to deal with crooked police. What if you have a police officer who clearly violates the law when handing out tickets? It happens all time, IME.
We have a guy here in Stokes county who has been tailgating 1-2 feet off of back bumpers on dark nights for close to 20 years. After he gets you to run a stop sign to avoid being rear-ended (which happened to me), or to speed (which happened to several of my friends), he gives you a ticket. He's a menace, his behavior costs people money needlessly, and he's doing this on the taxpayer dollar, for no good reason. I seriously doubt Trooper Dunn is the only one pulling this. Anybody else got any thoughts?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:We have a guy here in Stokes county who has been tailgating 1-2 feet off of back bumpers on dark nights for close to 20 years. After he gets you to run a stop sign to avoid being rear-ended (which happened to me), or to speed (which happened to several of my friends), he gives you a ticket. He's a menace, his behavior costs people money needlessly, and he's doing this on the taxpayer dollar, for no good reason. I seriously doubt Trooper Dunn is the only one pulling this. Anybody else got any thoughts?
It should be trivial to set up a sting operation for this joker.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I would think you'd probably have to have the cooperation of at least one other State Trooper. Stokes is a big county, and Dunn patrols all over. I don't know how you'd figure out where he is, unless you know where he's patrolling.
I've thought about suing him under..what is it, again?...Title 42, section 19 of the Federal Code, which allows private citizens to sue government officials for their on-the-job behavior, but, whatever. Dunn sucks butt.
Posted by Desu (Member # 5941) on :
Personally I live in Canada but have had similar experiences with the police.
For example my father, uncle and I were moving from one apartment to another (about 5 blocks from eachother on the same street) and had stacked two wooden book shleves onto the roof of my fathers long (hatchback?) family vehicle type car. We spent about ten minutes securing the things with bungee cords and testing them to make sure they were secure. They did not exceed the length of the vehicle and we drove at about 15MPH down a residential street with little traffic. About two blocks in we were pulled over. The cop came up to us, asked for id, then proceded to lecture about the dangers of our endevor. To prove his point after quite a speech he shook the shleves and nothing happened (i.e. they didn't budge). So he shook them more vigorously, then really violently began shaking them & still they didn't budge. So he ordered us to take them off the roof and carry them by chand for 3 blocks and watched us do it. We got around it but he was seriously being a Jerk.
Other than this I have had 2 of my friends go into the police service here and at some point in the Academy the both changed, became much more hostile and short tempered and really quite single minded. Not to say they were jerks, but just harsher.
It's understandable that cops on the beat get this way after seeing 'x' amount of lives needlessly ruined and taking 'y' amount of abuse from unthankful citizens, but still, some cops are just real jerks.
"I wonder if a prison sentence would be both a better deterrent and at the same time, a way of one being able to return to their life after having paid their dues for their stupid mistake.
*shrug* I don't know. I DO think it was strange that bail for a DUI charge was only twenty dollars. o_O"
I think that's a good point, but again i'm a little confused. Here in Canada a prison record basically black-lists you form 80% of jobs and really screws up your life. I don't know what it's like in the states though.
I'd think perhaps the best way to deal with this would simply be to impound the offenders car, deduct points from his license (perhaps suspend it or something) and issue a ticket & maybe some manditory community service hours.
That would definately make people think twice.
However, astronomical fines and the suspension of a license seems just cruel and needlessly harsh.
There must be an acceptable compromise possible here.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Decelerate gradually until he passes you, or until he stops behind you. If he gets out and asks what the problem is, explain that since he was tailgating, you had no choice but to slow down so as to be more safe.
Posted by Desu (Member # 5941) on :
Rofl, can't you get ticketed for going under the speed limit as well as over it.
Sounds like a plan though Scott, although not many of us are as cool headed.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Scott, when he did this to me, I couldn't see if he was a trooper. I didn't know that they guy was still patrolling in Stokes, or even still a state trooper. My worry was that it was somebody who wanted to get into a wreck. Why else would you come flying up behind someone on a curvy mountain road in the middle of a dark night, and start tailgating about 18 inches off their back bumper? Granted, it may have not been a logical assumption on my part--I was actually afraid that the imagined nutcase or criminal knew the stop sign was there, and was trying to make a wreck happen at that spot, particularly. We don't have many such crazies in Stokes, if any, and no outsider would know the roads that well. It was just such odd behavior, and he caught me off guard. I don't always improvise that well, if something unexpected happens. in this case, I really don't know what would have been appropriate.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"These are absurd."
Not even close. Allowing this is absurd. And that ain't even the worst of it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
As a point of note, the average speed on 400-series highways here in Canada is definitely about 120km/h or 75mph (despite the speed limit ranging from 100 to 110).
On the German autobahn, the *recommended* speed is 130 km/h or 80 mph.
In my personal experience, I usually follow the traffic and usually have to slow down from 120km/h to 100km/h to do so when crossing the border to drive to NY or Washington.
Looking online, it does not seem that there is a big difference in safety between the two countries and I think that a large part of this is simply what you are used to (driving at). Speed limits in the US are a tad artificially low at least for highways.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Mucus, our highway speeds vary quite a bit, and they have to. I've read that out in Montana, if you get pulled by a cop, your fine is $5, payable right then, and the ticket doesn't go on your record. People regularly go 120 mph there on the open highways. Why not? The land is pancake flat, you can see in every direction for miles, no animals are around, and the roads are practically empty. The roads there almost never have curves, either.
However, 120 mph would get you killed fast on Interstate 40 going through the North Carolina mountains. That road is curvy, hilly, and busy. I hate driving on it through there.
Posted by Desu (Member # 5941) on :
That's true, I remember going through Montana on a road trip and really noticing a huge diffrence in speeds.
I guess the US is tricky to handle as you can't generalize about a 51 (?) state country stretching over thousands of miles with 300million inhabitants.
All I know for sure is that I find the laws implemented in VA and TX overly harsh and cruel. There must be other, more community friendly ways of getting tax money.
Also some cops are assholes and this feature is magnified by the power and authority they weild over ordinary people. You can't talk back, shouldn't argue and are pretty much at their mercy when pulled over. That's why their motto is " To serve and Protect ", not " To mindlessly enforce the letter of the law no matter the circumstance ". Each incident is unique and a good cop will exercise good judgment and hopefully those who make geniuine mistakes and repent to the best of their ability will get by okay, and the criminals and assholes will not. But it's not a perfect or fair world and lots of people are jerks.
Ahem.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Steven: If you are being tailgated and you don't mind a small dent that the other driver's insurance will have to pay for simply shift your car into first gear and your car will suddenly slow down without brake lights turning on.
Rear ending another car is virtually ALWAYS the back drivers fault.
------ As for Virginia's laws being too strict. I know that *I* personally have to have a punishment that sticks for me to take a rule seriously.
I drove for 7 years before I got a single speeding ticket. I got two within two days of each other out of the blue, both for going 11 over the speed limit. I was outraged but I paid the tickets, my insurance is FAR higher then I think is fair, but you can bet I drive at the most 5 over the speed limit now.
In Singapore their laws may be really harsh, but littering just does not happen there.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"It should be trivial to set up a sting operation for this joker."
Yep, real easy Posted by Desu (Member # 5941) on :
BlackBlade,
Although it is true that Singapore is able to maintain a very high standard of living due to it's tough, no-nonsense policies with regards to drugs, littering, public misconduct and vadilism, this is also because it is a very small and very easily monitored island-city-state.
However, the Untied-States is not a small island dictatorship, it's citizens have constituional rights, and this countries economic survival does not depend on it's prestine image. The laws in Singapore are draconian and they work there because it's such a small, easily policed society. The low corruption and strick regime allow the citizens to benifit from foreign investment and therefore a higher standard of living as jobs are created and taxes better the urban landscape.
In the USA, laws vary by state and the government is by no means poor, although many of the citizens must work 50h a week to make ends meat in a car oriented society. When you take a working class man's car from him, it forces him to completely change his lifestlye, change jobs, or change apartments, and for small families, single parents (in a libreral society), and immigrants who have no financial or familial buffer in case of emergency, the loss of a job and financial situation can mean ruin; from lower middle-class to poverty over night.
This is a bit of a dramatic strech it's true, yet I think that for certain people in certain situations the consequences are potentialy dire.
I suppose that on the other hand, when people become aware of the severity of their actions, and the serious consequences of a DUI, they will change their behavior. In this sense the law will probably be effective. Yet I can't help but feel that such harsh penalties for first time offenders, in 'minor DUI' cases (No injuries caused, no damage, barely above the legal limit) these laws are way out of proportion.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Steven: If you are being tailgated and you don't mind a small dent that the other driver's insurance will have to pay for simply shift your car into first gear and your car will suddenly slow down without brake lights turning on.
Rear ending another car is virtually ALWAYS the back drivers fault.
My, what a charitable and loving attitude you have towards your fellow man.
Added: In other words, while it may legally be the other driver's fault, downshifting with the intention of causing a minor accident and teaching someone a lesson is certainly not the right or ethical thing to do.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
As someone who was sued for rear ending someone else when it clearly wasn't my fault, I have to say that's incredibly uncool Blackblade.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Desu: I don't personally think we should transpose Singapore's laws in the US. But I do believe that laws with teeth are more likely to be obeyed then laws that slap wrists.
ElJay: Yes everytime somebody has tailgated me I purposefully attempt to cause an accident. /sarcasm
Steven is suggesting that a policeman is bullying people into getting tickets. Following somebody too close is against the law. If slowing down does not work, or trying to take another route also does not aleviate the problem, I have no qualms with taking the course I suggested. The person is getting punished in a situation that I can control rather then one wherein he inadvertantly causes me further injury because I had to slam on the brakes in a situation beyond my control.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Mucus, our highway speeds vary quite a bit, and they have to. I've read that out in Montana, if you get pulled by a cop, your fine is $5, payable right then, and the ticket doesn't go on your record. People regularly go 120 mph there on the open highways. Why not? The land is pancake flat, you can see in every direction for miles, no animals are around, and the roads are practically empty. The roads there almost never have curves, either.
Not true. Montana did at one time have no speed limit, but that's no longer the case. And if you get caught speeding on the interstate the fine is a good deal more than that (like most states, it varies based on the speed). Moreover, the land is not flat, and there are plenty of animals around. It's not an accident that Montana is an extremely popular destination for elk hunting, and they shoot deer like people in Louisiana shoot squirrel. Even moreover, it's not even physically possible to go 120 for any appreciable stretch of time on the interstate there. For one thing, there's snow on the roads for roughly 9 months of the year; it would be suicidal to drive those speeds in those conditions. And during the summer months? Road construction, virtually end to end of the interstate.
There are stretches in east Montana where it's pretty flat, and, provided there's no construction going on and the weather's good, it would be possible to fly through them. The state is a little more lax about enforcing the speed limit (at least moreso than most other states I've lived in), probably because they don't need the revenue as much and because it's so rare that the conditions are optimum for that kind of speed.
But most of what you posted there is completely unsubstantiated.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Has he tried lodging formal complaints with the officer's superiors?
Forcing someone into an accident to me would be an extreme last resort.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: As someone who was sued for rear ending someone else when it clearly wasn't my fault, I have to say that's incredibly uncool Blackblade.
If you have the time I'd be very interested in hearing how it was not your fault. Not trying to find a way to pick nits, I'm genuinely interested.
Look there is a different between letting somebody who follows you around tailgating hit your bumper at 20mph then there is going 65 on the freeway and some speed demon who can't get past you tailgates you in his annoyance and wants you to get out of his way.
My advice was directed to Steven, not to tailgaters in general. Nobody seems to have a problem with setting up a sting. Maybe I am missing something obviously different between the two methods.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
You have no qualms with purposefully causing an accident to punish someone when you could simply pull to the side of the road and let them pass you. My comments stand.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Has he tried lodging formal complaints with the officer's superiors?
Forcing someone into an accident to me would be an extreme last resort.
OK I can agree with this.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Is tapping your breaks really forcing an accident (I drive an automatic, so I assume that's the equivilant of downshifting)? Tapping your breaks isn't unsafe, but following too closely is. I've always seen it as a warning to the person behind you that they are driving to closely, and if you have to break suddenly, they obviously won't be able to stop in time.
Would it be different if the intent were to get the person to back off, which is, I assume, the ultimate goal, not to get in an accident?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: You have no qualms with purposefully causing an accident to punish someone when you could simply pull to the side of the road and let them pass you. My comments stand.
"Following somebody too close is against the law. If slowing down does not work, or trying to take another route also does not aleviate the problem, I have no qualms with taking the course I suggested."
If you don't think I have a charitable attitude towards my fellow man, so be it.
Posted by Desu (Member # 5941) on :
Also BlackBlade, although I do love your approach, at the end of the day you're denting a cops car, moreover a jerky cops car in a situation where it's gonna your word vs his, and he has the camera mounted on his dash...
If he states that you purposfully slowed down, and you say that he sped up, i'm pretty sure you'd get the ticket and have to repay the damages.
Like I said before, some cops are just power tripping a-holes trying to fill their quotas asap so they can take the rest of the month off easy.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Edit: To vonk. He didn't advocate tapping your breaks, he advocated downshifting in order to slow the car drastically without the breaklights coming on to warn the other driver. Manually shifting an automatic into first will act the same as hitting your breaks hard. Further he phrased it as for the express purpose of causing a minor accident, so I don't think your final assumption is warrented.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
ElJay, BB's comments were very close to the suggestions for setting up a sting. I don't think the sarcasm and slur on his character were warranted.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: As someone who was sued for rear ending someone else when it clearly wasn't my fault, I have to say that's incredibly uncool Blackblade.
If you have the time I'd be very interested in hearing how it was not your fault. Not trying to find a way to pick nits, I'm genuinely interested.
I've posted about it elsewhere on Hatrack, but the gist is that on a three lane freeway where the posted speed limit was 70mph, I was going about 60mph (it had been raining earlier and I wasn't in a hurry to get home from school), and a woman in the right lane suddenly pulled into my lane, already going slower than me, without signaling and then slammed on her brakes. I had about two car lengths to stop and wasn't able to do so in time, so I hit her, and she sued me.
She intentionally dragged the lawsuit out over three years, because she knew I was a poor college student who had no money. At first she tried to go after my mother, but she didn't have any money either, so then the woman dragged out the court case trying to wait until I graduated college so she could garnish my wages when I was actually making decent money. She ended up settling out of court for $70K from my insurance company.
I was very tempted to try and get the insurance company to say no to the payoff, because I refused to let that conniving wench have any money at all, but I figured it wouldn't have done any good, so I've done my best to try and forget it.
Edit to add: I wanted to add that the officers who arrived on the scene were a mix of a blessing and a curse. The officer who talked to me gave me a half hearted speech about safe driving but said he wasn't going to give me a ticket for the accident, he didn't feel it was warranted. The officer who interviewed the woman who caused the accident filed HER version of the incident with the police station and mine was disregarded, which I didn't find out until way after the fact.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Ah, ok. I didn't realize downshifting would slow the car that much.
I heard the suggestion as an option after other, more peacable, solutions had failed. Also, I meant "ultimate goal" as in the goal of any solutions offered regarding the jerky cop, not the goal of BB's particular post.
So I guess my solution would be tapping the breaks. Not enough to get in an accident (unless the follower is being far too careless, in which case it's his fault) but enough to let him know that you know that he's there. And then continuing to tap your breaks until he either passes or you end up stopped. I guess it's a combo of the two solutions already proposed.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
And I think they were, JH. I think taking punishment into your own hands is very different from involving the authorities, and causing an accident is very different from catching someone on tape or with reliable witnesses. Plus he wasn't just advocating it for steven, he also said he's have no qualms about doing it himself with a non-trooper tailgater in the event he thought someone was tailgating him and didn't stop when he slowed down or turned. Purposefully causing an accident of any kind is despicable and dangerous, period.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And that's not to mention the deliberate lying that would have to accompany such an act for it to be successful. He's not just advocating delibarately causing an accident, but also lying about it afterward.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Must ... resist ... pointless ... nit-picking ...
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I think you're being selectively hard on him and I'm surprised at you.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
ElJay: As I understand it, my intent is not to cause an accident for the sake of getting into an accident. My intent is to discourage that driver from tailgating ever again. I think paying for car repairs and a jump in his insurance will certainly get the message across. I don't think the risk for injury is high enough at 15-20 mph for a fender bender to be off the table of options, when all other peaceable options have been tried. I admitted that lodging a complaint with the cop's superiors was probably a good idea.
MrS: Why should lying be required, that is certainly not part of MY plan.
From how I understand things, it does not matter in ANY way why a person suddenly slows down. If a person rear ends them they are deemed to have been, "Following too closely." Which makes the accident their fault.
edit: Lyrhawn: That is very unfortunate. Did the woman suddenly veer into your lane and hit the brakes or was it a few seconds later? I hope I never find myself in THAT situation Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: So I guess my solution would be tapping the breaks. Not enough to get in an accident (unless the follower is being far too careless, in which case it's his fault) but enough to let him know that you know that he's there. And then continuing to tap your breaks until he either passes or you end up stopped. I guess it's a combo of the two solutions already proposed.
Not that I don't know plenty of drivers who do exactly what you suggest, but it's been specifically mentioned as a Bad Idea™ in each of the 3 defensive driving classes I've been in in the last 10 years. The only method I've heard the instructors advocate is just slowing down and letting the tailgater pass you.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Why should lying be required, that is certainly not part of MY plan.
Of course it is.
Cop - "Tell me what happened."
What's your answer?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: edit: Lyrhawn: That is very unfortunate. Did the woman suddenly veer into your lane and hit the brakes or was it a few seconds later? I hope I never find myself in THAT situation
Sudden. I saw her brake lights when she came into my lane and I tapped on my brakes, figuring she was just slightly slowing, for whatever reason. But when I realized she was braking hard I slammed on my brakes as well, but at that point it was too late.
If I had known there was no one else around us, I probably could have veered into the next lane and avoided the whole debacle, but my attention was focused on the danger in front of me at the time, and in the maybe three or four seconds I had to react, I didn't consider taking the chance worthwhile.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Why should lying be required, that is certainly not part of MY plan.
Of course it is.
Cop - "Tell me what happened."
What's your answer?
He was following me very closely no matter what I did he would not leave me alone. I was worried at the prospect of needing to stop in an emergency and having him hit me thus making and accident worse so I slowed my vehicle down quickly and he ran into my rear bumper.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
BlackBlade, your intent is to met out punishment yourself for the crime of tailgating. Basically, that's a mild form of vigilante justice. It's not your place, and it's not your right. And intentionally causing an accident, no matter what your motivation, probably falls under reckless driving and will end up with you being the one in trouble. Unless, as Squick says, you lie about what happened.
--
JH, I can't believe you can read what he's writing and say that with a straight face.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
"He's saying that your brake lights never came on. Do you have a fault with those lights?"
"How quickly did you slow down? What method did you use?"
It's going to come down, at some point, to them asking questions of teh sort about what, exactly you were doing at the time of the accident. If you admit to pulling your down-shifting trick with the intent of causing the accident, you will be charged with reckless driving and it is entirely possible that the other person will not have anything happen to them.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I am saying it with a straight face. I don't advocate that method, but I don't think it's any worse than half of the others suggestions in this thread and it looks like you're being selectively sarcastic and casting apersions on his character.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Yeah, I've heard of people that break checked a tailgater and when asked why she slowed down by the officer she admitted point blank why she slowed down. She was found to be at fault for intentionally causing an accident. That's why you answer that you were slowing down in the hopes of getting the other car to either back off or pass, not get in an accident.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
What other suggestions would those be, kat? I'm seeing set up a sting operation and gradually slow down and wait for them to pass, both of which seem reasonable to me.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
His method is the only one that's illegal. You don't think that's any worse? To me, the other suggestions aren't anywhere near the same league as his. I assure you, I'm not being selective at all, and I don't think I'm even being particularly sarcastic.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I think there are a lot of ways to register disagreement without being... so sneery about it. You didn't just disagree with his suggestion, you were sarcastic and questioned his "love for his fellow man" which is a loaded phrase. That's not usual for you - I don't think BB deserved it and I doubt you want it to become usual.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mr S: My brake lights work just fine. Even when I stopped he just waited behind me. So I shifted into a lower gear so that I could slow down without wearing out my brake pads some more hoping I could just stop and that he'd leave me alone. He, because he had been following me so closely for X minutes, rammed right into me as soon as I slowed down.
My driver's ed instructor said that even if I slam on the breaks just because I felt like slowing down and a driver rear ends me, it will end up being the other drivers fault.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:So I shifted into a lower gear so that I could slow down without wearing out my brake pads some more hoping I could just stop and that he'd leave me alone.
That's a lie.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
And what's more, no cop is going to believe that you dropped your car into first gear while you were being tailgated so you could avoid wear on your brake pads.
You'd be better off slamming on your brakes and saying a dog ran out in front of your car. Still a lie, and a much more believable one.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:So I shifted into a lower gear so that I could slow down without wearing out my brake pads some more hoping I could just stop and that he'd leave me alone.
That's a lie.
No it isn't. At this point I've already tried braking to a stop, and he has continued following me. I actually don't wish to wear out my brake pads; do you? I hoped that maybe this time when I slowed down he'd stop tailgating me.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
If you don't think this is my usual posting style, JH, then you haven't been paying attention.
And you can doubt whatever you want, but your post looks to me like a poor attempt to manipulate my behavior.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Are you still doing the talking to the cop thing?
Because I (when I'm not playing the cop) know you are lying. You alreadly were very clear about why you would shift into first gear: to cause an accident.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I'm pointing out that I think you are particularly hard on BB, and you are hard on him using coded language designed for him. It isn't cool.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Again, that is your opinion, and I disagree.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I think the second half of your original post was fine - warranted and necessary, because I don't agree with BB's scenario.
The first part was way too harsh, because of the coded language and the assumption of collectivism. Your other words were better.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I used to have a bad habit of engine breaking like every time I slowed down, so I could honestly say, I always engine break. My father in law gave me a hard time once because I didn't know how to engine break so I spent a few months perfecting the skill. Of course, now that I feel confident in my ability to engine break, I almost never do it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Yes I am still doing the talking cop thing. Look I am even OK with saying, "I knew there was a good chance he might hit me, but I just could not safely drive any further, and I can't be expected to hold still while he holds me hostage with his vehicle.
I am not trying to cause an accident, HE is. I am slowing down abrubtly without giving him the courtesy of MY brake lights. There are no laws about slowing down with your engine instead of using your brakes (that I know of). And as I said before according to the drivers ed I took, I can slow down for just about any reason and if I am hit from behind, it's their fault.
Do you seriously think a cop would ticket me for "reckless driving" rather then giving the other driver a ticket for following too closely after I have, slowed, stopped, and changed routes?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Do you seriously think a cop would ticket me for "reckless driving" rather then giving the other driver a ticket for following too closely after I have, slowed, stopped, and changed routes?
Yes. I saw a friend defending himself in court from such a ticket.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
it's "braking", for the love of mike, not "breaking". Please, please spell it correctly.
Edit: D'oh! Davidson's Law strikes again!
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
JH - Again, that is your opinion, and I disagree.
BlackBlade -- Yes, in that situation I think the cop would ticket you for reckless driving.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
You really seem to be bending over backwards to rationalize those hypothetical actions, BlackBlade.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
*shrug* I'm not wrong. Maybe it's a matter of...charity - extending BB some charity and thinking that possibly instead of some grudge against his fellow man, he has little experience with cops and tickets and doesn't know that's not okay to do. All posts indicate that he thought it was. It isn't necessary to smear his character to point that out.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I didn't say you were wrong. It's a question of opinion, and there is no right or wrong. You don't think I'm extending him enough charity. I don't think he's extending enough to his hypothetical tailgaters.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I think you didn't exactly set a model of charity to follow. If extending charity isn't important to you, why does it bother you if you think he isn't?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, I don't know if we are using the same defintion of lying here. Could you explain what you mean when you use the word? Or perhaps it would be more helpful for you to explain why you giving other reasons from the one you specfically said is your reason here isn't lying?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Do you seriously think a cop would ticket me for "reckless driving" rather then giving the other driver a ticket for following too closely after I have, slowed, stopped, and changed routes?
Yes. I saw a friend defending himself in court from such a ticket.
How did the court end up ruling? Do you know by any chance?
Are state laws consistent (or even likely consistent) across the country?
Jon Boy: I don't think I am. But I am not arguing against myself in favor of the cop giving me a ticket so that Mr. Tailgater can bully me around scott free.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:How did the court end up ruling? Do you know by any chance?
He agreed to a plea with the prosecutor - $300-400 fine, 4 points.
quote:Are state laws consistent (or even likely consistent) across the country?
No.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, I don't know if we are using the same defintion of lying here. Could you explain what you mean when you use the word?
Oh I shouldn't think we don't think the word means what it does.
Again, I am not going to argue the other drivers case for him.
Look TBH, and I have tried to be this entire time. If a random driver followed me and after slowing, stopping, and changing course I would probably call the cops because I'd be pretty scared at this point.
Maybe the disconnect is that I think no harm to the other driver will come at 15-20mph, but maybe I am just naive.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: He agreed to a plea with the prosecutor - $300-400 fine, 4 points.
IYO do you think he could have won, without paying anything?
By not paying anything I mean any fines or getting points on their license.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Again, I am not going to argue the other drivers case for him.
I'm not expecting you to. I am, however, expecting you to either tell the truth or realize that you are lying.
Saying something that isn't true that you know isn't true is lying. When you are claiming that your intent is different from what we know is your real intent - to cause an accident - you are lying.
---
I'm not sure you understand. Being able to get away with it is not the same thing as being honest.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Look TBH, and I have tried to be this entire time. If a random driver followed me and after slowing, stopping, and changing course I would probably call the cops because I'd be pretty scared at this point.
I thought we were talking about tailgaters, not someone who is persistently following you even if you pull over or change course.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Your intial hypothetical didn't include the stopping part, BlackBlade. I agree that if someone didn't pass you after you pulled over to let them there would be something very wrong going on, which is why I suggested it as a preferable alternative to your proposal of causing an accident. But it's kinda moving the goalposts to now include it in your hypothetical defense to the police.
--
JH, and I didn't say extending charity isn't important to me. I think there is a vast gulf between pointing out on a message board that the actions someone is advocating another person take are uncharitable and violating the law and safe driving practices in order to cause an accident with the express purpose of teaching someone a lesson.
I also admit that I've been continuing this conversation only because I was curious how long you'd continue harping on my behavior when no one else, including the person you're defending, seems to care. My curiousity has been sated, the answer is longer than I'm willing to continue indulging you on it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Eljay: This is my initial post where I clarify when I would use the engine brakes.
quote:ElJay: Yes everytime somebody has tailgated me I purposefully attempt to cause an accident. /sarcasm
Steven is suggesting that a policeman is bullying people into getting tickets. Following somebody too close is against the law. If slowing down does not work, or trying to take another route also does not alleviate the problem, I have no qualms with taking the course I suggested. The person is getting punished in a situation that I can control rather then one wherein he inadvertently causes me further injury because I had to slam on the brakes in a situation beyond my control.
That is my original hypothetical, and it does include slowing down and changing course. I didn't mention it specifically in the post, but I saw slowing and stopping as the same thing in that context.
I'm not moving any goal posts.
Also I do appreciate Javert's attempts to help you see that I don't have some sort of enmity towards others. But like I said, if you are convinced that I do not have charity towards my fellow man, so be it. I can't make you see me a certain way, but I can discuss why I feel the way I do concerning this situation and see if others see any merit in my course of action. Heck if somebody convinces me that it is not worth it, or there is a better way, I am happy to see it.
MR S: I don't WANT an accident to occur, if he manages to stop in time, so much the better. Hopefully the closeness of the accident will get him to knock it off. If an accident does occur it is because he is not far back enough that, should I feel the need to suddenly stop, he TOO could stop in time.
Steven's situation indicated a cop pressuring people into tickets. I very long ago admitted that first informing his superiors would be a good idea, even though I did not consider that option initially.
edited for some clarity and additions to my position.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
So you don't want to wear out your brake pads (cheap and easy to replace), so you shift into first gear at highway speeds to transfer the wear onto the engine and transmission (expensive and difficult to replace). Speaks well of your sound reasoning skills!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: So you don't want to wear out your brake pads (cheap and easy to replace), so you shift into first gear at highway speeds to transfer the wear onto the engine and transmission (expensive and difficult to replace). Speaks well of your sound reasoning skills!
I really don't think you have read the previous posts in this discussion.
I have repeatedly said I see a difference in doing this at 15-20mph and doing it on the freeway at 65mph. I can't think of any reason to do this at a moderate to fast speed.
Please don't ask me to fend off remarks I have not made.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Still, downshifting to radically change speed at any speed and using break wear as an excuse is pretty weak, dude. Any cop with a passing knowledge of car work will just laugh in your face.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
The idea that someone would continue tailgating you if you pulled to the side of the road and stopped so they could pass is so ridiculous as to make the rest of your hypothetical worthless. Like you implied, you would then be dealing with a stalker or a road rage incident, not a tailgater.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: Still, downshifting to radically change speed at any speed and using break wear as an excuse is pretty weak, dude. Any cop with a passing knowledge of car work will just laugh in your face.
Again, please read the rest of the thread. You seem to be zeroing on one thing I said without taking the rest of the statements into context.
I'm not driving around causing accidents and asking cops to just excuse me because I don't wish to wear out my brake pads.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: The idea that someone would continue tailgating you if you pulled to the side of the road and stopped so they could pass is so ridiculous as to make the rest of your hypothetical worthless. Like you implied, you would then be dealing with a stalker or a road rage incident, not a tailgater.
Ridiculous? A cop driving around trying to get people to blow stops signs so as to ticket them sounded pretty ridiculous to me too, but according to steven it happened/happens.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Yes, and steven also said in the last 24 hours on Hatrack that Montana is 'pancake flat'.
Journalists have a saying. It goes, "Consider the source."
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Again, please read the rest of the thread. You seem to be zeroing on one thing I said without taking the rest of the statements into context.
I'm not driving around causing accidents and asking cops to just excuse me because I don't wish to wear out my brake pads.
But if your reasoning is not sound in one part of your argument, where does that leave the rest? Your argument stems on the fact that a cop is going to buy your truth-dodging. You seem to ignore the fact that every cop in existance is inherently cynical and will doubt your every word.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
*shrug* I've seen cops do some pretty weird things. But if someone is tailgating you for no personal motive, they're not going to pull over and stop behind you if you stop.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
OK, JT, I was merely repeating something from a magazine article I read probably 10 years ago. It may not have been Montana, it could have been one of the Dakotas. I specifically remember the bit about the $5 fines, etc.
The cop, I was there, he pulled me on Christmas Eve. That'll be remembered.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by anti_maven: Hi, I saw a great add on the TV about speeding - the salient point was the following:
quote:* Hit by a car at 30 mph, 2 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed 80% will survive
* Hit by a car at 40 mph, 9 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed 10% will survive
Even a small amount above the limit makes a big difference.
I'd like to see the source for those numbers. I was reading an article about traffic cameras the other day that refuted these numbers, but unfortunately they didn't provide a source for their numbers, either.
HI Jon Boy - I got the stats from ROSPA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents), they don't offer details of the study though. Here's a link:
Around two in the morning in an unfamiliar town in Massachusetts, I was making my way back to the highway to go home, over an hour's drive away. I'd just had to drop a kid off at a hospital. Anyway, I was alone and it was very late. And I wasn't speeding. At first.
Then someone's tailgating me.
Mind you, it's late and dark and I'm female and alone, so when they stay on my bumper, I'm getting more freaked out and slowly begin to speed up to get to the well-lit and more populated highway.
After ten minutes of this, cruiser lights turn on behind me.
When the cop walks to my window, he mentions that he's been behind me for ten minutes. I explained how he'd managed to scare the crap out of me and all I wanted to do was get to the highway.
He apologized for scaring me, and then told me to get a cup of coffee and make it home safely.
So there's good cops, too, who aren't tailgating to get you to speed up for a ticket.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
New in Illinois:
quote:Word has it that they are not going to give an inch on this. One mile per hour over the speed limit and the machine will get you. Illinois will begin using photo radar in freeway work zones in July. Second offense tickets are $1,000 with license suspension. Beginning in July the State of Illinois will use speed cameras in areas designated as 'Work Zones' on major freeways.Anyone caught by these devices will be mailed a $375.00 ticket for the FIRST offense. The SECOND offense will cost $1000.00 and comes with a 90-Day suspension.Drivers will also receive demerit points against their license, which allows insurance companies to raise their rates. This represents the harshest penalty structure yet for a city or state using PHOTO enforcements. The State will begin with TWO camera vans issuing tickets in work zones with speed limits lowered to 45 MPH. Photographs of both the Driver's face and License plate are taken. Pass this on to everyone you know!!!! For more info: http://www.dot.state.il.us/press/r033005.html
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Great. This just means you freakin' flat-lander drivers will take out your frustrations on us.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I thought I had heard that the red-light cameras were ruled unconstitutional by the Minnesota Supreme Court. I think, in my completely unexpert, hilariously ignorant legal opinion, that all this camera stuff is a clear violation of the due process clause.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
It's not a violation of due process since you have the opportunity to fight the ticket. At least that's my understanding.
The legal difficulty with camera-based enforcement has always been that it's often not possible to see who is driving the vehicle. In some jurisdictions, the judge will throw the citation out because it is issued to the "driver" but the enforcement entity has no way to know who the driver is. In some places, they set up the cameras to get a picture of the driver and the vehicle's license plate. In other jurisdictions, they make the offense a fine only (no points on the license) and the judges have been deciding that this is okay -- the citation is issued to the vehicle owner and it "sticks" because the vehicle owner presumably has access to the person who drove the car in order to get the money. Or something along those lines.
Re camera effectiveness: Red light cameras work VERY WELL at places with a high proportion of serious red-light-running crashes (i.e., injuries and deaths). They virtually eliminate that kind of crash. They do, however, generally cause an increase in rear-end crashes. The reason (we think) is that people change their driving patterns and will slow and stop when the light changes from green to yellow and the drivers behind them are used to everyone plowing on through. This effect does tend to level off a bit, but you generally see some increase in rear-end crashes in the queue behind an intersection with red light cameras. Not universal, but generally the case.
On average, I would rather be in a rear-end collision than a T-bone collision at any given speed.
The economics of these cameras works out pretty darn great, by the way. As long as the safety engineers are in charge of where they are installed. If you get politicos involved, then, no, it doesn't necessarily work out all that well. For example, if you install them in a place that has low frequency of red-light-running crashes then you may well get an increase in crashes overall, and an increase in severe crashes. So, yes, these things work, but only if they are used appropriately.
Speed enforcement cameras are a different animal and we don't have much experience with them in the US. Some, but not much. Great Britain and parts of Europe use them to great effect. They have exactly the desired effect -- slowing average speeds and reducing the frequency and severity of crashes. I suspect we'll see a lot more of them in the US once the legislative wrinkles are ironed out.
As for whoever it was that said radar guns are not always reliable -- pull the other one. Unless you're dealing with extremely dated equipment that hasn't been maintained, or with officers not trained in how to use it, you aren't likely to get very far with that defense. Modern equipment (no longer radar, by the way), is extremely accurate, takes almost no time at all to get a fix on your vehicle and return a spot speed, and can even be used from a moving vehicle (in some cases). If they get you with today's technology, you're pretty much nailed.
As for downshifting when someone is tailgating, I just want to add that this is not a very good idea. Assuming the person behind you is a police officer, do you really think that you're going to get away with causing a crash in this manner? Even if the cop has a known history of abuse of power?
If, on the other hand, you happen to do this and it's some other driver (not the cop), and it finally came out that you had avoided using your brakes on purpose, I can see the situation suddenly reversing itself.
A better approach is as follows: 1) Maintain a steady safe legal speed for a decent space -- a mile or so, or until the next opportunity for them to pass has happened and they didn't take it -- in order to give the other driver the opportunity to back off or pass you.
2) Failing that, look for a safe place to pull over out of their way so they can pass you.
3) If they slow down or look like they are going to try to block you in any way, get on your cell phone immediately and get the heck out of there. If you call 911 they may not be able to get you to the right dispatcher for your area immediately, so try to stay calm. They will eventually get you through. Tell them what is happening and ask for assistance in figuring out what to do. If it IS an officer behind you, they'll be in contact with them on the radio and you can request to speak to that person's supervisor to describe the scene as it is happening. If it's not a law enforcement officer, then they'll tell you where to go so they can meet you and your pursuer.
If the person does hit you: Use your judgement. I personally wouldn't stop in that situation unless I had to in order to avoid a worse situation (like going over a cliff).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
People always tell cops, "Dont you have better things do like finding drug dealers and bank robbers, rather then pulling me over for going 10 over the speed limit!?"
Cameras to me are the answer to that query.
I met a woman on her mission who told me when she finally got her license and drove on the freeway she got 15 tickets her first month on the road. I about fell out of my seat and asked her how many she gets now. She responded, "Zero, I know where all the cameras are now." Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
For the radar accuracy- whenever they have those signs that tell you the speed, what my car tells me I am doing and what the sign says are about 3 mph off. My car thinks it is faster than the radar does. Whenver I go by one, I wonder, is the radar off or my car? Or maybe my car is purposefully off in order to make me drive slower.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Those signs are not nearly as accurate as what the cops use. And most cars' speedometers are slightly off, I've been told. At least yours is in the direction that's less likely to get you a ticket.
Bob, here in California we have quite a few of the speeder-catching cameras on the freeways. The Pasadena Freeway, IIRC, has several.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I still say it's a violation of due process. What if you were on the way to the hospital emergency room?
When I got my red-light-camera ticket, I actually got "BILLED" by the company that handled the whole program. There was no possibility of fighting it in court. Since teh program was discontinued (because of being a blatant violation of "Mr. Due Process Clause"), and hasn't been taken up again by the state or local govt agencies, I naturally assumed that it was considered generally unconstitutional. Maybe it isn't, now that I think about it.
Although I still think it is.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
The district is covered with them. I got caught.
However, since I was going 13 over, I didn't hate it too much. I don't remember seeing any sign, though.
I think it's all designed to keep from driving in the district. I'd be fine with that if it meant the money was poured into Metro so I didn't have to wait ELEVEN MINUTES DURING RUSH HOUR for the next train on one leg of my commute.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
It's probably not the most morally correct thing to do, but I know at least one cop who will follow / close distance on a car they suspect of drunk driving. I'm guessing the desired effect is that drunk drivers get more erratic as they get distracted or try harder to drive normally. He's not one to give tickets mercilessly though, so even if he pulled you over for speeding if you were sober and told him he freaked you out, he probably wouldn't issue a ticket.
Even knowing that, if someone's tailgating me mercilessly, particularly at night, my moral qualms regarding what action to take wanes. I'd never down shift to first to rapidly slow down (though I do drive in first and second gear in the mountains all the time as an engine brake), I see little issue with deciding that some random bush about to jump out in front of me. Bushes in the areas where I drive happen to look a lot like coyotes, and I've seen plenty of those get hit. Besides, in reality my attention is split between the car tailgating me and what's happening in front of me. My intent isn't to cause an accident (I like my car too much), but it is to make the person behind me either knock off the tail gating, or panic. Sometimes they stop, sometimes they lock up their breaks and screech to a halt in some direction that isn't what they were driving, sometimes they continue. None of them have hit me yet anyways (knocking on wood here).
Our state speed limit outside of the metro areas is 75. Realistic or perceived, I feel considerably more threatened by someone doing 50 on our interstates here than someone doing 100. And trust me, there are plenty of both categories. Sure, 65 is always going to be safer than 80. But 50 is safer than 65, and no cars at all is sure as hell going to be safer than everyone driving. It's up to each state to decide what their road maintenance, topography, and desired risk factor is for their roadways. Aside from a hydroplaning incident at 70, I've never felt threatened by my speed as a factor.
Also, about the autobahn. Look up the actual stats and compare them to America's interstates. I believe their accident rate is significantly lower there, but the fatality rate is higher. And I wonder if there's a way to filter out foreigners from the autobahn and interstate tallies. Tourists (ie people) are a problem...
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: I think it's all designed to keep from driving in the district. I'd be fine with that if it meant the money was poured into Metro so I didn't have to wait ELEVEN MINUTES DURING RUSH HOUR for the next train on one leg of my commute.
Back when I was dating my wife, we were both carless. She lived with her grandparents about 15 minutes by car ride from where I was living. I regularly took the bus to visit her. There were about three bus transfers involved in the trip. At one stop, I regularly had to wait 40 minutes to a hour for the next bus. In Wisconsin. In winter.
My sympathy level is non-existant.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
But you were doing it for love, and I'm doing it for work. Completely different animals. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
No offense, but an eleven-minute wait for a train really doesn't sound that bad.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
It is when you're already late for work and it's only one leg of the trip.
1. Wait at bus stop: 5 minutes (it varies, but it comes early sometimes, so you have to be there at the beginning of the window). 2. Bus ride: 20 minutes. 3. Wait at station: 0-6 minutes. 4. Train ride: 8 minutes. 5. Wait at station: 0-3 minutes. 6. Train ride: 5 minutes. Total time: 36-45 minutes
But one (this one, say) morning you're way late, and you just missed the bus, and it's 20 minutes before the next one comes and you have 15 minutes to get to work.
1. Drive to train station and park: 13 minutes (and $16). 2. Miss train by 15 seconds. Wait for next train: ELEVEN (11) MINUTES. 3. Train ride: 10 minutes. 4. Wait at station: 3 minutes. 5. Train ride: 5 minutes. Total time: 42 minutes.
*scowl*
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
As a side note, "minute" has no business being spelled the same way "minute" is.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: As a side note, "minute" has no business being spelled the same way "minute" is.
True story, I noticed this commonality and got kinda annoyed at it.
Why can't the unit of time be spelled, "Minut?" Phoenetically it makes perfect sense.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I'm down with phonetic spellings.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Shouldn't that be ""fonetik"?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Hey Lisa,
You realize that press release was dated 2005 right? That program has been in effect in Illinois for a while now, and I believe they are buying more vans. The ones they had paid for themselves in 2 months.
AJ
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Shouldn't that be ""fonetik"?"
Well, I thought about it. However, I figured there was a high chance some spelling Nazi would come in and talk about how phonetic spelling would cause the downfall of Western Civilization.
This is Hatrack, after all.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: The idea that someone would continue tailgating you if you pulled to the side of the road and stopped so they could pass is so ridiculous as to make the rest of your hypothetical worthless. Like you implied, you would then be dealing with a stalker or a road rage incident, not a tailgater.
This exact thing happened to me, and that was exactly what it turned out to be. very scary.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Um...at least with respect to traffic law, due process doesn't mean that you never get a ticket. It means you have the right to due process AFTER the enforcement action.
I'm not sure about your jurisdiction, of course, but in most of the implementations of red light cameras that I'm aware of, the recipient is given instructions on who to contact to dispute the citation. We had a situation in which the cameras were catching people in funeral processions, for example. They were inconvenienced, but all of those citations were thrown out if the people disputed them.
As for driving to the emergency room, I'm sorry, but if you run red lights on your way to the emergency, you deserve a citation, unless you are the authorized driver of a bona fide emergency vehicle and are running with red lights and siren. Check your state laws. There's no exemption for "I was driving <insert family member here> to the emergency room." And yes, even if you can't spot any traffic coming, you don't get to run the red light. Sorry.
The morality of causing the person behind you to wreck even if they were tailgating you mercilessly is extremely questionable, in my mind. They may be guilty of making you nervous, but if you slam on your brakes needlessly to "teach them a lesson" and they run off the road and get hurt, you are at fault both legally and morally. Legally, there'd be no way to prove it, so you'll almost never be punished for it. But you'd still have the ethical issue to contend with. The fact that if you did nothing, those people would not have been hurt, but because you DID do something, they were means that you have some ethical and moral culpability.
They may share in the blame, but you aren't blameless in that situation.
It's one aspect of road rage, by the way. Aggressive braking (or unsignalled slowing) is a road rage incident. We're more familiar with things like rapid lane changes, speeding, crowding, and tailgating, but those aren't the only actions that qualify as aggressive driving (aka road rage behaviors).
If you are doing those things, or think they are valid responses, I suggest STRONGLY that you are likely to escalate incidents rather than be a part of the solution. In that respect, at least, I see very little difference between one aggressive driving manuever or another. They're all making things more dangerous.
And the fact that you've never been hit is not the measure of whether you're a safe driver when you do this kind of thing. As I'm sure you are aware.
RE: the aggressive driver who pulls over when you do...yes--that is exactly the kind of situation where you need to get to a safe place as quickly as possible, and get on the cell phone to the police if you can do so safely and legally. This is extremely dangerous and you should not stick around to see if the person was just trying to warn you of a busted tail light or something...
If you're scared or nervous...get to safety if you can.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
The thing I found confusing was that a private company had actually been handling the cameras, the enforcement, everything. They billed you. It was not disputable, and it went on your credit report if you didn't pay. No arrest warrant was ever issued if you didn't pay. I suppose the non-disputable nature of it was what was not constitutional.
The question is, if it's truly constitutional, why didn't the government start their own program after they were forced to fire the private company?
I predict all these cameras will be found unconstitutional eventually, like the Minnesota Supreme Court has already found. Just my 2 cents, granted, I'm no lawyer. Dag, you got thoughts?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
The Minnesota case wasn't found unconstitutional, it was found to violate a state law, the Minnesota Highway Traffic Regulation Act, which requires uniformity of traffic laws across the state.
The program could be reworked in such a way so as not to violate the MHTRA and be restarted. The cameras have not been removed from the intersections in question, unless it's happened in the last two weeks, I guess I haven't driven that way since mid-June. (Two of the intersections in question are about a mile and a half away from me. And they were well selected for the program, the lights are run constantly.) When the ruling came down there was a lot of speculation in the local news about what changes would have to be made if Minneapolis was going to try to restart the program.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
It looks to me that there was, in fact, a due process issue at the heart of the matter, according to this link.
Dag, you got thoughts?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Due process is in there, sure. But that link refers the Minnesota Highway Traffic Regulation Act 5 or 6 times, and doesn't mention the constitution once.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It is possible that, if the MHTRA did not exist, the court would have found that the presumption violated due process. However, the decision as it is written simply states that a local act conflicted with a state act. There was no finding that it was unconstitutional, and, in fact, it is explicitly stated that the constitutional question was not addressed by the court.
Although due process was at the heart of the issue, it was inadequate due process under state law, not either applicable constitution.
Rebuttable presumptions of guilt are generally considered unconstitutional. However, there are several possible exceptions that might allow red light cameras to survive:
1) They could be civil penalties, not criminal penalties, in which case the due process protections required are less. This would be true only if jail was not a possibility.
2) They could be construed as defining elements of the crime of running a red light. For example, "It shall be a crime to own a car which is driven through an intersection when a traffic light controlling that intersection is red in the direction of travel at the time the car enters said intersection. It shall be an affirmative defense to an offense under this section if the owner proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not driving the car at the time it entered the intersection and that he did not require or knowingly permit the driver to violate this section." (That's horribly drafted, but it would take me a bit of time to improve - it should be adequate as an example.) This represents a very complex constitutional question concerning the permissible boundaries of a crime and affirmative defenses.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
The question is, will people stand for it? Apparently, in Greensboro, they will not. This stuff has seriously inconvenienced people in many cases, and I think its lack of popularity may be its downfall, perhaps.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Of course, now that I feel confident in my ability to engine break, I almost never do it.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)