FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Virginia's draconian new driving laws (Page 0)

  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Virginia's draconian new driving laws
Javert Hugo
Member
Member # 3980

 - posted      Profile for Javert Hugo   Email Javert Hugo         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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?

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jon Boy
Member
Member # 4284

 - posted      Profile for Jon Boy           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 9944 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ElJay
Member
Member # 6358

 - posted      Profile for ElJay           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Primal Curve
Member
Member # 3587

 - posted      Profile for Primal Curve           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With 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!
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Primal Curve
Member
Member # 3587

 - posted      Profile for Primal Curve           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ElJay
Member
Member # 6358

 - posted      Profile for ElJay           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
El JT de Spang
Member
Member # 7742

 - posted      Profile for El JT de Spang   Email El JT de Spang         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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."

Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Primal Curve
Member
Member # 3587

 - posted      Profile for Primal Curve           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ElJay
Member
Member # 6358

 - posted      Profile for ElJay           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 3290 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
anti_maven
Member
Member # 9789

 - posted      Profile for anti_maven   Email anti_maven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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:

ROSPA - Driving / Speed

Posts: 892 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mackillian
Member
Member # 586

 - posted      Profile for mackillian   Email mackillian         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On a tailgating cop—

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.

[Eek!]

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.

Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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

Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Primal Curve
Member
Member # 3587

 - posted      Profile for Primal Curve           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Great. This just means you freakin' flat-lander drivers will take out your frustrations on us.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 3290 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob_Scopatz
Member
Member # 1227

 - posted      Profile for Bob_Scopatz   Email Bob_Scopatz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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).

Posts: 22496 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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."
[Big Grin]

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholar
Member
Member # 9232

 - posted      Profile for scholar   Email scholar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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. [Wink]



Bob, here in California we have quite a few of the speeder-catching cameras on the freeways. The Pasadena Freeway, IIRC, has several.

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 3290 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert Hugo
Member
Member # 3980

 - posted      Profile for Javert Hugo   Email Javert Hugo         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The district is covered with them. I got caught. [Frown]

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.

Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Architraz Warden
Member
Member # 4285

 - posted      Profile for Architraz Warden   Email Architraz Warden         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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...

Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Primal Curve
Member
Member # 3587

 - posted      Profile for Primal Curve           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert Hugo
Member
Member # 3980

 - posted      Profile for Javert Hugo   Email Javert Hugo         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But you were doing it for love, and I'm doing it for work. Completely different animals. [Wink]
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jon Boy
Member
Member # 4284

 - posted      Profile for Jon Boy           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No offense, but an eleven-minute wait for a train really doesn't sound that bad.
Posts: 9944 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert Hugo
Member
Member # 3980

 - posted      Profile for Javert Hugo   Email Javert Hugo         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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*

Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert Hugo
Member
Member # 3980

 - posted      Profile for Javert Hugo   Email Javert Hugo         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As a side note, "minute" has no business being spelled the same way "minute" is.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm down with phonetic spellings.
Posts: 3290 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Shouldn't that be ""fonetik"?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BannaOj
Member
Member # 3206

 - posted      Profile for BannaOj   Email BannaOj         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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

Posts: 11264 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"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.

Posts: 3290 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Olivet
Member
Member # 1104

 - posted      Profile for Olivet   Email Olivet         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob_Scopatz
Member
Member # 1227

 - posted      Profile for Bob_Scopatz   Email Bob_Scopatz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 22496 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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?

Posts: 3290 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ElJay
Member
Member # 6358

 - posted      Profile for ElJay           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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?

Posts: 3290 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ElJay
Member
Member # 6358

 - posted      Profile for ElJay           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 3290 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2