How to beat a PHOTO RADAR ticket every time.
Oregon National Motorists Ass'n.
With photo radar usually in place where limits are lowest, accidents
are rarest, and most motorists safely exceed posted limits, it pays to
know the foolproof and legal way to beat a photo radar ticket.
Before mentioning the loophole left deliberately by the legislature,
be aware that no state accepts regular mail as adequate for "service
of process," that is, notice that you are being subjected to the
authority of a court. A peace officer or certified mail is required.
It is notable that officials in Pasedena, CA admitted after a failed
photo radar pilot program, that the 20% of people who ignored their
tickets-by-mail were free and unpunished, and that if word got out of
this fact, the whole program would fall apart. The fact is: there is
no law that requires you to read your mail.
Now, for the loophole:
Fearing many trials contesting the identity of the person in the
ohoto, the legislature decided to allow, (following ORS 811.123,
Sections 1 to 3, chapter 579, Oregon Laws, 1995.) Sec. 2 (3)(a):
"If a registered owner of a vehicle responds to a citation
issued [by photo radar] by submitting a certificate of innocence
within 30 days from the mailing of the citation swearing or affirming
that the owner was not the driver of the vehicle and a photocopy of
the owner's driver's license, the citation shall be dismissed."
SHALL be dismissed. Not "may" be, or "will be if a review shows the
claim to be credible," but SHALL be.
For those who fear that they might be mistaken when they claim
innocence, consider how the subsection continues:
"A person may not be prosecuted for perjury or false swearing
in connection with submission of a certificate of innocence."
Here is an example that all are welcome to copy:
*************************************************************
CERTIFICATE OF INNOCENCE
To: [court listed on the mailing, address]
Re:[case/citation number on mailing]
I hereby swear or affirm that I am innocent of the infraction accused
in the above-noted citation dated (copy enclosed,) as I was not the
driver of the vehicle. I am enclosing a photocopy of my driver's
license number ODL__________.
I certify that this certificate of innocence was submitted within 30
days from the mailing of the citation.
Sworn or affirmed,
_____________________________
[your name]
*************************************************************
It's that simple. Now, if they were posting the units where accidents
were occuring most frequently, or if they were neighborhood side
streets (as the legislature required) instead of "collector" through
streets, we should assume that those who are ticketed deserve it,
right? But not with the current cynical system.
The legislature also requires that an indication of the actual speed
of the vehicle is displayed within 150 feet of the location of the
photo radar unit. Do you think that this requirement (intended to
encourage voluntary compliance) is satisfied by a display in the back
window that clicks on only a fraction of a second before a vehicle
passes, and which is barely visible peripherally, even to one who
knows he is passing a unit (at the limit,) and who wishes to see the
speed.
Did you know that U.S. Public Technologies, Inc. receives between $16
and $30 per citation, as well as lease fees for providing the units?
This isn't about public safety, it is about money.
Make it unprofitable, and it will go away. Our law enforcement
officers deserve a more respectable mission than tax fund-raising.
--
Ben Langlotz
National Motorists Association, Oregon Chapter Coordinator
langlotz(at)teleport.com
http://www.motorists.com
frank williams
In article <3253f256....@news.teleport.com> see.si...@for.reply.address (Oregon National Motorists Ass'n.) writes:
>Now, for the loophole:
>Fearing many trials contesting the identity of the person in the
>ohoto, the legislature decided to allow, (following ORS 811.123,
>Sections 1 to 3, chapter 579, Oregon Laws, 1995.) Sec. 2 (3)(a):
> "If a registered owner of a vehicle responds to a citation
>issued [by photo radar] by submitting a certificate of innocence
>within 30 days from the mailing of the citation swearing or affirming
>that the owner was not the driver of the vehicle and a photocopy of
>the owner's driver's license, the citation shall be dismissed."
Why worry about a loophole. Just get you a nice piece of polarized
glass to cover your front license plate. The photo will show a black
square instead of your plate number.
frank.w...@msfc.nasa.gov
http://willitech.msfc.nasa.gov/pub/people/fr_grp.htm
Michael O'Hair
In article <frank.william...@msfc.nasa.gov>,
frank williams <frank.w...@msfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>Why worry about a loophole. Just get you a nice piece of polarized
>glass to cover your front license plate. The photo will show a black
>square instead of your plate number.
Because there is an officer in the van with a clipboard who is going to
write down the license number on the rear plate?
I suspect that there will be a crackdown on people who do not have a front
plate on their vehicle. I've seen dozens in the last month or so.
Derek R. Larson
In article <5311ju$r...@scel.sequent.com>,
Michael O'Hair <mich...@sequent.com> wrote:
>I suspect that there will be a crackdown on people who do not have a front
>plate on their vehicle. I've seen dozens in the last month or so.
There's a prety hefty fine too-- I had a friend several years ago who lost
a plate while living in Florida temporarily (where only one is required).
Two days after returning to Oregon he got a big ticket ($200?) for the
missing plate, despite his claim that he hadn't had time to replace it
yet.
We lost one of ours last winter in the snow and didn't worry about it for
some time. I was surprised to find that we could get a set of new plates
for just $16, with little hassle even through the mail.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Derek R. Larson Indiana University Department of History
"Eastward I go by force, but Westward I go free!" -H. D. Thoreau
-----------http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~drlarson/home.html------------
Chris Kessel
In article <5313du$e...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>, drla...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Derek R. Larson) writes:
|> In article <5311ju$r...@scel.sequent.com>,
|> Michael O'Hair <mich...@sequent.com> wrote:
|> >I suspect that there will be a crackdown on people who do not have a front
|> >plate on their vehicle. I've seen dozens in the last month or so.
|>
|> There's a prety hefty fine too-- I had a friend several years ago who lost
|> a plate while living in Florida temporarily (where only one is required).
|> Two days after returning to Oregon he got a big ticket ($200?) for the
|> missing plate, despite his claim that he hadn't had time to replace it
|> yet.
I was pulled over 3 years ago for not having a front plate, the fine was
a little over $500. Fortunately, I was only given a warning.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Robin Kessel Portland, Oregon | Yes, I was named
chr...@protocol.com Protocol Systems | after *that* Christopher
-------------------------------------------------| Robin. Winnie the Pooh
Pooh: I'm Pooh. | is my hero. :)
Tigger: What's a Pooh? |
Pooh: You're sitting on one. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
JR
frank.w...@msfc.nasa.gov (frank williams) wrote:
>Why worry about a loophole. Just get you a nice piece of polarized
>glass to cover your front license plate. The photo will show a black
>square instead of your plate number.
it's clear.
JR
frank williams
>>Why worry about a loophole. Just get you a nice piece of polarized
>>glass to cover your front license plate. The photo will show a black
>>square instead of your plate number.
>Because there is an officer in the van with a clipboard who is going to
>write down the license number on the rear plate?
I thought the big plus of Photo-radar is they set the unit out at a good spot
and leave. Saves on manpower. That's the way I remember them from
Germany.
>I suspect that there will be a crackdown on people who do not have a front
>plate on their vehicle. I've seen dozens in the last month or so.
And what about out of state speeders that are from a state with no front plate?
frank.w...@msfc.nasa.gov
http://willitech.msfc.nasa.gov/pub/people/fr_grp.htm
Seqira
If the machine isn't manned, I don't think you can be fined for speeding. I think
that there has to be some policeman present.
Brian Varine
On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, JR wrote:
> frank.w...@msfc.nasa.gov (frank williams) wrote:
> >Why worry about a loophole. Just get you a nice piece of polarized
> >glass to cover your front license plate. The photo will show a black
> >square instead of your plate number.
> Where I'm at, it's illegal to cover your plate with anything - even if
> it's clear.
Whats do you expect? The government money machine KNOWS these things eat
in to their profit margin so they ban anything that will cause them to
have lower than expected profits.
Carl Springer
[snip]
> >I suspect that there will be a crackdown on people who do not have a front
> >plate on their vehicle. I've seen dozens in the last month or so.
>
> And what about out of state speeders that are from a state with no front plate?
>
> frank.w...@msfc.nasa.gov
> http://willitech.msfc.nasa.gov/pub/people/fr_grp.htm
The point is that the mere presence of these devices is a reason for the
average motorist to slow down. It really doesn't matter much how the
clever few try to be deceptive. The net effect is slower traffic -- even
if it *never* issues one single citation.
--
Carl Springer
spri...@imagina.com
Brian Varine
On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, Carl Springer wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > >I suspect that there will be a crackdown on people who do not have a front
> > >plate on their vehicle. I've seen dozens in the last month or so.
> >
> > And what about out of state speeders that are from a state with no front plate?
>
> The point is that the mere presence of these devices is a reason for the
> average motorist to slow down. It really doesn't matter much how the
> clever few try to be deceptive. The net effect is slower traffic -- even
> if it *never* issues one single citation.
The net effect is a swelling of Govt coffers. There is no proof that
Photo Radar slows anyone down, reduces accidents, etc. Arizona tried
to claim their photo radar project reduced accidents on a street but what
happened was that a new 4 lane road was built 1/2 mile from that street
so traffic merely moved over to the new street.
Alan Stanley
frank williams <frank.w...@msfc.nasa.gov> wrote in article
<frank.william...@msfc.nasa.gov>...
> Why worry about a loophole. Just get you a nice piece of polarized
> glass to cover your front license plate. The photo will show a black
> square instead of your plate number.
>
>
> frank.w...@msfc.nasa.gov
> http://willitech.msfc.nasa.gov/pub/people/fr_grp.htm
>
I may be wrong, but I seem to remember a little law that says it's illegal
to place even the simplest plastic cover over your plate. I remember
hearing about the cops going on an accessory bust a few years back. Drivers
would get pulled over for having Garfields sticking to their windows,
things hanging from the rear view mirror, etc. Again, I may be wrong. Maybe
someone knows a little more.
- Alan -
frank williams
In article <01bbb1c7$0a9d2660$84e7...@pacifier.com.alanst> "Alan Stanley" <ala...@pacifier.com> writes:
>> Why worry about a loophole. Just get you a nice piece of polarized
>> glass to cover your front license plate. The photo will show a black
>> square instead of your plate number.
>I may be wrong, but I seem to remember a little law that says it's illegal
>to place even the simplest plastic cover over your plate. I remember
>hearing about the cops going on an accessory bust a few years back. Drivers
>would get pulled over for having Garfields sticking to their windows,
>things hanging from the rear view mirror, etc. Again, I may be wrong. Maybe
>someone knows a little more.
>- Alan -
And I may be wrong, but this thread is _about breaking the law_ by speeding.
So what's the difference by breaking the law covering your front plate?
frank.w...@msfc.nasa.gov
http://willitech.msfc.nasa.gov/pub/people/fr_grp.htm
Craig Wagner
mich...@sequent.com (Michael O'Hair) wrote:
>I suspect that there will be a crackdown on people who do not have a front
>plate on their vehicle. I've seen dozens in the last month or so.
The need for a front plate is ridiculous and, on many new cars, looks plain
silly. Alberta did away with handing out front plates a couple of years ago. It
saved the provincial government tens of thousands of dollars a year in material
and labour costs.
---
Craig Wagner | E-mail: wag...@teleport.com
Portland, OR |
Home: (503) 636-2648 |
Work: (503) 452-6342 |
s.redman
I didn't think you were required to have a front plate in any case.
--
___________________________________________________________
steven p. redman [s.re...@IEEE.org]
systems engineer, CQA
Pacific Telecom Cable, Inc [http://www.ptcable.com/~ptc]
North Pacific Cable [http://www.ptcable.com/~ptc/ptc/npc/npc.htm]
ICPC Submarine Cables of the World - WWW Information Page
[http://www.ptcable.com/~ptc/iscw/iscw.shtml]
Chris Kessel
In article <3253A8...@linfield.edu>, Seqira <sje...@linfield.edu> writes:
|> frank williams wrote:
|> >
|> >
|> > >>Why worry about a loophole. Just get you a nice piece of polarized
|> > >>glass to cover your front license plate. The photo will show a black
|> > >>square instead of your plate number.
|> >
|> > >write down the license number on the rear plate?
|> >
|> > I thought the big plus of Photo-radar is they set the unit out at a good spot
|> > and leave. Saves on manpower. That's the way I remember them from
|> > Germany.
|>
|> that there has to be some policeman present.
The Oregon photo radar bill requires an officer to man the photo radar unit.
I seriously doubt that the officer is going to be alert enough to notice
whether or not a car had a covered plate, or a plate at all for that matter.
He's probably snoozing or reading while the radar does the work.
Be warned again in Beaverton. They are setting up on Hall Bvld between
Denny Rd and Allen Blvd. They set up about 1 block right past where
Hall goes from 40mph to 30mph.
Chris Kessel
|> > >I suspect that there will be a crackdown on people who do not have a front
|> > >plate on their vehicle. I've seen dozens in the last month or so.
|> >
|> > The need for a front plate is ridiculous and, on many new cars, looks plain
|> > silly. Alberta did away with handing out front plates a couple of years ago. It
|> > saved the provincial government tens of thousands of dollars a year in material
|> > and labour costs.
|> I didn't think you were required to have a front plate in any case.
Depends on where you live.
Oregon forces you to have a front plate. The "explanation" is that it
helps police track down a stolen vehicle. The reality is probably that
they want front plates for photo-radar and as a target for laser radar.
Craig Wagner
"s.redman" <s.re...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> The need for a front plate is ridiculous and, on many new cars, looks plain
>> silly. Alberta did away with handing out front plates a couple of years ago. It
>> saved the provincial government tens of thousands of dollars a year in material
>> and labour costs.
>I didn't think you were required to have a front plate in any case.
If you're speaking about Alberta, they did require you to have a front plate
until they legally abolished the requirement. I know, I got ticketed twice for
not having one of my Camaro Iroc (it looked stupid sitting in its little plastic
frame and my nose bra didn't have a cutout for it). The fine at the time was a
small one (about $25 I recall).
JR
chr...@iago.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Chris Kessel) wrote:
>Be warned again in Beaverton. They are setting up on Hall Bvld between
>Denny Rd and Allen Blvd. They set up about 1 block right past where
>Hall goes from 40mph to 30mph.
ass down. This issue here is public safety. That particular area is
not a rural interstate highway; it's a congested residential area. I
like the idea of photo radar. Especially in Beaverton with all of its
agressive speeding.
JR
Chris Kessel
|> >It's that simple. Now, if they were posting the units where accidents
|> >were occuring most frequently, or if they were neighborhood side
|> >streets (as the legislature required) instead of "collector" through
|> >streets, we should assume that those who are ticketed deserve it,
|> >right? But not with the current cynical system.
|>
|> can't prosecute you for lying, just lie. This strategy worked really
|> well for me. For a while.
[ story about mom not giving out cookies anymore deleted. ]
|> Credibility is hard to earn and easy to lose. Just ask my mom.
Feh. Police think people are pretty much scum beneath them anyway.
Part of the power trip. You're hardly going to lose any respect
in the eyes of the police, they don't respect civilians anyway.
And I'm not overly concerned if the Police don't want to give me
cookies. It's the police that are lying, claiming to use photo-
radar for safety when it's really to levy more fines. People
are just trying now to figure a way to avoid getting screwed by
the lies of the police.
Franz Felsl
This whole thing really jerks my chain ONLY when it is being used as
another TAX collection agency. I'm not certain that it is in every case;
however I'm very nervous about the creation of laws allowing this kind of
"Remote Justice." The fact is that if an Officer has to monitor this
item. They could also be out Enforcing the Law, one instance at a time.
THIS does tend to reduce traffic in an area, especially if the local Law
Enforcement pays attention to its charges. Simply logging an offender and
sending them a "Bill/Ticket" is not enforcing the law; in fact it's simply
"billing." If it's in the communities best interest to increase taxes for
additional Officers to "protect and serve" then there is cause for those
funds; however if one simply wants to increase the revenue from an existing
government body I want it to be in deed not perception.
I think it was Jefferson that said "Those who would give up freedom for
security deserve neither." ( I hope missquotes are not a photogaphable
offense? ;)) Open societies can't tolerate oppresive observation. It
undermines our freedom and CAN bypass probable cause. At least as an
observer the Officer must make a judgement, observe the offense, take
action and make a correction. Not just a fine.
I guess in the end, if Photo Radar is used to augment prosecution of a
violation I'm all for it. If it's used as a crutch or extortion
mechanisim, I say fight its use legally. It is fun to read the creative
dodges though. 8) Oh Look! The X-Files are on, they'll tell me what to
do!!!
--Franz
--
fe...@enteract.com
Chris Kessel
1) Drifting from 40-30 is a lame way for the police to ticket. I pretty
much always drift down to 30mph by Allen, most everyone does. The
police choose to ticket while people are slowing down. There isn't
a speeding problem here, people are slowing down. The police just
know there is money to be made by sleazy placement of the radar.
Go 30 in the 40mph zone you can be ticketed for obstructing traffic.
Go 40 in the 30mph zone you can be ticketed for speeding.
Slam the brakes just as you hit the 30mph zone you can be ticketed
for reckless driving.
What's your choice? You're breaking the law, for at least a short
period of time, no matter what you do, it's just a matter of what
law you feel is most appropriate to break.
2) It's not a residential area. It's a car wash, church, library,
7-11, Hamburger stand, etc. It's basically commerical, but in a
"residential" zone. The apartments that are in that area are
in the 40mph zone *before* where they are ticketing. The photo-radar
placement totally fails to enforce safety in an area where there
are houses/apartments.
I know the area, I lived two blocks from it for 2 years. I've driven
it and ridden my bike along it many, many times. I still pass it
almost daily going to/from work.
Derek R. Larson
Why not simply obey the speed limits? Then it won't matter who can see
your plates.
Lori C.
There is a police officer in the van who makes the decision to issue the ticket.
I'm not sure if the picture is snapped automatically if you exceed the speed or
if the officer manually snaps the picture.
frank williams wrote:
>
> In article <5311ju$r...@scel.sequent.com> mich...@sequent.com (Michael O'Hair) writes:
>
> >>Why worry about a loophole. Just get you a nice piece of polarized
> >>glass to cover your front license plate. The photo will show a black
> >>square instead of your plate number.
>
> >Because there is an officer in the van with a clipboard who is going to
> >write down the license number on the rear plate?
>
> I thought the big plus of Photo-radar is they set the unit out at a good spot
> and leave. Saves on manpower. That's the way I remember them from
> Germany.
>
> >I suspect that there will be a crackdown on people who do not have a front
> >plate on their vehicle. I've seen dozens in the last month or so.
>
> And what about out of state speeders that are from a state with no front plate?
>
> frank.w...@msfc.nasa.gov
> http://willitech.msfc.nasa.gov/pub/people/fr_grp.htm
BKL
On 3 Oct 1996 18:45:18 GMT, mich...@sequent.com (Michael O'Hair)
wrote:
>In article <frank.william...@msfc.nasa.gov>,
>frank williams <frank.w...@msfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>
>>Why worry about a loophole. Just get you a nice piece of polarized
>>glass to cover your front license plate. The photo will show a black
>>square instead of your plate number.
>
>Because there is an officer in the van with a clipboard who is going to
>write down the license number on the rear plate?
Actually, the officer only notes the make and color of the car. He
does not write down the license number. I observed this while
visiting and interviewing an officer on photo-radar duty. You could
say I was "riding shotgun with Officer Kodak"
BKL
On 4 Oct 1996 07:45:51 GMT, "Alan Stanley" <ala...@pacifier.com>
wrote:
>I may be wrong, but I seem to remember a little law that says it's illegal
>to place even the simplest plastic cover over your plate.
OSR 803.550 (2) provides:
"A registration plate is illegally altered ... if the plate has been
.. covered or obscured including .... Any material or covering, other
than a frame or plate holder, placed on, over or in front of the plate
that alters the appearance of the plate."
Does a clear filter alter the appearance? Probably not.
Does a smoked filter? Probably.
Does a transparent filter with a greenish tint to block laser light?
Maybe.
How about a mix of hairspray, garden dirt, bugs, and frosty
translucent spray paint? Hmmm...I may be on to something here ("But
Officer, it just won't come clean!")
Michael O'Hair
In article <325482...@imagina.com>,
Carl Springer <spri...@imagina.com> wrote:
>
>The point is that the mere presence of these devices is a reason for the
>average motorist to slow down. It really doesn't matter much how the
>clever few try to be deceptive. The net effect is slower traffic -- even
>if it *never* issues one single citation.
So why do they hide? There is an interesting photo radar trap by Raleigh
Hills where the Beaverton Police put the van just beyond a small down grade.
The trees on the side of the road hide the van until you're on top of it.
The van is parked on a small section of asphalt in the middle of a long
gravel strip. The asphalt wasn't there last year. Gee, just like they
had some long term plans.
Michael O'Hair
In article <533mcl$5...@news.transport.com>, JR <jo...@abctech.com> wrote:
>chr...@iago.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Chris Kessel) wrote:
>>Be warned again in Beaverton. They are setting up on Hall Bvld between
>>Denny Rd and Allen Blvd. They set up about 1 block right past where
>>Hall goes from 40mph to 30mph.
>I know one sure fire way to not get a photo radar ticket: slow your
>ass down. This issue here is public safety. That particular area is
>not a rural interstate highway; it's a congested residential area. I
>like the idea of photo radar. Especially in Beaverton with all of its
>agressive speeding.
If the issue is "public safety," why is speeding the target? I agree
that slowing down is a good thing, but as I've stated, I have seen several
instances of people blowing through red lights with patrol cars viewing
the incident and not responding.
In the last five years, I've seen more and more plain rudeness show up. The
mind-set is becoming "there's a car in the intersection so I can follow it
through. The red light doesn't count."
Derek R. Larson
In article <534bdb$e...@scel.sequent.com>,
>mind-set is becoming "there's a car in the intersection so I can follow it
>through. The red light doesn't count."
Try driving on the East coast sometime. When I lived in New Haven, CT I
quickly learned *never* to go through a green without slowing down and
looking for cars. People would run 3-4 cars through the red, and others
would often stop-and-go on red lights. I saw more wrecks there in two
years than in the 20+ years I'd spent in Oregon. Hoosiers are a little
better, but not much. Common courtesy is not much in vouge around here.
I suspect Oregon's just getting as crowded as the rest of the country, so
all the things we once took for granted are slowly being pissed away.
Guess I'll have to move to Wyoming from here...
Steve knight
see.si...@for.reply.address (Oregon National Motorists Ass'n.)
wrote:
>Make it unprofitable, and it will go away. Our law enforcement
>officers deserve a more respectable mission than tax fund-raising.
Good nothing like more ways to get away with doing something illegal.
We need more of this good job.
"Tools are made to be used and great tools are made to be used by great craftsmen"
A. V. Langlotz
"Dave " <eve...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Oh whoopee Ben, you and your organization have found a legal way to lie and
> a bureaucratic rationalization for it. How commendable and inspiring. This
> is what careers are built on in this great country, heh? Let's all buy Ben
> a round. Cheers. Makes one proud to be white.
>
>
> --
> Dave
>
>
> Choose your enemies carefully. eve...@teleport.com
> You are choosing your future self. =======================================
"Makes one proud to be white"? And how, may I ask, do you know what
color Ben is?
Please refrain from such potentially offensive phrases. I'm sure
that you must be capable of engaging in civilized discourse without
resorting to language that some find offensive.
Oh, and if you wish to encourage govt. fundraising disguised as
"safety enhancement", feel free. Many more of us wish to hold the
govt. to a higher standard. You sound high and mighty, Dave, but
what do you do when nobody's looking?
Angela Langlotz
Brian Varine
On 6 Oct 1996, Dave wrote:
> Oh whoopee Ben, you and your organization have found a legal way to lie and
> a bureaucratic rationalization for it. How commendable and inspiring. This
> is what careers are built on in this great country, heh? Let's all buy Ben
> a round. Cheers. Makes one proud to be white.
Since the authorities will go after you and find evrey legal way to make
you pay taxes and convict you, shouldn't you use a few of the legal tools
available? Look at it this way, if I came up to you on the street and
said you were speeding, pay me $100. Would you do it? If the govt is
going to get my money, they need to earn it.
==============================================================================
Brian R. Varine <var...@ucs.orst.edu> Finger for PGP Key
http://www.orst.edu/~varineb When in doubt,
Stop Highway Robbery! http://www.motorists.com -=JAM IT=-
Brian Varine
On 7 Oct 1996, Derek R. Larson wrote:
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.961006...@ucs.orst.edu>,
> Brian Varine <var...@ucs.orst.edu> wrote:
> >
> >Since the authorities will go after you and find evrey legal way to make
> >you pay taxes and convict you, shouldn't you use a few of the legal tools
> >available? Look at it this way, if I came up to you on the street and
> >said you were speeding, pay me $100. Would you do it? If the govt is
> >going to get my money, they need to earn it.
>
> What an absurd notion! Perhaps you should just obey the law in the first
> place, thus giving "them" no excuse to get your money?
Since Govt. is supposed to be "by the people for the people", why don't
we have a *reasonable* limit? Even Oregon DOT says 78% of Oregonians
exceed the 65 Speed Limit. Thats a SuperMajority. Oh, but, the dickweeds
in govt. know better than the avg human so we have miserable speed laws.
BKL
>There is a police officer in the van who makes the decision to issue the ticket.
> I'm not sure if the picture is snapped automatically if you exceed the speed or
>if the officer manually snaps the picture.
The officer sits with his nose in papers, while the photo radar is set
for a certain threshold over the limit (usually 11 mph over in
Portland, as little as 4 mph in Beaverton.)
Only when the the unit signals that it has snapped a speeder above the
threshold does the officer need to look up to note the color and make
of the car.
BKL
On Fri, 04 Oct 1996 19:56:38 GMT, jo...@abctech.com (JR) wrote:
>I know one sure fire way to not get a photo radar ticket: slow your
>ass down. This issue here is public safety. That particular area is
>not a rural interstate highway; it's a congested residential area. I
>like the idea of photo radar. Especially in Beaverton with all of its
>agressive speeding.
If this is about public safety, why do they put the units where
non-compliance is greatest, instead of where accidents are worst?
Dave
Oregon National Motorists Ass'n. <see.si...@for.reply.address> wrote in
article <3253f256....@news.teleport.com>...
> Now, for the loophole:
>
> Fearing many trials contesting the identity of the person in the
> ohoto, the legislature decided to allow, (following ORS 811.123,
> Sections 1 to 3, chapter 579, Oregon Laws, 1995.) Sec. 2 (3)(a):
>
> "If a registered owner of a vehicle responds to a citation
> issued [by photo radar] by submitting a certificate of innocence
> within 30 days from the mailing of the citation swearing or affirming
> that the owner was not the driver of the vehicle and a photocopy of
> the owner's driver's license, the citation shall be dismissed."
>
> SHALL be dismissed. Not "may" be, or "will be if a review shows the
> claim to be credible," but SHALL be.
>
> For those who fear that they might be mistaken when they claim
> innocence, consider how the subsection continues:
>
> "A person may not be prosecuted for perjury or false swearing
> in connection with submission of a certificate of innocence."
>
Oh whoopee Ben, you and your organization have found a legal way to lie and
a bureaucratic rationalization for it. How commendable and inspiring. This
is what careers are built on in this great country, heh? Let's all buy Ben
a round. Cheers. Makes one proud to be white.
Robb Topolski
On 6 Oct 1996 00:29:03 GMT, "Dave " <eve...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Oh whoopee Ben, you and your organization have found a legal way to lie and
>a bureaucratic rationalization for it. How commendable and inspiring. This
>is what careers are built on in this great country, heh?
Oh, I dunno Dave. I can't come down too hard on Ben.
After all, the folks that wrote that passage into law wrote it intending for
people to abuse it. Otherwise, why not make falsifying that government document
the same crime as falsifying other similar documents? Seems Ben is just
advocating that people use that law the way it was intended to be used.
Further, we live in a system of fair laws. Perhaps this law was written in such
a way to avoid a constitutional challenge. If so, it doesn't belong on the
books and violating it becomes not only a right, but somewhat of a
responsibility.
Robb Topolski
--
...remember, you heard it here last!
Robb Topolski, KJ7RL
Hillsboro, Oregon USA
(Unsolicited e-mail replies to usenet articles may be ignored).
Derek R. Larson
In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.961006...@ucs.orst.edu>,
Brian Varine <var...@ucs.orst.edu> wrote:
>
>Since the authorities will go after you and find evrey legal way to make
>you pay taxes and convict you, shouldn't you use a few of the legal tools
>available? Look at it this way, if I came up to you on the street and
>said you were speeding, pay me $100. Would you do it? If the govt is
>going to get my money, they need to earn it.
What an absurd notion! Perhaps you should just obey the law in the first
place, thus giving "them" no excuse to get your money?
evenso
Robb Topolski <topo...@teleport.com> wrote in article
<3257554d...@news.spiritone.com>...
> On 6 Oct 1996 00:29:03 GMT, "Dave " <eve...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >Oh whoopee Ben, you and your organization have found a legal way to lie
and
> >a bureaucratic rationalization for it. How commendable and inspiring.
This
> >is what careers are built on in this great country, heh?
>
> Oh, I dunno Dave. I can't come down too hard on Ben.
>
> After all, the folks that wrote that passage into law wrote it intending
for
> people to abuse it. Otherwise, why not make falsifying that government
document
> the same crime as falsifying other similar documents? Seems Ben is just
> advocating that people use that law the way it was intended to be used.
So the end justifies the means and personal integrity doesn't enter into?
Maybe that is how we get screwy laws in the first place. All we need is
permission to behave badly and then it is OK? No other considerations?
>
> Further, we live in a system of fair laws. Perhaps this law was written
in such
> a way to avoid a constitutional challenge. If so, it doesn't belong on
the
> books and violating it becomes not only a right, but somewhat of a
> responsibility.
>
You can't come up with a honest solution through creative thinking? I
think your statement does a disservice to the concept of peaceful protest
that it is founded on.
Dave Willis
In article <01bbb176$527e8060$LocalHost@smdksbcr>, "Dave " <eve...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>
>Oregon National Motorists Ass'n. <see.si...@for.reply.address> wrote in
>article <3253f256....@news.teleport.com>...
>> Now, for the loophole:
>>
>> Fearing many trials contesting the identity of the person in the
>> ohoto, the legislature decided to allow, (following ORS 811.123,
>> Sections 1 to 3, chapter 579, Oregon Laws, 1995.) Sec. 2 (3)(a):
>>
>> "If a registered owner of a vehicle responds to a citation
>> issued [by photo radar] by submitting a certificate of innocence
>> within 30 days from the mailing of the citation swearing or affirming
>> that the owner was not the driver of the vehicle and a photocopy of
>> the owner's driver's license, the citation shall be dismissed."
>>
>> SHALL be dismissed. Not "may" be, or "will be if a review shows the
>> claim to be credible," but SHALL be.
>>
>> For those who fear that they might be mistaken when they claim
>> innocence, consider how the subsection continues:
>>
>> "A person may not be prosecuted for perjury or false swearing
>> in connection with submission of a certificate of innocence."
>>
>
>a bureaucratic rationalization for it. How commendable and inspiring. This
>a round. Cheers. Makes one proud to be white.
>
>
DEW
Aaron Varhola
drla...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Derek R. Larson) wrote:
>What an absurd notion! Perhaps you should just obey the law in the first
>place, thus giving "them" no excuse to get your money?
>--
>________________________________________________________________________
>Derek R. Larson Indiana University Department of History
> "Eastward I go by force, but Westward I go free!" -H. D. Thoreau
Am I the only one who sees the irony in someone advocating blind obedience
to laws, yet has a Thoreau quote in his .sig? Perhaps you SHOULD pay that
tax, Mr. Thoreau....
Aaron Varhola | "The city of [Miami] was built on a stagnant
Portland, OR | swamp [100] years ago, and very little has
IFA Counsel | changed. It stank then, and it stinks now!"
YSFC #6 |-- Lisa Simpson, 7F02
Brad LaBroad
I noticed in the Oregonian an employment ad for US Public Technologies.
They were looking for a someone experienced in "nonmanufacturing
production management" (not to mention, skilled in PR and gov't
relations -- especially with law enforcement).
Cool. Little turnkey profit centers.
Brad
--
Cairn Terrier Conspiracy
Brad L., Peggy A., treat dispensers for Barley and Haggis
br...@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~bradl/dogs.htm
***Not speaking for my employer***
Bob Beauchaine
> People
>are just trying now to figure a way to avoid getting screwed by
>the lies of the police.
>
Call me cynical, but I don't buy it. It looks more like the people
continuing to do exactly what I see them doing every day on the road
-- whatever they feel thay can get away with. And the legislature gave
them a follproof method.
Let's just say that I've never met anyone who could look me in the
eye and say that they were issued a speeding citation when they were
in fact not speeding. Rather, they whine about the injustice of the
speed limit or the circumstance in which they were caught with their
pants down.
I've had two speeding tickets in my life. Both were my fault and both
were deserved.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine
"The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank"
Scotty
--
bea...@teleport.COM Public Access User -- Not affiliated with Teleport
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-1016 (2400-28800, N81)
Bob Beauchaine
>we have a *reasonable* limit? Even Oregon DOT says 78% of Oregonians
>exceed the 65 Speed Limit. Thats a SuperMajority. Oh, but, the dickweeds
>in govt. know better than the avg human so we have miserable speed laws.
>
I was waiting for this topic to come up again .
I watched a Channel 2 news report on a speeding crackdown put in place
over a 6 month or so interval on the Terwilliger curve section of I-5.
The police hit speeders on that section of road, and hit them hard.
The result? The monthly accident rate dropped to 20% of its previous
value for the same section of freeway. The results were not a fluke --
the report showed the statistics for several months prior to and
during the enforcement.
So, it would seem that Oregoninans don't in fact know what a safe and
reasonable speed is, at least not for sections of road that aren't
straight and flat. Perhaps, in fact, those "dickwads" in govt. did a
better job than those "dickwads" behind the wheel.
I'm awaiting the argument from Ben and others that those really
responsible for the higher accident rate were those previously
following closer to the posted limit.
Brian Varine
On 7 Oct 1996, Bob Beauchaine wrote:
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.961006...@ucs.orst.edu>,
> Brian Varine <var...@ucs.orst.edu> wrote:
> >
> >Since Govt. is supposed to be "by the people for the people", why don't
> >we have a *reasonable* limit? Even Oregon DOT says 78% of Oregonians
> >exceed the 65 Speed Limit. Thats a SuperMajority. Oh, but, the dickweeds
> >in govt. know better than the avg human so we have miserable speed laws.
> >
>
> I was waiting for this topic to come up again .
>
> I watched a Channel 2 news report on a speeding crackdown put in place
> over a 6 month or so interval on the Terwilliger curve section of I-5.
> The police hit speeders on that section of road, and hit them hard.
> The result? The monthly accident rate dropped to 20% of its previous
> value for the same section of freeway. The results were not a fluke --
> the report showed the statistics for several months prior to and
> during the enforcement.
>
> So, it would seem that Oregoninans don't in fact know what a safe and
> reasonable speed is, at least not for sections of road that aren't
> straight and flat. Perhaps, in fact, those "dickwads" in govt. did a
> better job than those "dickwads" behind the wheel.
>
> I'm awaiting the argument from Ben and others that those really
> responsible for the higher accident rate were those previously
> following closer to the posted limit.
>
Not exactly. If you look at all of the accidents on the Terwilliger
Curve, almost all of them were caused by another car cutting in front of
a truck or another car. Yes, they were probably speeding but it wasn't
caused by speeding alone. So, instead of ticketing people for cutoffs and
following too close, the city decided to make a few bucks on the thing
and go after the easy target. As for a 20% reduction whats that mean?
The month without enforcement there were 5 accidents, and the month with
speed enforcement there was only 4? Big drop.
Another thing to point out is that since almost all speed limits are not
reasonable, people have grown up ignoring them. Maybe if we went out and
developed resonable speed laws, people would have more respect for them.
How many people actually drove 55 when the speed limit was 55? Maybe 5%
(In a rural area). Less than 7% of all accidents happen on the freeway,
so why all the enforcement?
JR
see.si...@for.reply.address (BKL) wrote:
>If this is about public safety, why do they put the units where
>non-compliance is greatest, instead of where accidents are worst?
you'll probably be surprised that the police are not out to get you
and don't have an ulterior motive. There is likely a perfectly good
reason why they do what they do. (I can hear the flames now)
JR
Bob Beauchaine
In article <3259e230...@news.teleport.com>,
BKL <see.si...@for.reply.address> wrote:
>On 7 Oct 1996 15:59:31 GMT, bea...@teleport.com (Bob Beauchaine)
>wrote:
>
>> Let's just say that I've never met anyone who could look me in the
>> eye and say that they were issued a speeding citation when they were
>> in fact not speeding.
>
>are in fact speeding. The real problem is that speed enforcement,
>particularly of improperly established limits, does not help public
>safety, and often hurts it.
So as to not rehash old ground, I'll succinctly summarize my thinking
on the topic:
1. You have maintained, and I have not challenged, the nmotion that
speed differential is the overriding concern in causing accidents.
2. Based on that assumption, the best thing that can be done to
prevent accidents is to reduce speed differential.
3. Setting speed limits at 85% compliance is considered the correct
approach by traffic engineers. So far, we do not disagree.
4. In the absence of #3, (our present situation in much of Oregon),
there are only two alternatives from which we can choose that will
maximize driver safety: have everyone drive at the same speed
regardless of the posted limit, or have everyone drive at the posted
limit. This is where we diverge.
I say that having everyone drive at the limit is the best policy
(from a safety point of view) for the follwing reason: First, it is
objective. Using your rationale, everyone has to agree (within a
small delta) of what is the correct speed when there is no guideline
(assuming you've decided to disregard the limit). Following a posted
limit puts everyone within the accuracy of their speedometer readings
of the same speed. What you advocate (the equivalent of civil
disobedience to traffic laws) is, IMHO, immoral, because it advocates
taking actions that are known to contribute to the leading factor in
traffic accidents.
In short, the only way to minimize accidents is to have everyone travel
the same speed. The only way to have everyone travel the same speed
is to have everyone follow the posted speed, otherwise drivers are
left to their own discretion.
Lobbying to have the limits increased is another topic entirely, and
one which I endorse.
>
>By seeking to undermine the profit motive of speed enforcement, we are
>hoping that law enforcement will return their focus to the accident
>hot spots, and unsafe and illegal behaviors that are the major causes
>of traffic accidents.
Which is exactly what happened in the Terwilliger curves.
>
>Why is it inherently unsafe for a motorist to drive past a numbered
>sign posted by a bureaucrat, with a number on a dashboard display
>greater than the number on the sign. Where is the evidence that this
>is unsafe? Exceeding a safe and reasonable speed can certainly be
>unsafe, but what evidence is there that speed limits reflect this?
Never said it was inherently unsafe. That has never been the issue
for me. It is what you as a driver will do to take personal
responsibility for your driving. We just don't agree on what exactly
that means.
Bob Beauchaine
In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.961007...@ucs.orst.edu>,
No, re-read what I wrote. The accident rate was reduced to 20% of its
former value. Before enforcement: 5 accidents. After: 1.
>Another thing to point out is that since almost all speed limits are not
>reasonable, people have grown up ignoring them. Maybe if we went out and
>developed resonable speed laws, people would have more respect for them.
>How many people actually drove 55 when the speed limit was 55? Maybe 5%
>(In a rural area). Less than 7% of all accidents happen on the freeway,
>so why all the enforcement?
The point of my post was to show that speed enforcement, besides
providing easy money for the state, can have a benefit to motorists as
well. More in my reply to Ben.
But just to voice my opinion, speeding is just a small symptom of the
crappy driving I see daily. Enforcing speed limits won't solve the
much deeper underlying problem. It's the ATTITUDE of "what can I get
away with" that disturbs me, and that I see in the posts of many of
the anti enforcement crowd.
Bob Beauchaine
In article <3259e466...@news.teleport.com>,
BKL <see.si...@for.reply.address> wrote:
>On 7 Oct 1996 16:15:02 GMT, bea...@teleport.com (Bob Beauchaine)
>wrote:
>
>Perhaps the media attention caused more motorists to pay more
>attention, the best way to reduce accidents. Did they mention whether
>actual speeds had changed, or are they roosters taking credit for the
>sunrise? Maybe its all PR, and no PD.
The media attention was after the fact. The statistics had already
been gathered. I think it is common knowledge that police presence
slows down traffic, however.
>
>Could it be that the limits in the curves are close to what an
>engineer would prescribe (so that 85% of motorists comply) ?
>Enforcement of such limits will improve safety. Enforcement of
>unjustifiably low limits on almost every other stretch of highway and
>some neighborhood speed traps can hurt public safety.
I'm willing to wager a small sum that compliance on the Terwilliger
curves is substantially below 85%, having driven that stretch of
highway on may occassions.
>
>Several months before and after is certainly NOT an acceptable
>engineering data set. There are many seasonal climate, traffic
>volume, and weather variation that must be controlled for. Big,
>publicized changes often to create a spike in data, but to be
>responsible we should examine an extended period before, and after..
>How do we know that there wasn't just an anomalous peak prior to the
>enforcement, that would not have been repeated anyway.
>
Now you're just plain wriggling. The accident rate prior to the study
was steady. The rate during the study was steady at roughtly 20% of
its previous value. The change was drastic, and coincident with the
saturation coverage. No one knows better than I that correlation does
not imply causation, but I'd be fascinated to hear the theory that
explains away this correlation.
>Also, few accidents on the curves are due to cars exceeding the speed
>limit. Many have to do with trucks, ijmproper merging, signaling, and
>lane changes. Most are due to inattention and incompetence. In the
>absence of congestion, the average motorist exceeds the limit on the
>curves, and does so safely.
>
Are you claiming that lower speeds don't provide the average driver more
time and ability to deal with all of the above?
You MIGHT be able to convince me that police presence made everyone a
more alert and attentive driver, and that speed in fact played no part
whatsoever. To which I reply: so what? If enforcing any of the
traffic LAWS produces the same effect, then it's a law well worth
enforcing.
Don't mistake my comments as support for existing speed limits. I
just spent a week in Colorado, where the lmit is 75. It was
refreshing. However, I am challenging the notion that speed
enforcement offers no benefit to the average driver, but is used only
to fatten government wallets.
>Don't use the worst-designed bit of interstate in Oregon as your
>representative example of how to set interstate speed limits.
Didn't intend to. See above.
>
>> So, it would seem that Oregoninans don't in fact know what a safe and
>> reasonable speed is, at least not for sections of road that aren't
>> straight and flat.
>
>An Oregonian motorist whose life is on the line and is looking through
>the windshield at traffic and weather conditions is certainly a better
>judge of safe speed than a bureuacrat in Salem who ignores accepted
>traffic engineering principles, or a city official who changes speed
>limits based on squeaky wheel neighbor complaints that have nothing to
>do with safety, and everything to do with NIMFY syndrome.
You mean that motorist with the cell pohone growing out of his
forhead? Or the one with the lipstick in her hand? Or how about that
driver with the defective turn signals? Or the one who doesn't
understand that 60 MPH = 88 fps and that human reaction times at best
are 1/10 second? Or the ones who belive that red == speed up?
You may label my position elitist, but I just don't see the ability to
make many safety decisions in the average Oregonian driver that you do.
>
>Oregonians exceed the limit on the highway by a lot, but only because
>limits are low. Raise the limits, and speeds will hardly change.
You keep saying that, and I can't refute it properly. My recent week
outside of Denver is only anectdotal evidence, but the average speed
on those stretches of interstate was well in excess of that in the
Portland area. I was routinely getting passed at 75 mph.
>>
>> I'm awaiting the argument from Ben and others that those really
>> responsible for the higher accident rate were those previously
>> following closer to the posted limit.
>
>No, but unless you have evidence to the contrary, it is safe to assume
>that those who caused the accidents in the past did so for the usual
>reasons, and few of these were caused simply by exceeding the speed
>limit.
>
>You might think that velocity is guilty until proven innocent. I say
>that freedom impairing regulations are suspect until objectively
>justified for the public benefit.
No, I would never make such a statement. Everyone knows that it's
acceleration that kills, not velocity :).
But you have misread the intent of my post. I was focusing more on
the enforcement issue than I was arguing for lower limits, which I do
not in fact support. And thinking back, I guess I can't recall you
ever arguing against enforcement, at least in problem areas. So on
this particular issue, we may agree.
Franz Felsl
> Geez Franz, you muddy the waters with much double talk. Where did you
> get the understanding that an officer had to be present to make a
> judgement, observe the offense, take action and make a correction? As
> I see it, the law says 'you speed, you get a fine' (if caught). What
> does it matter HOW they caught you. The point is, you were speeding
> and you're guilty of violating the law. Heck, pay the fine, you blew
> it. I'm no hypocrite, I don't like it, but if I get caught speeding
> I'm not gonna whine about it. I knew the risk when I decided to
> speed.. Whether an officer catches you and escorts you personally to
> court or whether you just receive a 'bill' in the mail is irrelevant
> to the fact that you were speeding and therefore guilty of violating
> that law. Gil
>
>
>
IMHO, I have no muddy water to clear. :) The activity of upholding the law
isn't intended to be a simple billing of an offender. It is because the
Photo Radar has great potential to substitute for actual Law Enforcement
that I posted my noise. That is what I whined about. (perhaps too long :)
Maybe you didn't read to the end of my post. I have no problem with
getting a ticket when I violate the law, fortunately it's not very often.
--Franz
J. Zeigler
"Dave " <eve...@teleport.com> wrote:
> Oh whoopee Ben, you and your organization have found a legal way to
> lie and a bureaucratic rationalization for it. How commendable and
> inspiring. This is what careers are built on in this great country,
> heh? Let's all buy Ben a round. Cheers. Makes one proud to be
> white.
A. V. Langlotz <lang...@TRANSPORT.COM> wrote:
> And how, may I ask, do you know what color Ben is?
>
> Please refrain from such potentially offensive phrases. I'm sure
> that you must be capable of engaging in civilized discourse without
> resorting to language that some find offensive.
"Dave " <eve...@teleport.com> wrote:
> Ben's color didn't have anything to do with it until you brought it
> up. You are the one injecting a racial issue. Is that how you spend
> your time? Neither you nor anyone on the face of this earth is going
> to stop me from pointing out issues concerning my race. Shall I also
> level social sanctions on you to keep you from talking about your
> race? I make an allusion to alcoholic mentality too, don't miss an
> accusation there to!
Sorry Dave, but the wording of your post clearly represented that Ben
was white and the same as you. I think Langlotz point was well made!
J. Zeigler
Bob Beauchaine wrote:
>
> Let's just say that I've never met anyone who could look me in the
> eye and say that they were issued a speeding citation when they were
> in fact not speeding. Rather, they whine about the injustice of the
> speed limit or the circumstance in which they were caught with their
> pants down.
Well, when I get back to Oregon you can come by and I'll look you
straight in the eye and tell you exactly that. I had a Washington County
deputy sheriff lie in court about the issue. My neighbor had a
Washington County Sherif lie about a parking ticket he gave the
neighbors son, fortunately another neighbor had taken a photograph
before they towed it and they had to give him his money back, and my son
was given a fradulant ticket by a Hillsboro cop which my son finally won
at the appellate level, and that cop lied in court too. Get a better
grade of police officer, some reasonable laws, a fine system that
entails something other than monetary rewards for government, and
restore the jury system and you might actually begin to get some respect
for the legal system again. Until then I guess we'll just have to keep
sliding down the path toward a police state.
Dave
J. Zeigler (mic...@homenet.ie) wrote:
I think people who get bent out of shape whenever an allusion to culture
is made, rather then when there is an attack, do an incredible disservice
to the struggle of minorities in this country. Elevating cultural issues
to the neurotic point where you have to tip toe around persons cultural
identity doesn't create equality. It creates incredulity. I find that
most people who do have this knee-jerk racism reaction ar those who have
the least experience with it. What is needed is the ability to
communicate on these issues without people in the lurk waiting to get
offended. Much of the racial tension in the country today comes from the
fact that we have made to a place where a dialogue could be started but
isn't, directly because of the sad state I describe.
I spent the latter part of my teenage years making a home and working in
the black ghetto of Boston during the period of great racial strife
there. I spoke openly with all my friends there about racial matters
every day. I can't help but notice how impossible it has become for this
sort of a dialogue to get anywhere in todays climate. That is the most
corrosive problem currently in racial relationships.
My allusion concerned the heritage of white culture for finding a
profitable way around and moral issue. I am proud to be white. The
allusion was strictly to a singular issue and decried it--since I am
white. And it was pretty darn accurate to.
If that is taboo for you, I predict you will find yourself haunted
by racial issues in one form or another. I thought my allusion to
alcoholic mentality was much more of an inappropriate attack and almost
feel like apologizing for *that.* Interesting nobody jumped on that!
What, aren't alcoholic issues popular enough? Or was it just a less
accurat statement?
THIS SPACE FOR RENT--CHEAP RATES
In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.961006...@ucs.orst.edu>, Brian Varine <var...@ucs.orst.edu> writes...
>On 6 Oct 1996, Dave wrote:
>
>> Oh whoopee Ben, you and your organization have found a legal way to lie and
>> a bureaucratic rationalization for it. How commendable and inspiring. This
>> is what careers are built on in this great country, heh? Let's all buy Ben
>> a round. Cheers. Makes one proud to be white.
>
>
>you pay taxes and convict you, shouldn't you use a few of the legal tools
>available? Look at it this way, if I came up to you on the street and
>said you were speeding, pay me $100. Would you do it? If the govt is
>
Yeah, that's why when I see a cop trying to pull me over, I floor it so
he (or she... remember, it's the 90's) has to chase me down to catch me.
They're gonna _have_ to give me a ticket just to break even on gas.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
The above is almost 100% likely to absolutely suck.
BKL
> Let's just say that I've never met anyone who could look me in the
> eye and say that they were issued a speeding citation when they were
> in fact not speeding.
Fine. We agree that most people speed, and that most who are ticketed
are in fact speeding. The real problem is that speed enforcement,
particularly of improperly established limits, does not help public
safety, and often hurts it.
By seeking to undermine the profit motive of speed enforcement, we are
hoping that law enforcement will return their focus to the accident
hot spots, and unsafe and illegal behaviors that are the major causes
of traffic accidents.
Why is it inherently unsafe for a motorist to drive past a numbered
sign posted by a bureaucrat, with a number on a dashboard display
greater than the number on the sign. Where is the evidence that this
is unsafe? Exceeding a safe and reasonable speed can certainly be
unsafe, but what evidence is there that speed limits reflect this?
BKL
On 4 Oct 1996 16:26:46 GMT, chr...@iago.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Chris
Kessel) wrote:
>The Oregon photo radar bill requires an officer to man the photo radar unit.
>I seriously doubt that the officer is going to be alert enough to notice
>whether or not a car had a covered plate, or a plate at all for that matter.
>He's probably snoozing or reading while the radar does the work.
>
>Be warned again in Beaverton. They are setting up on Hall Bvld between
>Denny Rd and Allen Blvd. They set up about 1 block right past where
>Hall goes from 40mph to 30mph.
The bill also requires that the use of photo radar
"Shall be confined to streets in residential areas and school zones,"
and requires that photo radar be evaluated on the issue of ways to
"reduce traffic congestion on residential streets or the use of such
streets as thoroughfares."
It's hard to imagine that putting a ticket threat on Hall Blvd. will
get people off the side streets and onto Hall where they belong to
improve residential safety. Evidently, the units go in where the
money is good, and not were there is a safety need.
BKL
On 7 Oct 1996 16:15:02 GMT, bea...@teleport.com (Bob Beauchaine)
wrote:
> I watched a Channel 2 news report on a speeding crackdown put in place
> over a 6 month or so interval on the Terwilliger curve section of I-5.
> The police hit speeders on that section of road, and hit them hard.
> The result? The monthly accident rate dropped to 20% of its previous
> value for the same section of freeway. The results were not a fluke --
> the report showed the statistics for several months prior to and
> during the enforcement.
Perhaps the media attention caused more motorists to pay more
attention, the best way to reduce accidents. Did they mention whether
actual speeds had changed, or are they roosters taking credit for the
sunrise? Maybe its all PR, and no PD.
Could it be that the limits in the curves are close to what an
engineer would prescribe (so that 85% of motorists comply) ?
Enforcement of such limits will improve safety. Enforcement of
unjustifiably low limits on almost every other stretch of highway and
some neighborhood speed traps can hurt public safety.
Several months before and after is certainly NOT an acceptable
engineering data set. There are many seasonal climate, traffic
volume, and weather variation that must be controlled for. Big,
publicized changes often to create a spike in data, but to be
responsible we should examine an extended period before, and after..
How do we know that there wasn't just an anomalous peak prior to the
enforcement, that would not have been repeated anyway.
Also, few accidents on the curves are due to cars exceeding the speed
limit. Many have to do with trucks, ijmproper merging, signaling, and
lane changes. Most are due to inattention and incompetence. In the
absence of congestion, the average motorist exceeds the limit on the
curves, and does so safely.
Don't use the worst-designed bit of interstate in Oregon as your
representative example of how to set interstate speed limits.
> So, it would seem that Oregoninans don't in fact know what a safe and
> reasonable speed is, at least not for sections of road that aren't
> straight and flat.
An Oregonian motorist whose life is on the line and is looking through
the windshield at traffic and weather conditions is certainly a better
judge of safe speed than a bureuacrat in Salem who ignores accepted
traffic engineering principles, or a city official who changes speed
limits based on squeaky wheel neighbor complaints that have nothing to
do with safety, and everything to do with NIMFY syndrome.
Oregonians exceed the limit on the highway by a lot, but only because
limits are low. Raise the limits, and speeds will hardly change.
>
> I'm awaiting the argument from Ben and others that those really
> responsible for the higher accident rate were those previously
> following closer to the posted limit.
No, but unless you have evidence to the contrary, it is safe to assume
that those who caused the accidents in the past did so for the usual
reasons, and few of these were caused simply by exceeding the speed
limit.
You might think that velocity is guilty until proven innocent. I say
that freedom impairing regulations are suspect until objectively
justified for the public benefit.
JR
see.si...@for.reply.address (BKL) wrote:
>>Be warned again in Beaverton. They are setting up on Hall Bvld between
>>Denny Rd and Allen Blvd. They set up about 1 block right past where
>>Hall goes from 40mph to 30mph.
>The bill also requires that the use of photo radar
>"Shall be confined to streets in residential areas and school zones,"
I've seen that van many times on Sorrento Road and on Hart Road - both
residential areas. I've never seen it on Hall between Denny and
Allen. I'm not saying it wasn't, though. If it was there, it is
there a lot less frequently than the nearby residential areas. If I'm
right, this whole part of the thread is bogus. By the way, that
stretch of Hall is residential - there's houses with driveways there.
You'll see them if you slow down.
JR
JR
see.si...@for.reply.address (BKL) wrote:
>By seeking to undermine the profit motive of speed enforcement, we are
>hoping that law enforcement will return their focus to the accident
>hot spots, and unsafe and illegal behaviors that are the major causes
>of traffic accidents.
where the photo radars are positioned some morning. You'll see why
they're there. Previously I said that it is a public safety issue
(which it is). I should add that for many people, it is also a
livability issue. Just slow down. There's a stop sign ahead anyway.
JR
BKL
On 7 Oct 1996 20:34:21 GMT, bea...@teleport.com (Bob Beauchaine)
wrote:
> So as to not rehash old ground, I'll succinctly summarize my thinking
> on the topic:
>
> 1. You have maintained, and I have not challenged, the nmotion that
> speed differential is the overriding concern in causing accidents.
More true than "speed kills," but German Autobahn, with their speed
differential of up to 100 mph, are about the safest roads in the
world. On the other hand, more passing means more opportunity for
accidents. The jury is out, but I have no quarrel here.
> 2. Based on that assumption, the best thing that can be done to
> prevent accidents is to reduce speed differential.
>
> 3. Setting speed limits at 85% compliance is considered the correct
> approach by traffic engineers. So far, we do not disagree.
>
> 4. In the absence of #3, (our present situation in much of Oregon),
> there are only two alternatives from which we can choose that will
> maximize driver safety: have everyone drive at the same speed
> regardless of the posted limit, or have everyone drive at the posted
> limit. This is where we diverge.
This is certainly NOT the situation in Oregon, where highway limits
are set so that only about 25% of motorists comply, not 85%. It
sounds as if you will agree with my need for speed limit reform when
you see for yourself the data that ODOT publishes every year.
> I say that having everyone drive at the limit is the best policy
> (from a safety point of view) for the follwing reason: First, it is
> objective. Using your rationale, everyone has to agree (within a
> small delta) of what is the correct speed when there is no guideline
> (assuming you've decided to disregard the limit). Following a posted
> limit puts everyone within the accuracy of their speedometer readings
> of the same speed. What you advocate (the equivalent of civil
> disobedience to traffic laws) is, IMHO, immoral, because it advocates
> taking actions that are known to contribute to the leading factor in
> traffic accidents.
"Leading factor"? Not according to any reputable source. Sure, NHTSA
claims that 30% of accidents are "speed related, but this 30% includes
following to close, unsafe lane changes, and driving LESS than the
limit. Most estimates of accidents CAUSED by exceeding posted limits
are in the low single digits.
The fact is that people will drive at somewhat different speeds, given
their vehicle, skills, etc. We have multi lane interstates because
passing is safe when done properly. No traffic engineer has ever
sought to make all drivers drive the same speed.
> In short, the only way to minimize accidents is to have everyone travel
> the same speed. The only way to have everyone travel the same speed
> is to have everyone follow the posted speed, otherwise drivers are
> left to their own discretion.
But when limits are low NOW, it is unrealistic to expect the average,
safe, prudent Oregon motorist to go at ridiculous limits when most are
safely driving much faster. We are going to get higher limits;
meanwhile, driving at prevailing safe speeds is perfectly OK. If law
enforcement were wise, they would find better things to enforce,
because they are losing credibility. They deserve a more honorable
mission than pointless fundraising.
> Lobbying to have the limits increased is another topic entirely, and
> one which I endorse.
> Which is exactly what happened in the Terwilliger curves.
Perhaps, but I suspect that most accidents were caused by violation of
non-speed laws, and these are not being enforced.
> Never said it was inherently unsafe. That has never been the issue
> for me. It is what you as a driver will do to take personal
> responsibility for your driving. We just don't agree on what exactly
> that means.
We, the vast majority of Oregonians that exceed the limit regularly,
are taking responsibility by driving safely, as evidenced by the
lowest accident rate in Oregon history.
Come on. When was the last time anyone heard of someone falling
victim to a driver simply because the driver was exceeding the limit
without violating any other law (such as reckless or drunk driving.)
Speed doesn't cause accidents. It's that simple, and all the
objective evidence confirms it.
J. Zeigler
Bob Beauchaine wrote:
>
> there are only two alternatives from which we can choose that will
> maximize driver safety: have everyone drive at the same speed
> regardless of the posted limit, or have everyone drive at the posted
> limit. This is where we diverge.
>
Show me a traffic sign in Oregon that has the word 'limit' on it. Then
tell me why they don't, when every other state does. Any chance it has
to do with the fact that Oregon used to set the posted speed at the 85th
percentile of moving traffic by law? What the hell happened? Ahh, they
couldn't make any money that way. Just suggesting that we not refer to
it as a posted limit, the state of Oregon doesn't, although the lower
courts sure do. Looks like fraud to me.
BKL
On 7 Oct 1996 21:12:58 GMT, bea...@teleport.com (Bob Beauchaine)
wrote:
> The media attention was after the fact. The statistics had already
> been gathered. I think it is common knowledge that police presence
> slows down traffic, however.
No. There was a big campaign announcing the new parking pads, new
laser guns, and big time crackdown. You may have missed it, but all
the local media was hyping the police crackdown.
> I'm willing to wager a small sum that compliance on the Terwilliger
> curves is substantially below 85%, having driven that stretch of
> highway on may occassions.
And I'm willing to wager that most accidents are not caused by
exceeding the speed limit, but by trucks in the wrong lane, and
motorists who are too inattentive or unskilled to capably drive
through a very dangerous and poorly designed stretch of road.
If everyone obeyed every other law through the curves, but were
permitted to drive at any speed, accidents would drop even more.
> Now you're just plain wriggling. The accident rate prior to the study
> was steady.
How steady? for how long? At what traffic volume levels? Are you
sure you're looking at rate, not total accidents? Are you sure that
the standard for severity of accidents is constant, and that the
"after" picture isn't shaded by a few overlooked fender benders that
didn't make the record books?
> The rate during the study was steady at roughtly 20% of
> its previous value. The change was drastic, and coincident with the
> saturation coverage. No one knows better than I that correlation does
> not imply causation, but I'd be fascinated to hear the theory that
> explains away this correlation.
I can't offer more, because all I have is data from a press release by
a police agency seeking to enhance its importance and budget, as
filtered by our tough and accurate local media with their usual nose
for critical analysis of statistical issues.
> Are you claiming that lower speeds don't provide the average driver more
> time and ability to deal with all of the above?
Certainly not. Someone greatly exceeding the 85th percentile speed
will benefit by slowing down to within 5 or 10 mph of the natural flow
of traffic. It's just that when you get below a certain speed (for
given circumstances) there is little benefit. You might argue the
principle that slower is better, but that principle begins to get
absurd below a certain speed. Thus, you'd better have data to support
your claim of what is a safe speed (to counteract the consensus of all
traffic engineering studies.)
> You MIGHT be able to convince me that police presence made everyone a
> more alert and attentive driver, and that speed in fact played no part
> whatsoever. To which I reply: so what? If enforcing any of the
> traffic LAWS produces the same effect, then it's a law well worth
> enforcing.
But remember the Westinghouse effect (a factory increased lighting,
and saw productivity increase, then taper back down. They dimmed back
down the lights, and productivity spiked again and taped to the norm.)
You can't make motorists extra attentive all the time, or everywhere.
Perhaps its OK for a hot spot lie the curves, but they would do better
to enforce laws other than speed limits. We'll see how the accident
rate goes back up after a few months.
> You mean that motorist with the cell pohone growing out of his
> forhead? Or the one with the lipstick in her hand? Or how about that
> driver with the defective turn signals?
Sadly, they don't make lipstick and cell phone detectors to help a cop
parked at the roadside. Maybe its that there's no profit in it.
Maybe it's that it's too darn hard to catch these folks. Who knows?
I merely believe that cracking down on impaired drivers, whatever
their speeds, will do more public good than nailing violators of
commonly violated speed limits.
>Or the ones who belive that red == speed up?
I'd love to see cops parked at intersections watching for red light
runners. Put away the radar guns, pals.
> You may label my position elitist, but I just don't see the ability to
> make many safety decisions in the average Oregonian driver that you do.
It's not elitist, as many Oregonian motorists violate safety laws far
too often. Enforcement of these laws would make driving safer and
more pleasant for all. Speed is a peripheral, trivial component of
highway safety. If we could get Oregonians to drive as well as
Germans, we would have freeways as safe as the autobahn, with no hand
wringing over speed.
>My recent week
> outside of Denver is only anectdotal evidence, but the average speed
> on those stretches of interstate was well in excess of that in the
> Portland area. I was routinely getting passed at 75 mph.
Ever driven I-84 in good weather? You will get passed at 85 mph.
> No, I would never make such a statement. Everyone knows that it's
> acceleration that kills, not velocity :).
Actually, its DEcelleration. Truer still, it is pressure :)
> But you have misread the intent of my post. I was focusing more on
> the enforcement issue than I was arguing for lower limits, which I do
> not in fact support. And thinking back, I guess I can't recall you
> ever arguing against enforcement, at least in problem areas. So on
> this particular issue, we may agree.
It sounds like we agree that speed laws are poorly set. With the
plethora of traffic laws to enforce, I believe it is fair to take
actions to encourage a shifting of enforcement resources to other more
important laws. This may include measures to make speed enforcement
less profitable, such as watching for speed traps, using a radar
detector, pleading not guilty to speeding tickets, acting very polite
to a citing officer in hopes of getting a warning, and sending in a
document asserting innocence when it remains possible in your mind
that you are guilty.
Then again, anyone who gets nailed by photo radar is either new in
town, or doesn't pay much attention to parked minivans. I have more
sympathy when an alert motorist gets nailed by laser on a safe stretch
of road, than when an oblivious driver is still at 11 over the limit
when they pass one of those vans.
--
BKL
(Please forgive the absence of a valid email address.
The prevalence of automated junk email forces me to
post anonymously to avoid the maddening flood.)
Robb Topolski
On 7 Oct 1996 04:22:35 GMT, "evenso" <eve...@teleport.com> wrote:
>So the end justifies the means and personal integrity doesn't enter into?
>Maybe that is how we get screwy laws in the first place. All we need is
>permission to behave badly and then it is OK? No other considerations?
Depends on the circumstances. In this case, I believe the loophole was written
for the sole purpose of being used. So I condemn not the person who chooses to
use it.
On 7 Oct 1996 04:22:35 GMT, "evenso" <eve...@teleport.com> wrote:
>You can't come up with a honest solution through creative thinking? I
>think your statement does a disservice to the concept of peaceful protest
>that it is founded on.
I feel no compulsion to follow illegal or unconstitutional laws. I make no
claim that Photo Radar is either, just that the existance of the loophole might
indicate a constitutional question exists. If I were truly interested, and
after investigation, I became convinced that Photo Radar was illegal or
unconstitutional, I would violate it with a free conscience.
Robb Topolski
--
...remember, you heard it here last!
Robb Topolski, KJ7RL
Hillsboro, Oregon USA
(Unsolicited e-mail replies to usenet articles may be ignored).
BKL
I will ask them when the legislature takes testimony next session in
deciding whether to extend the pilot program. I will ask why the
bureaucrats have already announced that they intend to show no safety
benefit to justify the program. I will ask why they post the units on
collector streets, not the smaller residential streets where children
play.
The police certainly do not have an ulterior motive to support photo
radar. They lobbied to ensure that an officer had to be present in
the vehicle, because automated speed detection threatens their jobs.
The cops aren't out to get me or anyone, it's the bureaucrats who want
the money that I'm worried about.
Someone who assumes that there must be a good reason for the motives
of governmental bureaucrats is not much of a citizen, in my book.
Blind obedience of people like you let the worst leaders in history
gain their power. Granted, photo radar ain't genocide, but the
principle applies.
BKL
On Tue, 08 Oct 1996 00:31:48 GMT, jo...@abctech.com (JR) wrote:
I have seen the vans in 4 different locations. Every one was a
neighbor collector street. Never was it on a true residential street
of the type played on by children. Try Bertha Blvd between Hwy 10 and
I-5. There are a few fenced back yards on one side, and a bus company
on the other. Not very idyllic.
According to the Police Bureau, they consider any road that does not
have a highway number of a business within 300 feet to be a
residential street. Not what the legislature intended.
Consider the radar trap on Laurelwood road, along the route where
signs direct motorists on Beaverton Hillsdale Highway to head toward
the West Slope region. You can follow the Laurelwood collector and
hit the speed trap, or you can take the quiet, truly residential 78th
street and bypass the trap. This is exactly the kind of behavior the
law was intended by the legislature to PREVENT, not encourage.
Another favorite location: On Vista, at the straightaway North of
Spring street (heading down hill of course.) Hardly anyone complies
with that limit (25mph), which is improperly set. And I wonder if
anyone has heard of that straight and clear road being an accident hot
spot.
No, the reports of the units normally being placed on the busiest
streets with improperly low limits are true.
Dave
Robb Topolski (r...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
: On 7 Oct 1996 04:22:35 GMT, "evenso" <eve...@teleport.com> wrote:
: >So the end justifies the means and personal integrity doesn't enter into?
: >Maybe that is how we get screwy laws in the first place. All we need is
: >permission to behave badly and then it is OK? No other considerations?
: Depends on the circumstances. In this case, I believe the loophole was written
: for the sole purpose of being used. So I condemn not the person who chooses to
: use it.
: On 7 Oct 1996 04:22:35 GMT, "evenso" <eve...@teleport.com> wrote:
: >You can't come up with a honest solution through creative thinking? I
: >think your statement does a disservice to the concept of peaceful protest
: >that it is founded on.
Lie with dogs and get fleas.
: I feel no compulsion to follow illegal or unconstitutional laws. I make no
: claim that Photo Radar is either, just that the existance of the loophole might
: indicate a constitutional question exists. If I were truly interested, and
: after investigation, I became convinced that Photo Radar was illegal or
: unconstitutional, I would violate it with a free conscience.
Guess that's called taking the law into your own hands.
JR
see.si...@for.reply.address (BKL) wrote:
>Someone who assumes that there must be a good reason for the motives
>of governmental bureaucrats is not much of a citizen, in my book.
>Blind obedience of people like you let the worst leaders in history
>gain their power.
JR
Bob Beauchaine
In article <325a4e85...@news.teleport.com>,
BKL <see.si...@for.reply.address> wrote:
>On 7 Oct 1996 20:34:21 GMT, bea...@teleport.com (Bob Beauchaine)
>wrote:
>
>> So as to not rehash old ground, I'll succinctly summarize my thinking
>> on the topic:
>>
>> 1. You have maintained, and I have not challenged, the nmotion that
>> speed differential is the overriding concern in causing accidents.
>
>More true than "speed kills," but German Autobahn, with their speed
>differential of up to 100 mph, are about the safest roads in the
>world. On the other hand, more passing means more opportunity for
>accidents. The jury is out, but I have no quarrel here.
>
It may well be different in Germany. We probably have to restrict
most of our discussion to US highways, though, for many reasons.
Conditions here are unique, as are the drivers. I'd be willing to
guess that the average German driver has more of a social conscience
than his American counterpart.
>> 4. In the absence of #3, (our present situation in much of Oregon),
>> there are only two alternatives from which we can choose that will
>> maximize driver safety: have everyone drive at the same speed
>> regardless of the posted limit, or have everyone drive at the posted
>> limit. This is where we diverge.
>
>This is certainly NOT the situation in Oregon, where highway limits
>are set so that only about 25% of motorists comply, not 85%. It
>sounds as if you will agree with my need for speed limit reform when
>you see for yourself the data that ODOT publishes every year.
That's what I said, meaning that the situation in Oregon is that most
roads are do not have limits set at the 85th percentile.
>
>"Leading factor"? Not according to any reputable source. Sure, NHTSA
>claims that 30% of accidents are "speed related, but this 30% includes
>following to close, unsafe lane changes, and driving LESS than the
>limit. Most estimates of accidents CAUSED by exceeding posted limits
>are in the low single digits.
How do you figure? According to the NHTSA, forty-four percent of
speed-related fatalities occurred on non-Interstate roads posted at 55 MPH.
Speed-related crashes accounted for 24 percent of all fatal crashes on
straight roadway sections, but constituted 48 percent of all fatal crashes
occurring on curves. Even being generous with the data would still
put the numbers well above "low single digits" for speed related
accidents in curves alone. And since two thirds of all speed related
accidents are single driver incidents, I find the evidence compelling
enough to believe that speed is a major contributing factor at least
to many of the rural accidents.
>
>The fact is that people will drive at somewhat different speeds, given
>their vehicle, skills, etc. We have multi lane interstates because
>passing is safe when done properly. No traffic engineer has ever
>sought to make all drivers drive the same speed.
But it is a logical conclusion from the premise, albeit one that can
never be achieved.
>
>> In short, the only way to minimize accidents is to have everyone travel
>> the same speed. The only way to have everyone travel the same speed
>> is to have everyone follow the posted speed, otherwise drivers are
>> left to their own discretion.
>
>But when limits are low NOW, it is unrealistic to expect the average,
>safe, prudent Oregon motorist to go at ridiculous limits when most are
>safely driving much faster. We are going to get higher limits;
>meanwhile, driving at prevailing safe speeds is perfectly OK. If law
>enforcement were wise, they would find better things to enforce,
>because they are losing credibility. They deserve a more honorable
>mission than pointless fundraising.
>
That's fine. But if you want to paint this as some kind of grand
civil disobedience, then be prepared to face the consequence of your
actions. I don't think Ghandi would have bothered to purchase a radar
detector.
>> Lobbying to have the limits increased is another topic entirely, and
>> one which I endorse.
>
>> Which is exactly what happened in the Terwilliger curves.
>
>Perhaps, but I suspect that most accidents were caused by violation of
>non-speed laws, and these are not being enforced.
Most of the non-speed laws I see broken daily on the rural and
interstate roads of the West side are speed related, if in spirit only.
They are the direct result of drivers trying to shave every
microsecond of commute time. Most tailgating occurs on the single
lane rural roads or in the fast lane of the freeway, where one driver
feels he is being impeded by another. Most lane changing violations
occur on the freeways, where drivers continuously attempt to find the
next hole that will give them a one car length advantage. True,
these aren't speedING violations, but are of the same mentality.
Bob Beauchaine
In article <325b2495....@news.teleport.com>,
BKL <see.si...@for.reply.address> wrote:
>
>Well, I guess everything related to driving is speed related, so that
>concept isn't very helpful. Some people are impatient and safely
>exceed posted limits. Some people are impatient and do dangerous
>things. Therefore we should punish those who safely exeed the limit?
>Not good logic to me.
Wait a minute, you lost me here. You're in favor both of raising legal
limits and enforcement of those limits, once they are correctly set.
Enforcement of ANY speed limit is punishing someone who may safely be
exceeding it. Unless you're talking about an Autobahn style freeway
system in this country, someone is going to have to be punished, and
the law will not take into account their ability, nor probably should
it. Why should you get to set speed limits of 85th percentile and
punish that other 1 driver out of 6?
evenso
A. V. Langlotz <lang...@TRANSPORT.COM> wrote in article
<5399cb$6...@news.transport.com>...
> "Dave " <eve...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Oh whoopee Ben, you and your organization have found a legal way to lie
and
> > a bureaucratic rationalization for it. How commendable and inspiring.
This
> > is what careers are built on in this great country, heh? Let's all buy
Ben
> > a round. Cheers. Makes one proud to be white.
> >
> >
> "Makes one proud to be white"? And how, may I ask, do you know what
> color Ben is?
>
> Please refrain from such potentially offensive phrases. I'm sure
> that you must be capable of engaging in civilized discourse without
> resorting to language that some find offensive.
Ben's color didn't have anything to do with it until you brought it up.
You are the one injecting a racial issue. Is that how you spend your time?
Neither you nor anyone on the face of this earth is going to stop me from
pointing out issues concerning my race. Shall I also level social
sanctions on you to keep you from talking about your race? I make an
allusion to alcoholic mentality too, don't miss an accusation there to!
>
> Oh, and if you wish to encourage govt. fundraising disguised as
> "safety enhancement", feel free.
Now you are putting words in my mouth! Your assumption, as always, gives
you away and makes you sound stupid too.
Many more of us wish to hold the
> govt. to a higher standard.
You intend to hold government to a higher standard through lies and deceit?
I think most people would look "high and mighty" from that point of view.
You sound high and mighty, Dave, but
> what do you do when nobody's looking?
That's a fun accusation. Based on the age old cry of the criminal, heh?
"But everyone else is doing it!" I really don't hide my transgressions
much. I'm certainly not the one scheming here. But then again I am not
out making easy accusations or assumptions either. The post you are
attacking me on follows what was written very carefully. On the other
hand, as described, you seem a little wide of the mark.
Gil Smith
"Franz Felsl" <fe...@enteract.com> wrote:
>This whole thing really jerks my chain ONLY when it is being used as
>another TAX collection agency. I'm not certain that it is in every case;
>however I'm very nervous about the creation of laws allowing this kind of
>"Remote Justice." The fact is that if an Officer has to monitor this
>item. They could also be out Enforcing the Law, one instance at a time.
>THIS does tend to reduce traffic in an area, especially if the local Law
>Enforcement pays attention to its charges. Simply logging an offender and
>sending them a "Bill/Ticket" is not enforcing the law; in fact it's simply
>"billing." If it's in the communities best interest to increase taxes for
>additional Officers to "protect and serve" then there is cause for those
>funds; however if one simply wants to increase the revenue from an existing
>government body I want it to be in deed not perception.
>I think it was Jefferson that said "Those who would give up freedom for
>security deserve neither." ( I hope missquotes are not a photogaphable
>offense? ;)) Open societies can't tolerate oppresive observation. It
>undermines our freedom and CAN bypass probable cause. At least as an
>observer the Officer must make a judgement, observe the offense, take
>action and make a correction. Not just a fine.
>I guess in the end, if Photo Radar is used to augment prosecution of a
>violation I'm all for it. If it's used as a crutch or extortion
>mechanisim, I say fight its use legally. It is fun to read the creative
>dodges though. 8) Oh Look! The X-Files are on, they'll tell me what to
>do!!!
>--Franz
>--
>fe...@enteract.com
Aaron Varhola
bea...@teleport.com (Bob Beauchaine) wrote:
> You keep saying that, and I can't refute it properly. My recent week
> outside of Denver is only anectdotal evidence, but the average speed
> on those stretches of interstate was well in excess of that in the
> Portland area. I was routinely getting passed at 75 mph.
However, my experience on I-80 in Wyoming (all the way from Nebraska to the
Utah border) was that I rarely got passed, even though I was going 70-75
most of the time. This was during the day, in relatively light traffic, in
good weather.
Portland also has incessant traffic jams and crowded conditions on I-5
south of the city; this isn't a valid comparison. A more reasonable
comparison would be to the stretches of I-5 south of Salem, where the
traffic routinely goes 70 with no problems.
Aaron Varhola | "The city of [Miami] was built on a stagnant
Portland, OR | swamp [100] years ago, and very little has
IFA Counsel | changed. It stank then, and it stinks now!"
YSFC #6 |-- Lisa Simpson, 7F02
BKL
On 8 Oct 1996 15:50:36 GMT, bea...@teleport.com (Bob Beauchaine)
wrote:
> How do you figure? According to the NHTSA, forty-four percent of
> speed-related fatalities occurred on non-Interstate roads posted at 55 MPH.
> Speed-related crashes accounted for 24 percent of all fatal crashes on
> straight roadway sections, but constituted 48 percent of all fatal crashes
> occurring on curves. Even being generous with the data would still
> put the numbers well above "low single digits" for speed related
> accidents in curves alone. And since two thirds of all speed related
> accidents are single driver incidents, I find the evidence compelling
> enough to believe that speed is a major contributing factor at least
> to many of the rural accidents.
"Speed related" according to NHTSA includes many things that occur
independent of speed limit violation. Consider those 55 mph country
highways where the deaths occur. Unsafe passing in included in "speed
related." Now do you see why so many accidents on country highways
are "speed related?"
As for the curves, all it takes is a trooper on the seen to say "they
drove off the curve, must have been going too fast." Of course, too
fast for conditions, and exceeding the limit are two different things.
Not to mention that the car that left the curve probably was due to a
sleepy or distracted driver.
> That's fine. But if you want to paint this as some kind of grand
> civil disobedience, then be prepared to face the consequence of your
> actions.
I have always been prepared. And all motorists who want to change the
system should be prepared to fight their ticket, if they want the
system to change. If 10 or 20% of motorists fought their tickets, the
entire system would be a money loser (like the rest of law
enforcement) and resources would be dedeicated based on public need,
not profit.
> Most of the non-speed laws I see broken daily on the rural and
> interstate roads of the West side are speed related, if in spirit only.
> They are the direct result of drivers trying to shave every
> microsecond of commute time. Most tailgating occurs on the single
> lane rural roads or in the fast lane of the freeway, where one driver
> feels he is being impeded by another. Most lane changing violations
> occur on the freeways, where drivers continuously attempt to find the
> next hole that will give them a one car length advantage. True,
> these aren't speedING violations, but are of the same mentality.
Well, I guess everything related to driving is speed related, so that
concept isn't very helpful. Some people are impatient and safely
exceed posted limits. Some people are impatient and do dangerous
things. Therefore we should punish those who safely exeed the limit?
Not good logic to me.
BKL
On 8 Oct 1996 20:22:48 GMT, bea...@teleport.com (Bob Beauchaine)
wrote:
> Wait a minute, you lost me here. You're in favor both of raising legal
> limits and enforcement of those limits, once they are correctly set.
> Enforcement of ANY speed limit is punishing someone who may safely be
> exceeding it. Unless you're talking about an Autobahn style freeway
> system in this country, someone is going to have to be punished, and
> the law will not take into account their ability, nor probably should
> it. Why should you get to set speed limits of 85th percentile and
> punish that other 1 driver out of 6?
Actually, keep in mind that limits are set (according to engineering
principles that are proven to maximize safety) to the 85th percentile
speed (or 90th, it's not a magic number), then rounded up to the next
5 mph amount, with an enforcement grace of 5 mph.
Thus, if the engineers determine that the 85th %ile speed is 73.5mph,
the limit is set at 75, and cops start giving tickets at 80.
15% may be over 73.5, but only a few percent would be over 80, and
many of these would slow to 79 if they knew that they would be
unticketed. The fraction of a percent that still was above the limit
would be easy to catch, and speed uniformity would be vastly improved.
My point: 15% may be over the benchmark speed, but only a tiny portion
of them would be eligible for tickets. Only the unusually fast
drivers would get punished. Unlike the current system, most of them
would be, since cops wouldn't be so busy with the safe and routine
violators they are today.
BKL
On 8 Oct 1996 16:07:57 GMT, Nic Herriges <n...@analogy.com> wrote:
>Should the subjective feeling of safety experienced by motorists who are
>increasingly insulated from the outside environment dictate how safe
>pedestrians and bicyclists are? Automobiles are increasingly engineered
>to increase the safety of those inside. This does little to increase the
>safety of those outside.
First, where is the problem? Are we cracking down because of an
epidemic of squashed moppets that doesn't exist?
Second, the typical motorist has not only the incentive to preserve
his or her own safety, but to preserve the safety of those around,
including pedestrians and cyclists. Human decency and liability
prevent a "death race" atmosphere out there, and the accident
statistics prove it. Frankly, if you ask cyclists whether they wish
even a tiny portion of traffic enforcement would be diverted from
speed enforcement to right-of-way enforcement, they would resoundingly
prefer the latter.
Third, cars *are* designed to protect pedestrians. Ever noticed how
hard it is to find a rigid hood ornament anymore? Even the japanese
are working on an exterior airbag to prevent a pedestrian from hitting
his head on the hood.
>
>One major flaw in the 85% rule is that it completely ignores many other
>factors such as the ability of other forms of transport to share the road
>(or even co-exist alongside), intangibles such as quality of life and
>environment and sense of community and many others.
You might be right, but the evidence suggests that safety is maximized
by measuring the way 85% of motorists drive. How much safety are you
willing to compromise to enjoy what you consider a "sense of
community," when others might have an entirely different definition of
community. To some, "community might be getting home safely to one's
family, every night, without wasting an extra few dozen hours per year
on underposted interstates.
>Everyone I know who is concerned about residential speeding is concerned
>_primarily_ with safety. Safety is always first, second, third and
>perhaps fourth on the list.
They may be concerned about safety, but their fears that are not in
line with engineering facts are not the basis for responsible
lawmaking. It would be better to educate them about the safety facts
than to pander to their fears and sacrifice safety.
BKL
On 8 Oct 1996 17:11:45 GMT, Nic Herriges <n...@analogy.com> wrote:
>Ben Langlotz, lang...@teleport.com writes:
>>And I'm willing to wager that most accidents are not caused by
>>exceeding the speed limit, but by trucks in the wrong lane, and
>>motorists who are too inattentive or unskilled to capably drive
>>through a very dangerous and poorly designed stretch of road.
>
>But wait, are these the same motorists Ben was talking about when he said:
>
>>An Oregonian motorist whose life is on the line and is looking through
>>the windshield at traffic and weather conditions is certainly a better
>>judge of safe speed...?
No contradiction, just that bureaucrats are worse, and most motorists
aren't all that bad at speed judgement.
>
>This apparent contradiction raises three further points:
>
>1 Perhaps some motorists shouldn't be allowed to "vote" on what the
>speed limit should be.
The top 15% can't vote, they are irrelevant to the results of the
speed study. That's the point.
>2 If these incompetent drivers are incompetent at any speed they should
>be removed from the highway.
False premise that faster drivers are less competent. High speed
driving (not reckless) does not correlate with incompetence. A few
studies suggest the opposite. Do you have any evidence to support
your guess?
>3 If those drivers are incompetent to handle prevailing traffic speeds,
>perhaps those speeds should be lowered.
The incompetent drivers are already driving slower. They just have a
strange sense of righteousness in the left lane of the Sunset at 55
mph, when traffic is otherwise flowing at 70. Speed limits don't
affect these people, except they'd follow lane usage laws if they knew
they were at 10-15 under the limit.
>It seems that the more important factor is driver competence.
Agreed. Al this talk about "speed kills" (thanks to the auto
insurance industry) has diverted us from a much more important safety
issue: competence.
> I'd be
>very much interested in exploring means for increasing the aggregate
>competence of drivers navigating the highways and bi-ways of this great
>nation. Get rid of the bad ones? (How can you do that when alternate
>forms of transportation are so abysmal?)
At least ther would be a larger demand for public transportation.
> Better mandatory training?
>(Who will provide it and how do you make it mandatory, and can you
>_force_ someone to be a better driver?)
By taking away their privilege until they learn.
Or, perhaps we should stop following chicken little and realize that
driving is safer than it has ever been, and getting safer, and that
the fastest roads in the country are by far the safest.
J. Zeigler
Dave wrote:
>
> Robb Topolski (r...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
>> : I feel no compulsion to follow illegal or unconstitutional laws. I make no
>> : claim that Photo Radar is either, just that the existance of the loophole might
>> : indicate a constitutional question exists. If I were truly interested, and
>> : after investigation, I became convinced that Photo Radar was illegal or
>> : unconstitutional, I would violate it with a free conscience.
>
> Guess that's called taking the law into your own hands.
No, its more in the vein of Martin Luther King, taking the law into your
own hands would be more like vigilantiism and I don't hear Robb saying
he is taking it upon himself to enforce the law, to the contrary.
Steve Knight
On 7 Oct 1996 15:59:31 GMT, bea...@teleport.com (Bob Beauchaine)
wrote:
>
> Let's just say that I've never met anyone who could look me in the
> eye and say that they were issued a speeding citation when they were
> speed limit or the circumstance in which they were caught with their
> pants down.
>
> I've had two speeding tickets in my life. Both were my fault and both
> were deserved.
About time I seen this great post.
Steve Knight
On Tue, 08 Oct 1996 05:38:49 GMT, see.si...@for.reply.address
(BKL) wrote:
>An Oregonian motorist whose life is on the line and is looking through
>the windshield at traffic and weather conditions is certainly a better
>judge of safe speed than a bureuacrat in Salem who ignores accepted
>traffic engineering principles, or a city official who changes speed
>limits based on squeaky wheel neighbor complaints that have nothing to
>do with safety, and everything to do with NIMFY syndrome.
Is this why there are so many accidents?
>
>Oregonians exceed the limit on the highway by a lot, but only because
>limits are low. Raise the limits, and speeds will hardly change.
>>
Bull If the speed limit was rased then people would just go even
faster. People need to practice control.
Brian Varine
On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, Steve Knight wrote:
> >Oregonians exceed the limit on the highway by a lot, but only because
> >limits are low. Raise the limits, and speeds will hardly change.
> Bull If the speed limit was rased then people would just go even
> faster. People need to practice control.
Go look at Montana, they abolsihed the speed limit and speeds went up a
MASSIVE .5 MPH. Wow. Think about it if the speed limit was 120, would I
do it? No way, not unless there was no one on the road and it was
straight and flat. Heck the speed limit is 65 now and I've driven as slow
as 45 because of heavy rain. You can raise the speed limit as high as you
want but it doesn't mean people will automatically "go faster". People
value their own lives.
BKL
On Thu, 10 Oct 1996 04:06:48 GMT, Ste...@aracnet.com (Steve Knight)
wrote:
>On Tue, 08 Oct 1996 05:38:49 GMT, see.si...@for.reply.address
>(BKL) wrote:
>
>>An Oregonian motorist whose life is on the line and is looking through
>>the windshield at traffic and weather conditions is certainly a better
>>judge of safe speed than a bureuacrat in Salem who ignores accepted
>>traffic engineering principles, or a city official who changes speed
>>limits based on squeaky wheel neighbor complaints that have nothing to
>>do with safety, and everything to do with NIMFY syndrome.
>
>Is this why there are so many accidents?
No, it is why the accident rate is lower than ever.
>>
>>Oregonians exceed the limit on the highway by a lot, but only because
>>limits are low. Raise the limits, and speeds will hardly change.
>>>
>
>
>Bull If the speed limit was rased then people would just go even
>faster. People need to practice control.
You might think that, but it isn't true. Only in the context of
improperly low speed limits is it true. WHere limits reflect
engineering principles, people comply, and don't "go even faster." No
one familiar with the data from the many states that raised their
limits will dispute that.
Michael O'Hair
In article <325d2c21...@news.teleport.com>,
BKL <see.si...@for.reply.address> wrote:
>>
>>Bull If the speed limit was rased then people would just go even
>>faster. People need to practice control.
>
>You might think that, but it isn't true. Only in the context of
>improperly low speed limits is it true. WHere limits reflect
>engineering principles, people comply, and don't "go even faster." No
>one familiar with the data from the many states that raised their
>limits will dispute that.
If this were true, then the speed bumps on SW Hamilton between Dosch Road
and Shattuck Road would never have been installed. The speed limit is
30MPH and people were doing 50MPH and above. Parents of children going
to Bridlemile School were on the side of the road for several weeks with
a radar gun, documenting the speeding problem. Do I recognize the problem?
Yes. Do I agree with their solution? No.
You're mixing two situations: Speed control in residential areas and speed
control on freeways. The topic is "photo radar" which, at this time, is
not allowed on the freeways.
BKL
On 10 Oct 1996 18:34:37 GMT, mich...@sequent.com (Michael O'Hair)
wrote:
True, these are two very different problems, but the engineering proof
of the principle applies to both. What do imagine the 85th percentile
speed was on Hamilton before the street was impaired? That should be
the limit, unless there are hazards invisible to drivers.
Usually, when the neighborhood activists borrow a radar gun, and take
down numbers, it turns out that the locals are driving just as fast as
the through traffic. Speed bumps are good at deterring traffic to
drive through other neighborhoods, but they have never been
demonstrated to improve safety on a collector street. Not a solution
to benefit society, just a way for squeaky wheels to gain increased
property values at the expense of others. The children would be far
safer if there were campaigns to "be alert for kids" instead of simply
"slow down." I'm glad you agree that speed bumps are not the answer.
Was there a proven safety problem in the area evidenced by a
disproportionate accident rate, or was this just parent paranoia?
Don't all neighborhoods deserve comparable safety? Should we put
speed bumps on every street?
This issue relates to photo radar in that it is unconscionable the way
the units are placed, not where there are a disproportionate number of
accidents, but where the revenue is the greatest (i.e. where the
prevailing speed of typical motorists is above improperly low limits.)
Brian Varine
> You're mixing two situations: Speed control in residential areas and speed
> control on freeways. The topic is "photo radar" which, at this time, is
> not allowed on the freeways.
The three key words- At This Time.
You see the photo radar sales people are very good, first they come in
with the bit about safety and putting it in "only" residential areas and
school zones. Then after everything is all peachy and everyone thinks
it's a great "safety" tool, they try and get it on the freeways etc. Stop
it now before it's too late.
==============================================================================
Brian R. Varine <var...@ucs.orst.edu> Finger for PGP Key
http://www.orst.edu/~varineb When in doubt,
Stop Highway Robbery! http://www.motorists.com -=JAM IT=-
Brian Varine
On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, John Specht wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Oct 1996 17:08:15 -0700, Brian Varine
> <var...@ucs.orst.edu> wrote:
> >> You're mixing two situations: Speed control in residential areas and speed
> >> control on freeways. The topic is "photo radar" which, at this time, is
> >> not allowed on the freeways.
> >The three key words- At This Time.
> >You see the photo radar sales people are very good, first they come in
> >with the bit about safety and putting it in "only" residential areas and
> >school zones. Then after everything is all peachy and everyone thinks
> >it's a great "safety" tool, they try and get it on the freeways etc. Stop
> >it now before it's too late.
> >
> Is this the Domino theory for photo radar?? Gosh, today the
> residential streets, tomorrow the world.
Laugh now, pay later. Don't kid yourself. Once the local municipalities
find out how much extra revenue is generated, it'll be everywhere they
can set it up. In the 60's I'm sure people would have laughed and even
scoffed at the idea of a 55 MPH speed limit. Then in the 70's with the
'big' energy crisis the 55 NMSL was enacted. Funny thing is, once the oil
supply was back to normal, the 55 NMSL stayed with us for over 15 years.
All the while generating huge revenues for everyone but the driver.
John Specht
>> You're mixing two situations: Speed control in residential areas and speed
>> control on freeways. The topic is "photo radar" which, at this time, is
>> not allowed on the freeways.
>
>The three key words- At This Time.
>You see the photo radar sales people are very good, first they come in
>with the bit about safety and putting it in "only" residential areas and
>school zones. Then after everything is all peachy and everyone thinks
>it's a great "safety" tool, they try and get it on the freeways etc. Stop
>it now before it's too late.
>
Is this the Domino theory for photo radar?? Gosh, today the
residential streets, tomorrow the world.
Michael O'Hair
In article <325d7d3f...@news.teleport.com>,
BKL <see.si...@for.reply.address> wrote:
>True, these are two very different problems, but the engineering proof
>of the principle applies to both. What do imagine the 85th percentile
>speed was on Hamilton before the street was impaired? That should be
>the limit, unless there are hazards invisible to drivers.
Reductio ad absurdem: "Everyone" is driving 60MPH, therefore that should
be the speed limit. Sorry, but that does not wash.
>Usually, when the neighborhood activists borrow a radar gun, and take
>down numbers, it turns out that the locals are driving just as fast as
>the through traffic. Speed bumps are good at deterring traffic to
>drive through other neighborhoods, but they have never been
>demonstrated to improve safety on a collector street.
Define a "collector street." SW Hamilton between Dosch and Shattuck is
a major road with many smaller side and cross streets, so it may qualify.
>Was there a proven safety problem in the area evidenced by a
>disproportionate accident rate, or was this just parent paranoia?
It was parental paranoia fueled by a real problem. People were coming over
the top of the hill by Bridlemile School doing 50+. Of course, "parent
paranoia" is relative. How would you feel if you were told that your child
being run down by a speeding car was "not statistically significant?"
>This issue relates to photo radar in that it is unconscionable the way
>the units are placed, not where there are a disproportionate number of
>accidents, but where the revenue is the greatest (i.e. where the
>prevailing speed of typical motorists is above improperly low limits.)
Here we agree to a point. I don't believe that 30MPH is an improperly
low limit in a residential area. Remember that if enough people resist,
it will go away. California still does not allow radar on the freeways.
(Correct me if I'm wrong. Haven't been south in quite a few years.)
Does someone have the past "sub-thread" that dealt with the photo-radar
setup on Center Street? A friend of mine just got tagged there by photo
radar and never saw a speed sign.
Thanks.
Fringe Ryder
Steve Knight (Ste...@aracnet.com) wrote:
: Bull If the speed limit was rased then people would just go even
: faster. People need to practice control.
The Oregonian had an article a few weeks ago pointing out that this has NOT
happened. In Washington, the speed limit went up and the average speed
around Chehailis (sp?) went DOWN! People had been going 85, but now they
hover closer to the speed limit of 70mph.
I've noticed this too. Truth be told, I've found it annoying.
BKL
On 11 Oct 1996 00:56:19 GMT, mich...@sequent.com (Michael O'Hair)
wrote:
>Reductio ad absurdem: "Everyone" is driving 60MPH, therefore that should
>be the speed limit. Sorry, but that does not wash.
I admit that what the engineers have proven time and time again sounds
strange or even anarchic at first, but it really makes sense.
Remember that when 10% or drivers on your street are irresponsibly
rapid, this does not lead to higher limits under these principles.
Also keep in mind that, unlike proper speed surveys, a neighbor will
more frequently notice the louder faster cars than the slow quiet
ones, leading to neighbors overestimating the problem.
>Define a "collector street." SW Hamilton between Dosch and Shattuck is
>a major road with many smaller side and cross streets, so it may qualify.
It's not in the statue, but I believe metro uses the term. Think of
it as a neighborhood through street, or one that is used to get from
one neighborhood to another, but less used than a collector or
highway. It is one level above a residential street that is primarily
used by those who on or near it.
For your local perspective, getting from SW portland to downtown or
civic staduim, for instance, we have a large chunk (including
Bridlemile) bouinded on the west by Schools Ferry heading up to 26,
and Barbur on the east. Anyone wishing to make the trip in between
uses one or more of the many collectors: Hamilton (speed bumps), Dosch
(25 mph speed trap), Shattuck (speed bumps), Vista (25 mph photo radar
trap), and Sunset Blvd (speed bumps). See a pattern here?
The best way to identify collectors (especially if one is house
hunting and wants to live where the kids don't need as much
supervision) is to get a copy of the Portland map with the rose on the
front. It show most collectors in a darker line width than
neighborhood streets.
>>Was there a proven safety problem in the area evidenced by a
>>disproportionate accident rate, or was this just parent paranoia?
>
>It was parental paranoia fueled by a real problem. People were coming over
>the top of the hill by Bridlemile School doing 50+. Of course, "parent
>paranoia" is relative. How would you feel if you were told that your child
>being run down by a speeding car was "not statistically significant?"
You may be right that there may have been a problem. But this should
be solved not by having low limits that most violate. We should have
proper limits that are properly enforced. When there are proper
limits throughout the city, the cops on speed trap duty can move to
enforce where they are needed. I intended not to suggest that
children are unimportant, but that resources should first be allocated
to where there is a *proven* hazard before to where there is only a
perceived hazard.
>>This issue relates to photo radar in that it is unconscionable the way
>>the units are placed, not where there are a disproportionate number of
>>accidents, but where the revenue is the greatest (i.e. where the
>>prevailing speed of typical motorists is above improperly low limits.)
>
>Here we agree to a point. I don't believe that 30MPH is an improperly
>low limit in a residential area.
Often true, and 35 is commonly the limit where neighbors aren't
lobbying for their NIMFY interests. Then, you head to the well heeled
and well organized areas near Dosch road, and find a clear, straight
collector with a 25 mph limit that even the locals exceed by a large
margin, and a cop car hiding in the bushes.
Robb Topolski
On 11 Oct 1996 00:56:19 GMT, mich...@sequent.com (Michael O'Hair) wrote:
>>True, these are two very different problems, but the engineering proof
>>of the principle applies to both. What do imagine the 85th percentile
>>speed was on Hamilton before the street was impaired? That should be
>>the limit, unless there are hazards invisible to drivers.
>
>Reductio ad absurdem: "Everyone" is driving 60MPH, therefore that should
>be the speed limit. Sorry, but that does not wash.
>
You're mistaken, Michael. What Ben described is actually the prescribed
standard method, widely accepted by traffic engineers and courts of law across
the country.
Robb Topolski
--
...remember, you heard it here last!
Robb Topolski, KJ7RL
Hillsboro, Oregon USA
(Unsolicited e-mail replies to usenet articles may be ignored).
Robb Topolski
On Thu, 10 Oct 1996 23:00:40 GMT, see.si...@for.reply.address (BKL) wrote:
> The children would be far
>safer if there were campaigns to "be alert for kids" instead of simply
>"slow down." I'm glad you agree that speed bumps are not the answer.
I think you're right, Ben.
Just my experience. In San Clemente, CA there's a road leading from the highway
to the beach. It's very heavily travelled in the summer. One of the locals
spray-painted "SLOW - KIDS" in five-foot high letters across the lanes in both
directions. I think it was the most impressive and best-followed traffic
directive in the city.
Steve Knight
>Laugh now, pay later. Don't kid yourself. Once the local municipalities
>find out how much extra revenue is generated, it'll be everywhere they
>can set it up. In the 60's I'm sure people would have laughed and even
>scoffed at the idea of a 55 MPH speed limit. Then in the 70's with the
>'big' energy crisis the 55 NMSL was enacted. Funny thing is, once the oil
>supply was back to normal, the 55 NMSL stayed with us for over 15 years.
>All the while generating huge revenues for everyone but the driver.
If people drove better the speed limits would most likely change. But
people drive so poor that they cannot be trusted anymore.
J. Zeigler
Steve Knight wrote:
>
> If people drove better the speed limits would most likely change. But
> people drive so poor that they cannot be trusted anymore.
Oh good, the crime rate is up too, lets throw out the constitution and
let the bureaucrats run the government anyway they want to!
Brian Varine
> >Laugh now, pay later. Don't kid yourself. Once the local municipalities
> >find out how much extra revenue is generated, it'll be everywhere they
> >can set it up. In the 60's I'm sure people would have laughed and even
> >scoffed at the idea of a 55 MPH speed limit. Then in the 70's with the
> >'big' energy crisis the 55 NMSL was enacted. Funny thing is, once the oil
> >supply was back to normal, the 55 NMSL stayed with us for over 15 years.
> >All the while generating huge revenues for everyone but the driver.
>
>
> people drive so poor that they cannot be trusted anymore.
Hmm, interesting. All these years the accident and death rate has gone
down. So how poor are we driving? I'd say that people can be trusted.
Look at Montana and Washington. Montana got rid of a posted speed limit.
Did speeds jump radically? Yep, by .5 MPH! Wow, those damned untrustworty
drivers are whipping along .5 MPH faster, what an abuse. In Washington,
people are driving SLOWER, yes, SLOWER now that the speed limit is 70!
I'd say people can be trusted, but the politicians don't want to give
them a chance. I think you'd do well in post 90's Russia.
Bob Beauchaine
What's your take on the NHTSA claim that the single largest one year
decline in accident death rates on the nations highways occured the
same year that the 55 mph law was enacted?
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act
of the whole American people which declared that their legislature
should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of
separation between church and State."
Thomas Jefferson, January 1, 1802, in response to the letter from the
Danbury Baptist Association
--
bea...@teleport.COM Public Access User -- Not affiliated with Teleport
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-1016 (2400-28800, N81)
Brian Varine
On 14 Oct 1996, Bob Beauchaine wrote:
> In article <325d2c21...@news.teleport.com>,
> BKL <see.si...@for.reply.address> wrote:
> >
> >No, it is why the accident rate is lower than ever.
>
> What's your take on the NHTSA claim that the single largest one year
> decline in accident death rates on the nations highways occured the
> same year that the 55 mph law was enacted?
My take is, you aren't reading the whole truth. The accident rate had
ALREADY BEEN DECLINING! How do you explain the fact that the rate went
down when states RAISED their rates to 65? Remember, just because the
speed LIMIT went to 55, doesn't mean people were actually driving it. 55
was joke, everyone knew it, even the cops. It was a great revenue enhance
but a terrible attempt at slowing down people. NO ONE drove 55 in rural
areas (well, maybe you did).
J. Zeigler
Bob Beauchaine wrote:
>
>
> What's your take on the NHTSA claim that the single largest one year
> decline in accident death rates on the nations highways occured the
> same year that the 55 mph law was enacted?
>
About the same as it would be if the speed were dropped to zero and we
all gave up our cars. Every human activity has a price to pay. Who's to
say that the death rate occuring at 55 is the level that's to be
accepted?
BKL
On Tue, 15 Oct 1996 00:21:49 +0100, "J. Zeigler" <mic...@homenet.ie>
wrote:
>Every human activity has a price to pay. Who's to
>say that the death rate occuring at 55 is the level that's to be
>accepted?
An interesting point. If the majority of citizens want to "spend" the
benefits of safer cars, etc. on getting home a little sooner, and just
as safely as before, why should bureaucrats force us to "spend" this
benefit on an unproven, minuscule improvement in safety?
Fortunately, we do not need to enter this debate, since the facts show
that raising limits to levels dictated by decades of traffic
engineering studies will IMPROVE safety, not sacrifice it.
BKL
On Tue, 15 Oct 1996 04:04:02 +0100, "J. Zeigler" <mic...@homenet.ie>
wrote:
>Ben, a question, do the statistics that you site represent the death
>rate for all miles driven or for highway miles driven? If the rate is
>different from highways to intown did the drop occur equally for the two
>groups or for one in particular?
These represent the numbers for all roads and fatalities in the
nation, the most widely reported statistics available. Highway
fatality rates per mile tend to be about half the overall numbers, and
have been in decline for decades to current all time lows.
Carl Springer
J. Zeigler wrote:
>
> BKL wrote:
> >
[snip]
> >
> > Before arguing, keep in mind the following facts (from USDOT):
> >
> > year fatality rate (per 100 million vehicle miles)
> > 1968 5.2
> >
>
> Ben, a question, do the statistics that you site represent the death
> rate for all miles driven or for highway miles driven? If the rate is
> different from highways to intown did the drop occur equally for the two
> groups or for one in particular?
It doesn't make much sense using a VMT statistics to test the safety of
roadways. Over the last 30 years the number of vehicles and the length
of vehicle trips have increased dramatically which would both work to
lessen the reported rate per VMT. A better measure would be the number
of accidents on specific roadways per vehicle using that roadway.
Suburban sprawl could just as easily explain the reduction in the other
index as well as high-performance autos (better brakes) or fuel prices,
etc. Speaking of which, what does any of the above have to do with photo
radar?
--
Carl Springer
spri...@imagina.com