TiVoCommunity.com
(c)opyright 1995-2005 All rights reserved
indexcheckTC
This area is a static history of posts in the TiVo Community Forum Archive.
This archive history was made for the simple indexing of search sites like
Google.
Pages:1
So, what's the deal with radar detectors?
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: emily
Legal or illegal?
Posted by: shelly40
Some states legal, some states illegal........
Posted by: Mike Lang
http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/radardet.html
"Detectors are legal in all states except Virginia and the District of Columbia. They're legal in the following Canadian provinces as well: Alberta, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan. On US military bases, they are legal to have but illegal to use."
Posted by: Francesco
All states illegal in commercial big trucks & rigs.
Posted by: Francesco
In Canada they don't just cite you, they confiscate it or make you drive over it, and slap you with a huge fine and points. Cross-jurisdictional, apparently.
Posted by: emily
Interesting article, Mike. I'm afraid I'd be the one who ends up getting caught because I don't know how to use it properly...then I'd get a ticket for sure!!
Posted by: avaloncourt
I had a friend in college who was from Canada. One day on a trip back for a break the OPP pulled him over and he had a detector running. So, he threw the detector on the floor, got out of the car and locked the door behind him. The OPP officer demanded to see the detector and he said, "Oops, I seem to have locked my keys in the car." He got on the phone and called CAA to have someone come and open the car. He got off the cell phone and told the officer it would be about an hour.
Posted by: eric_mcgovern
If they aren't illegal, they should be...
Posted by: GoodSpike
quote:
Originally posted by eric_mcgovern
If they aren't illegal, they should be...
Why?
Posted by: Francesco
Yes, why?
Posted by: noeltykay
Legal here in California. My Valentine One has saved numerous times. Well worth the $$$ for a lead footed dude like me.
http://www.valentine1.com/images/v1homephoto.gif
Posted by: Trent Bates
I love my 2 month old V1! It's really interesting to see the taillights on cars half a mile ahead light up the same time I'm pressing on the brake pedal for a signal that's 2 miles away. ;)
I took both my V1 and my Passport 5000 on a trip last month. V1 was the clear winner EVERY TIME!
Radar detectors shouldn't be illegal IMO. Speed traps should be! I'd love to see these officers hunting down real criminals like rapists, burglars, thieves, etc. instead of generating revenue in this manner. I know they are just doing their job, but I feel that a change in focus is needed!
Posted by: Mike Wells
Don't bring them to Virginina. Our State Police must make a fortune on catching people with detectors. I believe it is illlegal even to posess one in VA. It seems like every year or so they are on the news with the next generation of "radar detector detector" and reminding us (as if we didn't know) that detectors are illegal.
So, remember to heed the warning signs as you enter our beautiful commonwealth.
Posted by: trojanrabbit
I don't see the problem with owning one or using one, just like a police scanner, if you're using it for 'informational purposes'. However, if you're caught committing a crime while using it (speeding), I also see no problem with it being confiscated and/or you paying a hefty fine for it.
Posted by: Mike Wells
http://www.afn.org/~afn09444/scanla...s/radar/va.html
It is illegal to operate a vehicle in VA equipped with any device that detects or interferes with RADAR.
A person shall not be guilty of a violation of this Section when the device or mechanism in question, at the time of the alleged offense, had no power source and was not readily accessible for use by the driver or any passenger in the vehicle.
So, I guess you have to put your radar detector in the trunk.
Posted by: Fish Man
quote:
Originally posted by satguymtl
All states illegal in commercial big trucks & rigs.
HUH?
I'd sure like you to post a (credible) link or cite an article or law to support that claim!
The're legal in big rigs here and in most every state I've visited recently.
In fact, I'm pretty sure the legality of their use in big rigs in the US is the same as in cars: Illegal in VA and DC, legal in other 49 United States.
Posted by: Francesco
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rulesregs/fmcsr/regs/39271.htm
Posted by: Francesco
http://www.afn.org/~afn09444/scanla...commercial.html
http://www.afn.org/~afn09444/scanla...html#commercial
Posted by: Fish Man
Hmmm...
Interesting.
And...
This must win the award for the most often ignored law in history! ;)
I don't think I've ever seen a big rig not equipped with a radar detector! :eek:
Simply look into the windshields of any big rig you see on the freeway. There'll be a Valentine I or a Passport up high on the glass, just like in a car! ;)
Posted by: Francesco
If you check the second link in the post above, apparently in MN it's illegal to drive any vehicle with anything on the windshield other than the rear-view mirror! :)
Posted by: Fish Man
quote:
Originally posted by satguymtl
If you check the second link in the post above, apparently in MN it's illegal to drive any vehicle with anything on the windshield other than the rear-view mirror! :)
Cute way to outlaw radar detectors without outlawing them! ;)
Here in Louisiana, it is illegal to have any object hanging from the rear view mirror. (E. G. graduation tassels, fuzzy dice, etc. hanging from the rear view mirror are illegal.)
Also, here in New Orleans, LOTS and LOTS of people keep their favorite strings of Mardi Gras beads hanging from the rear view mirror.
The city is predominately Catholic, and many people keep a rosary hanging from their rear view mirror.
This, in addition to the typical number of graduation tassels and fuzzy dice. (Oh, yeah, Christmas tree shaped air freshners too!) ;)
I've never heard of a case of this law actually being enforced. But it's on the books!
Posted by: Robin
Wow--what about parking passes? I've both worked & gone to school places that had hang-tags for parking.
Posted by: Shawkins
Easy way to get around that law in MN is to use the handy sun visor clip most detectors come with. Then it is not on the windshield.
Posted by: Avian
My dad has this thing you hook up to a 9V battery that emits signals that are the same as radar detectors. Its really funny to turn it on when some guy in a fast car going 70 in a 55 passes us. They slow wayyy down.. heh :)
Posted by: Fish Man
quote:
Originally posted by rsanborn
Wow--what about parking passes? I've both worked & gone to school places that had hang-tags for parking.
Gosh, strange I didn't think of that one.
My wife has one of these kinds of parking passes on her car for where she works!
Posted by: trojanrabbit
Then I suppose you're not supposed to hang it until after you've parked.
Supposedly the same law here in MA, nothing hanging from the mirror.
Posted by: Avian
The parking permits here at IU specifically say not to hang while driving, I guess it impares driving or something stupid like that
Posted by: DaveBogart
Legal or not, I don't have one and don't need one. Why would I? It's not like I speed or anything. If a device's only purpose is to help its user break the law and get away with it, in my opinion that device should be illegal.
Posted by: Mike1138
quote:
Originally posted by DaveBogart
Legal or not, I don't have one and don't need one. Why would I? It's not like I speed or anything. If a device's only purpose is to help its user break the law and get away with it, in my opinion that device should be illegal.
They also get people to obey the law. If someone's radar detector is going off, they slow down. I see police cars sitting on the side of the road all the time without their radar gun on, there are also those "you speed is" displays all over the place. They get people to slow down. Are they useless? Part of the reason I use one is so I don't have to constantly stare at the speedometer. If you follow along with traffic 9 times out of 10 you will be speeding, with the exception of heavy triffic.
Posted by: Philosofy
I knew a guy who worked on radar for the government. He rigged his old car with his own device located in his front grill. Radar works by sending a signal, and measuring the reflected signal. He built a radar detector with a radar pulse generator. When it detected the radar, it sent out a signal strong enough to fry the radar gun. I have a feeling this would be illegal in most states.
Posted by: Francesco
Well, they are illegal here...
One of the guys I work with was a custom ICE installer for many years. So his hidden unit is fail-safed in about a dozen ways. Among those he has shown me:
-when it's on, the brake lights only light for a real panic stop (not for a "tap")
-cut-off switches in his seat belt, window-lift and handbrake, so if he gets pulled over the cop can't fire off a pulse or use a VG-2 to nail him for it.
-it only automatically switches on when he's inadvertantly going over the "unofficial" or enforced limit, which around here is about 65 in a 55 or 77 in a 65.
He says there are other things going on in there, but I can't imagine what.
Posted by: GoodSpike
quote:
Originally posted by trojanrabbit
I don't see the problem with owning one or using one, just like a police scanner, if you're using it for 'informational purposes'. However, if you're caught committing a crime while using it (speeding),
Speeding is not a crime, it's an infraction.
Posted by: trojanrabbit
An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
A stretch - yes, in the grand scheme of things. But it works for the detector/scanner analogy.
Posted by: DaveBogart
quote:
Originally posted by Mike1138
They also get people to obey the law. I see police cars sitting on the side of the road all the time without their radar gun on, there are also those "you speed is" displays all over the place. They get people to slow down. Are they useless?
I never said that radar detectors are useless. I said their purpose is for helping its user to break the law and get away with it. The purpose of the radar signs is to make drivers aware of their speed. And who knows the purpose of a cop sitting on the side of the road without their radar gun on? Polishing off a box of Krispie Kremes perhaps?
Posted by: bsnelson
Sigh. Radar detectors aren't JUST to "help people speed". There are many scenarios where they help the "honest" or "honest at heart".
Example: You're going with the flow of traffic, about 65 in a 60 zone. You're close to another car (either in front of or beside) doing the same speed. You suddenly come into view of a cop, but the other car sees him before you. He hits the brakes, the cop sees you pulling away from the other car, and nails you.
Were you "breaking the law"? Well, yes, you were. Was it an intentional act? No. Was it harming anyone else, putting someone else in danger? No. A detector would help YOU be the one to slow down, and either the other guy gets the ticket, or no one does.
Brad
Posted by: Ereth
It depends on what the purpose of speed limits are.
If the purpose of speed limits is that there's some real safety issue above a certain speed, then radar detectors are a GOOD thing because one officer with a radar gun will get a whole BUNCH of people to slow down to that safe limit, far more than the few he actually pulls over.
On the other hand, if the purpose of Speed Limits is to generate revenue, then Radar Detectors are a bad thing, because the number of people pulled over is reduced.
So, DaveBogart, what do you think the purpose of Speed Limits are? Is it better to get a lot of people going the prescribed limit, or to pull a few over and give tickets?
Posted by: Trent Bates
Hey Dave,
You are that guy I pass every day on I-70, aren't you! :D ;)
I see your point on this. But I disagree. Except for the fact that they have modified many of the highways around here the last 10 years, they used to be safe at 70-75 MPH. The double-nickel limit and all of it's associated propaganda (IMO) is full of holes.
People should be required to REALLY know how to drive instead of the licensing system we have now.
If these roads aren't safe above the posted limits, those run-of-the-mill police cruisers shouldn't be allowed to speed with their lights on either which points back to the fact that they are trained better for it.
I've been racing Go-Karts since I was 12 and I really feel that our society needs better driver training than we have. I never worry too much about my fellow racers but I'm scared of the guy across the street that has nearly run me over twice now because he wasn't focused on driving!
That's my opinion and I'm wholly committed to it until someone else says something! ;)
Posted by: Haps
quote:
Originally posted by Ereth
If the purpose of speed limits is that there's some real safety issue above a certain speed, then radar detectors are a GOOD thing because one officer with a radar gun will get a whole BUNCH of people to slow down to that safe limit,.
Temporarily. If I had a radar detector I would spped more often. I speed now but I keep it down a bit and try to be careful. I know if I had a detector I would drive much faster and only slow down when I had too. And then I would sppeed back up again.
People make a concious decision to speed. There is no such thing as accidental speeding. By doing so you have gone above the posted speed limit and are subject to punishment regardless of any situation(someone else slowing down whatever). Detector's just increase your chances of getting away with it.
They serve no other purpose.
Posted by: avaloncourt
PennDOT has road construction warning signs with RADAR transmitters in them. They're not actually an enforcement device. They just emit a RADAR signal which trips the detectors. More recently they've added an electronic sign to those which repeats SLOW... DOWN ... NOW. I've only ever seen these on the Interstates.
Does anyone live in a state where SRS messaging is actually in use? I know my detector has the messaging system but it's not used here so it's a useless feature.
On the commercial rig topic, I live close to the Ohio and New York borders and New York has signs when you're approaching the turnpike that radar detectors are illegal in commercial vehicles.
Several years ago when I would drive through the town of Orwell, Ohio, the radar detector would go off constantly. It was very interesting. It will start detecting at the eastern end of the city limits and stop on the western limit. The strongest point was at city hall. I'm assuming they also had a transmitter to activate detectors.
Posted by: avaloncourt
quote:
Originally posted by Haps
There is no such thing as accidental speeding.
What a silly statement. Of course there is accidental speeding. I drive a compact car. A business I used to work for required that I drive one of the leased vehicles for travel. While traveling from my home to Pittsburgh in a Tahoe on an Interstate I suddenly realized I was doing 85 in a 55. I had no idea because it didn't 'feel' like 85. When I brought the speed back down it felt like I was walking to Pittsburgh, very slow. There were no other vehicles around me to gauge my speed. Anybody can accidentally go over the speed limit.
Posted by: Haps
quote:
Originally posted by avaloncourt
What a silly statement. Of course there is accidental speeding. I drive a compact car. A business I used to work for required that I drive one of the leased vehicles for travel. While traveling from my home to Pittsburgh in a Tahoe on an Interstate I suddenly realized I was doing 85 in a 55. I had no idea because it didn't 'feel' like 85. When I brought the speed back down it felt like I was walking to Pittsburgh, very slow. There were no other vehicles around me to gauge my speed. Anybody can accidentally go over the speed limit.
I hope your reported the broken spedometer in the vehicle. Had it been working and you were an observant driver you would have been able to use that to gauge your speed instead of looking for other vehicles on the road.
Posted by: Convert
Another fascist law. While I can see that the government should be entitled to control radio EMISSIONS, the government cannot control radio RECEIVERS. And a radar detector, for the most part, is only a radio wave receiver. (Yes, there are parts that emit a faint signal, but those parts are not completely necessary for successful use).
I use a radar detector all the time (hardwired to my ignition). And I very seldom speed more than 5 miles per hour over the posted limit.
Posted by: DaveBogart
quote:
Originally posted by Ereth
DaveBogart, what do you think the purpose of Speed Limits are? Is it better to get a lot of people going the prescribed limit, or to pull a few over and give tickets?
It doesn't matter what the purpose of speed limits are. As a driver it's my responsibility to know and obey the speed limit. I don't agree that all posted limits are always reasonable, but I try to obey them because doing so saves me money in the form of fines I don't have to pay and increased insurance premiums, not to mention the hours I might have to spend going to traffic court because I tried to save a few seconds on the highway.
Posted by: GoodSpike
quote:
Originally posted by avaloncourt
What a silly statement. Of course there is accidental speeding. I drive a compact car. A business I used to work for required that I drive one of the leased vehicles for travel. While traveling from my home to Pittsburgh in a Tahoe on an Interstate I suddenly realized I was doing 85 in a 55. I had no idea because it didn't 'feel' like 85.
When I was a teenager my car was a Honda 600. I passed another car using my regular method of passing cars in my brother's 1968 Mustang, which had a 289 V8 engine. I looked down and I was going over 100 MPH.
Probably not technically illegal since you're allowed to exceed the speed limit to pass, but I doubt the local sheriff would have agreed!
Posted by: Francesco
Yup. Same here. My "daily driver" is a '97 VW Transporter non-turbo diesel van. 77 bhp when new, probably closer to 70 now. I try not to sneeze in it on the highway for fear of going backwards! :)
Then I hop in the XYL's '02 Accord... really have to watch myself and use the cruise control!
Posted by: DaveBogart
quote:
Originally posted by Trent Bates
Hey Dave,
You are that guy I pass every day on I-70, aren't you! :D ;)
Oh man, is that you? You're the one passing me every day? Next time I'll give you back that special wave you give me all the time. Which finger am I supposed to use?
Posted by: avaloncourt
quote:
Originally posted by Haps
I hope your reported the broken spedometer in the vehicle. Had it been working and you were an observant driver you would have been able to use that to gauge your speed instead of looking for other vehicles on the road.
I have this small problem of actually LOOKING at the road I'm driving on and not constantly at the dash. By the way, your son Jesus called and he wants you to bring home a quart of milk.
Posted by: DaveBogart
Ooh, it's starting to get nasty in here.
Posted by: someguyinmd
Just wanted to toss this in.
Friend of mine (who lives in MD) got pulled over for speeding in VA a few years ago and had his radar detector in his glove box and the cop wrote him a ticket for it anyway.
Sure he coulda taken it to court and gotten off that part, but it wasn't worth his time considering the nearly 8 hour round trip commute. I'm sure the cop was betting on this too.
Posted by: Ereth
quote:
Originally posted by DaveBogart
It doesn't matter what the purpose of speed limits are. As a driver it's my responsibility to know and obey the speed limit. I don't agree that all posted limits are always reasonable, but I try to obey them because doing so saves me money in the form of fines I don't have to pay and increased insurance premiums, not to mention the hours I might have to spend going to traffic court because I tried to save a few seconds on the highway.
You dodged the question. Is it better for those drivers around you who aren't so saintly to become aware of the speed trap and all of them slow down, or is it better for the police to pull one or two of them over and give them tickets (generating revenue) while the rest remain travelling at their higher rate of speed. What is the purpose of the speed trap?
It's a given that you have no magic ability to make everyone drive the speed limit of their own volition.
Posted by: martinp13
quote:
Originally posted by GoodSpike
Probably not technically illegal since you're allowed to exceed the speed limit to pass, but I doubt the local sheriff would have agreed!
Um, where is THAT little gem on the books??? As far as I know, you're not allowed to speed for ANY reason, especially when passing!
Posted by: Francesco
Or you could do like in much of the rest of the world: relax the limits on super-highways, but crack down on erratic or dangerous driving and be severe about it.
We were on our way to Venice a couple years ago, and there was standstill traffic for a few miles heading through Verona. We saw a Carabinieri (staties) chopper whiz by at low altitude. Turns out they stopped a lawyer on his cell-phone who decided to use the paved shoulder to bypass the traffic. The papers reported he got a 4,500,000 Lire fine (about $3000 back then) and they suspended his permit for six months.
Around here they should be cracking down on the Rice Boyz and Vin Diesel-wannabes. Limit is 25 in the residential neighborhoods, and these guys regularly do 60 (and burnouts, and blowing stop signs and lights, and.....).
Posted by: macquariumguy
There are lots of laws against devices which make it easier to break the law. For example, you can't walk into a bank with a mask covering your face. Sounds reasonable to me.
Radar detectors have only one real purpose in my opinion - to facilitate speeding without being caught. If it were up to me, there would be a GPS unit in every car on the road to monitor speed and compliance with traffic signs/signals. Not only that, but after about the second violation, you wouldn't have a drivers license again ... ever.
This is coming from someone who has lost too many friends to automobile accidents, the most recent being last Wednesday.
Posted by: Haps
quote:
Originally posted by avaloncourt
I have this small problem of actually LOOKING at the road I'm driving on and not constantly at the dash.
So this means you don't glance at your mirrors either?
Posted by: Ereth
Here, I'll be first to lay it out.
I drive 80 on the Interstate. I've always driven 80 on the Interstate. When the speed limit was 55, I drove 80. When it was 65, I drove 80. Now that it's 70, I drive 80. 80 is the speed I feel comfortable driving on the Interstate. It's not so slow that I feel like I'm crawling, but not so fast that I feel any danger. I'm usually not the fastest one around, but faster than half, anyway. But not a LOT faster.
Until a year or so ago I didn't own a radar detector. My brother-in-law gave me one for Christmas, which I've used twice. It sits in my glove box for when I remember it's there. I haven't gotten a ticket since 1985. I haven't had an accident since 1980, and never on the Interstate.
So, is 80 risky? Well, 20 years without an accident would tend to be a significant sample that it's not. The fact that I don't use my radar detector and haven't gotten pulled over seems to imply that the Cops don't think so either.
It IS speeding. DaveBogart and Haps are undoubtedly ashamed of me. But those roads are perfectly safe with a competent driver with a vehicle in reasonable condition at 80 miles per hour.
So, what's this got to do with Radar Detectors? Well, as I said earlier, I did use it for a couple of trips and when it went off I slowed down (as did a lot of people near me). Drove slower for a few miles and returned to the speed I normally drive. Never saw the cop. The end result being, not that I drove faster because I had it, but that I drove slower when it went off, which would seem to be the goal the Highway Patrol should have. Having it didn't make me suddnely drive 90 or 100 mph, I still chugged along at the same speed I would've driven had I not had it.
Posted by: zaknafein
quote:
Originally posted by macquariumguy
There are lots of laws against devices which make it easier to break the law. For example, you can't walk into a bank with a mask covering your face. Sounds reasonable to me.
Radar detectors have only one real purpose in my opinion - to facilitate speeding without being caught. If it were up to me, there would be a GPS unit in every car on the road to monitor speed and compliance with traffic signs/signals. Not only that, but after about the second violation, you wouldn't have a drivers license again ... ever.
This is coming from someone who has lost too many friends to automobile accidents, the most recent being last Wednesday.
I sympathize with your loss, but you can't possibly actually believe that kind of heavy handedness is really the answer do you? Those automated ticketing stoplights are bad enough.
Posted by: GoodSpike
quote:
Originally posted by martinp13
Um, where is THAT little gem on the books??? As far as I know, you're not allowed to speed for ANY reason, especially when passing!
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm...ction=46.61.425
If you couldn't speed while passing it would be unsafe because it would take longer to pass a car. I'd suspect most states have this rule.
Posted by: Francesco
Photo radar. Ugh.
Posted by: Haps
quote:
Originally posted by Ereth
Here, I'll be first to lay it out.
I drive 80 on the Interstate. I've always driven 80 on the Interstate. When the speed limit was 55, I drove 80. When it was 65, I drove 80. Now that it's 70, I drive 80. 80 is the speed I feel comfortable driving on the Interstate. It's not so slow that I feel like I'm crawling, but not so fast that I feel any danger. I'm usually not the fastest one around, but faster than half, anyway. But not a LOT faster.
Until a year or so ago I didn't own a radar detector. My brother-in-law gave me one for Christmas, which I've used twice. It sits in my glove box for when I remember it's there. I haven't gotten a ticket since 1985. I haven't had an accident since 1980, and never on the Interstate.
So, is 80 risky? Well, 20 years without an accident would tend to be a significant sample that it's not. The fact that I don't use my radar detector and haven't gotten pulled over seems to imply that the Cops don't think so either.
It IS speeding. DaveBogart and Haps are undoubtedly ashamed of me. But those roads are perfectly safe with a competent driver with a vehicle in reasonable condition at 80 miles per hour.
So, what's this got to do with Radar Detectors? Well, as I said earlier, I did use it for a couple of trips and when it went off I slowed down (as did a lot of people near me). Drove slower for a few miles and returned to the speed I normally drive. Never saw the cop. The end result being, not that I drove faster because I had it, but that I drove slower when it went off, which would seem to be the goal the Highway Patrol should have. Having it didn't make me suddnely drive 90 or 100 mph, I still chugged along at the same speed I would've driven had I not had it.
I don't admonish you for speeding. I have no problem with speeding. I do it myself.
I just don't like it when I hear people use weird justifications for speeding or speeding tickets. If the vehicle under your care and control is travelling over the speed limit for any reason you are speeding and as such are subject to the penalties in that area. It doesn't matter if speed limits are too low, or traffic was faster, or it was a new car or anything else. It's speeding.
In my case I drive at a speed that I think is just below what I figure a cop would pull me over for. If I could have a detector I know I would drive much faster and only slow down when necessary. So in my case I would go faster. In your case you claim it slows you down. I would guess that there are more people like me then you out there with these things.
Do I think they should be illegal. Yeah I guess I do. Despite the justification posts here I haven't seen a legitimate use for them yet. It is a device used to increase your chances of breaking the law. Why shouldn't it be illegal.
Posted by: henryhank
Personally, I have no problems with detectors, as I own one, but don't really use it that much. I drive the Mass Pike/ Rt 84/Rt 91/Merritt Parkway/NJTP all the time, and these roads are loaded with officers running radar and laser. Sure, the detector goes off frequently - but I find attentive driving has saved me from getting caught speeding countless times.
I find looking for people braking about 1/4 to 1/2 mile ahead of you to be the best radar detector ever. And you just slow down going over slight hills. Keep your eyes open. Look for unmarked cruisers. Know the road you're on. Look for signals (flashing headlights) from oncoming traffic that there is a speed trap ahead (and return the favor if you see one in their direction - and yes, I know it's illegal to do so).
I've found consistently that you can do between 70 and 75 on these roads and the officers will leave you alone. That's fast enough for me to get where I'm going, and I usually don't drive faster than 75. Any faster, and people should be pulled over and ticketed.
And I also lost a friend to an auto-accident last week.
Posted by: henryhank
quote:
Originally posted by GoodSpike
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm...ction=46.61.425
If you couldn't speed while passing it would be unsafe because it would take longer to pass a car. I'd suspect most states have this rule.
Of course this makes sense, since the law is only for highways having only one lane of traffic in each direction. Not true for passing on two-or more lane highways.
Posted by: GoodSpike
quote:
Originally posted by henryhank
Of course this makes sense, since the law is only for highways having only one lane of traffic in each direction. Not true for passing on two-or more lane highways.
That would be quite a loophole on a four lane road! As long as there were other cars going your direction you could claim you were pasing them! ;-)
Posted by: Fish Man
quote:
Originally posted by henryhank
Look for unmarked cruisers. Know the road you're on. Look for signals (flashing headlights) from oncoming traffic that there is a speed trap ahead (and return the favor if you see one in their direction - and yes, I know it's illegal to do so).
OK:
Earlier in this thread I asked people to cite a law I was skeptical about and they came through.
Can anyone cite this one??
It seems that the cop would have the burden of proving why you were flashing your headlights!
If flashing headlights gets speeders to slow down isn't it a good thing?
Oh, that's right. Speeding tickets aren't about getting people to slow down, they're about making revenue. Heaven forbid the warning of those flashing lights would cut in to the revenue. :rolleyes:
Posted by: macquariumguy
quote:
Originally posted by zaknafein
I sympathize with your loss, but you can't possibly actually believe that kind of heavy handedness is really the answer do you? Those automated ticketing stoplights are bad enough.
Heavy-handedness? I would call it equality in enforcement. And as for the stoplight cameras, I would have them at every controlled intersection.
Posted by: Francesco
quote:
Originally posted by henryhank
... Any faster, and people should be pulled over and ticketed.
And I also lost a friend to an auto-accident last week.
...was the accident in question the direct result of your friend driving over the posted limit?
Posted by: DaveBogart
quote:
Originally posted by Ereth
You dodged the question. Is it better for those drivers around you who aren't so saintly to become aware of the speed trap and all of them slow down, or is it better for the police to pull one or two of them over and give them tickets (generating revenue) while the rest remain travelling at their higher rate of speed. What is the purpose of the speed trap?
It's a given that you have no magic ability to make everyone drive the speed limit of their own volition.
I really don't care about the drivers around me. That's the beauty of driving the speed limit. The drivers around me aren't around me for very long. That is until I pull up behind them at the next light. As for your question, neither. It's better for drivers to be aware of the speed limit and understand that they have an obligation to obey the law.
I'm no saint. I don't blindly obey every single law on the books. Downloading music from the Internet, for instance, I understand is illegal, yet I don't care. I do it anyway. Legally I'm supposed to get a license for my dog. I won't. The law says that I couldn't finish my basement without first getting a building permit. I didn't. But when it comes to driving, upon getting my license I agreed that I would obey the driving laws of my state. I took a test to show that I understood the laws. I understand that if I violate these laws I stand a chance of being fined and possibly losing my privilege of driving, a risk I'm not willing to take. If other drivers want to take that risk, that's their business.
Posted by: Mike1138
Ahhh, I'm glad someone brought up red light cameras! It has been shown that in areas where red light cameras are in use, accidents INCREASE!! Why? Because people slam on their breaks so they don't get a ticket. It is also a fact that local law enforcement reduced the time the light stayed yellow, in some areas. This is a HUGE revenue generator for cities, it's pretty obvious to me that they are in use to raise money, not increase public safety. To me, this is a similar situation to speeding. Speed does not = accident. Not paying attention, driving reckless, causes accidents. There is not that big of a difference between 65 and 75. I agree with others here that there needs to be better education and training on driving techniques and accident avoidance. Here in Colorado we are not required to show any ability to drive on ice to get a license, yet there are numerous times during the year that we do. I have seen no reliable statistics linking speeding with accidents. That being said, I wish people would drive smarter/safer, not necessarily slower.
Posted by: Haps
quote:
Originally posted by Mike1138
Ahhh, I'm glad someone brought up red light cameras! It has been shown that in areas where red light cameras are in use, accidents INCREASE!! Why? Because people slam on their breaks so they don't get a ticket. It is also a fact that local law enforcement reduced the time the light stayed yellow, in some areas. This is a HUGE revenue generator for cities, it's pretty obvious to me that they are in use to raise money, not increase public safety. To me, this is a similar situation to speeding. Speed does not = accident. Not paying attention, driving reckless, causes accidents. There is not that big of a difference between 65 and 75. I agree with others here that there needs to be better education and training on driving techniques and accident avoidance. Here in Colorado we are not required to show any ability to drive on ice to get a license, yet there are numerous times during the year that we do. I have seen no reliable statistics linking speeding with accidents. That being said, I wish people would drive smarter/safer, not necessarily slower.
But if Red-light cameras existed at EVERY intersection and a matter of adjustment time happened you don't think that they would work. Once people come to realize that they are everywhere and that running a light WILL get you a ticket they will begin to adjust their habits.
Posted by: Francesco
Did the double-nickel work? Security checks at airports?
Oh, yeah. T.O., where the Barenaked Ladies couldn't perform in public because the mayor was offended by the name!
Posted by: Fish Man
Here's a little topic for a morality discussion: :)
The Sheriff's department of Jefferson Parish (the parish just to the west of New Orleans and the second most populated in Louisiana), has the practice of doing the following:
They'll take a stretch of major thoroughfare that has a speed limit of 35, and for about 2 weeks replace the 35 MPH speed limit signs along that stretch with 20 MPH signs.
During the 2 weeks they have a motorcycle cop with a battery operated radar gun, hiding behind a tree or a fence 24/7 giving out tickets.
Needless to say, few people notice the replaced signs, and the Sheriff's department makes a killing in revenue from tickets.
The first time I was nailed by such a trap, was about 10 years ago. On a street called Bloomfield St. in Jefferson LA, (a four lane undivided street going through an industrial area) they lowered the posted speed limit from 35 to 20 for exactly 2 weeks, and posted the hidden motorcycle cop.
This street was on my route home from work at the time.
On the first day of the lowered speed limit, they nailed me for 38 in a 20. (Needless to say, 38 in a 35 would have been ignored by the cops.) 38 in a 20 was a very nasty fine, and a mandatory court appearance (so the judge could duly chew me out and tell me what a menace to society I was)!
I couldn't get out of the fine (the speed limit is the speed limit, even if it's in effect for no legitimate reason for only two weeks). However, the photographs I took of the 20 MPH signs and then of the 35 MPH signs that went back up after they moved their "revenue generator" somewhere else, convinced my insurance company to ignore the ticket and keep my insurance at "ticket free" rates! :)
Just last summer, they caught me in one of these outrages again. They lowered the speed limit on a stretch West Esplanade Ave. (a MAJOR east-west thoroughfare through Jefferson Parish) from 35 to 20 for about 2 to 3 weeks. I got a ticket for 35 (the "real" speed limit) in a 20! :mad:
Posted by: Haps
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Man
Just last summer, they caught me in one of these outrages again. They lowered the speed limit on a stretch West Esplanade Ave. (a MAJOR east-west thoroughfare through Jefferson Parish) from 35 to 20 for about 2 to 3 weeks. I got a ticket for 35 (the "real" speed limit) in a 20! :mad:
I think it's bad practice. I'd be livid if it was me. But on the otherhand as a drive rit is your responsibility to know the rules of the road. If they had removed the signs altogether and then ticketed it would be a different story. But the speed limit was posted.
I can't believe that they get away with that though.
Posted by: Convert
quote:
Originally posted by someguyinmd [emphasis added]
Just wanted to toss this in.
Friend of mine (who lives in MD) got pulled over for speeding in VA a few years ago and had his radar detector in his glove box and the cop wrote him a ticket for it anyway.
Illegal search. If a cop stops me in Virginia and wants to look in my glovebox, he has to produce a warrant unless he has a reasonable expectation that I am breaking the law. (And there is a legal definition of reasonable expectation.) And while he is getting that warrant, I am on my merry way. Your friend may have wanted to avoid a hassle, but all he had to say to the cop was, "you can't use forbidden fruit in court, my friend."
Red light photo radar. This is ONLY a revenue generator. As soon as the city engineers reduce the yellow time to less than three seconds, the only possible intent is to generate money. And guess what? The makers of the photo radar get a cut. The radar does NOT stop people from running red lights - quite the opposite - they run the light more often because the yellow is too short to stop.
Posted by: trojanrabbit
quote:
Originally posted by Convert
Illegal search. If a cop stops me in Virginia and wants to look in my glovebox, he has to produce a warrant unless he has a reasonable expectation that I am breaking the law. (And there is a legal definition of reasonable expectation.) And while he is getting that warrant, I am on my merry way. Your friend may have wanted to avoid a hassle, but all he had to say to the cop was, "you can't use forbidden fruit in court, my friend."
Not that it was said previously, but it's possible that the detector was discovered while the driver was opening the glovebox to get his registration. I don't think that qualifies as a search (IMO).
Posted by: Convert
Good point, Paul. I suppose that the cop might have thought the friend was going for a gun. Btw, I've never been asked for registration, only operators permit. We also don't know how the friend was driving before the stop. Nonetheless, cops can't search willy-nilly.
Posted by: henryhank
quote:
Originally posted by satguymtl
...was the accident in question the direct result of your friend driving over the posted limit?
No.. He was pulled to the side of the road with another motorist and a state trooper - minor accident. All three were rear-ended from another accident on the highway. New York State thruway last week.
Posted by: henryhank
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Man
OK:Earlier in this thread I asked people to cite a law I was skeptical about and they came through. Can anyone cite this one??
I made that assertion, but I won't be able to cite the law. I was part of a huge thread on the subject on USENET many years ago, and after alot of discussion, it was determined to be true. I don't remember it exactly, but it has something to do with alerting others to the presence of police officers, and people produced evidence that they had been pulled over and written up after doing it. Perhaps one of the officers on the forum can chime in.
Posted by: Francesco
Oh, boy. Nearly the same thing happened up here a week or two before X-mas. Driver was apparently blinded by the sun cresting a small hill on the freeway, drifted onto the shoulder and struck and killed an officer and the driver he was assisting with a flat tire. Turns out we had met the officer on a couple of occasions... :(
Posted by: Francesco
That thruway is dangerous, though. Up in the Berkshires?
Posted by: kato
quote:
Originally posted by Haps
...it is your responsibility to know the rules of the road.... the speed limit was posted.
I can't believe that they get away with that though.
I'd say it's also your responsibility to know the law. Here in PA, unless PennDOT did a traffic survey which resulted in the changed limit, the new limit is void. Except for construction zones, which are easy to identify by the big orange signs, no traffic device change (speed limit, stop signs, etc.) is legal unless it's gone through this process.
Posted by: Fish Man
In Louisiana, the Sheriff's department of each parish sets the speed limit on the streets that the parish maintains. (The state sets the limits on the highways that they maintain.)
The Sheriff has the authority to set a speed limit on parish maintained roadways (under certain state-mandated maximums) to whatever he pleases, for any reason or no reason via an executive order.
So, when they temporarily replace 35 MPH speed limit signs with 20 MPH signs, via order of the Sheriff, the speed limit officially becomes 20 MPH. Period.
Motorists that fail to notice that the signs have been changed and go the old speed limit of 35 are in violation of the law. Period.
Of course, they're counting on many motorists not noticing that they have changed the signs. It's a blatant revenue generating ploy. But, until the state passes legislation outlawing this practice, it will continue. :(
Posted by: Mike1138
quote:
Originally posted by Haps
But if Red-light cameras existed at EVERY intersection and a matter of adjustment time happened you don't think that they would work. Once people come to realize that they are everywhere and that running a light WILL get you a ticket they will begin to adjust their habits.
Adjust what habits? I’m sure they are out there, but I have never seen someone blatantly disregard a red light and go through an intersection. I don’t have statistics, but I’m sure almost all tickets from red light cameras come from people who “try to beat the red light” If they are truly concerned about safety, they can delay the time between when one light turns red and the other turns green. I'm not trying to justify running red lights, just that things like speed limits and red light cameras are touted as "making society safer" and if you speed you are endangering everyone else on the road. If they standardized the period a yellow light stayed on, I would have less of a problem with the cameras. At least around here, the timing for yellow lights is completely arbitrary. What about times where running a red light is safer than trying to stop? You live in Canada, so I'm sure you have come up on an icy intersection right when the light turns yellow. Is it safer to slam on the breaks and hope for the best or go through the intersection? Again I don't advocate running red lights, it's stupid and potentially VERY dangerous. What I am against is law enforcement telling everyone that red light cameras are for public safety, when they know that in some places they cause more accidents, but create more revenue.
Posted by: henryhank
quote:
Originally posted by Mike1138
Adjust what habits? I’m sure they are out there, but I have never seen someone blatantly disregard a red light and go through an intersection.
Then you've never driven in Boston, my friend.
Posted by: Sinuralan
I live in SF and have only seen a person intentionally drive through a red light perhaps twice in 12 years. I don't drive a lot though, a few hours per week.
I have a radar detector. I speed. The radar detector has absolutely zero effect on my normal travelling speed. The only speed change that happens due to it is a gentle slowdown when it goes off.
I normally drive 75-85, depending on the freeways I'm driving on. I've had a radar detector almost the entire time I've been driving, but I infrequently use it (maybe 5% of the time, on longer trips). I know for a fact that I maintain the same speeds whether the radar detector is on or not.
Why have the radar detector then? The 'justify my purchase' side of me says to reduce the chance of being ticketed for doing what I would do, whether or not I had the detector. However, the real/primary reason is because I'm a gadget geek, and a radar detector is a cool gadget. :rolleyes: I love having that extra information. I have my radar detector display the radar frequencies, because for whatever reason, I enjoy knowing what frequency radar the local supermarket uses. :P
As of late I've been tending to drive a bit slower (closer to 75), but again, it's a matter of how safe I feel at a particular speed on the specific roads in the current traffic, not my radar detector.
Posted by: macquariumguy
quote:
Originally posted by Mike1138
Adjust what habits? I’m sure they are out there, but I have never seen someone blatantly disregard a red light and go through an intersection.
I see them every single day on my 9 mile drive to work and back. The worst are the ones who run the left-turn red. I'm convinced one of them is going to get me some day.
And I see lots of people driving 80 or more on the few miles of interstate I drive every day. Trouble is, traffic is heavy and so they have to weave in and out, pass on the right, and generally drive like idiots to do so. Hell, just driving at a safe distance back from the car in front of you is an invitation for someone to pull in between. It's like a race every day and it's stupid.
There may indeed be people who can drive fast and be relatively safe but that's not the point. There's no way to let such good drivers get away with it without letting the jerks and idiots do so as well. I resent selfish people who endanger me and my loved ones so they can drive fast.
Catch them all, by whatever means is reasonable. That's my attitude. I think tens of thousands of lives would be saved every year.
Posted by: Sinuralan
quote:
Originally posted by macquariumguy
And I see lots of people driving 80 or more on the few miles of interstate I drive every day. Trouble is, traffic is heavy and so they have to weave in and out, pass on the right, and generally drive like idiots to do so.
I see people driving 80+ every time I drive too, but thankfully, that's the speed of traffic in many lanes, so little if any lane changing is required. Much safer that way.
Posted by: Francesco
quote:
Originally posted by macquariumguy
I see them every single day on my 9 mile drive to work and back. The worst are the ones who run the left-turn red. I'm convinced one of them is going to get me some day.
And I see lots of people driving 80 or more on the few miles of interstate I drive every day. Trouble is, traffic is heavy and so they have to weave in and out, pass on the right, and generally drive like idiots to do so. Hell, just driving at a safe distance back from the car in front of you is an invitation for someone to pull in between. It's like a race every day and it's stupid.
There may indeed be people who can drive fast and be relatively safe but that's not the point. There's no way to let such good drivers get away with it without letting the jerks and idiots do so as well. I resent selfish people who endanger me and my loved ones so they can drive fast.
Catch them all, by whatever means is reasonable. That's my attitude. I think tens of thousands of lives would be saved every year.
Isn't that a paraphrase of what I said a few pages back? You basically made my point for me: crack down on the BAD DRIVERS and the CRAZIES.
Even more: Require annual road-tests for anyone over 65 (don't get me started on that one!). Outlaw most Rice-Boyz mods that affect safety, such as 50% window tints in front (and tinting tail-lights -- morons!) and using the so-called "driving lights" without actual headlights.
I could go on and on about ways to make our roads safer. How about making seatbelt use mandatory, as a primary offense (in most states it's secondary)? How about tougher DUI laws (in some states you can even get off with a warning) and more officers patrolling with breathalyzers than trying to catch people going 75 in a 65?
You really firmly believe that all people going over the speed limit on the highway is the cause of the loss of "tens of thousands of lives?" Even GEICO and the IIHS would disagree.
Posted by: kato
quote:
Originally posted by satguymtl
How about making seatbelt use mandatory, as a primary offense (in most states it's secondary)?
Why do people argue for this? I say, buckle up or don't, it's your funeral. You're not more of a hazard to anyone else (except perhaps those in the car with you) if you don't buckle up.
However, I do think that neglecting to use an available seatbelt should waive your right to collect any accident-related personal injury compensation, even doctor bills from your own insurance company.
Posted by: Mike1138
quote:
Originally posted by kato
Why do people argue for this? I say, buckle up or don't, it's your funeral.
Good point, however, I think he/she was making the statement from a saftety perspective. This thread has mainly been about speeding and people have been associating speed limits with safety. If safety was the only driving force (no pun intended) behind traffic laws, then Seatbelts would be required. I personally ALWAYS wears my seatbelt. I don't feel as safe without it. If the speed limit is 65 and I am going 60 while everyone else is going 75, I'M THE SAFETY HAZARD. Pay attention next time someone is going at or below the speed limit in the left lane of a 2+ lane Hwy. Watch how people jerk into the other lane get past them and jerk back into the left lane. PASSING SHOULD BE DONE ON THE LEFT!! If you don't want to go as fast as others on the road, fine, but don't try and enforce the laws yourself. It's not your job to impeed traffic, no matter how wrong you think it is. If someone is driving recklessly, use your cell phone and report them. UHHH OHHH, I just opened another can of worms, using your cell while driving :D Not trying to start a flame war, this IS the Happy Hour room after all...
Posted by: Francesco
quote:
Originally posted by kato
Why do people argue for this? I say, buckle up or don't, it's your funeral. You're not more of a hazard to anyone else (except perhaps those in the car with you) if you don't buckle up.
However, I do think that neglecting to use an available seatbelt should waive your right to collect any accident-related personal injury compensation, even doctor bills from your own insurance company.
I'm not arguing about personal responsibilty -- we agree on that point -- to the extent that someone injured or killed in an accident who wasn't using a seatbelt does not affect my (and everybody's) insurance premiums.
So I guess as a crollary, we also agree on the second point. But as that does not happen, it is in my interests to make seatbelt use mandatory and enforceable as a primary offense.
But also Mike is correct: I was specifically aiming my ideas at the posters who argue that making everybody go 65 on the highway will result in less deaths. Over 30 years of the double-nickel, this was never backed up with any statistical facts. There are many more deaths and injuries on our roads caused by recklessness, carelessness, inattentiveness, lack of driver education, poor visibilty, and above all, DUI. If the police would be on the lookout for the idots and dumbasses and drunks on the road instead of people going 75 in the fast lane of a 65-limit Interstate, we'd save a lot more lives. Think about this then: a slap on the wrist for DUI will be no more likely to deter the drunk driver from repeating his actions than a convicted drug dealer will give up dealing with a suspended sentence.
Posted by: Haps
quote:
Originally posted by Mike1138
Adjust what habits? I’m sure they are out there, but I have never seen someone blatantly disregard a red light and go through an intersection. I don’t have statistics, but I’m sure almost all tickets from red light cameras come from people who “try to beat the red light” If they are truly concerned about safety, they can delay the time between when one light turns red and the other turns green. I'm not trying to justify running red lights, just that things like speed limits and red light cameras are touted as "making society safer" and if you speed you are endangering everyone else on the road. If they standardized the period a yellow light stayed on, I would have less of a problem with the cameras. At least around here, the timing for yellow lights is completely arbitrary. What about times where running a red light is safer than trying to stop? You live in Canada, so I'm sure you have come up on an icy intersection right when the light turns yellow. Is it safer to slam on the breaks and hope for the best or go through the intersection? Again I don't advocate running red lights, it's stupid and potentially VERY dangerous. What I am against is law enforcement telling everyone that red light cameras are for public safety, when they know that in some places they cause more accidents, but create more revenue.
In a lot of places the red light cameras are not put in for safety reasons. But to combat all the people trying to beat the red. If you increase the yellow you just get more people trying to beat the red.
Around here people will continue to enter an intersection until the red light appears. If you see yellow and can safely stop then do so. It's people that don't that pisses me off. I sensitive about this because I have a real nasty left turn every morning where I see this happen.
Posted by: Trent Bates
So, Emily, radar detectors are legal to use in most states. :)
Posted by: askewed
There are many types and ages of cars and the same goes for drivers. The speed limit is a range that hopefully they all can operate safely in. I don’t think the highways would even have limits if there weren’t 67’ Dodge Darts still on the road. One of my cars is an all-wheel drive machine made to go fast and stay fast in a curve. The speed limit posted is to keep the Dart from going into a ditch, it’s so a less talented driver doesn’t kill themselves and 20 others along with them. So the way I look at it… it really is one of those times that that law doesn’t apply to me. As my skills are passable and my car is more than able to handle the roads I drive on. I’m less of a safety risk and while I am concerned with others I’m much more concerned with myself. I’m not going any faster that I’m comfortable with.
I wouldn’t speed on a road I was unfamiliar with or in a car that wasn’t built to do so in. I’d never speed in a residential area or near a school (you get the idea) but the 30-minute drive to my home town to visit friends/family goes a lot quicker at 80mph than 55mph.
I do want one of those Valentine thingies but the cost seems a bit steep. I play the odds, get pulled over once every year and a half or so, go to court and beat the ticket. If I really get in a bind I have a cop friend of mine make a call for me. Yea the cops must really think speeding is bad, one call and it’s gone… they even apologize for inconveniencing me when I get to court. “Next time tell me you’ve got a friend…” Hypercritical as all get out, me I’m not hypocrite I speed and if I get caught I do everything I can to get out of it. For the record if it was just a fine and not a raise in my insurance rates I wouldn’t fight, just pay, I mean I was speeding…
Posted by: Tsiehta
I'm kind of surprised at the number of people here who think its possible to "accidentally"" speed and then think they shouldn't be held accountable. As the driver of the vehicle, shouldn't you be held responsible for everything that happens with it?
Posted by: sWampy
I'd be glad to give all cops a 20% raise if they would arrest, take the license, and sell off the SUV/sports car of every moron they see passing on the RIGHT side, it should be considered wreck-less driving and endangerment. Of course you also need to get the ones that drive in the left lane doing less than the speed limit/prevailing traffic. ;-)
Posted by: Haps
quote:
Originally posted by sWampy
I'd be glad to give all cops a 20% raise if they would arrest, take the license, and sell off the SUV/sports car of every moron they see passing on the RIGHT side,
I've seen minivans, pickups, luxury cars, family sedans, compact cars, transports and greyhound busses do this. Maybe "vehicle" would be a better choice of words instead of the incorrect implication taht it is a habit of SUV/sports car drivers.
Posted by: Convert
sWampy, what's wrong with passing on the right? Are you talking about passing while in a real lane? Or passing while on the shoulder?
If the guy if front of me is going slower than I want to go, and I can't pass on the left, I'll pass on the right, as long as I can stay on the roadway. As far as I know, passing on the right is only illegal in New Jersey, and the truckers won't let someone go slow in the left lane.
Posted by: sWampy
quote:
Originally posted by Haps
I've seen minivans, pickups, luxury cars, family sedans, compact cars, transports and greyhound busses do this. Maybe "vehicle" would be a better choice of words instead of the incorrect implication taht it is a habit of SUV/sports car drivers.
The SUV/sport cars tend to go off on the shoulder in the breakdown lane, and pass around here especially if you are anywhere near the off ramp.
Posted by: Convert
Vehicles driving on the shoulder or breakdown lane will get stopped by the cops, but only if the cops aren't already doing something else.
I know I get upset about that, but it's really only my competitive nature. I don't want them getting to the off-ramp before I do. I know that's goofy, so I try to chill. Slowdowns are irritating enough. Might as well enjoy the day. New CD, anyone? Wow, isn't that architecture over there interesting.
Posted by: aciurczak
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Man
It seems that the cop would have the burden of proving why you were flashing your headlights!
Nope. The way the law is written in NJ, at least, is that it is against the law to shine high beams into oncoming traffic if they are within 500 feet. Doesn't matter why you flashed them, for good or for evil.
I once warned an oncoming car about a radar trap. The oncoming car proceeded to turn on his light bar on top of the car and pull me over. Pretty embarassing. Luckily (for me and not them), there was a serious accident nearby while the officer was speaking with me, and he and the original radar cop both flew off to that scene.
EDIT: Here's a link to the Illinois manual describing the rule, couldn't find a NJ link, or a link to a formal law...
http://www.sos.state.il.us/publicat.../rr_chap11.html
Better link: List of # of tickets issued in Warren County, NJ. 2 were given for failure to dim bright lights:
http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cach...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Posted by: dbett
quote:
Originally posted by sWampy
I'd be glad to give all cops a 20% raise if they would arrest, take the license, and sell off the SUV/sports car of every moron they see passing on the RIGHT side, it should be considered wreck-less driving and endangerment. Of course you also need to get the ones that drive in the left lane doing less than the speed limit/prevailing traffic. ;-)
I'll see that 20% and raise you another 20% if the cops would also arrest and torture anyone found going at or below the speed limit in the left hand lane of a multi-lane highway when (1) the right lanes are open or (2) the driver refuses to pass cars in the right/center lane. Talk about creating a dangerous situation.
Repeat after me: THE LEFT LANE IS FOR PASSING. SLOWER VEHICLES KEEP RIGHT.
Posted by: Francesco
We could go on and on and on about alll the stupid, dumb, careless, or criminal things people do on the roads that are far, far more dangerous than going 75 in the fast lane of a 65.
vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2009,
Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2009
- Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser
Modified by Adam J. de Jaray