Traffic Tickets - Maybe it is All About Revenue

[velomoto]

The argument as I understand it is whether we as human beings - with the automobiles currently available to us - are capable of driving at speeds higher than the posted speed limits (on appropriate roads) without crashing more frequently than while driving currently posted speed limits (in the USA - the answer in Germany is yes).

Matt, I agree that there are many who are capable of driving at speeds above the limit but if we are to condone speeding, then how fast is the real limit and who shall be allowed to drive at this speed - because clearly not everyone is capable of driving and not all equipment is safe to operate at high speeds?

 

One of the mistakes being made by many in this thread is the gross over use of generalizations. What is safe for long stretches of interstate crossing a desert and flat midwest states may not be true for the winding old highways thru the mountains in the East. Similarly while a small rural community may be able to pull in a profit with a well placed speed trap, large cities may have such a large bureaucracy that at best they can do is to break even.

 

Perhaps there are many who are more aware when driving above the limit, but I would also argue there are many who remain equally oblivious in their driving regardless of the speed they are traveling. But I digress...

 

I thot the main point of this thread was whether or not traffic tickets were about revenue or safety. Frankly I don't know what really drives departments to focus on specific traffic infractions. Perhaps in some cases there is pressure due to a recognition of a local traffic problem, perhaps it is an attempt to raise revenue, or a department could move to quotas in an effort to deflect criticism of a force which isn't "working hard".

 

Are we to ignore those who break traffic laws, and if so what other law breakers should we ignore? (warning: slippery slope ahead) Would it be better to replace traffic laws with "suggestions"? I say if we have laws then we need to enforce them or eliminate them. If speed limits don't make sense, then the people need to have them changed or abolished. Currently the only system we have for enforcing traffic violations uses the threat of fines and jail. Are there other options?

[ghaverkamp]

One of the mistakes being made by many in this thread is the gross over use of generalizations. What is safe for long stretches of interstate crossing a desert and flat midwest states may not be true for the winding old highways thru the mountains in the East. Similarly while a small rural community may be able to pull in a profit with a well placed speed trap, large cities may have such a large bureaucracy that at best they can do is to break even.

 

Was the follow-on to the first sentence intended merely to prove it?

 

I agree that there are many who are capable of driving at speeds above the limit but if we are to condone speeding, then how fast is the real limit and who shall be allowed to drive at this speed - because clearly not everyone is capable of driving and not all equipment is safe to operate at high speeds?

 

And so, rather than set arbitrary limits (based on "gross overuse of generalizations"), wouldn't it be better to punish those who do not drive safely? Instead, we're told that that's too hard. Crafty lawyers will just their clients off. It's too difficult for the cops to make their cases. And so on.

 

The "real limit" is whatever is safe for the driver at the time. Granted, such a limit demands judgment and maybe court deliberations. In short, work. So, we have legions of cops whose primary duties are to go hold a speed meter in the direction of cars and, based not on anything other than a readout, cite a person for violating an arbitrary limit. It's not clear what this does to put an end to the cell phone jabberers who refused to turn their neck to see a motorcycle next to them, the parents servicing the apparently life-or-death needs of their rugrats in the back seat, or the nuisance who needs to change stations on his radio to get more bass. It's not clear how much of that the cop sitting on the side of the road pointing a beam of light at license plate will even see or care about, anyway.

 

But at least we're safe from the real killer, knowing an easy conviction awaits.

[velomoto]

Was the follow-on to the first sentence intended merely to prove it?

Should I have been less specific???

 

And so, rather than set arbitrary limits (based on "gross overuse of generalizations"), wouldn't it be better to punish those who do not drive safely? Instead, we're told that that's too hard. Crafty lawyers will just their clients off. It's too difficult for the cops to make their cases.

So do we eliminate the limits or not enforce them? If we don't enforce speed limits, which laws do we enforce?

 

The roads I drive represent a mild form or anarchy as the masses chose to ignore the laws of the roads they travel. Speed limits seem to be nothing more than guidelines - except in school zones which are monitored closely by speed gun toting LEO's. Running red lights, passing on the shoulder, making u-turns across the median of freeways, driving without a license or insurance, all common occurances in my travels.

[ghaverkamp]

So do we eliminate the limits or not enforce them? If we don't enforce speed limits, which laws do we enforce?

 

I'd eliminate them.

 

In absence of that, I'll point out that decisions are made everyday about which laws to enforce. Perhaps you've missed the news of late, what with the stories about illegal immigration and fired U.S. Attorneys and SFPD not enforcing marijuana possession laws, etc.

 

Even in an Orwellian state, not every law would be enforced. It would just be like now; you'd know you're being watched, just not necessarily when.

 

Running red lights, passing on the shoulder, making u-turns across the median of freeways, driving without a license or insurance, all common occurances in my travels.

 

So, in your opinion, would cops be better serving the goals of safety by enforcing speed limits, or the other problems you listed?

 

The point of many here is not about supposed generalizations about skills or abilities, but rather that rather than declaring that they're valiantly fighting for roadway safety by enforcing such nonsense regulations as speed limits, the finite police resources that are out there would better serve roadway safety by attacking unsafe activities, not arbitrary speeds.

[GoGo Gadget]

So you anti speed limit types want everyone to be able to drive/ride as fast as they want? So Granny is driving 55mph (within her limits) and junior is flying on his alphabet bike at 150mph (within his limit). Unfortunately we do not have dedicated alphabet bike highways, so he has to share that road with Granny. So when Granny looks behind her, sees a spot 1/2mile away, then makes a lane change and junior bounces off the back of her car, who gets the ticket?

[bakerzdosen]

So you anti speed limit types want everyone to be able to drive/ride as fast as they want? So Granny is driving 55mph (within her limits) and junior is flying on his alphabet bike at 150mph (within his limit). Unfortunately we do not have dedicated alphabet bike highways, so he has to share that road with Granny. So when Granny looks behind her, sees a spot 1/2mile away, then makes a lane change and junior bounces off the back of her car, who gets the ticket?

In Germany, Granny. Faster vehicle always has the right of way. Those Germans are really on to something...

[steve.foote]

...So when Granny looks behind her, sees a spot 1/2mile away, then makes a lane change and junior bounces off the back of her car, who gets the ticket?

 

Well, the rider, obviously. You wouldn't want a dead guy to walk away scott free.

[MattS]

The problem with these types of discussions is that the language used ("the masses", "idiots") continues to betray the perspective that "I know best and those idiots don't" ... except who died and made you boss?

 

Everybody's got their pet peeve about road use, who does what and why I don't like. You talking on the phone: $200 for being a putz. Hey you, tailgating in a snowstorm: $500 for being a d!ck. But it doesn't work like that, because it's cheap to do it the way it's done now. It would be akin to changing the price of a can of beans at the supermarket by the penny and by the second based on the worldwide production and consumption of beans both instantaneously and cumulatively based on previous trends, as well as based on the price of futures contracts. Pisses off the housewives, and it can get expensive, so they work with one price for the beans. Speeding is the same way. It's cheap and easy to say, "Too fast, pay!" It's much more cumbersome to expect motor officers to gauge potential or actual error on the basis of queerly formulated guidelines, as has been mentioned.

 

If everybody drove at the limit or under, the cops would go into another racket (or they'd probably get the speed limit lowered). The funny thing, again, is that if you do drive at or below, you'll never get stopped. Once you choose to exceed the limit and take the risk, then how does it matter how the officers choose to distribute the pain? Whether they choose 100% out-of-towners or 0% does not prove one way or another that it is "all about the revenue" but rather that they're shrewd businesspeople at work.

[casticus]

Well here in Michigan (which is screwed up in many ways believe me) we have pretty much eliminated any idea of tickets for revenue.

 

All tickets written under Michigan Motor Vehicle have their fines going to the Michigan Public Liberary Fund. Now the courts take a cut which they use for their operating expenses but the Police agencies get nothing.

 

Now tickets in my city, written under the city ordinances (which mirror the motor vehicle code of Michigan) all the money left over from your fine after the district court takes its cut goes back into the City's general fund. Which if the accountants really gave us the guaranteed 1/3 of the budget we are supposed to get (as opposed to spinning off every city department they can into an "enterprise fund" thus reducing the overall general fund to whatever level they want to limit the $$ we get)we might see something like 2 cents on the dollar for. Trust me when I say our cops could care less about the revenue for the city.

 

When I worked anti-crime in the "ghetto" I made a ton of stops and wrote very few tickets. Why? Because I was looking for criminals not traffic violators.

 

When I worked patrol if I pulled you over (in between going to 911 calls) I wrote you. Why? Because I took the time to pull you over for a traffic violation that I observed you make knowing full well that there were many other you have committed and many other drivers committing them that I didn't observe.

 

I have never solely worked traffic enforcement but the guys I know who did/do write just about everyone they pull over. In Las Vegas I know a motor cop who says the only time a motorist starts giving him crap about giving them a ticket is when because it is so cold/icy or raining that he has parked his bike and is driving a car. So then he just tells them to "look at his boots", they pretty much shut up then.

 

I am well aware that there have been agencies that have funded their shiny new "stuff" by writing tickets but I have never worked at one and I don't know of any in my state.

[DiggerJim]

Well here in Michigan (which is screwed up in many ways believe me) we have pretty much eliminated any idea of tickets for revenue.

 

Now tickets in my city, written under the city ordinances (which mirror the motor vehicle code of Michigan) all the money left over from your fine after the district court takes its cut goes back into the City's general fund.

Guess what? It's still a revenue source. If the General Fund has $X with tickets and your budget is $Y then if all of a sudden we took all the ticket revenue away the General Fund would be $X-? which is definitely going to result in your budget being less than $Y. The exact dollar of ticket revenue might not have made it across the hall to your department, but the dollars you got are a result of there being enough of them, including ticket revenue, in the General Fund.

 

If you doubt this, stop writing tickets with fines attached. Write them all up for warnings or where the fine goes to the state or is significantly lower than speeding. At the end of the month let us know if you're still working for the department.

 

A couple of years ago I made the offer of $1000 to the charity of choice for any officer who did that who was on the "it's all about safety" side of the argument. Never got one to take me up on the offer.

 

Jim

[BailyD]

What makes many here think that writing a speeding ticket is easier than any other violation?

 

On the contrary it is almost always more effort to write a speeding ticket than a red light, improper lane change or any other violation. I firmly believe 80% of my department does not like to issue speeding tickets. Why? Because it's more work! In addition to filling out the normal paperwork a radar log must be completed. More detailed notes regarding the violator must be noted. More time and energy is used in court during testimony.

 

A red light trial? Very easy. Being cross examined for nearly an hour about my observations and radar training? Not much fun.

 

As far as allowing the motoring public to determine their own speed at which they feel comfortable? Good luck! I am sure everyone here has had hours upon hours of specialized training giving them distinctive advantages on the roadway, in addition to their yearly driver training in-services. Even with extra training you still can't control other people's actions. The motoring public is just too diverse.

 

In NJ, and probably everywhere else in the United States they'll give anyone who's conscious a driver's license. Go to Germany and get a license. I bet anything they have more stringent driver training than we do. In addition to their training I'll bet that if you pull something stupid they'll pull your license in a heartbeat.

 

Accidents aren't accidents, they are crashes. I mentioned it in the other thread and I'll mention it again. I believe many of the Traffic Cops write for safety, not monetary gains. If money's the problem then try and substitute it with a 30 suspension or better yet give them 4-8 hours community service picking up trash on the roadside. A few hours into the job, standing on the shoulder of the road they will get a good feel for how fast everyone else is driving.

 

The fear of getting a ticket is what keeps people from continuing to exhibit bad driving habits.

[motorman587]

Well here in Michigan (which is screwed up in many ways believe me) we have pretty much eliminated any idea of tickets for revenue.

 

Now tickets in my city, written under the city ordinances (which mirror the motor vehicle code of Michigan) all the money left over from your fine after the district court takes its cut goes back into the City's general fund.

Guess what? It's still a revenue source. If the General Fund has $X with tickets and your budget is $Y then if all of a sudden we took all the ticket revenue away the General Fund would be $X-? which is definitely going to result in your budget being less than $Y. The exact dollar of ticket revenue might not have made it across the hall to your department, but the dollars you got are a result of there being enough of them, including ticket revenue, in the General Fund.

 

If you doubt this, stop writing tickets with fines attached. Write them all up for warnings or where the fine goes to the state or is significantly lower than speeding. At the end of the month let us know if you're still working for the department.

 

A couple of years ago I made the offer of $1000 to the charity of choice for any officer who did that who was on the "it's all about safety" side of the argument. Never got one to take me up on the offer.

 

Jim

 

I will take you up on that. $1000 if I just write warnings???

[BailyD]

Get your checkbook out cause I got about 30 guys in my department that will take you up on that offer!

[GoGo Gadget]

If you doubt this, stop writing tickets with fines attached. Write them all up for warnings or where the fine goes to the state or is significantly lower than speeding. At the end of the month let us know if you're still working for the department.

 

A couple of years ago I made the offer of $1000 to the charity of choice for any officer who did that who was on the "it's all about safety" side of the argument. Never got one to take me up on the offer.

 

Jim

 

Ok, I'll take you up on that. It is fitting that this is police week. I would like that $1000 to go to http://www.nationalcops.org/.

 

Several years ago the county pissed me off. They stopped paying Deputies inline with Police Officers. So I stopped writing tickets under the County Code which sends the money to the County. I have written every ticket under State code which sends the money to the State. I started that in March 2005 when I got out of Motor School.

 

Nobody noticed or said a word to me about it. Somehow the County Board of Supervisors did not seem to notice the thousands of dollars not going into the general fund. Maybe that is because they worry more about the tax base than ticket revenue. However I can assure you that when traffic accidents and deaths take a jump, they notice and start asking why LE has not done something about it.

 

 

Do you need the address for where to send the check, or can you get it off the website? Let me know if I can help you process that payment.

 

[DiggerJim]

The offer stands. The requirements are easy. You have to prove your job used to (like this month) primarily involve writing speeding tickets (like how many tickets you wrote & for what infractions, by shift, & the fines involved -- typical FOIA stuff). Then I want the same information after 30 days.

 

You may not write a single ticket over the next month that involves a fine. That removes the financial motivation. You must of course still be assigned in a role that would normally require you to write tickets (e.g. no traffic cops now moving into desk jobs or getting promotions to the detective division).

 

At the end of the month I will also want to see a copy of your personnel file to insure that you have not been reprimanded or otherwise officially "encouraged" to write tickets that would normally be fine generating offenses (or weren't just written up for that this month so you're just doing the same thing next month). I will also want to know how to contact your supervisor so I can verify your performance over the test period with him/her.

 

All of this information is the same as would be available to me through Freedom of Information Act requests so there should be no worries about private information being made public. Also, the caveats about not changing jobs, etc. are to insure that your job now involves you writing speeding tickets and you'd still be doing the same except for the experiment we're conducting.

 

The reason for the restrictions is that we don't want to pollute the results with officers who wrote one ticket last month and don't write any this month or who were on traffic duty last month but going on vacation this month. The whole idea is to see if everything else being the same, if we remove the $ component if ticketing practices remain the same.

 

Everyone has an opinion but there isn't any real data. This is a way to get real data. If I get any serious takers I'll be publishing a website with the results to show the world that either money makes a difference or doesn't in why police write tickets.

 

Jim

[motorman587]

Sounds like you changing the game. I can tell how tickets I wrote this year. Jan. 109, Feb 54 Mar. 38 April 39. Why the low numbers for me?? I have other responsiblities in my unit. Now you are stating that if I stopped writing for a month I would get $1000. I can tell you that in June 7th to July 5 I will be in Alaska. So do you want me to sent you my ticket count for the year and what address? When I get back I again will not write a single ticket for a month. I want my $1000. My money will go to the Special Olympics of Florida.

 

Why don't I send you how many I wrote for the year average it and you can post it and when i get back from Alaska give a week or two and I will not write a ticket for 30 days. Now with being a public forum is that contract??? How do we know you are serious and pulling our chain??????

[BailyD]

We can't do it for a couple reasons:

 

1. Our officers do other work than "just write tickets" so that would eliminate them. Maybe some larger departments have dedicated ticket writers, but we don't have that luxury.

 

2. A great deal of our job is handling crashes. If someone creams a soccer mom on her way to school a ticket has to be written. This type of incident accounts for many summons.

[BailyD]

You mentioned speeding tickets twice. Do you want to see if we can stop writing speeding tickets?

 

That would be VERY easy!

[motorman587]

Why could I not write a insurance or registration ticket?? They are dismissed as long as the insurance or registration was vaild at the time of stop. Same thing for not carring your licence. Dismiss fee is $7.50. I would just stop writing speeding tickets for 30 days.

[SageRider]

Jim,

Please sign all the LEOs up. Try for the Unrally date +- 2 weeks!

[DiggerJim]

Sounds like you changing the game.

I'm not changing the game. This whole thread is about speeding tickets being about revenue more than about safety. Most of the LEOs argue that it's about safety and not about revenue. Most of the civilians argue that it's about revenue and not safety.

 

So, we do a controlled experiment (the scientific method) designed to see who is right. The control part means we exclude changing all other variables as much as possible to see if Safety is right or Revenue is. We also want an experiment designed so that gaming it is eliminated as much as possible.

 

For instance, it's easy to "prove" it's not about revenue by successfully meeting the challenge not to write any revenue generating tickets for a month by taking a month's vacation. But that doesn't really prove anything else except you've got a month's vacation time.

 

The experiment is designed to see if removing the revenue generating aspect of ticketing (and nothing else) alters your department's attitude toward you. If the safety argument is correct, then as long as the officer is still making safety stops, still visible, still going about his job except all the tickets are non-revenue generating (e.g. warnings) the department should have no negative commentary about his performance. If as I and others suspect, it is about revenue, then there is going to be a discussion as to why he's not writing rev-gen tickets.

 

The restrictions I put in place are designed to keep the experiment controlled & valid as a test of my hypothesis. If there's a scientist on board who can suggest a proper experiment design that would probably help us get this thing underway.

 

Jim

[MotorinLA]

Sure, let everyone determine their own “safe” speed. Apparently the Squid I scraped off the pavement yesterday did a good job of riding at a safe speed. He got lucky and escaped with only road rash and a fractured wrist.

 

When you’re 21 years old, you ride in jeans and a T-shirt, you have been riding a motorcycle for three months and you just bought a brand new GSXR 600, you have little understanding of the word “safe”. The rider stated he was going about 20 mph when the pickup truck cut him off. It is interesting that the calculations from the 171 feet of slide his bike left on the pavement calculated to a speed of 50-59 mph. The rider later told us, “It didn’t feel like I was going that fast…”

 

Needless to say, when you go into an unplanned stoppie during an emergency braking maneuver and flip your bike over, it’s not going to end well.

 

But hey, I’m sure his speed had nothing to do with it…

 

WAKE UP PEOPLE! It is human nature to overestimate our own abilities. As much as you may think you are God’s gift to the roadway, you’re NOT! (It took me 34 years to realize this about myself, wait, I still think that about myself ).

 

Anyway, when you deal with traffic collisions on a daily basis and you see what people do when they are driving, you get a better understanding for why we need traffic laws and enforcement of those laws. (HINT: It's not revenue)

[GoGo Gadget]

Sounds like you changing the game.

I'm not changing the game. This whole thread is about speeding tickets being about revenue more than about safety.

 

 

Yes, you are changing the game. You said:

]

If you doubt this, stop writing tickets with fines attached. Write them all up for warnings or where the fine goes to the state or is significantly lower than speeding. At the end of the month let us know if you're still working for the department.

 

 

Jim

 

 

My situation applies to what you said. I no longer write them under county code, so the money is going to the state, which is one of your conditions. I will happily send you copies of all the tickets I wrote prior to and after I changed how I wrote them. I can also easily prove I still work for the same department, your other requirement.

 

 

 

Or if you want a fresh experiment, I can go back to writing under county code. Tell me how many and what kind you want written in a 30 day period. Then for a 30 day period I will switch back to writing them under state code so the county does not get the money. I'll give you my supervisors number, you can call him and ask him if he noticed. The answer will be "No"

[motorman587]

What makes people do the speed limit??? It has to be the fine and points??? I understand what you are saying but if all wrote nothing but warnings, what would make you slow down??

 

Like I said I am willing to not write for 30 days. In my department we do not have written warnings, but I still ask if I write other than speeding. IE seatbelt, registration, DL not carried etc......... Will those still count as revnue type tickets??? Remember if the license, registration and insurance is valid the courts will dismiss for $7.50, can I still write those?????

[Dave McReynolds]

As far as allowing the motoring public to determine their own speed at which they feel comfortable? Good luck! I am sure everyone here has had hours upon hours of specialized training giving them distinctive advantages on the roadway, in addition to their yearly driver training in-services. Even with extra training you still can't control other people's actions. The motoring public is just too diverse.

 

When my family moved to Nevada in the '50's, there were no speed limits on the highways outside of the cities and towns. It had been that way for many years. People in Nevada seemed to be proud of that, and I believe if it were up to the people in Nevada, it would still be that way. I believe Nevada had to adopt the 55 mph speed limit when that was in effect during the '70's, and I don't believe they were allowed, under federal law, to go back to no speed limits after the 55 mph speed limits were relaxed.

 

But the fact remains that on Nevada highways during the '50's, gents in their Corvettes would go 100 mph, while the more grandmotherly types would go whatever speed they wanted to go, and things got sorted out somehow, without an inordinate number of Corvettes piling into the rear ends of Nash Ramblers.

 

Granted, Nevada has wide open spaces. So does West Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and a broad swath of states northward from those three states. So does a lot of the California central valley and the strip east of the Sierras. For other places within those states that are not so wide open, speed limits make some sense.

 

I would like to know if the accident statistics for Nevada during the days with no speed limits were any worse than now. I suspect not, because if it had been a big problem, they probably would have done something about it, but I have no data to base that on.

[ghaverkamp]

But hey, I’m sure his speed had nothing to do with it…

 

It sounds as though his lack of ability to control his vehicle at his chosen speed and failure to take into account potential hazards was what caused his accident. It's not that speed is not a factor, it's that brainless statements like "speed kills" place all of the emphasis on speed. Some arbitrarily chosen speed limit doesn't magically form a boundary between safe and unsafe.

 

I wish it did. All four accidents (3 bike, 1 car) I've been involved in have occurred well below the posted speed limit. If speed was the driving force, they shouldn't have happened.

[PhillyFlash]

Not Nevada, but...

 

http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm

 

http://leg.mt.gov/content/audit/download/98l-11.pdf

 

http://www.investigatemagazine.com/july00speed.htm

 

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-fearf.html

 

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2005/809_839/pages/809-839_Final.pdf

 

And, of course, an oldie but goodie:

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html

[Deans BMW]

There is a giant difference between being a squid on his new GSXRXXX riding in tank top, flip flops, no helmet etc. going way too fast in a crowded in town situation and a rider on a rural clear little or no traffic good road with good visibility and full gear cruising along at 80, 90 or even the ton. In one case a LEO is remiss in not making the stop and going for the max, in the other case, the stop is clearly for revenue generation and the excercize of his, or hers, megalomania.

[Agent_Orange]

[MotorinLA]

gaverkamp wrote:

It sounds as though his lack of ability to control his vehicle at his chosen speed and failure to take into account potential hazards was what caused his accident. It's not that speed is not a factor, it's that brainless statements like "speed kills" place all of the emphasis on speed. Some arbitrarily chosen speed limit doesn't magically form a boundary between safe and unsafe.

 

I wish it did. All four accidents (3 bike, 1 car) I've been involved in have occurred well below the posted speed limit. If speed was the driving force, they shouldn't have happened.

 

Deans BMW wrote:

There is a giant difference between being a squid on his new GSXRXXX riding in tank top, flip flops, no helmet etc. going way too fast in a crowded in town situation and a rider on a rural clear little or no traffic good road with good visibility and full gear cruising along at 80, 90 or even the ton. In one case a LEO is remiss in not making the stop and going for the max, in the other case, the stop is clearly for revenue generation and the excercize of his, or hers, megalomania.

 

Obviously speed is not the Primary Collision Factor in all traffic collisions, especially on city streets. However, if you check with the CHP, you will find that speed is the PCF on a disproportionately large number of their collisions.

 

Greg, citing your own four traffic collisions as evidence that speed is not a component in safe driving proves little, except for maybe that you’re not a very good driver (sorry, couldn’t resist…).

 

Stopping distance at 60 mph = approximately 315 feet.

 

Stopping distance at 80 mph = approximately 500 feet

 

Double your speed = quadruple your stopping distance

 

Hey Dean, all it takes is one jack rabbit…

 

And yes, I do get to put a limit on your max speed, as it is partially my tax money that will pay for your Life Flight and life time care when you solo TC on that back road and become a vegetable in a hospital bed for the rest of your life.

 

Remember, it’s all IMO and as such probably worth less than the normal $.02.

[BailyD]

Comparing New Jersey roadways to Nevada??? I've been out west one time and when I retire I'm packing up my wagon and heading west!! New Jersey, New York, Philadephia, Baltimore and Washington areas are very different than the open roads out west, "one big city", although the people around here drive like their on the open roads out west.

 

I agree with the stopping distances quoted. It's pretty straight forward, faster you go, longer it takes to stop. Traveling at speed on a closed, controlled course is one thing, but we have absolutely no control over the other drivers therefore we need more cushion.

[motorman587]

gaverkamp wrote:

It sounds as though his lack of ability to control his vehicle at his chosen speed and failure to take into account potential hazards was what caused his accident. It's not that speed is not a factor, it's that brainless statements like "speed kills" place all of the emphasis on speed. Some arbitrarily chosen speed limit doesn't magically form a boundary between safe and unsafe.

 

I wish it did. All four accidents (3 bike, 1 car) I've been involved in have occurred well below the posted speed limit. If speed was the driving force, they shouldn't have happened.

 

Deans BMW wrote:

There is a giant difference between being a squid on his new GSXRXXX riding in tank top, flip flops, no helmet etc. going way too fast in a crowded in town situation and a rider on a rural clear little or no traffic good road with good visibility and full gear cruising along at 80, 90 or even the ton. In one case a LEO is remiss in not making the stop and going for the max, in the other case, the stop is clearly for revenue generation and the excercize of his, or hers, megalomania.

 

Obviously speed is not the Primary Collision Factor in all traffic collisions, especially on city streets. However, if you check with the CHP, you will find that speed is the PCF on a disproportionately large number of their collisions.

 

Greg, citing your own four traffic collisions as evidence that speed is not a component in safe driving proves little, except for maybe that you’re not a very good driver (sorry, couldn’t resist…).

 

Stopping distance at 60 mph = approximately 315 feet.

 

Stopping distance at 80 mph = approximately 500 feet

 

Double your speed = quadruple your stopping distance

 

Hey Dean, all it takes is one jack rabbit…

 

And yes, I do get to put a limit on your max speed, as it is partially my tax money that will pay for your Life Flight and life time care when you solo TC on that back road and become a vegetable in a hospital bed for the rest of your life.

 

Remember, it’s all IMO and as such probably worth less than the normal $.02.

 

I like this guy??? Now take that!!!! You are really wasting your time. Somebody will come back with something and blah, blah, blah. They will never understand, until you get called out 2am in the morning, or got to the hospital and deal with family etc.......... Job security, I say.

[Deans BMW]

John and MotorinLA, belive it or not, I see your valid point, however, what speed is too fast, and what is too fast. Having spent most of my riding career.......so far....out in the west, a cruising speed of between 80 and 100 is entirely reasonable on many bikes, mostly Beemers IMHO.

[ghaverkamp]

John and MotorinLA, belive it or not, I see your valid point, however, what speed is too fast, and what is too fast. Having spent most of my riding career.......so far....out in the west, a cruising speed of between 80 and 100 is entirely reasonable on many bikes, mostly Beemers IMHO.

 

Impossible. They've had to make death notifications; therefore, if the speed limit sign says it's too fast, it is.

[Deans BMW]

 

 

 

You are kidding, I hope, especialy the part where you stated " if the speed limit sign says it's too fast, it is."

 

If you are not kidding then that would qualify as the most ill informed and ignorant statement of all time.

 

With all due respect.

[Agent_Orange]

[Stir]

gaverkamp wrote:

I wish it did. All four accidents (3 bike, 1 car) I've been involved in have occurred well below the posted speed limit. If speed was the driving force, they shouldn't have happened.

 

Deans BMW wrote:

Greg, citing your own four traffic collisions as evidence that speed is not a component in safe driving proves little, except for maybe that you’re not a very good driver (sorry, couldn’t resist…).

 

Greg is much better when he is going fast. Stability and the bike steers itself.

 

I wouldn't be able to keep up with him even if my helmet was buckled.

[GoGo Gadget]

Double your speed = quadruple your stopping distance

 

Another thing to think about is that reaction time is constant. You will not react any quicker at double the speed, but you will travel twice the distance in the time it takes you to react. Go through an offramp at 40mph, and when you see the lumber in the road, you have plenty of time to brake, and steer for safety. Go through the same offramp at 80mph, and most riders are at their performance edge, or close to it. So they can't brake safely, nor steer for safety. The bike or car may be able to perform the necessary maneuvers, but since rider and driver training is nil in the US, that person will most likely crash.

 

 

 

 

Last week I was in court, the defendants attorney was talking to me before court and looking for a way to explain the the judge how his fleeing felon of a client was not really endangering anybody by riding his R6 down the highway at 130mph. I told him it was simple math. A 430lb motorcycle with a 170lb rider at 130mph has about 340,000 ft/lbs of energy. A civil war era cannon firing a 10lb cannonball at 1250fps has about 240,000ft/lbs of energy. So with 100,000ft/lbs less energy, nobody thinks it is a good idea to shoot cannon balls down the highway, yet his client thought it was a good idea to ride at that speed.

 

He took a plea and decided not to go to trial.

[motorman587]

 

I think I done with this one too.

 

I did write about 20 plus, started out in a school zone. Ended in up in a school zone. All stops were for speeding and most ended up with mutilple tickets. Seatbelt, insurance and registration. I had one with DWLSR, child restraint and seatbelt. Stop a motorcyclist, hauling a$$, no eye protection, shorts and t-shirt. Gave him a warning. Just kidding. Gave him the speed and eye protection. Had a temp permit. Got love the laws.

[ghaverkamp]

 

Last week I was in court, the defendants attorney was talking to me before court and looking for a way to explain the the judge how his fleeing felon of a client was not really endangering anybody by riding his R6 down the highway at 130mph. I told him it was simple math. A 430lb motorcycle with a 170lb rider at 130mph has about 340,000 ft/lbs of energy. A civil war era cannon firing a 10lb cannonball at 1250fps has about 240,000ft/lbs of energy. So with 100,000ft/lbs less energy, nobody thinks it is a good idea to shoot cannon balls down the highway, yet his client thought it was a good idea to ride at that speed.

 

It's too bad the lawyer was so innumerate. He could have asked you how many 4500 pound SUVs you keep off the road doing the oh-so-safe 55 MPH.

[russell_bynum]

 

Last week I was in court, the defendants attorney was talking to me before court and looking for a way to explain the the judge how his fleeing felon of a client was not really endangering anybody by riding his R6 down the highway at 130mph. I told him it was simple math. A 430lb motorcycle with a 170lb rider at 130mph has about 340,000 ft/lbs of energy. A civil war era cannon firing a 10lb cannonball at 1250fps has about 240,000ft/lbs of energy. So with 100,000ft/lbs less energy, nobody thinks it is a good idea to shoot cannon balls down the highway, yet his client thought it was a good idea to ride at that speed.

 

It's too bad the lawyer was so innumerate. He could have asked you how many 4500 pound SUVs you keep off the road doing the oh-so-safe 55 MPH.

 

There you go again with logic and facts.

[steve.foote]

 

I think I done with this one too.

 

I did write about 20 plus, started out in a school zone. Ended in up in a school zone. All stops were for speeding and most ended up with mutilple tickets. Seatbelt, insurance and registration. I had one with DWLSR, child restraint and seatbelt. Stop a motorcyclist, hauling a$$, no eye protection, shorts and t-shirt. Gave him a warning. Just kidding. Gave him the speed and eye protection. Had a temp permit. Got love the laws.

 

John, did you check them for sunscreen, too? We all know the nanny-state needs to make sure all the bases are covered, don'tcha know.

[GoGo Gadget]

 

Last week I was in court, the defendants attorney was talking to me before court and looking for a way to explain the the judge how his fleeing felon of a client was not really endangering anybody by riding his R6 down the highway at 130mph. I told him it was simple math. A 430lb motorcycle with a 170lb rider at 130mph has about 340,000 ft/lbs of energy. A civil war era cannon firing a 10lb cannonball at 1250fps has about 240,000ft/lbs of energy. So with 100,000ft/lbs less energy, nobody thinks it is a good idea to shoot cannon balls down the highway, yet his client thought it was a good idea to ride at that speed.

 

It's too bad the lawyer was so innumerate. He could have asked you how many 4500 pound SUVs you keep off the road doing the oh-so-safe 55 MPH.

 

 

I think his math skills were just fine. Delta-V is the key component. A 4000lb SUV driving next to a 430lb motorcycle is very little threat when both are traveling at 55mph. Trust me, I pull my share of idiot cagers over as well. Last week I pulled up to a guy on an RT intending to give him the slow down signal, but as I pulled next to him, a car pulled off the shoulder at 20mph when the traffic flow was 60mph+. The RT braked hard and had to swerve around the moron. Moron might be spending some time in jail for that maneuver. See? Speed differential is the problem, not revenue. If I cared about revenue, I would have pulled the RT over long before the bike got far enough down the road to almost get splattered.

[BailyD]

My last day I only wrote 7 or so.

 

-first thing in the morning, pickup through a residential neighborhood crosses into on-coming traffic, strikes curb on opposite side of the road he was on, blows out both tires, continues across four 5' high berms of dirt nicely spaced apart, into residence's yard, runs over 4 shrubs, spins out on front lawn and severed 6" thick fruit tree. Total of 425' off of road (not including distance to cross over on-coming lane)

 

Driver is 17 and has been driving for three weeks and insists he was driving 38 mph. I'm certain he was traveling at speed he thought he could go safely.

 

I'll repeat it AGAIN, the speed limits are set for the most idiotic drivers (diverse group). When we have a special tool that can help us differentiate them from the good ones I'll be glad to let go of the speed limits.

 

Maybe some type of scarlet letter? A giant "I" for idiot?

 

On a side note he nearly struck a guy head on drivnig to work and then 10 minutes after the crash two children came out of the house he ended up at to wait for the bus.

 

My partner and I were called in this morning to investigate another crash and make a notification. It doesn't seem to bother him, but I can't clear the thoughts of other crashes out of my head.

 

--In emergency room are three children 3,4 and 5. They were in the minivan with mom. Dad hasn't lifted his head from his hands in twenty minutes of crying. The 3 yoa looks up at me and says "I know my mommy's dead" He tried to wake her up at the crash site. I saw her face. I almost cried right there.

 

--mother calls my cell every week for six weeks to talk about her son's last words as he died on the sidewalk. I try everything to make her feel better. She seems to get better and I don't hear from her again. I still see his roadside memorial every day.

 

--mother is SCREAMING at me on the phone "Don't tell me my son's dead, he not dead, don't you dare tell me!!!! I was awake 22 hours working that case. She calls every 2 months or so to check on the case.

 

--I left crash scene and went to hospital to check on driver. I walk into waiting room just as doctor and nurse walk in. The whole family's there checking on their father. The doctor gives the news as I walk into room. The screaming was terrible.

 

All I'm asking is give a little thought about the time/distance/energy topics which were brought up. They always play a role in every crash. Speed will always equal more time/distance/energy. Even if you're the one who's wiped out on the bike, think out the driver who now has to live with the thought of killing you.

[ghaverkamp]

I think his math skills were just fine. Delta-V is the key component. A 4000lb SUV driving next to a 430lb motorcycle is very little threat when both are traveling at 55mph.

 

If the difference in velocity is really the issue, and not sending cannonballs flying down our streets, why use that as an example? Answer: difference in velocity is not the issue. That 4500-pound SUV traveling at 55 MPH represents more energy that the 600-lb bike/rider combo at 130 MPH. The difference in speed doesn't change that.

 

If I cared about revenue, I would have pulled the RT over long before the bike got far enough down the road to almost get splattered.

 

The overriding issue isn't about whether you care about revenue, but whether the system is designed around revenue.

[russell_bynum]

I think his math skills were just fine. Delta-V is the key component. A 4000lb SUV driving next to a 430lb motorcycle is very little threat when both are traveling at 55mph. Trust me, I pull my share of idiot cagers over as well. Last week I pulled up to a guy on an RT intending to give him the slow down signal, but as I pulled next to him, a car pulled off the shoulder at 20mph when the traffic flow was 60mph+. The RT braked hard and had to swerve around the moron. Moron might be spending some time in jail for that maneuver. See? Speed differential is the problem, not revenue. If I cared about revenue, I would have pulled the RT over long before the bike got far enough down the road to almost get splattered.

 

But you didn't argue Delta V, you argued Energy.

 

Using that argument, a 4500lbs SUV has the same energy at ~48mph as a 600lbs motorcycle/rider does at 130mph. So if energy is why he was dangerous, then you should be ticketing all those SUV's going 48mph too.

 

Also...and this is just picking nits...unless I've done my math wrong (which is entirely possible), a 430lbs bike with a 170lbs rider going 130mph has about 10,906,133 ft/lbs of energy, not 340,000.

 

E = 1/2mv^2

 

M = mass. 430lbs bike + 170lbs rider = 600lbs

V = Velocity. We need FPS. 130mph * 1.466666667 = 190.6667FPS

 

So: E = 1/2*600*190.6667^2

E = 1/2*21812274

E = 10,906,133 ft/lbs

 

I think.

[ghaverkamp]

Also...and this is just picking nits...unless I've done my math wrong (which is entirely possible), a 430lbs bike with a 170lbs rider going 130mph has about 10,906,133 ft/lbs of energy, not 340,000.

 

E = 1/2mv^2

 

M = mass. 430lbs bike + 170lbs rider = 600lbs

V = Velocity. We need FPS. 130mph * 1.466666667 = 190.6667FPS

 

So: E = 1/2*600*190.6667^2

E = 1/2*21812274

E = 10,906,133 ft/lbs

 

You need to derive mass from weight:

 

E = 1/2*(600/32.2)*190.6667^2

[scottie_boy]

 

I'll repeat it AGAIN, the speed limits are set for the most idiotic drivers (diverse group). When we have a special tool that can help us differentiate them from the good ones I'll be glad to let go of the speed limits.

 

Maybe some type of scarlet letter? A giant "I" for idiot?

 

 

Uhhhh, that special tool is supposed to be you and a little common sense. If I can see the unsafe drivers, why can't you?

[p_interceptor]

_________________________________________________________

Quote:

_+1 and that especially goes for the leo's. i know several caught for speeding and the first thing they did was show their badge. so i would say no one likes a ticket.

___________________________________________________________

 

LEO's never speed and never stretch the truth.

[russell_bynum]

You need to derive mass from weight:

 

E = 1/2*(600/32.2)*190.6667^2

 

My Highschool Physics teacher is doing one of these right now.