Last post on May 10, 2013 at 5:23 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views
#982 of 1005 Re: 85 MPH Speed Limit [xrunner2]
Sep 07, 2012 (11:52 am)
why pay, when the open interstates are probably running at 85 anyway?
#983 of 1005 Re: 85 MPH Speed Limit [stickguy]
Sep 09, 2012 (12:56 pm)
So that you can avoid the insulting indignity of being stopped, pulled over, questioned, fined, and interrogated for no good reason in the name of "safety" just because the sign says 65 or 70 in CA where it would say 80 or 85 in truly progressive States.
#984 of 1005 France leads the way
by steve_ HOST
Oct 01, 2012 (5:24 am)
"Now in Europe, where the police in many countries use stationary and mobile radar cameras to catch speeders, the smartphone is being honed into a highly effective — and controversial — mobile radar detector.
6 percent of all French drivers now use radar driving apps.
Most of these companies rely on their users to scout and report the locations of speed cameras, which are then forwarded to others using the same application. Drivers passing the same points are asked to confirm or amend the sightings."
In Europe, Speed Cameras Meet Their Technological Match (NY Times)
#985 of 1005 Re: France leads the way [steve_]
Oct 01, 2012 (8:32 am)
Only "controversial" to those who use such cameras to increase their undeserved piles of gold or to preserve their surplus overhead jobs.
From what I have witnessed in Germany, camera traps (and I didn't hear of many) were also signed.
#986 of 1005 Re: 85 MPH Speed Limit [andres3]
Oct 01, 2012 (9:22 am)
This past summer we drove from Pennsylvania to Tennessee (via Virginia) for our vacation. The speed limit on the interstates ranged from 65 mph to 70 mph.
The main effect of the varying speed limits was that we, along with most of the traffic, were either 5 mph over the limit, or 10 mph over the limit.
#987 of 1005 Re: France leads the way [steve_]
Oct 07, 2012 (1:52 pm)
Not to sound like an advertisement, but smartphones in the US have an Escort app that has been doing this for a year now. You buy the smart cord live and use your radar detector in conjuction with your phone and you have a 2012 level of technology for "flashing your lights" to warn motorists of extra enforcement up ahead.
It works great.
#988 of 1005 La Mesa Can't Defend or Prosecute Its Underposted Limits
Oct 10, 2012 (11:24 am)
Good news! Had my trial today at 9:30 a.m.
Showed up at 9:15 a.m., procrastinated a lot and was cramming for my defense and cross examination at the last minute, so I didn't mind waiting and arriving early.
At about 9:35 they open the courtroom up, bailiff takes roll call, and we all sit until about 10:10 a.m. After the 40 minute delay, they ask us to all rise, and the judge (female) steps into the court. The court thinks they are getting their pound of flesh out with time wastage, but I'm loving it as I'm getting more minutes to do my last minute preperation and "radar error" research reading, educating myself with the time going by.
I didn't see any La Mesa PD motorcycles in the parking lot (good sign). There were a bunch of CHP bikes, and one SD PD bike. No uniformed La Mesa PD officers in court; another good sign, but one guy walking in just after the doors opened worried me a lot, as he was young and in a nice business suit (potentially my cop?)
They call one case and the person isn't present. They call my name 2nd, I stand up, say here, and the judge says the officer isn't present, case dismissed, go to the bail room.
I go to the bail room, 10 minutes later the clerk calls me up, says my case has been dismissed, that I'll receive my refund ($360) in 4 to 6 weeks. La Mesa PD and the City of La Mesa -- PAY UP!!! GIVE ME MY MONEY BACK!!! BOOOYAH!
I tell the clerk I'd like to see the officer's testimony from the trial by declaration/mail that I was found guilty in. She looks at me puzzled, and says my case has been dismissed. I tell her that my case was a Trial De Novo for a trial by declaration where I was originally found guilty, and for my own personal knowledge, I'd like to read the officer's testimony/letter that resulted in me being found guilty (she looks at me crazy) says "your case is dismissed and you'll have to pay if you want copies." I calmly state I don't need copies, just a couple minutes to review his letter and read it right here. She reluctantly hands me the paperwork, I find it quickly and read it as fast as I can as she just stands there waiting for me to finish.
The officer used general arguments that didn't really apply to my case in his declaration. He made subjective statements which would and could really be seen as false statements. Things like 35 MPH is the speed limit for optimum conditions, that at the time of the citation (10:20 a.m weekday NON RUSH HOUR) there's lots of people entering and exiting the driveways alongside the roadway, frequent bicyclists and pedestrians (bold lies). The thing is he didn't completely perjur himself because he made these statements subjectively and generally, he did later on in his letter admit when taking his radar reading I was the only moving object around (benefits doubt about radar to admit that). Therefore, he stopped short of stating there were any bicycles or pedestrians applicable to my case. Maybe he was trying to justify his enforcement efforts???
I'd like to think justice was served and that the officer was a coward who wouldn't dare defend his false allegations in a court of law. However, the truth is because I had the county seat as my venue, and the La Mesa PD normally goes to the East County Courthouse, he didn't show. Reason being that it wasn't financially beneficial to the city for him to show. He already wasted time re-writing the ticket 2 times (due to his own errors), and wasted time writing a prosecution letter in my trial by mail, he wasn't going to show up outside of his home court. The courts are clever, they schedule a La Mesa PD day at the court, and all traffic cases are heard on the exact same day every week (could be Wednesday, for example). Do you think he's going to pass up time to "kick it" with his buddies and colleagues at El Cajon, where he might have 2 or 3 trials conveniently scheduled back to back to back, or go to Kearny Mesa to handle one case he know he has to lie about to win? The financial reasoning behind traffic enforcement dictated he wouldn't show up today, and I was proven right. There's more money in it for him to show up at his regular courthouse only.
The justice of this case makes me feel better about not fighting the CHP speeding case earlier this year and just paying the fine and going to traffic school on that one. I had a good case this time and made a good judgement call.
My best judgment call was to not accept the court's offer to bribe me into accepting a guilty verdict by allowing me to go to traffic school for an extra $55 even though there's a rule you can't do traffic school within 18 months of your last session. They were willing to bend the rules on that in order to get my $360 + $55. I didn't take the deal; I doubled down and went all-in!
Take that La Mesa PD.
Tickets on Lake Murray Blvd = 2
Convictions = 0
Undefeated, 2-0 record; taking all challengers and newcomers; bring it! Bring it La Mesa! You only have until 2014 to use that almost 10 year old traffic and engineering survey where the 85th percentile was 41 MPH, but you still set limit at 35? I bet the next survey comes out to 45 MPH or more at 85th percentile, and if the limit were set to 45, I might actually obey it! 35 makes me laugh and I ignore it.
#989 of 1005 Re: La Mesa Can't Defend or Prosecute Its Underposted Limits [andres3]
Oct 10, 2012 (11:33 am)
Because, after all, it is all about you.
#990 of 1005 Re: La Mesa Can't Defend or Prosecute Its Underposted Limits [hammerhead]
Oct 10, 2012 (11:38 am)
Because, after all, it is all about you.
It's not about me. It's about all Americans.
HOpefully, the City and PD department review their conviction and fine collection rates for different citations on different roads, and keep track (stats).
Hopefully, they'll see an unusual resistance to speeding tickets given on Lake Murry Blvd. by the La Mesa PD. HOpefully, they'll see the trend that a higher percentage of people won't be walked on and tend to fight those tickets at a higher rate. Hopefully they'll see and take notice of a higher rate of dismissals and not guilty verdicts. Hopefully they'll realize enforcement efforts on underposted roads is in vain, and adjust accordingly. Hopefully, they can learn from their mistakes.
I know I did my part as a citizen to correct this bad behavior by my local gov't with negative reinforcement.