A photo of the GMT you DON'T want!

[snowbear]

My lovely wife got a photograph of the TrailBlazer from one of the local Police Departments!

 

[RedEnvoyDenali]

Is there no privacy left in the world. Can't a person just go for a nice drive without someone taking their picture.

 

[The_Roadie]

Is there no privacy left in the world. ...

Not on the public streets: Expectation of privacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sooooooo.....what was her reason for doing 43?

 

[JRTAHOE]

43 in a 30, well played.

 

[CdnGMan]

Ouch... that's kinda fast I take it??

 

[Regulator]

It looks like she even had her foot on the brakes.

 

[strat81]

My lovely wife got a photograph of the TrailBlazer from one of the local Police Departments!

Look into fighting this. Don't we have a right to confront our accuser? What are the chances the camera operator will show up?



As for speeding...
-Cities have been known to set speed limits too low solely to increase revenue via tickets. Some have also shortened yellow light duration to get more red light runners.
-In the picture above, I fail to see any conditions that would lead me to believe 43 was reckless.
-The technology exists to limit our speed on the road based on where we are and local speed limits. If it really was about safety, such tech would be implemented. But it's not about safety, it's about $$$. Imagine if a 10 over speeding ticket was $2,000. Far less people would speed, ticket revenues would drop, and city treasuries would feel the sting.

Follow the money.

 

[The_Roadie]

Look into fighting this. Don't we have a right to confront our accuser? What are the chances the camera operator will show up?

A quick Googling shows good news and bad news:

Maryland Speed Cameras: US Supreme Court Upholds Right to Confront Accuser

The decision could have relevance to cases of denied due process and denied right to face an accuser in Maryland. Under Maryland law, drivers may request the "speed monitoring system operator" to appear in court. However this person may or may not have anything to do with the actual operation of the device, and defendants have been given no right to confront the camera contractors who build, install, maintain, and process violations from the cameras in exchange for a percentage cut of the revenue. Furthermore, in 2009 the law was changed to modify the definition of a speed monitoring system operator from "an individual who operates a speed monitoring system" to "a representative of an agency which operates a speed monitoring system", an obvious effort by some Maryland lawmakers to provide cover for jurisdictions who choose to present someone with no responsibility for running the machines in court.

Even this right to face the operator has not been consistently upheld in Maryland. When operators have failed to appear upon request, drivers are typically forced to prove they requested the operator with something like a certified mail receipt, and even in those cases district courts have not always dismissed the cases on that basis. In particular Montgomery County on several occasions asserted that they do not need to present the operator in court for fixed-pole speed cameras. This policy was adopted some time after one camera operator from Gaithersburg admitted in court that he was not working on the date of a violation, causing the judge to throw out the case. Earlier this year StopBigBrotherMD.org tried to obtain documents pertaining to the basis for the policy of refusing to present the operator, under the Maryland Public Information. Montgomery County officials obstructed this request, stating that they would only release such records after a 6 month search to be begun only after they received a massive $43,000.00 payment. When asked several times for and explanation of this expense, Montgomery County failed to respond.


I recommend a bit of time spent perusing Maryland Speed Cameras is in order.

 

[snowbear]

The back story: She was trying to get around a traffic jam, so our oldest son wouldn't be late for a VFD cleaning detail. This county only has speed cameras in school zones but gives a grace of up to 12 MPH over the posted speed. Yes, she hit her brakes when she realized there was a camera there; she had been going a bit faster. The fine was only $40 - less than a tank of gas, so we paid it. Not much sense going to court - there are no points issued and she would have to take leave, costing much more money in the long run.

 

[The_Roadie]

I'd make the same decision. And you know she'll leave more safety margin time in the future. Kids can be late by 60 seconds, which is all that speeding is going to save. It's not as if they're going to turn into pumpkins at the stroke of midnight.

 

[navigator]

I agree it is all about the money.
WE don't have speeding cameras here(that I know of) but we do have stoplight cameras.
Same deal, they set the fine low enough it isn't worth fighting.
It would seem there is some way to get out of it though if it were really worth your effort.
I guess you could counter-sue to get back what it cost you.

 

[n0kfb]

If the goal were to reduce speeding, the cities would ask the police department to give their town a reputation that they don't tolerate speeding. Camera enforcement is simply a way to raise revenue. Speed Cameras | National Motorists Association

-- Dan Meyer

 

[Wooluf1952]

If the goal were to reduce speeding, the cities would ask the police department to give their town a reputation that they don't tolerate speeding. Camera enforcement is simply a way to raise revenue. Speed Cameras | National Motorists Association

-- Dan Meyer

If my info is correct, the state built a by-pass around Macon, Georgia because of their form of revenue enhancement.

 

[BO TIE SS]

-In the picture above, I fail to see any conditions that would lead me to believe 43 was reckless.

Perhaps that's why the citation was for speed and not reckless operation.

-The technology exists to limit our speed on the road based on where we are and local speed limits. If it really was about safety, such tech would be implemented.

Are you talking about the speed of our vehicles being controlled by an outside source?

If the goal were to reduce speeding, the cities would ask the police department to give their town a reputation that they don't tolerate speeding.

Wouldn't installing speed enforcement cameras accomplish that?

 

[STLtrailbSS]

Look into fighting this. Don't we have a right to confront our accuser? What are the chances the camera operator will show up?



As for speeding...
-Cities have been known to set speed limits too low solely to increase revenue via tickets. Some have also shortened yellow light duration to get more red light runners.
-In the picture above, I fail to see any conditions that would lead me to believe 43 was reckless.
-The technology exists to limit our speed on the road based on where we are and local speed limits. If it really was about safety, such tech would be implemented. But it's not about safety, it's about $$$. Imagine if a 10 over speeding ticket was $2,000. Far less people would speed, ticket revenues would drop, and city treasuries would feel the sting.

Follow the money.

If you watch top gear you will learn that its already in play, Japanese bought Skyline GTRs are electronically limited to 90mph, until reaching a designated area such as the Fuji circuit where the onboard GPS will realize an approved location and remove the electronic limiter.

 

[Porkins]

If my info is correct, the state built a by-pass around Macon, Georgia because of their form of revenue enhancement.

I don't know about that, I know they did it so you don't have to go into town. But it could be true since around my part of GA they have a Interstate Team, they love to sit on the overpasses of 75.

 

[The_Roadie]

If my info is correct, the state built a by-pass around Macon, Georgia because of their form of revenue enhancement.

When I was a kid in the 50-60's we used to drive from Mass to Florida every spring break to see my grandfather. Before the Interstates. We HAD to take route 301 through Ludowici, George. This was the most infamous speed trap in the country.

Ludowici, Georgia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Got one ticket that motivated my grandmother to write them that she hoped she could fly over them someday and arrange to flush the toilet on their town. She actually got a reply from the judge that she was being unprofessional. Wish I had saved that.

The governor, notorious Lester Maddox, was so outraged that the cesspool of corruption in Ludowici was giving the toilet of Georgia a bad name, that he erected billboards just outside the town.

Lester Goes To Ludowici - 45rpm

View attachment 22051

 

[strat81]

Perhaps that's why the citation was for speed and not reckless operation.


Are you talking about the speed of our vehicles being controlled by an outside source?


Wouldn't installing speed enforcement cameras accomplish that?

Why is speeding a crime if it's not dangerous or reckless?

And yes, if Big Brother didn't want us to exceed 35 mph on a stretch of highway because speeding is dangerous, the technology exists to limit that speed.

It's about $$$. Not safety.


See what happened here? The ticket is cheap enough that people don't bother fighting it.

 

[BO TIE SS]

Why is speeding a crime if it's not dangerous or reckless?

It's about $$$. Not safety.

I would imagine for someone to make such a bold statement, as though it were fact, they would have a degree in traffic engineering or perhaps statistics to back up such a claim.

And yes, if Big Brother didn't want us to exceed 35 mph on a stretch of highway because speeding is dangerous, the technology exists to limit that speed.

This thread started with a picture from a speed camera ticket. Look at the response it got. Now...what do you think would happen if the government even attempted to implement a program where they would be able to control the speed of our vehicles for us?

I don't understand what the issue is here. There are speed limits. There have been since before every one of us on this site was born. We all learn what rules we must follow before we get a license to drive. Most of us bend those rules from time to time, and we know that there are consequences. Anyone who takes that risk must be willing to accept the consequences. If you don't want a ticket, don't break the law. It's as simple as that. Just because you don't agree with a law, doesn't mean there isn't a legitimate reason for it. And, no, I'm not talking about revenue. I've been driving since 1982. Ive had my share of speeding tickets. I knew the risk...I know I deserved them...and I paid them without question. (and moved on)

 

[Me007gold]

A quick Googling shows good news and bad news:

Maryland Speed Cameras: US Supreme Court Upholds Right to Confront Accuser

The decision could have relevance to cases of denied due process and denied right to face an accuser in Maryland. Under Maryland law, drivers may request the "speed monitoring system operator" to appear in court. However this person may or may not have anything to do with the actual operation of the device, and defendants have been given no right to confront the camera contractors who build, install, maintain, and process violations from the cameras in exchange for a percentage cut of the revenue. Furthermore, in 2009 the law was changed to modify the definition of a speed monitoring system operator from "an individual who operates a speed monitoring system" to "a representative of an agency which operates a speed monitoring system", an obvious effort by some Maryland lawmakers to provide cover for jurisdictions who choose to present someone with no responsibility for running the machines in court.

Even this right to face the operator has not been consistently upheld in Maryland. When operators have failed to appear upon request, drivers are typically forced to prove they requested the operator with something like a certified mail receipt, and even in those cases district courts have not always dismissed the cases on that basis. In particular Montgomery County on several occasions asserted that they do not need to present the operator in court for fixed-pole speed cameras. This policy was adopted some time after one camera operator from Gaithersburg admitted in court that he was not working on the date of a violation, causing the judge to throw out the case. Earlier this year StopBigBrotherMD.org tried to obtain documents pertaining to the basis for the policy of refusing to present the operator, under the Maryland Public Information. Montgomery County officials obstructed this request, stating that they would only release such records after a 6 month search to be begun only after they received a massive $43,000.00 payment. When asked several times for and explanation of this expense, Montgomery County failed to respond.


I recommend a bit of time spent perusing Maryland Speed Cameras is in order.

Another side note about Maryland. I think it was a year or so ago, Every one of those tickets gets "signed" by an officer, as it turned out the signature was from an officer who was killed in the line of duty, yet his signature keep appearing on the tickets for close to a year after his death.

 

[strat81]

I would imagine for someone to make such a bold statement, as though it were fact, they would have a degree in traffic engineering or perhaps statistics to back up such a claim.

I would imagine a statement so inherently false would be easy to disprove.


The issue which you don't understand is that the government is making innocent men into criminals with little or no justification. It's another instance of malum prohibitum, rather than malum in se.

 

[floridafitz]

Here in Orlando the installation of "red light" cameras at our most dangerous intersections has forced the bastard red light runners to tow the line or pay the fine...and it's no $40 deal. I approve!!

 

[navigator]

I expect if everyone went the speed limit, they might actually raise the speed limit on freeways.
I mean if the speed limit is 55 and 65 is actually a safter speed, most folks are already running 65.
If they upped the speed limit to 65 then everyone would be running 75 which isn't safe.

I'll be on the interstate running 75(in a 70mph zone) and folks will come flying past me.
I usually run about 5 mph over the speed limit unless I am in a neighborhood or a city because if you run the speed limit down the highway you have folks riding your butt and flashing their lights at you which I expect is more dangerous than going 5 over.

 

[BO TIE SS]

The issue which you don't understand is that the government is making innocent men into criminals with little or no justification.

What I understand clearly is that you are making a statement that:
1) There is no legitimate need for speed limits, and
2) If there was, then the government would implement technology that would control our vehicles and prevent us from exceeding certain speeds in certain areas
3) The fact that (2) has not been done proves (1)

Sorry, but it takes a little more than that (and the use of Latin) to prove to me that speed limits exist for no other reason but to generate revenue.

 

[The_Roadie]

I expect if everyone went the speed limit, they might actually raise the speed limit on freeways.

If the regulators and the traffic engineers caved in to the pressure of the impatient public.

I mean if the speed limit is 55 and 65 is actually a safter speed, most folks are already running 65.

From an "energy involved in an accident" point of view 55 will always be safer than 65. Only reason 65 is perceived as safer is the upwards pressure of folks who get impatient with the posted speed. About the only reason 55 might be argued is less safe than 65 is the "boredom factor" which is a factor entirely under the control of the driver. I have no sympathy for folks who can't entertain themselves in a vehicle, who think their brain function is too important to waste going too slow to use it all.

If they upped the speed limit to 65 then everyone would be running 75 which isn't safe.

If it wasn't for the "friction" of vehicles doing different speeds, more capable vehicles like Corvettes should be allowed to do 95, some folks argue. Anybody buying a Corvette should be prepared to spend their entire driving career frustrated out of their gourd.

...you have folks riding your butt and flashing their lights at you which I expect is more dangerous than going 5 over.

A danger entirely caused by the impatient ones, not the regulators.

The issue which you don't understand is that the government is making innocent men into criminals with little or no justification. It's another instance of malum prohibitum, rather than malum in se.

You seem to claim that malum prohibitum is unconstitutional?

From Wikipedia:

Criminal offenses can be broken down into two general categories malum in se and malum prohibitum. The distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum offenses is best characterized as follows: a malum in se offense is "naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community," whereas a malum prohibitum offense is wrong only because a statute makes it so. State v. Horton, 139 N.C. 588, 51 S.E. 945, 946 (1905).
"Public welfare offenses" are a subset of malum prohibitum offenses as they are typically regulatory in nature and often "'result in no direct or immediate injury to person or property but merely create the danger or probability of it which the law seeks to minimize.'" Bash, 130 Wn.2d at 607 (quoting Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 255-56, 72 S. Ct. 240, 96 L. Ed. 288 (1952)); see also State v. Carty, 27 Wn. App. 715, 717, 620 P.2d 137 (1980).

My argument is that until and unless the Constitution is changed to a much more libertarian one, society has an interest in reducing the probability of harm caused by excessive speed by vehicles, and road rage, and brandishing weapons at fellow drivers, and so forth. Even if there is no accident immediately caused by the prohibited action. It's a statistical issue, and we have processes in place to change the system. It involves lawsuits, and deep pockets. Until then, pay your taxes, don't pirate music, don't cook up meth for even your own use, and wear a motorcycle helmet if your state requires it.

The existence of states who don't require riders to wear helmets is proof for me that insane policies CAN take root and grow, although if I was King, I'd allow riders to forgo a helmet ONLY if they had NO dependents or anyone who depends on their earning power, and posted proof that they had full health and disability insurance and an accident would never result in their need for charity by a hospital or the state for needing disability subsidies. Society has an interest in reducing the number of self-generated parasites. YMMV.

I'll say it before anybody needs to post it: Thank goodness Roadie ain't the King.

 

[Dad-O-Matic]

About the only reason 55 might be argued is less safe than 65 is the "boredom factor"

I disagree slightly. It's not just speed that causes a safety issue, it's the differential in speed.​

Here in Texas, we have interstate speed limits up to 75 mph with 40 mph minimum speed limits as in the rest of the country. I submit that driving 40 mph in a 75 mph zone is much more dangerous than driving 80 mph.

I can't deny the physics that the damage done increases with speed (

), but the likelihood of causing a crash increases with the differential in speed because your reaction time is inversely proportionate to the speed differential.

Add to that the masking effect of a driver ahead of you, and reaction time is even less. That is, when the driver in front of you blocks your view and then suddenly changes lanes revealing the slow moving vehicle and you're left with an "oh sh*t" decision. Not enough time to change lanes safely so you slam on the brakes, try to head for the shoulder (if there is one) and hope the guy behind you isn't tailgating.

Therefore, if I'm in heavy traffic I will try to match my speed to the surrounding drivers, regardless of the speed limit. If the police happen to single me out of a pack driving 10 mph over, I'll accept that risk rather than getting rear ended by the one guy driving 20 mph over and not paying attention. Personally I've seen and/or been in more accidents or near accidents caused by slow drivers than fast ones. YMMV

 

[strat81]

What I understand clearly is that you are making a statement that:
1) There is no legitimate need for speed limits, and
2) If there was, then the government would implement technology that would control our vehicles and prevent us from exceeding certain speeds in certain areas
3) The fact that (2) has not been done proves (1)

Sorry, but it takes a little more than that (and the use of Latin) to prove to me that speed limits exist for no other reason but to generate revenue.

You do not understand.

It is my contention that many speed limits are set arbitrarily low and, regardless of their level, most speeders are not acting unsafely.

You appear to be of the opinion that WRT driving laws, something is unsafe simply because it is illegal.

 

[strat81]

You seem to claim that malum prohibitum is unconstitutional?

Not at all, just that many laws that fall under that banner are, IMO, BS.

 

[The_Roadie]

Not at all, just that many laws that fall under that banner are, IMO, BS.

Ahhhh, I get it. I conform under protest to many BS laws and regulations because I'm keeping my powder dry for bigger fights. For instance, I always opt-out at the airport to the nude-o-scope scanners (because it's allowed) even though opt-ing out earns me a 4th Amendment-violating testicular grope. I need to fly, and all I can do to annoy the TSA while still getting to fly is to opt-out of the scanners and force them to do the grope (which most of them hate as well, BTW).

 

[strat81]

Ahhhh, I get it. I conform under protest to many BS laws and regulations because I'm keeping my powder dry for bigger fights. For instance, I always opt-out at the airport to the nude-o-scope scanners (because it's allowed) even though opt-ing out earns me a 4th Amendment-violating testicular grope. I need to fly, and all I can do to annoy the TSA while still getting to fly is to opt-out of the scanners and force them to do the grope (which most of them hate as well, BTW).

If you have nothing to hide, you will submit, comrade.

 

[BO TIE SS]

It is my contention that many speed limits are set arbitrarily low

Yeah, I get that. I was just hoping for something to support that claim. It still appears to be nothing more than an opinion.

You appear to be of the opinion that WRT driving laws, something is unsafe simply because it is illegal.

Not only did I not state that, I didn't even imply it.

I said that there are speed limits, we are expected to stay within those limits and there are consequences for not staying within those limits.

 

[Ghoster]

Well.... this thread has confirmed what I already knew. Maryland sucks. If you think Maryland is bad you should speed through a red light in DC. I don't know how many cameras caught me, but they got some awesome pics of the ass end of my Porsche.

I think my wife has been hit 3 times with red light cameras in DC.

 

[strat81]

Yeah, I get that. I was just hoping for something to support that claim. It still appears to be nothing more than an opinion.

Many speed limits set too low | The Detroit News | detroitnews.com

 

[BO TIE SS]

Many speed limits set too low | The Detroit News | detroitnews.com

A news article is a good start. But, it too is an opinion. (that of the writer) Not to say that there aren't facts contained in the story.
Here in central Ohio, there was a village called "New Rome". They were notorious for their illegal speed trap. Now the village no longer exists. Sure, there are going to be counties, cities, villages, townships, etc. who do things wrong. And not only with speed limits. But it sounded like you were implying that all across the U.S. all speed limits are set too low, and are made that way just to bring in revenue.

I certainly didn't mean to hijack this thread. But I sure did take part in doing so. Therefore, this will be my last post in it.

 

[Short Bus]

I certainly didn't mean to hijack this thread. But I sure did take part in doing so. Therefore, this will be my last post in it.