"Actions speak louder than words, but not nearly as often."
Love that sig norcalbusa!
Love that sig norcalbusa!
That's why speeding tickets get categorized under "Entertainment" when I pay them.but hey, if speed is your thing, own it and pay for it...
I am pretty sure that few, if any here supports unfettered excess speed. IMHO, the issues are:I use cruise control, and never go more then 7 miles over the speed limit, usually more like 5 miles over. Havent spent a DIME on a radar detector since I was in college (30+ years), havent had a ticket SINCE I HAD A FREAKING RADAR detector giving me that FALSE sense of security... I dont have to worry about heart or stomach lining meds either...
its simple and I can click of serious miles and actually NEVER worry about a ticket... and and and actually enjoy the ride...
just another option I throw out there.... but hey, if speed is your thing, own it and pay for it...
if your man enough to speed, be man enough to pay..oh, and NOT argue with the cop...lol
I have received several well-deserved tickets. I've also been let off a few times when I've deserved one but had a generous officer. What bothers me is when they aren't deserved.if your man enough to speed, be man enough to pay..oh, and NOT argue with the cop...lol
Yes they are harder to detect, smaller targets always are. Having said that only when the operator is using Lidar does it play a huge factor because the operator must visually lock the set on to the target whereas in radar the machine takes care of getting the reading and the newer sets are better and better all the time. In a head on shot as you describe with any modern moving radar you would be picked up at least a half mile away. Maybe the set just wasn't on or it was stationary radar in the crusier, who knows.I have a question are motorcycles harder to detect. I know that there has been several times that I was running quite a bit faster than the speed limit on the ST and passed law enforcement going the other way and I didn't even get a look. I don't have a radar detector so I don't know if they were running there radar but I would have to believe that the hwy patrol would have been.
Depending on the circumstances it is an offence under our Highway Traffic Act to block any lane and if we had a policy for that we would need one for every offence in that legislation so the short answer is no we don't.Rod,
What was your (and your department's policy) regarding "left lane bandits"? Were they ever pulled over and ticketed?
Not trolling here. Just wondering? It appears to me that these LLB's create situations where those held up behind them start doing things that are "dangerous". I hear that Florida is trying to pass legislation to deal with this.
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2...ticket-florida
I do know that driving in most countries in Europe, people stay right, unless passing, and you certainly encounter fewer "trains" being held up by LLB's and traffic flows smoother.
Rod
There are still K band radars around and I am not sure of the sensitivity range of that detector but most modern sets are Ka now which is a different higher frequency than K. X band radars are no longer approved for use in Ontario and are the lowest frequency sets so based on just that I would bet it wouldn't be worth the install time.I have a late 80s Escort detector that I haven't used in years. It's K and X band, and was state of the art in the last millennium, but is it even worth turning on anymore? I realize it's not going to do anything for LIDAR, but it should still pick up most RADAR, shouldn't it?
As for the nose dive, I'd be interested in hearing what some officers have to say about that. It seems to me that you can't get a fine because your front suspension compressed. I have beat RADAR before by braking, so I'm favourably disposed toward that tactic.
PS: FWIW, I have found that being honest, polite, and friendly when pulled over is by far the best strategy. And the older I get the better it works!
So the signs that say either "Slower Traffic Keep Right" or "Keep Right Except to Pass" (I have seen both here in Canada) are merely advisory and carry no legislative backing?Depending on the circumstances it is an offence under our Highway Traffic Act to block any lane and if we had a policy for that we would need one for every offence in that legislation so the short answer is no we don't.
I can't speak for Canada, but the standard for signage in the U.S. says that signs that are white with a black background or black with a white background are regulatory. Presumably, any highway administration putting up that kind of sign would have the law behind it.So the signs that say either "Slower Traffic Keep Right" or "Keep Right Except to Pass" (I have seen both here in Canada) are merely advisory and carry no legislative backing?
Speed enforcement should be about safety of the masses. When/If it becomes more about revenue generation, I have a problem with it. If the intent is to slow people down to keep at suggested limits, why do they have to "hide" or set up "traps" and resort to electronic wizardry technology? If I don't see you, I am less likely to check my speed against the last sign I passed some time ago. But if I see a LEO, you can bet I am checking that speed. I have seen a dozen troopers in cars, motorcycles and planes working speed traps on our interstates, but in a short section of say of mile or two. Everyone slows down for that short section. Great, just great. Pat yourself on the back. But having those dozens of troopers spread out over 100 miles, being seen by more people and more places seems to be more effective in slowing folks down.... but, oh, I forgot..... there is no revenue generation in that.
Somebody is getting that money, and I'd bet anything that if it slowed to a trickle, that somebody would get their shorts in a knot over it and start applying pressure for more enforcement.In California, CHP get none of the traffic fine, city agencies and sheriff's get a miniscule amount (something less than 10%). I know a BUNCH of CHP and traffic cops who all tell me- Revenue isn't the driver here.
California law below:I can't speak for Canada, but the standard for signage in the U.S. says that signs that are white with a black background or black with a white background are regulatory. Presumably, any highway administration putting up that kind of sign would have the law behind it.
--Mark
?California law below:
21654. (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
As a note, if the vehicle is traveling at the speed limit, it is not required to stay in the right lane.
Hey Jeff, haven't seen you for a few years, how's it going? Next time you're in SD give me a call, we're way overdue for a cold beer.California law below:
21654. (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
As a note, if the vehicle is traveling at the speed limit, it is not required to stay in the right lane.
I think that's the literal interpretation of the wording, but with 7 lanes heading in the same direction it becomes a free-for-all. Half the cars on the road here don't follow that rule, even with 2 lanes in the same direction.?
I read that as the speed limit has no bearing on it, keep right unless passing
Somebody is getting that money, and I'd bet anything that if it slowed to a trickle, that somebody would get their shorts in a knot over it and start applying pressure for more enforcement.
--Mark
I doubt very much that California's courts get to keep that money to spend on whatever it is that keeps judges and lawyers entertained. Or maybe they do and the state chops that much out of their operating budgets. In Virginia, what the courts collect ends up in the hands of the counties where the tickets are issued. The budget for county where I live has about $2.3M in revenue line items that are directly associated with fines for traffic infractions. It's a tiny fraction of our $1.8B budget, but it's not chump change, either.I disagree. The money flows to the courts by the way, who ... are expert at spending every dime and more.
Sure, because if somebody came out and told the people who write those tickets that they weren't raking in enough revenue, there'd be a whole lot of police officers not writing tickets. We had that happen in Virginia after they expanded the definition of reckless driving and adopted "abusive driver fees" that put huge surcharges on drivers who got those tickets. The state police made no bones about writing tickets that wouldn't trigger those fees because they knew very well it wasn't about safety. That, combined with an uproar from the proletariat, eventually brought the whole thing to an end when the law was repealed a year later. The legislator who championed that program is, coincidentally, the owner of a large law firm that specializes in traffic cases. No revenue opportunity there.The notion of LEO's writing citations for revenue here is simply untrue.