Headlight flashing faces test as free speech in FL

[Howard]

Every year in this country we kill around 40,000 on the roads. This is no big deal. So go ahead speed. Go ahead drink or do drugs and drive. It's your right. If an innocent child dies, who cares, they should have gotten out of the way .

You're like a child that keeps doing annoying things to get attention.

 

[a777pilot]

You're like a child that keeps doing annoying things to get attention.

Yes, I am.

 

[HomerJS]

How is blinking lights considered "speech".

Look up morse code and get back to me

 

[gevorg]

http://trapster.com :thumbsup:

 

[zsdersw]

Every year in this country we kill around 40,000 on the roads. This is no big deal. So go ahead speed. Go ahead drink or do drugs and drive. It's your right. If an innocent child dies, who cares, they should have gotten out of the way .

Speed hasn't killed anyone. Suddenly becoming stationary is what kills.

Being under the influence of alcohol or drugs while driving is an unsuitable condition. Remember those conditions I listed earlier that determine what speed is safe? Road, traffic, weather, vehicle conditions? The condition of the driver is another... so much so that usually the only safe speed in that condition is 0.

 

[Doppel]

We all know that speed traps are for revenue. I am surprised people are trying to pretend otherwise.

 

[a777pilot]

We all know that speed traps are for revenue. I am surprised people are trying to pretend otherwise.

If they were, then why not offically lower the speed limit to, say, 3 mph?

 

[a777pilot]

Are seat belt laws there for the sole purpose of generating revenue for government?

 

[zsdersw]

If they were, then why not offically lower the speed limit to, say, 3 mph?

Don't ask questions to which you already know the answer.

 

[zsdersw]

Are seat belt laws there for the sole purpose of generating revenue for government?

Seat belt laws are a part of the Nanny State; coddling the stupid and inept for decades.

 

[a777pilot]

Seat belt laws are a part of the Nanny State; coddling the stupid and inept for decades.

I agree.

 

[zsdersw]

I agree.

Supporting the Nanny State are the fines for violating the Nanny State's laws.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Speed hasn't killed anyone. Suddenly becoming stationary is what kills.

Being under the influence of alcohol or drugs while driving is an unsuitable condition. Remember those conditions I listed earlier that determine what speed is safe? Road, traffic, weather, vehicle conditions? The condition of the driver is another... so much so that usually the only safe speed in that condition is 0.

Absolutely ridiculous statement. Speed limits your ability to react to changes in road conditions. That could be a sharp bend in the road, a crossroad at the crest of a hill or a vehicle or other object suddenly entering your path.

Argue semantics all you want. As someone who spent 9 years responding to the dead and dying on the side of the road speed absolutely will kill.

 

[zsdersw]

Absolutely ridiculous statement. Speed limits your ability to react to changes in road conditions. That could be a sharp bend in the road, a crossroad at the crest of a hill or a vehicle or other object suddenly entering your path.

Absolutely ridiculous overreaction. Sharp bends in the road, crossing traffic, and other objects in the path are all conditions that limit the speed that should be considered safe.

Argue semantics all you want. As someone who spent 9 years responding to the dead and dying on the side of the road speed absolutely will kill.

No it won't. Failure to anticipate, notice, and react to various conditions (road, traffic, weather, vehicle, pedestrians and other objects) is what leads to death and injury. That failure is dangerous at any speed, not just speeds in excess of the posted limit.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Absolutely ridiculous overreaction. Sharp bends in the road, crossing traffic, and other objects in the path are all conditions that limit the speed that should be considered safe.



No it won't. Failure to anticipate, notice, and react to various conditions (road, traffic, weather, vehicle, pedestrians and other objects) is what leads to death and injury. That failure is dangerous at any speed, not just speeds in excess of the posted limit.

Reaction time/distance is directly impacted by speed. I'm travelling at 50, you're travelling at 80 and an object enters the road. Simple physics tells you that the object travelling faster will be further down the road (closer to the object) by the time they can react and will need significantly more room to stop. Alternatively, if your intent is to avoid the object the handling of your vehicle will be diminished by the speed you are travelling. I can slow down to a speed that allows me to safely swerve while maintaining control before you can. Either you can't swerve soon enough or you swerve and lose control of your vehicle.

Speed of travel is the only thing impacting that. Unless you're psychic you can not anticipate every item that may cross your path. Travelling at the posted speed limit for the stretch of road you are on should limit the impact as it takes into consideration many aspects you state.

 

[zsdersw]

Reaction time/distance is directly impacted by speed. I'm travelling at 50, you're travelling at 80 and an object enters the road. Simple physics tells you that the object travelling faster will be further down the road (closer to the object) by the time they can react and will need significantly more room to stop. Alternatively, if your intent is to avoid the object the handling of your vehicle will be diminished by the speed you are travelling. I can slow down to a speed that allows me to safely swerve while maintaining control before you can. Either you can't swerve soon enough or you swerve and lose control of your vehicle.

Knowing the condition of your vehicle and your own driving skill is key to knowing what speed is safe in any given area. A 1995 Chevy Cavalier with poor brakes and worn tires and shocks/struts is not going to be able to react fast enough to sudden obstacles at almost any speed. A car designed to go fast that's in good condition will have no problem stopping/changing direction in time to avoid the obstacle at 80mph.

Drivers of cars that aren't well-maintained should not go 80mph. Drivers of cars that are... and that are designed to go fast... are, all things being equal, perfectly safe to go 80mph.

A driver that's not paying attention will hit anything he/she encounters whether they're going 5, 50, or 80mph.

In the end, speed is far from the most relevant or significant factor.

Speed of travel is the only thing impacting that. Unless you're psychic you can not anticipate every item that may cross your path. Travelling at the posted speed limit for the stretch of road you are on should limit the impact as it takes into consideration many aspects you state.

The posted speed limit is arbitrary, and often set in such a way as to produce money. It will suddenly go from 55mph outside of a small town to 35mph or 25mph as a way to trap motorists. If it was truly about safety it would go from 55mph to 45mph and then to 35 or 25.

There's nothing necessarily less safe about going 65mph in a zone that's normally 55mph, either.

Posted speed limits do not adequately account for the variety of vehicles (both in type and maintenance history) and drivers. Some drivers and some vehicles aren't safe at 25mph, much less 55. If limits are necessary, variable limits make more sense than fixed.

Law enforcement should be making up for that variety by judging each situation as it occurs, but far too often their analysis is weighted in favor of generating revenue and totally distinct from any true safety concern.

 

[xj0hnx]

Knowing the condition of your vehicle and your own driving skill is key to knowing what speed is safe in any given area. A 1995 Chevy Cavalier with poor brakes and worn tires and shocks/struts is not going to be able to react fast enough to sudden obstacles at almost any speed. A car designed to go fast that's in good condition will have no problem stopping/changing direction in time to avoid the obstacle at 80mph.

Drivers of cars that aren't well-maintained should not go 80mph. Drivers of cars that are... and that are designed to go fast... are, all things being equal, perfectly safe to go 80mph.

A driver that's not paying attention will hit anything he/she encounters whether they're going 5, 50, or 80mph.

In the end, speed is far from the most relevant or significant factor.

Exactly. One time while driving down the Autobahn, going about 120mph, I saw a Mercedes AMG, badass car, coming up fast, I got over, he flew by me like I was sitting still, BUT a truck in the right lane suddenly jumped into his lane shortly after he passed me, he was able to slow to the trucks speed, about 60mph no problem. Having spent five years driving on the Autobahn and then having to come back to America, to witness some of the worst drivers literally in the world, is enough to make you cry. People driving broken down hoopies that can't even go the speed limit, moron 16 year olds speeding because you know they're pro drivers now, and idiots that don't seem to realize that yes, there are other people on the road. This country could learn a thing or two from European roads and drivers.

The posted speed limit is arbitrary, and often set in such a way as to produce money. It will suddenly go from 55mph outside of a small town to 35mph or 25mph as a way to trap motorists. If it was truly about safety it would go from 55mph to 45mph and then to 35 or 25.

There's nothing necessarily less safe about going 65mph in a zone that's normally 55mph, either.

Posted speed limits do not adequately account for the variety of vehicles (both in type and maintenance history) and drivers. Some drivers and some vehicles aren't safe at 25mph, much less 55. If limits are necessary, variable limits make more sense than fixed.

Law enforcement should be making up for that variety by judging each situation as it occurs, but far too often their analysis is weighted in favor of generating revenue and totally distinct from any true safety concern.

Yea, we've got an exit near my house, the highway is 70, the exit is 35 for about 100ft, and then back to 55 on the access road, pure stupidity.

 

[dank69]

...



Yea, we've got an exit near my house, the highway is 70, the exit is 35 for about 100ft, and then back to 55 on the access road, pure stupidity.

Speed limits have to cater to the lowest common denominator. If someone feels they cannot safely operate their car at 10mph over the posted speed limit in normal driving conditions, they should probably not be driving a car, period. It is absolutely painful to try to drive 25mph for any significant amount of time.

 

[zsdersw]

Exactly. One time while driving down the Autobahn, going about 120mph, I saw a Mercedes AMG, badass car, coming up fast, I got over, he flew by me like I was sitting still, BUT a truck in the right lane suddenly jumped into his lane shortly after he passed me, he was able to slow to the trucks speed, about 60mph no problem. Having spent five years driving on the Autobahn and then having to come back to America, to witness some of the worst drivers literally in the world, is enough to make you cry. People driving broken down hoopies that can't even go the speed limit, moron 16 year olds speeding because you know they're pro drivers now, and idiots that don't seem to realize that yes, there are other people on the road. This country could learn a thing or two from European roads and drivers.

Indeed.

The solution is better and more rigorous driver education/training, not speed traps and limits.

 

[Darwin333]

If they were, then why not offically lower the speed limit to, say, 3 mph?

First of all, they do lower speed limits on small stretches of road (45mph for 50+ miles on a hwy hear and then down to 35mph for 2 miles before returning to 45mph) and that is often where they setup the speed traps.

Second, why bother lowering the speed limit at all when they can catch all they want at the current rate? No need to take it to the extreme, as you suggest, and piss everyone off all at once when they can make just as much revenue with their current games.

Just like shortening the yellow light when they install red light cams when studies have proven that simply lengthening the yellow light period (without a scam-cam) is far more effective at preventing accidents. I had a cop almost rear end me a few months back at one of those red lights because as soon as that bitch turns yellow I stand on the breaks. Would it have been safer for me to keep going, absolutely, but I wasn't risking getting a ticket. Lots of other motorists do the exact same thing and I have noticed a large increase in accidents at that particular light. Yet the scam-cam is still there because it IS serving its intended purpose, generating revenue.

 

[Darwin333]

Reaction time/distance is directly impacted by speed. I'm travelling at 50, you're travelling at 80 and an object enters the road. Simple physics tells you that the object travelling faster will be further down the road (closer to the object) by the time they can react and will need significantly more room to stop. Alternatively, if your intent is to avoid the object the handling of your vehicle will be diminished by the speed you are travelling. I can slow down to a speed that allows me to safely swerve while maintaining control before you can. Either you can't swerve soon enough or you swerve and lose control of your vehicle.

Speed of travel is the only thing impacting that. Unless you're psychic you can not anticipate every item that may cross your path. Travelling at the posted speed limit for the stretch of road you are on should limit the impact as it takes into consideration many aspects you state.

If I am doing 80 in a BMW and you are doing 60 in a Ford Excursion, I can stop and/or swerve faster than you can. Even worse if you are pulling a boat or something like that. Simple physics tells you that the speed of an object is not the only factor in the distance it will take that object to stop.

 

[PingSpike]

LOL, wow, I knew police do some stupid bullshit but this shocks even me. Then again, cops in the South are completely fucking insane from my limited experience.

 

[PingSpike]

Too bad there isn't an app for the iphone so that you could send a text to everyone nearby who are driving.

I know this is a joke about texting while driving but I read an interesting article the other day about using GPS or cell phones mounted on the dash to allow cars to communicate red light states to each other. I'd seen a similar idea proposed based on research on how ants manage to avoid traffic congestion. It seems it would be really useful if cars could communicate road conditions and problems to each other and it actually doesn't seem like it would be difficult to solve nor would all vehicles need to support it for it to create better results.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I don't buy that 'the purpose of speed traps is revenue'. I'll buy that sometimes it is; others it's for safety; there can be both motives.

What if officers were doing a prostitution sting, or a bait car, or a drug buying sting, and someone started warning everyone in the area to prevent them doing it?

What is the purpose of police? Do they exist solely to catch people after they've committed a crime, or does their presence act as a deterrant for people committing a crime in the first place? If I see someone traveling at 80 mph and I flash my lights at him to warn him of a speed trap, he slows down to the limit to avoid a ticket. The threat of police action is enough to make him follow the law. Isn't that the goal? He's no longer violating the law; problem solved.

But if that's the goal, why hide the speed traps and make the police presence invisible? When police cars or highway patrol are driving in traffic, it's a safe bet that no one around them is going to risk driving above the speed limit. Why hide the police behind bushes then? It seems it's a less effective deterrant if people don't know they're being watched. Even after people get ticketed, they'll generally start speeding again a few miles down the road... So the speed trap really seems designed solely to get ticket revenue, not to deter speeders. The presence of police in traffic is a much more efficient deterrant, but it doesn't generate as many tickets. Speed traps are not an effective deterrant, but they generate more tickets. Which is better policing; the policy that raises more money or the policy that prevents more crime?

 

[Craig234]

What is the purpose of police? Do they exist solely to catch people after they've committed a crime, or does their presence act as a deterrant for people committing a crime in the first place? If I see someone traveling at 80 mph and I flash my lights at him to warn him of a speed trap, he slows down to the limit to avoid a ticket. The threat of police action is enough to make him follow the law. Isn't that the goal? He's no longer violating the law; problem solved.

No. The goal is for him to follow speed laws all the time. The police can't catch him more than a tiny bit of the time.

So you warning him lets him slow down for a mile, get past the speed trap, and then return to speeding like he was before - no lesson, no change.

But if he's caught and ticketed, he gets a stronger message - the fine, the point on insurance, the fact than a future offense will have a stronger penalty, a count towards the limit of offenses where he loses his license. Those are more effective deterrents to his speeding all the time.

With the analogy of a bait car, only a tiny, tiny fraction of car thefts are bait cars. They are designed to catch people inclined to steal a car.

If you warn them and they skip that car, you didn't 'solve the problem' as they go on to steal the next car they get a chance to.

Rather, this was a rare chance to catch a car thief.

But if that's the goal, why hide the speed traps and make the police presence invisible? When police cars or highway patrol are driving in traffic, it's a safe bet that no one around them is going to risk driving above the speed limit. Why hide the police behind bushes then? It seems it's a less effective deterrant if people don't know they're being watched. Even after people get ticketed, they'll generally start speeding again a few miles down the road... So the speed trap really seems designed solely to get ticket revenue, not to deter speeders. The presence of police in traffic is a much more efficient deterrant, but it doesn't generate as many tickets. Speed traps are not an effective deterrant, but they generate more tickets. Which is better policing; the policy that raises more money or the policy that prevents more crime?

They do both, for the reasons I said. They don't want people to only slow down when the police are visible next to them. They know that the threat there might be a 'speed trap' can help get people to slow down other times, and that catching people who aren't slowing down only because they can see the police helps.