Traffic camera detector

[Mitchell Andrus]

Traffic camera detector. Well, you knew somebody would make one, right?

Works on GPS and a database of known camera positions.

http://www.gpsangel.com/index.php?page_id=1&sid=

Go to the locations page and input a zip code. Zero in on Washington, DC. There are hundreds. Very clever. There aren't any anywhere near 83501, so Ken you're clear until you get up near Spokane.

Hey, if it makes you aware of the need to drive more carefully..... Beep, Beep, Beep.
.

[Myk Rian]

It's a gimmick. You can do the same thing with your GPS.
Install a "Point of Interest" file into the GPS, and it will warn you all by itself.
poi-factory.com is the place to go.

[Eric DeSilva]

Driving long distance for the holidays, I installed Trapster, an iPhone app before I left. Same principle--database of known cameras and speed traps. The three speed traps I passed were not in the database and the four warnings I got were red herrings. YMMV.

[curtis rosche]

Shouldn't need one if youare a safe driver and aren't trying to endanger the rest of us out on the road. You don't know how many times I wish I could shoot the guy who passes someone and expects me to move out of my lane because another car won't let him go fast enough

[Brian Kent]

Around here the only cameras are the red light cameras. When companies use unfair practices like shortening the yellow light time, people and newspapers go after them until they change. With that said…

Don't go through a red light.

My friends that have been caught paid a $270 reminder fee and now they don't go through red lights. I am very glad to be able to make one less hospital call or preside over one less funeral.

A recent news article was all about the revenue the city gets and how much the company gets, and then had one last line at the bottom of column.:

"Accidents at this intersection have been reduced by 2/3 since the red light cameras were installed."

[Greg Peterson]

I think $270 for running a red light is far, far to light a penalty. Not only is one endangering other drivers and passengers, it also shows an utter lack of respect for the well being of others.

I think a $1,000 fine would get their attention. And three tickets in two years would get them a nice little letter from DMV telling them their license has been suspended for one month, no hardship permits allowed.

We take driving way to casually. Its a privilege, not a right and needs to be treated as such.

[Bruce Page]

I don’t mind them at all. If you are not speeding through a red light you have nothing to worry about. Around here it used to be that if you slowed down for an impending red light you stood a good chance of getting rear ended.

[Roger Myers]

I'm certainly not advocating running red lights, or any kind of reckless driving, but I do use a radar detector all of the time, and the Escort model I now have has a gps built in to it with a database of red light cameras, speed cameras, and speed traps built in to it, and the database is updated weekly and you download the update to your radar detector. When you approach a red light or speed camera, or known speed trap, or get a hit on radar, it alerts you both by audible tones, visual signals, and voice alerts (it literally will announce "red light camera ahead".
It also uses the gps system to detect false alerts by recognizing frequency and location, and after seeing the same frequency and location, will stop alerting on these false alarms...
Best money I ever spent on a car accessory.

Again, not advocating running lights and I don't do that, but some of these red light cameras have very very short yellow lights, and some speed cameras are definately revenue enhancing products for the towns...

Roger

[Roger Myers]

Shouldn't need one if youare a safe driver and aren't trying to endanger the rest of us out on the road. You don't know how many times I wish I could shoot the guy who passes someone and expects me to move out of my lane because another car won't let him go fast enough

Curtis... I agree with your main points...now when you say "your lane", I hope you aren't referring to the left lane on a multiple lane road... certainly nothing tweeks me more when driving than people who are in the left lane (also known as the passing lane) when they should be in the right (or driving lane)...
When I was growing up, it was illegal to pass on the right and there were many signs saying "keep right except to pass"...sadly that has changed and does cause a lot more difficulties. I also drive a lot in Europe, and as drivers there, the penalty for staying in the left lane (or passing on the right) is fairly severe...

[curtis rosche]

I was reffering to a regular road and someone passes a buggy and I nearly hit them because they are in my lane and couldn't wait 15 seconds more to pass. They even do it up hill and around corners. Then flick me of when I beep my horn at their reckless driving

[Ken Fitzgerald]

I think $270 for running a red light is far, far to light a penalty. Not only is one endangering other drivers and passengers, it also shows an utter lack of respect for the well being of others.

I think a $1,000 fine would get their attention. And three tickets in two years would get them a nice little letter from DMV telling them their license has been suspended for one month, no hardship permits allowed.

We take driving way to casually. Its a privilege, not a right and needs to be treated as such.


Greg,

You and I have disagreed on a lot of subjects but I sure agree with you on this one.

I will also add even though I'm in my 60's and approaching the age when I am sure my driving skills will decay.....as surely as we need to test and license new young drivers....we need to do the same on aging drivers...I see too many elderly drivers whose car is beat up due to their having hit other objects and cars. I have been hit by one of those whitehaired drivers and either she didn't realize she hit or was ignoring me but her car looked like it was one of the '70s models that had been bought from a demolition derby survivor auction.

[Mitchell Andrus]

I think $270 for running a red light is far, far to light a penalty. Not only is one endangering other drivers and passengers, it also shows an utter lack of respect for the well being of others.

I think a $1,000 fine would get their attention. And three tickets in two years would get them a nice little letter from DMV telling them their license has been suspended for one month, no hardship permits allowed.


Agreed, but the owner of the car gets the fine, not the driver. If you want to catch the driver, park a cop in a car.

The majority of fines are given for turning right on red, not for people racing through an intersection. Most intersection cameras are aimed at right turn only lanes because they need to isolate one lane and it's easier to identify the plate while the car is nearly stopped.

Not stopping short of the line or at the line, but still stopping past the line before turning gets you a fine in most cases. judges throw these out if you can take the time to fight it. This isn't the same as blowing through an intersection nor as dangerous.
.

[Mitchell Andrus]

Greg,

.....as surely as we need to test and license new young drivers....we need to do the same on aging drivers...I see too many elderly drivers whose car is beat up due to their having hit other objects and cars.

I'm in favor of testing (written and practical) every 7 years to age 65, every 3 years after that. If nothing else, people will hit the books over and over and be aware of what's expected of them.
.

[Mitchell Andrus]

Roger, some states allow van-mounted speed cameras. They move.
.

[Mike Cruz]

If people spend as much time and energy paying attention to their driving (how fast they are going, what color the light ahead of you is, and coming to a complete stop where you are supposed to) instead of making sure you have to technology to know where the equipment is that is trying to catch you when you are disobeying the law, the roads would be safer, there would be less accidents, traffic would be reduced, insurance premiums would go down, etc, etc.

[Dave Johnson29]

some states allow van-mounted speed cameras. They move.
.

Yup, even out here in the sticks. They have warning signs but in the town they visually merge in with the clutter. They park them on the sidewalks leaving just enough room for a mobility scooter to squeeze through.

Not a problem for me as I hit the cruise control as soon as I get to the posted limit. We only have one set of traffic lights in town! :D:D

I like them if it slows people down. I don't see the need for speed on the roads and I have spent a good deal of my life racing cars and motorcycles. I **love** speed but it is just plain nuts to break speed limits on the road. They are set at those speeds as that is the fastest it is reasonably safe to travel in those conditions.

AZ leads the Nation in red-light running deaths. It is not until somone close to you was the "T" in the T-bone that you realize that even a $1K fine is not enough. These idiots need to wake up to the risk and stupidity of running lights, I'd toss them in jail on the spot. I say "was" as it was not that long ago we stood at the grave side in Phoenix.

[Eric DeSilva]

I daresay I don't believe all of you are telling the truth. I live in Washington DC. I cannot tell you the last time I saw a car on the beltway, or I95 or I66 that was doing 55. And, frankly, if you were doing 55, it would put you substantially below the average speed of traffic and might give me cause to think that you were creating more danger than you were avoiding. I rarely see anyone driving the speed limit anywhere--it isn't just the highways.

Yes, running red lights is bad. Yes, making dangerous passes is bad. But, if you've driven in the city, you've gotten marooned in the middle of an intersection unexpectedly because someone else was making a left where they aren't supposed to. Do you think the camera cares whether you got stuck because of some idiot ahead of you, as opposed to being one of those people routinely blocking the box? So, yes, I'm interested in where they are. Similarly, I'm not interested when I'm out of state in making my particular car the test case for whether some local cop's radar is correctly calibrated.

My point is that it is not valid to equate wanting technology that tells you where speed traps or red light camera are to being a dangerous driver. My car has a high performance suspension, brakes and tires. I daresay that makes my car safer at higher speeds than some other cars. That doesn't mean, however, that anyone who doesn't drive a car like mine is dangerous. Careful with the apples and oranges.

[Brian Kent]

Eric, I don't get your opening sentence. Am I not telling the truth that We should not run red lights, or that I would love to make one less hospital call or preside over one less funeral?

These cars weigh a couple of tons each, and for all the safety measures built in, people still die.

I led a funeral for a girl in her 20's, a passenger in the car when her best friend ran the red and got T-boned by the truck with a green. I'll never forget the horrified look on the face of the driver.

I have also had 2 members of my congregation who had aged out in driving ability and ran the lights, fortunately only causing short hospitalizations. For both of them, we finally got them to stop driving.

This is real issue with gigantic projectiles.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Eric,

Since 1965:

I have had 2 speeding tickets, 1 ticket for running a stop sign, 1 ticket for improper lane useage and 3 parking tickets. That's 45 years of driving.

It's easy to remember because the number is low.

You can say....well gee...he lives in Idaho....Yeah but I drove Chicago for 4 1/2 years and I'm the guy they gave company cars to drive when they wanted them quickly retired as I drove the most miles of 8 engineers working there.

When I get pulled over...it's "yes sir" or "No sir" or "Yes, officer" or "No officer".....

My oldest son is a deputy sheriff...my daughter has patroled as a police officer. After holding them to some high standards as kids driving the family vehicle, they would enjoy it too much if the Old Man got a ticket....and they would know......

You may be skeptical but...please don't assume everyone drives like they do in DC or as you might do...I don't ...and sir...please don't assume everyone is a liar.

[Greg Peterson]

I prefer to go the posted speed limit. There are times when I feel uncomfortable going the speed limit as other drivers on passing me right and left. These instances are on hiways and freeways. Surface streets aren't a problem.

The residential speed limit is 25, but if I go over 20 in my neighborhood I feel like I am speeding. Kids and pets have a habit of darting out from parked cars and hedges. The few extra seconds it takes me to finish driving the five blocks are worth it to me. I consider it being neighborly.

Among the various hats I wear at work, I manage a fleet of thirty drivers. They have schedules to maintain and often times traffic and number of stops conspire to prevent them from getting back in time for their next run. I never encourage them to speed. I tell them to just be quick and cut out whatever inefficiencies that are within your power to control.

I take safe, courteous driving very seriously. The last thing I want is for one of my drivers to be involved in a serious accident.

[Aaron Koehl]

I daresay I don't believe all of you are telling the truth. I live in Washington DC. I cannot tell you the last time I saw a car on the beltway, or I95 or I66 that was doing 55. And, frankly, if you were doing 55, it would put you substantially below the average speed of traffic and might give me cause to think that you were creating more danger than you were avoiding. I rarely see anyone driving the speed limit anywhere--it isn't just the highways.

Yes, running red lights is bad. Yes, making dangerous passes is bad. But, if you've driven in the city, you've gotten marooned in the middle of an intersection unexpectedly because someone else was making a left where they aren't supposed to. Do you think the camera cares whether you got stuck because of some idiot ahead of you, as opposed to being one of those people routinely blocking the box? So, yes, I'm interested in where they are. Similarly, I'm not interested when I'm out of state in making my particular car the test case for whether some local cop's radar is correctly calibrated.

My point is that it is not valid to equate wanting technology that tells you where speed traps or red light camera are to being a dangerous driver. My car has a high performance suspension, brakes and tires. I daresay that makes my car safer at higher speeds than some other cars. That doesn't mean, however, that anyone who doesn't drive a car like mine is dangerous. Careful with the apples and oranges.
DC, eh?

In my experience, you're lucky if you're moving at all on the beltway. :D

[Art Mulder]

I cannot tell you the last time I saw a car on the beltway, or I95 or I66 that was doing 55. And, frankly, if you were doing 55, it would put you substantially below the average speed of traffic

I live in London, Ont (which is halfway between Detroit and Toronto on pretty busy highway.)

I do think that Eric's comment about average speed is worth noting. I've read several times that the difference in speed between drivers is more important than the maximum speed. I can clearly remember a car safety video during my driver's training (back in '81!!! :rolleyes:) where they made the point that you should drive with the majority of traffic, whether it is a few mph over or under the speed limit.

I wonder, do different areas of the country have official and unofficial speed limits by you folks?

Around here the speed limit on the highway is officially 100kph (62.5mph) but I would estimate that the majority of people do around 110 (68.4mph) -- especially right around Toronto -- and I would NEVER expect to get a speeding ticket at 110. The dangerous drivers are the ones who blow past at 120 (75mph) or more, weaving in and out of traffic. (again, I'm talking specifically highway traffic here.)

On the other hand, when I cross the border into Michigan, the speed limit is 65mph and most people seem to hold close to that.

[Mitchell Andrus]

I do think that Eric's comment about average speed is worth noting. I've read several times that the difference in speed between drivers is more important than the maximum speed. I can clearly remember a car safety video during my driver's training (back in '81!!! :rolleyes:) where they made the point that you should drive with the majority of traffic, whether it is a few mph over or under the speed limit.

I wonder, do different areas of the country have official and unofficial speed limits by you folks?

Around here the speed limit on the highway is officially 100kph (62.5mph) but I would estimate that the majority of people do around 110 (68.4mph) -- especially right around Toronto -- and I would NEVER expect to get a speeding ticket at 110. The dangerous drivers are the ones who blow past at 120 (75mph) or more, weaving in and out of traffic. (again, I'm talking specifically highway traffic here.)



All reasons I prefer (and trust) an officer's on-the-spot judgment over a camera operator's and city's profit motive.
.

[Myk Rian]

I wonder, do different areas of the country have official and unofficial speed limits by you folks?
Before I retired, the morning drive into Detroit depended on what lane you were in. This is for I-96 eastbound. Brighton to Livonia.
Left lane - 82 mph, but be ready to pull to the shoulder when it stops suddenly.
Center lane - 70 mph with the big trucks.
Right lane - Whatever speed you could do. Sometimes you could do better in this lane, because everybody was stacked up in the left lane.

[Eric DeSilva]

Ken-

Tickets aren't a measure of driving within the law. In 27 years of driving, I've had one moving violation--a speeding ticket in Wyoming. And Ken, I hate to say it, but the OD cops I know have some of the heaviest feet around.

Brian-

Either the commenters here are way, way outside the statistical norms, or people are not telling the truth 100%. I've had lots of people tell me how law abiding they are, but watched the speedo creep up and over 65. Or roll through a stop sign. Or fail to clear an intersection during a red light. Or change lanes without signaling. My gut reaction is that if sat in a car with anyone for a day--Mother Teresa or not--I'm going to be able to spot a violation. I cannot believe that anyone can maintain 55 mph in the absence of a speed limiter unless they look at their speedo at least once every 10-15 seconds. If your attention drifts at all, you are going to start driving to the speed of traffic, and that isn't 55 mph.

The problem that I see with the comments above is that people claiming to be 100% law abiding tend to get a bit moralistic about traffic regulations. My point is that I don't believe driving 56 or even 60 is equivalent to wishing death on everyone around you. Take Montana--the limit is a reasonable and prudent speed. If the "law" defines the limit of what is safe, why is the marker for what is safe different in Montana than everywhere else? If you are going to tell me that 55 is safer than 60--even marginally--I'll agree. But I'll point out that 50 is safer still. And so is 45. So why should you drive 55? Why not 50? Isn't driving 55 irresponsible and dangerous?

[Dave Johnson29]

I cannot believe that anyone can maintain 55 mph in the absence of a speed limiter unless they look at their speedo at least once every 10-15 seconds.

Eric,

I would definitiely not say I am prefect but I am 66 years old and have never had a ticket, not even a parking ticket. Come ride with me.:)

A cruise control? I would hazard a guess 80+% of vehicles have them and I'd date that back for probably 20 years. I know all of my vehicles have them, including my motorcycle.

I click the cruise on as soon as I reach the posted limit. If there is an idiot in front of me speeding up and slowing down a few miles per hour then I drop back a little and click it on again at about 2mph slower.

The amount of time I lose would be counted in the seconds.

As to your comment on being stuck in the middle of an intersection, those laws are written along the lines of, "when starting from the stop line if you cannot complete the turn then do not move until it is possible to do so."

If a driver moves out to the center of the intersection to wait for a gap in the traffic flow, they are blocking the intersection as the gap may never come before a change of lights.

[curtis rosche]

you should be able to maintain 55mph with out looking often. if you cant, then you need to pay more attention to what is going on. you can tell by the amount of road noise, the speed things are going past you, aand you should also be able to do it by how much you push the pedal... i can and i have only been driving for a year. that is how i was taught to do it. the less you have to look down the safer you are

[Walter Plummer]

I live in the VA burbs of Washington D.C. They actually shut down a bunch of the red light cameras because they were creating more rear end crashes than stopping side crashes. In D.C. itself the speed and red light cameras are BIG revenue.

[Brian Elfert]

All of the interstates in Chicago are signed at 55 MPH, but if you drive 55 MPH there most of the time you are taking your life into your own hands. Traffic typically moves at 65 to 80 MPH if the road isn't congested.

I remember a few years back driving through Chicago and I was doing 75 MPH and getting passed like I was standing still. 75 MPH was already a lot faster than I wanted to be going in a 55 MPH zone.

I've been driving for 20 years and zero traffic citations of any kind except one or two parking tickets. Never been stopped by an officer. I don't drive like an old granny, but neither do I drive like a Nascar driver either.

[Jim Rimmer]

Curtis... I agree with your main points...now when you say "your lane", I hope you aren't referring to the left lane on a multiple lane road... certainly nothing tweeks me more when driving than people who are in the left lane (also known as the passing lane) when they should be in the right (or driving lane)...
When I was growing up, it was illegal to pass on the right and there were many signs saying "keep right except to pass"...sadly that has changed and does cause a lot more difficulties. I also drive a lot in Europe, and as drivers there, the penalty for staying in the left lane (or passing on the right) is fairly severe...
It is interesting that in Texas for many years there were signs posted that stated "Slower Trafiic Keep Right". A few years ago they went all over the state and replaced them with "Left Lane for Passing Only". Neither directive has EVER been enforced. Makes you wonder who had the sweetheart deal at the sign company. :rolleyes:

[Mike Cruz]

Interesting subject...the left lane thing. Here are my thoughts on it: I will like to first say that my belief is mostly aimed at high volume roads, roads that have two or more lanes because they NEED them for the amount of cars that are present. Okay, here you go... The left lane is for the "fastest" traffic on the road. The right lane is for slower traffic. If the speed limit is 55, a driver has every right to be in the left lane going 55 mph. This may not be a popular belief, but the opporative (sp?) word here is LIMIT.

If you are going 55 in a 55, you are going as fast as the law allows, and therefore have the right to be there, whether passing or not. In my book, the right lane is for entering, exiting, and for those who do not want, need, or feel safe driving at the posted limit.

For someone who is obeying the law AND going the limit (going 53 or 54 in the left lane in a 55 zone will get you killed) it is rediculous to say that this person should move over to yield to someone who is breaking the law.

Personally, I tend to drive 5 over the limit. It is a speed that neither gets me caught, nor does it tick most people off. Yes, I ride the left lane. Why? Because I set my cruise control and go... Being in the right lane means that I have to contend with exiters and enterers. This means I have to slow down, speed back up, slow down, speed back up... Argue it from any angle...doing that causes more road rage, worse gas milage, wear on brakes, and causes more traffic. And when I am in the left lane (going 5 over) and I creep up to someone going the exact limit, while I would love to get them out of my way so I can go back to the speed I want to go, I know that I have no leg to stand on to expect him to move over because I am exceeding the limit and he is abiding to the law.

More than the left lane being for passing, I contend that (to reitterate) the left lane is a "through" lane for those who intend to continue on that route for some time, while the right lane is for entering, exiting, and "slower" (anything under the posted limit) traffic.

It baffles me that people think that I should move over when they come speeding up behind me. Then they pass on the right, and look at me like I'm crazy... I think I keep encountering the people that actually own the roads I travel on...

[Jim Rimmer]

Interesting subject...the left lane thing. Here are my thoughts on it: I will like to first say that my belief is mostly aimed at high volume roads, roads that have two or more lanes because they NEED them for the amount of cars that are present. Okay, here you go... The left lane is for the "fastest" traffic on the road. The right lane is for slower traffic. If the speed limit is 55, a driver has every right to be in the left lane going 55 mph. This may not be a popular belief, but the opporative (sp?) word here is LIMIT.

If you are going 55 in a 55, you are going as fast as the law allows, and therefore have the right to be there, whether passing or not. In my book, the right lane is for entering, exiting, and for those who do not want, need, or feel safe driving at the posted limit.

For someone who is obeying the law AND going the limit (going 53 or 54 in the left lane in a 55 zone will get you killed) it is rediculous to say that this person should move over to yield to someone who is breaking the law.

Personally, I tend to drive 5 over the limit. It is a speed that neither gets me caught, nor does it tick most people off. Yes, I ride the left lane. Why? Because I set my cruise control and go... Being in the right lane means that I have to contend with exiters and enterers. This means I have to slow down, speed back up, slow down, speed back up... Argue it from any angle...doing that causes more road rage, worse gas milage, wear on brakes, and causes more traffic. And when I am in the left lane (going 5 over) and I creep up to someone going the exact limit, while I would love to get them out of my way so I can go back to the speed I want to go, I know that I have no leg to stand on to expect him to move over because I am exceeding the limit and he is abiding to the law.

More than the left lane being for passing, I contend that (to reitterate) the left lane is a "through" lane for those who intend to continue on that route for some time, while the right lane is for entering, exiting, and "slower" (anything under the posted limit) traffic.

It baffles me that people think that I should move over when they come speeding up behind me. Then they pass on the right, and look at me like I'm crazy... I think I keep encountering the people that actually own the roads I travel on...
I agree with your comments as they apply to freeways in the city. All changes on the open road.

[Matt Meiser]

So how is ignoring the law regarding lane use any different than ignoring the law regarding speed?

[Mike Cruz]

The left lane being for "passing only" comes from an era that afforded the luxury of a dedicated passing lane. We no longer have that.

Secondly, if you are in the left lane going the speed limit, how is it possible for anyone to pass you...legally?

Even when there are signs posted saying "Slower traffic keep right" I don't believe it is "law" that the left lane is for passing only. So, "riding" the left lane at the posted speed limit is not breaking the law. Also, I contend that there is no inherant danger in staying in a lane. As a matter of fact, staying in a lane decreases risk and hazzard, while the more you change lanes, the more chances you have for a collision. However, speed and excessive lane changes are proven to increase driving dangers and accidents.

I was taught that the left lane was a "passing lane" back in drivers ed (some 25 years ago). But, apparently, that is "old school" and it is no longer taught that way. Truthfully, when it was taught to me, I remember the video seeming to already be 20 years old.

Times change, and so has the left lane. We not only don't have the luxury of an extra lane for passing only, but we don't have enough lanes for the amount of cars on the road.

Bottom line is that you cannot convince me that I should move out of the left lane when I am going the posted limit (or above) because someone else wants to go faster. If you want to try to convince me, have at it. I would love to hear the arguments as to why I should. I honestly can't imagine a legitimate reason.

[Mitchell Andrus]

Bottom line is that you cannot convince me that I should move out of the left lane when I am going the posted limit (or above) because someone else wants to go faster. If you want to try to convince me, have at it. I would love to hear the arguments as to why I should. I honestly can't imagine a legitimate reason.

Here you go, the laws of various states. You'll note that in most states the law is "Keep right except to pass", not "You may slow down speeders by staying in the left lane".

From:
http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html (http://www.mit.edu/%7Ejfc/right.html)

"Most states follow the Uniform Vehicle Code and require drivers to keep right if they are going slower than the normal speed of traffic (regardless of the speed limit; see below). "

Arkansas' is interesting: "Law prohibits obstructing traffic by driving continuously in the left lane."


From the Maryland driver's handbook (available on-line):

Because of the sustained high speeds on an interstate and other
limited access highways, careful lane changing and passing
are essential.

Here Are a Few Tips to Help You:

 It is legal in Maryland to pass on the left or on the right, but slow moving vehicles must stay in the right lane. Thus, most of your passing should be on the left.



I think the bottom line here is you may not create a moving roadblock simply because you can. It's not our job to slow down traffic, it's up to law enforcement to do that.

.

[Mike Cruz]

Thanks, Mitch. So, I suppose my belief is not just a belief, buy Maryland law (or at least policy) according to your link.

Now I know why Virginians think you should move over, apparently you are supposed to yield to criminals in their state. But then again, they aren't really a state, they are a Commonwealth...

Interesting how a State (New York) which supposedly says that you must yield to criminals has case law supporting non prosecution/conviction of violators that do not move over...

It would be interesting to see if there is a trend towards one way or the other. In other words, if most states used to allow left lane use for cruising and not yielding, but have recently said you have to yield. Or if more states used to be left lane for turning and passing only, and are moving toward the use without yielding laws.

The way my state (Maryland) views it seems to make the most sense to me and I would gladly take my day in court if given a ticket for not yielding to speeders. BTW, if an officer or emergency vehicle comes up behind me, I certainly move out of the way for them...regardless of sirens and lights. Many believe that police cars are required to have their lights on to indicate they have a reason to be going over the posted limit. Nope. There are many instances when a car in called to a scene and lights and sirens are purposfully not on because of the situation, yet the officer still needs to arrive on scene ASAP. So, yes, I do move over for them, not out of fear of beign ticketed or anything, but out of necessity and respect.

[Mitchell Andrus]

There are many instances when a car in called to a scene and lights and sirens are purposfully not on because of the situation, yet the officer still needs to arrive on scene ASAP. So, yes, I do move over for them, not out of fear of beign ticketed or anything, but out of necessity and respect.

I don't understand that you can move over for some drivers, but would rather not for others. Some people speed and get out of their tickets because they have good reason. This isn't for you to decide by looking in your rear view mirror, it's up to a judge to decide. Passing you on your right compounds an unsafe situation and forcing them to do so makes you part of the problem.

If you ever get a driver so pissed off because you won't move over that he borders on road rage, move over and let him by. Please. It's a matter of courtesy, especially if the other guy's being a jerk - or rushing to a hospital.
.

[Mike Cruz]

The only distinction I make between who I pull over for and who I don't is whether or not they are police/rescue vs law breaking. If someone NEEDS to get to a hospital THAT fast, either they should be arriving by ambulance, or they should call for police escort.

I am not saying that I am being some sort of vigalante by purposefully blocking those who want to speed. I am saying that I do not need, nor should I be expected to move over for someone that thinks that the law does not apply to him.

I am NOT responsible for someone else's road rage because they don't like what I am doing when I am abiding by the law. That is on them. If they cause an accident or create a dangerous situation on the road, it is because THEY are doing it. They have a choice... do as we are all asked/required/expected by the state and our society, or deal with the consequences and be responsible for them.

Yes, sometimes people get out of speeding tickets for "good reasons". That is up to the judgement of the officer. But even good reasons don't mean that you WILL get out of the ticket.

Oddly enough, most of those who disobey the speed limit because they simply don't think it applies to them and want you to move over and get out of their way, also see no problem with tailgating (no matter how fast either of you is going), fail to use their turn signals, and drive wreklessly.

From my experience in my travels, I don't think the rest of the country is as bad as here (obviously with some exceptions), but in this area (Washington/Baltimore), driving habbits are hiddeous. So, I'm not talking about the occasional driver, but quite a large number of "privilaged" folks on the road.

If yielding to those disobeying the law (speeding) is expected or even criminal if not obeyed, what is next, yielding to those running red lights? Sure, for my own safety, but just becasue they might have a good reason? What about a person going the wrong way in town (low speeds/high traffic)? Again, sure for my safety, but maybe the guy is doing it because he wants to get around traffic. So, I should pull over and let him by?

You are right, it isn't for me to decide what someone's motives are. I just go about my business, doing what is right and what I would expect others to do, within the constrainst of the law.

It amazes me that states would mandate and advocate lawlessness.

It makes you wonder if people are getting their liscences at Walmart at a buy one get one free discount.

Here's some food for thought:

If I move over to allow a speeder by, I am aiding in their criminal behavior. It could be argued that I enabled and abetted in the act. My duty to society and the community is not help others in activities that are harmful to us as a whole.

[Mitchell Andrus]

If I move over to allow a speeder by, I am aiding in their criminal behavior. It could be argued that I enabled and abetted in the act. My duty to society and the community is not help others in activities that are harmful to us as a whole.

If the next time you find someone behind you speeding in a 2 ton bullet and don't move over because you don't want to help them break the law, imagine them instead aiming a gun at a bank teller - and then tell him you won't move aside and allow him to break the law.

It's so simple to stay safe. Staying away from a speeding driver is one of the best ways to do this, and nobody gets ticketed for moving over for faster traffic.
.

[Robert McGowen]

I drink, therefore I am.


I don't think that you are going to win this debate, Mitchell.

[Mike Cruz]

Your bank analogy is completely inconsistant with the subject and is unsound.

It baffles me how much effort you are putting into proving your belief that breaking the law is okay, and that those who are abiding by the law and going about their own business should go out of their way to let the law breakers by. It is apparent that you either have a problem with speed limits, obeying the law, other people getting in the way of speeders, or just me.

Either way, I've spoken my peace, and we're just going around in circles. I contended that I could not be convinced that I should move over for a speeder and nothing said has changed my thinking. I'm not in this for argument's sake. I don't enjoy arguing and belaboring a point, just to have random parts of the discussion addressed and meaninglessly attacked.

If you need to speed. Just know that if you get behind me, I won't move over. If you decide to tailgate me, I won't be intimidated. As a matter of fact, I would warn against it... or at least take this advice: Smile as you go under.

[Matt Meiser]

I would warn against it... or at least take this advice: Smile as you go under.

I'm pretty sure that's an example of road rage.

[M Toupin]

Here you go, the laws of various states. You'll note that in most states the law is "Keep right except to pass", not "You may slow down speeders by staying in the left lane".

The argument that a slower vehicle needs to move over for faster vehicles only hold water when the slower vehicle going under the posted speed limit. All the states that I'm aware of have a similar statue to VA.

"The driver of any vehicle traveling at an unlawful speed shall forfeit any right-of-way"

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-823

You're sure expending an unbelievable amount of energy trying to defend an unlawful act...


Mike

[Mike Cruz]

In defense of that signature: I got my degree in Philosophy at the University of Maryland, love beer, and am a huge Monty Python fan. In case (no pun intended) you are unfamiliar with it, Monty Python does a great skit on Philosophers and drinking. The skit is a fantastic song which names pretty much all of the well known philosophers and puts a cute drinking rhyme with each. I used to be able to recite the entire thing, now I can just spit out blurbs.... can't be the effects of the... the... oh, what's the word?... man I can't remember anything these days... can't be the effects of the... oh, never mind.

The line from the song, which my signature comes from, is: And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart, I drink, therefore I am. And for those unfamiliar with Descartes, what he is most known for is proving his own existence with the conclusion that "I think therefore I am". This is derived from an entire paper on existentialism where he begins by postulating his own existence. He poses a question asking how does he know that he actually exists and that he isn't just the figment of some super power's mind. His conclusion is that, while it may be rudimentary, he knows that he actually exists because he can form his own thoughts. The level of his existence is still something left unknown because he could be in a vat...dreaming this life.

Of course, I learned this stuff 20 some odd years ago. Was a B student. And had many suds during and since... so I hope I didn't just mutilate Descartes...

Here's the song on youtube. There is a longer version that is a clip from Live at the Hollywood Bowl, but it contains some language that isn't family forum friendly...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1MgCV6uGuc

[Mitchell Andrus]

"The driver of any vehicle traveling at an unlawful speed shall forfeit any right-of-way"

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-823

You're sure expending an unbelievable amount of energy trying to defend an unlawful act...


Mike

I agree that speeders are speeders, they're breaking the law... etc.,.... but if safety and courtesy are of any importance, sometimes it IS better to just get out of the way. Someone on your bumper isn't likely to know that his right of way is forfeited, he's likely to turn his need to speed into aggression towards the rolling roadblock.

My only point... (Assuming you aren't a police officer) Isn't it better not to get involved in the first place and just let them go by? If Mike unknowingly blocks up a drunk, bank robber, wife beater, whatever.... It's just much easier to assume someone with a hot temper is not worth picking a fight with, that's all. And some do think driving is a contest and need to win. Let him go by - you get to toot the horn as you pass him and the officer as he gets his ticket.
.

[Myk Rian]

In Michigan, the law says stay right except to pass. No matter what speed you're traveling.

[Mike Cruz]

Actually, Myk, as it states in:


MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 300 of 1949

RIGHT-OF-WAY
257.649 Right-of-way; rules; violation as civil infraction.


(5) The driver of a vehicle traveling at an unlawful speed shall forfeit a right of way which the driver might
otherwise have under this section.

[Belinda Barfield]

I will also add even though I'm in my 60's and approaching the age when I am sure my driving skills will decay.....as surely as we need to test and license new young drivers....we need to do the same on aging drivers...I see too many elderly drivers whose car is beat up due to their having hit other objects and cars. I have been hit by one of those whitehaired drivers and either she didn't realize she hit or was ignoring me but her car looked like it was one of the '70s models that had been bought from a demolition derby survivor auction.

Ken, are you familiar with the Florida GrandDriver program? A number of states have put the GrandDriver program in place. My aunt is the planner/coordinator. http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/safety/articles/121473/article.html



The only distinction I make between who I pull over for and who I don't is whether or not they are police/rescue vs law breaking. If someone NEEDS to get to a hospital THAT fast, either they should be arriving by ambulance, or they should call for police escort.

Mike,

Not to argue, but there have been two occasions when I needed to get to a hospital fast, and I did drive over the speed limit, and I don't believe that makes me a criminal. My father-in-law was flown by helicopter from his small hometown to a hospital in Savannah. I was living in Augusta, GA at the time. My mother-in-law didn't drive. She couldn't fly with him in the helicopter. I drove from Augusta to pick her up and try to get her to the hospital before he passed away. I was pulled over in a small town in Georgia that was a known speed trap. I explained the situation to the officer and he offered to escort me. After about two miles he pulled over and I followed suit. He informed me that he was told by his superior officer that a police escort could not be provided.

The second occasion was when my father was flown from the same small town to Savannah and I had to get my mother to the hospital.

[Karl Card]

I think $270 for running a red light is far, far to light a penalty. Not only is one endangering other drivers and passengers, it also shows an utter lack of respect for the well being of others.

I think a $1,000 fine would get their attention. And three tickets in two years would get them a nice little letter from DMV telling them their license has been suspended for one month, no hardship permits allowed.

We take driving way to casually. Its a privilege, not a right and needs to be treated as such.


Greg to me you stated it right on the head in your first entence or two.. REspect...there is hardly any anymore.. It seems like it seems like everyone wants to jump over every body else to be first....for what I might ask...

[Mike Cruz]

Belinda, fair enough. If the police officer couldn't do it, then, well, I guess he couldn't.

First, I would like to say sorry that you even needed to rush to the hospital. I don't wish that on anyone.

Question for you, though. When you were speeding to get to the hospital, did you expect others to get out of your way? Did you get mad at them for going their speeds (assuming they were going the limit)? Or did you just do what you had to, within reason and as safely as possible, to get to where you were going? My guess is the latter because it doesn't sound like this is habitual driving for you. Also, oddly enough, your speeding to get to the hospital sounds like it may have gotten you there later since you had to stop twice... not blaming you at all, just making a point for others that seem to think that speeding necessarily saves time.

On that note, here's a little math... for every 10 miles per hour over the limit you drive, you save 5 minutes in an hour's drive (based on a 60 mph speed limit). So, going 70 will shave 5 minutes off your trip. Going 80 will shave 10 minutes off your trip. Given that, if your trip would have been 30 minutes, going 80 in a 60 (which I would say is unsafe in any situation) would only save you 5 minutes on your trip. Just some food for thought.

Again, Belinda, I am not arguing with you as to whether or not you were justified in speeding to the hospital. You had to do what you had to do. That was your choice. I just question whether or not you would have gotten behind me and shaken your fist, passed on the right, and looked at me like I was crazy for not letting yielding to you...as if I knew your adgenda. I kinda doubt it. You may have passed on the right, but safely and conviction, not judgement. Hope I'm right...

[Todd Willhoit]

Mike,
If five minutes was the difference between being able to say good bye to my dad at the hospital or not, you can bet that I would drive over the limit.

I can think of many reasons (both legal and courteous) to move over and let others pass.

I cannot think of any good reasons to sit in the left lane and purposefully block traffic.

[Myk Rian]

Actually, Myk, as it states in:


MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 300 of 1949

RIGHT-OF-WAY
257.649 Right-of-way; rules; violation as civil infraction.


(5) The driver of a vehicle traveling at an unlawful speed shall forfeit a right of way which the driver might
otherwise have under this section.



The white w/black lettering signs on I-96 say "Stay right except to pass. State law"

[Mike Cruz]

Todd, again, I'm not arguing the point of whether it was right for Belinda to speed to get to her father or not. The point is whether or not she felt everyone in the left lane SHOULD have moved over and yielded to her.

That said, I find it very selfish of anyone to put EVERYONE on the road at risk because they need to get somewhere in a hurry. How fast would be acceptable to rush to a hospital...10 over, 20 over 120 mph? At what point does "over" become too dangerous and not worth the risk (not yours, but everyone else that you put in harms way). Sure, I feel for anyone that has to rush to a dying loved one (truly, I do), but if you put me in the hospital because of your hurry, we have a problem. If you don't care, well, there in lies the issue.

Again, I truly feel for those in a hurry for an emergency/life or death situation. But that really isn't who we are talking about here. This thread started (if I even remember this correctly...it could have been another one), about circumventing things that have been established by the state to catch those who are not abiding by the law...as a daily event. If you are downloading aps to show you where the red light and speed cameras are, this isn't about getting to your dying relative. It is about slowing down at certain spots, and making sure you don't run certain lights.

The emergeny case is a VERY minute cross section of those who are speeding and expecting yielding.

[Todd Willhoit]

Mike,
I reviewed Belinda's post and don't see that stated she felt anyone should do anything. However, I don't think it is unreasonable for her to hope that common courtesy would prevail and someone would yield to her.

As I stated earlier, I cannot think of any good reason to sit in the left lane and purposefully block traffic. I have thought through both sides as thoroughly as possible, and just don't understand why. I would think that it would be just as easy, polite, and considerate to move over and let another driver pass. One would avoid an irritated, or perhaps desperate, driver on one's bumper, high-beams in your rear view mirror, and horn-honking.

I am sure you have put considerable time into analyzing both sides of the situation as well, and I have no doubt that you truly and honestly desire safety for all drivers. We all do. I also expect that somehow, that you hold the trump card in our discussion. If you will explain to us your argument, that purposfully blocking overtaking traffic makes everyone more safe, I am sure it will help us understand your position.

I do have a question: If you are going downhill in the left lane with another vehicle on your right and a loaded tractor-trailer behind you in your lane, do you move over so he can use his momentum and increased speed to get up the next hill (as is often the case), or do you stay in your lane and maintain the posted speed?

[Mitchell Andrus]

As I stated earlier, I cannot think of any good reason to sit in the left lane and purposefully block traffic.

He'd stated that if was to move and allow the driver behind him to go over the speed limit he'd be aiding and abetting the commission of a crime.
.

[Todd Willhoit]

I see. I have never heard of anyone being charged with a crime for yielding to another driver. Has this actually happened?

[Mitchell Andrus]

I see. I have never heard of anyone being charged with a crime for yielding to another driver. Has this actually happened?

I'm guessing no. Not because I've never heard of it, but because the opposite of this would be that blocking faster traffic stops crimes from taking place.

If your goal was to avoid aiding and abetting the crime of speeding, you'd have to constantly change lanes ahead of the driver that you intended to keep under the speed limit. I do believe that I'd be the one who would be pulled over if I did anything like that.

I still think it'd be safer to use the right lane and let him pass in the left lane and let the cops catch him speeding.
.

[Mike Cruz]

Wow, somehow I say apples are green and the responses I get are that pears are green, and sometimes bananas and tomatoes. I never accused Belinda of expecting drivers to yield to her. I never said that she was probably upset with anyone else. I never even asked if anyone DID yield to her. I simply gave her the benefit of the doubt about her having a special case, needing to speed, and that hopefully she didn't fault others for not yielding to her if they didn't.

Again, I'm not in this discussion for arguments sake. I see the light now. You guys are right. No one should be in the left lane unless passing or exiting to the left. Anyone that is in the left lane and approached by a faster driver, regardless of the other driver's speed, should move over. That is what you all do, and what I should do from now on. If it eases your minds, just believe that that is what I will do from now on. Since I'm not in this discussion to "win", but rather to participated speak my mind about what I believed, and have done so, consider me out of it, because I am rehabilitated now. I will no longer respond to this thread. Obviously, there is no need, I know what is right, now.

[Belinda Barfield]

Mike,

I'm not trying to start this thread back up, but I feel I owe you the courtesy of a response. As someone said recently, "Everything that can be said about this subject has been said." - or something to that effect. :)

I'll try to keep this short. I honestly don't know if I saved myself any time, but I think I did. When I was stopped in the small town for speeding I was doing 40 in a 35, at 11:30 p.m., and the only other car in sight was the parked police cruiser. I was probably in much more danger of hitting a deer than having an accident with another driver. I never drove more than 15 miles over the speed limit on an interstate. I drove with my flashers on as advised to by the police officer. Any cars that were in the left lane moved over as I recall, but if they had not, I would have passed on the right when it was safe to do so. I typically don't shake my fist at other drivers as here in Savannah that could get you shot. :eek:

When I was trying to reach my MIL I stopped at a McDonald's to use the restroom. When I walked back out to my car a young man in the parking lot stopped me and said, "You're that lady who is trying to get to your father-in-law, aren't you?". I thought that was a little odd until he explained that he was the county dispatcher and had just come off shift. Apparently law enforcement in all the counties I would pass through, and Georgia State Patrol, had been notified and my situation explained. The dispatcher told me I had a "green light" all the way to Savannah, and he hoped my father-in-law would be okay. My FIL, fortunately, did make it.

[Carlos Alden]

I agree that speeders are speeders, they're breaking the law... etc.,.... but if safety and courtesy are of any importance, sometimes it IS better to just get out of the way. Someone on your bumper isn't likely to know that his right of way is forfeited, he's likely to turn his need to speed into aggression towards the rolling roadblock.

My only point... (Assuming you aren't a police officer) Isn't it better not to get involved in the first place and just let them go by? If Mike unknowingly blocks up a drunk, bank robber, wife beater, whatever.... It's just much easier to assume someone with a hot temper is not worth picking a fight with, that's all. And some do think driving is a contest and need to win. Let him go by - you get to toot the horn as you pass him and the officer as he gets his ticket.
.

Right on, Mitchell. You are so correct. Certain family members of mine (okay, my wife) like to drive in the left lane doing the speed limit, citing laws to back her up. Meanwhile I can see drivers coming up behind her, looking for a way to get around. This is a matter of common sense, not "I'm technically right so I don't have to change my behavior." Traffic is an organic flow of a bunch of people processing information and making multiple decisions. The safest thing to do is adapt as you go along. Besides, being in the curb lane is just safer because you've got a quit exit if there's sudden issues.

Carlos

[Mike Cruz]

Thanks, Belinda. PM sent.