Speed Limits

[Texsox]

Educate me then.

 

Also, Tex, remember your stance on that lady that leased a car that she couldnt afford and there were discussion of a government bailout and you cried saying it wasnt her fault, the salesmen tricked her. You sleigh me.

 

I sleigh you?

 

Sorry, I'm not Santa.

[Kyyle23]

I sleigh you?

 

Sorry, I'm not Santa.

 

That was a golden opportunity to use this icon

 

 

You disappoint me Tex

[Texsox]

That was a golden opportunity to use this icon

 

 

You disappoint me Tex

 

you're killing me.

[EvilMonkey]

The speed limits do seem arbitrarily set. For instance, on I355, they are doing construction, as usual. in the sonstruction zone they lower the speed limit by 10 MPH to 45, and increase the fine big time. For safety. Well, a few miles away of I-55 they are also doing roadwork, and they lowered the speed limit by 10 MPH to 55. For safety. Why if 55 MPH safe in a construction zone of I-55, but not on I-355? It is just another way to take advantage of people trying to get to/from work and get off of our crappy roads.

 

Oh, and the construction zone saftey thing is crap too. I had researched this a few years back, from 1995 to 2005, in Illinois there were 12 roadway construction workers killed while working. 9 were killed by drunk drivers (who wouldn't have obeyed the speed limit whatever it was at) and 2 were by other construction workers coming or going to the jobsite. So, as a result, anyone caught speeding in a construction zone now gets screwed because of a few drunk drivers, kneejerk reactions to a large political lobby and greed.

[Texsox]

At one time the most a speed limit could be lowered in one step was 10 MPH. That was to prevent "speed traps" where limits would drop from 55 to 25 in an unreasonably short space. I imagine in your example that lowering the limit 20 MPH would create more of a hazard. Also, any reduction should catch drivers attention and keep them more vigilant, a bigger factor, as you noted, then the actual speed.

 

So would you suggest not lowering speeds in construction zone? It seems that more then just construction workers are killed in work zones.

 

http://www.herald-review.com/articles/2008...ate/1034205.txt

PRINGFIELD - After bombarding Illinois drivers with highway signs, advertising campaigns and boosting the fine for speeding in highway work zones, the number of deaths and accidents has dropped, state officials say.

 

In 2003, 44 people, including five construction workers, died in work zone accidents.

 

Since then, state police have spread out five photo enforcement vans across the state, which have automatically issued 7,441 speeding tickets, said Scott Compton, Illinois State Police spokesman.

 

As a result, the number of state work zone fatalities has dipped from 44 to 21 in 2007.

 

"Obviously, our goal has been to reduce fatalities and reduce crashes in general," Compton said. "We are hopeful that the presence of those photo enforcement vans and squad cars remind drivers to slow down and proceed with caution through construction zones."

 

Two construction workers died in 2007; one died in both 2005 and 2006. A crash count for 2008 is not yet available.

[DrunkBomber]

For me its not even about speed limits specifically. Its these bulls*** reasons they claim they need to raise more money for. Where does this stop? Does anybody not think this is going to get out of hand? Not to mention the flaws in this system, it would be impossible to fight a ticket like this and it could have been someone else driving your car, a car next to you, an emergency etc. Then look at the history of Illinois' spending and at all the corruption going on. They are claiming they are going to use the money to stop shootings on the south side. I think most people agree that poverty has an enormous effect on crimes. So they are taking money away from working people and claim they are using it to stop crime. Taking $100 here and $100 there from people that are struggling to make ends meet is going to create more crime. If they want to enforce speeding with patrol cars more aggressively I have no problem with that at all but for Blowjobavich to make it seem like he doesnt have the manpower to police the south side is a joke. Maybe the cop that kicked the s*** out of the female bartender, who isnt in jail, could help out with this project.

[Texsox]

So how exactly are they taking control of people's cars and forcing it over the speed limit? Magnetics?

[DrunkBomber]

So how exactly are they taking control of people's cars and forcing it over the speed limit? Magnetics?

You know that first part of my post where it says:Its not about speed limits specifically?

 

Since you have all the answers, what if someone else is driving your car?

[Texsox]

You know that first part of my post where it says:Its not about speed limits specifically?

 

Since you have all the answers, what if someone else is driving your car?

 

They are taking time stamped photos that show the driver, license plate, and vehicle. If you loaned your car to someone, it will be their picture.

[santo=dorf]

So now all people have to do it take time out of their own lives and waste the tax payers' money (court costs) to come in and prove their innocence because some expensive camera, paid by tax dollars, can't get a clear shot of the driver and doesn't have the technology to scan a database of pictures and match it to the driver.

[Texsox]

So now all people have to do it take time out of their own lives and waste the tax payers' money (court costs) to come in and prove their innocence because some expensive camera, paid by tax dollars, can't get a clear shot of the driver and doesn't have the technology to scan a database of pictures and match it to the driver.

 

Or people slow down and they have no pictures to take. But of course people in Illinois cannot follow the law and they elected a corrupt government etc. etc. I'm glad I moved, that place seems to have gone to hell in ten years.

[EvilMonkey]

Tex, are you trying to imply that you have never broken a speed limit? Ever?

[StrangeSox]

Tex, you've really missed the point.

 

Is a law a good law and a just law if it A) doesn't protect anyone and B) 80+% of people disobey it? We shouldn't just throw out laws/ limits/ restrictions because a majority of people don't follow them, but on the other hand, we do need to examine them to make sure they make sense. Since the only thing they're good for is increasing police revenue and wasting people's times, I don't see why we need or why there should be 55 MPH speed limits on most of the highways around Chicago.

 

And, as far as "once they're used to 70 they'll drive faster," that has not been the case in the places with higher or no speed limits.

Edited August 11, 2008 by StrangeSox

[Texsox]

Tex, are you trying to imply that you have never broken a speed limit? Ever?

Not implying that at all, I certainly do not speed 80% of the time. In Texas we drive friendly, and when a quicker car comes up behind, we'll move over and allow the person to pass, even on two lane roads. Our shoulders are extra wide to accomodate that. So I doubt that 80% of the drivers are speeding here.

 

What I am saying is because someone always breaks the law is not justification to change the law. Crying the government makes me speed, is not justification to change the law. That you elected a corrupt Blowjovich and have the worse government ever, is not justification. I'm not certain why in fifteen years speeding went from about 10-15% to 80% of drivers. That does have me wondering why 80% of the drivers are speeding on Chicago roads. I can't imagine why there is such a total disrespect for laws. Too many Democrats maybe?

 

But I think a scientific justification like how fast cars are already going is a good way to determine speed limits.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I have no problem with camera enforcement of traffic laws, under the following conditions:

 

1. The laws being enforced are reasonable. Red light cameras are always reasonable. Speed cameras are fine, but, as some have pointed out, the speed limits are arbitrary some of the time. I think there needs to be a little more leeway there.

 

2. There is a relatively easy appeal process in place - nothing more difficult than appearing in a courtroom or similar.

 

3. Camera enforcement should be used as a deterrent in areas that need it, specifically. Bad intersections need red light cameras - not EVERY or ANY intersection. School zones need speed cameras - not EVERY STREET.

 

[StrangeSox]

Not implying that at all, I certainly do not speed 80% of the time. In Texas we drive friendly, and when a quicker car comes up behind, we'll move over and allow the person to pass, even on two lane roads. Our shoulders are extra wide to accomodate that. So I doubt that 80% of the drivers are speeding here.

Any statistics to back that up?

 

What I am saying is because someone always breaks the law is not justification to change the law. Crying the government makes me speed, is not justification to change the law. That you elected a corrupt Blowjovich and have the worse government ever, is not justification. I'm not certain why in fifteen years speeding went from about 10-15% to 80% of drivers.

 

Again, source for those numbers? People have always sped. It doesn't make sense that there would be less speeders 15 years ago (during the nationwide 55 MPH) than now.

 

Here's a NYT article about 70+% of people in NJ speeding 17 years ago. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...752C0A967958260

 

 

But I think a scientific justification like how fast cars are already going is a good way to determine speed limits.

 

 

[/color]

 

Well, if the current law is good for nothing but revenue generation and doesn't do a damn thing to actually help people, why should it exist? What's the justification for current speed limits?

Edited August 11, 2008 by StrangeSox

[santo=dorf]

Or people slow down and they have no pictures to take. But of course people in Illinois cannot follow the law and they elected a corrupt government etc. etc. I'm glad I moved, that place seems to have gone to hell in ten years.

Someone else driving my car finishes through a red light and the only advice you have for me is to slow down? That doesn't solve the problem of the wrong people receiving tickets in the mail.

[santo=dorf]

I have no problem with camera enforcement of traffic laws, under the following conditions:

 

1. The laws being enforced are reasonable. Red light cameras are always reasonable. Speed cameras are fine, but, as some have pointed out, the speed limits are arbitrary some of the time. I think there needs to be a little more leeway there.

 

2. There is a relatively easy appeal process in place - nothing more difficult than appearing in a courtroom or similar.

 

3. Camera enforcement should be used as a deterrent in areas that need it, specifically. Bad intersections need red light cameras - not EVERY or ANY intersection. School zones need speed cameras - not EVERY STREET.

That's bulls***. Why should I have to take the time out of MY hands to fight someone else's ticket becuase of a flawed ticket? What if this happens in another county? What if a parent down in Central or Southern Illinois loans a car to their kid for a trip to Chicago and they get one? You think it's "easy" for the parent to drive 6-8 hours just to come in and say, "that's not me in the picture?" Hiring a lawyer or burning the gas is still a big waste of money one way or another.

 

The sad thing is most people won't care and will just pay the fine, or go into court asking for supervision on it (more $$$ for the government) just becuase they don't want to deal with the hassle of the courts.

[StrangeSox]

Some of these "great" camera systems have given people two red light tickets at the same time on opposite sides of a town.

 

These are seriously, seriously flawed and it isn't easy to fight them. With the cameras, you're perceived guilty until you prove your innocence, and you can't exactly face your accuser in court.

[Steve9347]

I think we're all ignoring what started this conversation. The 10-mile stretches of photo-enforced 45-mph because they are "work zones" where no one does any work, cause more harm than good. They need to add "when workers are present" or something to the rulebook (much like children/schools).

 

Slowing to 45, then speeding back up (change in speeds) = more gas consumption than maintaining a much more sane speed limit such as 65 mph.

Edited August 11, 2008 by Steve9347

[Steve9347]

They are taking time stamped photos that show the driver, license plate, and vehicle. If you loaned your car to someone, it will be their picture.

A friend of mine got such a ticket when his buddy borrowed his car, and guess what? When you get one of these f***ed tickets, it says regardless of who is operating said vehicle, you're still responsible for the fine. They can do this because these photo tix don't go through as "moving violations" hence they don't effect your driving record for insurance and 3 strikes.

 

It's a ridiculous way to raise money, but it will work, so it won't be going away anytime soon.

[Steve9347]

Not implying that at all, I certainly do not speed 80% of the time. In Texas we drive friendly, and when a quicker car comes up behind, we'll move over and allow the person to pass, even on two lane roads. Our shoulders are extra wide to accomodate that. So I doubt that 80% of the drivers are speeding here.

Bulls***. I was just in Texas a month ago and you f***s drive as crazy as anyone in Illinois.

[southsider2k5]

Bulls***. I was just in Texas a month ago and you f***s drive as crazy as anyone in Illinois.

 

Especially when it comes to speed.

[kapkomet]

I laughed when I saw that. We drive friendly?

 

[NorthSideSox72]

That's bulls***. Why should I have to take the time out of MY hands to fight someone else's ticket becuase of a flawed ticket? What if this happens in another county? What if a parent down in Central or Southern Illinois loans a car to their kid for a trip to Chicago and they get one? You think it's "easy" for the parent to drive 6-8 hours just to come in and say, "that's not me in the picture?" Hiring a lawyer or burning the gas is still a big waste of money one way or another.

 

The sad thing is most people won't care and will just pay the fine, or go into court asking for supervision on it (more $$$ for the government) just becuase they don't want to deal with the hassle of the courts.

Its not bulls*** b/c its exactly the same with an in-person ticket. I don't see the validity of an argument that says you don't like law enforcement because it may be flawed, so it shouldn't be enforced. These same issues come up with a real live cop too, so, the process has to exist, but the laws also have to be enforced.