Anyone fight, and win, a camera speeding ticket in DC?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Wow! You're on a roll today. No. Lower speed limits don't cause "congestion". You're probably one of those people who thinks that when the fire alarm goes off, the safest thing to do is to have everyone in your office run as fast as they can for the exits. Slower and more orderly is better. |
Anonymous
Brilliant. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
|
Perhaps you should move out to Frederick or another bedroom community and let the us who can handle the city live in DC.
Anonymous
Actually, you are totally wrong. I just stay in the building because I know we're SOL anyway.  Your analogy makes zero sense anyway. We're not all in a panic driving to work or to a play on Saturday night. Slowing traffic down when it's not necessary can ABSOLUTELY cause congestion.
|
Anonymous
No evidence for this whatsoever, and if there were a mechanism by which this could occur, I'm sure you'd explain it. Anyone who's ever driven in this city knows that congestion comes from two things: a) too many private automobiles; and b) people driving like douchebags. If everyone drove at a calm and orderly 25 mph rather than 35-40 mph the congestion would be significantly less. This is something most small children grasp intuitively. |
Anonymous
|
To the asshole, condescending PP above:
Unnecessary speed limits ignore DoT guidelines The Department of Transport has laid down very clear guidelines on the imposition of speed limits. One part of those guidelines reflects the conclusion that "while the speed limit may apply some downward pressure on the speed of the fastest drivers, speed limits on their own do not reduce speeds significantly if they are set at a level substantially below that at which drivers would choose to drive in the absence of a limit." In other words, if the limit is too low, it will be ignored. In consequence, the DoT recommends that any speed limit should be reflect the current average speed on the stretch. Specifically, it advises that a study be carried out to determine the "85th percentile speed of traffic", ie. the speed at or below which 85% of traffic travels. The proposed speed limit should not be more than 7mph or 20% (whichever is the greater) below that speed. Not only do many (most?) local authorities ignore this clear advice, but many of them don't even carry out the necessary study to determine the 85th percentile speed. Unfortunately, the DoT advice is just that: advice. Local authorities have no legal obligation to adhere to it. If you happen to see a notice advising of an intended reduction in the speed limit, you can object to it on the basis that this advice has been ignored and you will stand some prospect of success, but once the limit has been imposed there is no recourse. Unnecessary speed limits don't work The DoT advice is not given without reason: it has been clearly shown that inappropriately low speed limits don't work because drivers view them with contempt. It is sometimes claimed that drivers who do 40mph in a 30mph zone would simply do 50mph if the limit were raised to 40mph, but a Department of Transport study showed that this is a myth. The study examined the effects of increasing a 30mph limit to a 40mph limit on six roads, measuring both average speeds and accident rates before and after the increase. The results were enlightening. In most cases, average speeds remained static or decreased. Indeed, on the one road where the average speed increased (by 5mph, on the A58 in West Yorkshire), the accident rate still fell. The study suggests that drivers recognised the old limit as inappropriate and thus ignored it, often by substantial margins; the new limit was considered reasonable, with much greater adherence. Similar studies in the States have shown the same effect: increasing the limit to a more appropriate speed increases respect for the limit, reduces average speeds and reduces accident rates. Unnecessary speed limits are dangerous The moral, then, is not simply that inappropriately low speed limits don't work, they are actually counter-productive. Further, since it is not only average speeds but accident rates which increase when these limits are applied, they are actively dangerous. Indeed, at least one coroner has gone so far as to cite an inappropriately low speed limit as a contributory factor in a road accident death. In giving his verdict on the death of Frank Gray, the cornoner, Bill Walrond of Bury St Edmonds, West Suffolk, observed that this was the third fatal accident to occur in the short space of time since a reduction in the speed limit and commented: "Unnecessary speed limits are detrimental to safety for various reasons. They reduce the opportunity to overtake, thereby making drivers try harder at other times; they cause traffic to bunch; they cause frayed tempers; they cause delay which makes drivers try harder at other times to make up time that they have lost. Another unfortunate effect that they have is that each unnecessary speed limit leads drivers to think that speed limits are imposed arbitrarily and therefore makes drivers less likely to observe speed limits when they ought to. Furthermore, speed limits can lead to road rage. [...] A driver with a frayed temper is not going to drive anything like as well as a driver who is calm and relaxed. Similarly and obviously a driver suffering from road rage is a hazard. Drivers should of course concentrate on staying calm and relaxed and they are at fault if they do not do so but none of that alters the connection that there can be between an accident and an unnecessary speed limit" The unnecessary restrictions referred to at length by the coroner in the full verdict are far from an isolated case. Local and county councils across the country are gradually imposing more and more inappropriately low speed limits. National limits become 50s and 40s, 40s become 30s. The perfectly proper 30mph zones through villages gradually creep further and further out of the village either side until they meet in the middle. |
Anonymous
|
OK, a couple of things to the rabid, "cars should determine how fast they drive" PP:
First, you obviously copied that from somewhere else - cite, please? Also, a citation for the DoT studies would be great. You do know that there are lights on Conn. Ave., right? Those force motorists to actually - stop - are they "artificially limiting" speed as well? Do you advocate doing away with them? And the most important thing, which is contrary to something you said before, "If you happen to see a notice advising of an intended reduction in the speed limit, you can object to it on the basis that this advice has been ignored and you will stand some prospect of success, but once the limit has been imposed there is no recourse." Translation - tough shit, pay the ticket. District residents thank you for your contribution to our revenue. Slow the fuck down. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
Temper, temper. Look back at your posts, and see for yourself if you come across as rabid. A little self reflection never hurts. I thought the point of your long diatribe was that "artificially low" speed limits are counterproductive and evidence of bad traffic policy. I thought that because that is what the post discussed. But if your point is that intentionally low speed limits are created as a cash cow, we can discuss that, too. It's pretty easy, actually. I think it's a great idea. Especially on arterials, where a disproportionate number of commuters are affected. I can not only see that this is happening in the city, I applaud it. I wish they would do more of it. I do not find this to be evidence of a corrupt city government (although lord knows, there's plenty of that to go around). I find it evidence of sound transportation and fiscal policy. I imagine you're close to an apoplexy right now, so please take some deep breaths and calm down, especially before you drive. you wouldn't want to speed, and get a ticket. |
Anonymous
| So, the camera went in, then the speed limit was reduce? |
Anonymous
Exsactly! The pp above can't grasp that simple concept. |
Anonymous
You are wrong. In some states, a speed limit not supported by a traffic study and set at the 85th percentile, is null and void and the proof of lack of such a study is a defense to a ticket. I know this because I have been a traffic court judge in another state and if the state could not prove -- if challenged --- that the limit was properly set, then the ticket was invalid. So much for your all encompassing horseshit theory, it appears that it more aptly applies to your own sense of arrogance with certitude. |
Anonymous
| Just go to court...if the camera doesn't show up, and they usually don't, then they will waive the fine. |
Anonymous
PP/former traffic court judge here... I have no idea what you are talking about/trying to say. The "camera" doesn't have to show up. Part of the "kangaroo court" aspect to these speed camera hidden taxation without due process schemes is that the photo is presumed to be prima facie evidence of the violation. So ... can you clarify your point? I don't get it and it seems contrary to the (absurd) statutes/ordinances that permit these systems that do little or nothing to take dangerous drivers off the road (no traffic stop; no arrests; no license points) and merely collect hidden taxes. |