Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go to court, plead guilty with an explanation. Explanation - you had been there before 6 months ago nor whatever, and it was 45. Uou don't travel that way often and didn't realize the change (it did just happen). Likely you'll have to pay the fine but they will knock off the points.

Except that there are movable neon signs that have been in place since teh change alerting people.

Were you possibly going higher than 44 and the cop actually did you a favor and listed it that way to not to trigger a greater fine and points?

I wonder that too. If you were really going 44, you would have almost certainly been moving well with the flow of traffic and it would seem odd he would pick you off for that. Also, while there is of course no written rule about giving you a 10 mph buffer, that does seem to be the case in practice.

When the MoCo cops actually come out they have to go home with X number of tickets and revenue. They have no incentive to not pull over as many people as they can. Especially in the rich people areas.

I don't know about that. They had a trap set a while back to catch people making a right that is illegal from 4-7 in downtown Bethesda and they gave a slew of people warnings when they could have given a ton of tickets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure, but surprised they nabbed you for going just 9 miles over. Where in Bethesda were you?

44 in 35 is exceeding the speed limit by 26%. That's a big difference.

Also, if your car going 44 mph hits a pedestrian, there's about an 80% chance that the pedestrian will be severely injured, and a 65% chance that the pedestrian will be killed. For 35 mph, the chances are only (!) about 60% and 35%, respectively. That's a big difference, too.

BOOM droppin knowledge on yo a**

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also yes, you're right. Roads should not be high-speed where pedestrians are around. If we're serious about reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries in traffic (to vehicle occupants as well as pedestrians), we're going to have to drive more slowly.

So everyone should change their habits just in case there is some moron crossing in the middle of the street with no crosswalk and when cars have a green?

How about we improve safety in this instance by discouraging pedestrians from doing wildly dangerous things rather that requiring drivers to completely jackass proof pedestrians.

There are plenty of examples where drivers need to change behavior for pedestrian safety, but this isn't one of them.

And this speed limit was changed because one moron was driving 100 mph and hit people. Obviously that guy was at fault, but that doesn't 45 mph is unsafe or shouldn't be the limit.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go to court, plead guilty with an explanation. Explanation - you had been there before 6 months ago nor whatever, and it was 45. Uou don't travel that way often and didn't realize the change (it did just happen). Likely you'll have to pay the fine but they will knock off the points.

Except that there are movable neon signs that have been in place since teh change alerting people.

Were you possibly going higher than 44 and the cop actually did you a favor and listed it that way to not to trigger a greater fine and points?

I wonder that too. If you were really going 44, you would have almost certainly been moving well with the flow of traffic and it would seem odd he would pick you off for that. Also, while there is of course no written rule about giving you a 10 mph buffer, that does seem to be the case in practice.

When the MoCo cops actually come out they have to go home with X number of tickets and revenue. They have no incentive to not pull over as many people as they can. Especially in the rich people areas.

Anonymous wrote:Oh yes, your insurance co will find out.

Go to court. Plead with them to take the point off, say you’ll pay the fine. Hopefully you don’t have an extensive speeding record?

They pulled you over for going 44 in a 35? That’s pretty harsh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go to court, plead guilty with an explanation. Explanation - you had been there before 6 months ago nor whatever, and it was 45. Uou don't travel that way often and didn't realize the change (it did just happen). Likely you'll have to pay the fine but they will knock off the points.

Except that there are movable neon signs that have been in place since teh change alerting people.

Were you possibly going higher than 44 and the cop actually did you a favor and listed it that way to not to trigger a greater fine and points?

I wonder that too. If you were really going 44, you would have almost certainly been moving well with the flow of traffic and it would seem odd he would pick you off for that. Also, while there is of course no written rule about giving you a 10 mph buffer, that does seem to be the case in practice.

Anonymous wrote:Go to court, plead guilty with an explanation. Explanation - you had been there before 6 months ago nor whatever, and it was 45. Uou don't travel that way often and didn't realize the change (it did just happen). Likely you'll have to pay the fine but they will knock off the points.

Except that there are movable neon signs that have been in place since teh change alerting people.

Were you possibly going higher than 44 and the cop actually did you a favor and listed it that way to not to trigger a greater fine and points?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure, but surprised they nabbed you for going just 9 miles over. Where in Bethesda were you?

44 in 35 is exceeding the speed limit by 26%. That's a big difference.

Also, if your car going 44 mph hits a pedestrian, there's about an 80% chance that the pedestrian will be severely injured, and a 65% chance that the pedestrian will be killed. For 35 mph, the chances are only (!) about 60% and 35%, respectively. That's a big difference, too.

But there is no earthly reason that a pedestrian should be in the middle of River Road (there are only a couple of crossings) particularly when the car has a green light. By that logic, we should never have a speed limit above 10 mph because you never know when there could be a pedestrian and the pedestrian is more likely to get hurt at higher speeds.

Well, it's like with chickens. Why did the pedestrian cross River Road? To get to the other side. That's why.

Also yes, you're right. Roads should not be high-speed where pedestrians are around. If we're serious about reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries in traffic (to vehicle occupants as well as pedestrians), we're going to have to drive more slowly.

So everyone should change their habits just in case there is some moron crossing in the middle of the street with no crosswalk and when cars have a green?

How about we improve safety in this instance by discouraging pedestrians from doing wildly dangerous things rather that requiring drivers to completely jackass proof pedestrians.

There are plenty of examples where drivers need to change behavior for pedestrian safety, but this isn't one of them.

And this speed limit was changed because one moron was driving 100 mph and hit people. Obviously that guy was at fault, but that doesn't 45 mph is unsafe or shouldn't be the limit.

OP, are you telling us the truth about how fast you were going?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure, but surprised they nabbed you for going just 9 miles over. Where in Bethesda were you?

44 in 35 is exceeding the speed limit by 26%. That's a big difference.

Also, if your car going 44 mph hits a pedestrian, there's about an 80% chance that the pedestrian will be severely injured, and a 65% chance that the pedestrian will be killed. For 35 mph, the chances are only (!) about 60% and 35%, respectively. That's a big difference, too.

But there is no earthly reason that a pedestrian should be in the middle of River Road (there are only a couple of crossings) particularly when the car has a green light. By that logic, we should never have a speed limit above 10 mph because you never know when there could be a pedestrian and the pedestrian is more likely to get hurt at higher speeds.

Well, it's like with chickens. Why did the pedestrian cross River Road? To get to the other side. That's why.

Also yes, you're right. Roads should not be high-speed where pedestrians are around. If we're serious about reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries in traffic (to vehicle occupants as well as pedestrians), we're going to have to drive more slowly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure, but surprised they nabbed you for going just 9 miles over. Where in Bethesda were you?

44 in 35 is exceeding the speed limit by 26%. That's a big difference.

Also, if your car going 44 mph hits a pedestrian, there's about an 80% chance that the pedestrian will be severely injured, and a 65% chance that the pedestrian will be killed. For 35 mph, the chances are only (!) about 60% and 35%, respectively. That's a big difference, too.

This is all correct information but the speed limit along there was 45 like ten minutes ago so please don’t berate OP in this instance.

PP you're responding. Yes, I'm not berating OP! I'm berating the PPs who are talking about "just 9 miles over" or complaining that it will now take them 1.7 minutes instead of 1.3 minutes to drive a mile on River Road.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure, but surprised they nabbed you for going just 9 miles over. Where in Bethesda were you?

44 in 35 is exceeding the speed limit by 26%. That's a big difference.

Also, if your car going 44 mph hits a pedestrian, there's about an 80% chance that the pedestrian will be severely injured, and a 65% chance that the pedestrian will be killed. For 35 mph, the chances are only (!) about 60% and 35%, respectively. That's a big difference, too.

But there is no earthly reason that a pedestrian should be in the middle of River Road (there are only a couple of crossings) particularly when the car has a green light. By that logic, we should never have a speed limit above 10 mph because you never know when there could be a pedestrian and the pedestrian is more likely to get hurt at higher speeds.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure, but surprised they nabbed you for going just 9 miles over. Where in Bethesda were you?

44 in 35 is exceeding the speed limit by 26%. That's a big difference.

Also, if your car going 44 mph hits a pedestrian, there's about an 80% chance that the pedestrian will be severely injured, and a 65% chance that the pedestrian will be killed. For 35 mph, the chances are only (!) about 60% and 35%, respectively. That's a big difference, too.

This is all correct information but the speed limit along there was 45 like ten minutes ago so please don’t berate OP in this instance.

I thought the answer would be "no, they won't assess points," but then I looked at this page and think they probably would:

https://dmv.dc.gov/page/point-system-chart

It says points are awarded for DC and non-DC moving violations and that there are 2-3 points assessed for any violation not listed. 9mph over is not listed but is a moving violation.

I don't know if there's an automatic notice, or a check run the next time you renew, or how DC would find out, though.

I wonder if they would assess the points even if a Maryland judge knocks them off, like a PP posted. Maybe you would need to convince the judge to let you pay a fine for a non-moving violation substitute charge.

Go to court, plead guilty with an explanation. Explanation - you had been there before 6 months ago nor whatever, and it was 45. Uou don't travel that way often and didn't realize the change (it did just happen). Likely you'll have to pay the fine but they will knock off the points.