1,000+ Citations

[Towntalk]

LOL

[AllanY2525]

I think I have a pretty good idea of who won that tug-o-war

[Towntalk]

There is a video going around facebook from a TV stations news of a suv being lifted up by a tow truck. The SUV's rear is hooked to the tow truch and lifted way up off the ground, yet the driver of the SUV is flooring the gas trying to break free of the tow truck.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/viral-video/11829448/Man-tries-to-drive-off-in-car-while-its-attached-to-a-tow-truck.html

[AllanY2525]

If suburbanites are issued many of these citations, they will avoid traveling in/through Youngstown just like people avoid traveling through Poland, Ohio.

So it would be better to let them just go ahead and do it, just for the sake of having them drive through
Youngstown, versus having them violate the speed limits in someone else' town?

[AllanY2525]

If speeding is a safety issue, why let me speed on by then send me a ticket in the mail next week??

My position is that speeding is unsafe - the method of delivery for the citation  doesn't make what
the driver did less unsafe or more unsafe.

I think Jay made the most important distinction between pulling the driver over right then and there,
and mailing the citation afterwards - which is that the police department will be missing out on the
opportunity to catch people who may have drugs, weapons, contraband, etc in their cars, or have
outstanding warrants, or may be operating the vehicle without a valid license, etc.

[Why?Town]

If speeding is a safety issue, why let me speed on by then send me a ticket in the mail next week??

[jay]

If suburbanites are issued many of these citations, they will avoid traveling in/through Youngstown just like people avoid traveling through Poland, Ohio.

[AllanY2525]

A few negatives for relying on hand held speed cameras

Traffic stops for speeding often result in the seizure of drugs, seizure of guns, apprehension of people with outstanding warrants and the discovery of unlicensed drivers.
Fewer of these will happen if the YPD switches exclusively to the use of cameras.

Yep - I agree with THAT one, for sure Jay.... no argument at all there. 

[jay]

A few negatives for relying on hand held speed cameras

Traffic stops for speeding often result in the seizure of drugs, seizure of guns, apprehension of people with outstanding warrants and the discovery of unlicensed drivers.
Fewer of these will happen if the YPD switches exclusively to the use of cameras.

[AllanY2525]

Many school zones exist purely because the road goes by a school, regardless of whether school kids are on that road or not.  Some schools are located in cities where there is a lot of pedestrian traffic around the building.  Most older schools were built that way.  Many newer schools such as those out in the country are on campuses set back from the road, and everyone coming in or out goes by some sort of vehicle.  In the former case a low speed limit (25 mph) when kids are outside the building is prudent.  In the latter case a school zone speed limit makes no sense at all.  However, govt. does not differentiate and applies a one size fits all policy regardless of the reality of the situation. 

I discuss speed limits on various online forums from time to time, and without fail the majority of people who respond act like Allan and Peggy do.  This attitude that the "law is the law" as if it was handed down by God himself and is infallible.  Well these people must not drive, because whenever I am out on the road, at least 85 to 90% of those out there are going above the speed limit.  So either those who comment do not drive, or they are fibbing a bit on strictly adhering to the speed limit. 

It is a myth that speed limits improve safety on the road.  Speed limits should be set based upon what speed 85% of those on the road are traveling at.  This is where I get my 10 mph speed increase number from.  Do a little learning on the subject:
http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/position

We live in a country that operates under the rule of law.  Of course God did not lay down our speed limits, Rick
our government, ie: "We the people.." as the Constitution says,  did. There is no need to "look anything up" or
follow any links to other websites, cite statistical data collected in Washington state, Michigan, or anywhere else
to understand a premise that is this simple and basic. 

If you don't like or agree with the speed limit laws, then work to change them - this is your right.   It seems
like this is the goal of the website you linked to - more power to them and I wish them every success in
that endeavor, as it is their right to pursue change in the laws.   

In the mean time, if you speed and get caught, the authorities can issue you a citation or other civil and legal
penalties. THAT is THEIR right - the law gives it to them.  With no law we would have total anarchy
If you get a ticket or citation and it is your opinion that you are right and the law is wrong  - go ahead and
fight it in court.  Roll the dice.  Win your case and beat the citation, fine, whatever.  Lose the case and pay
the penalties.  This is your right and you'll get no argument from me. 

In the past, I have showed up in court to dispute  traffic citations - the officers who issued them were also
required to show up, thereby granting me my constitutional right to face my accusers.  One time the cop
showed up - I LOST.  Another time the cop did not show up - the case was dismissed - and I WON. 

The case I lost ended up costing me some more money versus just mailing in the citation with the "admit"
box and paying the fine (and YES, I was PI**ED OFF about it... LOL... ) but in both cases it worked the way
it is supposed to, under the law.  I had the option to follow the law and obey the speed limit, and I chose
to ignore that option.  In the former case, I paid the price (plus a little extra...)  In the latter case, I got
away with it.

A lawyer in Girard fought a citation from an un-manned traffic camera, WON his case because of an existing
law that say the violation must be witnessed by a police officer, and Girard removed their traffic cameras as a
result of a ruling in a court of law.  GOOD FOR HIM.  If the powers that be want that to change, then they
need to change state law to say that a police officer doesn't need to be present.

Youngstown issued speed cameras that are hand-held by an officer so that they would be be issuing
citations that meet the legal requirement of an officer witnessing the violation... sounds like someone
in city government wasn't a TOTAL idiot when they thought this up (don't get your hopes up of course,
because there are plenty of other idiots left in Youngstown's local government... )

For those who look at the new speed cameras as a money grab, I have a suggestion:  Do something
REALLY INSIDIOUS and UNDERHANDED to "get back at them" for their greed - START OBEYING THE
SPEED LIMIT AND DENY THE CITY AND/OR POLICE THESE REVENUES.

What a novel idea, huh?  And YES, I am being a sarcastic A** when I say that - don't take it too
seriously [ please !! ] as it was meant as a humorous remark.  Seriously, though... if people aren't speeding,
the city won't be making much money off the new cameras, right?

With regard to your statement that "the majority of people who respond act like Allan and Peggy..." I'm guessing
that when you word your statement like this what you actually mean to say is that this "majority" you are
referring to *share an opinion that is similar to* that of Peggy and myself(?) 

What you and I and Peggy are doing here is expressing an opinion - we are not "acting like" this, or that, or
anything else.  With regard to your statement of "Well these people must not drive..." have you asked all of
them?  Are you implying that they cannot possibly be drivers - or that they "might be fibbing a bit" - because
their opinion on the subject is different from your own?

With regard to your statement that  "It is a myth that speed limits improve safety on the road".  It is OBEYING
speed limits that improves safety on the road.  The faster a vehicle is traveling, the less time the operator has to
react to a suddent change around them,  the more damage will occur in an accident, the less likely the operator, the
passengers, the operator of any other vehicle  involved in that accident are to walk away from it undamaged. 

At 55 MPH, your vehicle is crossing a distance of just over 88 feet PER SECOND.  Now, increase your speed
to 80 and you'll be traveling a distance of over 117 feet - greater than the length of 10 passenger cars -  in
that same 1 second of real time. 

The amount of stored energy that you, your passengers, your car any other cars, and their occupants
must absorb in a collision increases, but your reflexes and reaction time are not going to improve just
because you chose to drive faster, and your bodies are not going to become more durable with increasing
speed.  Nor is the protective cage of the car body that is surrounding you .  The amount of force with
which your bodies strike against your seat belts, the airbags, and anything else inside the vehicle increases
as well. 

For these reasons, I disagree with your position that speed limits effecting any increase in safety is somehow
mythical.  It's bad enough in an accident where the vehicles involved are traveling in the same direction, but
imagine an accident with two or more vehicles traveling in opposite directions... the outcome gets much,
much worse, as the force of the vehicles colliding adds up to be much, much more.

This is factual information -  supported by the laws of PHYSICS.  God may not have laid down our laws, but
GOD DID lay down the laws of physics - we just wrote all of our mathematical theories, etc to explain HOW
physics works. Thus far in our history on the planet, they have not yet been proven to be "fallible".   No need
to look anything up, link to any website or statistics here.  You can argue it all you want to - but all of the
statistics in the world cannot and will not change the laws of physics that support these facts, nor will those
who gather such statistics.

The same applies in a situation where a pedestrian is struck by a driver.  The faster a vehicle is traveling, the
more time and distance is required to bring it to a stop, the less time a driver has to react if someone enters
the roadway suddenly or from a position that is not within the clear view of the driver, etc, and the  more
seriously the pedestrian will be injured.

The website you linked to cites statistics that say the majority of accidents are caused by differences in speed
between slower and faster drivers... well, if you follow their logic then that same logic dictates that if
people OBEYED the posted speed limits IN THE FIRST PLACE these differences in speed between the slowest
and fastest vehicles on the roadway would be narrowed - without the slower drivers who are operating
within the law speeding up (and possibly breaking the law) to accommodate the speed of those who
are already operating their vehicle outside the law.  It could just as easily be said that the OTHER
drivers are creating the traffic safety issue by exceeding posted limits as it could be said that I am
creating a hazard by not speeding like THEY are.

Of course, you will always have those who drive considerably BELOW the posted speed limit - I would never
argue that point because some people are just slow-pokes for whatever reasons they may have.  There are
roads on which there is a MINIMUM speed limit as well... it used to be 40 MPH on freeways, I have no idea
whether this is true any longer or on what roads this might still apply (and I really don't care to look it up,
anyways).  Just about any jurisdiction has some kind of "obstructing traffic" rules on the books, anyways
and one might be cited, fined, etc for driving too slow under those rules.

With regard to your statement that "whenever I am out on the road, at least 85 to 90% of those out there
are going above the speed limit"  so what?  If ONE HUNDRED percent of "those out there" were speeding
like yourself, then 100% of them would be violating the posted speed limit and therefore subject to getting
pulled over and cited, fined, arrested, or whatever - just like you.

It still doesn't make it right.  Percentage of people doing it is irrelevant, therefore this argument holds
no merit.   Obey the law, work to change it if you feel it's wrong and you are right, or make a conscious
choice to disobey it - and suffer the consequences if you are caught.   

A simple set of choices - and we all have this same set of choices available to us, at will.

As I have already stated, I AGREE with you that some speed limits should be altered based on different
factors.  Some of these factors might be:

1) The road's proximity to pedestrian traffic - or its isolation FROM pedestrian traffic
2) Highways with limited entrances vs. local streets with MANY intersections
3) Angle and sharpness of curves in the road
4) Banked curves (or lack thereof)
5) Materials the road is made out of, ie: loose gravel, pavement, oiled dir road, whatever
6) Roads where there are hidden entrances or intersections with no clear view approaching them
7) Roads where lanes must merge (example: rural areas with those old "one lane bridges")

etc, etc, blah blahh blahhhhh

Some of the roads that had 70 MPH speed limits back in the day had them reduced to 55 MPH, but
now have 60 and 65 MPH speed limits.  One of the arguments that resulted in this change - a valid
one at that - was that roads that were originally posted as 70 MPH were DESIGNED for those
speeds.  The angles of their curves, banking, etc. But again, it doesn't change the aspects of an
accident that are dictated by the laws of physics - the faster a vehicle is moving when an accident
occurs, the greater the chances of physical injury or death and the more likely that any injuries
sustained in that accident will be more profound.

What I don't agree with is ignoring the speed limits because one thinks they should be higher,
or because one feels they are inconvenient , or that one thinks they may know better than those
who set the speed limits in the first place, or because a lot of other drivers sharing the road with
them on any given day may be doing it, or because it's going to take longer than one would prefer
to reach  their destination, blah blah blah.   

I like you, Rick and I enjoy debating with you - even when we agree on some things and disagree
on others.  It's what makes us all unique individuals.  As I have said before, I always try to respect
the opinions of others -  even when I do not share them...

Lets just say we partially agree, and partially disagree on this [ these ? ] issue( s ?).  You are a
smart cookie, and we agree WAYYY more than we disagree, anyways...

If you want to respond and have the last word, I'm okay with that, too......

[Rick Rowlands]

If you really want to do some deep thinking, consider the Solomon Curve.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_curve
Basically, the more your speed deviates from the speed of the vehicles around you, the greater the risk you pose.  So for instance, when Allan drives to Youngstown on the PA Turnpike at 65 MPH and the majority of traffic is at 75 to 80 mph (yes that is how fast most are going on a good weather day), Allan is actually causing a traffic hazard.  He is totally in the right as far as the law is concerned, but could be dead wrong as far as reality is concerned.

When I say that I speed, I am saying that I travel at the speed of the traffic around me, whatever that may be. 

[Rick Rowlands]

Many school zones exist purely because the road goes by a school, regardless of whether school kids are on that road or not.  Some schools are located in cities where there is a lot of pedestrian traffic around the building.  Most older schools were built that way.  Many newer schools such as those out in the country are on campuses set back from the road, and everyone coming in or out goes by some sort of vehicle.  In the former case a low speed limit (25 mph) when kids are outside the building is prudent.  In the latter case a school zone speed limit makes no sense at all.  However, govt. does not differentiate and applies a one size fits all policy regardless of the reality of the situation. 

I discuss speed limits on various online forums from time to time, and without fail the majority of people who respond act like Allan and Peggy do.  This attitude that the "law is the law" as if it was handed down by God himself and is infallible.  Well these people must not drive, because whenever I am out on the road, at least 85 to 90% of those out there are going above the speed limit.  So either those who comment do not drive, or they are fibbing a bit on strictly adhering to the speed limit. 

It is a myth that speed limits improve safety on the road.  Speed limits should be set based upon what speed 85% of those on the road are traveling at.  This is where I get my 10 mph speed increase number from.  Do a little learning on the subject:
http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/position

[Peggy Gurney]

By your reasoning, they s[size=78%]hould they also increase speed limits in school zones because people tend to speed through them, endangering children. [/size]
Or in residential neighborhoods, again endangering children, residents, etc.
I don't think so.

The law is the law, whether you agree with it or not.
You speed, you get a ticket. Hopefully.

[Rick Rowlands]

No problem.  I'll go around. 

[AllanY2525]

Its time to increase all speed limits by at least 10 mph, and some roads by 15 mph to get the
limits in line with how people actually driveCop didn't see it, I didn't do it. - George Carlin

I agree with you on this - but until the legislature increases the speed limits, I'm going to obey
the law anyway - disagreeing with the posted speed limit, EVEN if it is stupid and needs to be changed,
doesn't give me the right to disregard it.

More modern technology in my car has nothing whatsoever to do with it.  It is still the posted speed limit.