Here we go again.......

[Roger Batts]

Rich, Hound, Garland, TX used to do that all the time on LBJ Freeway (IH635). They park a patrol car, line up 7-10 bikes in front of it, the cop in the car stands by with his radar/lidar gun, and when he points his finger, the bike at the front goes after the first victim that passes the patrol car. Sometimes, the cop will key his radio and just say something like "red pickup" or "grey car" and they go after that person. Now, they can't because they put an HOV lane in the middle of the highway!



BTW, the cops usually really start setting traps around the 15th and 30th of each month. Why? Because that's when most people get paid! They want to steal your paycheck! And it's 100% legal!

 

[Timmy-The-Ute]

I don't think setting a nationwide limit to 55 is a good idea. Heck in Germany where gas is 7 to 8 dollars a gallon there are places where there is no limit and cars are going over 90 mph. I don't think much of speeders though. Anyone going more than 10 mph over the limit is reckless and crazy. When I hear about people getting themselves killed for speeding it just breaks my heart.

 

[Dreman]

Normally neither the police or the legislative bodies in the area set the speed limits. They are set by the Department of Transportation when the road is built, or when there is a known situation that could require lowering the limits. The speed limits are set for the safety of the traveling public. The traveling public may not always agree, but most will stick reasonably close to that speed.



But when speed limits are set by legislature, then there is a problem. They rarely take safety into consideration. Usually they have another reason for setting the speed limit, and it is always set lower than required for safety. The traveling public knows this, and rarely drives at that speed. That's when law enforcement steps in to enforce the speed limit, and the public begins to disrespect their law enforcement officers.



Speed limits should be set by those trained to know how fast a road can be traveled safely. Any other speed is an enforcement problem, because no one will drive at that speed.

 

[Johnny O]

The trouble with these towns is that they are in a vicious circle: they hire more cops to give out more tickets so they can make enough money to pay the cops. All in the name of safety. What a crock.

The noted speed trap outside of Pittsburgh in Kilbuck, PA is out of biz and they disbanded the police dept. Town has about 120 residents and had 14 police officers. :blink: I used to drive through it every day to work.

They would set up speed traps on the exact same stretch of road where an entire hillside fell down and oozed across the road when they were preparing it for a new Wal-Mart. The unintended consequence was that now with single-lane traffic you can't speed even if you wanted to. No speeders = no tickets = no money to pay cops.

 

[Dingo]

One day, one of my guys was on the way to work. The local PD got him at 63 in a 45. When the cop asked why he was going that fast, he said, "I'm late for work and you're supposed to be a half-mile up on the left, not here."



I died laughing.

 

[Richard L]

hellhound,

I grew up in the Cleveland, Lakewood and Parma areas and i am very familiar with the Lynndale police traps. Prior to I-71 taking out their only stop-light, they used to have police watching the light at all hours because you went under a railroad bridge just before the light and if you did not know the light was there you would easily run it and never see it. The cops knew it was a blind light and it was the major sourse of revenue for the town until I-71 took out the intersection.



I don't like it when the speed is reduced on an interstate highway and there is only one sign indicating the lower speed limit and none for miles where the cops setup their speed traps. It's just too easy to be passing a truck that blocks your view of the signs when they are all on the right sholder of the road. I feel that if the reduced speed is required for safety, it should be on both the right and left sides of the roadway and repeated serveral times within the first mile. It can't be much of a safety issue if they can't spend a few dollars for a few more signs. So if it's not a safety hazard, then it's intended as a speed trap.



I gues the towns look at it like: Why spend a couple hundred dollars on signs when we can charge a couple hundred dollars in fines for all the people who miss seeing the one sign? That's why they look at ir as a source of revenue and not a safety issue.



...Rich

 

[Bill Barber]

read an interesting article today, alot of new cars can and do store to the PCM (Short term)

max speeds, get into an accident, insurance company sees at the time of the accident, you were travelling 75 in a 65, claim denied.

what was interesting is that some states are thinking about haveing all new cars equiped with GPS type systems, already exsists such as lojack, onstar etc.And rental cars

Than create a data base of habitual speeders and register each new car purchased by said speeder.

Imagine a control room where you are being tracked Via sattelite.

OK we got bill B at 95 on I 5 two miles from the grapevine going south, traffic is light, He seems to not be driving in an erratic fashion (You can be tracked within 1.5 meters) pursuit Vehical not recommened, e-ticket will be sent with a bill for $650.00.

The tech is here now, and you cannot beat the ticket.

 

[Martin]

insurance company sees at the time of the accident, you were travelling 75 in a 65, claim denied

I like that idea....would also like to see a perm. lic suspension for 1st time DWI's.

 

[Bill Barber]

So Fox, you have never exceeded the posted speed limit?

 

[Martin]

Sure, But never came close to getting in an accident, but I figure if your willing to take the risk, you must also be willing to pay the price.

 

[Richard L]

Bill Barber,

It is illegal for an insurance company to deny a claim because you were speeding. They can raise your rates, cancel your coverage, etc but they cannot deny a claim because you were speeding, whether or not that contributed to the accident or not.



I worked for the largest auto insurer in Texas and I can assure you that what you claimed the article said is illegal in Texas and the other 49 states. Black boxes and ECU's can be used to identify the conditions immediately prior to the accident, and may even indicate who was right or wrong, and even contributing negligence, but they still cannot deny you your coverage under your collision insurance, and they cannot deny coverage to the other driver under your liability insurance. That defies the basic foundation of our automobile insurance system. The only acception that applies is if you were involved in an accident while committing a felony, which is a clause that most insurance companies have in their policies.



...Rich

 

[Martin]

My comment was I kinda wish the ins companies were set up that way, that if you got caught speeding and caused an accident that you would be SOL. I think it would make more people slow down. Might even save a few lives as well.

 

[Bill Barber]

read the fine print in your policy, varies by state and ins company.

I have allstate, policy states that if a claim is made and the claimee is proven to have caused an accident do to excessive speed, allstate will not honor the policy.

Thats what mine says.

allstate will cover damage caused by me to the other car (driver) but not my car nor my person, if i am at fault and caused an accident do to my negligance.

Thats california

 

[Martin]

I have Geico and their policy states they do not insure to motorists with radar detectors. I do remember reading something that if you are involved in an accident and you have a radar detector in your car, any claims may be denied and the policy would be canceled.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Bill Barber,



Ponderous. Insurance that doesn't pay if you are at fault due to negligance. Why even have insurance?



TJR

 

[Jason Barnes]

I may be pulling a "John Madden" by stating the obvious, but theoretically shouldn't you drive at the lowest RPM in the highest gear? (If 55 mph is that speed, so be it.)



Also isn't it more cost efficient to use the brakes as little as possible? (Save money in fuel mileage and brakes.)



What about slowing down more gradually when approaching red lights so you don't actually come to a complete stop? (0 MPG = stopped @ red light)



These are just a few thoughts of mine, right or wrong.

 

[TrainTrac]

TJR,



Bill said:

allstate will cover damage caused by me to the other car (driver) but not my car nor my person, if i am at fault and caused an accident do to my negligance.

If I read that statement correctly, he's saying that his insurance provider will cover the other party involved, but won't cover Bill himself (or his vehicle) if it's determined that the accident was caused by his negligence i.e. taking action or not taking action to avoid an accident.

 

[TrainTrac]

Back to the original topic... Looks like one state is already proposing to reduce its speed limits. But not to reduce fuel consumption, but because some officials have been brainwashed by the Global Warming (i.e. Assault on Capitalism/Movement to Reduce Our Standard of Living/Income Redistribution movement formerly know as Communism) farce. Reading this story, it looks like the news outlet has bought in hook, line, and sinker also:

Kansas Energy Council looking at 65 mph speed limit



Topeka — State officials are considering a proposal to lower the speed limit on Kansas highways from 70 mph to 65 mph as a way to reduce climate-changing carbon dioxide emissions.



“Sixty-five was not seen as such a huge change,” Liz Brosius, executive director of the Kansas Energy Council, said Monday. “That was some of the thinking behind it.”



In Kansas, 70 mph speed limits exist on segments of interstates, some divided highways and the Kansas Turnpike.



Lowering the speed limit was recommended by the KEC Greenhouse Gas Policy Committee. The committee’s work will be considered by the full KEC on Aug. 13.



A drop in speed may even gain some political torque as a fuel-saver during times of record fuel prices, officials said.



“I would be surprised if it doesn’t go through,” said Sarah Dean, of Lawrence, who serves on the Greenhouse Gas panel. In general, each 5 mph increase in speed increases fuel consumption from 7 percent to 23 percent, Brosius said.



The Greenhouse panel also suggested that perhaps lawmakers consider increases in fines for speed violations and repeal of the law that states violations of less than 10 mph over the speed limit in 55 mph to 70 mph zones not count as moving violations.



Recently, the American Trucking Association recommended a national 65 mph speed limit because of record fuel prices.



“The signs are troubling. We are concerned about fuel’s direct impact on our industry and also its effects on the nation's economy,” said Bill Graves, former Kansas governor and current ATA president and chief executive. “The industry is doing its part to conserve fuel, but we need help.”



Tom Whitaker, executive director of the Kansas Motor Carriers Association, said that his group, which includes 1,162 trucking companies, doesn’t take a stand on a specific speed limit. But the group advocates that speed limits should be uniform throughout the nation, not differentiate between trucks and cars, and be strictly enforced.



Whitaker said, however, the increasing price of diesel has hit trucking firms hard.



“As fuel prices go up, bankruptcies go up,” he said.