CarTalk.com Blogs Car Info Our Show Deals Mechanics Files Vehicle Donation

Nabbed by infamous speed trap camera

They got me! 36 in a 25mph zone,but:
It’s about a 1/2 mile stretch down a steep hill through the woods. Few houses or intersections.
I hadn’t gone through there in about a year. Now I know it’s there. Fool me once…

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/citizens-protest-dcs-use-of-speed-camera-020812

Your lucky it wasn’t a school zone +construction zone, they love to multiply the fines…Pay within 10 days and we won’t notify your insurance company or assess any points to your license…

What a deal!

I still don’t like speed trap cameras. If the municipality can’t afford a patrolman to write the tickets they certainly don’t deserve the revenue from speed trap cameras.

  1. Car is registered in my company’s name
  2. Front license plate is off when driving (on when parked)
  3. Escort radar/laser detector with GPS speed/red light cameras in database
  4. Common sense and paying attention

I don’t see how 1 and 2 help you.

I have been driving since 1963. I have never had a speeding ticket nor traffic light ticket. I did have one ticket for “according to the police officer” unsafe driving" but that what thrown out in court.

I managed that with the car in my name, keeping both plates on my can and without a radar detector. I have been involved with three accidents, one cop hit me, one kid hit me the same day he got his license.

I have to wonder why someone needs to have a radar or laser detector, if they just follow the rules.  

If you don't like the rules and if most people agree, then why not put your effort into getting the rules changed? 

I wonder if we had good data if drivers who have radar detectors are involved in more or less accidents and how serious are those accidents.   Frankly I can see good arguments for both possibilities.

I still don’t like speed trap cameras. If the municipality can’t afford a patrolman

Frankly I don’t care if they can afford to pay a patrolman or not. In fact I can’t see where that should be the issue. The only issue should be __ Is there a safety issue or not. __ If there is no safety issue then there should be no restrictions. If there is a safety issue, then the cost of enforcing the law should not limit the enforcement and if a speed recording camera can increase safety at the expense of the driver who is not obeying the law.

Joseph…the majority of municipalities that sign up for speed trap cameras are not doing so because of safety concerns. They are doing it to raise revenue. That’s why I don’t like speed trap cameras and I never will. The love of money is the root of all evil. Speed trap cameras are evil.

Whether the motivation is revenue or safety, I think the important issue is whether the effect includes safety.

If the goal happens to be revenue, all you have to do is drive legally to thwart that goal.

Sometimes the speed limit is set too low to generate revenue in my opinion. We have a nearby boulevard about two miles long with two driving lanes in each direction plus a parking/turning lane on the right and a 10 foot wide grass median separating the opposing traffic. The limit is 30 mph. If I ever get a ticket there I will think about contesting it because the street mentioned has a speed limit lower than what state guidelines recommend. Most everyone else goes 35 to 40 mph there.

“Most everyone else goes 35 to 40 mph there.”

But Mom, everyone else is doing it. Did she ever buy that excuse? You are an adult, you know what the speed limit is, and you understand the consequences. Complaining is of little consequence unless you do so in a way that changes the rules, as the two people in Circuitsmith’s reference were doing.

“Joseph…the majority of municipalities that sign up for speed trap cameras are not doing so because of safety concerns. They are doing it to raise revenue. That’s why I don’t like speed trap cameras and I never will. The love of money is the root of all evil. Speed trap cameras are evil.”

I always wonder when someone can tell what someone else’s motivation might be.

Maybe they want to save lives and maybe they expect to make lots of money. I have to really wonder how much net income might be generated that way.

Does anyone have real imparticial data?

“Guideline” means guideline. Good luck with that.

JTsanders quote" But Mom, everyone else is doing it. Did she ever buy that excuse? " Unquote

Dear Mr. JTSanders: Notice that I said “most everyone else”. I did not say that I sped there and I want you to know that I do not; well maybe 33 or 34 in a 30. Please read more carefully before you lecture.

By the way, there is validity in setting a speed limit according to the “85th percentile rule for setting speed limits” which uses the speed that most reasonable people will decide is safe. Google that for more.

Lots of people love to lecture on this site. People are often over the top on some things. For myself, there are some pieces of roadway where it is more dangerous to follow the law than it is to “go along with the crowd.” We’re talking about having to occupy space with piles and piles of very large 2-5ton piles of rolling metal. For these places, one need not point at the choices or decisions of individual drivers. One can point at the nexus between DOTs and police forces.

I just want to add that other roads similar to this in DC have speed limits of 30 or 35mph.
I got this ticket in the mail 3 weeks after the infraction, so I don’t remember if I saw the speed limit sign and I haven’t been over that way since.
I vaguely remember downshifting to keep my speed down, but now I’ll remember I have to ride my brakes too.

If you have to ride your brakes to keep your speed below 26 MPH, you’re doing it wrong. When I drive through 25 MPH zone (like the one in my neighborhood) I keep my car in second gear, and if I am going too fast, all I have to do is let off on the gas pedal.

There is no law against driving 20 MPH in a 25 MPH zone you know. It’s what I do when there are pedestrians present since there are no sidewalks.

“If you have to ride your brakes to keep your speed below 26 MPH, you’re doing it wrong.”

You have no clue how steep this hill is, and I don’t need lessons on downshifting from you…
Maybe I don’t want to go down revving at 4000rpm.
There’s nothing wrong with using the brakes to go down such a short hill.
In fact, the photo shows I have the brakes on.
You just seem to enjoy trying to vilify me.
And I don’t care if I get as many flags as a Tea Party convention.

The Minnesota Highway Patrol was nice enough to just flash his grill lights at me Saturday telling me to slow down, which I did.

When I drove 30-40,000 miles a year on 55 mph highways, it was kinda hard to stay at 55 and still get any work done.

@Circuitsmith: “Maybe I don’t want to go down revving at 4000rpm.”

I didn’t realize it was that steep of a downhill slope or such a delicate engine that downshifting would damage the engine.

Since I have no clue how steep the hill is, why don’t you tell me? Maybe then it won’t seem so silly as a justification for speeding.