If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Martha's Vineyard Times)   Police chief orders highway department to post illegal speed limit. Again   (mvtimes.com) divider line 82
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

12405 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jul 2014 at 10:14 AM (6 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



82 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-31 08:11:14 AM
FTFA:
Lt. Williamson said that the signs were not intended as a speed trap and that tickets along that road could be successfully appealed. "I haven't told people to target anyone, to nail people, that's not the intention," he said. "We just want people to slow down in a busy area, and if someone got a speeding ticket there they could challenge it, since we haven't had a speed study yet."

So in other words, you're going to make people pay for the privilege of fighting a ticket in MA that you don't even have the legal authority to write.

If you get such a ticket and challenge it, even if you *WIN*, you're still out court and/or attorney fees, along with the $50 surcharge that MA charges for every speeding ticket.  For a ticket the police had no legal authority to write.
 
2014-07-31 08:25:18 AM
They just want to make sure they can trap them Duke boys.
 
2014-07-31 08:53:02 AM
Lt. Williamson said that the signs were not intended as a speed trap

And I didn't intend to rob that 7-11.  No harm, no foul, right?
 
2014-07-31 09:54:15 AM

dittybopper: FTFA:
Lt. Williamson said that the signs were not intended as a speed trap and that tickets along that road could be successfully appealed. "I haven't told people to target anyone, to nail people, that's not the intention," he said. "We just want people to slow down in a busy area, and if someone got a speeding ticket there they could challenge it, since we haven't had a speed study yet."

So in other words, you're going to make people pay for the privilege of fighting a ticket in MA that you don't even have the legal authority to write.

If you get such a ticket and challenge it, even if you *WIN*, you're still out court and/or attorney fees, along with the $50 surcharge that MA charges for every speeding ticket.  For a ticket the police had no legal authority to write.


And we're done here. They just HOPE people don't know their rights, and make them pay even when they do.
 
2014-07-31 10:21:01 AM
Its a tourist trap.  They won't know to fight the tickets.
 
2014-07-31 10:22:21 AM
Let me guess, this is a local sheriff crying out against the tyranny of the state? Time for a scream of "MUNICIPALITIES RIGHTS!"
 
2014-07-31 10:22:58 AM
It's Mass. So at a minimum people will be doing 70 on that road.
 
2014-07-31 10:23:12 AM
So they tried it once before in 2001 and were told that they couldn't do it without conducting a speed study and getting authorization from the State DOT.  But that's tooooooo much work for them (I guess public safety isn't that important after all) so they just dropped it, and now are trying to do it illegally again.
 
2014-07-31 10:23:15 AM
I hate the intentionally low speed limits we have in most cities now. Most of the cars on the road can safely handle at least 70, what is a 55 mph speed limit other than a trap to get more revenue? This is especially true in straight flat areas with nothing but farmland on each side.
 
2014-07-31 10:23:32 AM
Reason #4,098,783 not to go to Massachusetts.
 
2014-07-31 10:25:23 AM
I like this part:

 Traffic engineers assume that 85 percent of the drivers travel at a reasonable and safe speed.
 
2014-07-31 10:27:56 AM

Stan Lee's Ghost: I like this part:

 Traffic engineers assume that 85 percent of the drivers travel at a reasonable and safe speed.


The other 15% die in flaming balls of wreckage.
 
2014-07-31 10:27:59 AM

dittybopper: If you get such a ticket and challenge it, even if you *WIN*, you're still out court and/or attorney fees, along with the $50 surcharge that MA charges for every speeding ticket. For a ticket the police had no legal authority to write.


"The process IS the punishment".

Honestly, someone at that dept needs a firin'.
 
2014-07-31 10:29:24 AM

bearcats1983: I hate the intentionally low speed limits we have in most cities now. Most of the cars on the road can safely handle at least 70, what is a 55 mph speed limit other than a trap to get more revenue? This is especially true in straight flat areas with nothing but farmland on each side.


Many interstates in the flatlands have done just that. Route 80 through Ohio is 75 for most of it's length.
 
2014-07-31 10:30:14 AM

macadamnut: Stan Lee's Ghost: I like this part:

 Traffic engineers assume that 85 percent of the drivers travel at a reasonable and safe speed.

The other 15% die in flaming balls of wreckage.


Park in the left lane doing "the limit"
 
2014-07-31 10:30:14 AM
Martha's Vineyard. Rich white people problems.
 
2014-07-31 10:33:52 AM
So if MassDOT had nothing to do or say about the Big Dig, this would be just a local constabulary taking safety into account.

Given that the famous "devil may spend" state transportation department could after a decade or so of bad decisions and traffic rerouting where people actually moved to be closer to work,

A) They could build a big tunnel underneath the roundabout,

B) Put in changeable electronic speed limit signs which revert to 35 during safety times like school openings and closings, So long as they don't look like LiteBrites.

C) Put up a permanent sign that says "Construction Zone 35 mph."
D) Stage a bloody auto accident aftermath to slow things down as a tourist attraction, and sell souvenirs at the nearby restaurant.
 
2014-07-31 10:33:59 AM

dittybopper: FTFA:
Lt. Williamson said that the signs were not intended as a speed trap and that tickets along that road could be successfully appealed. "I haven't told people to target anyone, to nail people, that's not the intention," he said. "We just want people to slow down in a busy area, and if someone got a speeding ticket there they could challenge it, since we haven't had a speed study yet."

So in other words, you're going to make people pay for the privilege of fighting a ticket in MA that you don't even have the legal authority to write.

If you get such a ticket and challenge it, even if you *WIN*, you're still out court and/or attorney fees, along with the $50 surcharge that MA charges for every speeding ticket.  For a ticket the police had no legal authority to write.


A higher court will enjoy beating the shiat out of that state for violating the law.

Personally I hope somebody "mistakes" the chief for a member of the Gestapo and kills him
 
2014-07-31 10:34:30 AM
Just because they have to go through the state to change the speed limit doesn't mean that they won't get their way for just asking.  Yea yea speedy study and all that doesn't mean that it is legitimate.

Over here in northern Virginia, we have a cash strapped little city called Herndon that somehow became a separate city among a continuous swath of urban sprawl.  It also seems to have arbitrary limits.  They have their own little police force and courts, bless their little hearts.  They tax every citizen in addition to the county and state levels.

I live just outside of Herndon (tax dodger!) and drive into it for work.  An unchanging road that starts out at 45mph in Reston becomes 35mph with a speed gun in your face.  It isn't about safety.  They do not enforce the law with a presence that deters speeding and reminds you of the speed limit.  They confiscate beater sedans, put strobe lights in them, and hide at the speed limit changes.  I'm not a bitter receiver of a ticket.  I watch it from my window at work.

Oh yea, and don't pull over any car in worse shape than the stealth beater you're driving - get the cars that look like they actually pay their tickets via mail because it costs less than a day off from work.  That kangaroo court is a COST CENTER, we're the PROFIT CENTER.
 
2014-07-31 10:36:11 AM

Stan Lee's Ghost: I like this part:

 Traffic engineers assume that 85 percent of the drivers travel at a reasonable and safe speed.


That assumption is dubious in every situation/state/city/whatever it is applied.

(insert city here) has 100% of drivers crazy wharrrgarbl etc
 
2014-07-31 10:37:51 AM

dittybopper: If you get such a ticket and challenge it, even if you *WIN*, you're still out court and/or attorney fees, along with the $50 surcharge that MA charges for every speeding ticket.  For a ticket the police had no legal authority to write.


I wonder if some one with the money to pay a lawyer could sue claiming malicious prosecution since all involved knew before the ticket was issued that it did not comply with the law.
 
2014-07-31 10:38:51 AM
Round there parts, they'll take a rural road with an 80 km/h (50 mph)  limit, straighten it, cut down the trees to improve the sight lines, widen it from 2 to 4 lanes, add a median and replace the stop signs at the intersections with signals.

During the construction they "temporarily" re-sign it for 60 kn/h (35 mph) to "protect the workers".

After the work is 100% completed they leave it signed at 60 km/h (and set up a speed traps daily).

All done for $afety. Got it..

Tip - Always use your cruise control. Best defense against predatory cops.
 
2014-07-31 10:41:47 AM

dittybopper: FTFA:
Lt. Williamson said that the signs were not intended as a speed trap and that tickets along that road could be successfully appealed. "I haven't told people to target anyone, to nail people, that's not the intention," he said. "We just want people to slow down in a busy area, and if someone got a speeding ticket there they could challenge it, since we haven't had a speed study yet."

So in other words, you're going to make people pay for the privilege of fighting a ticket in MA that you don't even have the legal authority to write.

If you get such a ticket and challenge it, even if you *WIN*, you're still out court and/or attorney fees, along with the $50 surcharge that MA charges for every speeding ticket.  For a ticket the police had no legal authority to write.


They probably also require you to show up in person to challenge it (or at least have your representative i.e. lawyer appear on your behalf). This is a tourist area. If you live out of state, who is going to do that?
 
2014-07-31 10:42:02 AM
Not a single Massholes reference?

Fark I am disappoint!!
 
2014-07-31 10:43:13 AM
The cops did it because they wanted to, in spite of the law.  Sounds about right.
 
2014-07-31 10:43:26 AM
Sounds like Milwaukee, OR. They have multiple locations where they have posted illegal limits and it takes decades for the state to get them taken down. The police have admitted that the lower speed limits have not reduced accidents, but the  city takes in $2 million each year.
 
2014-07-31 10:43:46 AM

bearcats1983: I hate the intentionally low speed limits we have in most cities now. Most of the cars on the road can safely handle at least 70, what is a 55 mph speed limit other than a trap to get more revenue? This is especially true in straight flat areas with nothing but farmland on each side.


Put down the bong, son
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-07-31 10:50:04 AM
In Massachusetts you have to pay a nonrefundable fee and appear in person to fight a ticket.

The courts do not smack down speed traps. The worst that I have ever heard of was a special order from the Supreme Judicial Court authorizing magistrates to waive the mandatory appearance. They did this when Boston started mailing tickets to car owners instead of handing them to drivers as the law requires.  Courts didn't care about rights and money; Boston got to keep the revenue from the majority of owners who paid rather than take a day off work. Magistrates were sick of the workload from thousands of people appearing in court. Magistrate is a light lifting patronage position.
 
2014-07-31 10:54:19 AM

Marcus Aurelius: Lt. Williamson said that the signs were not intended as a speed trap

And I didn't intend to rob that 7-11.  No harm, no foul, right?


So long as you left the Krispy Kremes alone, you can get away with it. Don't mess with the cop treats.
 
2014-07-31 10:57:56 AM

Stan Lee's Ghost: I like this part:

 Traffic engineers assume that 85 percent of the drivers travel at a reasonable and safe speed.


In Mass?

*Letmelaughharder.jpg*
 
2014-07-31 11:01:16 AM
Who cares?  If you're an idiot you are going to figure out a way to get some of your money into a police department's coffer no matter what.  So get out your wallets, dumdums.  I'll be keeping my money, thank you.
 
2014-07-31 11:02:16 AM

Cheron: dittybopper: If you get such a ticket and challenge it, even if you *WIN*, you're still out court and/or attorney fees, along with the $50 surcharge that MA charges for every speeding ticket.  For a ticket the police had no legal authority to write.

I wonder if some one with the money to pay a lawyer could sue claiming malicious prosecution since all involved knew before the ticket was issued that it did not comply with the law.


Maybe a class action suit would work?
 
2014-07-31 11:07:27 AM

macadamnut: Stan Lee's Ghost: I like this part:

 Traffic engineers assume that 85 percent of the drivers travel at a reasonable and safe speed.

The other 15% die in flaming balls of wreckage.


Or putter about at 20 mph below the speed limit.
 
2014-07-31 11:08:18 AM

Stan Lee's Ghost: I like this part:

 Traffic engineers assume that 85 percent of the drivers travel at a reasonable and safe speed.


Traffic engineering is actually difficult and complex.

Try to get your head around these things:

Traffic calming doesn't necessarily improve safety.  In some situations, it can reduce it.  For example:  people naturally slow down when the road appears to narrow, such as at some bridges.  This creates a bottleneck from drops as great as 1/3 to 1/2 of speed, which increases contention and, therefor, probability of collisions.  Encouraging people to retain current speed (i.e. by posting a minimum speed) helps relieve this.

Speeding isn't actually dangerous per se.  We have roads from 25mph to 50mph with pedestrian traffic.  Pedestrians face greater risk from higher-speed impact, creating the need for traffic calming devices including lower speed limits and speed bumps, humps, and tables.  In high-contention areas, higher speed requires more driver awareness; likewise, a speed difference with traffic automatically creates that situation, which is where speeding becomes dangerous.

The above illustrates an incredibly complex situation:  the speed limit isn't a matter of the road or an individual driver but, rather, all the shiat around them.

Pedestrians, parked cars, animals, and poor roads all create a need for traffic calming.  If traffic nominal speed increases--if everyone drives 5-15mph faster--this isn't necessarily dangerous, and there's safety margin in the speed limit.  Driving at any speed presents risk; the risk remains low up to a certain speed, at which it inflects and begins to increase sharply.  Speed limits are set at a point below a risk threshold; cutting off 5mph reduces risk as much as adding 5mph in the range between the two inflection points, and so speeding is only an incremental risk increase.

You can see the sort of risk proposals involved below (unrelated graph of common shape).  Notice the inflection point around the 10% mark.  In lower-speed areas, you're hitting that inflection point extremely early (5mph); in high-speed areas, the inflection point may fall at a low speed (i.e. 40mph on the expressway) with low risk.  You've already crashed through that inflection point at 5mph in a busy parking lot, where 10mph speeds are common but dangerous--20mph doubles your speed and puts you way up high on the graph, whereas going from 65mp to 80mph on the expressway is a much smaller step up in risk.

prebenormen.com

On the other hand, individual drivers traveling 5-15mph faster than traffic are creating an immensely dangerous situation--and, likewise, one or two drivers traveling 5-15mph slower than nominal--that is, the exact speed limit when everyone else is driving faster--create exactly the same danger.  The incremental risk increase of everyone speeding is much smaller than the sharp risk increase of one driver speeding in traffic.

This is why it's okay for drivers to cruise at 80-90mph in the left lane of a 5 lane expressway with a posted 65mph speed limit, but hazardous for drivers to cruise around at 40mph in a 25mph zone, and treacherous for a driver to cruse 80-90mph weaving through 65mph traffic on the same expressway.  The fast lane represents a minimal (less than 1%) risk proposition with high societal value; while nominal traffic speed of 40mph in a calmed residential area would gain little and result in loads of pedestrian deaths and property damage.

Traffic engineers's definition of "reasonable and safe speed" may not match with yours.  Notice they don't say "posted speed limit".  They're well-aware of complex risk considerations such as the above.
 
2014-07-31 11:10:12 AM

Cheron: dittybopper: If you get such a ticket and challenge it, even if you *WIN*, you're still out court and/or attorney fees, along with the $50 surcharge that MA charges for every speeding ticket.  For a ticket the police had no legal authority to write.

I wonder if some one with the money to pay a lawyer could sue claiming malicious prosecution since all involved knew before the ticket was issued that it did not comply with the law.


Qualified immunity for the police officers, and absolute immunity for the DAs and judges.

They don't have any "skin in the game".  It doesn't cost them a dime personally, nor are they in danger of going to jail for violating the law.  So really, the *ONLY* thing that would happen is an injunction from a higher court telling them to stop it immediately, and if you're lucky, you get your court costs and lawyer fees reimbursed out of public coffers, not their individual pockets, so they don't really care.  They aren't out a dime.

That's why things like this can happen.

gunfreezone.net
 
2014-07-31 11:14:47 AM
There are trucks coming out of NSTAR and Goodale's, year-round usage of the ice arena, elderly housing, the preschool, the YMCA, and of course the school zone. It's so busy.

He has almost every vulnerable demographic covered there. All he needs is a NAACP chapter office and a Gay marriage chapel.
 
2014-07-31 11:20:33 AM
The Sheriff has guns.  MDOT does not.  The conclusion is forgone.
 
2014-07-31 11:23:36 AM

Mein Fuhrer I Can Walk: bearcats1983: I hate the intentionally low speed limits we have in most cities now. Most of the cars on the road can safely handle at least 70, what is a 55 mph speed limit other than a trap to get more revenue? This is especially true in straight flat areas with nothing but farmland on each side.

Many interstates in the flatlands have done just that. Route 80 through Ohio is 75 for most of it's length.


The fact that OHIO of all states has a 75mph speed limit should say everything there is to say about the capabilities of today's cars & low speed limits.

Normally I dislike federal level agencies just on general principle.However if there was one that dealt strictly with investigating seemingly corrupt local agencies (ones that county & state oversight comes with a nudge & a wink) & then bringing the federal hammer of doom down on them, I'd consider that a wise use of my tax money.  Something where anyone could call/fill out a form on a website/whatever & an investigation would be started with all results publicly available & draconian punishments for corruption under the color of law.  Sadly however, that in & of itself is the reason that it will never happen.  The thin blue line would figure out a way to staff it & nothing would change.
 
2014-07-31 11:30:33 AM

NephilimNexus: The Sheriff has guns.  MDOT does not.  The conclusion is forgone.


The cable isn't getting fixed but a dog is going to be murdered?
 
2014-07-31 11:31:33 AM

SecretAgentWoman: dittybopper: FTFA:
Lt. Williamson said that the signs were not intended as a speed trap and that tickets along that road could be successfully appealed. "I haven't told people to target anyone, to nail people, that's not the intention," he said. "We just want people to slow down in a busy area, and if someone got a speeding ticket there they could challenge it, since we haven't had a speed study yet."

So in other words, you're going to make people pay for the privilege of fighting a ticket in MA that you don't even have the legal authority to write.

If you get such a ticket and challenge it, even if you *WIN*, you're still out court and/or attorney fees, along with the $50 surcharge that MA charges for every speeding ticket.  For a ticket the police had no legal authority to write.

And we're done here. They just HOPE people don't know their rights, and make them pay even when they do.


It's not like you can't see the signs. I have no problem with them writing these tickets. The people appealing are getting off on a technicality, but they are still fraking speeding.
 
2014-07-31 11:31:54 AM
So, if the sign is illegal, is it illegal for me to go up to it with a stencil and a spray can and turn that 3 into an 8?

And if that's illegal, how about just removing the signs and dropping them off at the highway department?
 
2014-07-31 11:33:13 AM

Russ1642: SecretAgentWoman: dittybopper: FTFA:
Lt. Williamson said that the signs were not intended as a speed trap and that tickets along that road could be successfully appealed. "I haven't told people to target anyone, to nail people, that's not the intention," he said. "We just want people to slow down in a busy area, and if someone got a speeding ticket there they could challenge it, since we haven't had a speed study yet."

So in other words, you're going to make people pay for the privilege of fighting a ticket in MA that you don't even have the legal authority to write.

If you get such a ticket and challenge it, even if you *WIN*, you're still out court and/or attorney fees, along with the $50 surcharge that MA charges for every speeding ticket.  For a ticket the police had no legal authority to write.

And we're done here. They just HOPE people don't know their rights, and make them pay even when they do.

It's not like you can't see the signs. I have no problem with them writing these tickets. The people appealing are getting off on a technicality, but they are still fraking speeding.


5/10, that'll get you some.
 
2014-07-31 11:35:26 AM

dittybopper: FTFA:
Lt. Williamson said that the signs were not intended as a speed trap and that tickets along that road could be successfully appealed. "I haven't told people to target anyone, to nail people, that's not the intention," he said. "We just want people to slow down in a busy area, and if someone got a speeding ticket there they could challenge it, since we haven't had a speed study yet."

So in other words, you're going to make people pay for the privilege of fighting a ticket in MA that you don't even have the legal authority to write.

If you get such a ticket and challenge it, even if you *WIN*, you're still out court and/or attorney fees, along with the $50 surcharge that MA charges for every speeding ticket.  For a ticket the police had no legal authority to write.


This is exactly what I was going to say. Instead of not issuing speeding tickets in the first place, they go ahead and issue the ticket and say "appeal it". Of course they know damn well that 90% of people just pay the tickets because they can't or don't want to deal with going to court or don't realize the signs were placed without authorization.

Sounds like an unauthorized shakedown in the name of $afety.
 
2014-07-31 11:37:35 AM

Russ1642: SecretAgentWoman: dittybopper: FTFA:
Lt. Williamson said that the signs were not intended as a speed trap and that tickets along that road could be successfully appealed. "I haven't told people to target anyone, to nail people, that's not the intention," he said. "We just want people to slow down in a busy area, and if someone got a speeding ticket there they could challenge it, since we haven't had a speed study yet."

So in other words, you're going to make people pay for the privilege of fighting a ticket in MA that you don't even have the legal authority to write.

If you get such a ticket and challenge it, even if you *WIN*, you're still out court and/or attorney fees, along with the $50 surcharge that MA charges for every speeding ticket.  For a ticket the police had no legal authority to write.

And we're done here. They just HOPE people don't know their rights, and make them pay even when they do.

It's not like you can't see the signs. I have no problem with them writing these tickets. The people appealing are getting off on a technicality, but they are still fraking speeding.


So what if I was going 45 MPH and a cop pulls me over for speeding. He tickets me for 10 over the illegally posted speed limit though I was going the actual speed limit? How am I speeding at this point when I broke no laws?
 
2014-07-31 11:39:51 AM

yves0010: So what if I was going 45 MPH and a cop pulls me over for speeding. He tickets me for 10 over the illegally posted speed limit though I was going the actual speed limit? How am I speeding at this point when I broke no laws?


And how would you know in the first place?  Who the hell would think "I bet that's a fake speed limit sign"?
 
2014-07-31 11:40:42 AM

Recoil Therapy: The fact that OHIO of all states has a 75mph speed limit should say everything there is to say about the capabilities of today's cars & low speed limits.


The highway system was designed in the 1950's to be reasonably safe at 70 to 75 MPH for cars that had:

1. Drum brakes with no anti-lock.
2. No crumple zones
3. No airbags.
4. Mostly, no seatbelts (or lap belts only)
5. Primitive suspension systems (swing axle, WOOHOO!)

The *ONLY* reason it was lowered to 55 MPH in the 1970's was to reduce gas consumption due to the oil crisis.
 
2014-07-31 11:41:07 AM
the last paragraph of the article is a classic oxymoron.  Mind you, this is Massapassachuleadfootsett we're talking about here.

State speed limits are most often set based on a measurement known as the 85th percentile. The 85th percentile is the speed traveled by 85 percent of the cars using a roadway. Traffic engineers assume that 85 percent of the drivers travel at a reasonable and safe speed.

85% of the drivers in MA do NOT drive at a reasonable and safe speed, at any given time, under any given circumstances.  This measurement is like trying to divide by zero when applied to massholes.
 
2014-07-31 11:43:03 AM
Speaking of the "Duke boys," anyone remember when Roscoe used to post strange speed limits of, say 12 mph, to try to catch them.
 
2014-07-31 11:44:54 AM

dittybopper: The *ONLY* reason it was lowered to 55 MPH in the 1970's was to reduce gas consumption due to the oil crisis.


Is that not a good reason?  God ain't making no more oil.
 
2014-07-31 11:46:45 AM

Ex-Texan: Speaking of the "Duke boys," anyone remember when Roscoe used to post strange speed limits of, say 12 mph, to try to catch them.


Odd numbered speed limit signs are a goofy but effective trick to get people to pay attention to the sign.  It's almost always in some area that's supposed to be slow already.  The unusual number just draws attention to itself.  It works fairly well.
 
Displayed 50 of 82 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report