Starting Friday, Jan. 1, a new state law in Georgia will tack on an additional $200 fee to any local fine received for a speeding conviction. The “Super Speeder Law” is aimed at “high-risk” drivers whose speed are deemed threats to fellow motorists.

Georgia averages one speed-related death a day, according to the official “Super Speeder” Web site.

“That makes speeding a habitual disaster just waiting to happen,” said Governor’s Office of Highway Safety Director Bob Dallas in a statement. “But it’s one of life’s bad habits that can and should be kicked.”
The added fine will be applied for any driver convicted of speeding at 75 mph or more on any two-lane road or 85 mph and over anywhere in the state.

Sheriff Richard King encourages motorists to drive safely.

“The best thing to do is to keep a watch on the speedometer,” he says. “If you watch your speed, you won’t have to worry about being a super speeder.”

Getting slapped with the new fee might feel like a double-whammy. A driver will get the initial speeding ticket from the local jurisdiction, only to receive a letter of notice for the state fine.

The state penalty must be paid within 90 days of the letter’s date. If a driver fails to pay the additional state fee, an additional $50 will be charged and the offender’s driving privileges and license can be suspended.

Fees collected through this new law are designed to pay for some of crash victims’ treatment. The funds could be used in the state’s trauma care hospital system, where approximately 60 percent of trauma patients are crash-related.

Final say of where the money is diverted is up to the state Legislature.

State safety officials hope the $200 “incentive” will remind more drivers to stick to posted speed limits and cut down risk for passengers and others.

Source: The Blackshear Times

First, check to see where you and your car have come to rest. If you are in a safe spot, free from the danger of being hit by other traffic, exit your vehicle and assess the situation. Is anyone injured? If people are hurt, tend to their injuries as best you know how, and call 911.

If no one is hurt, and damage to your car is relatively minor, move your vehicle out of the roadway to a safer location, so you don’t block traffic, and perhaps cause more wrecks. Now, you can exchange names, addresses, phone numbers, car license numbers, VIN numbers, insurance information, and driver’s license info. If, for some reason, you are concerned about the validity of the information you are getting from the other driver, don’t hesitate to call the police. Although a police report is not necessary to file insurance claims in most instances, it won’t hurt to get an official report written if something seems a little sketchy.

In addition, be sure to get the names, addresses, and phone numbers of any witnesses. Also, note the location of the crash, including the numbered address, and nearest cross streets. If the vehicles cannot be moved, protect the scene with flares or other devices, and open the hoods of both cars.

Here’s the law in Texas regarding what to do in the event of a crash:

If you are in a collision and no one is hurt, it is NOT necessary to wait for the police before moving your vehicle. If the vehicle can be driven, the law requires you to move it out of the flow of traffic.

If there is damage to the vehicle, Texas law requires you to stop and exchange information. If someone is hurt, you also must render aid and notify the police or sheriff. If you hit an unattended vehicle, the law requires you to find the driver or write your name and address on a note that explains what happened. (You also must include the owner’s name and address if the vehicle you are driving doesn’t belong to you.)

When to call the police

Always call the police when an injury or fatality is involved. The police should be notified :

• when the cars cannot be moved
• when one of the drivers is intoxicated
• when one of the drivers has no insurance
• when one of the drivers leaves the scene of the crash

When an accident report is necessary

Accident reports can be obtained from the police department and and should be filed with the Department of Public Safety within ten days. You are required to file a report under these circumstances:

• when there are injuries or a fatality
• when property damage exceeds $500
• When a driver is intoxicated, unlicensed, has no insurance, or attempts to leave the scene

Crashes aren’t accidents — They can be prevented.

Drive Safely!

A little background for those of you who don’t know the recent history of SpeedTrapAhead.org.

As well as running a website that post articles of interest regarding traffic laws, tickets, legal decisions, driving safety, activism, state laws, etc., I also, from time to time, will stand on the side of a road, wearing my “SpeedTrapAhead.org” T-shirt, near where police are running a radar enforced speed zone. (I used to hold a sign, instead; but, that proved to be tricky with state sign laws.)

While doing the sign/shirt thing, I have been approached many times, by officers from several different jurisdictions (three times in Lakeway alone). None of them ever took it further than a quick comment or short discussion about what I was doing. They were actually quite friendly. NONE of them even asked me for I.D.

That is, until Lakeway Sr. Sgt. James DeBrow came around. A little over a year ago, I had an encounter with him. (search “James DeBrow” on this site for more info on that.) But, THAT is old news, and I’ve moved on from that experience.

Fast forward to last week. My truck, with a “SpeedTrapAhead.org” window decal was parked off of a main road in Lakeway, TX. It was parked in an area where construction vehicles and construction employees are parked during some road construction in the area. My truck was parked parallel to the road, behind a silt fence, about 6 feet from the sidewalk, and ~12 feet from the curb. My video camera was on a short tripod, sitting on the edge of the sidewalk, filming traffic going by in a school zone.

I, myself, was further down the sidewalk, simply pointing at my t-shirt as cars drove by.

Now comes the video I have of the encounter with police that day. Check it out and let me know what you think. At one point near the end of the video, officer DeBrow uses a word that some of you may not be familiar with — ‘instanter’. That means for something to happen immediately. In this case, it means to take someone before a judge, immediately, to deal with ‘whatever is the case’.

In summary, I was arrested (instantered), placed in handcuffs for 4.5 hours, and spent 7 hours in jail, until I posted $600 bail ($100 for each of six ‘city code sign ordinance’ and zoning violations). AND, they towed/impounded my truck!!

Watch the video and tell me what y’all think about ANY aspect of the whole ordeal.

On the YouTube page, you can blow it up to full screen. But, please return to my webpage if you’d like to read or post comments. (If comments are not visible, click on the TITLE of the post to see comments.)

UPDATE: The Pre-Trial hearing has been postponed until September 11, 2009. I finally got copies of the complaints filed to the court. Only four instead of the original six; but, they all reference a city sign ordinance that was modified AFTER I received my tickets. Seems that the sign ordinance was amended to include (among other things) a prohibition against WEARING signs. Interesting. My lawyer is working on getting that mess clarified.

UPDATE: See THIS link.

]]> http://speedtrapahead.org/wordpress/2009/04/23/speedtrapaheadorg-guy-is-arrested/feed/ 33 http://speedtrapahead.org/wordpress/2008/12/28/california-city-caught-trapping-drivers-with-short-yellows/ http://speedtrapahead.org/wordpress/2008/12/28/california-city-caught-trapping-drivers-with-short-yellows/#comments Mon, 29 Dec 2008 03:02:00 +0000 admin http://speedtrapahead.org/wordpress/?p=399 Video evidence shows a San Bernardino, California red light camera operating with a yellow time so short it violates state law.

A brand new red light camera on California’s historic Route 66 is already generating thousands in revenue for San Bernardino, but the biggest lawbreaker in these cases may turn out to be the city itself. Since September 25, a photo ticketing device has watched over the intersection of Mount Vernon Avenue and 9th Street, trapping motorists caught by a yellow light that is so short it violates state law.

Truck driver Raymond Chacon discovered this last month while taking a training course to help him upgrade his commercial driver’s license. Under the supervision of an instructor, he came to the intersection behind the wheel of a big-rig tractor trailer. He entered just a split-second after the light had turned red. After successfully completing the course and passing the Department of Motor Vehicles Class A license test “with flying colors,” Chacon received a $400 red light camera ticket in the mail. Chacon immediately began investigating what might have happened at that location. He turned to the highwayrobbery.net website, which encouraged him to check whether the city used yellow signal timing that conformed with state guidelines.

Video from the intersection in question confirms that drivers are given only 3.0 seconds of yellow, even though the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) insists that 35 MPH intersections have a yellow of no less than 3.6 seconds. While this 0.6 second shortage appears insignificant, it can represent the difference between a ticket and no ticket for thousands of motorists. This is even more true for truck drivers like Chacon.

Most drivers faced with a quick-changing yellow can simply slam on their brakes to avoid the citation. For Chacon’s 53-foot-long rig, however, the compressed-air braking system requires an extra 0.5 seconds to activate. Beyond the usual risk of causing a rear end collision in this situation, slamming the brakes with an unladen trailer risks jack-knifing the truck. With a properly timed signal, Chacon would have had enough time to clear the intersection.

Studies show that shorter yellow times can increase the number of citations generated. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, when the yellow light timing is one second shorter than the bare minimum recommended amount, violations increase by 110 percent (view study). Confidential documents uncovered in a San Diego court trial prove that the city and its private vendor, now Affiliated Computer Services (ACS), colluded to install red light cameras only at intersections with short yellow times, thereby maximizing profits.

San Bernardino may be aware of the importance of this signal timing. It is one of only a handful of cities across the country that deliberately conceals signal timing information — including the “time into red” or “late time” — on its citations. In 2002, a Baltimore, Maryland judge had used this information to find tickets issued at locations where the signal timing was illegally short. As a result of the judge’s investigation, Baltimore was forced to refund thousands in citation revenue (Read court memo). Chacon insists that San Bernardino similarly provide refunds from those caught by the illegal signal timing on Mount Vernon Avenue.

“It is a cash cow for a financially strapped San Bernardino city,” Chacon told TheNewspaper. “The fact that they knew the yellows were too short shows that public safety is not a sole concern for the red light cameras.”

Earlier this month, the National Motorists Association Foundation announced that it had begun a nationwide search to track down intersections with short yellow times and force cities to comply with proper engineering practices. Visit the Short Yellow Lights Project website.

Source: theNewspaper.com

Henry Raskin, 70, of Niles had been pulled over by a Buffalo Grove (Illinois) officer on the 400 block of Dundee Road around 11:30 a.m. Friday for driving 58 mph in a 35 mph zone, Sgt. Scott Kristiansen said. The officer wrote the ticket and returned to the car, and Raskin got ready to drive away. Except he went flying backward.

“(He) apparently was going to pull away at a high rate of speed, but the only problem was that he was in reverse,” Kristiansen said. He said Raskin was not happy about getting a ticket. He said police are reviewing the squad car videotape to see what Raskin might also be charged with.

Raskin was taken to Northwest Community Hospital in Arlington Heights as a precaution. Kristiansen said police don’t believe Raskin has any medical conditions that could have led to the crash. Raskin’s age also didn’t seem to play a factor, he said. The officer, a 20-year veteran of the Buffalo Grove department, was not injured, but his car will be out of service for a while. “He ended up with the left rear wheel of the car coming through his windshield, about 6 inches from his face,” Kristiansen said. “Luckily, he was not injured.” The squad car suffered significant damage to the front end, including the windshield and the hood.

Kristiansen said the police investigation so far shows the officer initiated the traffic stop properly. He said officers are trained to treat every stop as if it isn’t a routine procedure so that they are aware when unexpected circumstances like this one take place. “The officer stopped the car properly and positioned himself properly,” he said.

I went to the arraignment a couple of weeks ago. The prosecutor stated that he didn’t really know what the ticket was about. But then I started explaining about SpeedTrapAhead.org… then he suddenly knew what was going on. Obviously, there had been discussion of my sign holding prior to that day.

He asked what I thought should happen. I said, “I think it should be dismissed because…” He then interrupted with, “Well, That’s not gonna happen.”

“Well, then sign me up for a jury trial“, I said. And that’s where we’re at. I have a a pre-trial hearing on June 13th.

I really don’t think that this will actually go to trial. I think this is just a delay tactic to give me a little time to “get scared” and bargain my rights away. Now, I can say, “Well, That’s not gonna happen.”

The prosecutor doesn’t want to drop it because that’ll put out the message that it was a bogus ticket and it’s okay to hold my sign. On the other hand, if it goes to trial and I win, a precedent will be set saying that it’s absolutely not against the law to hold my sign. Either way is okay, as either ruling will have basically the same effect. There is NO WAY Joe Citizen would think my sign is an official traffic control device.

Anyway, I’m just waiting, and getting my stuff together.

UPDATE: Jury Trial is set for July 11, 21008, at 1:00 p.m.

Any clicks on AdSense ads in the right column that may be of interest to you would be appreciated.

Also, Please check out THIS video of a PLEASANT encounter with a rational LEO.

I also have re-edited my existing videos to include this new footage. Now, it is much easier to understand what transpired and to hear both sides of the conversation.

You can now clearly hear Sgt. DeBrow threaten to arrest me and impound my truck for not showing him my driver’s license, even though he already had all the identification that was required by law for me to divulge.

In addition to audio/video from my webcam, and audio/video from the dashcam, I also used audio from my cell phone recording. This is really neat because the way I do it, the audio is recorded directly to the web, securely stored somewhere that can’t be confiscated, erased, or lost by law enforcement.

You can check out the original post, with the updated videos here.

(Recent updates are at the end of this post.)

There I was, just doing my thing on RR 620 in Lakeway, TX. It was just like any other event I had held, standing beside the road and holding my Speed Trap Ahead sign. As usual, I was getting honks and waves as people passed by. Then officer James DeBrow pulled up along the side of the road behind me.

He started by saying that he thought I was broke down, but he then saw that I was holding a sign. So, obviously, he didn’t decide to stop because I was causing a problem of some sort, like he would say later in his conversation.

When he asked what was going on, I stated that I was just “exercising my right to free speech, as guaranteed by the Constitu…” But then, he interrupted by asking me for some I.D. He wasn’t interested in hearing what I had to say. (Duh!) Then I threw him for a loop by reaching into my pocket and pulling out a red business-type card with my name, address, and date of birth. He said, “No! I need your I.D.” I told him that since I wasn’t operating a motor vehicle, I was not required to show him any type of I.D. He again demanded that I show him a picture I.D. And again, I refused. He told me that I was required to identify myself; I once again told him that I WAS identifying myself. “Here is my name, address, and date of birth, sir” He didn’t like it; but, he accepted it and went back to his cruiser.

Meanwhile, a couple of people approached me for a chat. One was a young man named James that had just a few days earlier posted a comment to the SpeedTrapAhead.org forum. In the forum, he stated:

“I saw you standing on RR620 just after 7 o’ clock. I completely support what you’re doing (being a victim of Lakeway police one too many times.) I appreciate it and I go to the highschool here in Lakeway. I’ll definitely promote to get your message out there.”

After a brief chat, he said that he intended on making a donation while on the site, but hadn’t yet. To my amazement, he pulled out $10 and said, “I know it doesn’t go a long way, but I just wanted to help out…” THANKS JAMES!

The other fellow was just asking general questions. I think he may actually have been an employee from the bank, coming to scope out the situation.

I could go on and on about all the details; but, In the end, I DID receive a ticket for “§ 544.006. DISPLAY OF UNAUTHORIZED SIGNS, SIGNALS, OR MARKINGS.” They were grasping at straws, and this is the ONLY statute that even possibly could be used against me. I’ve already plead not guilty and requested a jury trial. It’s VERY likely that the ticket will be dismissed because of part (d) of that statute that states: “(d) This section does not prohibit a person from placing on private property adjacent to a highway a sign that gives useful directional information and that cannot be mistaken for an official sign.” I hardly think that a guy holding a particle-board sign on the side of the road would be mistaken for an “official” sign. If it were to go to jury trial, and I were to win, that would set a precedent that they wouldn’t want. So, it’s in their best interest to dismiss the ticket. They will, however, be able to ticket me every time I hold up my sign, just to inconvenience me — which they WILL do, I’m sure. But, hell, it gets me web traffic!

I wasn’t fully prepared for the barrage of police attention, and didn’t have my video camera set up ahead of time. I DID, however, record all of the audio to the web with my phone. I later received the audio/video from the cops dashcam, and was able to re-edit the videos so that you could hear both sides of the conversation and everything was more clearly understood.

Anyway, watch the video and comment on what you think. I had to split it into three parts to be posted on YouTube.

Interesting parts are at:

Video #1 – 2:10, 6:03, 7:10

Video #2 – 4:24, 7:30, 9:11

Video #3 – 1:48, 7:30

Update (04/29/08): I recently received the dashcam video from Sgt. DeBrow’s patrol car. The videos below have been re-edited, so that everyone can more clearly understand what transpired, and to be able to hear BOTH sides of the conversation clearly.

Update: (05/22/08) I went to the arraignment a couple of weeks ago. The prosecutor stated that he didn’t really know what the ticket was about. But then I started explaining about SpeedTrapAhead.org… then he suddenly knew what was going on. Obviously, there had been discussion of my sign holding prior to that day.

He asked what I thought should happen. I said I thought it should be dismissed because… He then interrupted with, “Well, That’s not gonna happen.”

“Well, then sign me up for a jury trial“, I said. And that’s where we’re at. I have a a pre-trial hearing on June 13th.

I really don’t think that this will actually go to trial. I think this is just a delay tactic to give me a little time to “get scared” and bargain my rights away. Now, I can say, “Well, That’s not gonna happen.”

The prosecutor doesn’t want to drop it because that’ll put out the message that it was a bogus ticket and it’s okay to hold my sign. On the other hand, if it goes to trial and I win, a precedent will be set saying that it’s absolutely not against the law to hold my sign. Either way is okay, as either ruling will have basically the same effect. There is NO WAY Joe Citizen would think my sign is an official traffic control device.

Anyway, I’m just waiting, and getting my stuff together. (And, I DO have PLENTY of stuff I’m putting together.)

———-

UPDATE: (June 13, 2008) Jury Trial is now set for July 11th, at 1:00 pm.

———-

UPDATE: (July 11, 2008) See THIS POST.

Clicks on any adsense link that interest you would greatly be much appreciated.

Also, Please check out THIS video of a PLEASANT encounter with a LEO.

On my way out of Lakeway, I saw one of the new “stealth” police cars that was stopped in the median of Lohmans Crossing, front and rear radar blasting away! Well, I had plenty of spare time, so I pulled over at CVS Pharmacy and got out my sign, video camera, phone, scanner, and legal excerpts book. It was the perfect spot. Right as motorist pulled onto Lohmans, there I was — and slow down they did!

Although I was there warning motorists, I could only do so from one direction. Anyone coming at the radar from the other direction had no warning. So, the cop still managed to give out tickets –FOUR that I witnessed in about 50 minutes! Actually, I think one car got ticketed for not obeying the Texas “Move Over” law.

After being there awhile, Lakeway police began getting phone calls, telling them about the sign. They didn’t even approach me at first. They just gathered in the CVS parking lot, talking to each other. You KNOW they were talking about what they could do, probably calling their supervisor, checking legal statutes, etc.

Finally, they all left, but I guess one cop (officer Adams) drew the short straw and came over to talk to me. He did a really nice job of handling the situation by talking about safety, agreeing with the idea of me “helping them out” by holding my sign, saying that it was an “interesting idea” and all about safety, etc. I think it was all kind of tongue-in-cheek for him, though — In fact, I’m certain it was. Anyway, here’s the video. Let me know what you think.

View Larger Map with MORE Austin Speed Traps!

Jared Massey claimed in civil lawsuit filed in January that his civil rights were violated because Trooper Jon Gardner fired his taser before telling Massey he was under arrest. The confrontation was widely viewed on the internet after Massey obtained a copy of the video taken by the cruiser’s dashboard camera.

The video has been viewed on YouTube at least 1.7 million times and shows Gardner drawing his stun gun after the 28-year-old Massey refused to accept a speeding ticket and was ordered out of the vehicle.

Massey’s attorney, Bob Sykes, said he’s pleased with the settlement offer.

“They made what we consider to be a very fair offer of a significant amount of money,” he said.

The Highway Patrol said the trooper’s use of the taser was justified, but that his attitude was a problem. They put Gardner on administrative leave for a few weeks and said he received training in conflict resolution. Gardner was primarily put on leave for his own safety after state officials received numerous complaints.

Sykes said state attorneys offered to settle the lawsuit before ever officially responding to it, probably because of the video evidence.

“It’s pretty damaging,” he said. “The force used under these circumstances was nothing less than outrageous.”

The Utah Highway Patrol has declined to make Gardner available for comment.

As part of the settlement, the lawsuit against Gardner and potential claims against the Utah Highway Patrol, Utah Department of Public Safety and the state of Utah are being dismissed.

“We think this is a legally defensible case because Trooper Gardner acted reasonably to avert a volatile and potentially dangerous confrontation on the side of a busy highway. We recognize, however, that this is a close case,” Assistant Attorney General Scott Cheney, who represented Gardner, said in a statement.

The attorney general’s office said defending the lawsuit in court would have been a lengthy and expensive process and that settling was more cost-effective.

Massey paid a $107 fine to settle his ticket for speeding in a construction zone. He was stopped by Gardner on U.S. 40 near Vernal in eastern Utah on Sept. 14.

On Nov. 30, Gardner’s superiors cleared his use of the stun gun. They said Gardner felt threatened when Massey turned his back on the trooper and casually put a hand part-way in his pocket while stepping back toward his vehicle.

But officials also said the trooper could have explained to Massey that he risked being arrested for refusing to sign a speeding ticket.

The signature isn’t a legal requirement in Utah, but troopers make a practice of obtaining it as a motorist’s pledge to appear in court.