The controversy over red light cameras, once relegated to websites like TTAC, thenewspaper.com, motorists.org and highwayrobbery.net, is hitting the mainstream media thanks to a new study by the IIHS [PDF here]. The study used the following methodology:

Telephone surveys were conducted with 3,111 drivers in 14 large cities (population greater than 200,000) with long-standing red light camera programs and 300 drivers in Houston, using random samples of landline and cellphone numbers. For analyses combining responses from the 14 cities, cases were weighted to reflect each city’s share of the total population for the 14 cities.

And what did they find?

Among drivers in the 14 cities with red light camera programs, two-thirds favor the use of cameras for red light enforcement, and 42 percent strongly favor it. The chief reasons for opposing cameras were the perceptions that cameras make mistakes and that the motivation for installing them is revenue, not safety. Forty-one percent of drivers favor using cameras to enforce right-turn-on-red violations. Nearly 9 in 10 drivers were aware of the camera enforcement programs in their cities, and 59 percent of these drivers believe the cameras have made intersections safer. Almost half know someone who received a red light camera citation and 17 percent had received at least one ticket themselves. When compared with drivers in the 14 cities with camera programs, the percentage of drivers in Houston who strongly favored enforcement was about the same (45 percent), but strong opposition was higher in Houston than in the other cities (28 percent versus 18 percent).

Sounds like those red light cameras are pretty great after all, doesn’t it? That’s certainly the IIHS’s takeaway…

The IIHS concludes:

Most drivers in cities with long-standing red light camera programs support cameras and recognize their safety benefits, but communities could do a better job of educating the public about the dangers of right-turn-on-red violations and the need for enforcement. Given that camera opponents frequently said cameras make mistakes, it appears communities also could do a better job of explaining the safeguards that ensure citations are issued only to drivers who clearly run red lights.

But that’s a fairly one-sided interpretation of the data, as you might expect from a body that derives its funding from the insurance industry, which in turn has a vested interest in anything that might reduce insurance payouts, regardless of other drawbacks or context. What do I mean by that? Let’s go line-by-line through the IIHS’s conclusions:

Most drivers in cities with long-standing red light camera programs support cameras and recognize their safety benefits

First of all, the data underlying this conclusion is skewed by only including respondents in cities with “long-running red light camera systems.” The only exception is one city that had red light cameras but voted them out: Houston. And despite finding stronger opposition there than in other cities with red light cameras, the IIHS is forced to concede another problematic finding: “In Houston, 53 percent of voters cast ballots against the cameras in November 2010. In the current study, however, 57 percent of the drivers interviewed said they favor camera enforcement, and 45 strongly favor cameras”).

So where are the respondents from cities that had cameras but voted them out? Where in this report can we hear the voices of the citizens of Anaheim? Or Cincinnati? Or San Bernadino? Or how about Baytown, Texas, where the fraudulent tendencies of the red light camera companies couldn’t have been more obvious? Sadly, the list goes on. The IIHS has made its point about “cities with long-standing red light camera programs,” but it’s not at all clear that this data reflects wider American sentiment.

Meanwhile, even among this selective data set, there are issues. When asked if drivers running red lights is a problem in the city, the most common answer, with 38%, was “not a problem.” The next-most popular choice, with 31.8%: “somewhat of a problem.” Furthermore, nearly 93% of respondents said they had not run a red light in the last 30 days, further indicating that the problem is rare and limited to a small percentage of the population. A more fair presentation of the data would simply state that drivers see red-light running as having high risk potential, but that they don’t see it as a common, or everyday problem. This doubtless helps fuel a major complaint about red light cameras, namely that they exist primarily for revenue generation rather than safety.

Given that camera opponents frequently said cameras make mistakes, it appears communities also could do a better job of explaining the safeguards that ensure citations are issued only to drivers who clearly run red lights.

For one thing, the fallibility of cameras was not overwhelmingly chosen as a reason for opposition. At 26.4%, it was the number one reason for opposing, but “focus is on money, not safety” was an extremely close second, at 26.1%. If anything, the need for education is not limited to “explaining safeguards,” but rather explaining the financial incentives that local governments and photo enforcement firms have to rack up as many tickets, accurate or not, as possible. After all, if 4.4 percent are saying “camera programs cost too much money,” clearly there’s a disconnect between how people view red light cameras and the reality (as red light cameras are almost always revenue positive for local governments, unless massive errors or fraud force them to return fines).

but communities could do a better job of educating the public about the dangers of right-turn-on-red violations and the need for enforcement… it appears communities also could do a better job of explaining the safeguards that ensure citations are issued only to drivers who clearly run red lights.

Too bad the IIHS hadn’t sounded the alarm on the need for pro-red light camera “education” a few months ago… Bill Kroske might still have a job. In all seriousness, the 90%+ awareness level among respondents seems to indicate that folks do know that the cameras exist… what the IIHS seems to be suggesting is that people should be indoctrinated to believe that more red lights are fundamentally good, and that these beneficent cameras never screw up. Both of these points of “education” are aimed more at propagating photo enforcement industry talking points than furthering the public good.

Of course it was one of those devilish coincidences that on the same day the House Energy And Commerce Committee convened and passed an amended version of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The act, if approved, gives sweeping powers to NHTSA. Maximum fines to automakers rise from $16.4m to 200m. Black boxes become mandatory in all new cars. Funding for NHTSA is doubled to $280m over 3 years. Drivers will pay a “vehicle safety user fee.” As far as the NHTSA is concerned, the 89 people in their computer died for a good cause: The advancement of the NHTSA. But did they really die?

It is an open secret that the NHTSA database is an invitation to fraud. There is no fact checking. Anybody can file on-line complaints at NHTSA without a VIN number. Anybody can file any bogus report with any number of deaths. It will stay in the database and will be counted.

For a closer look, I downloaded the complete NHTSA complaint database to my computer, all 400 Megabytes of them. With the help of Microsoft Access, I pulled all records for incidents with Toyotas since the year 2000, and where the culprit was “VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL.” I counted the deaths: 5727 complaints yielded 100 deaths in 78 cases. Didn’t the NHTSA say 89? Oh well, maybe the NHTSA overlooked some. They had made mistakes before. One third of the alleged deaths occurred in a vehicle with no reported VIN number.

I started looking at the reports.

First report, 4 dead, no VIN. Description: “LEICESTER, MASS. — POLICE SAY IT APPEARS THE FOUR TEENAGERS WHO WERE KILLED IN A CAR CRASH IN LEICESTER WERE WEARING THEIR SEAT BELTS, AS WAS THE LONE SURVIVOR.  LEICESTER POLICE CHIEF JIM HURLEY SAYS NEITHER ALCOHOL NOR DRUGS WAS A FACTOR IN THE CRASH.” Unintended acceleration?

Next one, no VIN, 3 dead, allegedly: “THREE PEOPLE WERE KILLED WHEN A CAR LOST CONTROL IN WHITTIER AND SLAMMED INTO A TREE. … IT WAS NOT CLEAR WHAT CAUSED THE CRASH, BUT DRIVERS OFTEN COME DOWN THE HILL AT DANGEROUSLY HIGH SPEEDS, SALAZAR SAID.” Unintended acceleration?

Next one, no VIN. 2 dead, allegedly. Happened May 31,2003. Reported to NHTSA 7 years later on April 1, 2010: “1994 TOYOTA CAMRY. CONSUMER STATES DISCONTENT REGARDING A FATAL ACCIDENT WITH THIS VEHICLE AND WONDERS IF DEFECTS WERE THE CAUSE. THE CONSUMER LOST CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND IT RAN OFF THE ROADWAY AND STRUCK A REINFORCED WALL.” Unintended acceleration?

Next one, no VIN, 2 dead, allegedly. Happened July 14, 2007. Reported to NHTSA February 16, 2010: “ON JULY 14, 2007 MY PARENTS WERE INVOLVLED IN A SINGLE-CAR CRASH IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREA OF NEW BLOOMFIELD, MO. MY 84-YEAR-OLD FATHER WAS DRIVING A 2004 TOYOTA AVALON, SUDDENLY LEFT THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ROADWAY, FLIPPED THE VEHICLE, AND LANDED UPSIDE DOWN, BACK ON THE PAVEMENT. MY 79-YEAR-OLD MOTHER WAS KILLED INSTANTLY FROM HEAD TRAUMA, AND MY FATHER PASSED AWAY FROM INJURIES SUSTAINED IN THE ACCIDENT 7 WEEKS LATER. THE AUTHORITIES COULD NOT DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT, AND MY FATHER COULD NOT REMEMBER ANY DETAILS … WE HAVE BEEN VEXED BY THE WHOLE INCIDENT, AND IT NEVER OCCURRED TO ME TO REQUEST HAVING THE AVALON INSPECTED (HIGHLY RATED VEHICLE AND ALL…), UNTIL ALL THE RECENT MEDIA OF OTHER DEATHS INVOLVING TOYOTA VECHICLES. I DO NOT HAVE THE VIN # AVAILABLE PRESENTLY, BUT CAN OBTAIN IT.” Unintended acceleration?

Next one, no VIN, 2 dead, allegedly. Happened Nov. 29, 2007. Reported to NHTSA February 16, 2010: “THE CONSUMERS FRIEND AND AN ACQUAINTANCE WERE INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT. ACCORDING TO THE REPORT, THE CONSUMER’S FRIEND PULLED OUT IN FRONT OF A TRUCK. THE CONSUMER DISAGREED WITH THE THEORY THAT HER FRIEND WOULD HAVE JUST PULLED OUT IN FRONT OF A TRUCK. THE CONSUMER BELIEVED HER FRIEND MAY HAVE EXPERIENCED SOME TYPE OF MECHANICAL PROBLEM WITH THE VEHICLE. WHEN THE CONSUMER ASKED HAD THE VEHICLE BEEN INSPECTED, SHE WAS TOLD THAT WAS NOT AN ISSUE. “Unintended acceleration?

This database has everything, including admissions of drunk driving (1 dead) and manslaughter:

“ON 10/17/09 AT ABOUT 5:40 PM, AFTER DRINKING A VODKA WITH ICE, MY HUSBAND AND I WENT TO DINNER IN OUR 2005 LS430 LEXUS. WE INTENDED TO GO TO DINNER A RELATIVELY SHORT DISTANCE AWAY. I TURNED ON MILITARY TRAIL, PROCEEDED TO THE LEFT LANE TRAVELING SOUTHBOUND TOWARDS NORTHLAKE BLVD, PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA. AS I APPROACHED A TRAFFIC LIGHT MY LEXUS UNEXPECTEDLY SPED UP. I TRIED TO APPLY THE BRAKE. THERE WERE CARS STOPPED IN FRONT OF ME AT THE RED LIGHT. DESPITE MY EFFORTS MY CAR CONTINUED TO ACCELERATE. I TOOK EVASIVE MANEUVERS TO AVOID THE STOPPED VEHICLES IN FRONT OF ME. THE LEFT TIRES OF MY LEXUS WENT UP ON THE CENTER MEDIAN AND MY CAR CONTINUED TO ACCELERATE THROUGH THE INTERSECTION. I MISSED THE VEHICLES STOPPED AT THE TRAFFIC LIGHT AND TRAVELLING THROUGH THE INTERSECTION. MY CAR WOULD NOT STOP ACCELERATING. I STRUCK A CORVETTE STOPPED IN THE LEFT NORTHBOUND LANE OF MILITARY TRAIL. AFTER STRIKING THE CORVETTE, I CONTINUED THROUGH THE SOUTHBOUND LANES UNTIL I INTENTIONALLY DROVE MY CAR INTO A FIRE HYDRANT IN ORDER TO STOP AND AVOID STRIKING GAS PUMPS AT A SHELL STATION. MY HUSBAND AND I WERE INJURED IN THIS CRASH. THE DRIVER OF THE CORVETTE PASSED AWAY. MY LEXUS IS STILL IN POLICE CUSTODY. NO REPAIRS HAVE BEEN MADE AT THIS TIME. I WAS CHARGED WITH DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE (MANSLAUGHTER), AND 3 OTHER CHARGES. I AM VIGOROUSLY FIGHTING THOSE CHARGES AS I WAS NOT IMPAIRED AND, AS EVIDENCED BY MY EVASIVE MANEUVERS, HAD CONTROL OF MY CAR. BUT FOR THE SUDDEN ACCELERATION, THIS ACCIDENT AND DEATH WOULD HAVE NOT OCCURRED. IN NOV. 2008, MY HUSBAND WAS DRIVING THE SAME LEXUS AND AS HE PULLED INTO OUR GARAGE THE CAR WOULD NOT STOP AND HIT CABINETS IN OUR GARAGE. LOOKING BACK AND COMPARING WHAT HAPPENED IN MY ACCIDENT ON 10/17/09 IT IS CLEAR THAT MY HUSBANDS EARLIER ACCIDENT WAS THE RESULT OF SOME SORT OF MALFUNCTION OF OUR LEXUS ACCELERATOR SYSTEM. NO REPAIRS WERE MADE TO THE VEHICLE AT THAT TIME.”

In that case, the driver was found with a blood alcohol level of .103. A search warrant was issued for the Sensing and Diagnostic Module of the Lexus. The data recorder found the vehicle “accelerating with no braking prior to crash and a speed of 49 mph at crash.” Unintended acceleration? Not according to court and police, but it counts for the NHTSA as one dead.

My head started to shake so hard, it did hurt. I gave up further analysis of this database. It is a sham. In many of the cases in that database unintended acceleration isn’t even alleged. Nevertheless, the cases are filed under “VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL” and bodies are counted. The ones that allege unintended acceleration are not investigated, but counted. There are many duplicates, upping the count, even triplicates: One ES350 crashes three times on the same day, killing 2 people each, bringing the carnage to six dead.  People are charged with DUI and manslaughter, but their victim counts. Police reports give causes for accidents such as “improper lane change” and say that there were no car defects. But the bodies count against Toyota.

Even without outright fraud, which this database invites, it is a collection of “the car made me do it” after people ran red lights, lost control when speeding, or were drunk. The real cases have documents, police reports etc. with them. As in the case of the drunk Lexus driver, the case could be quickly closed. But it is not. The ones without documents (such as the one with 4 deaths) should be thrown out immediately for lack of evidence. But they are not.

The people who run this database don’t need a $280m budget. They need a new job. Like counting the muskox population of Nome, Alaska. If they mess that up, there will be a career-limiting outcry from PETA to the Sierra Club. But their work on that collection of crooks and liars will remain unpunished.

What I don’t understand is that the MSM didn’t dig deeper into that morass. Never was investigative journalism easier. 100 people dead. Hundreds of millions of dollars involved. And the research can be done without getting one’s behind out of the chair in front of the computer. With that, I hand you over to our frequent commentator Carquestions who looked a bit deeper into that database.

PS: If you have nothing better to do, a file with the alleged dead since 2000 can be downloaded here in easy Excel format. For further investigation, go to the NHTSA complaint database and input the ODINO for the record you want to research. Do not shake your head violently, serious trauma may occur.

“When I first started in this job thirty years ago, police work was never about revenue enhancement,” Utica Police Chief Michael Reaves told the Detroit News. “But if you’re a chief now, you have to look at whether your department produces revenues. That’s just the reality nowadays.” Nothing produces bizarre behavior quite as reliably as an inappropriate economic incentive, whether we’re talking about the infamous “Sec 179” SUV tax deduction or every Aerosmith album after, and including, “Permanent Vacation.” Is it any surprise, therefore, that most police departments have, over time, shifted their focus away from crimes that don’t pay them in favor of those that do? Murder, rape, theft, vandalism, assault—all offenses that require considerably more effort than apprehending a 44-in-a-35, and none of them containing the kind of guaranteed municipal vigorish that can be garnished from a hapless motorist.

There’s a fine associated with virtually every criminal activity in the United States, from oral sodomy to aggravated murder. But the fines are rarely levied and even more rarely collected. It’s fairly difficult to wring ten grand out of someone who just got done serving a decade in prison, and even tougher to collect from someone sitting on Death Row. The motorist, by contrast, is an easy mark who almost always pays his fine and who can be cited with a trivial amount of effort. With the advent of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) systems and red-light cameras, it’s no longer even necessary to have a cop present.

The fines generated by traffic citations, in addition to being vastly out of proportion to those generated from other avenues of law enforcement, are both regressive and punitive. It’s now common for a speeding ticket in Ohio to run in excess of two hundred dollars—utterly crippling for the working poor, particularly when the only “offense” involved is driving with the flow of traffic. Consider that the maximum fine for a fifth-degree felony in Ohio is $2,500. The ridiculousness of charging a tenth of that for driving “six over” becomes even more apparent.

The uneven incentive for enforcement associated with outrageous traffic fines has altered the behavior of even the most civic-minded police departments. It’s common to see shiny “freeway patrol” cruisers idling on the Midwest’s inner-city freeways while near-anarchy reigns in the under-patrolled streets beneath. Cops are following the money. It’s as simple as that.

There’s a simple solution to the problem. It’s one that has the potential to restore balance to law enforcement activities, restore the trust between police and citizens, and significantly affect the amount of non-traffic-related crime taking place in most communities. Moving violations should be punished with “points” or criminal penalties exclusively. There should be no fine whatsoever for any offense committed by a motorist outside of parking violations.

Taking the fiscal incentive out of traffic enforcement would force governments to accurately measure the true benefit to their communities of various enforcement priorities. It would get cops out of their air-conditioned glass palaces and into contact with the people they are hired to serve and protect. There would finally be a chance, and a reason, for an honest, analytical nationwide discussion about the actual benefits of traffic enforcement. The all-too-true stereotype of the “jackbooted thug” idling in his cruiser could be replaced by examples of real cops serving as a genuine deterrent in crime-ridden areas.

A nation without overzealous traffic enforcement would be a nation where children didn’t observe their parents lying to police officers. It would be a nation where people might be happy to see a cop walking around, not terrified of being “nicked” for a rolling stop. Last but not least, it would be a nation where citizens all bore a similar burden for supporting police services while having a greater say in how that support was put to use.

The alternative—a nation where the bulk of enforcement effort is seemingly determined by the available revenue from that enforcement—is already a reality in Britain. It isn’t working. Photo traffic enforcement is speeding the country towards Big Brother, while reducing respect for the rule of law.

Why bring that failed model to the United States? Why take cops off the streets and replace them with cameras? Why withdraw police from high crime areas at the same time that highway patrol departments are receiving shiny new laser guns?

Speeding may not be something that our society can ignore. But as a society, we are best served when it is treated as a crime like any other, not as a honeypot for governmental corruption, concupiscence, and stupidity.

I remember when I was 16 years old, one of my friend’s dad had a near-new Toyota Celica All-Trac. It was gorgeous. The black paint was svelte and flawless. The leather pristine. It was a true work of art. Except it had one tiny little flaw on the vehicle. The VIN was not ‘authentic.’ It had been taken off another vehicle from ‘far far away.’ This was in the bad old days where odometer rollbacks (which still happen) and washed titles (ditto) were still common. Today? Well, I’ll put it to you this way, even a finance company with as many computers as NASA was screwed seven ways from Sunday by a bunch of Nigerians using an old lady’s information. The clunker auditors are going to have to keep their eyes REAL open in this ‘information age’ to catch these snakes . . . and it won’t be easy. Here’s just a small slither of stealth that can happen just on the trade-in side of the equation.

What can happen once a vehicle is traded in? An awful lot. For starters it can be sent abroad. Really. Really. Cheap. It got so bad that the Mexican government (one of many destinations) decided to allow only ten-year-old cars to be registered that came from Yankeeland. It didn’t matter in the end though what the government’s ‘official’ position was. The business of bribery continues to this day on both sides of the fence, and cars found their way into the system regardless of what the laws were. By the way, Mexico is just one place where a ‘clunker’ won’t be missed.

What does this mean for cash for clunkers? It means there isn’t much stopping a recycling center from stripping off the VIN’s. Giving the requisite pictures and evidence to whoever needs it, and making private arrangements to send the vehicle outside the US. The percentage profit would be somewhere between a title pawn and meth distribution, and the governments ability to track it down through paperwork alone would be zero. So long as the VINs match, the people are genuine buyers, and the people involved keep their yaps shut, it will just be a nice four figured profit per vehicle. No questions asked. But this is just really a very small slice of ‘trade-in’ paradise. A far bigger one?

Open up your local newspaper and look under the ‘auction’ or ‘impound’ section. You’ll see hundreds of vehicles with their VIN numbers displayed in all their glory. Most of these cars come from folks who don’t want or need their clunker anymore. They may be as poor as dirt, taking drugs, out of work, or in jail, but they still technically own it. The price to buy one of their clunkers at a public auction? If it’s fit for the crusher, the cost today is about $100 due to cheap commodity prices. The prior owner has to be notified before the sale and this information is often in turn given to the new owner of the vehicle.

Many of these vehicles are never put into a new name. If it’s got even a breath of light, it can be ‘flipped’ and sold with the paperwork intact. No questions asked and no profits traced. There is absolutely no auditing for the transfer of ownership in most states. Just the proceeds from the sale. With a very small level of computer knowledge (or bribery) you can also find out practically everything about the person.

Since ‘Cash for Clunkers’ doesn’t require that the person have insurance for the vehicle before trade-in, there’s no stoppage that can occur there. Big mistake. A lot of folks who get their vehicles sent to the impound/tow lots usually move, involuntarily, without a forwarding address. In turn a lot of apartment complexes will request the towing of a vehicle from their property if the vehicle has anything from an expired tag to an eviction.

You can get these car for almost nothing if you’re a professional, develop a Fake ID with a little help and monetary dispensation, buy the car using their identity, and simply have the government paperwork forwarded to a PO Box which can then secure the taxpayer largesse. It’s easy. Unless those who audit this operation can track the VIN’s status online, which is hard since a lot of the local papers aren’t given an online edition, everything will seem picture perfect to an auditor.

But there are ways to find this information out. One would be to target the audits based on income. If a person is only earning $15,000 a year and they’re buying a car for the same price, that would be a red flag. So would contacting the county government and finding out whether the vehicle was impounded at a certain point. Court orders and impounds require paper trails and most of them can be found in a minute’s time. There is also one very strong impediment to sending these cars out of the US. That would be to have the clunker sent ‘on-site’ to a salvage auction where it could be crushed in exchange for receiving the rebate.

If the auditors are positioned there and literally see the crushing of the car, it eliminates the possibility of the car being recycled somewhere else. The system would hardly be a fail-safe at this point. But it would be a start. In the next installment I’ll focus on the dealer.

I’ll never forget my first ride in a BMW. I remember the excitement, anticipating a high speed run in an [echt] autobahn-tuned automobile. The driver never broke Nixon’s double nickel. In fact, he stayed in the right lane for the entire trip. Flash forward to two hours ago, G-forcing through the S-curves into Providence. In the middle of the second bend, a Nissan GT-R zipped by my minivan like it was standing still. Hakuna matata. What a wonderful phrase. Hakuna matata. Ain’t no passing craze. The GT-R driver was there. In the moment. In control. Safe?

I know: all things being equal, the higher the differential between vehicle speeds, the greater chance of a collision or loss of control leading to an accident. Well, yes, all things are NEVER equal. Driving safety depends on a huge number of variables: vehicle type and condition; road construction, condition, width, and camber; weather (as it affects grip and visibility); traffic; driver age, experience, sobriety, skill, general psychological makeup and specific mental state. And so on, including dumb luck.

To say that a speeding GT-R is inherently dangerous is both true and relative. Yes, the mustachioed enthusiast caning the über-Nissan would have been less of a danger to himself and those around him if he’d observed the speed limit. But the question must be asked: safer than what? A caffeine-deprived father in his minivan fighting over the radio with his 11-year-old step-daughter while his five-year-old demands that he retrieve her missing crayon? The kid stunting and flossing in a beat-up Buick Century in the Italian astronaut driving position? What?

I’m not trying to defend a Baruthian speeder with moral relativism. The GT-R driver was breaking a law designed by society for society; he has no moral foundation upon which to base his behavior. Besides, blind eye be damned; he was weaving through traffic at warp speed. Guilty as charged. In terms of the whole actions > consequences deal, I’m with Baretta: “Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.” And that’s from someone who’s done the time, and slowed right down.

Although not necessarily to avoid legal sanction (aging, testosterone levels, children . . . connect the dots). Be that as it is, here’s the bottom line: anti-speeding absolutism is feel-good nonsense. It does nothing to make our roads safer.

Anyone who reads this site knows (if not acknowledges) that there are speeders and there are speeders. There is speeding and there is speeding. Once upon a time, police officers made the distinction between “simple” speeding and dangerous driving. These days, radar technology and an ATM-based law enforcement philosophy has removed informed discretion and eliminated simple common sense.

The fact that we’re debating speeding—rather than road safety—shows how far we’ve strayed from cause and effect. Hyper-speeding is rare and therefore relatively unimportant. Inattention due to fatigue accounts for far more accidents than high-speed hooliganism.

Again, I’m not defending adrenalin junkies who use public roads as a private playground. Not cool. Not safe. Not legal. Call me a hypocrite, but I consider balls-out driving four-wheeled cocaine. I tried it. I liked it. I learned the drug’s downside the hard way. I would NEVER do it again. I would NEVER advocate its use. I would NEVER want ANY of my children to even THINK about trying it.

I’m not alone in my hypocrisy. To those who would string up fast drivers in fast cars without a moment’s hesitation, I say mote. Beam. Eye. Remove. Proceed. The vast majority of American drivers routinely break the speed limit. The same majority that considers themselves safe drivers. Well consider this . . .

If drowsy drivers cause or experience more accidents than speeders, who’s a larger menace: the guy blasting along at twenty or thirty or more miles per hour above the speed limit, focusing his mind on the illegal task at hand, or the driver who thinks he’s safe because he’s driving at the speed limit and so fails to engage mentally in his vehicular progress?

Of course, the safest driver is the one who’s driving at the speed limit who IS mentally engaged in the act of driving. I’m guessing that most of the commentators who excoriated Jack Baruth’s guide to street speeding answer to that description.

In an ideal world, everyone would be like you. You’d never share the road with our speed-crazed, morally lax editorialist/reviewer. In the same ideal world, there wouldn’t be any drunk drivers or soccer moms in SUVs yakking on their cell phones as they blow through suburban stop signs.

Here in the real world, there’s a sliding scale of dangerous “others.” Next time you get in your car, ignore the speedo (for a moment) and check your look in the mirror. Forget about “them” and say hello to the most dangerous driver of all.

[NB: This is not an article about TTAC's editorial stance or style. Click here for a post on that topic. All comments that raise meta-points about the site will be deleted.]

Let us begin with this: it is possible to go much faster on North American public roads than the law allows. Much faster. If you are interested in exploring the upper limits of this possibility, read on. If you find this idea morally, legally, ethically or spiritually repugnant; please return to your regularly scheduled bailout coverage. If you’re a member of law enforcement, please consider this a work of fiction.

In theory, I’ve been driving “too fast” on public roads for more than twenty years. In that time, I may have learned a lot about what works and what does not. I will share this hypothetical knowledge—bought and paid for in terror, twisted steel and sleepless nights—with you. Or not.

Before we begin, a caveat. The fast-road driver needs more than skill, more than training, more than a fast car. He (and it is almost always he) needs luck. Luck eventually runs out. When that happens, people get hurt. Sometimes innocent people get hurt—if any of us are truly “innocent” in this world. Sometimes the driver will go to jail or beyond that to the penitentiary. Sometimes people die. You have been warned.

To drive truly quickly, you will need a level of preparation and skill roughly equivalent to what is found in NASA’s Time Trial class. Your car needs to have its fluids at the appropriate levels, its tire pressures checked and its suspension components torqued. Your tires need full tread, no plugs, no camber wear.

You, as the driver, need to be alert, sober, rested, and ready to look all the way down the road. The trained fast-road driver scans the horizon and looks to the end of his available vision. That’s where the cops are, that’s where the accidents happen, that’s where you start to intuit the movement patterns of your fellow drivers. Practice identifying cars in the oncoming freeway lanes as soon as they are visible. At any time, you should be able to close your eyes and recite the makes and models of the cars around you.

We’ll use a limited set of the race driver’s toolkit in our pursuit of maximum street speed. Trail-braking is out, deliberate contact is out, drafting is out. Instead, we follow the old Bondurant curriculum. All braking is done in a straight line, every time. If you have ABS, don’t be afraid to engage it. We never steer and brake simultaneously, particularly on the freeway. We don’t accelerate out of turns with the steering wheel “pinched” and we use formula-car hand positioning on the wheel. No shuffle-steer. Ever. This isn’t autocross. Get the wheel straight and put your right foot all the way down.

Traction control is left on at all times, with the exception of when we need a Jarno Donut (to be covered later). Turn the radio down or off. Sit close enough to the wheel that your wrist falls naturally on the rim of the wheel. If you have a CG-Lock, you can left-foot brake. If you don’t, don’t, because when you panic-brake from high speeds you will have nothing to keep your body in the seat. Get your heel-and-toe together, pronto. And for God’s sake, put your seatbelt on because you’ll eventually need it.

We’ll start with freeways. Speeding on the freeway is easy. Anybody can do it. The trick is in maintaining a consistent pace of twice the pack speed or higher. To do this we extend our vision to the horizon as mentioned above and watch the cars ahead. Look for lane changes, look for shifts in traffic, look for drivers who are slow, distracted or wobbly. Most of our passing is done to the right. This offends wanna-be Autobahn drivers, but we don’t care.

Cops expect you to speed in the left lane and they tend to look down the left lane. Stay to the right. Truck convoys are the exception. They will punish you for right-lane passes.

Our passing method is simple. We come up on a car-to-be-passed from directly behind. We do this to attract the driver’s attention into his rear-view mirror. When we are two hundred feet behind, we change lanes (to the right, if possible) and pass as far away as possible. While we prepare the pass, we look at the adjacent lane and we have a backup plan in case the car we are passing wobbles.

If there is no lane, evaluate the shoulder for heavy marbles, dirt, obstacles. If we see those, we dial back the speed to 100mph or less. Get in the habit of driving on the shoulder. We learn to drive on the shoulder because we’ll have to do it many times in the future, both to avoid panic-swerves and to pass recalcitrant lane-blockers.

In Part II, we’ll discuss night freeway driving and basic evasion techniques.

According to a recent Fox News “Special Investigation,” the amount of illegal street racing is rising dramatically in Los Angeles. During the report, the segment highlighted a variety of small Japanese cars, ranging from ’98 Acura Integras to ’02 Honda Accords. (Small range, but there you go.) Some of these cars wore slicks, most had a turbo charger and all of their exhausts were in (or out of) tune. During the commercial break, viewers were treated to a trailer for “The Fast & Furious” (known internationally as “The Fast & Furious 4″). One moment Fox is lamenting the senseless loss of life caused by street racers’ pursuit of automotive adrenalin, the next it promotes a senseless movie about street racers’ pursuit of automotive adrenalin. Wait; it gets worse.

After the break, the talking head introduced a segment entitled, “How towns are helping to stop this dangerous culture.” (Street racing, not the Hollywood producers behind the Fast & Furious movie). The town featured (without even a raised eyebrow to indicate the irony): Victorville.

Victorville is a small town in what’s called Apple Valley. If we are to believe our eyes (OK, cue in the cow!), bovines and humans share Victorville’s streets. Which are now, as you’d imagine, plagued with street racers. That the local police are determined to eradicate like farmers facing bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

Yes, in this land that urbanization forgot, the police department is “cracking down” on all cars that have been “tuned” for racing. They’re handing out $300+ citations ofor automobiles with an exhaust that makes some noise, chromed air intakes, and, worst of all, a turbocharger.

What possible harm could come from a small turbo attached to a relatively underpowered car? Shiny air filters? An exhaust that likes to howl every time the accelerator gets stepped on? Lamborghini and Ferrari adhere to same basic philosophy on a much greater scale, and you don’t see them being given a ridiculous fine. OK, Lamborghini and Ferrari ownership is a kind of ridiculous fine. But the point remains: what is the point?

The modified vehicles preferred by “fans” of the street racing culture may encourage illegal behavior, but so do rap lyrics (some, still). Until Bill O’Reilly is elected dictator, Americans still have the right to pose like bad mo’ fo’s, whether its outside a club or in their car. Anyway, I’ve come up with a solution to the “growing problem” of illegal street racing (I’m still working on the Vin Diesel thing).

The police should seek out (and not sleep with) girls who look like Jordana Brewster and Megan Fox (different movie but who’s complaining). After the inductees sign over the movie rights to their lives, they should be commissioned as undercover operatives. The police should educate them about vehicle dynamics (e.g., torque steer and downforce), and then brainwash them into believing that anthropomorphic global warming is the greatest threat to mankind since that gigantic asteroid that took out most of North America. Oh wait, that was a movie too. Never mind. Just tell them it was based on a actual event.

The undercover officers should then seek out the illegal street racers. Arranging their clothing in a suitable manner (i.e., removing strategic parts of their ensemble), the babes should explain to the boy racers that really hot girls don’t like noisy cars with stupid things sticking out of them, or bright lights creating a hovercraft effect (that’s so ’60s). Hot girls prefer a factory-spec ride that’s comfortable, clean and bone stock (so to speak).

If the racer seems receptive (Paul Walker-a-likes may need apply), the officers should then say what really turns them on: hypermiling. “You’d be amazed at what you can do in a car when you go really, really slow.” On second thought, how about “How can you belch all that CO2 into our atmosphere? Think about our children!” Nope, same thing. I’ve got it! Anti-anti-establishment is the new anti-establishment. Tarianism. And while they’re mentally incapacitated with that, the officers could install a speed limiter.

I know: that would be the equivalent of fitting all private gun owners with ankle bracelets. Which destroys my whole argument while making perfect sense. Anyway, the anti-street racing hot babe unit would be far less intrusive (excepting the Paul Walker reference above) and a lot less expensive than impounding cars, sanctioning drivers, making documentaries or commissioning an army of policemen to stop a street race.

Even better, the U.S. Army’s PsyOps unit could train this cleavage of hotness to destroy the street racing driver’s ego (“you suck!”) so that he (or less likely she) would have to find some way to compensate for the resulting lack of self-esteem. Something like . . . illegal street racing. You know what? This idea needs a little work. Or at least a better screenplay.

Some cities are refusing to comply with a new Georgia law mandating a one-second increase in the duration of the yellow warning period at intersections equipped with red light cameras. At least seven cities that made the required timing increase in January experienced an immediate 80 percent decrease in the number of violations. Of these, Duluth, Lilburn, Norcross, Snellville and Suwanee put the brakes on their red light camera programs after the data made it clear that the programs would no longer make money. Rome is now leaning toward dropping its program as well.

Cities like Atlanta, however, insist on maintaining their photo enforcement system. A spokesman for the city Department of Public Works confirmed to TheNewspaper that yellow times were not increased at any of the eight intersections that use red light cameras. As a result, half of the city’s photo enforced intersections actually saw an increase, not a decrease, in violations in the space of a year.

The number of tickets issued at Spring Street and North Avenue jumped from 415 in January 2008 to 504 in January 2009. During the same period, tickets increased from 37 to 46 at Piedmont Road and Monroe Drive, from 72 to 84 at Buford Highway and Lenox Road. Tickets doubled from 100 to 206 at Cleveland and Metropolitan.

State Senator Jack Murphy (R-Cumming), sponsor of the amendment that created the yellow time provision, vowed to get to the bottom of Atlanta’s refusal.

“If they’re not doing it, I’m going to find out why,” Murphy told TheNewspaper. “Longer yellow was the intention of the bill. They set the yellow too low — especially for left turns.”

Other cities like Roswell admit to ignoring the longer yellow requirement because the enforcement mechanism built into the law will not take effect until next year. In January, the legislature gave the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) authority to deny a permit to operate red light cameras to any city that fails to adhere to a number of legal requirements, including signal timing.

Under the law, cities can operate without these permits until January 1, 2010. GDOT, moreover, plays no active role in monitoring the compliance of the twenty-three cities that use red light cameras. Instead, the agency relies on the public to uncover any problems.

“Complaints about signal timing related to yellow clearance intervals should come directly to the Georgia Department of Transportation,” State Traffic Engineer Keith Golden told TheNewspaper. “Our legislators… have tasked GDOT to be the agency responsible for monitoring the implementation of this countermeasure.”

Senator Murphy intends to follow up with Golden to see why he is not doing more to ensure cities comply the longer yellow law. Golden suggested cities have an alternative if they do not wish to change their signal timing.

“It was suggested that the engineering calculated minimum values are just that — a minimum and that we should not be designing for a minimum value if there is going to be a regulatory event tied to the value,” Golden explained. “If a local jurisdiction determines that for operational issues they need the lower values — there is no requirement that they install a red light running camera.”

The Impact of Longer Yellow

Exceeding the minimum value by a second has decreased the desirability of running red light cameras by about 80 percent in compliant cities. Suwanee was first to end ticketing on January 19 after issuing just 68 citations under lengthened yellow (the equivalent of 110 tickets per month). This compared unfavorably to the 2008 average of 580 tickets per month which helped the city land $414,540 in revenue. In Duluth, the program issued 652 tickets in October compared to 215 last month.

As a result, Duluth will let its contract for the program — which generated 10,386 tickets worth $727,020 last year — expire in May. In Dalton, 122 tickets were issued at the intersection of Highway 41 and Shugart Road after the light was increased in January. The previous year, the number of monthly tickets averaged 460.

“The additional time on the yellow light has significantly reduced the number of citations because motorists have adequate time to get through the intersection,” state Representative Barry Loudermilk (R-Cassville), primary sponsor of the new legislation, wrote in his weekly column. “Since most of these cities have stated that safety was the primary reason they installed red light cameras, they should be thrilled that citations have been significantly reduced; however, many are pulling the cameras out because they are no longer making a profit.”

North Carolina saw a similar reaction in 2007 when the state supreme court upheld a decision directing all of the profit in red light camera programs out of city general funds and into the state school system (read final opinion). Charlotte, Fayetteville, Greenville, Greensboro, High Point, Raleigh and Rocky Mount shut down their red light camera programs in the wake of the court’s action.

For the last 20 years or so, I’ve been fighting traffic tickets in the New York area. My business is not “normal.” No matter how easy I make the process, no matter what the outcome, half of my final client conversations contain the words “I hope I never see you again.” (It’s OK, I understand. You came in with a “gun to your head.”) While the client kiss-off never changes, my ticket defense work fluctuates with the level of traffic enforcement. Weather, gas prices and terrorism alerts (post-9/11) all impact the number of tickets issued. I’ve survived a few up and down cycles. And with a steady client base and wide professional contacts I can draw a few conclusions. The recession is here. Government budgets are under threat. The word has gone out: write tickets!

Most people know that highway speed limits are set 10 to 15 mph below design speed (i.e., limits that would be set by traffic engineering surveys). That means pretty much everyone is speeding—in a strictly legal sense. But not from a safety perspective. Going with the flow or five mph faster is the safest way to drive; and yet the flow is usually “illegal.”

Debate that as you will, but the police allow some leeway. Most 55 mph roads are “stay under 70.” Most 65 mph roads are “stay under 80.” In New York City, rare is the speeding ticket under 70 mph in a 50 mph zone (rare, not nonexistent, so don’t go 70 and blame me later). It’s also worth noting that most ticket writing involves random selection from a pack of traffic. (This is where the silver Accord beats the red Corvette.)

The “system” is set up with a level of enforcement such that a normal, sane and flow-following driver will still catch a ticket every two to five years. From the government’s point of view, this is the ideal “threshold of pain.” The speed limit remains “the law.” Police can give “courtesy” or “use discretion,” which garners significant goodwill. The normal driver gets a ticket often enough to remind him or her to pay attention, but not so much as to take them off the road. Cash is extracted. Insurance company surcharges. Next customer please.

In New York, a very typical 77/55 is a six point ticket. The motorist pays approximately $250 to the Court. They’re taxed a second time by our “Driver Responsibility Assessment.” That’ll be $300. Each ticket is a $500 + nut. An industrious cop can write 20 per shift. Surcharges and other “fees” are attached, limited only by the inventiveness of the State Legislature at midnight. The public never notices till THEY are caught in the net.

Cops know how much traffic tickets make. So when police have a contract issue, or when overtime is cut, the radar guns are quietly turned off. Most police have a variety of tasks they can do on duty, so this is hard to trace. The power of the “off switch” has been a quiet factor in many police contract actions. When tickets (revenues) drop, the money requested by the police union suddenly becomes more reasonable. We saw this recently in New York State.

Those most likely to make an effective political stink to change the low speed limits are the same sort of person who’d go to Court (or retain Counsel) and fight the ticket. Once their ticket is taken care of, they stop caring and the whole incident falls in the Hole of Denial, never to be thought of again.

Letters to Congressmen and the Editor of the local paper are forgotten about in the wash of the reduction from six to three points—and that is the REAL reason you get a break if you fight the Ticket. The “deal” is essential to defusing organized resistance to the “system.” Arizona is learning this with the speed cameras. No deal = political resistance.

The recession has made a few changes, even with the uptick in volume. Tickets are coming to my office later, or only after the Court Clerk has refused the client’s third postponement attempt. They forget somehow to tell me this. More clients are price shopping.

Often, after doing one ticket, the client admits they have . . . two others. One of which is late. Denial again! Ticket fighting is a recession-resistant business, but not recession-proof. Lack of money, real or felt, is hitting all levels of society. Never mind the fact that a client was ticketed while driving the Range Rover up to the ski house. My pre-contractual client conversations are more strained than they were a year ago.

Courthouses are more full than last year, reflecting the overall increase in tickets issued. The word is out.  Watch the medians, and watch your wallet. A hungry Government is very, very dangerous.

[Casey Raskob can contacted via Speedlaw.net]

Rosenberg claimed the accident happened in Dayton, OH (it’s also featured on the company’s website). According to Rosenberg, the Chrysler PT Cruiser blows through the red in the curb lane doing 33 in a 35. This after the light had been red for 28.4 seconds.

As I slowly overcame the high-school-drivers’-ed-style shock of seeing a quick clip of carnage, I became increasingly angry and appalled. Why is it OK for a company selling safety equipment to use such blatant shock tactics to rally taxpayers to their for-profit cause? With aspiring teen drivers, you can understand the value of “tough love.” But while good profits may come from scare tactics, good governance does not.

Whose meeting is this anyway? By allowing Redflex to start the evening in this cynical, manipulative manner, Canton was revealing the truth: the fix was in. And then I started to dissect the accident. . . .

We were shown the brief clip of footage. Nothing more. No information on the cross-street speed limit. The Subaru was going plenty fast, but who knows if he was speeding?

The hapless pedestrian was strolling along across the street AFTER the cross-street light had changed to green. Doesn’t at least a small part of the blame rest on his decision to cross that street against signage? Cities and towns put up those Walk/Don’t Walk signals for a reason.

Also, did the pedestrian have a reasonable amount of time to cross?

I remember an article about an elderly woman getting ticketed for blocking traffic in a crosswalk. A TV crew investigated and found that a group of high school students couldn’t make it across the intersection before the light turned green at a dead run.

Furthermore, what exactly did Redflex’s camera do to prevent this accident? Ipso facto, nothing. Supposedly, Redflex’s systems reduce this kind of T-bone crash rate. But there’s no independent data on this for one simple reason: it’s not true.

In fact, red-light cameras are notorious for causing rear end collisions. While a spectacular crash like the one shown is particularly horrific, a large[r] number of rear-end collisions would lead to a large[r] numbers of whiplash cases. It’s a chronic injury that can literally ruin lives.

Last but not least, even if no T-boning accident had occurred, it looks like the SUV could have struck and maybe even killed the pedestrian.

To know the truth about this “instructive” incident, I would like to see the actual accident report and hear an analysis from a safety expert whose salary doesn’t depend on a red-light camera contract.

As those of you familiar with my screen name (SexCpotatoes) might imagine, I gave the city’s suits and the Redflex EVP a hard time, asking plenty of pointed questions. When pressed about Houston and Denver’s increased accident rate after red-light camera installation, Rosenberg responded “That was not our company.”

I asked city traffic engineer Dan Moeglin why his department hadn’t implemented any other safety measures: number boards that count down to red, synchronizing more traffic lights through town, or extending the yellow times. “I have all the traffic info about yellow light timing and such right here, I can go over them with you if you want, but these numbers give even me a headache.”

He also said that “yellow light duration is set by a formula taking into account speed limit, and width of the roadway.”

I briefly touched on the lawsuit against Redflex regarding the radar equipment they’d imported and distributed in violation of federal law. “That was an issue with a sticker not being properly placed or affixed,” Rosenberg demurred.

So a company devoted to catching motorists who must follow the letter of the law down to the last tenth of a second justifies breaking the law, perjuring themselves and falsifying certification documents as a clerical error. Nice.

I’m starting a petition to get the red-light camera issue placed on the ballot for the next general election. I leave it up to you, TTAC’s Best and Brightest, to decide whether using this crash footage to sell camera systems to greedy cities is morally reprehensible. Meanwhile, if you want to know why Canton is even entertaining this idea, I suggest you ignore the video and, as always, follow the money.

Houston Mayor Bill White selected Urban Politics Professor Robert Stein of Rice University to create a report on the engineering safety performance of the city’s first fifty automated ticketing machines. (Professor Stein’s wife, Marty, is employed by the city of Houston as a top aide to the mayor.) In a November 2007 email, White emphasized his personal interest in the subject at the beginning of the project. “Let’s just make sure that we study things that really matter for decision-making,” Mayor White wrote to Professor Stein. “Our funds for public policy research are scarce. . . . I am not suggesting that somebody alter one’s conclusions and I am not trying to influence the conclusions. What I am trying to do is give some helpful advice from a decision-maker concerning how to avoid analytical overkill.” The point was not lost on Stein whose employer received $50k for the red light camera study and who depended (depends?) on the city for funding of several other projects.

By the beginning of 2008, Stein worried that the data he compiled were not favorable to the city. He let officials know that this should be expected.

“Recall our own findings match what is reported in [this Tampa Tribune] article and in the public health study cited in the article,” Stein wrote in a March 14 email to Houston Police Sergeant Michael Muench. “Tim and I have reviewed ten years’ worth of studies on red light camera programs and the tentative evidence that those studies using the weakest designs are most likely to report a reduction in side impact collisions after the installation of red light cameras. More rigorous and appropriate research designs (like the one we use for the Houston program) fail to detect this reduction after the installation of red light cameras.”

In light of this, Houston police began to push Stein to weaken his design to match techniques used in studies conducted by insurance industry researchers and others with an interest in promoting the use of photo enforcement. In an April 29 meeting with police, Stein agreed to reconsider his results.

“Dr. Stein’s analysis of the original 20 intersections from Sept–Dec 2006 found 169 accidents,” Houston Police Lieutenant Jonathan Zera wrote. “However, HPD countered that the findings were flawed because: 1. All accidents within 500′ of the intersection were being counted. 2. All accidents within the intersection were being counted even if neither vehicle’s approach to the intersection was regulated by a red light camera. As such, Dr. Stein will re-analyze the 169 accidents.”

Realizing that an early copy of Stein’s work would be critical in understanding the truth about Houston’s red light camera program, a pair of attorneys made a request for a copy of the report’s first draft. When the city rejected the request, Randall L. Kallinen and Paul Kubosh filed a lawsuit forcing disclosure of the correspondence between Stein and the city. After reviewing the documents, Kallinen gave Professor Stein partial credit for his work.

“While Stein at first seemed to have leaned toward the police he rejected most of their attempts to change his report,” Kallinen told TheNewspaper. “He did however mislead the public through the report and to the press when he said accidents were increasing citywide when he knew for a fact they were decreasing citywide.”

Stein’s published report on the Houston program documented an increase in accidents at intersections that had red light cameras, but the greatest increase happened in the directions where the camera was not looking. Stein offered to explain this anomaly by creating the hypothesis that these “non-monitored” approaches were equivalent to intersection locations that had no red light cameras at all. This hypothesis—despite the negative data–allowed Stein to conclude that the cameras proved useful in reversing a general trend toward increased accidents throughout the city.

“Why have accidents at non-monitored approaches increased so dramatically in the past year?” Stein asked in his December report. “As suggested above, these results could be evidence of an increase in collisions across the city. . . . Using this methodology, the new analysis could reveal if, in fact, the red light cameras mitigated a general increase in accidents citywide. This observation, if found, would both confirm the public safety benefit of the red light cameras in Houston as well as advocate the expansion of the program.”

The problem with this theory was that there was no increase in collisions across the city—and Stein knew it before his report was published. Houston police documents show that accidents steadily dropped each year from 2004 to 2008. There were 81,238 accidents in 2004 and 67,405 in 2007–a 17 percent decrease.

“Wow, this is perfect, thanks so much,” Stein wrote in response to a November 13 email from a Houston officer containing a complete set of declining accident figures.

Several local media at the time painted a positive image for the red light camera program by widely reporting Stein’s citywide accident theory.

The GT-R allegedly 'outperforms' thoroughbred supercars at a fraction of the price. Yes, but what price? The sticker price, or the in-your-garage price? Considering the hype surrounding the car and the limited production numbers, it will be years before a single new $70k GT-R will be sold for under $100k. At the moment, comparing the Nissan to say, a Corvette Z06, obfuscates the truth. But what the [Green] Hell…

No small part of the current GT-R lovefest can be attributed to the car’s 7:38 Nürburgring lap time. As TTAC has pointed out, there are real questions about the Green Hellmobile’s qualifications for the title “second fastest production car around the ‘Ring.” The GT-R's suspension was modified from the current Japanese production model, supposedly to reflect the American and European spec. Supposedly. Will anyone get a chance to compare the fabled ‘Ring runner and a final production car? I doubt it.

Meanwhile, the YouTube video of the Nissan’s “historic run” clearly shows that the GT-R had a flying start. All other manufacturers testing at the ‘Ring use standing starts for published lap times. The video also proves that the car's lap time was not measured at the exact same location (start and stop). Take these two factors into account, and the 7:40 claim seems highly dubious.

The icing on the cake: GT-R chief engineer Kazutoshi Mizuno’s subsequent admission from that "We used cut slick tyres." If that doesn’t cancel their claim, nothing does.

In fact, a regular Corvette Z06 would probably beat the GT-R on the Nürburgring. When Road & Track tested the GT-R against the Z06 on a track much smaller than the ‘Ring, they concluded that the GT-R was fast in the corners, but they didn't shed a whole lot of light on how the GT-R performed on the straights. Although the ‘Ring has an enormous amount of corners, it also has some of the longest straight-aways in the world.

In Road & Track’s technical comparo, the GT-R was just as fast to 60mph as the Z06 (despite being less powerful). What many have over-looked is the trap speed at the end of the 1/4 mile. The Z06 is about seven mph faster than the GT-R. When you look at the graph that accompanies these numbers, the GT-R’s AWD system gave it a clear advantage– but only at the start. Applied to the Green Hell, the Z06 would outpace the GT-R on the straights.

The Z06’s fastest recorded lap time at the Nürburgring is 7:42.9 This lap was driven in 2005 by Jan Magnussen in 'muggy' conditions. Last year, Chevy revised the suspension on all Corvette models including the Z06. In theory, the new suspension and better weather conditions should be enough for a Z06 to equal or even better the Nissan GT-R's true time of +7:40. When you consider that the Z06 can achieve this time with a GM-standard standing start and production tires, it seems obvious that the GT-R is no match for the Z06 around the ring.

But what does it all mean? Well, not much actually. Every racetrack is different and some cars are suited to some tracks while others are not. The GT-R is suited to smaller tracks like the one R&T used, and the Z06 is suited to longer and faster ones like the ‘Ring.

So why did I bother ranting about this? Nissan has chosen to flaunt its Nürburgring lap times to show the world that their new, high-tech Nissan GT-R is the new bang-for-the-buck Alpha. But it’s not true. The cheaper Corvette Z06 is still the worlds best [unmodified] performance car bargain. What’s more, if the GT-R cannot handle a stock Z06, then how will it fare against the upcoming ZR1? Never mind the 'almighty' spec V model.

Given the GT-R’s looks and oft-reported lack of driving feel, there’s only one reason anyone would buy the uber-Nissan: to own the fastest thing on the road. In the corners, maybe. If you were committed enough to drive at 10/10ths (never mind how “easy” it is), you could probably blow-off a 911 or similar. Down the straights (the great American pastime), there are faster and cheaper choices– and that’s without exploring relatively inexpensive modifications.

In short, the GT-R is an awesome achievement, but Wilkinson’s right: it’s not all that. 

Chevy small blocks are amazing. Yes, this C3 left the factory with just 190 horses. But the mini mill stumped-up 280 ft-lbs. of torque at 1600 rpm. Sadly, I can't tell you how much of a toll the intervening 27 years exacted on the Corvette’s performance– or how fast I was going. Not because the Nixonian speedometer tops out at 85 mph. Because it wasn't working. Regardless, y'all would have loved the burble.

Amazingly, the Corvette was behaving flawlessly. The engine was strong. Sure, you can get more handling from a photograph of a Miata. But around the gentle twists of Paso Robles, the car was aces. Braking? Not so much. And when you hit 'em the car shot left and then right. But I didn’t need any stinking brakes. I had no intention of stopping.

Suddenly, just north of Santa Barbara the right headlamp popped up. As fate would have it, I had left the lights on. You could almost hear the opening bars from Flight of the Valkyrie. "Come on, come on you little shit," I started screaming at the left lamp. "Pop!" Fifteen long, gut-twisting seconds later it did. Sure, I could have got more illumination sitting on the hood and holding a Zippo, but the lights were up! I was going to make it.

If you've never been through Santa Barbara, there are two things you need to know. 1) Eat at Taqueria Super Rica 2) Don't speed.

I've received six speeding tickets in my life. Three were in Santa Barbara. Case in point: as soon as I passed the sign welcoming me to Goleta (once again travelling at sane speeds) I saw a CHP officer climbing back on his hog and a blue BMW taking off from the shoulder. Then I saw a Highway Patrol car. Then another. I would have been toast. Or tased.

Now that I was back to cruising, I had some neurons to spare to contemplate the C3. What a brilliant little car. How did it know to pop those lights then and there? And maybe those neurons were cooked a little, but I realized what was going on. The Corvette knew.

This was it: the poor thing's swan song. It's death rattle. The last chance the tri-decade dog would have to be flogged California style. Sure, they have roads in Euroland. But 'Vettes — especially C3s – were built for the Golden State. Somehow, like a race horse about to be put out to stud, the Corvette knew. This was its victory lap.

Respect. I like how the Sting Ray makes you feel dangerous. And sleazy. It's akin to driving a van with a waterbed in back. You're a bad element; daughters' mothers know it. I can't even tell you how many times I looked in my rearview and caught a wife in the passenger seat checking me and my 'Vette out. Seriously, they couldn't take their eyes off the long, sleek, blue-speckled phallus.

I stopped at the beach to snap some photos and got mobbed by surfers. I've never heard "Dude!" so many times in my life.

I didn't dare turn the engine off, for fear of losing the headlights, but looking at the C3 nestled next to the Pacific Ocean, the zeitgeist of this machine became clear. It's the 70s, man. Sex couldn't kill you. Cocaine couldn't kill you. Rock and roll would never die, but you could get more coke and sex at the disco. The world has since moved on, but this Corvette? Still super awesome.

Before I got home, I stopped off for some tacos. The locals loved the 'Vette. "Dude, that is a beautiful car." Indeed, it is. The C3’s lines are timeless, as aesthetically spot on as anything from Italy or Britain from the 70s. And light years ahead of Japan and Germany.

In fact, I'm sorry my time with this C3 was so short. The seats are comfortable, the engine can get out of its own way and the looks– to paraphrase Vince Neil– can kill. With just a little TLC I could see owning this 'Vette big time. The C3’s currently parked in an undisclosed location, awaiting the Czech's further instructions. I bet I could make Mexico in a matter of hours.

[Read Pt. 1 of 440 Miles by clicking here.] 

It gets worse: The purchaser– whom we’ll call “Bob”– was actually a middle man for another Czech guy. The plan: wire transfer me the money for the merchandise, a one-way plane ticket and a small fee. You haven’t lived until you’re emailed your bank account info to a former communist country. I telephoned the seller to ask if he wanted a money order or a cashier’s check for the ‘Vette. “Cash,” was his not entirely unpredictable answer.

As I was unsure of the feasibility of a big cash withdrawal on a Saturday, I boarded a flight in Burbank with fifty-five $100 bills burning a worry-hole in my pocket.

Aside from a horrific speckled blue paint job, the Vette’s exterior looked ship shape. The interior was in remarkably good condition, too, with just the usual litany of malaise era Detroit bugaboos — shot HVAC, busted electric seats and a sun cracked dash. After handing over the bankroll, the seller fired her up.

As I headed out on the 880 towards the 101, a Led Zeppelin rock block started. Talk about apropos. “Hey hey mama said the way you move, going make you sweat, gonna make you groove!” Man, I was loving this. And felt just like a Jersey pot dealer. Hey, for all I knew, the gas tank was half-filled with smack.

By the time the last few chords of California ended, I was miserable. The turn signal lever had come off in my hand. There was no way to stop the hot air coming out of the vents, which meant I had to keep the windows down. On the freeway. The clutch literally has 14 inches of travel, and someone in the Czech Republic will be rebuilding a Chevy tranny sooner than later. Did I mention that the shocks are completely blown, and that the T-Tops sound as if they’re about to crack over every single road imperfection? Anyway…

My plan was to do the deed during daylight hours on a Saturday. I opted to take the slower, longer and more congested 101 because I’d be better off if the Corvette broke down. I also wanted to stop along the way and take some pretty pictures of the car along the coast, in a vineyard and maybe even parked in a mustard field.

Besides, the wind was a lot less annoying at 65 mph than at 80 mph. Also, why push it? The poor thing’s nearly as old as I am. All of that changed when I got to the Madonna Inn.

Figuring the garishness of the Corvette could only be matched by the surreal boorishness of the Inn, I stopped to snap some photos. And since C3s look so cool with their headlights up, I figured I’d pop ‘em. Only they wouldn’t pop. It was 3:00 pm, the day before daylight savings kicks in. I had 200 miles to go, and the last 30 of those were through Saturday night LA Traffic. I was now racing the sun.

Murliee Martin had been nice enough to check the Corvette out a few weeks before I showed up, so I called him. “There’s no headlights!” I shouted. “OK,” he replied. “You need to build up vacuum pressure. Take it up to 95 mph, shift into second, and let the engine haul you down to 40 mph.”

I’ve heard a lot of bad noises come out of cars in my day, but nothing quite like this. Imagine whacking a dozen circular saw blades with a crowbar. You get the idea, kinda.

I called Murilee back. “Nothing!” I screamed. “It’s probably a fuse,” he said. “You don’t have taillights either.”

So let’s recap: At this point I’m flying through wine country traffic without turn signals, headlights or taillights in a nearly 30-year-old example of the UAW’s finest work that’s titled to some guy in central Europe. And the gas tank’s (probably) stuffed with heroin. Yeah, this was big and dumb.

[Read 400 Miles Part 2 by clicking here . ] 

A lawyer knows the “system:” the rules AND the players. The defense counsel may be the “enemy,” but he’s the devil they know. The Clerk, Judge and cop can all relax; knowing the game will be played without rancor. For example, if you were a real jerk on the side of the road, the officer will tell me about it. But he won’t get mad at you again. He knows there won’t be any personal confrontation.

[Many states allow an attorney to appear for the client without the client present. So you can out-source the problem without lost time or wages.]

As Harold Hill pronounced in the Music Man, you gotta know the territory. And the Judge IS the territory. It may be a piercing glimpse into the obvious, but they are the one who will decide your fate.

Traffic court judges will vary from an ex-SCCA racer to the “little old lady with the crochet stuff on the back deck who blocks the left lane.” (True stories.) Most Judges are successful, goal-oriented people with substantial life experience. Respect is the currency of the courtroom. You can disagree without being disagreeable. Well, your lawyer can, ‘cause that’s what he does for a living.

A good local attorney will know many things you don’t– like which Judge or Prosecutor may be more sympathetic to your case. (And yes, a case can be “steered” towards a particular judge.) Or when the cop who wrote your ticket is off for their annual, month-long training. Most importantly, a lawyer knows what you are up against.

Most courts treat 70mph+ tickets as tax tickets, 80mph+ as “hey there boy,” and 90mph+ as “you are a road hazard, boy.” Triple digits earn you special treatment in every Court I attend. I have one Judge who will suspend your license for six months and impose a maximum fine.

A good traffic attorney will know what can be done with your offense. Most people hear from friends and relatives that your ticket will either “turn into a parking ticket” or “they will crucify you,” with little in between. When all the smoke settles, the short answer is that an attorney will get you the best deal in the House. It’s kind of like taking a big kid to a schoolyard fight– the fight will probably never happen and if it does, you won’t get hammered. Or hammered as badly.

If you retain an attorney specifically to go to trial, he or she will listen closely to your case. The attorney will know what a “direct case” sounds like. He will know if the officer missed something or lacks written proof. Technicalities R Us.

After the officer is done testifying, the attorney will cross examine the cop. If the attorney is prepared, experienced and knowledgeable, the process can take quite some time.

[If you think about it, five attorneys in a courtroom of 100 scheduled cases could take up an awful lot of time. In light of this fact, attorneys receive more consideration in ticket reductions. Courts are aware that retaining counsel costs money (and pretty much know who charges what in a given area). They respect that, though not officially.]

Your case depends almost entirely on this cross-examination. If the officer testifies perfectly, chances are the Judge (usually no jury) will sustain the charge. And you may be left wondering why you bothered hiring a lawyer in the first place. BUT…

Most cops do not enjoy this part of the job– for good reason. They know the stakes as much as you do. And they don’t like admitting (revealing?) their own incompetence. But police officers are not lawyers.

While they MAY know the exact legal requirements for a valid speeding ticket, they may not. No disrespect to the police, but given the huge number of tickets they write, they probably forgot something somewhere along the line. An experienced attorney has a far greater chance of making hay than a pro se litigant. An attorney will know what the police supposed to say, and when they miss it.

Again, this is where you win or lose. And if you’re going to fight, give yourself a fighting chance. Hire a lawyer. Fight the system yourself and you’ll be outmatched and outmaneuvered.

Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.  

The officer who wrote you up will state his name and be sworn in. The policeman will say he was working a certain shift in a given marked/unmarked patrol car. The car was equipped with a fully-functional [insert gadget name here] designed to time vehicular speed. At 10 am on Rt. 66 he saw a purple Porsche on a two-lane road, with a yellow divider. He visually estimated the speed to be 100 mph, plus or minus X mph.

[NB: a police officer’s visual speed estimate is legally admissible evidence. In The Empire State, the cop’s guesstimate/word is sufficient to uphold conviction. Most courts want a gadget reading for confirmation, purely as a practical matter.]

The officer will tell the court that he activated his speed timing device, which gave him a reading of 97 mph. Without losing sight of the vehicle, he then pulled out and pursued the perp (you). He pulled the car over at a certain location. He identified the driver by his State Photo ID. The officer will then relay whatever you said during the stop (the “do you know why I stopped you” question).

He will then state the location of the signs posting the legal speed limit, unless you have violated a state maximum (55mph in my New York patch). He will state his training, and reveal when it was last refreshed.

The cop will also tell the court how he set up his radar or laser, or produce a certificate of calibration for a speedometer (if paced). He’ll testify about tuning forks (radar) or internal self-tests (laser). Then, testifying that he was “satisfied that device X was performing according to manufacturers’ specifications,” he will close his case.

And now, it’s time for your cross-examination.

Most pro se defendants don’t channel Perry Mason, or even Denny Crane from Boston Legal. Instead, they launch into their “story:” a narrative account interspersed with “radar/laser sucks” information gleaned from the internet. When the Judge corrects them– “questions only, please,” they’re left feeling frustrated, flapping on the deck like a dying cod.

After a few easily parried questions to the cop– “no sir, there were no other cars in my radar” and “yes, you were the only purple Porsche on the road”– they’re sunk. 

Some defendants bring anti-radar/laser articles or papers to support their contention that the cop’s equipment and/or observations were inherently unreliable. These pieces of paper are routinely denied as not conforming to the “rules of evidence” (a full law school course), leaving the defendant flustered in their inability to land one of his or her cross examination “punches.”

In fact, the cop need only testify to the “direct case.” They will not give you the obvious leads you need to do a “wrong car” or “improperly setup radar” theory like you read on the internet. If the cop holds to the Direct Radar Case, for most straight speed cases, the result will be conviction. In New York City, for example, the Direct Radar Case is literally a “cookie cutter” dissertation which may or may not resemble your traffic stop.

The motorist is then convicted of the offense. I repeat, in the vast majority of speeding cases, motorists who defends themselves in court are convicted as a matter of course. It doesn’t matter how smart of savvy you are. You’re toast. Next case…

Many defendants feel extremely aggrieved by the process, and offended by the result. Unable to tell their side of the story, they conclude that the Judge was rude, insensitive and/or arrogant– even though the Judge was going by the Law, following the rules of evidence.

The motorist then pays the Clerk, complains to the Clerk about the Judge (usually her boss), and goes forth fuming– especially if he or she refused to plead to the “deal” offered two hours ago.

In the next and final installment of this series, I will make my case that anyone who wishes to fight a speeding ticket should hire a local attorney with a good track record and relevant experience. Yes, I know what you’re thinking: he would say that, wouldn’t he? If you choose to ignore a writer who’s seen literally thousands of speeding cases, that’s your prerogative.

But for now, my advice to [alleged] speeders is simple. Fight the ticket in every case. Take whatever deal you can get and/or hire an attorney. Period.

Secure in the knowledge that they haven’t had a ticket in ten years, some drivers figure they won’t get another ticket in another ten years. They pay the fine promptly and forget it. These folks are unhappy when the insurance bill, Abuser Fee, or Driver Responsibility Assessment comes in– at which point it’s usually too late to do a damn thing about it.

By the same token, some drivers simply ignore the ticket. They are even less happy when the suspension notice comes, or worse, when they’re pulled over again and [perhaps] taken to jail for “failed to answer ticket.” 

Some drivers talk to a few friends, troll the internet and discuss it (or NOT) with their significant other and decide to contest the ticket. They arm themselves with a smattering of speed detection device theory, a few legal buzzwords and maybe some information (often valid in some other jurisdiction). Delighted with the “fresh knowledge” that radar and laser guns are far from infallible, and that other speeders fought the law and the law lost, they head off to court.

[As a lawyer specializing in motoring offenses, my office motto is “never take your legal advice from real estate agents, police officers or the internet”-- present editorial excluded, of course. If you actually want to win your case, a local attorney with relevant experience is worth every penny.]

Some jurisdictions allow motorists to “call ahead” for a court date. Do not discuss the ticket with the Court Clerk. The Clerk’s heard every story in the history of the world ever. Beyond verification of your mailing address and scheduling your court date, he/she is not interested, and he/she has no authority to “make it go away” (the secret hope of every defendant in the world). Rudeness to a clerk will ensure that you get no consideration in scheduling preferences, should such a thing be available. 

Speeding and other motoring offenses are “processed” in many different ways around the country. In many cases, the alleged perpetrator goes to court, waits forever, pleads not guilty, and then waits another eternity for a trial date. The potential “deal” that you can make on a ticket also varies widely. Just because your buddy got a “parking ticket” reduction a few years ago in another town is meaningless to the Judge in YOUR town.

Some places, notably New York City Traffic Violations Bureau, refuse to deal at all. To put it kindly, they are relentlessly pro-prosecution. Other jurisdictions will favor the motorist, or at least give them a fair shake. As any good attorney will tell you, Judges also vary widely, from by-the-book/throw the book at you to “lenient.” Traffic court is no exception.

When Court day arrives, dress decently and leave your attitude at home. The correct mindset: assertive, not aggressive. You are now on government (a.k.a. geologic) time, so bring a book. Cell phones, iPods and Blackberries are frowned upon in most courtrooms; a ringing cell phone during a session can punt you to the last case of the day.  One of the basic rules of Civil Service: “We are here all day… YOU can be too!” Being polite and courteous counts in this arena.

Come to Court, sign in and wait. You may be called to discuss your case with the Prosecutor or Police officer who wrote you up. They may make you an offer (that you can refuse). If you’ve studied your state’s point system, you’ll have an idea what’s at stake.

The Judge and Prosecutor are not there to give you legal advice; don’t expect it and don't be disappointed if you don’t get it. In most places where negotiation is allowed, you’ll be offered something. I find that an attorney will normally be able to secure “the best deal in the house.” If you're a “frequent flier” or just don’t feel confident playing this game, again, a lawyer is a wise investment. 

At the time of the offer, do NOT launch into your carefully rehearsed and novel (to you) arguments as to why the ticket was in error/illegal. The police officer or Prosecutor in front of you has but one answer to any such suggestion: “I’ll mark you for trial at the end of the calendar.”

Next up, next Thursday: your day in court.

First and foremost, don’t act coy. If the blue lights are flashing on your behalf, put on your hazard lights immediately and pull over. You can turn a simple traffic violation into a misdemeanor easily by missing this one. Remember that the officer has one thought as he yanks your chain: he doesn’t want to get hurt. So pull over somewhere safe, preferably off the main road, but always into a well-lit, open space. 

When Officer Krupke pulls you over, he doesn’t know if you’re an honest citizen with a heavy foot or a third strike felon with a weapon. So do not reach into your glove box or your coat pocket for your license and registration before the policeman approaches. Lower your window, put both hands on the steering wheel, relax your shoulders and wait.

In most cases, the officer will call in your plate and his location before he leaves the car. He’ll watch you and your passengers (repeatedly) for “furtive movements.” The cop will approach you over your left shoulder. It’s tactical: he/she can see almost everything you do and can respond quickly if you're stupid/drugged enough to “try something." By the same psychological token, the bright lights are supposed to scare you and illuminate the inside of your car.

When the cop approaches, let him speak first. Most times, he’ll ask for your license and registration. Sometimes, he’ll ask you a direct question, to determine your state of mind and whether or not you’re drunk or drugged. If the officer asks you a simple question (“Do you know how fast you were going?”), provide him or her with a simple answer (“No, I’m sorry, I don’t”). Keep your voice level and your tone respectful.

After the initial interchange, you can proffer an excuse, if you so choose.  Don't schmooze; friendliness counts for nothing here. All the cop wants is his safety and your respect. So be direct, courteous and passive. Make your excuse simple (e.g. “I’m late to pick-up my kid from school”) and always start with an apology. Yes, an apology. But do not admit guilt. Just “I’m sorry.” Not, “I’m sorry I was speeding.” It’s a fine line. Don’t cross it.

Many times, perhaps even most times, the officer simply doesn’t want to hear your story. In some cases, the cop might even walk off while you’re in mid-sentence. Don’t lose your cool. These guys have heard it all before. They may have other things they want to do besides listen to you lie, prevaricate or explain your criminal behavior. 

Once the officer gets your papers, the officer will usually go back to the safety of his car (roadsides are dangerous for all) and run your specifics. He will check out your car from time to time, looking for those “furtive movements.” After the policeman establishes that your license and registration are valid, and that you and your vehicle aren’t wanted for any reason, he or she will cite you for your offense(s). 

If you were polite, sometimes there will be a small “roadside reduction” or even a warning instead of a ticket. If you were rude, there will be no mercy. If you were very rude, then there may be several citations. I can often tell by the set of tickets presented how my client acted towards the police officer on the roadside. In States like Virginia, where a ticket (and various inventive surcharges) can be mortgage money expensive, you’ll want any “discretion” the cop has used in your favor.

When the officer gives you the ticket (s), he or she will briefly engage you in conversation. If the officer gives you a lecture, or asks you a series of questions intended to rub your nose in your offense, just grin and bear it. Under no circumstances should you ever argue with the police. If the ticket’s written, the deal’s gone down. If you’ve been hard done by, you’ll get your day in court (and do NOT use that as a threat of any kind).

For most normal traffic stops, the police officer has made notes on the back of the ticket as to the particulars of the stop, and your attitude. He will have forgotten about you (usually) as soon as he’s back on the pavement at patrol speeds. Which leads us to the next part of our story… the Courthouse.

You are, of course, pleading Not Guilty.

OnStar is a telemetry system providing a central data bank with real-time data on virtually every system in your car, including GPS. OnStar's computer knows where you were, when you were there, and how fast you went. It knows if and when you applied the brakes, if and when the air bags deployed, and what speed you were going at the time. It knows if and when your car was serviced.

OnStar operators can determine if you have a passenger in the front seat (airbag detection). All interactions with OnStar's operators are automatically recorded (hence the commercials). By the same token, under certain conditions, OnStar can switch on your GM car's microphone remotely and record any and all sounds within the vehicle (i.e. conversations). But wait, there's more…  

As of 2009, customers who upgrade to OnStar's "Safe & Sound" plan automatically receive the "Stolen Vehicle Slowdown" service. (Yes, it's an "opt out" deal.) If the OnStar-equipped vehicle is reported stolen and law enforcement has "established a clear line of sight of the stolen vehicle," the police may ask OnStar to slow it down remotely.  

Many customers find OnStar immensely reassuring; their guardian e-angel. No question: OnStar has saved lives and provided its customers with valuable services. Otherwise, they wouldn't be in business. But what if…

The police are investigating a crime. They ask OnStar where your car was on a certain date and time, to corroborate an alibi. Or what if you're in a crash and the other guy's attorney would like to know how fast you were driving when you ran the red light? Would OnStar surrender the information? "OnStar is required to locate the car to comply with legal requirements, including valid court orders showing probable cause in criminal investigations." And OnStar may use gathered information to "protect the rights, property, or safety of you or others."

Imagine the following scenario. The FBI shows up at OnStar master command and tells them your car's been stolen by a terrorist, who may be using it to commit a crime at this very moment. Contacting the owner is out of the question; the owner may also be a terrorist. What does OnStar do? They cooperate with the FBI and give them everything they've got on your car. No warrant needed and no notification to you. Hell, you may not even have the service enabled. 

In other words, you not only have to trust OnStar to protect your privacy, you have to trust the police not to ask the questions in the first place.

The Constitution of the United States protects us from the heavy hand of government. However, when it comes to protection from private entities, it does little. Into this void, multiple privacy laws have entered, creating a farrago of local, state, and federal laws which provide limited and haphazard protection to citizens.  Whatever privacy protection these laws provide are usually nullified when companies violate them in "good faith" (e.g. while assisting the authorities.)

So who is going to stop the government from monitoring your car? The Bill of Rights protects you from an unreasonable search and seizure; the government can not take what belongs to you without a warrant. OnStar can owns the information they collect about your car. In short, there is nothing to stop the police or OnStar from using the information you paid for against you.

And the next step is even more insidious.  Imagine GPS speed limiters which only allow you to go the speed limit based upon a map uploaded into your car's navigation system. Now Sammy Hagar will only be driving 55 no matter how hard he stomps on the go pedal. This is the ultimate assault on pistonheads.  The only place where driving will be fun will be on the track– if OnStar and/or the car's manufacturer (e.g. the Japanese GT-R) let you.

There's only one sensible response to this trend: boycott vehicles equipped with OnStar, even if you don't sign up for the service. (Remember: it can be remotely enabled.) If customers actively avoid vehicles that spy on them, manufacturers will have to stop installing the monitoring software and hardware. And law enforcement agencies and prosecutors will have to get their information and apprehend criminals the old-fashioned way: through legally-sanctioned police work. In short, I don't buy OnStar, and neither should you.   

In a brilliant merger of public relations and greed, GEICO bailed out LTI. The insurance company bought LTI’s newfangled laser guns. In ceremonies held in each State nationwide, GEICO donated a few laser systems to the State Police or large local agencies. This produced many, many photos of a GEICO rep giving a high tech laser gun to the head of the local and/or State police agency in many, many newspapers in the many states where GEICO does business. 

The handover was accompanied by the usual “speed kills” propaganda. As the nationwide 55mph speed limit was still the federal law, GEICO’s lazy-journalist press release got plenty of play. The PR stunt also put “free samples” of LTI’s laser guns into the hands of the agencies who would have never bought them in the first place. Once the cops gained operational experience with the new gadget, once the revenues started rolling in, laser guns became all the rage. 

GEICO also banked big bucks with this initiative. The laser-wielding cops ticketed their policy holders. The resulting insurance surcharges more than paid for the cost of donating the laser guns. Brilliant! Well not entirely, on a whole range of levels.

Laser speed detection is an inherently problematic process. Calibration is the biggest “issue.” When police initially set up and/or test the accuracy of a given radar detection device, they use a tuning fork. This provides external verification that the radar unit is working properly. Police laser guns have no such external testing methodology. In fact, the laser guns use a proprietary algorithm to determine a vehicle’s speed. This they will NOT divulge in Court; apparently, it’s not patentable. 

As strange as it sounds, a laser gun can only verify its own accuracy. Courts are not big fans of self-verifying devices, which is why Breathalyzers use an ampule of known alcohol for calibration. Even so, your legal guardians made an exception on your behalf. New Jersey uses other tests to allow a calibration “work around.” Most other states have either passed a law allowing laser readings, or just turn a blind eye to this possible objection.

Over time, police agencies acclimated to laser and made their legislative peace. The guns are now a part of most states' speed detection arsenal. And yet, laser hasn’t replaced radar, for one simple reason: laser is a bitch.

For one thing, laser doesn’t work on the move. Police have grown accustomed to using radar to monitor oncoming or distant traffic to detect and apprehend speeders in the course of other activities. There is no such thing as a patrol car-mounted laser gun; nor can there be, given the necessity of aiming a pinpoint beam of light.

This highlights another limitation: the laser gun’s laser beam must be shot directly at a car's front plate to create a valid reading. So cops can’t stuff their patrol car behind a bush, wait for a hapless/dangerous motorist to go by, and then hit them with a beam (the parallax error in this case underestimates speed). Police can fire the laser gun out of the window of a stationary cruiser, but that’s only in good weather. And anyway, then they’re sitting in a billboard labeled “POLICE.” 

Accuracy is another stumbling block. Those of you familiar with handguns know how tough it is to group your shots. Laser is the same way. What’s more, most laser “shots” are initiated as far away from the target vehicle as possible. Most laser sightings are taken from around a thousand feet away (beyond that it is hard to get a reflection without a tripod mount). The beam is small; it’s quite easy to miss an offending vehicle, or, God forbid, mistake one for another.  The majority of laser arrests need multiple shots before a reflection can be read, which is why a detector can sometimes save you.

Lastly, laser is also fallible. The guns only work on front plates. On states where front plates are not legally required, many motorists don’t have them (imagine that). Also, as it would be pretty hard to restrict a segment of the light spectrum for police use, most states allow laser jamming; devices which react to a weak laser signal by sending out a stronger one to trick or confuse the police gun.

In short, laser guns are highly effective when used properly, but standard issue radar guns will still be the police officer’s speed detection device of first resort. 

In response, the Fuzzbuster. The first commercial radar detector was a simple receiving unit. It picked up the high power continuous transmission of the early X-band police radar guns and sounded an alarm. Depending on the speed of the Fuzzbuster-equipped motorist, he or she had at least a half to a quarter mile before the signal was strong enough to bounce back to the police and provide a reading. 

Escort tendered the next major advance. The old school black box Escort was a quantum leap in quality: the first superhetrodyne radar receiver commonly available. The Escort’s X-band detection distance was twice that of the Fuzzbuster. Equally important, the Escort also picked-up K-Band radar gun signals, emitted by the cutting edge revenue collection device of the early 80’s. 

Once the police side switched to “instant on” radar guns, the game changed again. Detectors were no longer looking for a strong beam (think a set of xenon headlights shining down a dark highway). They were now trying to detect a child’s flashlight being turned on and off at random, during the day. Since a radar detector is essentially nothing more or less than a scanner, it has to cover the entire band over and over, looking for those wisps of radar. 

To find those tiny wisps of K-band emissions, a device needs some serious microprocessing horsepower. That kind of microwave technology isn't cheap. Radar detector buyers looking for something more than a dashtop ornament that provides a false sense of security must now go to the top of a manufacturer’s line for electronic satisfaction.

Still, many folks held onto their Fuzzbusters, classic black box Escorts and later grey metal Passports. While they’re still great for detecting police radar guns operating on the X and K-band radar signal, they’re blind to the latest Ka-band police technology. I still see these on dashboards in New York Courts every week, in a state where 95 percent of the police radar systems run on the Ka-band.

I’m often asked “why can’t I just buy a radar jammer?” There are two stumbling blocks: money and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Any item which transmits a radio signal falls under the FCC’s purview. To properly jam police radar unit, a jammer needs to receive a signal, “read it” and fire back a signal strong enough to overwhelm the radar gun– or vary the returning signal’s frequency slightly to confuse the police radar gun’s computer. The military has some fantastic devices for fighter planes that do all this, at military price points. 

Even assuming you could create a usable civilian unit, the FCC would frown upon this endeavor in a most emphatic way. If they caught wind of even a single unit, they’d send you a “Notice of Liability” reminding you (with a huge fine) that you’re not allowed to jam any licensed service. (That's why Cell Phone jammers can't be sold in the US.) So back to detectors…

None of today’s radar detector can warn you of an “instant-on” police radar signal if you’re the first one through the trap. A detector is a radio receiver, no more, no less. Ka-band frequencies are tricky to detect. The frequencies used by many police radar guns for Ka-band are on the exact same frequency that some radar detectors transmit.

In traffic, surrounded by other cars, radar detectors are prone to a “Ka-false,” triggered by another radar detector. To keep users sane, detector makers will “notch out” that specific frequency– which is why police radar makers seek to transmit there. The expensive detectors have the computer power to figure out this riddle, which is why the $69 detector is more dangerous than nothing at all.

None of today’s most sophisticated radar detectors can detect all police radar guns all of the time in all situations, and do so with enough alacrity that the driver can check their speed before the police do. A safe driver will always drive only as fast as conditions allow, and use their cranium’s computing power (including memory) to avoid inadvertent speeding.

That said, a high-powered radar detector is a valuable tool for the serious driver with a lot of exposure time. It’s a little extra insurance, but, again, it’s not a free pass. Buy the best detector you can afford, but don’t change your driving style based on the box.

[Casey W. Raskob, Esq. is a NY-based lawyer who runs speedlaw.net]

Back in the early 60’s, police measured driver’s speed via “S-band” radar. These early devices used a huge antenna mounted on a tripod. It printed a paper read out on a rolling sheet of paper, like a lie detector. The S-band radar unit was a cumbersome contraption that only worked in good weather. And keeping the analogue tubes running was a tricky business– never mind trying to get the waves to live at microwave frequencies. Although the system [eventually] offered its police practitioners a reasonable ROI, it was a major PITA.

With the advent of transistors, radar moved to the 10 Ghz “X-band.” New solid state devices assured greater frequency stability at higher frequencies. The antennas got smaller. For the first time, police could mount a radar device on their car– although they were still restricted to continuous transmission from a stationary position.

Early Escort radar detectors worked a treat, picking-up the X-band signal a mile or more before it had the strength to bounce back to its police handler. And there were few, if any, radar “falses” from door openers. The detection – detector arms race began.

The next advance on the police side: a 24 Ghz “K-band” device with a smaller antenna with a new mode: ”instant on.” This feature made the radar detector less useful (it still triggered when someone up ahead was zapped). K-band radar guns were very expensive when they first appeared– so the older X-band guns were also rigged for “instant on.”

The next advancement: moving mode. For the first time, a radar device could separate the primary reflection (ground speed) from the second reflection (target speed). (This development mystifies a lot of drivers, amazed that the cop “was coming from the opposite direction.”) With the smaller. squad car-borne K-band antenna, any police car was a potential "threat" to a speeding driver. The modern radar enforcement era was born.

Today’s state-of-the-art radar devices have moved still further up in frequency, to the 34-36 Ghz Ka-band. (The Ka band is much wider than X or K, making the radar detector’s job harder, as it’s really just a glorified scanner.) Police radar antennas have miniaturized to the point where they’re hand-held devices with soda can-sized apertures. The entire speed detection device is now small enough to permanently mount in a squad car; many police departments use front AND rear antennas.

Whereas the primitive radars of the 70’s could pick out target vs. ground speed as they were going in opposite directions, today’s radars can pick out a target going in the same direction as the patrol car. State laws vary in whether or not this mode has “judicial notice” (i.e. would be accepted in a Court with the usual minimal Police testimony). But the bottom line remains the same: a police car behind you or in front of you can now get a reading. This mode is less frequently used, but it’s increasing, as the older units are retired and new ones enter active duty.

Police radar devices are sold through a public bidding process at the State level. Your local law enforcement agencies often buy at the negotiated State Police price. Many agencies, though, do not. If your state does not have an “official” radar device, you are facing a variety of threats. 

Here in New York, the State Police use a state-of-the-art Ka-band radar gun called (of course) the Stalker. Local agencies still have a lot of the Kustom Signals KR series K-band units; they have less money than the State and the units last a bit longer in regular use. Ye Olde X-band is mostly gone; the units have obsoleted out.

The newer radar units have variable power outputs, so that the officer can make the unit’s “zone of influence” smaller. Many of them allow the relevant law enforcement agency to lock out certain functions (e.g. the moving modes) if the law in their state does not support their use.

Fortunately, most police are not gadget geeks. They tend to run their radar guns in full power mode, in standard stationary or “instant on” modes.  Still, there's never a shortage of sheep to shear. Speaking of which, next week’s installment will focus on countermeasures– sorry, effective ways to check your speed before you get a ticket. 

[Casey W. Raskob, Esq. is a NY-based lawyer who runs speedlaw.net]