Michigan Votes Forum

 And what purpose would this serve, other than to make it easier for local government to issue a citation, and the state to probably tack another fine on the fine?

Come on people get some good real ideas like laying off some state workers so they have to deal with issues that regular folks have to deal with.  There is so much redunancy in the State Government, and no one wants to give up their "empire".  Get back to doing the things necessary to run this State before everyone leaves.

 well said.

another case of trying to make something criminal so that they can raise revenue on the citizen instead of cutting spending.

 and why is it the democrats DO keep coming up with legislation like THIS?

 HOW ABOUT REQUIRING THAT THE COPS QUIT HIDING TO WRITE TICKETS?

how about requiring that every stop that DOESN'T GET A CITATION requires a police report to explain WHY they were pulled over in the first place?

how about requiring that every time a citizens fourth or fifth amendment rights are violated, the officer gets to spend 45 days at home, unpaid? other departments do it. why can't we? by the way.. pulling over a citizen at 2:30 in the morning simply because it's 2:30 in the morning is violating his fourth and fifth amendment rights.

I for one think this is a good idea, especialy on the interstates where large vehicles are concerned. It would help avoid accidents with smaller vehicles and big trucks when the motoring public is attempting to overtake the larger vehicle. It's not a case for law enforcement to have another chance to write tickets. It would make the roads safer. Many states have already implemented this law and it works.

OTRDriver:

I for one think this is a good idea, especialy on the interstates where large vehicles are concerned. It would help avoid accidents with smaller vehicles and big trucks when the motoring public is attempting to overtake the larger vehicle. It's not a case for law enforcement to have another chance to write tickets. It would make the roads safer. Many states have already implemented this law and it works.

Well stated.  I agree.

 New York State has had this law for many years and it has reduced accidents.   It's simple and easy to do.  If they spent 1/2 as much as the seat belt campaign advertising ....

I think Michigan should also unify the speed LIMIT(the maximum speed allowed by law) at 65mph for all vehicles on the interstates. And then enforce the law across the board. Most accidents are caused by drivers changing lanes and not seeing the vehicles in their blind spots and agressive driving.

It has already been proven the increase in speed in construction zones where workers are NOT present has resulted in lower accident rates in those zones.

And it's a known fact the faster a vehicle travels the more fuel it burns.

 okay, then make the fine for the ticket go away. if it's NOT another revenue grab, the state should have no problem doing that. while you are at it, make it to where it is IMPOSSIBLE to tack on the DRIVER'S RESPONSIBILITY FEE to this ticket.

OTRDriver:

I think Michigan should also unify the speed LIMIT(the maximum speed allowed by law) at 65mph for all vehicles on the interstates. And then enforce the law across the board. Most accidents are caused by drivers changing lanes and not seeing the vehicles in their blind spots and agressive driving.

It has already been proven the increase in speed in construction zones where workers are NOT present has resulted in lower accident rates in those zones.

And it's a known fact the faster a vehicle travels the more fuel it burns.

Hey, you nailed it again!  I agree.

 "always on" headlights did not reduce either accidents or fatalities. in fact, when they FIRST came out, accidents increased. let's go with trying something that actually works. besides, we already have the law that says your lights must be on if the windshield wipers are going. it's not working either.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has this to say about the effectiveness of daytime running lights (headlights on):

”Nearly all published reports indicate DRLs reduce multiple-vehicle daytime crashes. Evidence about DRL effects on crashes comes from studies conducted in Scandinavia, Canada, and the United States. A study examining the effect of Norway's DRL law from 1980 to 1990 found a 10 percent decline in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes.1 A Danish study reported a 7 percent reduction in DRL-relevant crashes in the first 15 months after DRL use was required and a 37 percent decline in left-turn crashes. In a second study covering 2 years and 9 months of Denmark's law, there was a 6 percent reduction in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes and a 34 percent reduction in left-turn crashes. A 1994 Transport Canada study comparing 1990 model year vehicles with DRLs to 1989 vehicles without them found that DRLs reduced relevant daytime multiple-vehicle crashes by 11 percent.

 

“In the United States, a 1985 Institute study determined that commercial fleet passenger vehicles modified to operate with DRLs were involved in 7 percent fewer daytime multiple-vehicle crashes than similar vehicles without DRLs. A small-scale fleet study conducted in the 1960s found an 18 percent lower daytime multiple-vehicle crash rate for DRL-equipped vehicles. Multiple-vehicle daytime crashes account for about half of all police-reported crashes in the United States. A 2002 Institute study reported a 3 percent decline in daytime multiple-vehicle crash risk in nine US states concurrent with the introduction of DRLs. Federal researchers, using data collected nationwide, concluded that there was a 5 percent decline in daytime, two-vehicle, opposite-direction crashes and a 12 percent decline in fatal crashes with pedestrians and bicyclists.”

 

Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

Common sense tells us that improvements would be even greater in lowered-visibility periods, such as when it is raining.  This proposed legislation is a step in the right direction.

 so why did OUR fatality rate jump by 15% when the D.R.L.'s were first introduced?

this jump lasted two years. that's a long time to have raised fatality rates. that's a lot of extra people killed to make us safer.

by the way, the rate did not GO DOWN below the rate that it was before the introduction.

it still hasn't.

 Many drivers do not realize the importance of driving with headlights "on" in limited visibility.  Add to that the large number of older drivers who have diminished sight and you will quickly realize the importance of being seen by others.  I used to ride a motorcycle years ago.  It didn't take me long to figure out that other drivers do not see motorcycles.  I used my headlight to give myself added visibility.  The same thing applies to automobiles - especially smaller cars and gray-colored cars -  in the rain or snow! 

The rule should be - Headlights on any time the wipers are on.

 how about dropping the speed limit in the rain and snow?

that helps stop accidents. especially if you drop the speed limit to zero.

while we are at it, test vision on those old people, if they can't see in the rain, they can't see in the sunshine.

drivers don't see motorcycles because they aren't looking for motorcycles. it's a driver's responsibility to observe ALL hazards on the road, even those they don't usually look for. i had a friend hit on his motorcycle with bright white paint, reflective stickers that said SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, and flashing strobes, nine of them.  the driver was jailed for negligent homicide. as should ALL drivers who don't look for motorcyclists, or who talk on the cellphone while driving.

by the way, headlights don't help those old folk with cataracts, it makes their vision worse. bad enough to CAUSE accidents.

crazycajun:

"how about dropping the speed limit in the rain and snow?"

... etc.

Michigan does have a law that drops the speed limit in poor weather.  Many tickets are written for, "driving too fast for conditions."

Vision tests are required for license renewals.

Headlights and taillights are known to increase the visibility of vehicles in all conditions.  They are especially useful in bad weather and visibility conditions, as is well demonstrated by actual experience.  HB 4163 is a good idea. 

SaneMichigander:

Many tickets are written for, "driving too fast for conditions."

sounds like a ticket that is easy to get out of. sort of 'subjective'. not the type of thing i'd like to have to back up in court. especially in front of a lawyer who will ask how i managed to catch up with him to pull him over if both of us were driving too fast for the conditions.

what's next? having a 'state nanny' drive for us?

crazycajun:

sounds like a ticket that is easy to get out of. sort of 'subjective'. not the type of thing i'd like to have to back up in court. especially in front of a lawyer who will ask how i managed to catch up with him to pull him over if both of us were driving too fast for the conditions.

This is fun.  With every post you reveal more and more of your sweeping ignorance of both the law and how it is administered and enforced in Michigan.

Have a nice day in LaLa Land, crazy.  

 i see that you have never been in the witness chair in a courtroom in your life.

tickets are easy when everyone pleads guilty and pays the fines, then the 'responsibility fees'. but not everybody does that.

some bring high priced lawyers, even to cover traffic tickets.

some parishes are considering 'safe speed limits'. which means you can drive as fast as you want to as long as you stay safe.

if you get into a wreck, you weren't driving safely. if you are spotted on a traffic camera being a hazard, you weren't driving safely. if you are reported being a hazard, you weren't driving safely.

west texas put this and a much higher speed limit on the ballot, and the much higher speed limit won.

so, how many traffic tickets have YOU written and made stick in a court of law?

i didn't think so.

crazycajun:

some parishes are considering 'safe speed limits'. which means you can drive as fast as you want to as long as you stay safe.

A reminder, crazy, we are in Michigan, not Louisiana.

You seem very confused.  Is your scarecrow brain getting overtaxed in these discussions?

Have a great day in your LaLa Land. 

 as a reminder...

you were asked how many traffic tickets you wrote and made stick in a court of law.

unless i get an answer to the contrary, i'll say ABSOLUTELY NONE.

you've probably been on the recieving end of a few...

crazycajun:

you were asked how many traffic tickets you wrote and made stick in a court of law.

unless i get an answer to the contrary, i'll say ABSOLUTELY NONE.

you've probably been on the recieving end of a few...

And that is another baseless, scurrilous, and malicious libel.

You just can't seem to contain yourself, crazy.

Have a nice day in your own little LaLa Land.

 nope... not a one.

i didn't think so.

now you're going to tell us you've never gotten a traffic ticket.

yeah... right...

crazycajun:

now you're going to tell us you've never gotten a traffic ticket.

yeah... right...

Another scurrilous, baseless and malicious libel.  You just can't control yourself, cajun.

As another participant in the MichiganVotes forum has observed, it is very amusing to watch you always furiously posting to get in the last word on everything.  You're pretty good at it, even when you have to resort to off-topic blathering and malicious libels aimed at other posters to do it.  Pathetic little joke, you are.

By the way, I support this legislation because it mandates a proven safety measure on the road.  Very simple.

Have a nice day sputtering on in your own LaLa Land, cajun.   

 i love the way you say that everything i say is a "scurrilous, baseless and malicious libel".

unfortunately... everything i say is true.  as you provide us with no answers to your questions, we must take it that there is TRUTH there you don't want us to know about.

now. where is your PROOF that this measure ACTUALLY INCREASES SAFETY ON THE ROAD?

traffic deaths have not decreased since 'daytime running lights' were first installed on vehicles. in fact, in some states, they have INCREASED.

traffic injuries have not decreased either.

in fact, some MINOR incidents have risen dramatically. so much so that insurance companies are no longer stumping for daytime running lights to be mandatory on all new vehicles. as a resident of michigan, i thought you would know that.

in fact, some on some car lines, it's not even available as an OPTION. sad commentary for what you say is a PROVEN SAFETY MEASURE. if it were proven, the state wouldn't need to pass a law making it mandatory. every car would already have it installed.

like seatbelts.  where states only have to regulate their use to get more revenue.

now, doesn't the state tax us enough? or is there some unknown spending that must be covered by the income that will be generated by the tickets written for this law?

what will the money generated by those tickets go to pay for that taxes will not be able to cover?

will our taxes go down because of this increased revenue?

this bill is a money grab. safety is the farthest thing from the minds of the legislators who are foisting this upon us.

by the way. you SHOULD have answered those questions. now people think you are a scofflaw.

It would be nice if some people had to carry around a flashlight, to let everyone know they weren't really paying attention, that they weren't really serious. That way we wouldn't have to waste time listening to them. And if we had some way to identify them on the internets, that would be helpful.

 we already do...

just look for the posts written by jmangan and sanemichigander.

you can tell right away that they aren't paying attention, they're not really serious, and that we shouldn't waste time listening to them.

see... you learn something every day.

i'm such a good teacher.

I didn't think computer access was allowed at the asylum... just i case you need a definition: Lunatic asylum, Insane asylum or Mental asylum, former terms for Psychiatric hospital, a hospital specializing in the treatment of persons with mental illness

I guess Cajun has "special priviedges"......